Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 4 cited by

Alleviating cosmological tensions with a hybrid dark sector

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A one-parameter hybrid dark sector, constrained by Planck 2018, DESI BAO, and SH0ES data, is detected at more than 3σ and reduces the Hubble tension from about 5.76σ to 4.65σ.

desk verdict First serious constraints on a hybrid dark sector model; the DESI preference for a non-zero coupling is interesting, but the perturbation equations live in an unreleased code. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14139 v1 pith:D5RLJRLC submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Elsa M. Teixeira , Gaspard Poulot , Carsten van de Bruck , Eleonora Di Valentino , Vivian Poulin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th
keywords hybriddarksectormatter-darkenergyinteractionHubbletensionS8DESIbaryonacousticoscillationsscalarfieldBayesianmodelcomparison
topics Dark EnergyDark MatterThe Hubble Tension
open problems Dark MatterDark 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

This paper argues that a single new parameter — the initial value of a scalar field that sets the strength of a dark-matter–dark-energy interaction — can shift the inferred expansion rate upward and slightly lower the fluctuation amplitude $S_8$, easing both the Hubble and $S_8$ tensions. When constrained with Planck 2018, DESI BAO, and Pantheon+ supernova data, the coupling $1/\phi_i$ is detected at $2\sigma$ from DESI and above $3\sigma$ once the SH0ES Cepheid calibration is added. The Hubble tension falls from about $5.76\sigma$ to $4.65\sigma$, and Bayesian evidence moderately favours the hybrid model only when SH0ES is included. If the detection holds, the model offers a non-phantom mechanism for the late-time dynamics preferred by DESI data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the averaged two-fluid system for the oscillating $\chi$ field and the slowly rolling $\phi$ field: $\dot{\rho}_c + 3H\rho_c = (\dot{\phi}/\phi)\,\rho_c$ and $\ddot{\phi} + 3H\dot{\phi} = -(1/\phi)\,\rho_c$. These equations, derived in the companion paper [31], encode the entire new physics: the dark-matter energy density decays faster than $a^{-3}$ as $\phi$ begins to roll, while $\phi$ itself tracks matter and later freezes as an effective cosmological constant. Because the coupling constant $g$ cancels from these equations, the initial condition $1/\phi_i$ alone sets the deviation from $\Lambda$CDM. The same equations are extended to linear perturbations (from [31]) and implemented in a modified Einstein–Boltzmann solver to compute CMB and matter power spectra.

What would settle it

A combined measurement of the growth rate $f\sigma_8(z)$ at $z \approx 0.5$--$1$ from galaxy clustering and weak lensing would decide: the hybrid best-fit ($1/\phi_i \approx 0.057$) predicts a dark-matter density about $2.5\%$ below $\Lambda$CDM at late times (Fig. 5), altering $f\sigma_8$ by a comparable amount; a growth history matching $\Lambda$CDM to better than that deviation would falsify the detected coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the hybrid dark sector — two coupled scalar fields, $\phi$ as dark energy and $\chi$ as dark matter, with potential $V(\phi,\chi) = V_0 + \tfrac{1}{2} g^2 \phi^2 \chi^2$ — is a one-parameter extension of $\Lambda$CDM that improves the description of the combined Planck, DESI, and Pantheon+ data. The only new parameter is the initial value of the dark-energy field, $1/\phi_i$, which sets the strength of the energy transfer from dark matter to dark energy. With best-fit values in the range $1/\phi_i \approx 0.03$--$0.06$, the model raises $H_0$ to about $70$ km/s/Mpc, lowers the physical dark-matter density $\omega_c$, and produces a mild decrease of $S_8$ via the correlation between the coupling and $\Omega_m$. The paper quantifies the detection at $2\sigma$ with DESI and more than $3\sigma$ with SH0ES, reports a reduction of the Hubble tension from $Q \approx 5.76\sigma$ to $\approx 4.65\sigma$, and finds moderate Bayesian evidence ($\ln B \approx 2.5$) only when the SH0ES calibration is included.

Load-bearing premise

The constraints assume that the averaged fluid equations and the linear perturbation equations for the oscillating $\chi$ field, taken from the companion paper [31] and implemented in a modified Einstein–Boltzmann solver, correctly describe the dark sector; if those equations or their code implementation are wrong, the inferred posterior on $1/\phi_i$ and all derived shifts in $H_0$ and $S_8$ would not be reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With Planck 2018 alone, the hybrid model is indistinguishable from $\Lambda$CDM and yields the upper bound $1/\phi_i < 0.039$.
  • Adding DESI BAO moves the coupling away from zero at $2\sigma$, improves the fit by $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm min} = -2.8$ relative to $\Lambda$CDM, but leaves the Bayesian evidence inconclusive.
  • Including the SH0ES Cepheid calibration produces a detection at more than $3\sigma$ ($1/\phi_i = 0.057$) and moderate evidence in favour of the hybrid model ($\ln B = 2.5$), while worsening the DESI fit.
  • The coupling $1/\phi_i$ correlates positively with $H_0$ and negatively with $\omega_c$ and $S_8$, allowing the model to raise the expansion rate while nudging $S_8$ downward; the $H_0$ tension metric drops from $5.76\sigma$ to $4.65\sigma$.
  • The model predicts a redshift-dependent dark-matter density — about $2.5\%$ below $\Lambda$CDM today at best fit — and an effective dark-energy equation of state that never crosses the phantom divide ($w \ge -1$).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the SH0ES-driven detection of $1/\phi_i$ survives future data, the hybrid model would provide a non-phantom explanation for DESI's preference for dynamical dark energy, distinguishable from the CPL parametrisation by the shape of the growth history and the absence of $w < -1$.
  • Because the coupling constant $g$ drops out of the fluid equations, a confirmed nonzero $1/\phi_i$ would leave the dark-matter mass $m_\chi = g\phi$ unconstrained by background data; translating the model into a particle-physics target (e.g. $g \lesssim 10^{-8}$ from the non-oscillation condition) would require direct or indirect detection of the field's mass.
  • The paper restricts to adiabatic initial conditions; allowing isocurvature modes, which it flags as future work, could either weaken or sharpen the claimed detection, and should be a priority for next-generation CMB and LSS analyses.
  • A clean test of the mechanism is to measure the matter density as a function of redshift: the model predicts $\rho_c$ is about $2.5\%$ larger than $\Lambda$CDM at $z \gtrsim 1$ and $2.5\%$ smaller today, a distinctive signature that lensing and galaxy-clustering surveys can target directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constrains a two-scalar-field 'hybrid' dark sector model, a one-parameter extension of ΛCDM in which the inverse initial value of the dark-energy field, 1/φ_i, sets the DM–DE coupling. Using Planck 2018 CMB data, DESI BAO, Pantheon+ supernovae (with and without SH0ES calibration), and robustness checks against SDSS BAO and an A_L extension, the authors report a 2σ detection of the coupling with DESI, a >3σ detection in SH0ES-inclusive combinations, an upward shift of H0 to about 70.3 km/s/Mpc, a mild S8 change, and a reduction of the Hubble tension from about 5.76σ to 4.65σ. Bayesian evidence is inconclusive for most combinations and moderate only when SH0ES is included. The analysis follows standard MCMC/profile-likelihood practice and includes convergence checks, a profile-versus-Bayesian comparison, and χ² breakdowns.

Significance. If the underlying perturbation treatment is correct, the paper presents a theoretically motivated model that can shift H0 and S8 simultaneously while improving the fit to DESI BAO relative to ΛCDM, with a testable prediction of a time-dependent dark-matter density. The study is careful in its use of standard tools (MontePython, CLASS, GetDist, Procoli, MCEvidence) and provides useful cross-checks, including an SDSS BAO comparison and an A_L robustness analysis. However, the central numerical results depend on perturbation equations and modified code that are not included in the manuscript, and one of the abstract-level claims (a mild decrease of S8) is not borne out by the reported constraints. These issues must be addressed before the paper's conclusions can be fully assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [II and III A] The perturbation equations for the hybrid dark sector are not given. Section II states 'We refer to [31] for the complete derivation of the perturbation equations', and Section III A says 'we implement the relevant equations ... in our modified version of CLASS', but neither the equations nor the code are provided. The CMB and lensing likelihoods depend directly on the perturbed energy-momentum tensor of the oscillating χ field—its density and pressure perturbations, effective sound speed, and momentum exchange with φ—so the posterior on 1/φ_i and all derived quantities (H0, S8, tension metrics) rest on an unverifiable implementation. I ask that the full perturbation equations be included (e.g., in an appendix) or that the modified CLASS code be released with a version identifier, so that the results can be independently checked.
  2. [Table I / Eq. (7)] The prior on 1/φ_i is listed in Table I as [0,1], but the model's validity condition in Eq. (7), 1 < (φ/M_Pl)^2/3, requires 1/φ_i < 1/√3 ≈ 0.577. The text in Section III A claims the uniform prior covers 'the range of validity of the model's assumptions', which is inconsistent with the stated range. Because the Bayesian evidence values in Table II are computed over this prior, the quoted log B values (e.g., 2.5 and 4.5) include a prior volume of unphysical parameter space. The evidence should be recomputed with a prior truncated to the validity bound (or the validity range should be re-derived and justified); this can shift log B by roughly 0.5, which may alter the strength of the reported evidence.
  3. [Abstract / III B / Tables II and III] The abstract and Section III B state that the model yields a 'mild decrease of the weak-lensing parameter S8'. Comparing Table II (hybrid) with Table III (ΛCDM) for the same dataset combinations, the hybrid S8 is not consistently lower: for Pl18+DESI, S8 = 0.817±0.013 vs 0.810±0.012; for Pl18+DESI+SH0ES, S8 = 0.818±0.013 vs 0.794±0.011; and for Pl18+SH0ES, S8 = 0.809±0.014 vs 0.795±0.013. Only for Pl18 alone is the hybrid S8 lower. The text's statement in Section IV that 'the decrease in Ωm at late times dominates, yielding a slightly smaller S8' is not consistent with these numbers. Please clarify whether the claim refers to an internal correlation within the model rather than a reduction relative to ΛCDM at fixed data, and adjust the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [III B, Table II] For the Pl18+DESI combination, the text reports a detection at '2 sigma' using a 95% CL interval whose lower bound is 0.004, which is just above zero; for Pl18+DESI+SN, the text says 'only at 1 sigma' although the reported 68% interval is 0.029+0.017−0.015, with lower bound 0.014 > 0. Please define the significance convention used (e.g., 68%, 95%, 99% CL) for each detection claim, so the statements are unambiguous.
  2. [III B, Fig. 5] The discussion of the redshift-dependent DM density compares the hybrid model to ΛCDM with 'the same best-fit parameters' in the top panel, but it would help to state explicitly in the caption that the yellow curve uses the hybrid best-fit cosmological parameters with ΛCDM dynamics, while the grey curve uses the ΛCDM best fit; this distinction is clear in the text but not in the caption.
  3. [II and III A] The paper links the public CLASS and MontePython repositories but not the modified CLASS version used for the hybrid model. Even if the perturbation equations are added to the paper, a public link (or a clear statement on availability upon request) would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: model constraints are fit to external data, with derived H0/S8 as outputs.

full rationale

The central result is an MCMC fit of the one-parameter hybrid model to Planck 2018, DESI BAO, and Pantheon+ data (with and without SH0ES). The coupling parameter 1/phi_i is sampled with a flat prior and constrained by external likelihoods; the reported H0, S8, Delta-chi^2, Bayes factors, and Q_DMAP tension metrics are outputs of that fit, not inputs used to define the model. The background equations (9)-(10) are stated in the paper and explicitly reduce to LambdaCDM as 1/phi_i -> 0, and the model's action is given. The perturbation equations are imported from the authors' prior work [31] and implemented in a private CLASS version; this is a reproducibility and verification limitation, but it is not circular, because [31] is a separate derivation from the stated action and the present data constraints are not used to construct the equations. No quoted equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the claimed H0 or S8 shifts, and no self-citation is used to forbid alternative models. The prior range 1/phi_i in [0,1] extends beyond the Eq. (7) validity bound 1/sqrt(3), but the resulting posteriors and best fits lie well below that bound, so this is a prior-range caveat rather than a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model is a one-parameter extension of LambdaCDM, but it rests on the fluid approximation and perturbation equations from [31] by overlapping authors, on the assumption of adiabatic initial conditions, and on the accuracy of public likelihoods. The main fitted quantity is 1/phi_i; the six standard cosmological parameters and nuisance parameters are also fit. No new particle or force with independent evidence is introduced beyond the two scalar fields.

free parameters (3)
  • 1/phi_i (inverse initial DE field value) = 0.0570+0.0096-0.0070 (Pl18+DESI+SH0ES)
    The single new parameter controlling the DM-DE coupling; sampled with flat prior [0,1] and determined by the data. Best-fit value 0.0591 for this combination.
  • A_L (CMB lensing amplitude, appendix only) = 1.201 ± 0.067 (hybrid, Pl18(AL)+DESI+SH0ES)
    Free parameter in Appendix B to test the Planck lensing anomaly; not part of the main constraints.
  • Standard LCDM parameters (omega_b h^2, omega_c h^2, 100 theta_s, tau, n_s, log(10^10 A_s)) = See Table II
    The six standard cosmological parameters are varied with flat priors and fitted to data; they are not new to this model but are free parameters in the MCMC.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The action (1) with potential (4) is a valid description of the dark sector in the regime where chi oscillates and phi slow-rolls.
    The model is inspired by hybrid inflation and taken as the starting point; no independent derivation of this potential is provided.
  • domain assumption The effective fluid equations (9)-(10) and the linear perturbation equations from [31] correctly describe the averaged dynamics of the oscillating chi field.
    The analysis uses these equations without reproducing them; the paper refers to [31] for their derivation.
  • domain assumption The conditions m_chi > H and m_phi < H, encoded in Eq. (7), hold in the posterior region, so the DM fluid interpretation is valid.
    The model's interpretation depends on chi oscillating and phi rolling slowly; the paper does not enforce Eq. (7) in the prior.
  • domain assumption Primordial perturbations are purely adiabatic.
    Stated in Section I; the authors note that isocurvature modes are left for future work.
  • domain assumption The Planck 2018, DESI Y1, and Pantheon+ likelihoods correctly model the data and nuisance parameters.
    The constraints inherit the accuracy of the public likelihood pipelines; this is standard practice.
invented entities (2)
  • phi scalar field (dark energy)
    purpose: Acts as the dark energy component; its initial value sets the DM-DE coupling strength.
    The field has no direct detection; its presence is motivated by the hybrid inflation analogy and inferred only through the cosmological fit, which is inconclusive for most data combinations.
  • chi scalar field (dark matter)
    purpose: Acts as the dark matter component; oscillates about the potential minimum and transfers energy to phi through the 1/phi coupling.
    No particle physics signature is predicted beyond the cosmological background and perturbation effects used in the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alleviating cosmological tensions with a hybrid dark sector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5RLJRLC

@misc{pith2026241214139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alleviating cosmological tensions with a hybrid dark sector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5RLJRLC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14139}
}
abstract

We investigate a cosmological model inspired by hybrid inflation, where two scalar fields representing dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM) interact through a coupling that is proportional to the DE scalar field $1/\phi$. The strength of the coupling is governed solely by the initial condition of the scalar field, $\phi_i$, which parametrises deviations from the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. In this model, the scalar field tracks the behaviour of DM during matter-domination until it transitions to DE while the DM component decays quicker than standard CDM during matter-domination, and is therefore different from some interacting DM-DE models which behaves like phantom dark energy. Using \textit{Planck} 2018 CMB data, DESI BAO measurements and Pantheon+ supernova observations, we find that the model allows for an increase in $H_0$ that can help reduce the Hubble tension. In addition, we find that higher values of the coupling parameter are correlated with lower values of $\omega_m$, and a mild decrease of the weak-lensing parameter $S_8$, potentially relevant to address the $S_8$ tension. Bayesian model comparison, however, reveals inconclusive results for most datasets, unless S$H_0$ES data are included, in which case a moderate evidence in favour of the hybrid model is found.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14139 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Effective DE equation of state parameter for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: One-dimensional posterior probability distribution functions and two-dimensional contours at 68% and 95% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: One-dimensional posterior probability distribution functions and two-dimensional contours at 68% and 95% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: 2D contours at 68% and 95% CL for the initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Redshift evolution of the effective EoS parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparison of BAO data combinations for the ΛCDM model with SDSS and DESI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of BAO data combinations for the hybrid model with SDSS and DESI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparison between the Bayesian posterior for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Breakdown of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Disentangling Similarity and Relatedness in Topic Models

    cs.CL 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Topic models lie on a spectrum from thematic-relatedness-rich to similarity-rich, and that position predicts which downstream tasks they handle well.

  2. Boosting the optical depth to Thomson scattering with primordial black hole evaporation at high redshift

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A monochromatic primordial black hole population can raise the CMB optical depth by at most Delta tau ~ 0.008 under current CMB data, leaving BAO-CMB tensions essentially unchanged.

  3. Neutrino mass limits and decaying dark matter: background evolution versus perturbations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Decaying dark matter can hide neutrino mass from expansion-history data, but CMB lensing unmasks it and restores ∑mν ≲ 0.079 eV.

  4. BAO miscalibration cannot rescue late-time solutions to the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Even after rescaling BAO data to prefer H0≈73 km/s/Mpc, none of six tested late-time dark-energy models can resolve the Hubble tension once unanchored SNeIa and CMB geometry are included.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [31]

    van de Bruck, G

    C. van de Bruck, G. Poulot, and E. M. Teixeira, JCAP 07, 019 (2023), arXiv:2211.13653 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Cosmology’s Century: An Inside History of Our Modern Understanding of the Universe (Princeton University Press, 2022)

    2022

  3. [2]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    arXiv 2005

  4. [3]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept. 643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    D. J. E. Marsh, D. Ellis, and V. M. Mehta, Dark Matter: Evidence, Theory, and Constraints , Princeton Series in Astrophysics (Princeton University Press, 2024)

    2024

  6. [5]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Observations (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  7. [6]

    Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique 13, 566 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique 13, 566 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [7]

    Verde, T

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

    arXiv 2019

Show all 87 references
  1. [8]

    Di Valentino et al

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

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

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

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    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

  4. [11]

    Breuval, A

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

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Knox and M

    L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D101, 043533 (2020), arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Jedamzik, L

    K. Jedamzik, L. Pogosian, and G.-B. Zhao, Commun. in Phys. 4, 123 (2021), arXiv:2010.04158 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. P´ erez S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rept. 984, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    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

  10. [17]

    Verde, N

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

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

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

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Di Valentino and D

    E. Di Valentino and D. Brout, eds., The Hubble Constant Tension, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology (Springer, 2024). 12 Parameter Pl18 Pl18+SN Pl18+SH0ES Pl18+DESI Pl18+DESI+SN Pl18+DESI+SH0ES ωb 0.02235± 0.00015 0.02231± 0.00015 0.02264± 0.00014 0.02249± 0.00013 0...

    2024

  13. [20]

    Giar` e, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 36, arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    W. Giar` e, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 36, arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Heymans et al., Astron

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

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

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

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Dalal et al

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

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Di Valentino et al

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

    2021 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Dvornik et al

    A. Dvornik et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 675, A189 (2023), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 688, C3 (2024)], arXiv:2210.03110 [astro-ph.CO]. 13 67 69 H0 0.30 0.32 m 0.115 0.120 c 0.80 0.85 S8 0.80 0.82 8 0.79 0.82 8 0.80 0.85 S8 0.116 0.121 c 0.29 0.32 m CDM: Pl18+SDSS CDM: Pl18+DESI...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Faga et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Harnois-Deraps et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

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

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

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

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

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    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

  24. [32]

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

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, JCAP 12, 007 (2024), arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Patel, A

    V. Patel, A. Chakraborty, and L. Amendola, (2024), arXiv:2407.06586 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Giar` e, M

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

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP 10, 035 (2024), arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    K. V. Berghaus, J. A. Kable, and V. Miranda, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103524 (2024), arXiv:2404.14341 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 49, 748 (1994), arXiv:astro- ph/9307002

    1994

  33. [41]

    S. Das, P. S. Corasaniti, and J. Khoury, Physical Review D 73 (2006), 10.1103/physrevd.73.083509

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    van de Bruck and E

    C. van de Bruck and E. M. Teixeira, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103503 (2020). 14 68 70 H0 0.01 0.04 0.07 1/ i 0.28 0.30 0.32 m 0.115 0.120 c 0.80 0.85 S8 0.80 0.84 0.88 8 0.80 0.85 8 0.80 0.85 S8 0.115 0.120 c 0.27 0.30 m 0.04 0.07 1/ i Hybrid: Pl18+SDSS Hybrid: Pl18+DESI Hybrid: Pl18+...

    2020

  35. [43]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (class) i: Overview,

    J. Lesgourgues, “The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (class) i: Overview,” (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2011, 034–034 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (class) iii: Comparision with camb for lamb- dacdm,

    J. Lesgourgues, “The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (class) iii: Comparision with camb for lamb- dacdm,” (2011), arXiv:1104.2934 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Brinckmann and J

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

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013, 001 (2013), arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Lewis, Phys

    A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statistical Science 7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  43. [51]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,

    A. Lewis, “GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,” (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro- 15 Parameter Pl18+SDSS Pl18+SDSS+SN Pl18+SDSS+SH0ES Pl18(A L )+DESI+SH0ES ω b 0.02237 ± 0.00014 0 .02236 ± 0.00014 0 .02237 ± 0.00015 0 .02264 ± 0.00017 ω c 0.1190 ± 0.001...

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Aghanim et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Aghanim et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Rosenberg, S

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

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Tristram et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

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

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

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

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Scolnic et al

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

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Brout et al

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

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Brout et al

    D. Brout et al. , Astrophys. J. 938, 111 (2022), arXiv:2112.03864 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Karwal, Y

    T. Karwal, Y. Patel, A. Bartlett, V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, and D. N. Pfeffer, (2024), arXiv:2401.14225 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Marginal Like- lihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains,

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, and E. Sellentin, “Marginal Like- lihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains,” (2017), arXiv:1704.03472 [stat.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    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

  56. [64]

    Raveri and W

    M. Raveri and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043506 (2019), arXiv:1806.04649 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Alam et al

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

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Jeffreys, Theory of Probability (Clarendon Press, Ox- ford, England, 1939)

    H. Jeffreys, Theory of Probability (Clarendon Press, Ox- ford, England, 1939)

    1939

  59. [67]

    Raveri, (2023), arXiv:2309.06795 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Raveri, (2023), arXiv:2309.06795 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    2001 arXiv

  61. [69]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    2003 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Alam et al

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

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    J. E. Bautista et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 500, 736 (2020), arXiv:2007.08993 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Gil-Marin et al

    H. Gil-Marin et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 2492 (2020), arXiv:2007.08994 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Tamone et al

    A. Tamone et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 5527 (2020), arXiv:2007.09009 [astro-ph.CO]. 16 Data Model Total χ2 Pl18 DESI SDSS SN SH0ES Pl18 ΛCDM 2766.53 2766.53 - - - - Hybrid 2766.55 2766.55 - - - - Pl18+DESI ΛCDM 2783.32 2768.82 14.50 - - - Hybrid 2780.51 276...

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    de Mattia et al

    A. de Mattia et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501, 5616 (2021), arXiv:2007.09008 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Hou et al

    J. Hou et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 500, 1201 (2020), arXiv:2007.08998 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Neveux et al

    R. Neveux et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 210 (2020), arXiv:2007.08999 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020

  69. [77]

    du Mas des Bourboux et al

    H. du Mas des Bourboux et al. (eBOSS), Astrophys. J. 901, 153 (2020), arXiv:2007.08995 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

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

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Ross, L. Samushia, W. Percival, and M. Manera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.449, 848 (2015), arXiv:1409.3238 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Beutler et al

    F. Beutler et al. , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 416, 3017 (2011), arXiv:1106.3366

    2011 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Calabrese, A

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

    2008 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 93, 023513 (2016), arXiv:1509.07501 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Renzi, E

    F. Renzi, E. Di Valentino, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123534 (2018), arXiv:1712.08758 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Handley, Phys

    W. Handley, Phys. Rev. D 103, L041301 (2021), arXiv:1908.09139 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Nature As- tron. 4, 196 (2019), arXiv:1911.02087 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496, L91 (2020), arXiv:2002.06892 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L9 (2021), arXiv:2003.04935 [astro-ph.CO]. 17 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 1/ i 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0P Profile likelihood Bayesian MCMC FIG. 9: Comparison between the Bayesian posterior for the coupling parameter 1...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.