pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12415 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: no theorem link

Late-time reconstruction of non-minimally coupled gravity with a smoothness prior

Gen Ye , Anton Chudaykin , Camille Bonvin , Martin Kunz
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 03:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords non-minimal couplingdark energy reconstructionphantom crossingmodified gravityeffective field theorycosmological observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cosmological data indicate a 2.8 sigma hint for non-minimal coupling in gravity theories, which stabilizes dark energy perturbations and permits phantom divide crossing.

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

The paper develops a non-parametric reconstruction of the time-dependent cosmological constant and non-minimal coupling function in modified gravity using the effective field theory of dark energy. It imposes a correlated smoothness prior to keep reconstructions stable and applies the method to CMB, DESI BAO, Type Ia supernovae, CMB-ISW lensing, and DES Year 3 3x2pt data. The analysis finds a 2.8 sigma preference for non-zero coupling and a crossing of the phantom divide in the dark energy equation of state below redshift 0.8. This coupling supplies a physical mechanism that prevents instabilities during phantom crossing.

Core claim

Within the Effective Field Theory of dark energy, the functions Lambda(t) and Omega(t) are reconstructed non-parametrically from the listed datasets, yielding a 2.8 sigma deviation from minimal coupling that stabilizes dark energy perturbations and supports a crossing of w_DE = -1 at z < 0.8.

What carries the argument

Non-parametric reconstruction of Lambda(t) and Omega(t) with a correlated smoothness prior inside the EFT of dark energy framework.

If this is right

  • Modified gravity models with non-minimal coupling gain support as a stable alternative to Lambda-CDM for late-time acceleration.
  • Phantom-crossing dark energy models become viable once the coupling is included, because perturbations remain stable.
  • The same reconstruction pipeline can be applied to next-generation surveys to tighten the constraint on Omega(t).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be extended to include early-universe data to test whether the late-time coupling is consistent across all epochs.
  • Different choices of smoothness hyperparameters or independent datasets such as gravitational-wave standard sirens could serve as cross-checks on the 2.8 sigma signal.
  • The coupling may correspond to specific scalar-tensor theories whose parameters could be mapped onto the reconstructed Omega(t).

Load-bearing premise

The correlated smoothness prior restricts the allowed functions to a space that is both sufficiently smooth and free of instabilities without introducing bias.

What would settle it

A future data combination that constrains the non-minimal coupling parameter to be consistent with zero at less than 2 sigma while still showing phantom crossing would falsify the interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12415 by Anton Chudaykin, Camille Bonvin, Gen Ye, Martin Kunz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The reconstructed EFT functions Ω( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Reconstructed Ω( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The one-dimensional marginalized posteriors for the Ω( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Constraint on the growth parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a non-parametric, model-independent reconstruction of the cosmological background and perturbation dynamics in non-minimally coupled theories of gravity. Within the Effective Field Theory of dark energy framework, we reconstruct the time-dependent cosmological constant, $\Lambda(t)$, and the non-minimal coupling function, $\Omega(t)$, from cosmological data. To ensure stability, we apply a correlated smoothness prior that restricts the reconstruction to the space of sufficiently smooth functions. Using CMB, DESI BAO, Type Ia supernovae, CMB-ISW lensing cross-correlations, and large-scale 3x2pt DES Year 3 data, we find a $2.8\sigma$ hint for a non-minimal coupling. For the dark energy equation of state, our results indicate a preference for the existence of crossing of the phantom divide, $w_{DE}=-1$, at $z<0.8$. The non-minimal coupling effect stabilizes dark energy perturbations, providing a viable physical interpretation of the phantom crossing scenario. Our work paves the way for model-agnostic searches for signatures of modified gravity in cosmological data.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a non-parametric reconstruction within the Effective Field Theory of dark energy of the time-dependent cosmological constant Λ(t) and non-minimal coupling function Ω(t) from CMB, DESI BAO, Type Ia supernovae, CMB-ISW lensing, and DES Year 3 3x2pt data. A correlated smoothness prior is imposed to enforce stability of dark energy perturbations. The central result is a reported 2.8σ hint for non-zero Ω(t), together with a preference for phantom-divide crossing in w_DE at z<0.8, which the non-minimal coupling is said to stabilize.

Significance. If the 2.8σ deviation survives scrutiny of the prior, the work would supply a model-independent, late-time test of modified gravity and a concrete physical mechanism (non-minimal coupling) that renders phantom crossing perturbatively stable. The non-parametric character and the breadth of datasets employed are genuine strengths that could be leveraged for future analyses once the prior dependence is quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Smoothness prior specification] Section describing the correlated smoothness prior: the hyperparameters (correlation length and variance) that define the prior are fixed rather than marginalized; no robustness scans or hyperparameter posterior are shown. Because the prior explicitly truncates the function space for Ω(t), the reported 2.8σ deviation from zero cannot be separated from this modeling choice without additional tests.
  2. [Results] Results section (quantitative significance): the 2.8σ figure is stated without accompanying details on error propagation, the form of the covariance matrix used for the reconstructed functions, or the exact statistic from which the significance is derived. This information is required to evaluate whether the hint is statistically robust.
  3. [Validation / mock tests] Validation subsection: no mock-data recovery tests or prior-variation experiments are presented that demonstrate the deviation of Ω(t) from zero is driven by the data rather than by the smoothness constraint. Such checks are load-bearing for interpreting the central claim as a data-driven hint.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Notation] The notation for the EFT functions Ω(t) and Λ(t) would benefit from an explicit equation block early in the methods to avoid ambiguity when reading the reconstruction equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important aspects of prior specification, statistical reporting, and validation that strengthen the interpretation of our results. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional tests, clarifications, and details as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section describing the correlated smoothness prior: the hyperparameters (correlation length and variance) that define the prior are fixed rather than marginalized; no robustness scans or hyperparameter posterior are shown. Because the prior explicitly truncates the function space for Ω(t), the reported 2.8σ deviation from zero cannot be separated from this modeling choice without additional tests.

    Authors: We agree that the hyperparameters were fixed in the original analysis, selected to enforce perturbative stability while permitting the reconstruction sufficient flexibility to capture data-driven features, consistent with the EFT framework and the requirement that dark energy perturbations remain well-behaved. The prior is physically motivated rather than arbitrary. To directly address the concern that the 2.8σ hint cannot be disentangled from this choice, the revised manuscript includes a new robustness subsection. We vary the correlation length and variance over a broad range (spanning values that still guarantee stability) and recompute the posterior for Ω(t). We also present the impact on the significance of the deviation from zero. These scans demonstrate that the hint persists across the tested hyperparameter range, indicating that the result is not an artifact of the specific fixed values. We have clarified the selection rationale in the text and added the corresponding figures. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results section (quantitative significance): the 2.8σ figure is stated without accompanying details on error propagation, the form of the covariance matrix used for the reconstructed functions, or the exact statistic from which the significance is derived. This information is required to evaluate whether the hint is statistically robust.

    Authors: We apologize for the insufficient detail in the original submission. The 2.8σ value is obtained from the reconstructed posterior of Ω(t) by computing the probability that the function deviates from zero, marginalized over the relevant redshift range and accounting for the full covariance matrix of the reconstructed functions (derived from the MCMC samples of the joint posterior on the basis coefficients). Error propagation follows from the standard Gaussian approximation to the posterior, with the covariance matrix constructed directly from the chain. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the Results section to include an explicit description of this procedure, the precise form of the covariance matrix, the integration limits used for the significance calculation, and the exact statistic (a one-sided integral over the posterior probability). This addition allows readers to reproduce and assess the robustness of the quoted significance. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Validation subsection: no mock-data recovery tests or prior-variation experiments are presented that demonstrate the deviation of Ω(t) from zero is driven by the data rather than by the smoothness constraint. Such checks are load-bearing for interpreting the central claim as a data-driven hint.

    Authors: We concur that mock recovery and prior-variation tests are essential to establish that the deviation is data-driven. Although the original manuscript did not contain these explicit checks, the revised version now includes a dedicated validation subsection. We generate mock datasets both with and without a non-zero Ω(t) input (using the same covariance structure as the real data) and demonstrate that the reconstruction recovers the injected signal when present and remains consistent with zero when absent. We further perform prior-variation experiments by repeating the full analysis under altered smoothness hyperparameters and show that the 2.8σ hint is stable and does not appear in the absence of supporting data. These tests confirm that the reported deviation originates from the combination of CMB, DESI BAO, supernovae, ISW lensing, and DES 3x2pt measurements rather than from the prior alone. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the reconstruction chain

full rationale

The paper conducts a non-parametric reconstruction of Λ(t) and Ω(t) in the EFT framework directly from external cosmological datasets (CMB, DESI BAO, supernovae, ISW lensing, DES 3x2pt). The correlated smoothness prior is introduced explicitly as a modeling assumption to restrict function space and guarantee perturbation stability, rather than being derived from or equivalent to the target result by construction. No self-citations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or self-definitional steps are present in the provided derivation; the 2.8σ hint is framed as data-driven under the chosen prior, leaving the central claim with independent observational content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Effective Field Theory of dark energy framework and the introduction of a correlated smoothness prior whose hyperparameters are not specified in the abstract. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • hyperparameters of the correlated smoothness prior
    These control the allowed degree of variation in the reconstructed Lambda(t) and Omega(t) functions and are required to implement the stability restriction.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Validity of the Effective Field Theory of dark energy for parametrizing late-time background and perturbations
    The reconstruction is performed inside this framework, allowing Lambda(t) and Omega(t) to be treated as the primary time-dependent quantities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5501 in / 1416 out tokens · 114197 ms · 2026-05-13T03:57:31.727201+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Late-time reconstruction of non-minimally coupled gravity with a smoothness prior

    INTRODUCTION Dark energy, which drives the observed accelerated ex- pansion of the Universe, remains one of the central open problems in fundamental physics. An important ques- tion is whether this phenomenon is due to a constant vac- uum energy or is induced by a dynamical component that evolves over cosmic time. Recent measurements from the Dark Energy ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    DA T A AND METHODOLOGY In order to parameterize evolving dark energy and its modified gravity effect in a theoretically consistent way, we base the reconstruction on the EFT of dark energy 3 action, up to linear perturbation order [26, 42] S= Z d4x √−g ( M2 p 2 h 1 + Ω(t) i R+ Λ(t)−c(t)a 2 δg00 + M2 p H2 0 2 γ1(t) a2 δg00 2 − M2 p H0 2 γ2(t)a 2 δg00 δK µ ...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    ShapeFit

    RESUL T Fig. 1 shows the reconstructed EFT functions Ω(a) and ∆Λ(a)/Λ 0. 7 We may immediately conclude that the use of the correlated prior ensures stable reconstruc- tion results by filtering out nonphysical sharp features (cf. Fig. 4 in Appendix A). 6 The original likelihood is available only inCosmoSis[58]. It is ported toCobayaby wrappingCosmoSisas li...

    work page

  4. [4]

    ShapeFit

    CONCLUSION It is known that non-minimal coupling in gravity can stabilize the phantom-crossing of the dark energy that is hinted at by recent BAO and SNIa observa- tions, which has motivated a number of studies to re- construct gravity within the EFT of dark energy frame- work. Due to the limited constraining power of cos- mological data, EFT-based analys...

    work page

  5. [5]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

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

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Can dark energy evolve to the phan- tom?

    A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D71, 023515 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0407107

    work page arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    S. M. Carroll, M. Hoffman, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D68, 023509 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301273

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  9. [9]

    Hu, Phys

    W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D71, 047301 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0410680

    work page arXiv 2005

  10. [10]

    The Effective Theory of Quintessence: the w<-1 Side Unveiled

    P. Creminelli, G. D’Amico, J. Norena, and F. Vernizzi, JCAP02, 018 (2009), arXiv:0811.0827 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Dark Energy Constraints from the Cosmic Age and Supernova

    B. Feng, X.-L. Wang, and X.-M. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 607, 35 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0404224

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Hessence: A New View of Quintom Dark Energy

    H. Wei, R.-G. Cai, and D.-F. Zeng, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 3189 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0501160

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  13. [13]

    R. R. Caldwell and M. Doran, Phys. Rev. D72, 043527 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501104

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  14. [14]

    Kunz and D

    M. Kunz and D. Sapone, Phys. Rev. D74, 123503 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0609040

    work page arXiv 2006

  15. [15]

    Y.-F. Cai, T. Qiu, R. Brandenberger, Y.-S. Piao, and X. Zhang, JCAP03, 013 (2008), arXiv:0711.2187 [hep- th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    T.-t. Qiu, Y. Cai, Y. Liu, S.-Y. Li, J. Evslin, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C50, 012001 (2026), arXiv:2511.19994 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D110, 123524 (2024), arXiv:2407.02558 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181002 (2025), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Ishak, J

    M. Ishaket al., JCAP09, 053 (2025), arXiv:2411.12026 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Non-minimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data

    J. Pan and G. Ye, Phys. Rev. D113, L041304 (2026), arXiv:2503.19898 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. Kunz, and J. Carron, Phys. Rev. D 14 64 66 68 H0 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 S8 0.80 0.85 0.90 σ8 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 Ωm 0.30 0.35 Ωm 0.80 0.85 σ8 0.8 0.9 S8 Base Base+ISW+DESY3 FIG. 8. ΛCDM parameters:1σand 2σposterior distributions for the ΛCDM parametersH 0, Ω m,σ 8 andS 8 obtained in the late-time reconstruction analyses using the Base (blue)...

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D111, L041303 (2025), arXiv:2409.17019 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D113, 023551 (2026), arXiv:2509.17586 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by nonminimally coupled quintessence

    J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D113, 083534 (2026), arXiv:2508.01759 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction

    J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, Y.-H. Li, S.-J. Wang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2604.02204 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Z. Yao, G. Ye, and A. Silvestri, JCAP10, 078 (2025), arXiv:2508.01378 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Ye and Y

    G. Ye and Y. Cai, Phys. Rev. D112, L121301 (2025), arXiv:2503.22515 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Bridge the Cosmological Tensions with Thaw- ing Gravity,

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    The Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy

    G. Gubitosi, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, JCAP02, 032 (2013), arXiv:1210.0201 [hep-th]. 15

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    Espejo, S

    J. Espejo, S. Peirone, M. Raveri, K. Koyama, L. Pogosian, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. D99, 023512 (2019), arXiv:1809.01121 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Pogosian, M

    L. Pogosian, M. Raveri, K. Koyama, M. Martinelli, A. Silvestri, G.-B. Zhao, J. Li, S. Peirone, and A. Zucca, Nature Astron.6, 1484 (2022), arXiv:2107.12992 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Raveri, L

    M. Raveri, L. Pogosian, M. Martinelli, K. Koyama, A. Silvestri, and G.-B. Zhao, JCAP02, 061 (2023), arXiv:2107.12990 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    R. G. Crittenden, G.-B. Zhao, L. Pogosian, L. Samushia, and X. Zhang, JCAP02, 048 (2012), arXiv:1112.1693 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Raveri, Phys

    M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D101, 083524 (2020), arXiv:1902.01366 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Nonparametric Reconstruction of the Dark Energy Equation of State

    T. Holsclaw, U. Alam, B. Sanso, H. Lee, K. Heitmann, S. Habib, and D. Higdon, Phys. Rev. D82, 103502 (2010), arXiv:1009.5443 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Nonparametric Dark Energy Reconstruction from Supernova Data

    T. Holsclaw, U. Alam, B. Sanso, H. Lee, K. Heitmann, S. Habib, and D. Higdon, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 241302 (2010), arXiv:1011.3079 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.124, 925 (1961)

    work page 1961

  39. [39]

    Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D76, 064004 (2007), arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  40. [40]

    Chameleon Cosmology

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D69, 044026 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0309411

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  41. [41]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 231301 (2010), arXiv:1001.4525 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    Rosenberg, S

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP09, 039 (2022), arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    J. K. Bloomfield, ´E. ´E. Flanagan, M. Park, and S. Watson, JCAP08, 010 (2013), arXiv:1211.7054 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    Dark Energy after GW170817 and GRB170817A

    P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 251302 (2017), arXiv:1710.05877 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 251304 (2017), arXiv:1710.05901 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    R. G. Crittenden, L. Pogosian, and G.-B. Zhao, JCAP 12, 025 (2009), arXiv:astro-ph/0510293

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  50. [50]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), 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 2020

  51. [51]

    de Boe, G

    D. de Boe, G. Ye, F. Renzi, I. S. Albuquerque, N. Fr- usciante, and A. Silvestri, JCAP08, 029 (2024), arXiv:2403.13096 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Berti, E

    M. Berti, E. Bellini, C. Bonvin, M. Kunz, M. Viel, and M. Zumalacarregui, Phys. Rev. D112, 023518 (2025), arXiv:2503.13198 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    B. Hu, M. Raveri, N. Frusciante, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. D89, 103530 (2014), arXiv:1312.5742 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2014

  55. [55]

    Raveri, B

    M. Raveri, B. Hu, N. Frusciante, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. D90, 043513 (2014), arXiv:1405.1022 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    G. Ye, S. Lin, J. Pan, D. de Boe, S. Verhoeve, M. Raveri, B. Hu, N. Frusciante, and A. Silvestri, (2026), arXiv:2603.01662 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Efficient Computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  58. [58]

    Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology,

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology,” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019 (2019)

    work page 1910

  60. [60]

    Aghanim et al

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

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083514 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    CosmoSIS: modular cosmological parameter estimation

    J. Zuntz, M. Paterno, E. Jennings, D. Rudd, A. Man- zotti, S. Dodelson, S. Bridle, S. Sehrish, and J. Kowalkowski, Astron. Comput.12, 45 (2015), arXiv:1409.3409 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  63. [63]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D107, 083504 (2023), arXiv:2207.05766 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Gleyzes, D

    J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, M. Mancarella, and F. Vernizzi, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.02, 056 (2016), arXiv:1509.02191 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    Pogosian and A

    L. Pogosian and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. D94, 104014 (2016), arXiv:1606.05339 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP09, 008 (2025), [Er- ratum: JCAP 02, E02 (2026)], arXiv:2411.12021 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar´ ın, and L. Verde, JCAP12, 054 (2021), arXiv:2106.07641 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES, SPT), Phys. Rev. D107, 023531 (2023), arXiv:2206.10824 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023