Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Sign-switching vacuum energy softens late-time tensions but does not resolve the Hubble tension.

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

2026-08-02 18:28 UTC pith:PZE72EVW

load-bearing objection The paper's honest bottom line — ΛsCDM partly relieves but doesn't resolve the Hubble tension — is likely right; its 'excellent CMB–BAO agreement' subclaim rests on under-converged chains and should not be quoted yet. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2603.09270 v2 pith:PZE72EVW submitted 2026-03-10 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Statistical consistency of sign-switching vacuum energy with cosmological observations

Sehjal Khandelwal , Abra\~ao J. S. Capistrano , Suresh Kumar This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords Hubble tensionsign-switching cosmological constantLambda_sCDMvacuum energyposterior predictive checksnon-Gaussian parameter shiftcosmological dataset consistencydark energy
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.

This paper asks whether the sign-switching vacuum-energy model (ΛsCDM), in which the cosmological constant flips from negative to positive at a transition redshift, genuinely improves agreement among cosmological datasets. Using cosmic microwave background, baryon-acoustic-oscillation, and low-redshift supernova data, the authors find that Gaussian tension metrics can exaggerate inconsistencies when a broad, non-Gaussian dataset is compared with tightly constrained ones. An exact non-Gaussian parameter-shift statistic shows excellent CMB–BAO consistency in both the standard and sign-switching models. The sign-switching model modestly improves geometric compatibility at intermediate redshifts and partially alleviates the Hubble tension, yet the local expansion-rate measurement remains statistically atypical under the model's predictions. The paper's core message is that apparent tension relief must be checked with predictive, non-Gaussian diagnostics, not just parameter-space shifts.

Core claim

The central claim is that ΛsCDM improves parameter-space compatibility and softens several late-time tensions relative to ΛCDM, but does not fully reconcile local expansion-rate measurements with CMB- and BAO-calibrated posteriors. In particular, posterior predictive tests show that the observed local Hubble constant lies deep in the tail of the predictive distribution under both models, although the joint predictive p-value rises from about 5×10⁻⁵ in ΛCDM to about 4×10⁻⁴ in ΛsCDM. The low-redshift distance modulus is well reproduced in both cases, indicating that the tension is an expansion-rate problem rather than a supernova-calibration problem. The exact non-Gaussian parameter shift reve

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sign-switching cosmological constant, Λs(z) = Λs0 sgn(z† − z), which makes the vacuum energy negative at early times and positive after a transition redshift z†; it changes only the homogeneous background expansion and omits dark-energy clustering. The argument is carried by two statistical tools: the exact non-Gaussian parameter shift, which computes the full distribution of the parameter difference between datasets instead of approximating posteriors by Gaussians, and posterior predictive consistency tests, which simulate replicated H0 and distance-modulus values from the inferred posterior to see whether observed values are typical. Together they separate ge

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the Hubble tension is a pure expansion-rate problem rests on treating μ(z=0.01) predicted from the CMB+BAO posterior as a faithful proxy for the supernova distance modulus at the calibration end, and on taking H0=73.04±1.04 as an observed datum without modeling its covariance with μ.

What would settle it

A measurement campaign that reduces the local H0 uncertainty to roughly 0.5 km/s/Mpc and finds the value drifting toward the CMB-calibrated prediction, or a reanalysis of the supernova distance ladder that propagates the H0–μ covariance and makes the joint discrepancy statistic typical, would falsify the claim that the tension remains unresolved.

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

If this is right

  • Gaussian tension metrics overstate inconsistencies when datasets have very different constraining power and non-Gaussian posteriors, so exact non-Gaussian parameter shifts should be reported alongside them.
  • CMB and BAO data are highly consistent in both ΛCDM and ΛsCDM, indicating that the Hubble tension is not driven by early-versus-mid-redshift geometric disagreement.
  • The Hubble tension is an expansion-rate problem: the low-redshift distance-modulus prediction agrees with the local distance ladder, while the H0 prediction does not.
  • ΛsCDM raises the predicted H0 modestly and improves geometric compatibility at intermediate redshifts, but the observed H0 remains atypical under the posterior predictive distribution.
  • Reduced parameter-level tension does not imply improved predictive consistency; the joint (H0, distance-modulus) discrepancy persists.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this finding holds, future dark-energy models targeting the Hubble tension must reproduce joint agreement in H0 and the distance modulus, not merely shift the mean H0; a one-dimensional improvement can mask a persistent joint mismatch.
  • The posterior predictive framework used here could be applied to other extended cosmologies to test whether their claimed tension relief is genuine predictive gain rather than posterior reshaping.
  • A smooth realization of the sign switch with dark-energy perturbations included might alter the joint structure of predictions; testing abrupt ΛsCDM against smooth transitions would show whether the residual tension is an artifact of the step-function approximation.
  • The demonstrated metric-dependence of apparent tensions implies that published 'alleviations' of cosmological tensions should be re-examined with exact non-Gaussian and predictive statistics before being accepted as resolutions.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares ΛCDM and its sign-switching extension ΛsCDM against Planck+ACT+SPT CMB data, DESI DR2 BAO measurements, and PantheonPlus+SH0ES supernovae. It applies Gaussian tension metrics (DM, UDM, DMAP), the exact non-Gaussian parameter shift, and posterior predictive consistency tests on H0 and μ(z=0.01). The claims are that Gaussian metrics can overstate inconsistencies for broad non-Gaussian posteriors, that the exact parameter shift shows CMB and BAO are mutually consistent (2.2σ in ΛCDM, 0.95σ in ΛsCDM), that ΛsCDM modestly improves geometric compatibility, and that neither model fully reconciles the local H0 with CMB+BAO-calibrated predictions. The central message is that metric choice matters and that ΛsCDM only partially alleviates the Hubble tension.

Significance. If established, the paper would be a useful demonstration that Gaussian tension diagnostics can be misleading and would provide a concrete statistical benchmark for ΛsCDM. The work has several strengths: it uses public likelihoods, an external SH0ES anchor, a finite-sample bounded estimate for disjoint exact-shift posteriors, and a sharp predictive check on H0. However, the central quantitative claims are not yet secure. The DESI DR2-only chain in ΛsCDM is admitted to be below full convergence, and the PPC treats H0 and μ(z=0.01) as independent observables without a joint covariance. No chains or code are released, so the exact p-values cannot be independently audited. The result, if correct, is more a methodological caution than a new detection, but it is appropriate for a specialist cosmology journal.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V B/V E; Tables I–III] The headline claim of 'excellent consistency' between CMB and BAO rests on the exact parameter shift computed from the DESI DR2-only posterior. The authors state (Sec. V B) that 'DESI DR2 in ΛsCDM is comparatively less convergent and that DR2 alone does not fully converge when used independently' and report a maximum rank-split R≈1.014 for ω_cdm, which exceeds their own convergence criterion R−1<0.01; earlier in the same section they claim R−1≪0.01 is satisfied. Because the exact shift (Eq. 13) is a sample/KDE-based statistic, an under-explored z†–Ωm degeneracy can artificially broaden the shift distribution and bias Nσ downward. No Monte Carlo uncertainty is attached to the exact-shift p-values. The Nσ=0.95 (ΛsCDM, Table III) and Nσ=2.2 (ΛCDM, Table I) values must be shown stable under a resampling/bootstrap test or with converged chains before the central consistency claim is secure.
  2. [Sec. V F; Figs. 3–8] The PPC compares predicted H0 and μ(z=0.01) with observed H0=73.04±1.04 and a low-redshift observed modulus. These observables are not independent: in the SH0ES distance ladder, μ(z=0.01) is effectively determined by the same Cepheid calibration that sets H0. The joint χ² and max-discrepancy statistics are computed without any covariance between the two observed quantities, so the joint p-values are miscalibrated. In addition, the conclusion that the Hubble tension is a pure expansion-rate problem rather than a supernova-calibration problem rests on p_ppc(μ)≈0.81 from this proxy. The authors should specify how the observed μ is constructed, include its joint covariance with H0 (or the actual low-z PPS likelihood), or remove the joint statistics. Without this, the 'expansion-rate, not calibration' conclusion is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. VII] Calling the 2.2σ exact shift (ΛCDM, Table I) 'excellent consistency' overstates the result; 2.2σ is a mild tension. Please use a more neutral term or report the p-value explicitly.
  2. [Sec. V F] Posterior predictive p-values are quoted as p≃5×10−5, 4×10−4, and 0.81 without Monte Carlo uncertainties. Even though some values are very small, a binomial standard error (or a simple bootstrap interval) should be reported.
  3. [Sec. IV/V] The manuscript does not release the modified CLASS implementation or the MCMC chains. For a paper proposing a 'reliable standard' for consistency diagnostics, releasing these would greatly improve reproducibility and allow independent verification of the exact-shift and PPC p-values.
  4. [Sec. V B, Sec. IV] There is an internal contradiction in convergence reporting: the text first says 'the Gelman–Rubin criterion R−1≪0.01 is satisfied' and later quotes a maximum rank-split R≈1.014, which gives R−1=0.014>0.01. Please reconcile these statements.
  5. [Throughout] Several minor typographical issues: 'Pantheon Plus' vs 'PantheonPlus+SH0ES', 'radiation' for 'radiation' in Sec. II, duplicated references (e.g., [24] and [96]; [82] and [85]), and some awkward phrasing ('preferred puzzles' in Sec. I).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the PPC targets H0 and μ(z=0.01) are external out-of-sample observables, the sign-switching ansatz is a transparently cited model input, and the self-citations are provenance rather than load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central conclusions are not forced by construction. The ΛsCDM ansatz (Eq. 4) is adopted as a phenomenological input from prior literature — including papers by the present authors — but the analysis does not derive that ansatz from the data; it constrains it independently using CMB, DESI DR2, and PPS chains. The posterior predictive tests generate H0 and μ(z=0.01) from posteriors calibrated only on CMB+DESI DR2, while the SH0ES value H0=73.04±1.04 enters as an external observed datum, so the finding that ΛsCDM only partially relieves the Hubble tension is a genuine out-of-sample test rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The exact non-Gaussian parameter-shift and DM/UDM/DMAP statistics are computed directly from separate MCMC chains of the same datasets and do not reuse a fitted target. The one place where self-citation appears — the statement that ΛsCDM 'has already been proposed and investigated in the literature [37–39] and demonstrated to partially alleviate' late-time tensions — is provenance, not load-bearing, because the paper's own posteriors and PPC p-values carry its conclusions. The admitted non-convergence of the DESI DR2-only ΛsCDM chain (rank-split R≈1.014, 'DR2 alone does not fully converge when used independently') is a Monte Carlo robustness risk for the exact-shift p-values, and the μ(z=0.01) proxy is not fully independent of H0 in the SH0ES distance ladder; but these are validity caveats, not circular reductions. Score 1 reflects the minor self-citation without assigning it load-bearing status.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis does not derive new physics; it fits standard parameters plus one new parameter z†. The main load-bearing assumptions are the abrupt sign-switching Λs with no dark-energy perturbations, and the validity of the PPC proxy μ(z=0.01). The exact shift estimator also relies on KDE and a finite-sample bound. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • ω_b (physical baryon density)
    Flat prior [0.018, 0.024]; constrained by CMB/DESI; enters all tension metrics and PPC.
  • ω_cdm (physical cold dark matter density)
    Flat prior [0.10, 0.14]; constrained by CMB/DESI; enters all tension metrics and PPC.
  • 100θ_s (angular size of sound horizon)
    Flat prior [1.03, 1.05]; constrained by CMB; important for BAO ruler calibration.
  • ln(10¹⁰ A_s) (primordial amplitude)
    Flat prior [3.0, 3.18]; constrained by CMB; standard ΛCDM parameter.
  • n_s (scalar spectral index)
    Flat prior [0.9, 1.1]; constrained by CMB; standard ΛCDM parameter.
  • τ_reio (reionization optical depth)
    Flat prior [0.04, 0.125]; constrained by CMB; standard ΛCDM parameter.
  • z† (ΛsCDM sign-switch redshift)
    Flat prior [1, 3]; additional free parameter in ΛsCDM; posterior value not reported in the text; drives the shift in the predicted H0.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW cosmology with Einstein equations and standard radiation, matter, and Λ components (Eqs. 1–2)
    Standard background framework adopted for both models.
  • ad hoc to paper Abrupt sign-switching cosmological constant Λs = Λs0 sgn(z†−z) with no dark-energy perturbations (Eq. 4 and Sec. IV)
    Model definition; a smooth transition or clustering would alter background and perturbation predictions.
  • domain assumption μ(z=0.01) from the CMB+DESI posterior is a valid proxy for the SN distance modulus at the calibration end, and H0=73.04±1.04 is used as an observed datum (Sec. V.F)
    Load-bearing for the PPC interpretation; no joint covariance with μ is reported.
  • standard math Exact non-Gaussian shift estimated by KDE plus a count-based finite-sample bound is stable and unbiased (Sec. V.E)
    The authors test bandwidth variations but do not release the implementation; the p<2×10⁻⁷ bound depends on this estimator.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20086 in / 14079 out tokens · 117289 ms · 2026-08-02T18:28:49.024083+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We assess dataset agreement and late-time predictive adequacy in $\Lambda$CDM and its sign-switching extension, $\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM, using a suite of Gaussian and exact non-Gaussian consistency diagnostics. Both models are constrained with cosmic microwave background measurements from Planck, ACT, and SPT, baryon acoustic oscillation data from DESI DR2, and low-redshift Type Ia supernova data from PantheonPlus+SH0ES. We find that commonly used Gaussian tension metrics can significantly overstate inconsistencies when broad, non-Gaussian posteriors are combined with tightly constrained datasets. In contrast, the exact non-Gaussian parameter shift indicates excellent consistency between CMB and BAO observations in both models. The $\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM extension modestly improves geometric compatibility at intermediate redshifts, although reductions in parameter-level tension do not necessarily imply improved predictive consistency. These results highlight the importance of exact, non-Gaussian, and predictive diagnostics for robust assessments of cosmological model consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.09270 by Abra\~ao J. S. Capistrano, Sehjal Khandelwal, Suresh Kumar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Triangular plots for the ΛCDM model. (Left) Comparison between CMB (red), DESI DR2 (blue), and their combination [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Triangular plots for the Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Posterior predictive residual distributions for the ΛCDM model. Histograms show replicated discrepancies in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior predictive distribution of the maximum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Posterior predictive replicated distributions for ΛCDM showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior predictive residual distributions for the Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Posterior predictive replicated distributions for Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Posterior predictive distribution of the maximum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The $H_0$ world cup. II. A comprehensive competition between proposed Hubble tension solutions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Against a common 2025-26 dataset (Planck PR4, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, DESI DR2, Pantheon+), early dark energy and early modified gravity models win the H0 competition (~3σ residual tension), while radiation and late-time sol...

  2. The $H_0$ World Cup. I. Summary of the baseline group stage results

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    In a systematic head-to-head analysis, early dark energy and early modified gravity models reduce the Hubble tension to about 3σ and are favored over ΛCDM, while radiation and late-time alternatives are not.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 69 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hi- rata, A. G. Riess, and E. Rozo, physrep530, 87 (2013), arXiv:1201.2434 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    D. N. Spergelet al.(WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl.148, 175 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Komatsu, K

    E. Komatsu, K. M. Smith, and o. Dunkley, apjs192, 18 (2011), arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    M. S. Madhavacherilet al., The Astrophysical Journal 962, 113 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    W. J. Percival, S. Cole,et al., MNRAS381, 1053 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    Beutler and o

    F. Beutler and o. Blake, mnras416, 3017 (2011), arXiv:1106.3366 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Parkinson and o

    D. Parkinson and o. Riemer-Sorensen, prd86, 103518 (2012), arXiv:1210.2130 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    Alamet al.(eBOSS), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Alam, Ata,et al., MNRAS470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Alam, Ata,et al., MNRAS470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  12. [12]

    Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  13. [13]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Phys. Rept.340, 291 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/9912508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  14. [14]

    X. Liu, C. Pan, and o. Li, MNRAS450, 2888 (2015), arXiv:1412.3683 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    H. Shan, X. Liu, and o. Hildebrandt, MNRAS474, 1116 (2018), arXiv:1709.07651 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Mandelbaum, ARAA56, 393 (2018), arXiv:1710.03235 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Mandelbaum, ARAA56, 393 (2018), arXiv:1710.03235 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Heymanset al., Astron

    C. Heymanset al., Astron. Astrophys.646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Weinberg,Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2008)

    S. Weinberg,Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2008)

    2008

  20. [20]

    P. J. Peebles and B. Ratra, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  21. [21]

    M. J. Mortonson, D. H. Weinberg, and M. White, arxiv- print (2013), arXiv:1401.0046 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Huterer and D

    D. Huterer and D. L. Shafer, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 016901 (2018), arXiv:1709.01091 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Scolnicet al., Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [25]

    W. L. Freedmanet al., Astrophys. J.882, 34 (2019), arXiv:1907.05922 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [26]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. Hoyt, and others., Astrophys. J.985, 203 (2025), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 993, 252 (2025)], arXiv:2408.06153 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Casertanoet al.(H0DN), arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Casertanoet al.(H0DN), arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [29]

    Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [30]

    Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [31]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 153 (2023), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [32]

    Najafi, S

    M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, Phys. Dark Univ.45, 101539 (2024), arXiv:2407.14939 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [33]

    Akramiet al.(CANTATA),Modified Gravity and Cos- mology

    Y. Akramiet al.(CANTATA),Modified Gravity and Cos- mology. An Update by the CANTATA Network(Springer,

  32. [34]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [35]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [36]

    Akarsu, J

    ¨O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D101, 063528 (2020), arXiv:1912.08751 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [37]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D104, 123512 (2021), arXiv:2108.09239 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [38]

    Akarsu, E

    O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2307.10899 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [39]

    Akarsu, A

    O. Akarsu, A. De Felice, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, E. Ozulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Ya- dav, Phys. Rev. D110, 103527 (2024), arXiv:2406.07526 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [40]

    Raveri and C

    M. Raveri and C. Doux, Phys. Rev. D104, 043504 (2021), arXiv:2105.03324 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [42]

    Gelman, X.-L

    A. Gelman, X.-L. Meng, and H. Stern, Statistica Sinica 6, 733 (1996)

    1996

  40. [43]

    Douxet al.(DES), Mon

    C. Douxet al.(DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503, 2688 (2021), arXiv:2011.03410 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [44]

    P. J. E. Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton University Press, 2020)

    2020

  42. [45]

    Ryden,Introduction to cosmology(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1970)

    B. Ryden,Introduction to cosmology(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1970)

    1970

  43. [46]

    S. M. Carroll,Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduc- tion to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  44. [47]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa,Dark Energy: Theory and Observations(Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  45. [48]

    E. A. Paraskevas, A. C ¸ am, L. Perivolaropoulos, and O. Akarsu, Phys. Rev. D109, 103522 (2024)

    2024

  46. [49]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.992, L34 (2025), arXiv:2509.01667 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [50]

    Birreret al.(TDCOSMO), Astron

    S. Birreret al.(TDCOSMO), Astron. Astrophys.704, A63 (2025), arXiv:2506.03023 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [51]

    Bousso and J

    R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, JHEP06, 006 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0004134

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  49. [52]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D108, 023513 (2023), arXiv:2211.05742 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [53]

    Yadav, S

    A. Yadav, S. Kumar, C. Kibris, and O. Akarsu, JCAP 01, 042 (2025), arXiv:2406.18496 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [54]

    De Felice, A

    A. De Felice, A. Doll, and S. Mukohyama, JCAP09, 15 034 (2020), arXiv:2004.12549 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [55]

    Alexandre, S

    B. Alexandre, S. Gielen, and J. Magueijo, JCAP02, 036 (2024), arXiv:2306.11502 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [56]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Phys. Lett. B855, 138775 (2024), arXiv:2312.12352 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [57]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, D. Bielli, A. Cha- trabhuti, and H. Isono, JHEP07, 021 (2025), arXiv:2410.18649 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [58]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, D. Lust, N. T. Noble, and J. F. Soriano, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101715 (2024), arXiv:2404.17334 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [59]

    Akarsu, B

    O. Akarsu, B. Bulduk, A. De Felice,et al., Phys. Rev. D 112, 083532 (2025), arXiv:2410.23068 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [60]

    M. S. Souza, A. M. Barcelos, R. C. Nunes, O. Akarsu, and S. Kumar, Universe11, 2 (2025), arXiv:2501.18031 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [61]

    Akarsu, L

    ¨O. Akarsu, L. Perivolaropoulos, A. Tsikoundoura, A. E. Y¨ ukselci, and A. Zhuk, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2502.14667 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [62]

    J. F. Soriano, S. Wohlberg, and L. A. Anchordoqui, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101911 (2025), arXiv:2502.19239 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [63]

    L. A. Escamilla, ¨O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, and J. A. Vazquez, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2503.12945 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [64]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [65]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [66]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [67]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [68]

    Panet al.(SPT), Phys

    Z. Panet al.(SPT), Phys. Rev. D108, 122005 (2023), arXiv:2308.11608 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [69]

    Dutcheret al.(SPT-3G), Phys

    D. Dutcheret al.(SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D104, 022003 (2021), arXiv:2101.01684 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [70]

    Balkenholet al.(SPT-3G), Phys

    L. Balkenholet al.(SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D108, 023510 (2023), arXiv:2212.05642 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [71]

    S. M. Feeney, D. J. Mortlock, and N. Dalmasso, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476, 3861 (2018), arXiv:1707.00007 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [72]

    Lesgourgues, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1104.2932 (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Lesgourgues, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1104.2932 (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  70. [73]

    Ma and E

    C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, Astrophys. J.455, 7 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9506072

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  71. [74]

    Bouhmadi-Lopez and B

    M. Bouhmadi-Lopez and B. Ibarra-Uriondo, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102129 (2025), arXiv:2506.18992 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  72. [75]

    Mukhanov, H

    V. Mukhanov, H. Feldman, and R. Brandenberger, phys- rep215, 203 (1992)

    1992

  73. [76]

    Leizerovich, S

    M. Leizerovich, S. J. Landau, and C. G. Sc´ occola, Phys. Lett. B855, 138844 (2024), arXiv:2312.08542 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [77]

    C. P. Robert, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1504.01896 (2015), arXiv:1504.01896 [stat.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  75. [78]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statistical Science7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  76. [79]

    Vats and C

    D. Vats and C. Knudson, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1812.09384 (2018), arXiv:1812.09384 [stat.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  77. [80]

    R. G. Staudte, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1912.01134 (2019), arXiv:1912.01134 [math.ST]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  78. [81]

    Raveri and W

    M. Raveri and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D99, 043506 (2019), arXiv:1806.04649 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [83]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astronomy 3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [84]

    W. L. Freedman, Astrophys. J.919, 16 (2021), arXiv:2106.15656 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.