Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 18 cited by

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

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims about 5-sigma evidence that the dark energy equation of state crossed the phantom divide near z≈0.5, switching from phantom-like behavior at high redshift to quintessence-like behavior at low redshift, without resolving…

desk verdict A competent late-time transition analysis whose 5-sigma headline is uncalibrated because z_dag is unidentified under the null; worth a serious referee, but the significance needs a boundary-corrected test. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20664 v2 pith:VUMTPHPV submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Mateus Scherer , Miguel A. Sabogal , Rafael C. Nunes , Antonio De Felice This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords darkenergyequationofstatephantomcrossingquintessencelate-timetransitionDESIBAOHubbletensionVCDMmodelcomparison
topics Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
open problems Dark EnergyThe 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

The paper argues that the combined cosmic microwave background, baryon acoustic oscillation, and supernova data favor a dark energy equation of state that changes behavior at late times: phantom-like (w < −1) at redshifts above about 0.5 and quintessence-like (w > −1) below. The strongest signal comes from combining Planck CMB data, DESI DR2 BAO measurements, and the DES Year 5 supernova sample, giving roughly 5-sigma significance over the cosmological-constant model. The authors stress that the transition does not resolve the Hubble tension, with the inferred H0 remaining around 66 km/s/Mpc. If the evidence holds, the cosmological constant would not be the full explanation of late-time acceleration, and a dynamical dark energy sector—embedded here in a stable modified-gravity theory called VCDM—would be required.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sign-switching equation-of-state parameterization $w(a) = -1 + \Delta\,\mathrm{sgn}(a_\dagger - a)$, whose two extra parameters ($\Delta$, the deviation magnitude, and $a_\dagger$ or $z_\dagger$, the transition epoch) let the data pick both the size and the direction of a late-time transition without prior bias. A smooth variant $w(N) = -1 + \Delta\tanh[\zeta(N_\dagger - N)]$ is embedded in the VCDM theory (a minimal modified gravity with no new propagating degrees of freedom) to show that the switch need not trigger instabilities. The statistical engine is the $\chi^2$-difference test with two additional degrees of freedom, supplemented by AIC and Bayes-factor comparisons, applied to MCMC chains over the full parameter set.

What would settle it

Generate mock catalogs that mimic Planck+DESI+DESY5 under a true $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, fit both the transition model and $\Lambda$CDM to each mock, and compare the observed $\Delta\chi^2\approx -27$ to the simulated null distribution; if the observed improvement is not as rare as a two-tailed $5\sigma$ fluctuation, the central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that the dark energy equation of state $w$ crosses the phantom divide $w=-1$ near redshift $z_\dagger\approx 0.49$--$0.53$, in the direction from phantom at high redshift to quintessence at low redshift. This is captured by the two-parameter extension $w(a) = -1 + \Delta\,\mathrm{sgn}(a_\dagger - a)$, where $\Delta<0$ means $w<-1$ before the transition and $w>-1$ after it; the smooth version uses $w(N) = -1 + \Delta\tanh[\zeta(N_\dagger - N)]$ and is embedded in the VCDM modified-gravity theory to keep perturbations stable. With Planck+DESI+DESY5, the fit improves by $\Delta\chi^2 \approx -27$ to $-29$ and the AIC by about $-23$, translating to a significance of $\sim 5\sigma$ ($4.9\sigma$ for the abrupt model, $5.1\sigma$ for the smooth VCDM model). The same negative-$\Delta$ signature appears, at lower significance, in every other dataset combination tested. The authors also find that the transition does not fully resolve the Hubble tension.

Load-bearing premise

The headline significance assumes that the $\chi^2$ difference between the 8-parameter transition model and the 6-parameter $\Lambda$CDM follows a $\chi^2$ distribution with 2 degrees of freedom; this standard likelihood-ratio regularity condition fails at $\Delta=0$ because the transition redshift is fully unidentifiable, so the reported $\sim 5\sigma$ may be inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the signal is real, the ΛCDM model is disfavored at about 5σ by the Planck+DESI+DESY5 combination, and by 2.7–3.6σ in other combinations, strengthening the case for dynamical dark energy.
  • The preferred cosmology has $w<-1$ at $z\gtrsim 0.5$ and $w>-1$ today, consistent with the trend reported by the DESI BAO data themselves.
  • The transition does not resolve the $H_0$ tension: the inferred Hubble constant remains near 66 km/s/Mpc, still in tension with local measurements.
  • The same negative-$\Delta$ preference appears in both the abrupt and the smooth VCDM versions, so the qualitative conclusion is independent of transition shape.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported significance may be overstated: when $\Delta=0$ the transition redshift is unidentifiable, so the $\chi^2$ difference is not guaranteed to follow a $\chi^2$ distribution with 2 degrees of freedom; calibrating the null distribution via simulations could shift the claimed evidence.
  • Part of the DESY5-driven signal could be a supernova systematics artifact: the paper notes a ~0.04 magnitude offset between low- and high-redshift SN Ia, and a joint reanalysis of all three SN samples with a unified systematic model might reduce the significance.
  • A falsifiable consequence: a real transition at $z\approx 0.5$ should also affect the growth of cosmic structure, so redshift-space distortion and lensing measurements at $0.5\lesssim z\lesssim 1$ could either corroborate or rule out the mechanism.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-parameter extension of ΛCDM in which the dark-energy equation of state switches discontinuously (w†CDM) or smoothly (w†VCDM) between w=-1+Δ and w=-1-Δ at a transition redshift z†. The authors fit this model to Planck CMB data, DESI DR2 BAO measurements, and the PantheonPlus, Union3, and DESY5 supernova samples, using CLASS and MontePython. They report a consistent preference for Δ<0 (phantom-to-quintessence transition) with z† around 0.5, and claim the strongest evidence for Planck+DESI+DESY5, with a significance exceeding ~5σ obtained from a chi-square difference test. They also report AIC improvements and Bayes factors favoring the extended model, while explicitly stating that the transition does not resolve the Hubble tension.

Significance. If the claimed ~5σ significance were reliable, this would be an important result: it would substantially challenge ΛCDM and point to a specific late-time transition in the dark-energy sector, consistent with the DESI DR2 preference for evolving dark energy. The paper's strengths include the use of current public datasets, the two-model (phenomenological and VCDM) cross-check, and the explicit caveat that H0 tension is not resolved. The consistency of the negative Δ preference across dataset combinations is suggestive. However, the headline significance is computed under an invalid asymptotic approximation, and the strongest signal comes from a supernova sample with a known internal offset relative to PantheonPlus. The central claim therefore needs recalibration before the evidence can be considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [IV A, Eqs. (12)-(13) and Table III] The assumption that Δχ² follows a chi-square distribution with 2 degrees of freedom is not valid for this model. Under the null hypothesis Δ=0, the transition redshift z† is completely unidentifiable: the predicted observables are independent of z† when Δ=0. The likelihood-ratio statistic therefore violates the regularity conditions required for the asymptotic chi-square approximation. The correct null distribution is not χ²_2; it typically includes a contribution from profiling over the unidentifiable parameter, producing heavier tails than χ²_1 and a prior-dependent mixture. Since every significance in Table III (including the 4.9/5.1σ entries) is derived from Eqs. (12)-(13), the headline 'exceeding ~5σ' reported in the abstract is uncalibrated and likely overstated. The authors should provide a null distribution calibrated by simulation from the best-fit ΛCDM model, or a proper analytic treatment of the non-identifiability, and then re-evaluate all p-values and sigmas. Until this is done, the central statistical claim cannot be supported.
  2. [V, Planck+DESI+DESY5 (Table II)] The strongest evidence is obtained exclusively with the DESY5 sample, and the text acknowledges a ~0.04 mag offset between DESY5 and PantheonPlus, citing Ref. [162]. The reported Δχ² and the derived 5σ significance do not propagate this systematic difference into the significance calculation, so the headline result is conditional on the DESY5 calibration being correct. The authors state that the offset 'may partly explain the enhanced deviation,' but they do not quantify how the significance would change if the offset were treated as a systematic uncertainty. Given that the 5σ claim rests entirely on this dataset combination, the paper should either incorporate the offset as a nuisance parameter, report a shifted-magnitude sensitivity test, or demote the DESY5 combination in the abstract in favor of the more robust (though lower-significance) combinations. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV A, Eq. (13)] The conversion from p-value to sigma uses a two-tailed Gaussian quantile, σ = Φ^{-1}(1-p/2), but the chi-square difference test is one-sided: only negative Δχ² values count as evidence for the extended model. Using p/2 inflates the reported significance, albeit slightly. The standard one-sided conversion is σ = Φ^{-1}(1-p), or the authors should explain why a two-tailed interpretation is appropriate here.
  2. [III and IV] The smoothness parameter ζ in the VCDM model is fixed to 10^1.5 for all runs, and the paper does not demonstrate that the main results are insensitive to this choice. A brief test with ζ varied over a range (or a statement of why this value is theoretically motivated) would strengthen the robustness of the VCDM results.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The test is described as 'agnostic', but the parametrization imposes a specific functional form with a single sign-change transition. The paper could avoid overstatement by referring to the model as 'minimally parametrized' rather than fully agnostic, since the form of w(a) is fixed in advance.
  4. [Figure 4 and general text] In Figure 4 the labels 'w CDM' and 'w VCDM' are partially overwritten, and some numerical values of ln B are not clearly visible; the figure should be redrawn for legibility. Several language issues also appear in the text, such as 'in relative good agreement' and 'the under consideration in this work'; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transition parameters are fitted to the data and used for standard model comparison; no derivation reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a two-parameter extension of Lambda CDM (Delta and z_dagger) fits a combination of cosmological datasets substantially better than Lambda CDM. This is a parameter-estimation and model-comparison exercise, not a first-principles prediction. The parameters are constrained by the same data used to compute Delta chi^2, which is standard practice and is not circular: the model is not defined in terms of the data, and the likelihood is computed from the data independently of the conclusion. The VCDM embedding in Sec. III is presented as a theoretical consistency check after the phenomenological w-switch model is introduced, and the paper explicitly states that the smooth form in Eq. (8) is an adopted functional approximation for the switch, not a prediction derived from VCDM. The citation to VCDM [133] is used as an existing theoretical framework by a co-author, but it is not load-bearing for the statistical evidence; the w-switch model stands on its own as a phenomenological parametrization. The strongest caveat, noted also by the skeptic summary, is that the 5-sigma significance is computed under the assumption in Sec. IV A that Delta chi^2 follows a chi-square distribution with two degrees of freedom, even though z_dagger is unidentifiable under the null Delta = 0. That is a statistical calibration concern about the validity of the likelihood-ratio approximation, not circular reasoning: the chi-square assumption is an external statistical approximation, not an input that has been renamed as a result. The Bayes factor evidence (ln B_ij ~ -9) provides an independent, albeit related, robustness check. Overall, no equation reduces to itself by construction, no fitted parameter is presented as a prediction from first principles, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the fitted parameters Delta and z_dagger, the hand-chosen smoothing width zeta, and standard cosmological assumptions. No new particle, force, or dimension is introduced; VCDM is a prior theory, not invented here. The most fragile inputs are the statistical null distribution and the DESY5 supernova systematics, which are not listed as free parameters but act as hidden assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • Delta = -0.162 +/- 0.031 (Planck+DR2+DESY5, wCDM); ranges -0.10 to -0.23 across datasets
    Controls the size and sign of the equation-of-state jump at the transition; fitted to the data and the main parameter behind the claimed detection.
  • z_dagger = 0.490 +0.063/-0.079 (Planck+DR2+DESY5, wCDM); ranges about 0.17 to 0.55 across datasets
    The critical redshift of the transition; fitted to the data and central to the claimed late-time transition.
  • zeta = 10^1.5 = 31.62 (fixed, not sampled)
    Controls the smoothness of the tanh transition in the VCDM embedding; chosen by hand rather than fitted, and the robustness of results to this choice is not fully explored.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW background with kappa = 0 is assumed throughout.
    Introduced in Sec. II, Eqs. (1)-(2). If spatial curvature is non-negligible, the distance and Hubble fits shift.
  • domain assumption Dark energy is modeled as a perfect fluid with equation of state w(a) given by a step or tanh function and no anisotropic stress.
    This is the parametrization being tested; it excludes other dynamics such as dark sector interactions or modified gravity beyond VCDM.
  • domain assumption The PPF approximation is adequate for perturbation evolution in the presence of the equation-of-state discontinuity.
    The paper adopts the PPF scheme from Ref. [135] after Eq. (7) without validating its accuracy near the sharp transition.
  • domain assumption The VCDM embedding is stable and its perturbation equations differ from Lambda-CDM only in the momentum constraint.
    The paper relies on prior VCDM papers for stability and does not provide a new formal proof in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Challenging $\Lambda$CDM: 5$\sigma$ Evidence for a Dynamical Dark Energy Late-Time Transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUMTPHPV

@misc{pith2026250420664,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Challenging $\Lambda$CDM: 5$\sigma$ Evidence for a Dynamical Dark Energy Late-Time Transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUMTPHPV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20664}
}
abstract

Recently, there has been considerable debate regarding potential evidence for the dynamical nature of dark energy (DE), particularly in light of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) measurements released by DESI survey. In this work, we propose an agnostic test that simultaneously constrains the dark energy (DE) equation of state (EoS) and probes the possibility of a transition between the quintessence and phantom regimes, or vice versa. Our initial approach is independent of physical priors, allowing the data to determine which behavior best fits the parameters. We then consider a minimally modified gravity theory known as VCDM, into which we can map our initial approximation, placing it within a theoretically stable framework. To this end, we incorporate the most up-to-date datasets available, including BAO measurements from DESI-DR2, Type Ia Supernovae from the PantheonPlus, DESY5, and Union3 samples, as well as Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data from Planck. Our analysis reveals strong and statistically significant evidence for a quintessence-phantom transition across various data combinations. \textit{The strongest evidence is found for Planck+DESI+DESY5, with a significance exceeding $\sim$5$\sigma$ in favor of a quintessence-phantom transition at $z_{\dag} = 0.493^{+0.063}_{-0.081}$}. Beyond this redshift, the EoS remains within the phantom regime, while for $z < z_{\dag}$, it favors the quintessence regime. Despite this strong indication, \textit{we find that such transitions do not resolve the $H_0$ tension}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20664 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (left panel) shows the evolution of w(a) un￾dergoing an abrupt transition, illustrating the model’s predictive behavior for different values of ∆ and a†. This functional form enforces a piecewise behavior in which w(a) shifts from w = −1 + ∆ for a < a† to w = −1 − ∆ for a > a†. Here, ∆ quantifies deviations from the cosmo￾logical constant, while a† denotes the transition epoch. By treating ∆ and a† as free parameter… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left panel: Marginalized one-dimensional posterior distributions and contours (68% and 95% CL) for the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Left panel: Statistical reconstruction of the dark energy equation of state at 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The values of ln [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left panel: The 2D contours at 68% and 95% confidence levels for the parameters ∆– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Best-fit curves for the rescaled distance–redshift relations in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 18 Pith papers

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

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

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

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

  2. Dark Energy Crosses the Line: Quantifying and Testing the Evidence for Phantom Crossing

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

    Using CPL fits to six data combinations, the paper finds 3.1-5.2 sigma preference for a phantom-to-quintessence crossing of the dark energy equation of state, and shows that modified non-crossing models generally fit ...

  3. Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data

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

    NEC-obeying hilltop and exponential quintessence models give at most marginal improvement over the cosmological constant against DESI 2024 data, and the prominent k=10 hilltop 'excellent mimic' claim is an artifact of...

  4. 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.

  5. Robust Preference for Dark Sector Interactions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Interacting dark matter–dark energy models fit DESI BAO and CMB data as well as evolving-dark-energy (CPL) models, with a coupling preference that persists under DES-Dovekie supernova recalibration.

  6. Controlled Tension Forecasting: Quantifying Cross-Probe Biases in $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Controlled mock analyses show that cross-probe calibration tensions — in matter density, H0, supernova brightness, or sound horizon — can fake 3–10σ apparent dynamical-dark-energy signals while the true cosmology is ΛCDM.

  7. Cosmological constraints on Galileon dark energy with broken shift symmetry

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A broken shift symmetric cubic Galileon with a quadratic potential, fitted to DESI DR2, supernova and CMB data, is strongly favored over ΛCDM for DESY5/Union3 supernovae and reproduces the phantom-crossing equation of...

  8. Revisiting Heat Flux Analysis of Tungsten Monoblock Divertor on EAST using Physics-Informed Neural Network

    cs.LG 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A physics-informed neural network matches finite element accuracy for EAST divertor heat flux while running about 40 times faster.

  9. Constraints on Barrow and Tsallis Holographic Dark Energy from DESI DR2 BAO data

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Barrow and Tsallis holographic dark energy models fit DESI DR2 data but are disfavored by information criteria versus LambdaCDM and do not ease the Hubble tension.

  10. What solves the Hubble tension in phenomenological dark energy models at background level?

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

    For PEDE and GOHDE models, the apparent high Hubble constant comes from dataset choice and priors; easing the tension requires a future violation of the null energy condition.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. Constraints on transition redshift utilizing the latest H(z) measurements and comments on the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A meta-analysis of published transition-redshift constraints finds z_tr ≈ 0.65, which the authors suggest overlaps with the redshift where the Hubble tension begins.

  14. Two Dynamical Scenarios for Binned Master Sample Interpretation

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

    A model where dark energy is created by gravity and interacts with matter can mimic the decreasing running Hubble constant seen in binned supernovae, but only after its free parameter is tuned to that same trend.

  15. Constraints on Dark Energy Models Using Late Universe Probes

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using late-universe probes only, the authors find all dark energy models remain within 1-2 sigma of Lambda CDM, which wins the Bayesian model comparison, and confirm that DESI's LRG1 and LRG2 points drive the dynamica...

  16. Topological defects as effective dynamical dark energy

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A few percent domain-wall component gives a mild (Δχ² = -1.72) improvement over ΛCDM when fitting DESI DR2 BAO and DESY5 supernovae, but the evidence is inconclusive.

  17. Tsallis-Cirto Hubble parameter: Explaining DESI data and High redshift Supermassive Black Hole

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper tunes a non-comoving-fluid Hubble parameter to the CMB angular scale, then uses the same curve to claim consistency with DESI/CC data and enough time for high-redshift black holes to grow.

  18. Dynamical Dark Energy Emerges from Massive Gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Bigravity with a graviton mass near 4e-33 eV reproduces the DESI-hinted evolving dark energy and is claimed to fit combined cosmological data better than LambdaCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

165 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 18 Pith papers

  1. [162]

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

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

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Aghanim et al

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

    arXiv 2020

  3. [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

  4. [3]

    Aghanim et al

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

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

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

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

    2020

  6. [5]

    Aiola et al

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

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Alam et al

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

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

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

    arXiv 2022

Show all 165 references
  1. [8]

    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

  2. [9]

    Verde, N

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

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    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

  4. [11]

    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

  5. [12]

    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

  6. [13]

    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, 046 (2023), arXiv:2306.00070 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Verde, T

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

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Knox and M

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

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Di Valentino et al

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

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    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

  11. [18]

    Di Valentino, Universe 8, 399 (2022)

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

    2022

  12. [19]

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

    K. Said et al., (2024), arXiv:2408.13842 [astro-ph.CO]. 14

    2024 arXiv

  13. [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

  14. [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

  15. [22]

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

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Scolnic et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Asgari et al

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

    2021 arXiv

  18. [25]

    M. A. Troxel et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 98, 043528 (2018), arXiv:1708.01538 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A. H. Wright et al. , (2025), arXiv:2503.19441 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    St¨ olzner et al

    B. St¨ olzner et al. , (2025), arXiv:2503.19442 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  21. [28]

    Louis et al

    T. Louis et al. (ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Sailer et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.04607 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Sailer et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.04607 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Anbajagane et al., (2025), arXiv:2502.17677 [astro- ph.CO]

    D. Anbajagane et al., (2025), arXiv:2502.17677 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  25. [32]

    Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, M

    C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, M. Zennaro, G. Aric` o, D. Alonso, and R. E. Angulo, JCAP 08, 024 (2024), arXiv:2403.13794 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Sugiyama et al

    S. Sugiyama et al. , Phys. Rev. D 108, 123521 (2023), arXiv:2304.00705 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    M. M. Ivanov, A. Obuljen, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, and M. W. Toomey, (2024), arXiv:2409.10609 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    S.-F. Chen, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, and L. Wenzl, (2024), arXiv:2406.13388 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

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

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Kazantzidis and L

    L. Kazantzidis and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 97, 103503 (2018), arXiv:1803.01337 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Karim et al., JCAP 02, 045 (2025), arXiv:2408.15909 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Karim et al., JCAP 02, 045 (2025), arXiv:2408.15909 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Dalal et al

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

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Akarsu, E

    O. Akarsu, E. O. Colg´ ain, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, (2024), arXiv:2410.23134 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    S. A. Adil, O. Akarsu, M. Malekjani, E. O. Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 528, L20 (2023), arXiv:2303.06928 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Giar` e, O

    W. Giar` e, O. Mena, E. Specogna, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2507.01848 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  36. [43]

    Di Valentino et al., (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    E. Di Valentino et al., (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [44]

    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

  38. [45]

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

    2025 arXiv

  39. [46]

    M. S. Souza, A. M. Barcelos, R. C. Nunes, O. Akarsu, and S. Kumar, Universe 11, 2 (2025), arXiv:2501.18031 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [47]

    G´ omez-Valent and J

    A. G´ omez-Valent and J. Sol` a Peracaula, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139391 (2025), arXiv:2412.15124 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Akarsu, A

    O. Akarsu, A. De Felice, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103527 (2024), arXiv:2406.07526 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    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

  43. [50]

    Hu and F

    J.-P. Hu and F. Y. Wang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 576 (2022), arXiv:2203.13037 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Mukherjee, K

    P. Mukherjee, K. F. Dialektopoulos, J. Levi Said, and J. Mifsud, JCAP 09, 060 (2024), arXiv:2402.10502 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Alestas, L

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

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Tsujikawa and M

    S. Tsujikawa and M. Sami, JCAP 01, 006 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0608178

    2007 arXiv

  47. [54]

    B. A. Bassett, M. Kunz, J. Silk, and C. Ungarelli, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 336, 1217 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0203383

    2002

  48. [55]

    C. J. A. P. Martins and M. P. Colomer, Astron. Astro- phys. 616, A32 (2018), arXiv:1806.07653 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [56]

    M. A. Sabogal, E. Silva, R. C. Nunes, S. Kumar, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043531 (2025), arXiv:2501.10323 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [57]

    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

  51. [58]

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

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    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

  53. [60]

    Huang, S.-J

    L. Huang, S.-J. Wang, and W.-W. Yu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 220413 (2025), arXiv:2401.14170 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [61]

    M. T. Manoharan, (2025), arXiv:2505.24743 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [62]

    B.-H. Lee, W. Lee, E. O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, and S. Thakur, JCAP 04, 004 (2022), arXiv:2202.03906 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Dwivedi and M

    S. Dwivedi and M. H¨ og˚ as, Universe10, 406 (2024), arXiv:2407.04322 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Specogna, S

    E. Specogna, S. A. Adil, E. Ozulker, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, O. Akarsu, and A. A. Sen, (2025), arXiv:2504.17859 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Yashiki, (2025), arXiv:2505.23382 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Yashiki, (2025), arXiv:2505.23382 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  59. [66]

    T. Liu, X. Li, and J. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2504.21373 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  60. [67]

    Z. Zhou, Z. Miao, S. Bi, C. Ai, and H. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2506.23556 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  61. [68]

    M. A. Karim et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14745 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [69]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), Astron. J. 168, 58 (2024), arXiv:2306.06308 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [70]

    M. A. Karim et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [71]

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

    2024 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Calderon et al

    R. Calderon et al. (DESI), JCAP 10, 048 (2024), arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Garcia-Quintero et al

    C. Garcia-Quintero et al. , (2025), arXiv:2504.18464 [astro-ph.CO]. 15

    2025 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Ahlen et al., (2025), arXiv:2504.20338 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Ahlen et al., (2025), arXiv:2504.20338 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  69. [76]

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

    2024 arXiv

  70. [77]

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

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

    2024

  71. [78]

    Elbers et al

    W. Elbers et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D 111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Silva, M

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123511 (2025), arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  74. [81]

    R. Shah, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal, (2025), arXiv:2503.21652 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, (2025), arXiv:2503.21600 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Paliathanasis, (2025), arXiv:2503.20896 [astro- ph.CO]

    A. Paliathanasis, (2025), arXiv:2503.20896 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  77. [84]

    S. Hur, V. Jejjala, M. J. Kavic, D. Minic, and T. Takeuchi, (2025), arXiv:2503.20854 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  78. [85]

    L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.20178 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  79. [86]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, (2025), arXiv:2503.19428 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Pan and G

    J. Pan and G. Ye, (2025), arXiv:2503.19898 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  81. [88]

    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

  82. [89]

    Jiang, D

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

    2024 arXiv

  83. [90]

    Chakraborty, P

    A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, S. Das, and K. Dutta, (2025), arXiv:2503.10806 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  84. [91]

    S. Pan, S. Paul, E. N. Saridakis, and W. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2504.00994 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  85. [92]

    C. You, D. Wang, and T. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2504.00985 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  86. [93]

    Afroz and S

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee, (2025), arXiv:2504.16868 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  87. [94]

    Wang, (2025), arXiv:2504.15635 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2504.15635 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  88. [95]

    Adolf, M

    P. Adolf, M. Hirsch, S. Krieg, H. P¨ as, and M. Tabet, (2025), arXiv:2504.15332 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  89. [96]

    B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, (2025), arXiv:2504.15190 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  90. [97]

    Kumar, A

    U. Kumar, A. Ajith, and A. Verma, (2025), arXiv:2504.14419 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  91. [98]

    Giar` e, T

    W. Giar` e, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101906 (2025), arXiv:2502.10264 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  92. [99]

    E. M. Teixeira, W. Giar` e, N. B. Hogg, T. Montandon, A. Poudou, and V. Poulin, (2025), arXiv:2504.10464 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  93. [100]

    Ye and Y

    G. Ye and Y. Cai, (2025), arXiv:2503.22515 [gr-qc]

    2025

  94. [101]

    Roy Choudhury, (2025), arXiv:2504.15340 [astro- ph.CO]

    S. Roy Choudhury, (2025), arXiv:2504.15340 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  95. [102]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  96. [103]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D 111, L041303 (2025), arXiv:2409.17019 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  97. [104]

    M. A. C. Alvarez, L. Graef, and R. Brandenberger, (2025), arXiv:2502.17395 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  98. [105]

    Wang, (2025), arXiv:2504.21481 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2504.21481 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  99. [106]

    de Souza, G

    R. de Souza, G. Rodrigues, and J. Alcaniz, (2025), arXiv:2504.16337 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  100. [107]

    Toda and O

    Y. Toda and O. Seto, (2025), arXiv:2504.09136 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  101. [108]

    E. O. Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin, (2025), arXiv:2504.04417 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  102. [109]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  103. [110]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen, and L. Visinelli, (2025), arXiv:2505.02932 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  104. [111]

    G. G. Luciano, A. Paliathanasis, and E. N. Saridakis, (2025), arXiv:2506.03019 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  105. [112]

    Mukherjee and A

    P. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, (2025), arXiv:2505.19083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  106. [113]

    Paliathanasis, (2025), arXiv:2505.15207 [gr-qc]

    A. Paliathanasis, (2025), arXiv:2505.15207 [gr-qc]

    2025

  107. [114]

    Paliathanasis, (2025), arXiv:2504.11132 [gr-qc]

    A. Paliathanasis, (2025), arXiv:2504.11132 [gr-qc]

    2025

  108. [115]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergenov, and S. V. Ketov, (2025), arXiv:2505.10305 [gr-qc]

    2025

  109. [116]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2505.24732 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  110. [117]

    Ling, G.-H

    J.-L. Ling, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, J.-F. Zhang, S.-J. Wang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2505.22369 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  111. [118]

    Lee, (2025), arXiv:2505.19052 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Lee, (2025), arXiv:2505.19052 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  112. [119]

    Hussain, S

    S. Hussain, S. Arora, A. Wang, and B. Rose, (2025), arXiv:2505.09913 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  113. [120]

    Van Raamsdonk and C

    M. Van Raamsdonk and C. Waddell, (2025), arXiv:2505.10662 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  114. [121]

    H. An, C. Han, and B. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2506.10075 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  115. [122]

    Li, Y.-M

    T.-N. Li, Y.-M. Zhang, Y.-H. Yao, P.-J. Wu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2506.09819 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  116. [123]

    van der Westhuizen, D

    M. van der Westhuizen, D. Figueruelo, R. Thubisi, S. Sahlu, A. Abebe, and A. Paliathanasis, (2025), arXiv:2505.23306 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  117. [124]

    W. Lin, L. Visinelli, and T. T. Yanagida, (2025), arXiv:2504.17638 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  118. [125]

    U. K. Tyagi, S. Haridasu, and S. Basak, (2025), arXiv:2504.11308 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  119. [126]

    Wu, (2025), arXiv:2504.09054 [astro-ph.CO]

    P.-J. Wu, (2025), arXiv:2504.09054 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  120. [127]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.- F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 976, 1 (2024), arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  121. [128]

    M. A. Sabogal and R. C. Nunes, (2025), arXiv:2505.24465 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  122. [129]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, (2025), arXiv:2506.21542 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  123. [130]

    ¨Oz¨ ulker, E

    E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, E. Di Valentino, and W. Giar` e, (2025), arXiv:2506.19053 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  124. [131]

    Bayat and M

    Z. Bayat and M. P. Hertzberg, (2025), arXiv:2505.18937 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  125. [132]

    Hussain, S

    S. Hussain, S. Arora, Y. Rana, B. Rose, and A. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2507.05207 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  126. [133]

    De Felice, A

    A. De Felice, A. Doll, and S. Mukohyama, JCAP 09, 034 (2020), arXiv:2004.12549 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  127. [134]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Mukohyama, and M. C. Pookkil- lath, Phys. Lett. B 816, 136201 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 818, 136364 (2021)], arXiv:2009.08718 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  128. [135]

    W. Fang, W. Hu, and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 78, 087303 (2008), arXiv:0808.3125 [astro-ph]. 16

    2008 arXiv

  129. [136]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Grav- itation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  130. [137]

    De Felice, J.-M

    A. De Felice, J.-M. Gerard, and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D 81, 063527 (2010), arXiv:0908.3439 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  131. [138]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Mukohyama, and M. C. Pookkillath, Phys. Rev. D 105, 104013 (2022), arXiv:2110.14496 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  132. [139]

    De Felice, K.-i

    A. De Felice, K.-i. Maeda, S. Mukohyama, and M. C. Pookkillath, JCAP 03, 030 (2023), arXiv:2211.14760 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  133. [140]

    A. F. Jalali, P. Martens, and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044053 (2024), arXiv:2306.10672 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  134. [141]

    De Felice, K.-i

    A. De Felice, K.-i. Maeda, S. Mukohyama, and M. C. Pookkillath, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024028 (2022), arXiv:2204.08294 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  135. [142]

    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

  136. [143]

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

    2011 arXiv

  137. [144]

    Brinckmann and J

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

    2019 arXiv

  138. [145]

    Audren, J

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

    2013 arXiv

  139. [146]

    Gelman and D

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

    1992

  140. [147]

    Aghanim et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  141. [148]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  142. [149]

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

    1998 arXiv

  143. [150]

    Perlmutter et al

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

    1999 arXiv

  144. [151]

    Brout et al

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

    2022 arXiv

  145. [152]

    Rubin et al

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

    2023 arXiv

  146. [153]

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

    2024 arXiv

  147. [154]

    Akaike, IEEE Trans

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

    1974

  148. [155]

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

    1995

  149. [156]

    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

  150. [157]

    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

  151. [158]

    L. A. Escamilla, W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP 05, 091 (2024), arXiv:2307.14802 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  152. [159]

    Alestas, L

    G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123516 (2020), arXiv:2004.08363 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  153. [160]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, JCAP 01, 013 (2020), arXiv:1908.01391 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  154. [161]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Phys. Lett. B 761, 242 (2016), arXiv:1606.00634 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  155. [163]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  156. [164]

    Smirnov, (2025), arXiv:2505.03870 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Smirnov, (2025), arXiv:2505.03870 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  157. [165]

    Andriot, (2025), arXiv:2505.10410 [hep-th]

    D. Andriot, (2025), arXiv:2505.10410 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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