Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Dark energy and lensing anomaly in Planck CMB data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DESI's evolving-dark-energy signal can be absorbed by the Planck lensing anomaly.

desk verdict A_L variation erases DESI's dynamic-DE preference in every Planck likelihood; the DESI-exacerbates-lensing claim is below 1 sigma and should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04641 v2 pith:UHWYFNKA submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.CO

Ze-Yu Peng , Yun-Song Piao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords darkenergyevolutionCPLparameterisationlensinganomalyA_LparameterDESIBAOPlanckCMBlikelihoodscosmologicalconstraintsbaryonacousticoscillations
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 asks whether the recent DESI baryon-acoustic-oscillation data really require dark energy to evolve, in the presence of a known quirk of Planck CMB data: the observed lensing amplitude is higher than $\Lambda$CDM predicts. The authors fit a two-parameter dark-energy equation of state with the Planck lensing amplitude $A_L$ either fixed to one or allowed to vary, using Planck PR3 and two updated PR4 likelihoods joined with DESI BAO, Pantheon+ supernovae, and CMB lensing data. When $A_L$ is free, evolving dark energy is no longer preferred: $\Lambda$CDM is consistent within $2\sigma$, because $w_0$ and $w_a$ shift to mimic a lensing boost. The paper also finds that DESI BAO makes the lensing anomaly worse in $\Lambda$CDM by pulling the matter density $\Omega_m$ down, while a phantom-crossing equation of state ($w_0+w_a<-1$) weakens the anomaly by magnifying the Weyl potential. If this is right, part of the DESI dark-energy signal is a byproduct of a degeneracy between $\Omega_m$, $A_L$, and the dark-energy parameters.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two objects. The first is the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) parameterisation $w(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$, a two-parameter dark-energy equation of state that lets the dark-energy density evolve while keeping the model simple. The second is the lensing scaling parameter $A_L$, which multiplies the lensing power spectrum $C^{\phi\phi}_\ell$; $A_L>1$ denotes an excess lensing signal. The load-bearing identity is the growth-function relation for the Weyl potential, where a lower past Hubble rate $H(a)$, corresponding to $w(a)<-1$, magnifies the lensing potential, combined with the known degeneracy between $\Omega_m$ and $A_L$: DESI BAO's lower $\Omega_m$ suppresses lensing, so $\Lambda$CDM needs $A_L>1$, while phantom-crossing $w_0,w_a$ can supply the same lensing boost. The datasets acting as probes are the Planck PR3 Plik and PR4 CamSpec/HiLLiPoP likelihoods, DESI and pre-DESI BAO, Pantheon+ supernovae, and Planck PR4 plus ACT DR6 lensing.

What would settle it

One decisive check would be a lensing measurement independent of Planck's temperature and polarization spectra that pins $A_L$ to 1.000 at sub-percent precision while the Planck power spectra still prefer $A_L>1$ in $\Lambda$CDM; that would show the excess is not a genuine lensing boost and the $w_0,w_a$ compensation is an artefact. A second check is to refit the data with $A_L$ fixed to a value determined only from external lensing data, such as ACT DR6 alone, and see whether the preference for evolving dark energy reappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the reported preference for evolving dark energy in DESI BAO plus CMB data depends on fixing $A_L=1$; once $A_L$ is allowed to vary, the same combined data put $\Lambda$CDM within $2\sigma$. With $A_L$ free, the posteriors shift to $w_0\approx-0.85$ and $w_a\approx-0.5$ for all three Planck likelihoods, and $A_L$ drops toward $1.04$--$1.07$. The paper identifies the mechanism: DESI BAO prefers a smaller matter density $\Omega_m$, which suppresses the predicted CMB lensing spectrum, and in $\Lambda$CDM this must be compensated by $A_L>1$, exacerbating the lensing anomaly; in the evolving-dark-energy model the compensation instead comes from $w_0$ and $w_a$ moving toward values that cross the phantom divide ($w_0+w_a<-1$) and magnify the Weyl potential. Consequently, the evolving-dark-energy hint and the Planck lensing excess are two views of the same degeneracy, not independent findings.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the entire Planck lensing anomaly can be captured by one multiplicative number $A_L$ applied to the lensing spectrum, and that Planck PR3/PR4, DESI BAO, Pantheon+, and ACT DR6 lensing can be combined without modelling cross-release systematics; if the anomaly is a frequency-dependent systematic rather than a true lensing-amplitude shift, the inferred $w_0$ and $w_a$ moves would not have the clean interpretation given here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When $A_L$ is allowed to vary, the combined DESI BAO plus Planck plus Pantheon+ data are consistently within $2\sigma$ of $\Lambda$CDM across the Plik, CamSpec, and HiLLiPoP likelihoods.
  • DESI BAO's lower preferred $\Omega_m$ raises the inferred $A_L$ in $\Lambda$CDM; replacing DESI BAO with pre-DESI BAO gives systematically lower $A_L$.
  • In the evolving-dark-energy model, the same lower $\Omega_m$ is instead absorbed by $w_0$ and $w_a$ with $w_0+w_a<-1$, so $A_L$ returns close to 1 and the lensing anomaly partially dissolves.
  • With $A_L=1$ fixed, the CamSpec PR4 likelihood keeps a preference for evolving dark energy stronger than $2\sigma$, while HiLLiPoP weakens it, so the residual signal depends on which Planck likelihood is used.
  • Future CMB plus BAO plus supernova analyses should fit the lensing amplitude alongside dark-energy parameters rather than fixing it, otherwise apparent dark-energy evolution can be generated by the lensing degeneracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Planck lensing excess is a frequency-dependent foreground or calibration systematic rather than a genuine boost to $A_L$, then the $w_0,w_a$ shifts found here are a parametrisation artefact, and the physical dark-energy conclusion would change.
  • A testable extension is to repeat this analysis with DES-Y5 supernovae: a stronger true dark-energy signal should push $A_L$ closer to 1, while the degeneracy predicts a correlated shift in the opposite direction.
  • The same $\Omega_m$--$A_L$ degeneracy suggests that unresolved discrepancies in $\Omega_m$ between DESI and pre-DESI BAO can masquerade as dark-energy evolution in any two-parameter equation-of-state fit.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates how the Planck CMB lensing anomaly (parametrized by A_L) affects constraints on dark-energy evolution in the CPL parametrization, using Planck PR3 (Plik) and PR4 (CamSpec, HiLLiPoP) likelihoods combined with DESI BAO, Pantheon+ supernovae, and CMB lensing data from Planck PR4 and ACT DR6. The central results are: (i) when A_L is allowed to vary, the w0waCDM model is not preferred over ΛCDM+A_L (ΔAIC ≈ -1 for all three likelihoods), because of the degeneracy between (w0, wa) and A_L; and (ii) the paper claims that DESI BAO exacerbates the lensing anomaly in ΛCDM relative to pre-DESI BAO, attributing this to the smaller Ωm preferred by DESI, an effect that is offset when w0 and wa are allowed to vary. The first result is robust, while the second is statistically under-supported.

Significance. If the first result holds, it is significant: it shows that the DESI-driven preference for evolving dark energy is substantially weakened once the Planck lensing anomaly is accounted for, which is directly relevant to the current debate on the nature of dark energy. The paper is careful to use three independent Planck likelihoods, and the MCMC setup and parameter tables appear internally consistent. However, the paper's second main claim—that DESI BAO exacerbates the lensing anomaly—is not established at a meaningful significance level, as the shifts in A_L are sub-1σ. The physical mechanism discussed in Section V is plausible but is currently presented as an empirical finding rather than as a hypothesis consistent with noisy shifts. The study is useful as a reanalysis, but the statistical support for its headline claim needs to be strengthened.

major comments (3)
  1. The claim that DESI BAO exacerbates the lensing anomaly is not supported by a significance test. The shifts in A_L between pre-DESI and DESI BAO are 1.083±0.033 vs 1.062±0.035 (Plik), 1.075±0.034 vs 1.054±0.034 (CamSpec), and 1.062±0.035 vs 1.042±0.035 (HiLLiPoP). Each difference is about 0.02, which is 0.4–0.5σ given the quoted 1σ errors, even under an independence assumption. No test of ΔA_L is presented, and the conclusion states as a result that 'the lensing anomaly in the ΛCDM model is exacerbated by DESI BAO', while the abstract more cautiously says 'appears to exacerbate'. This inconsistency in the strength of the claim needs to be resolved, either by adding a proper significance test (e.g., a difference distribution from the MCMC chains) or by explicitly framing the shift as a suggestive trend that is not statistically significant.
  2. The pre-DESI BAO comparison in Section IV and Table IV omits model-comparison statistics. Unlike Table III, Table IV reports only parameter posteriors and does not include χ2 or ΔAIC values for the pre-DESI runs. As a result, the statement in Section IV that pre-DESI BAO 'does not show a preference for evolving DE' is not quantified, and the reader cannot compare the strength of the DE preference between the DESI and pre-DESI cases. The authors should report the corresponding χ2 and ΔAIC values, or at least state why they are omitted.
  3. The causal interpretation in Section V—that the DESI-induced shift in A_L is caused by the smaller Ωm preferred by DESI, and that this effect can be offset by shifts in w0 and wa—is built on the same sub-1σ A_L shift identified above. The anti-correlation between Ωm and A_L visible in Fig. 3 is a real feature of the posterior, but a correlation within the posterior does not establish that the between-dataset difference is physically significant. The argument in this section should be reframed as a demonstration that the degeneracy direction is consistent with the observed shifts, rather than as a claim that the mechanism has been empirically confirmed.
minor comments (4)
  1. The word 'Notebly' should be 'Notably'.
  2. The caption states that Δχ2 and ΔAIC are 'relative to ΛCDM', but in Section III.B the text gives ΔAIC for w0waCDM+A_L relative to ΛCDM+A_L as −1.05, −1.17, and −1.09, which are the differences between the values shown in the table. The caption would be clearer if it specified the reference model for each row.
  3. References [9] and [10] appear to be duplicates of the same arXiv paper (Park et al., arXiv:2405.00502); one of them should be removed.
  4. The y-axis label of the right panel is incomplete as rendered: it should read C_ℓ^{φφ}/C_ℓ^{φφ,ΛCDM} (or similar), rather than 'C /C , CDM'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are derived from joint MCMC fits to external Planck, DESI, ACT, and Pantheon+ data, and self-citations are peripheral.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its data. The parameters w0, wa, AL, and Omega_m are all free parameters fitted jointly to the Planck PR3/PR4 likelihoods, DESI or pre-DESI BAO, Planck PR4 and ACT DR6 lensing, and Pantheon+ data. The claim that allowing AL to vary removes the preference for evolving dark energy is read directly from the posteriors and Delta AIC values in Table III; it is not imposed by any definitional relation between the parameters. The DESI-versus-pre-DESI comparison in Table IV is a comparison of two independent fits, and the small upward shift in AL is not forced by construction. The physical explanation in Section V uses the standard growth equation from Dodelson and Schmidt to compute the Weyl-potential and C_phi_phi responses, so it is not a restatement of the fitted degeneracy. Self-citations to Piao-group papers appear only in the closing remarks about early dark energy and ns = 1 and are not load-bearing for the central lensing-DE result. The possible sub-sigma size of the DESI-induced AL shift is a statistical-significance concern, not a circularity concern.

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

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. AL is a phenomenological scaling parameter, not a new physical entity. The free parameters are the standard fitted cosmological and dark-energy parameters; the axioms are the CPL parametrization, the AL rescaling, flatness, the reliability of the public likelihoods, and standard gravitational lensing theory.

free parameters (5)
  • w0 (CPL dark-energy equation of state at present) = about -0.83 to -0.91 depending on model and data; e.g., -0.831 +/- 0.063 for w0waCDM with Plik+DESI
    Fitted to the CMB+BAO+SN data; its posterior drives the evolving-dark-energy preference.
  • wa (CPL dark-energy equation-of-state slope) = about -0.73 +0.29/-0.25 for w0waCDM with Plik+DESI to -0.25 +/- 0.29 for pre-DESI cases
    Fitted together with w0; the combination w0+wa controls the early-time dark-energy behavior invoked in Section V.
  • AL (lensing spectrum amplitude scaling) = 1.083 +0.033/-0.037 for LambdaCDM+AL with Plik+DESI to 1.042 +/- 0.035 for LambdaCDM+AL with HiLLiPoP+pre-DESI
    Fitted nuisance that rescales the lensing spectrum; the lensing anomaly is quantified by its deviation from unity.
  • Omega_m (matter density, derived from fitted omega_cdm and H0) = not quoted directly; DESI BAO prefers a smaller Omega_m than pre-DESI BAO in LambdaCDM+AL (Fig. 3)
    The central claim that DESI BAO exacerbates the lensing anomaly runs through the Omega_m-AL degeneracy.
  • Base LambdaCDM parameters (H0, omega_b, omega_cdm, ln(10^10 As), ns, tau_reio) = Tables V-X; e.g., H0 approximately 67-68 km/s/Mpc across models
    Standard fitted cosmological parameters marginalized in all chains; not the focus but part of the fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dark energy is described by the CPL parametrization w(a)=w0+wa(1-a).
    Adopted in Section II, Eq. (1); the conclusions about evolving dark energy are statements about w0 and wa within this two-parameter family, not about model-independent dark-energy evolution.
  • domain assumption The lensing anomaly is captured by rescaling the lensing spectrum C_phi^phi by A_L.
    Adopted in Section II; if the anomaly is not a simple amplitude rescaling, the interpretation of the AL-w0-wa degeneracy changes.
  • domain assumption The universe is spatially flat.
    Used in the growth function Eq. (3) and in distance calculations; the Section V discussion of the Weyl potential assumes flatness.
  • domain assumption The public likelihoods (Plik, CamSpec, HiLLiPoP, DESI BAO, Pantheon+, Planck PR4 and ACT DR6 lensing) are accurate and mutually consistent.
    The entire parameter estimation uses these products without independent validation; the PR3 Plik plus PR4 lensing mix is not consistency-tested.
  • standard math Standard GR and Newtonian-gauge potential equations govern the Weyl potential and lensing.
    Used in Section V, Eqs. (2) and (3), for the physical explanation of how phantom-crossing dark energy magnifies the lensing potential.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark energy and lensing anomaly in Planck CMB data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHWYFNKA

@misc{pith2026250204641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark energy and lensing anomaly in Planck CMB data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHWYFNKA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04641}
}
abstract

In this paper, we investigate the impact of the lensing anomaly in Planck cosmic microwave background (CMB) data on the nature of dark energy (DE). We constrain the state equation ($w_0,w_a$) of DE with the lensing scaling parameter $A_L=1$ and varying $A_L$, using the Planck PR3 and two updated Planck PR4 likelihoods, CamSpec and HiLLiPoP respectively, combined with DESI baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) and Pantheon+ supernova data. As expected, when $A_L$ is allowed to vary, the evolving DE is not preferred due to the degeneracy between $w_0,w_a$ and $A_L$. In particular, we also consider replacing DESI BAO data with pre-DESI BAO in our analysis, and observe that DESI BAO appears to exacerbate the lensing anomaly, which is caused by the smaller matter density $\Omega_m$ it prefers, however, this effect can be offset by the shifts in $w_0$ and $w_a$ preferring the evolving DE. Our work indicates that the lensing anomaly in Planck data is worth carefully reconsidering when new cosmological survey data is combined with CMB.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04641 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Posterior distributions (68% and 95% confidence range) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. 1D and 2D marginalized posterior distributions (68% and 95% confidence range) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 1D and 2D marginalized posterior distributions (68% and 95% confidence range) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The evolution of the Weyl potential as a function of redshift in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Cosmological Concordance in an Especially Opaque Universe: A Tentative Cosmological Detection of Physical Neutrino Mass in $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Imposing a high prior on τ = 0.11 ± 0.006 produces a 2σ positive neutrino mass sum of 0.10 eV and restores concordance between CMB and DESI data inside ΛCDM.

  2. Can the universe experience an AdS landscape since matter-radiation equality?

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A universe with an AdS (negative cosmological constant) phase at recombination and another at low redshift is compatible with Planck, DESI, Pantheon Plus and SH0ES data, though not preferred by them.

  3. 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.

  4. Imprint of swampland-inspired coupled early dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A swampland-inspired DM-EDE coupling is tested against DESI DR2 BAO data, showing the EDE potential construction affects late-time dark energy constraints.

  5. Observational constraints on early time non-phantom behaviour of dynamical dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Early scaling dark energy is constrained to be less than about one percent at matter-radiation equality and is disfavored by model selection, while late-time CPL dynamics show only a weak preference away from ΛCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 104 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Tada and T

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

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    G. Gu, X. Wang, X. Mu, S. Yuan, and G.-B. Zhao, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 24, 065001 (2024), arXiv:2404.06303 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, (2024), arXiv:2404.07070 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, (2024), arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    E. O. Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic, (2024), arXiv:2404.08633 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, (2024), arXiv:2404.12068 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Wang and Y.-S

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

    arXiv 2024

Show all 110 references
  1. [10]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, and B. Ratra, (2024), arXiv:2405.00502 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Z. Wang, S. Lin, Z. Ding, and B. Hu, (2024), arXiv:2405.02168 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138826 (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [13]

    B. R. Dinda, JCAP 09, 062 (2024), arXiv:2405.06618 [astro-ph.CO]. 13

    2024 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Seto and Y

    O. Seto and Y. Toda, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083501 (2024), arXiv:2405.11869 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Roy, (2024), arXiv:2406.00634 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Roy, (2024), arXiv:2406.00634 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [16]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, (2024), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [17]

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

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    H. Wang, Z.-Y. Peng, and Y.-S. Piao, (2024), arXiv:2406.03395 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Orchard and V

    L. Orchard and V. H. C´ ardenas, (2024), arXiv:2407.05579 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [20]

    H. Wang, G. Ye, and Y.-S. Piao, (2024), arXiv:2407.11263 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, (2024), arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Jiang, W

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

    2024 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, (2024), arXiv:2408.02365 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [24]

    B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, (2024), arXiv:2407.17252 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [25]

    A. C. Alfano, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, JCAP 12, 055 (2024), arXiv:2408.02536 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Ghosh and C

    B. Ghosh and C. Bengaly, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101699 (2024), arXiv:2408.04432 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Pedrotti, J.-Q

    D. Pedrotti, J.-Q. Jiang, L. A. Escamilla, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023506 (2025), arXiv:2408.04530 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, (2024), arXiv:2408.14787 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Roy Choudhury and T

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, Astrophys. J. Lett. 976, L11 (2024), arXiv:2409.13022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [30]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    H. Wang, G. Ye, J.-Q. Jiang, and Y.-S. Piao, (2024), arXiv:2409.17879 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [32]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, and B. Ratra, (2024), arXiv:2410.13627 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Specogna, W

    E. Specogna, W. Giar` e, and E. Di Valentino, (2024), arXiv:2411.03896 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, (2024), arXiv:2411.14189 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    E. O. Colg´ ain and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, (2024), arXiv:2412.12905 [astro-ph.CO]. 14

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    K. V. Berghaus, J. A. Kable, and V. Miranda, (2024), arXiv:2404.14341 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Giar` e, M

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

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Escamilla-Rivera and R

    C. Escamilla-Rivera and R. Sandoval-Orozco, JHEAp 42, 217 (2024), arXiv:2405.00608 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Bhattacharya, G

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

    2024 arXiv

  31. [40]

    J. J. Heckman, O. F. Ramadan, and J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023510 (2025), arXiv:2406.04408 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Chudaykin and M

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

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Du, P.-J

    G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, T.-N. Li, and X. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2407.15640 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, (2024), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Sohail, S

    S. Sohail, S. Alam, S. Akthar, and M. W. Hossain, (2024), arXiv:2408.03229 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [46]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, (2024), arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, (2024), arXiv:2409.17019 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Alestas, M

    G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, S. Kuroyanagi, and S. Nesseris, (2024), arXiv:2410.00827 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, (2024), arXiv:2410.21243 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  41. [50]

    Ye, (2024), arXiv:2411.11743 [astro-ph.CO]

    G. Ye, (2024), arXiv:2411.11743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Li, Y.-H

    T.-N. Li, Y.-H. Li, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Akthar and M

    S. Akthar and M. W. Hossain, (2024), arXiv:2411.15892 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    S. S. da Costa, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101791 (2025), arXiv:2412.14290 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Du, T.-N

    G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, S.-H. Zhou, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2501.10785 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  46. [55]

    W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103519 (2023), arXiv:2310.07482 [astro- ph.CO]. 15

    2023 arXiv

  47. [56]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Calabrese, A

    E. Calabrese, A. Slosar, A. Melchiorri, G. F. Smoot, and O. Zahn, Phys. Rev. D 77, 123531 (2008), arXiv:0803.2309 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Aghanim et al.(Planck), Astron

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

    2020 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, (2025), arXiv:2501.03480 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Akrami et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Tristram et al., Astron

    M. Tristram et al., Astron. Astrophys. 682, A37 (2024), arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Ishak et al

    M. Ishak et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2411.12026 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  55. [64]

    I. J. Allali and A. Notari, (2024), arXiv:2406.14554 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Aiola et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Dutcher et al

    D. Dutcher et al. (SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D 104, 022003 (2021), arXiv:2101.01684 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Balkenhol et al

    L. Balkenhol et al. (SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D 108, 023510 (2023), arXiv:2212.05642 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Beutler, C

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. Staveley-Smith, G. B. Poole, L. Campbell, Q. Parker, W. Saunders, and F. Watson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 423, 3430 (2012), arXiv:1204.4725 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [69]

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

    2015 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Alam et al

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

    2017 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Alam et al

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

    2021 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Aghanim et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Tristram et al., Astron

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

    2021 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP 09, 039 (2022), arXiv:2206.07773 [astro- ph.CO]. 16

    2022 arXiv

  66. [75]

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

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    F. J. Qu et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Scolnic et al., Astrophys

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

    2022 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Torrado and A

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

    2021 arXiv

  70. [79]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP 1107, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro- ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Gelman and D

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

    1992

  72. [81]

    E. B. Holm, A. Nygaard, J. Dakin, S. Hannestad, and T. Tram, (2023), arXiv:2312.02972 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Akaike, IEEE Trans

    H. Akaike, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  74. [83]

    X. T. Tang, D. Brout, T. Karwal, C. Chang, V. Miranda, and M. Vincenzi, (2024), arXiv:2412.04430 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt, Modern Cosmology (2020)

    2020

  76. [85]

    Green and J

    D. Green and J. Meyers, (2024), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Loverde and Z

    M. Loverde and Z. J. Weiner, (2024), arXiv:2410.00090 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Ye and Y.-S

    G. Ye and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083507 (2020), arXiv:2001.02451 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [89]

    G. Ye, B. Hu, and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063510 (2021), arXiv:2103.09729 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Jiang and Y.-S

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

    2022 arXiv

  82. [91]

    T. L. Smith, M. Lucca, V. Poulin, G. F. Abellan, L. Balkenhol, K. Benabed, S. Galli, and R. Murgia, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043526 (2022), arXiv:2202.09379 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Jiang, G

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

    2023 arXiv

  84. [93]

    Peng and Y.-S

    Z.-Y. Peng and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023519 (2024), arXiv:2308.01012 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Jiang and Y.-S

    J.-Q. Jiang and Y.-S. Piao, (2025), arXiv:2501.16883 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, Y. Fantaye, and A. Heavens, Phys. Rev. D 98, 063508 (2018), arXiv:1808.09201 [astro-ph.CO]. 17

    2018 arXiv

  87. [96]

    Giar` e, F

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

    2023 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023522 (2022), arXiv:2204.02425 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Braglia, W

    M. Braglia, W. T. Emond, F. Finelli, A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083513 (2020), arXiv:2005.14053 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Ye, J.-Q

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

    2022 arXiv

  91. [100]

    Jiang, G

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

    2024 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Braglia, A

    M. Braglia, A. Linde, R. Kallosh, and F. Finelli, JCAP 04, 033 (2023), arXiv:2211.14262 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  93. [102]

    D’Amico, N

    G. D’Amico, N. Kaloper, and A. Westphal, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103527 (2022), arXiv:2112.13861 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Giar` e, S

    W. Giar` e, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, W. Yang, J. de Haro, and A. Melchiorri, JCAP 09, 019 (2023), arXiv:2305.15378 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Fu and S.-J

    C. Fu and S.-J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 109, L041304 (2024), arXiv:2310.12932 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Giar` e, Phys

    W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D109, 123545 (2024), arXiv:2404.12779 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Knox and M

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

    2020 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

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

    2022 arXiv

  99. [108]

    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]

    2021 arXiv

  100. [109]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  101. [110]

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

    2024 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Efstathiou, (2024), arXiv:2408.07175 [astro-ph.CO]

    G. Efstathiou, (2024), arXiv:2408.07175 [astro-ph.CO]. Appendix A: Results of Relevant Parameters 18 Parameter Plik CamSpec HiLLiPoP H0 67.95(67.91) ± 0.39 67.74(67.82) ± 0.37 67.95(67.82) ± 0.38 100ωb 2.246(2.246) ± 0.013 2.226(2.231) ± 0.013 2.231(2.231) ± 0.012 ωcdm 0.11866...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.