Sign Switching in Dark Sector Coupling Interactions as a Candidate for Resolving Cosmological Tensions

Eleonora Di Valentino; Emanuelly Silva; Miguel A. Sabogal; Rafael C. Nunes; Suresh Kumar

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

Sign Switching in Dark Sector Coupling Interactions as a Candidate for Resolving Cosmological Tensions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A one-parameter dark-sector coupling that flips sign at the matter–dark-energy equality redshift can relax both the H0 and S8 tensions simultaneously.

desk verdict A well-executed but conditional claim: the sign-switching IDE model relieves both tensions only with SH0ES-calibrated supernovae, and the late-time branch needs a stability check before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10323 v2 pith:UQ45PPKC submitted 2025-01-17 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Miguel A. Sabogal , Emanuelly Silva , Rafael C. Nunes , Suresh Kumar , Eleonora Di Valentino This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COgr-qc

keywords interactingdarkenergysign-switchingcouplingmatter–darkinteractionHubbletensionS8DESIBAOPantheonPluscosmologicaltensions

topics Dark Energy Dark Matter The Hubble Tension

open problems Dark Matter Dark Energy The Hubble Tension

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a single new parameter — the sign and size of a dark-matter–dark-energy coupling — can address the two most persistent discrepancies in ΛCDM cosmology at once. The coupling is allowed to flip direction exactly at the redshift where the two dark components have equal energy densities, so that whichever way energy flowed early, it flows the other way late. When the early-time coupling is negative, the model produces a higher H0 and a lower S8 than ΛCDM, and with Planck CMB, DESI BAO, and SH0ES-calibrated PantheonPlus data the Hubble tension falls to 2.3σ while S8 becomes consistent with weak-lensing measurements. The result matters because it is a minimal, testable modification of the standard model rather than a wholesale replacement. The paper also reports that the preference for the sign-switch model over ΛCDM depends on the supernova calibration and dataset combination.

What carries the argument

The central object is the signum-switching coupling $\xi(a) = \xi_i \, \mathrm{sgn}(a_{\mathrm{eq,dark}} - a)$ inserted into the standard interacting-dark-energy continuity equations through $Q = \xi(a)H\rho_x$. The transition scale $a_{\mathrm{eq,dark}}$ is defined by $\Omega_m/\Omega_x = 1$, tying the sign flip to the cosmic coincidence epoch; the density solutions acquire terms proportional to $a^{-3(w_x + \xi_i/3)}$, and the linear perturbation equations carry sign-dependent source terms $\Gamma = \xi_i H (\rho_x/\rho_c) \, \mathrm{sgn}(a_{\mathrm{eq,dark}} - a)$ and an analogous $\Xi$. The machinery works by making the late-time coupling positive when the early-time coupling is negative, which reshapes the ratio $\rho_c/\rho_x$ and thereby pushes the expansion rate and the growth of matter perturbations in opposite directions.

What would settle it

Rerun the joint analysis with the full DES or KiDS weak-lensing likelihoods rather than comparing the derived $S_8$; if the model's predicted lensing signal is rejected, the reported $S_8$ relaxation does not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proposes a one-parameter extension of ΛCDM in which dark matter and dark energy exchange energy at a rate $Q = \xi(a)H\rho_x$, with $\xi(a) = \xi_i \, \mathrm{sgn}(a_{\mathrm{eq,dark}} - a)$. The sign of the coupling is fixed before the epoch where the two dark densities are equal and flips after it, reversing the direction of energy-momentum transfer. With an initially negative coupling ($\xi_i < 0$, energy flowing from dark matter to dark energy) that turns positive at low redshift, the model simultaneously raises $H_0$ and lowers $S_8$ relative to ΛCDM; from Planck CMB, DESI BAO, and SH0ES-calibrated PantheonPlus data it reports $H_0 = 70.29 \pm 0.58$ km/s/Mpc and $S_8 = 0.772 \pm 0.013$, reducing the Hubble tension to 2.3σ and bringing $S_8$ into agreement with weak-lensing surveys. The model is preferred over ΛCDM only when the SH0ES Cepheid calibration is used or when DESI BAO data are included; with uncalibrated PantheonPlus, Union3, or DESY5 data the preferred coupling sign reverses and the tensions are not resolved.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the density fluctuations stay well-behaved after the coupling flips sign, even though the usual stability condition for interacting dark energy is violated then, and it provides no test of that late-time behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is correct, the CMB + PPS + DESI combination implies $H_0 = 70.29 \pm 0.58$ km/s/Mpc, bringing the early-universe inference within 2.3σ of the SH0ES distance-ladder value.
The same combination gives $S_8 = 0.772 \pm 0.013$, removing the reported discrepancy with DES and KiDS weak-lensing estimates, pending a full lensing likelihood analysis.
DESI BAO data alone mildly prefer the sign-switch model over ΛCDM, so the effect shows up in the expansion history $H(z)/(1+z)$ as a systematically higher curve than ΛCDM.
The preferred transition sits at $z_{\mathrm{eq,dark}} \sim 0.25$; because this redshift correlates negatively with $H_0$ and positively with $S_8$, moving the transition epoch would shift the two tensions in opposite directions.
With uncalibrated PantheonPlus, Union3, or DESY5 supernova data the coupling is driven positive, yielding lower $H_0$ and higher $S_8$, so the claimed reconciliation is conditional on the SH0ES calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next test is to treat the supernova absolute magnitude $M_B$ as a free parameter in the same chains; if the $\xi_i < 0$ preference vanishes under a free $M_B$, the sign-switch resolution is at least partly a restatement of the SH0ES calibration.
The model motivates a microphysical mechanism that changes the sign of the interaction at the coincidence epoch; without one, the transition is a phenomenological clock whose only theoretical anchor is the cosmic-coincidence coincidence itself.
Because the same $S_8$ shift could be mimicked by an imperfect treatment of perturbations after the sign flip, rerunning with a stable equation-of-state prescription or a coupled-quintessence model would show whether the growth suppression is real.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a serious, competent entry in the interacting-dark-energy literature. The new ingredient is a coupling whose sign flips at the epoch when dark matter and dark energy densities are equal. With the SH0ES-calibrated PantheonPlus sample plus DESI BAO, the model pulls H0 to 70.29 and S8 to 0.772, reducing the Hubble tension to 2.3 sigma and aligning S8 with weak lensing. What is genuinely good: the model is a clean one-parameter extension, the analysis covers CMB, DESI, and three different SN compilations, and the authors are transparent that positive Bayesian evidence appears only with the calibrated PantheonPlus data. That honesty is refreshing.

The soft spots are real, though. First, the printed analytic density solution in Eq. (5) has a suspicious sign in the a_eq^{2xi_i} factor; matching the post-transition branch at a_eq requires the opposite sign if rho_x0 is today's density. The numerical work is done in CLASS, so this may be a typo, but it needs fixing.

Second, and more important, the late-time branch violates the standard stability condition quoted in Step 2. For xi_i < 0, the early branch has xi < 0 and 1+w_x > 0, which is the stable configuration; after the flip, xi > 0 with the same 1+w_x > 0, which is the configuration the condition was designed to exclude. The paper asserts in the conclusions that the numerical implementation ensures stability, but provides no effective sound-speed or perturbation-growth check. The central result could in principle be an artifact of an unstable perturbation sector. That is not an accusation, it may well be fine, but the paper needs to demonstrate it.

Third, the model is constructed to exploit the known xi-H0 and xi-S8 correlations, and the headline result disappears when other SN samples are used. The authors acknowledge this, so it is a limitation, not a hidden flaw.

Verdict: worth a serious referee. The physics idea is legitimate, the data analysis is thorough, and the issues are addressable. A referee should ask for the analytic fix, a stability analysis of the late branch, and ideally a combined analysis that includes the other SN samples rather than just the one that favors the sign flip. If the stability check comes out clean, this becomes a useful addition to the tension-resolution toolbox.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a phenomenological interacting dark energy (IDE) model in which the DM-DE coupling changes sign at the epoch when the two dark-sector densities are equal, with coupling kernel ξ(a)=ξ_i sgn(a_eq,dark−a). The authors implement the model in CLASS and MontePython, fitting Planck CMB, DESI BAO, and several supernova samples (PantheonPlus, PantheonPlus+SH0ES, Union3, DESY5). For CMB+PPS+DESI they report H0=70.29±0.58 km/s/Mpc and S8=0.772±0.013 at 68% CL, reducing the Hubble tension to 2.3σ while keeping S8 consistent with weak-lensing surveys. They find positive Bayesian evidence over ΛCDM only when the SH0ES-calibrated PPS sample is used; uncalibrated SN samples instead favor ξ_i>0 and do not relax the tensions. The paper's central claim is that this sign-switching interaction can potentially relax both tensions simultaneously.

Significance. If the numerical implementation is correct, this is a timely and potentially interesting one-parameter extension of ΛCDM that addresses both the H0 and S8 tensions using a single sign-switching coupling. The paper is commendably honest about the dataset dependence of the result, and it uses standard tension estimators, AIC, and Bayesian evidence. The main significance is conditional on the stability of the perturbation sector after the sign flip, which is asserted but not demonstrated. The work also builds on, rather than independently derives, the known correlations between the sign of ξ and H0/S8, so the simultaneous relaxation is partly an input of the model. With adequate stability validation and a corrected analytic background solution, the paper could be a useful contribution to the interacting dark energy literature.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II, Step 2 and Step 3; Sec. V] The stability condition stated in Step 2 requires (1+w_x) and ξ to have opposite signs, and the authors set w_x=-0.999 for ξ_i<0 and w_x=-1.001 for ξ_i>0. However, after the sign switch at a_eq, the late-time branch has ξ=+ξ_i>0 for ξ_i<0 while 1+w_x remains +0.001, i.e. the same-sign configuration that Step 2 was designed to avoid; the analogous violation occurs for ξ_i>0. The paper provides no effective-sound-speed check, no perturbation growth test, and no convergence test for the post-transition epoch. The Sec. V statement that the numerical implementation 'ensures the stability of the system' is not supported by any shown diagnostic. Since the headline H0 and S8 values from CMB+PPS+DESI are derived from the perturbed CLASS output, the authors should report e.g. the time evolution of δ_c, δ_x, and θ_x across the transition, verify the absence of spurious growing modes, and describe how the sgn discontinuity at a_eq is handled in the Boltzmann solver.
[Eq. (5)] The expression for ρ_x in Eq. (5) appears to have a sign error in the transition factor. If ρ_x,0 is today's density and the coupling flips from ξ_i to -ξ_i at a_eq, continuity of ρ_x at a_eq requires a factor a_eq^{-2ξ_i} in the post-transition branch, but the printed formula shows a_eq^{+2ξ_i}. This affects not only the background evolution but also the derived quantity z_eq,dark through Eq. (6). Please correct the formula and verify that all subsequent equations and numerical results are consistent with the corrected branch.
[Sec. II, Steps 1-3; Eq. (6)] The model is explicitly constructed so that the negative-coupling branch raises H0 and the positive-coupling branch lowers S8, using correlations reported in earlier work, and the transition time is fixed to the density-equality epoch rather than being determined by the data. Consequently, the reported simultaneous relaxation is partly by construction. A more informative test would treat the transition epoch (or a_eq) as a free parameter and report its posterior, or compare the sign-switching model against a constant-ξ model with the same number of parameters. Without such a test, the claim that the data support the sign-switching mechanism specifically is weaker than the headline ∆χ² and Bayes factors suggest.
[Sec. II, Step 2] The model assigns w_x=-0.999 for ξ_i<0 and w_x=-1.001 for ξ_i>0, but w_x is not sampled and is not a continuous function of ξ_i: at ξ_i=0 the assignment is discontinuous. This creates two distinct regimes in parameter space and may affect MCMC sampling near ξ_i=0 and the Bayesian evidence computation. Please clarify whether w_x is intended as a derived parameter, and discuss how the ξ_i=0 limit recovers ΛCDM continuously given that w_x flips between the two branches.

minor comments (5)

[Table I] In the CMB+DESI column, log(10^10 A_s) is listed as 0.9681±0.0041, which is identical to the n_s entry and is not a valid amplitude value; this appears to be a copy-paste typo that should be corrected.
[Sec. II, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The text calls H the 'conformal Hubble rate' in the continuity equations, but the equations are written in the standard form with H as the physical Hubble rate. Please use $\mathcal{H}$ consistently if conformal time is intended, or clarify the notation.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the left panel is based on 'CMB + DESI + PP and CMB + DESI + PPS data respectively,' but the text describes the analysis as CMB+PPS+DESI; please make the dataset combination in the caption consistent with the text.
[Sec. III-A, Eq. (9)] The quadratic tension estimator is defined without specifying which subset of parameters enters the vectors x_i and x_j; please state whether the full covariance of the reported parameters or a subset is used.
[Sec. V] The phrase 'reinforce by ∆AIC = ...' should read 'reinforced by ∆AIC = ...'; there are several similar grammatical slips throughout the text that should be corrected in a final revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is motivated by a self-cited sign–tension correlation, but the headline H0/S8 values are independently fit to external CMB/DESI/SN data, with some SN samples favoring the opposite sign.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular under the quoted-reduction standard. The sign-switching kernel ξ(a)=ξi sgn[aeq,dark−a] is a new ansatz; ξi is a free parameter fitted by MCMC to external CMB, DESI, and SN data, while H0 and S8 are derived outputs. The high-H0/low-S8 branch is not statistically forced: uncalibrated PP, Union3, and DESY5 combinations instead favor ξi>0 with low H0 and high S8, so the reported relaxation for CMB+PPS(+DESI) is a data-selected branch, not an input. S8 is not fitted to weak-lensing measurements, so the reported S8=0.772±0.013 is a genuine model prediction. The only load-bearing motivation is the self-cited correlation in [133] that negative ξ raises H0 and positive ξ lowers S8; this is used to justify the sign-switch design, but the present numerical implementation, transition epoch (Eq. 6), and constraints are independently computed, and the cited correlation is itself an external-data result. A separate, non-circular concern: Step 2 requires (1+wx) and ξ to have opposite signs, while for the favored ξi<0 branch the post-transition ξ>0 has the same sign as (1+wx)=+0.001; no effective sound-speed or growth check is reported, so the stability of the late-time branch is unverified. This is a correctness risk, not an input–output equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central model adds one continuous free parameter, xi_i, plus a discrete by-hand choice of w_x that depends on the sign of xi_i. The transition time a_eq is derived, not free. The interaction kernel and the transition-at-equality rule are ad hoc phenomenological inputs. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main unexamined burden is the stability of the post-transition branch, where the standard (1+w_x) xi < 0 condition is violated.

free parameters (2)

xi_i = about -0.32 to -0.43 for CMB+DESI+PPS; about +0.33 for CMB+DESY5
Dimensionless dark-sector coupling amplitude and initial sign. Sampled from a uniform prior [-1.5, 1.5]. The central fit and the branch selection depend on it.
w_x (dark energy equation of state) = -0.999 for xi_i < 0; -1.001 for xi_i > 0
Fixed by hand in Step 2 to satisfy the stability condition. Not sampled, but the discrete choice changes the background expansion and affects the inferred H0 and S8.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW metric and standard cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous gauge.
Baseline framework for the CLASS implementation and for the Boltzmann equations in Sec. II.
ad hoc to paper The dark-sector interaction rate has the phenomenological form Q = xi(a) H rho_x with xi(a) = xi_i * sgn(a_eq - a).
The sign function and the transition at dark-density equality are introduced by hand, with no microphysical derivation.
ad hoc to paper The transition redshift is set by the equality of dark matter and dark energy densities, a_eq from Eq. (6).
The paper motivates this by the cosmic coincidence problem but states explicitly that the model is not designed to solve it.
domain assumption The standard IDE stability condition (1+w_x) xi < 0 must hold, and w_x is fixed accordingly.
Taken from prior IDE literature [144, 145], but the paper does not verify that the condition holds after the sign switch.
domain assumption The perturbation equations for IDE remain valid when the constant coupling xi is replaced by the time-dependent xi(a).
The paper states this transformation is standard, but does not derive it for a discontinuous sign function.

invented entities (1)

Sign-switching dark-sector coupling kernel xi(a) = xi_i * sgn(a_eq - a)
purpose: Phenomenological description of energy-momentum transfer between dark matter and dark energy that reverses direction at late times.
No particle or field mechanism is proposed. The only handle is the cosmological datasets fit in this paper, so there is no independent falsifiable prediction outside the model itself.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sign Switching in Dark Sector Coupling Interactions as a Candidate for Resolving Cosmological Tensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQ45PPKC

@misc{pith2026250110323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sign Switching in Dark Sector Coupling Interactions as a Candidate for Resolving Cosmological Tensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQ45PPKC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10323}
}

abstract

The $\Lambda$CDM model has successfully explained a wide range of cosmological observations, but is increasingly challenged by the emergence of cosmological tensions, particularly the Hubble Tension $H_0$ and the $S_8$ tension. The Hubble Tension, with a significance above 5$\sigma$, and the $S_8$ tension, showing a discrepancy of approximately 2-4$\sigma$, highlight inconsistencies between measurements of the local and early universe. This paper expands a well-established Interacting Dark Energy (IDE) phenomenological scenario, where dark matter (DM) can transfer energy to dark energy (DE) or vice versa, depending on the sign of the coupling parameter $\xi$. The novel feature consists in a transition mechanism which reverses the direction of the energy-momentum transfer after the redshift where the densities of the dark species are the same. We evaluate this model using a comprehensive set of recent observational data, including Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) from the DESI survey, Type Ia Supernovae from the PantheonPlus, DESY5 and Union3 samples, and Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data from Planck. Our analysis shows that this scenario can potentially relax both the $H_0$ and $S_8$ tensions simultaneously. We find the new model to be weakly preferred over $\Lambda$CDM by BAO-DESI data. However, we show that the IDE model features positive Bayesian evidence compared to $\Lambda$CDM only when Cepheid distance calibration in the SH0ES sample is used to calibrate SNIa data from PantheonPlus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10323 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (left panel) presents a statistical reconstruction up to 2σ for the expansion rate H(z) in both the IDE model and ΛCDM, using the best-fit values and covariance matrix from the joint CMB + PPS + DESI analysis. Generally, in this case, the expansion rate H(z) predicted by the IDE model is consistently higher than that predicted by ΛCDM. In the right panel, we present the theoretical effects on the temperature ani… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

Hubble tension: the shape wall
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Late-time modifications to the expansion history can raise H0 by at most about 2% (conservative) to 3.7% (permissive) if the CMB acoustic scale is fixed.
BAO miscalibration cannot rescue late-time solutions to the Hubble tension
astro-ph.CO 2025-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Even after rescaling BAO data to prefer H0≈73 km/s/Mpc, none of six tested late-time dark-energy models can resolve the Hubble tension once unanchored SNeIa and CMB geometry are included.
Background-level reconstruction of scalar-field potentials from dark-energy histories and comparison with analytic potential families
astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

A background reconstruction maps prescribed ρ_de(z) histories to V(φ) and ranks analytic potentials by Bayesian evidence, with exponential preferred for CPL and shifted-tanh for sign-switching targets.
Is Dark Energy an Effective Manifestation of Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics? -- Insights from DESI
astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Two phenomenological dark matter creation rates can reproduce the accelerated expansion of the universe and fit current background data as well as or slightly better than LambdaCDM for some DESI-based data combinations.
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.
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.
Dark energy era with a resolution of Hubble tension in generalized entropic cosmology
gr-qc 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

A generalized-entropy dark energy model with one fitted extra parameter returns H0 near 73 km/s/Mpc on some datasets, but the reported model-comparison statistics do not favor it over LambdaCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

170 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

[1]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020
[2]

Aghanim et al

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

arXiv 2020
[3]

Aghanim et al

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

arXiv 2020
[4]

Mossa et al

V. Mossa et al. , Nature 587, 210 (2020)

2020
[5]

Aiola et al

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

arXiv 2020
[6]

Alam et al

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

arXiv 2021
[7]

A. G. Riess et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2022
[8]

Verde, T

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

arXiv 2019

Show all 170 references

[9]

Knox and M

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

2020 arXiv
[10]

Di Valentino et al

E. Di Valentino et al. , Astropart. Phys. 131, 102605 (2021), arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[11]

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
[12]

Di Valentino, Universe 8, 399 (2022)

E. Di Valentino, Universe 8, 399 (2022)

2022
[13]

Kamionkowski and A

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

2023 arXiv
[14]

Verde, N

L. Verde, N. Sch¨ oneberg, and H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, (2023), arXiv:2311.13305 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[15]

Di Valentino and D

E. Di Valentino and D. Brout, eds., The Hubble Con- stant Tension, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cos- mology (Springer, 2024)

2024
[16]

Breuval, A

L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Murakami, D. Scol- nic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszy´ nski, (2024), arXiv:2404.08038 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[17]

S. Li, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, G. S. Anand, D. M. Scolnic, W. Yuan, L. Breuval, and C. D. Huang, As- trophys. J. 966, 20 (2024), arXiv:2401.04777 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[18]

Y. S. Murakami, A. G. Riess, B. E. Stahl, W. D. Ken- worthy, D.-M. A. Pluck, A. Macoretta, D. Brout, D. O. Jones, D. M. Scolnic, and A. V. Filippenko, JCAP 11, 10 046 (2023), arXiv:2306.00070 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Said et al., (2024), arXiv:2408.13842 [astro-ph.CO]

K. Said et al., (2024), arXiv:2408.13842 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[20]

Boubel, M

P. Boubel, M. Colless, K. Said, and L. Staveley- Smith, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533, 1550 (2024), arXiv:2408.03660 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[21]

W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, T. J. Hoyt, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, (2024), arXiv:2408.06153 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[22]

A. G. Riess et al. , (2024), arXiv:2408.11770 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[23]

Scolnic et al

D. Scolnic et al. , (2024), arXiv:2409.14546 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[24]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[25]

Di Valentino et al

E. Di Valentino et al. , Astropart. Phys. 131, 102604 (2021), arXiv:2008.11285 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[26]

Di Valentino and S

E. Di Valentino and S. Bridle, Symmetry10, 585 (2018)

2018
[27]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (Kilo-Degree Survey, DES), Open J. Astrophys. 6, 2305.17173 (2023), arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[28]

Tr¨ osteret al

T. Tr¨ osteret al. , Astron. Astrophys. 633, L10 (2020), arXiv:1909.11006 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[29]

Heymans et al

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

2021 arXiv
[30]

Dalal et al

R. Dalal et al. , Phys. Rev. D 108, 123519 (2023), arXiv:2304.00701 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[31]

Chen et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.04795 [astro-ph.CO]

S. Chen et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.04795 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Kim et al

J. Kim et al. (ACT, DESI), (2024), arXiv:2407.04606 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Faga et al

L. Faga et al. (DES), (2024), arXiv:2406.12675 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[34]

Harnois-Deraps et al

J. Harnois-Deraps et al. , (2024), arXiv:2405.10312 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[35]

Dvornik et al., Astron

A. Dvornik et al., Astron. Astrophys. 675, A189 (2023), arXiv:2210.03110 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[36]

Armijo, G

J. Armijo, G. A. Marques, C. P. Novaes, L. Thiele, J. A. Cowell, D. Grand´ on, M. Shirasaki, and J. Liu, (2024), arXiv:2410.00401 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[37]

K. K. Rogers and V. Poulin, (2023), arXiv:2311.16377 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[38]

R. C. Nunes and S. Vagnozzi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 5427 (2021), arXiv:2106.01208 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[39]

Perivolaropoulos, and A

Ruchika, L. Perivolaropoulos, and A. Melchiorri, (2024), arXiv:2408.03875 [astro-ph.CO]

2024
[40]

Lopez-Corredoira, F

M. Lopez-Corredoira, F. Melia, J. J. Wei, and C. Y. Gao, Astrophys. J. 970, 63 (2024), arXiv:2405.12665 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[41]

Pourojaghi, M

S. Pourojaghi, M. Malekjani, and Z. Davari, (2024), arXiv:2408.10704 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[42]

Risaliti, E

G. Risaliti, E. Lusso, E. Nardini, G. Bargiacchi, S. Bisogni, A. Sacchi, M. Signorini, and B. Trefoloni, Astron. Nachr. 344, e230054 (2023), arXiv:2304.13752 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[43]

Green and J

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

2024 arXiv
[44]

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
[45]

Jiang, W

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

2024 arXiv
[46]

Abdalla et al

E. Abdalla et al. , JHEAp 34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[47]

Perivolaropoulos and F

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

2022 arXiv
[48]

A. R. Khalife, M. B. Zanjani, S. Galli, S. G¨ unther, J. Lesgourgues, and K. Benabed, JCAP 04, 059 (2024), arXiv:2312.09814 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[49]

J. J. Givans and M. Kamionkowski, (2023), arXiv:2311.06196 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[50]

D. K. Hazra, B. Beringue, J. Errard, A. Shafieloo, and G. F. Smoot, (2024), arXiv:2406.06296 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[51]

Craig, D

N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers, and S. Rajendran, JHEP 09, 097 (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[52]

Carniani et al

S. Carniani et al. , Nature 633, 318–322 (2024)

2024
[53]

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

2024 arXiv
[54]

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
[55]

Roy Choudhury and T

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

2024 arXiv
[56]

Di Valentino, C

E. Di Valentino, C. Bøehm, E. Hivon, and F. R. Bouchet, Phys. Rev. D 97, 043513 (2018), arXiv:1710.02559 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[57]

Franco Abell´ an, R

G. Franco Abell´ an, R. Murgia, V. Poulin, and J. Lavalle, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063525 (2022), arXiv:2008.09615 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[58]

Roy Choudhury, S

S. Roy Choudhury, S. Hannestad, and T. Tram, JCAP 03, 084 (2021), arXiv:2012.07519 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[59]

A. He, M. M. Ivanov, R. An, and V. Gluscevic, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 954, L8 (2023), arXiv:2301.08260 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[60]

Tanimura, M

H. Tanimura, M. Douspis, N. Aghanim, and J. Kuruvilla, Astron. Astrophys. 674, A222 (2023), arXiv:2301.03939 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[61]

Caramete and L

A. Caramete and L. A. Popa, JCAP 02, 012 (2014), arXiv:1311.3856 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[62]

Giar` e, Phys

W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123545 (2024), arXiv:2404.12779 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[63]

Feng, D.-Z

L. Feng, D.-Z. He, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 290404 (2020), arXiv:1910.03872 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[64]

S. A. Adil, O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, A. A. Sen, and E. Specogna, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023527 (2024), arXiv:2306.08046 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[65]

Nesseris, G

S. Nesseris, G. Pantazis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 96, 023542 (2017), arXiv:1703.10538 [astro- ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[66]

Giar` e, J

W. Giar` e, J. Betts, C. van de Bruck, and E. Di Valentino, (2024), arXiv:2406.07493 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[67]

J. C. N. de Araujo, A. De Felice, S. Kumar, and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104057 (2021), arXiv:2106.09595 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[68]

Aboubrahim and P

A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, JCAP 09, 076 (2024), arXiv:2406.19284 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[69]

Uzan and C

J.-P. Uzan and C. Pitrou, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103505 (2024), arXiv:2312.12408 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[70]

Adi and E

T. Adi and E. D. Kovetz, Phys. Rev. D 103, 023530 (2021), arXiv:2011.13853 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[71]

G. P. Lynch, L. Knox, and J. Chluba, (2024), arXiv:2406.10202 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[72]

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

2024 arXiv
[73]

L. A. Escamilla, D. Fiorucci, G. Montani, and 11 E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101652 (2024), arXiv:2408.04354 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[74]

Akarsu, A

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

2024 arXiv
[75]

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
[76]

Sch¨ oneberg and L

N. Sch¨ oneberg and L. Vacher, (2024), arXiv:2407.16845 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[77]

Pedrotti, J.-Q

D. Pedrotti, J.-Q. Jiang, L. A. Escamilla, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, (2024), arXiv:2408.04530 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[78]

Chatrchyan, F

A. Chatrchyan, F. Niedermann, V. Poulin, and M. S. Sloth, (2024), arXiv:2408.14537 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[79]

Jiang, D

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

2024 arXiv
[80]

A. P. Schirra, M. Quartin, and L. Amendola, (2024), arXiv:2406.15347 [astro-ph.CO]

2024
[81]

Banik and N

I. Banik and N. Samaras, (2024), arXiv:2410.00804 [astro-ph.CO]

2024
[82]

Tiwari, B

Y. Tiwari, B. Ghosh, and R. K. Jain, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 220 (2024), arXiv:2301.09382 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[83]

B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pav´ on, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87, 036901 (2024), arXiv:2402.00819 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[84]

Kumar and R

S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 94, 123511 (2016), arXiv:1608.02454 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[85]

Murgia, S

R. Murgia, S. Gariazzo, and N. Fornengo, JCAP 04, 014 (2016), arXiv:1602.01765 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[86]

Kumar and R

S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 103511 (2017), arXiv:1702.02143 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[87]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043503 (2017), arXiv:1704.08342 [astro- ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[88]

Kumar, Phys

S. Kumar, Phys. Dark Univ. 33, 100862 (2021), arXiv:2102.12902 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[89]

Pan and W

S. Pan and W. Yang, (2023), arXiv:2310.07260 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[90]

Benisty, S

D. Benisty, S. Pan, D. Staicova, E. Di Valentino, and R. C. Nunes, (2024), arXiv:2403.00056 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[91]

W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083509 (2020), arXiv:2001.10852 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[92]

Forconi, W

M. Forconi, W. Giar` e, O. Mena, Ruchika, E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP 05, 097 (2024), arXiv:2312.11074 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[93]

Pourtsidou and T

A. Pourtsidou and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. D 94, 043518 (2016), arXiv:1604.04222 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[94]

Di Valentino, Mon

E. Di Valentino, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 502, 2065 (2021), arXiv:2011.00246 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[95]

Di Valentino and O

E. Di Valentino and O. Mena, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 500, L22 (2020), arXiv:2009.12620 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[96]

R. C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063529 (2021), arXiv:2107.09151 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[97]

W. Yang, A. Mukherjee, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123527 (2018), arXiv:1809.06883 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[98]

von Marttens, L

R. von Marttens, L. Lombriser, M. Kunz, V. Marra, L. Casarini, and J. Alcaniz, Phys. Dark Univ. 28, 100490 (2020), arXiv:1911.02618 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[99]

Lucca and D

M. Lucca and D. C. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123502 (2020), arXiv:2002.06127 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[100]

Y. Zhai, W. Giar` e, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP 07, 032 (2023), arXiv:2303.08201 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[101]

Bernui, E

A. Bernui, E. Di Valentino, W. Giar` e, S. Kumar, and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103531 (2023), arXiv:2301.06097 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[102]

G. A. Hoerning, R. G. Landim, L. O. Ponte, R. P. Rolim, F. B. Abdalla, and E. Abdalla, (2023), arXiv:2308.05807 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[103]

Giar` e, Y

W. Giar` e, Y. Zhai, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, and C. van de Bruck, (2024), arXiv:2404.02110 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[104]

L. A. Escamilla, O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. Vazquez, JCAP 11, 051 (2023), arXiv:2305.16290 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[105]

Z. C. Santana J´ unior, M. O. Costa, R. F. L. Holanda, and R. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123542 (2024), arXiv:2405.15726 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[106]

M. A. van der Westhuizen and A. Abebe, JCAP 01, 048 (2024), arXiv:2302.11949 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[107]

Silva, U

E. Silva, U. Z´ u˜ niga Bola˜ no, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, (2024), arXiv:2403.19590 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[108]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100666 (2020), arXiv:1908.04281 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[109]

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
[110]

N. N. Pooya, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043510 (2024), arXiv:2407.03766 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[111]

Halder, J

S. Halder, J. de Haro, T. Saha, and S. Pan, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083522 (2024), arXiv:2403.01397 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[112]

Castello, M

S. Castello, M. Mancarella, N. Grimm, D. Sobral- Blanco, I. Tutusaus, and C. Bonvin, JCAP 05, 003 (2024), arXiv:2311.14425 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[113]

Yao and X.-H

Y.-H. Yao and X.-H. Meng, Phys. Dark Univ. 39, 101165 (2023)

2023
[114]

K. R. Mishra, S. K. J. Pacif, R. Kumar, and K. Bamba, Phys. Dark Univ. 40, 101211 (2023), arXiv:2301.08743 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[115]

R. C. Nunes, S. Pan, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 94, 023508 (2016), arXiv:1605.01712 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[116]

Alestas, L

G. Alestas, L. Perivolaropoulos, and K. Tanidis, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023526 (2022), arXiv:2201.05846 [astro- ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[117]

Khosravi and M

N. Khosravi and M. Farhang, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063505 (2022), arXiv:2109.10725 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[118]

Theodoropoulos and L

A. Theodoropoulos and L. Perivolaropoulos, Universe 7, 300 (2021), arXiv:2109.06256 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[119]

Di Valentino, R

E. Di Valentino, R. Z. Ferreira, L. Visinelli, and U. Danielsson, Phys. Dark Univ. 26, 100385 (2019), arXiv:1906.11255 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[120]

Alestas, D

G. Alestas, D. Camarena, E. Di Valentino, L. Kazantzidis, V. Marra, S. Nesseris, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063538 (2022), arXiv:2110.04336 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[121]

Alestas and L

G. Alestas and L. Perivolaropoulos, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 504, 3956 (2021), arXiv:2103.04045 [astro- ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[122]

Alestas, L

G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083517 (2021), arXiv:2012.13932 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[123]

Akarsu, J

O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063528 (2020), arXiv:1912.08751 [astro-ph.CO]. 12

2020 arXiv
[124]

Akarsu, S

O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023513 (2023), arXiv:2211.05742 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[125]

Akarsu, S

O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123512 (2021), arXiv:2108.09239 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[126]

Giani, R

L. Giani, R. Von Marttens, and R. Camilleri, (2024), arXiv:2410.15295 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[127]

Akarsu, A

O. Akarsu, A. De Felice, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, E. Ozulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, (2024), arXiv:2402.07716 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[128]

Akarsu, E

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

2023 arXiv
[129]

Yadav, S

A. Yadav, S. Kumar, C. Kibris, and O. Akarsu, (2024), arXiv:2406.18496 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[130]

Benevento, W

G. Benevento, W. Hu, and M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103517 (2020), arXiv:2002.11707 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[131]

Y. Liu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 110, L021304 (2024), arXiv:2406.02956 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[132]

Frion, D

E. Frion, D. Camarena, L. Giani, T. Miranda, D. Bertacca, V. Marra, and O. F. Piattella, (2023), 10.21105/astro.2307.06320, arXiv:2307.06320 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[133]

M. A. Sabogal, E. Silva, R. C. Nunes, S. Kumar, E. Di Valentino, and W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123508 (2024), arXiv:2408.12403 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[134]

M. B. Gavela, L. Lopez Honorez, O. Mena, and S. Rigolin, JCAP 11, 044 (2010), arXiv:1005.0295 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[135]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063502 (2020), arXiv:1910.09853 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[136]

Y. Zhai, W. Giar` e, C. van de Bruck, E. D. Valentino, O. Mena, and R. C. Nunes, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023, 032 (2023)

2023
[137]

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
[138]

L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon, and W. Zim- dahl, Phys. Rev. D 67, 083513 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0303145

2003
[139]

H. E. S. Velten, R. F. vom Marttens, and W. Zimdahl, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3160 (2014), arXiv:1410.2509 [astro- ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[140]

Zimdahl and D

W. Zimdahl and D. Pav´ on, Gen. Rel. Grav. 35, 413 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210484

2003 arXiv
[141]

Bonilla, S

A. Bonilla, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, and S. Pan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 512, 4231 (2022), arXiv:2102.06149 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[142]

Di Gennaro and Y

S. Di Gennaro and Y. C. Ong, Universe 8, 541 (2022), arXiv:2205.09311 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[143]

V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023535 (2024), arXiv:2406.09604 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[144]

M. B. Gavela, D. Hernandez, L. Lopez Honorez, O. Mena, and S. Rigolin, JCAP 07, 034 (2009), [Er- ratum: JCAP 05, E01 (2010)], arXiv:0901.1611 [astro- ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[145]

J.-H. He, B. Wang, and E. Abdalla, Phys. Lett. B 671, 139 (2009), arXiv:0807.3471 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[146]

R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, S. Kumar, E. Di Valentino, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123506 (2022), arXiv:2203.08093 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[147]

Gariazzo, E

S. Gariazzo, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023530 (2022), arXiv:2111.03152 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[148]

D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP 07, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[149]

Brinckmann and J

T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Dark Univ. 24, 100260 (2019), arXiv:1804.07261 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[150]

Audren, J

B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, JCAP 02, 001 (2013), arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[151]

Gelman and D

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

1992
[152]

Aghanim et al

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

2020 arXiv
[153]

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[154]

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[155]

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

1998 arXiv
[156]

Perlmutter et al

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

1999 arXiv
[157]

Brout et al

D. Brout et al. , Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[158]

Rubin et al

D. Rubin et al. , (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[159]

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

2024 arXiv
[160]

G. E. Addison, Y. Huang, D. J. Watts, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, and J. L. Weiland, Astrophys. J. 818, 132 (2016), arXiv:1511.00055 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[161]

Akaike, IEEE Trans

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

1974
[162]

R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 90, 773 (1995)

1995
[163]

Heavens, Y

A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, E. Sellentin, H. Eggers, Z. Ho- senie, S. Kroon, and A. Mootoovaloo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 101301 (2017), arXiv:1704.03467 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[164]

Heavens, Y

A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, and E. Sellentin, (2017), arXiv:1704.03472 [stat.CO]

2017 arXiv
[165]

Asgari et al

M. Asgari et al. (KiDS), Astron. Astrophys. 645, A104 (2021), arXiv:2007.15633 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[166]

Camarena and V

D. Camarena and V. Marra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 504, 5164–5171 (2021)

2021
[167]

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

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

2024 arXiv
[168]

New Early Dark En- ergy as a solution to the H0 and S8 tensions,

F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, “New Early Dark En- ergy as a solution to the H0 and S8 tensions,” (2023), arXiv:2307.03481 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[169]

J. S. Cruz, F. Niedermann, and M. S. Sloth, JCAP 11, 033 (2023), arXiv:2305.08895 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[170]

Naidoo, M

K. Naidoo, M. Jaber, W. A. Hellwing, and M. Bil- icki, Phys. Rev. D109, 083511 (2024), arXiv:2209.08102 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020

[2] [2]

Aghanim et al

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

arXiv 2020

[3] [3]

Aghanim et al

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

arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

Mossa et al

V. Mossa et al. , Nature 587, 210 (2020)

2020

[5] [5]

Aiola et al

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

arXiv 2020

[6] [6]

Alam et al

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

arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

A. G. Riess et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Verde, T

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

arXiv 2019