Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 9 cited by

Positive neutrino masses with DESI DR2 via matter conversion to dark energy

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A model in which black holes convert baryons to dark energy fits DESI DR2 and CMB data with a positive summed neutrino mass of about 0.106 eV.

desk verdict A serious, transparent CCBH+DESI DR2 analysis whose positive neutrino-mass peak is a real posterior outcome but is fragile: it depends on k=3, on excluding CMB lensing, and on the chosen SFRD. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20338 v2 pith:MR2JIFNJ submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

S. Ahlen , A. Aviles , B. Cartwright , K. S. Croker , W. Elbers , D. Farrah , N. Fernandez , G. Niz
show 41 more authors
J. Rohlf G. Tarlé R. A. Windhorst J. Aguilar U. Andrade D. Bianchi D. Brooks T. Claybaugh A. de la Macorra A. de Mattia B. Dey P. Doel J. E. Forero-Romero E. Gaztañaga S. Gontcho A Gontcho G. Gutierrez D. Huterer M. Ishak R. Kehoe D. Kirkby A. Kremin O. Lahav C. Lamman M. Landriau L. Le Guillou M. E. Levi M. Manera R. Miquel J. Moustakas I. Pérez-Ràfols F. Prada G. Rossi E. Sanchez M. Schubnell H. Seo J. Silber D. Sprayberry M. Walther B. A. Weaver R. H. Wechsler H. Zou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 98.80.Es95.36.+x14.60.Pq
keywords cosmologicallycoupledblackholesdarkenergysummedneutrinomassbaryonacousticoscillationsstarformationratedensityHubbletensionDESIDR2cosmologicalparameterestimation
topics Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
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

Using the DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements together with CMB data, this paper argues that a model with no extra free parameters beyond $\Lambda$CDM can match the observed expansion history while restoring a physically sensible neutrino sector. In the model, baryons consumed during stellar collapse into cosmologically coupled black holes are converted into dark energy, so dark energy production follows the measured star-formation history. Because some baryons are removed at late times, the total matter density preferred by the data stays fixed even when the summed neutrino mass $\sum m_\nu$ is larger. With two star-formation histories bracketing observations, the paper finds $\sum m_\nu < 0.149$ eV (95%) and $\sum m_\nu = 0.106^{+0.050}_{-0.069}$ eV, both compatible with neutrino oscillation lower bounds, and a Hubble constant closer to local measurements. If correct, this would dissolve the negative, unphysical neutrino mass preference of $\Lambda$CDM fits and reduce two existing cosmological tensions without adding parameters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cosmologically coupled black hole (CCBH): a nonsingular black hole whose interior is "energized vacuum" and whose mass grows as $m \propto a^k$ with the scale factor; for $k = 3$ its aggregate density stays constant, so the black hole population behaves as a cosmological-constant-like species. The model's dark energy production rate is $d\rho_{\rm DE}/da = \Xi \psi/(H a^4)$, where $\psi$ is the observed star-formation rate density and $\Xi$ is the initial black hole mass per unit baryon mass, with baryons depleted accordingly in the density budget. The analysis brackets the star-formation history with two measured SFRDs and feeds them through this source term, keeping $k$ fixed at 3.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the late-time baryon density, for example a high-precision census using fast radio burst dispersion measures, can decide whether baryons are depleted by the 26% or 50% the model requires, and excluding both depletions would falsify the mechanism. Separately, a future fit that lets $k$ float and pins it below about 2.6 would remove the positive neutrino mass peak, which the paper itself reports disappears when $k = 2.74 \pm 0.14$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a dynamical dark energy sourced by stellar collapse to cosmologically coupled black holes, with the same number of free parameters as $\Lambda$CDM, fits the DESI DR2 BAO and CMB expansion history as well as $\Lambda$CDM while producing a peaked positive summed neutrino mass. The peak arises because late-time baryon consumption lowers the baryon density, allowing a larger $\sum m_\nu$ without changing the total non-relativistic density the data prefer. The paper further claims the positive peak is a general feature of any model that converts sufficient matter into dark energy during and after reionization, and that the same mechanism raises $H_0$ enough to reduce tension with the local distance ladder.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on fixing the cosmological coupling strength at $k = 3$, the value for black holes with energized-vacuum interiors; if the true value is smaller, as the paper's own floated-$k$ fit hints, the positive neutrino mass peak disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The summed neutrino mass peaks at a positive value: $\sum m_\nu = 0.106^{+0.050}_{-0.069}$ eV for one adopted star-formation history and $\sum m_\nu < 0.149$ eV (95%) for the other, both consistent with the lower bounds from neutrino oscillation experiments.
  • The Hubble constant rises to $H_0 = 70.03 \pm 0.40$ km/s/Mpc or $69.37 \pm 0.36$ km/s/Mpc depending on the star-formation history, reducing the tension with the local distance ladder.
  • The CCBH model fits the DESI DR2 BAO and CMB data with the same number of free parameters as $\Lambda$CDM, and the Trinca star-formation version is statistically indistinguishable from $\Lambda$CDM by goodness of fit.
  • The baryon survival fraction is $\omega_b/\omega_b^{\rm proj} = 0.74^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$ or $0.50^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$, connecting the model to the missing baryon problem and to constraints on baryon depletion.
  • Any model that converts sufficient matter to dark energy during and after reionization is expected to produce a positive $\sum m_\nu$ peak, so the result is not an accident of the specific black hole prescription.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: laboratory neutrino-mass searches should land in the positive range the model prefers, roughly 0.05–0.15 eV, rather than near zero, if the mechanism behind the $\Lambda$CDM negative-mass preference is real late-time baryon depletion.
  • The decisive measurement is the cosmological coupling strength $k$: because floating $k$ removes the positive peak in the paper's own fits, future BAO and black-hole-growth data that pin $k$ below the energized-vacuum value would erase the neutrino-mass result.
  • The same baryon-depletion logic implies that baryon survival and the height of the neutrino-mass peak should correlate across star-formation histories, so an independent high-precision census of late-time baryons would directly constrain the allowed neutrino mass range.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a cosmological analysis of the 'cosmologically coupled black hole' (CCBH) model, in which baryons are converted to dark energy during stellar collapse at a rate tied to the measured cosmic star formation rate density (SFRD). The authors implement the model in a modified version of class, fit it to DESI DR2 BAO plus Planck PR4 CMB data with a standard MCMC pipeline, and compare with LambdaCDM. Using two SFRDs (Trincaψ and Madauψ), they report that the model fits as well as LambdaCDM, raises H0 enough to reduce the SH0ES tension, and produces a positive posterior peak in Σmν (Trincaψ: Σmν < 0.149 eV at 95%; Madauψ: Σmν = 0.106^{+0.050}_{-0.069} eV), in contrast to the negative-mass peak found for LambdaCDM. The central claim is that a model with the same number of free parameters as LambdaCDM can relax the neutrino-mass tension and improve H0 consistency.

Significance. If the central claim were robust, this would be an important result: it would offer a physically motivated, baryon-based conversion mechanism that addresses two currently discussed tensions (Σmν and H0) without adding free parameters, and it makes a falsifiable prediction linking dark-energy production to the observed SFRD. The paper is commendably transparent: it provides public data, describes the modified Einstein-Boltzmann code, and explicitly reports the sensitivity of the results to CMB likelihood choices, supernovae, and the coupling parameter k. The MCMC analysis follows standard practice, and the comparison to LambdaCDM is clear. The main caveat is that the headline positive peak depends on assumptions and dataset exclusions that are disclosed but not fully reflected in the abstract; for the better-fitting SFRD, the peak is comparable in size to the shift reported when Planck lensing is included.

major comments (3)
  1. [End Matter, Fig. 4] The authors report that including the Planck PR4 CMB lensing four-point constraint shifts the posterior Σmν by approximately −0.05 eV for Trincaψ and −0.04 eV for Madauψ. Since the Trincaψ posterior in Fig. 3 peaks at about 0.05 eV, this shift removes the positive peak for the better-fitting SFRD. The central claim in the abstract is therefore conditional on the Baseline exclusion of lensing; the abstract and conclusions should either include lensing in the headline analysis or explicitly state that the positive peak is not robust to a standard dataset.
  2. [Discussion, first paragraph] When k is allowed to float, the authors obtain k = 2.74 ± 0.14, consistent with k = 3 at 1.9σ, but they state that H0 decreases, the uncertainty in Σmν increases, and the positive peak is lost. Because Eq. (3) and the analysis fix k = 3, the headline positive Σmν peak is a prediction conditional on a prior assumption that is not strongly preferred by the data. The paper should report the evidence for k = 3 versus free k, and the abstract should be worded so that the reader is not left with the impression that the positive peak is a direct data-driven detection.
  3. [End Matter, perturbation treatment] The modified class code pins the CCBH fractional density perturbation to zero and adopts an effective sound speed squared of about 1/3; the authors state that any nontransient instability at first order would exclude the scenario. This is an asserted approximation rather than a derived perturbation theory, and it directly affects the treatment of CMB lensing, including the exclusion of lensing from Baseline. The A_L test reported in the End Matter is a useful consistency check, but it does not replace a complete treatment of CCBH density perturbations. Since the central claim relies on the lensing-free Baseline, the perturbation-sector approximation is load-bearing and should be addressed more fully or the claims correspondingly weakened.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 2] The color coding in Fig. 2 is not fully specified in the caption; the reader cannot unambiguously identify which contours correspond to DESI, CMB, and their combination without referring to the figure itself.
  2. [Equation (1)] The dimensionful constant C is introduced but its units and normalization are never specified; please state the convention explicitly or remove C by absorbing it into ωproj_b and Ξ.
  3. [Throughout] The symbol 'Pmν' appears in several places where the summed neutrino mass Σmν is intended; the typesetting should be made consistent.
  4. [Methods] The convergence criterion R−1 < 0.025 is looser than the customary R−1 < 0.01; please justify this choice or tighten the convergence requirement.
  5. [Methods] The definition Δχ2_MAP := −2 L_post should be written as −2 ln L_post (or with the prior term made explicit) to avoid confusion about whether priors are included.
  6. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments thank an anonymous referee; if this text is intended for a prior version, it should be removed or reworded for the submitted manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the positive neutrino-mass peak is a data-driven posterior, and the CCBH framework is a stated model assumption rather than an input that forces the result.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The CCBH background equations (1)-(3) define baryon depletion and DE injection in terms of the externally measured SFRD and the free parameter Xi; Sigma m_nu enters only as an independent parameter with a flat prior in the MCMC. The positive peak in the Sigma m_nu posterior is therefore an emergent constraint from DESI DR2 + Planck PR4 data, not an input renamed as an output. The k=3 choice and the CCBH coupling are imported from prior work, much of it by the same authors, but this is a model assumption rather than a reduction of the current likelihood analysis to that prior work; the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem, and it explicitly tests the sensitivity to k, reporting that floating k removes the positive peak. The exclusion of CMB lensing is a disclosed technical choice whose impact is quantified as a ~0.04-0.05 eV downward shift; even if this makes the Trinca peak non-robust, robustness is a correctness concern, not circularity. No equation in the paper defines Sigma m_nu in terms of Xi or the SFRD by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The model's own limitation statements, including the zero CCBH perturbation approximation and the possible instability caveat, are disclosed and do not hide a definitional equivalence between inputs and outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a specific extension of general relativity inherited from the same group's prior papers, on the observed star formation history, and on a chosen baseline likelihood set. The only new parameter replacing the cosmological constant is Xi, but the result also depends on k being fixed to 3 and on the SFRD model.

free parameters (3)
  • Xi (baryon-to-DE conversion efficiency) = Posterior not reported; priors set to U[0.87,1.85] for Trinca and U[5.26,6.23] for Madau
    Sets how much baryon mass becomes CCBH dark energy; fitted to DESI DR2 and CMB data.
  • k (cosmological coupling strength) = 3 fixed in baseline; 2.74 +/- 0.14 when floated
    The positive neutrino mass peak depends on fixing k=3; floating k removes the peak.
  • Summed neutrino mass Sum m_nu = 0.106+0.050-0.069 eV for Madau; <0.149 eV at 95% for Trinca
    Central inferred quantity; prior U[0,1.667] eV; the posterior peak shifts with SFRD choice and CMB likelihood treatment.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Spatial flatness and c=1.
    Stated in the Theory section as a convention for the analysis.
  • domain assumption Nonsingular black holes with w_phys=-1 interiors exist and become cosmologically coupled, with m proportional to a^k and k=3 for energized vacuum.
    Taken from self-cited prior work (Refs 39-42 and 49-58); not re-derived here, yet it is the source of the DE production term in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption The cosmic star formation rate density psi from Madau and Trinca brackets the true SFRD and sets the baryon consumption rate.
    The two SFRDs give different posterior peaks and different goodness of fit; Madau is disfavored at about 2 sigma, so the central result depends on this external input.
  • ad hoc to paper CCBH fractional density perturbation is pinned to zero and the effective sound speed squared is about 1/3.
    End Matter states this approximation and estimates it can underestimate the late-time gravitational potential by up to 7.5% for the Madau SFRD.
invented entities (1)
  • Cosmologically coupled black holes (CCBHs) with energized-vacuum interiors
    purpose: Aggregate dark energy reservoir fed by baryon conversion during stellar collapse; drives the late-time expansion change that allows larger neutrino mass.
    The physical mechanism is inherited from self-cited papers and is not directly detected in this work; the paper provides no falsifiable handle beyond the model-dependent fits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Positive neutrino masses with DESI DR2 via matter conversion to dark energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MR2JIFNJ

@misc{pith2026250420338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Positive neutrino masses with DESI DR2 via matter conversion to dark energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MR2JIFNJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20338}
}
abstract

The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) is a massively parallel spectroscopic survey on the Mayall telescope at Kitt Peak, which has released measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations determined from over 14 million extragalactic targets. We combine DESI Data Release 2 with CMB datasets to search for evidence of matter conversion to dark energy (DE), focusing on a scenario mediated by stellar collapse to cosmologically-coupled black holes (CCBH). In this physical model, which has the same number of free parameters as $\Lambda$CDM, DE production is determined by the cosmic star formation rate density (SFRD), allowing for distinct early- and late-time cosmologies. Using two SFRDs to bracket current observations, we find that the CCBH model: accurately recovers the cosmological expansion history, agrees with early-time baryon abundance measured by BBN, reduces tension with the local distance ladder, and relaxes constraints on the summed neutrino mass $\sum m_\nu$. For these SFRDs, we find a peaked positive $\sum m_\nu < 0.149\,\rm eV$ (95% confidence) and $\sum m_\nu = 0.106^{+0.050}_{-0.069}\,\rm eV$ respectively, in good agreement with lower limits from neutrino oscillation experiments. A peak in $\sum m_\nu > 0$ results from late-time baryon consumption in the CCBH scenario and is expected to be a general feature of any model that converts sufficient matter to dark energy during and after reionization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20338 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Differences in BAO observables, relative to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Posterior probability densities for summed neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Consistency between DESI BAO (green) and CMB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Impact of variations in CMB likelihood on summed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. General Relativistic Entropic Acceleration at the perturbation level: a CLASS implementation and first Boltzmann-code constraints

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    First full Boltzmann-code implementation of entropic dark energy, with MCMC constraints from CMB+BAO+SN, yields α≈1 and a fit statistically indistinguishable from ΛCDM.

  2. Evaporating cosmologically coupled black holes

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    If a black hole's mass grows with cosmic expansion, Hawking evaporation is slowed or reversed, weakening gamma-ray bounds on primordial black holes.

  3. Black Holes in the Red-sequence Elliptical Galaxies at Redshifts $\sim 0.7-2.5$: Not Dark Energy Source but Remanants of Little Red Dots

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At redshifts 2 to 7, black holes in massive elliptical hosts show no sign of the cosmological growth needed to make black holes the dark energy, with k=0.13 +/- 0.27 instead of k=3.

  4. The CMB optical depth constrains the duration of reionization

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fixing reionization's endpoint from Lyα forest data turns the CMB optical depth into a duration probe, placing the high value τ≈0.09 in ~2σ tension with SPT patchy kSZ limits.

  5. On the tension between DESI DR2 BAO and CMB

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A approximately 2 sigma tension between DESI DR2 BAO and CMB is confirmed with two Bayesian metrics, and a simple argument shows that dynamical dark energy resolving it must cross the phantom divide near z=0.45.

  6. Challenging $\Lambda$CDM: 5$\sigma$ Evidence for a Dynamical Dark Energy Late-Time Transition

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Fitting a step transition in dark energy's equation of state to Planck+DESI DR2+DESY5 data gives a reported ~5 sigma preference for a phantom-to-quintessence transition at z about 0.49.

  7. Neutrino mass constraints in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black-hole dark energy model with ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

    SdSDE dark energy yields a ~0.16–0.21 eV positive neutrino-mass preference with DESI+ACT data, but χ² strongly favors extended ΛCDM and the shift is likely compensation.

  8. Cosmological preference for a positive neutrino mass at 2.7$\sigma$: A joint analysis of DESI DR2, DESY5, and DESY1 data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A joint fit of DESI DR2, CMB, DESY5 and DESY1 data gives total neutrino mass 0.098 (+0.016, -0.037) eV, a 2.7 sigma preference for positive mass in the w0waCDM model.

  9. Breaking Free from the Swampland of Impossible Universes through the DESI Portal

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    DESI data indicating evolving dark energy may allow string theory to describe observed universes without violating swampland constraints on constant dark energy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics61, 1 (1989)

    S. Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  2. [2]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12020 (2024), arXiv:2411.12020 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.03000 (2024), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.03001 (2024), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12021 (2024), arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12022 (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Abdul-Karim, J

    DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14738 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    Lodha, R

    DESI Collaboration, K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W. L. Matthewson, A. Shafieloo,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14743 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont,et al., A&A641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, N. MacCrann, Y. Li,et al., ApJ962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, et al., ApJ938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Brout, G

    D. Brout, G. Taylor, D. Scolnic, C. M. Wood, B. M. Rose,et al., ApJ938, 111 (2022), arXiv:2112.03864 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout,et al., ApJ934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2311.12098 (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    DES Collaboration, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon,et al., ApJ973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hannestad, Phys

    S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 221301 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505551 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dirian, Phys

    Y. Dirian, Phys. Rev. D96, 083513 (2017), arXiv:1704.04075 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Navas, C

    S. Navas, C. Amsler, T. Gutsche, C. Hanhart, J. J. Hern´ andez-Rey,et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Elbers, A

    W. Elbers, A. Aviles, H. E. Noriega, D. Chebat, A. Menegas,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14744 (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Planck Collaboration, A&A566, A54 (2014), arXiv:1311.1657 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Alamet al., Phys

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

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Craiget al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.00836 (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Craiget al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.00836 (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Elbers, C

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, and S. Pas- coli, Phys. Rev. D111, 063534 (2025), arXiv:2407.10965 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Green and J

    D. Green and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D111, 083507 (2025), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008 [gr-qc]

    2001 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  20. [28]

    G. R. Farrar and P. J. E. Peebles, ApJ604, 1 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307316 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. H. Pereira and J. F. Jesus, Phys. Rev. D79, 043517 (2009), arXiv:0811.0099 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Cai and Q

    R.-G. Cai and Q. Su, Phys. Rev. D81, 103514 (2010), arXiv:0912.1943 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pourtsidou, C

    A. Pourtsidou, C. Skordis, and E. J. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D88, 083505 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi,et al., J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2018, 019 (2018), arXiv:1805.08252 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

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

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    K. S. Croker, M. Zevin, D. Farrah, K. A. Nishimura, and G. Tarl´ e, ApJ921, L22 (2021), arXiv:2109.08146 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Farrah, K

    D. Farrah, K. S. Croker, M. Zevin, G. Tarl´ e, V. Faraoni, et al., ApJ944, L31 (2023), arXiv:2302.07878 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    K. S. Croker, G. Tarl´ e, S. P. Ahlen, B. G. Cartwright, D. Farrah,et al., J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2024, 094 (2024), arXiv:2405.12282 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cadoni, A

    M. Cadoni, A. P. Sanna, M. Pitzalis, B. Banerjee, R. Murgia,et al., J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023, 007 (2023), arXiv:2306.11588 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cadoni, R

    M. Cadoni, R. Murgia, M. Pitzalis, and A. P. Sanna, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2024, 026 (2024), arXiv:2309.16444 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Faraoni and A

    V. Faraoni and A. Jacques, Phys. Rev. D76, 063510 (2007), arXiv:0707.1350 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Faraoni and M

    V. Faraoni and M. Rinaldi, Phys. Rev. D110, 063553 (2024), arXiv:2407.14549 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    K. S. Croker and J. L. Weiner, ApJ882, 19 (2019), arXiv:2107.06643 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    K. S. Croker, J. L. Weiner, and D. Farrah, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084042 (2022), arXiv:2203.13826 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. M. Shull, B. D. Smith, and C. W. Danforth, ApJ759, 23 (2012), arXiv:1112.2706 [astro-ph.CO]. 8

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Nicastro, J

    F. Nicastro, J. Kaastra, Y. Krongold, S. Bor- gani, E. Branchini,et al., Nature558, 406 (2018), arXiv:1806.08395 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Driver, Nature Astronomy5, 852 (2021), arXiv:2203.08541 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Driver, Nature Astronomy5, 852 (2021), arXiv:2203.08541 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Farrah, S

    D. Farrah, S. Petty, K. S. Croker, G. Tarl´ e, M. Zevin, et al., ApJ943, 133 (2023), arXiv:2212.06854 [astro- ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. Lacy, A. Engholm, D. Farrah, and K. Ejercito, ApJ 961, L33 (2024), arXiv:2312.12344 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Farrah, A

    D. Farrah, A. Engholm, E. Hatziminaoglou, S. Petty, F. Shankar,et al., ApJ981, 71 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Bardeen, inProceedings of the 5th International Con- ference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity (1968) p

    J. Bardeen, inProceedings of the 5th International Con- ference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity (1968) p. 87

    1968

  42. [50]

    Dymnikova, General Relativity and Gravitation24, 235 (1992)

    I. Dymnikova, General Relativity and Gravitation24, 235 (1992)

    1992

  43. [51]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Science101, 9545 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0407075 [gr-qc]

    2004

  44. [52]

    M. R. Mbonye and D. Kazanas, Phys. Rev. D72, 024016 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0506111 [gr-qc]

    2005 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cattoen, T

    C. Cattoen, T. Faber, and M. Visser, Classical and Quantum Gravity22, 4189 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0505137 [gr-qc]

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Classical and Quantum Gravity23, 1525 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0508115 [gr-qc]

    2006 arXiv

  47. [55]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 215024 (2015), arXiv:1501.03806 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Beltracchi and P

    P. Beltracchi and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D99, 044037 (2019), arXiv:1810.12400 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    R. A. Konoplya, C. Posada, Z. Stuchl´ ık, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D100, 044027 (2019), arXiv:1905.08097 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Beltracchi and C

    P. Beltracchi and C. Posada, Classical and Quantum Gravity41, 045001 (2024), arXiv:2305.09544 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Albrecht, P

    A. Albrecht, P. J. Steinhardt, M. S. Turner, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1437 (1982)

    1982

  52. [60]

    B. A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa, and D. Wands, Reviews of Modern Physics78, 537 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0507632 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Allahverdi, R

    R. Allahverdi, R. Brandenberger, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and A. Mazumdar, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science60, 27 (2010), arXiv:1001.2600 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Jeong, K

    H. Jeong, K. Kamada, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023, 023 (2023), arXiv:2305.14273 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    K. S. Croker, J. Runburg, and D. Farrah, ApJ900, 57 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Afshordi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0807.2639 (2008), arXiv:0807.2639 [astro-ph]

    N. Afshordi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0807.2639 (2008), arXiv:0807.2639 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Prescod-Weinstein, N

    C. Prescod-Weinstein, N. Afshordi, and M. L. Balogh, Phys. Rev. D80, 043513 (2009), arXiv:0905.3551 [astro- ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    M. Levi, C. Bebek, T. Beers, R. Blum, R. Cahn, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1308.0847 (2013), arXiv:1308.0847 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1611.00037 (2016), arXiv:1611.00037 [astro- ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Abareshi, J

    DESI Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., AJ164, 207 (2022), arXiv:2205.10939 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    H. Zou, X. Zhou, X. Fan, T. Zhang, Z. Zhou,et al., PASP129, 064101 (2017), arXiv:1702.03653 [astro- ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. Dey, D. J. Schlegel, D. Lang, R. Blum, K. Burleigh, et al., AJ157, 168 (2019), arXiv:1804.08657 [astro- ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. D. Myers, J. Moustakas, S. Bailey, B. A. Weaver, A. P. Cooper,et al., AJ165, 50 (2023), arXiv:2208.08518 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Poppett, L

    C. Poppett, L. Tyas, J. Aguilar, C. Bebek, D. Bramall, et al., AJ168, 245 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    T. N. Miller, P. Doel, G. Gutierrez, R. Besuner, D. Brooks,et al., AJ168, 95 (2024), arXiv:2306.06310 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    J. H. Silber, P. Fagrelius, K. Fanning, M. Schubnell, J. N. Aguilar,et al., AJ165, 9 (2023), arXiv:2205.09014 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    E. F. Schlafly, D. Kirkby, D. J. Schlegel, A. D. Myers, A. Raichoor,et al., AJ166, 259 (2023), arXiv:2306.06309 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. Guy, S. Bailey, A. Kremin, S. Alam, D. M. Alexan- der,et al., AJ165, 144 (2023), arXiv:2209.14482 [astro- ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Brodzeller, K

    A. Brodzeller, K. Dawson, S. Bailey, J. Yu, A. J. Ross,et al., AJ166, 66 (2023), arXiv:2305.10426 [astro- ph.IM]. [78]https://data.desi.lbl.gov/doc/releases/

    2023 arXiv

  70. [79]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., AJ168, 58 (2024), arXiv:2306.06308 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [80]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam,et al., AJ167, 62 (2024), arXiv:2306.06307 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Abdul-Karim, A

    DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, A. G. Adame, D. Aguado, J. Aguilar,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14745 (2025), arXiv:2503.14745 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Abdul-Karim, J

    DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, C. Allende Prieto,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14739 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Tristram, A

    M. Tristram, A. J. Banday, M. Douspis, X. Gar- rido, K. M. G´ orski,et al., A&A682, A37 (2024), arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, MNRAS 517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  76. [85]

    P. Shah, T. M. Davis, M. Vincenzi, P. Arm- strong, D. Brout,et al., MNRAS536, 946 (2025), arXiv:2410.07956 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  77. [86]

    P. Shah, T. M. Davis, M. Vincenzi, P. Arm- strong, D. Brout,et al., MNRAS537, 3814 (2025), arXiv:2501.19117 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Trinca, R

    A. Trinca, R. Schneider, R. Valiante, L. Graziani, A. Ferrotti,et al., MNRAS529, 3563 (2024), arXiv:2305.04944 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, ARA&A52, 415 (2014), arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Madau and T

    P. Madau and T. Fragos, ApJ840, 39 (2017), arXiv:1606.07887 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [90]

    A. M. Hopkins and J. F. Beacom, ApJ651, 142 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601463 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  82. [91]

    D. J. Fixsen, ApJ707, 916 (2009), arXiv:0911.1955 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 9 2021, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [93]

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

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

    2019 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Cartis, J

    C. Cartis, J. Fiala, B. Marteau, and L. Roberts, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1804.00154 (2018), arXiv:1804.00154 [math.OC]

    2018 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Cartis, L

    C. Cartis, L. Roberts, and O. Sheridan-Methven, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1812.11343 (2018), arXiv:1812.11343 [math.OC]

    2018 arXiv

  87. [96]

    M. Powell,The BOBYQA Algorithm for Bound Con- strained Optimization without Derivatives, Technical Report 2009/NA06 (Department of Applied Mathemat- ics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2009)

    2009

  88. [97]

    J. P. Macquart, J. X. Prochaska, M. McQuinn, K. W. Bannister, S. Bhandari,et al., Nature581, 391 (2020), arXiv:2005.13161 [astro-ph.CO]. [98]https://github.com/CobayaSampler/bao_data/tree/ master/desi_bao_dr2. [99]https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15734248

    2020 arXiv

  89. [100]

    T. J. Boerner, S. Deems, T. R. Furlani, S. L. Knuth, and J. Towns, inPractice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2023: Computing for the Common Good(2023) pp. 173–176. [101]https://www.desi.lbl.gov/ collaborating-institutions

    2023

  90. [102]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2011(07), 034

  91. [103]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, The Open Journal of As- trophysics4, 8 (2021), arXiv:1910.00483 [astro-ph.CO]. END MA TTER In the absence of a preferred first-order model for the evolution of CCBH DE perturbations, the version of classwe have used pins the CCBH fractional densit...

    2021 arXiv

  92. [202]

    Aldo Pontremoli

    Magdalena Contreras. Ciudad de M´ exico C. P. 10720, M´ exico 4School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-6004 USA 5Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii at M¯ anoa, 2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI, 96822 USA 6Institute f...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.