pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25373 · v2 · pith:CH2BAKO5new · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Generalizing the CPL Parametrization through Dark Sector Interaction

Mikel Artola , Ruth Lazkoz , Vincenzo Salzano This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 08:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords interacting dark energyCPL parametrizationdark sector couplingcosmological constraintsBayesian model comparisonDESI observationsLambda CDM
0
0 comments X

The pith

Generalized interacting dark energy models with CPL parametrization show no Bayesian preference over Lambda CDM despite some parametric deviations.

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

The paper generalizes the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder parametrization for dark energy by incorporating a non-gravitational interaction with dark matter through a kernel that allows both constant and scale-factor-dependent couplings. This setup permits closed-form expressions for the evolving energy densities of both components. When fitted to recent data including DESI baryon acoustic oscillations, Pantheon+ supernovae, and compressed Planck plus ACT cosmic microwave background likelihoods, constant-coupling versions produce noticeable parametric shifts away from a cosmological constant, while dynamical couplings mute those shifts. Bayesian evidence calculations ultimately show that these interacting models are not favored over the baseline Lambda CDM cosmology. The authors argue this underscores the value of Bayesian comparisons in addition to traditional parameter fits when evaluating dark energy models.

Core claim

Adopting the interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de together with the CPL equation of state, we obtain analytical energy density solutions for dark matter and dark energy. Constraints from DESI DR2 BAO, Pantheon+ SNIa and Planck+ACT CMB data reveal that constant coupling models deviate from Lambda at 2.7σ–2.9σ, whereas dynamical coupling models reduce this to 1.3σ–1.5σ. Bayesian model comparison demonstrates that none of the explored IDE scenarios is preferred over Lambda CDM.

What carries the argument

The generalized interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de that couples dark matter and dark energy while permitting both constant and dynamical strengths, in combination with the CPL dark energy equation of state, to derive exact density evolution equations.

If this is right

  • Constant coupling parameters produce deviations from a pure cosmological constant at the 2.7 to 2.9 sigma level.
  • Dynamical couplings lower the significance of deviations to 1.3 to 1.5 sigma.
  • Bayesian evidence does not favor any of the interacting dark energy scenarios over the concordance Lambda CDM model.
  • Reporting Bayesian evidence is necessary alongside maximum-likelihood analyses for robust conclusions on dark energy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future surveys with higher precision might still detect weak interactions if they exist at levels below current sensitivity.
  • The reduction in significance with dynamical couplings suggests that time-varying interactions might better accommodate data without overpredicting deviations.
  • Similar interaction generalizations could be tested with other dark energy equation-of-state forms to check consistency of the no-preference result.

Load-bearing premise

The specific interaction kernel form Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de is assumed to adequately describe the non-gravitational energy exchange between dark matter and dark energy.

What would settle it

A dataset or analysis that yields a Bayes factor strongly favoring one of the IDE models over Lambda CDM would falsify the paper's conclusion that no such preference exists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25373 by Mikel Artola, Ruth Lazkoz, Vincenzo Salzano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of the Bayes factors ln B iCDM ΛCDM = log ZiCDM − log ZΛCDM, considering ΛCDM as the baseline reference, for different dataset combination. iCDM stands for the different constant and dynamical coupling cosmologies, indicated in the horizontal axis. Positive values reveal evidence in favor of iCDM models, whereas negative values favor ΛCDM. The background color reflects the significance of the ev… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: One- and two-dimensional marginalized posterior view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: One- and two-dimensional marginalized posterior view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate a hierarchy of interacting dark energy (IDE) models featuring a non-gravitational coupling between dark matter and dark energy. Specifically, we examine scenarios where the background interaction kernel, $Q = 3H(\delta + \eta a)\rho_\mathrm{de}$, allows for both constant and dynamical coupling parameters. Adopting the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder parametrization for the dark energy equation of state, $w_\mathrm{de} = w_0 + w_a(1-a)$, we derive closed analytical expressions for the energy densities of dark matter and dark energy. Afterwards, we obtain observational constraints using joint combinations of DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, Pantheon$+$ Type Ia supernovae, and Planck$+$ACT compressed cosmic microwave background likelihoods. For constant coupling models, we find parametric deviations from $\Lambda$ ranging from $2.7\sigma$ to $2.9\sigma$; however, for interactions with dynamical couplings, these significances are reduced to $1.3\sigma$--$1.5\sigma$. Ultimately, our Bayesian model comparison reveals that no investigated IDE scenario is statistically preferred over the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model. These results highlight the necessity of reporting Bayesian evidence alongside conventional frequentist maximum-likelihood analyses to ensure robust cosmological claims concerning dark energy evolution and interaction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines a class of interacting dark energy (IDE) models with background interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de, allowing both constant and dynamical couplings. Adopting the CPL parametrization w_de = w0 + wa(1-a), the authors derive closed analytical expressions for the dark-matter and dark-energy energy densities, then constrain the parameters (δ, η, w0, wa) using DESI DR2 BAO, Pantheon+ supernovae, and Planck+ACT compressed CMB likelihoods. They report 2.7–2.9σ parametric deviations from Λ for constant-coupling cases, reduced to 1.3–1.5σ for dynamical couplings, and conclude via Bayesian evidence that no IDE scenario is preferred over ΛCDM.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies new observational limits on dark-sector interactions and usefully demonstrates the value of reporting Bayesian evidence alongside frequentist constraints. The closed-form background solutions constitute a clear technical strength that aids reproducibility and future extensions.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3] §3 (Observational constraints) and the associated likelihood description: the analysis employs Planck+ACT compressed CMB likelihoods constructed under the assumption of standard, non-interacting perturbation evolution. The interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de alters the background continuity equations (explicitly solved in §2), but the manuscript provides no perturbation equations, effective fluid description, or numerical test confirming that the compressed likelihood remains a valid proxy once momentum exchange is included. This approximation directly underpins the reported 2.7–2.9σ deviations and the Bayesian model-comparison results.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] Table 1 (or equivalent parameter table): the reported 1σ uncertainties on δ and η for the constant-coupling case should be accompanied by the corresponding best-fit values and the exact data combination used for each row to facilitate direct comparison with the dynamical-coupling results.
  2. [§2] Equation (X) defining the interaction kernel: the factor of 3H is conventional but should be explicitly justified relative to other common normalizations (e.g., Q ∝ H ρ_de) to avoid reader confusion about the physical scale of δ and η.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below and describe the revisions we plan to make to improve clarity and transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Observational constraints) and the associated likelihood description: the analysis employs Planck+ACT compressed CMB likelihoods constructed under the assumption of standard, non-interacting perturbation evolution. The interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de alters the background continuity equations (explicitly solved in §2), but the manuscript provides no perturbation equations, effective fluid description, or numerical test confirming that the compressed likelihood remains a valid proxy once momentum exchange is included. This approximation directly underpins the reported 2.7–2.9σ deviations and the Bayesian model-comparison results.

    Authors: We agree that the use of compressed CMB likelihoods, which were constructed assuming standard non-interacting perturbation evolution, represents an approximation whose limitations should be explicitly discussed. Our analysis is centered on the background evolution, for which we have derived closed analytical expressions for the dark-matter and dark-energy densities. The compressed Planck+ACT likelihoods are employed here as a practical proxy for background-parameter constraints, a practice that appears in several existing studies of interacting dark-energy models. We acknowledge that the manuscript does not derive perturbation equations or perform numerical tests of the interaction's effect on the CMB power spectra. In the revised version we will add a dedicated paragraph in §3 that states this limitation clearly, notes that the reported parametric deviations and Bayesian evidence ratios are obtained under the background-only approximation, and indicates that a full perturbation treatment would be required to confirm the robustness of the 2.7–2.9σ (constant-coupling) and 1.3–1.5σ (dynamical-coupling) results. This addition will not change the central conclusion that Bayesian evidence does not favor any of the examined IDE scenarios over ΛCDM, but it will place the quantitative claims in proper context. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard derivation from assumed kernel plus external data constraints

full rationale

The paper posits an interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de together with CPL w_de, integrates the continuity equations to obtain closed-form ρ_dm(a) and ρ_de(a), then constrains the parameters against independent datasets (DESI BAO, Pantheon+, Planck+ACT compressed likelihoods) and performs Bayesian evidence comparison. No step equates a derived quantity to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation is load-bearing for the central result, and the likelihoods are treated as external benchmarks. The procedure is self-contained model specification followed by standard inference.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological assumptions plus the postulated interaction kernel and CPL form; several free parameters are introduced and fitted without independent evidence outside the data.

free parameters (4)
  • δ
    Constant part of the coupling strength, fitted to observational data.
  • η
    Coefficient of the scale-factor-dependent part of the coupling, fitted to data.
  • w0
    Present-day dark energy equation-of-state parameter in the CPL form.
  • wa
    Evolution parameter controlling time variation of w_de in CPL.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Background FLRW metric and modified continuity equations with interaction term Q
    Invoked to derive the analytical energy density solutions.
  • domain assumption CPL parametrization accurately describes dark energy evolution
    Adopted as the starting point for w_de.
invented entities (1)
  • Interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de no independent evidence
    purpose: To model non-gravitational energy transfer between dark matter and dark energy
    Postulated form that enables closed-form solutions; no independent evidence provided beyond fitting.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5772 in / 1616 out tokens · 57691 ms · 2026-05-21T08:27:39.465176+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Signatures of Modified Gravity Below $\mathcal{O}(10)$ Mpc in a Dynamical Dark Energy Background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Modified gravity below O(10) Mpc in a CPL dynamical dark energy background is required to suppress structure growth at low redshifts while satisfying CMB constraints from ISW and lensing.

  2. Coupled quintessence with a potential from supergravity exhibits sign-changing interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Coupled SUGRA quintessence is preferred by current data at >4σ over the uncoupled case, with sign-changing interaction producing phantom-crossing behavior statistically similar to the CPL parametrization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 51 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    It then follows from Eq

    Background viability Regarding DE, we first note that, provided that ra- diation and matter do not exhaust the energy con- tent of the Universe—their current total energy den- sity does not amount to the critical energy densityρ c = 3H2 0 /(8πG)—the current energy density of DE remains positive,ρ de,0 >0. It then follows from Eq. (10) that ρde(a)>0 over a...

    work page

  2. [2]

    doom factor

    Perturbative stability (the doom factord) While our study primarily focuses on the background evolution, the physical viability of IDE models is of- ten constrained by the stability of linear perturbations. To perform such analysis, a phenomenological covariant specification ofQ ν is required. Following [60], one can adopt the ansatz that the interaction ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    To miti- gate the impact of peculiar velocity uncertainties, which dominate at low redshifts, we restrict our analysis to the subset of SN atz >0.01 [67, 68]

    Type Ia supernovae (Pantheon+) We rely on the Pantheon+ compilation [65, 66], con- sisting on a set of 1701 light curves of 1550 distinct SN covering the redshift range 0.001< z <2.26. To miti- gate the impact of peculiar velocity uncertainties, which dominate at low redshifts, we restrict our analysis to the subset of SN atz >0.01 [67, 68]. The theoretic...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Cosmic microwave background (compressed likelihood) To constrain the cosmological parameters at early times, we consider the shift parameters derived from 5 the CMB power spectrum [70]. This approach incorpo- rates the essential geometric information of the CMB into a compact data vector, avoiding the computational ex- pense of evaluating the full Boltzma...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Higher-order interactions Pairwise interactions Interaction network Active Inactive Pairwise activation Inactivation Inactivation μ μ β Higher-order activation β, βΔ β βΔ β FIG

    Baryon acoustic oscillations (DESI DR 2) We utilize the latest BAO measurements from the Data Release 2 (DR2) of the DESI [21]. This dataset pro- vides constraints on the comoving distanceD M(z)/rd, the Hubble distanceD H(z)/rd, and the spherically aver- aged distanceD V(z)/rd across seven redshift bins span- ning 0.295≤z≤2.33. The theoretical prediction ...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2025

  6. [6]

    Einstein, The Field Equations of Gravitation, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, The Field Equations of Gravitation, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1915, 844–847 (1915)

    work page 1915

  7. [7]

    Einstein, On the General Theory of Relativity, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, On the General Theory of Relativity, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1915, 778–786 (1915), [Addendum: Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.)1915,799(1915)]

    work page 1915

  8. [8]

    C. M. Will, The Confrontation between General Rela- tivity and Experiment, Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. D 112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Observa- tional evidence from supernovae for an accelerating uni- verse and a cosmological constant, Astron. J.116, 1009– 1038 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  11. [11]

    Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Super- novae, Astrophys

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Super- novae, Astrophys. J.517, 565–586 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9812133

    work page arXiv 1999

  12. [12]

    D. J. Eisensteinet al.(SDSS), Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, Astrophys. J.633, 560– 574 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501171

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  13. [13]

    The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: Power-spectrum analysis of the final dataset and cosmological implications

    S. Coleet al.(2dFGRS), The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Sur- vey: Power-spectrum analysis of the final dataset and cosmological implications, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 362, 505–534 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501174

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  14. [14]

    A. E. Langeet al.(Boomerang), Cosmological parame- ters from the first results of BOOMERANG, Phys. Rev. D63, 042001 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0005004

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  15. [15]

    M. R. Noltaet al.(WMAP), First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Dark energy induced correlation with radio sources, Astrophys. J.608, 10–15 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0305097

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  16. [16]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    A. G. Riesset al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), SPT-3G D1: CMB tem- perature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    S. Casertanoet al.(H0DN), The Local Distance Net- work: a community consensus report on the measure- ment of the Hubble constant at 1% precision (2025), 13 arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Pantos and L

    I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, Dissecting the Hubble tension: Insights from a diverse set of Sound Horizon- free H0 measurements (2026), arXiv:2601.00650 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Erbenet al., CFHTLenS: The Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey – Imaging data and catalogue products, Mon

    T. Erbenet al., CFHTLenS: The Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey – Imaging data and catalogue products, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.433, 2545–2563 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.571, A16 (2014), arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(Kilo-Degree Survey, DES), DES Y3 + KiDS-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cos- mic shear surveys, Open J. Astrophys.6, 2305.17173 (2023), arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    A. H. Wrightet al., KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological con- straints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo- Degree Survey, Astron. Astrophys.703, A158 (2025), arXiv:2503.19441 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cos- mological constraints, Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup, and W. Handley, A Bayesian Perspective on Evidence for Evolving Dark Energy (2025), arXiv:2511.10631 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup, and W. Handley, The Bayesian view of DESI DR2: Evidence and tension in a combined analysis with CMB and supernovae across cosmological models (2026), arXiv:2603.05472 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), The Cos- moVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1–23 (1989)

    work page 1989

  31. [31]

    J. Martin, Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask), Comptes Rendus Physique13, 566–665 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant

    I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmolog- ical constant, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 896–899 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  33. [33]

    Coupled Quintessence

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  34. [34]

    Zimdahl and D

    W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Interacting quintessence, Phys. Lett. B521, 133–138 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0105479

    work page arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    Dark Energy and Dark Matter

    D. Comelli, M. Pietroni, and A. Riotto, Dark energy and dark matter, Phys. Lett. B571, 115–120 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302080

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  36. [36]

    L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon, and W. Zim- dahl, Interacting quintessence solution to the coincidence problem, Phys. Rev. D67, 083513 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0303145

    work page arXiv 2003

  37. [37]

    G. R. Farrar and P. J. E. Peebles, Interacting dark mat- ter and dark energy, Astrophys. J.604, 1–11 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307316

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  38. [38]

    Can vacuum decay in our Universe?

    P. Wang and X.-H. Meng, Can vacuum decay in our universe?, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 283–294 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0408495

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  39. [39]

    Matter density perturbations in interacting quintessence models

    G. Olivares, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Matter density perturbations in interacting quintessence models, Phys. Rev. D74, 043521 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607604

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  40. [40]

    H. M. Sadjadi and M. Alimohammadi, Cosmological co- incidence problem in interactive dark energy models, Phys. Rev. D74, 103007 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0610080

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  41. [41]

    Dark Interactions and Cosmological Fine-Tuning

    M. Quartin, M. O. Calvao, S. E. Joras, R. R. R. Reis, and I. Waga, Dark Interactions and Cosmological Fine- Tuning, JCAP05, 007, arXiv:0802.0546 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Interacting models may be key to solve the cosmic coincidence problem

    S. del Campo, R. Herrera, and D. Pavon, Interacting models may be key to solve the cosmic coincidence prob- lem, JCAP01, 020, arXiv:0812.2210 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Dynamics of interacting dark energy

    G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Maartens, and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Dynamics of interacting dark energy, Phys. Rev. D79, 063518 (2009), arXiv:0812.1827 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  44. [44]

    J.-H. He, B. Wang, and E. Abdalla, Testing the in- teraction between dark energy and dark matter via latest observations, Phys. Rev. D83, 063515 (2011), arXiv:1012.3904 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Interaction in the dark sector

    S. del Campo, R. Herrera, and D. Pav´ on, Interaction in the dark sector, Phys. Rev. D91, 123539 (2015), arXiv:1507.00187 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Cosmological constraints on parametrized interacting dark energy

    R. von Marttens, L. Casarini, D. F. Mota, and W. Zim- dahl, Cosmological constraints on parametrized interact- ing dark energy, Phys. Dark Univ.23, 100248 (2019), arXiv:1807.11380 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, I. Linear interacting dark energy: Analytical solutions and theoretical pathologies, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102119 (2025), arXiv:2509.04495 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, II. Non-linear interacting dark energy: Analytical solu- tions and theoretical pathologies, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102120 (2025), arXiv:2509.04494 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, III. Interacting Dark Energy: Summary of models, Pathologies, and Constraints, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102121 (2025), arXiv:2509.04496 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    S. M. Carroll, Quintessence and the rest of the world, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3067–3070 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9806099

    work page arXiv 1998

  51. [51]

    Hagiwaraet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of par- ticle physics

    K. Hagiwaraet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of par- ticle physics. Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D66, 010001 (2002)

    work page 2002

  52. [52]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, The Cosmological Con- stant and Dark Energy, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559–606 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  53. [53]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interactions: Theoreti- cal Challenges, Cosmological Implications and Observa- tional Signatures, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 096901 (2016), arXiv:1603.08299 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [55]

    Y. L. Bolotin, A. Kostenko, O. A. Lemets, and D. A. Yerokhin, Cosmological Evolution With Interaction Be- tween Dark Energy And Dark Matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1530007 (2014), arXiv:1310.0085 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    Kodama and M

    H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, Cosmological Perturbation 14 Theory, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.78, 1–166 (1984)

    work page 1984

  57. [57]

    K. A. Malik, D. Wands, and C. Ungarelli, Large scale cur- vature and entropy perturbations for multiple interact- ing fluids, Phys. Rev. D67, 063516 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0211602

    work page arXiv 2003

  58. [58]

    Running coupling: Does the coupling between dark energy and dark matter change sign during the cosmological evolution?

    Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang, Running coupling: Does the cou- pling between dark energy and dark matter change sign during the cosmological evolution?, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1700 (2011), arXiv:1103.3185 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  59. [59]

    Y. Wang, D. Wands, G.-B. Zhao, and L. Xu, Post-P lanck constraints on interacting vacuum energy, Phys. Rev. D 90, 023502 (2014), arXiv:1404.5706 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    W. Yang, O. Mena, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, Dark sectors with dynamical coupling, Phys. Rev. D100, 083509 (2019), arXiv:1906.11697 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and S. Pan, Dynam- ical Dark sectors and Neutrino masses and abundances, Phys. Rev. D102, 023535 (2020), arXiv:2003.12552 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213– 224 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  63. [63]

    E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the uni- verse, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0208512

    work page arXiv 2003

  64. [64]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, O. Mena, and E. Di Valentino, On the dynamics of a dark sector coupling, JHEAp40, 19–40 (2023), arXiv:2209.14816 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    M. B. Gavela, D. Hernandez, L. Lopez Honorez, O. Mena, and S. Rigolin, Dark coupling, JCAP07, 034, [Erratum: JCAP 05, E01 (2010)], arXiv:0901.1611 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  66. [66]

    Parametrized Post-Friedmann Signatures of Acceleration in the CMB

    W. Hu, Parametrized Post-Friedmann Signatures of Ac- celeration in the CMB, Phys. Rev. D77, 103524 (2008), arXiv:0801.2433 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  67. [67]

    W. Fang, W. Hu, and A. Lewis, Crossing the Phantom Divide with Parameterized Post-Friedmann Dark Energy, Phys. Rev. D78, 087303 (2008), arXiv:0808.3125 [astro- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  68. [68]

    Parametrized Post-Friedmann Framework for Interacting Dark Energy

    Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Parametrized Post-Friedmann Framework for Interacting Dark Energy, Phys. Rev. D90, 063005 (2014), arXiv:1404.5220 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    Exploring the full parameter space for an interacting dark energy model with recent observations including redshift-space distortions: Application of the parametrized post-Friedmann approach

    Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Exploring the full parameter space for an interacting dark energy model with recent observations including redshift-space distortions: Application of the parametrized post- Friedmann approach, Phys. Rev. D90, 123007 (2014), arXiv:1409.7205 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Dataset and Light-Curve Release

    D. Scolnicet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Broutet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmo- logical Constraints, Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    E. R. Petersonet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Evaluat- ing Peculiar Velocity Corrections in Cosmological Analy- ses with Nearby Type Ia Supernovae, Astrophys. J.938, 112 (2022), arXiv:2110.03487 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    A. Carr, T. M. Davis, D. Scolnic, D. Scolnic, K. Said, D. Brout, E. R. Peterson, and R. Kessler, The Pan- theon+ analysis: Improving the redshifts and peculiar velocities of Type Ia supernovae used in cosmological analyses, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.39, e046 (2022), arXiv:2112.01471 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    A. Conleyet al., Supernova constraints and systematic uncertainties from the first three years of the supernova legacy survey, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Se- ries192, 1 (2010)

    work page 2010

  75. [75]

    Observational Constraints on Dark Energy and Cosmic Curvature

    Y. Wang and P. Mukherjee, Observational Constraints on Dark Energy and Cosmic Curvature, Phys. Rev.D76, 103533 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0703780 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  76. [76]

    Aizpuru, R

    A. Aizpuru, R. Arjona, and S. Nesseris, Machine learning improved fits of the sound horizon at the baryon drag epoch, Phys. Rev. D104, 043521 (2021), arXiv:2106.00428 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    Bansal and D

    P. Bansal and D. Huterer, Expansion-history preferences of DESI DR2 and external data, Phys. Rev. D112, 023528 (2025), arXiv:2502.07185 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    M. S. Madhavacherilet al.(ACT), The Atacama Cos- mology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters, Astrophys. J.962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Sch¨ oneberg, The 2024 BBN baryon abundance up- date, JCAP06, 006, arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, The 2024 BBN baryon abundance up- date, JCAP06, 006, arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Jeffreys,Theory of Probability, 3rd ed

    H. Jeffreys,Theory of Probability, 3rd ed. (Oxford, Ox- ford, England, 1961)

    work page 1961

Showing first 80 references.