Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Running Einstein Constant and a Possible Vacuum State of the Universe

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A density-dependent Einstein constant yields a Hubble correction consistent with zero within 1σ, leaving the model statistically indistinguishable from standard ΛCDM.

desk verdict Solid honest data work, but the running-chi derivation of the log correction doesn't survive the model's own equations; the fitted Omega* is not a measurement of the vacuum energy. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14747 v2 pith:IJ2DBV3T submitted 2024-12-19 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Giovanni Montani , Giulia Maniccia , Elisa Fazzari , Alessandro Melchiorri This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO
keywords runningEinsteinconstantmodifiedgravityvacuumenergycosmologicalproblemdarkequationofstateHubbletensionbaryonacousticoscillationscosmicchronometers
topics Dark Energy
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 proposes a version of general relativity for cosmology in which the gravitational coupling constant depends on the Universe's energy density, and asks what observable trace that leaves. The authors define a vacuum state as the condition that this running coupling times the energy density vanishes, expand the coupling near that state, and extrapolate the resulting form to all densities. The extrapolation produces a constant negative pressure that acts like an extra dark-energy component, adding a logarithmic term to the Hubble parameter. Fitting the model to baryon acoustic oscillations, cosmic chronometers, and supernovae, they find the amplitude of that term is compatible with zero within 1σ, so the modified model is statistically indistinguishable from standard ΛCDM. The point of the exercise is to show a concrete way vacuum energy could be dynamically deactivated at late times without spoiling the fit to observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ansatz $\chi(\rho)=\chi_E\left(1-\rho_*/\rho\right)$, obtained as a Taylor expansion of the product $\chi(\rho)\rho$ near the vacuum state $\chi(\rho_{\rm vac})\rho_{\rm vac}=0$ and then extended to the whole energy-density domain. Combined with the Bianchi-consistent conservation law $\nabla_{\nu} T^{\nu}_{\mu} = -T^{\nu}_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \ln\chi$, this form makes the vacuum density invisible to the Friedmann equation while producing the constant pressure $p_*=-2\rho_*/3$. That pressure shifts the dark-energy equation of state and generates the logarithmic Hubble correction; the parameter $\Omega_* \equiv 2\chi_E\rho_*/(3H_0^2)$ is the quantity the data analysis attempts to measure.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of $H(z)$ across $0<z<2$, combined with an independent determination of $\Omega_m$, could detect the predicted $-\Omega_*\ln(1+z)$ term; if the data prefer a pure $(1+z)^3$ plus constant shape with uncertainties below the predicted correction, the model's specific vacuum profile is ruled out, while detection of the logarithmic term with the predicted coefficient would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a density-dependent Einstein constant of the form $\chi(\rho)=\chi_E\left(1-\rho_*/\rho\right)$ leaves the Friedmann equation and geodesic motion formally unchanged, yet generates a constant pressure $p_*=-2\rho_*/3$ that modifies the dark-energy equation of state to $w_{\rm de}=-1-2\rho_*/(3\rho_{\rm de})$ and adds a term $-\Omega_*\ln(1+z)$ to $H^2(z)$. The new dimensionless parameter $\Omega_*$, twice the ratio of the fiducial vacuum density to today's critical density, is constrained by late-universe distance and expansion datasets to have a positive best fit but to be compatible with zero within 1$\sigma$. The paper reads this as leaving two alternatives: either the vacuum energy is exactly zero at current sensitivity and general relativity is fully recovered, or present data are too weak to pin down a small nonzero value.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the guess that the gravitational coupling weakens exactly as one minus a fixed density divided by the density, a form the paper adopts by extrapolating a near-vacuum expansion to all densities; if the true density dependence differs, the predicted Hubble correction and the constraint on $\Omega_*$ would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $\Omega_*$ is truly zero, the modified theory reduces to standard general relativity at late times, and the vacuum-energy problem is sidestepped by construction rather than solved dynamically.
  • The dark-energy sector behaves like a phantom-crossing fluid with $w_{\rm de}<-1$ at low redshift, placing the model in a class that can cross the phantom divide without a ghost.
  • With the Cepheid-calibrated dataset the fitted Hubble constant rises to $71.00\pm0.52$ km/s/Mpc, easing the Hubble tension by 0.55$\sigma$ relative to $\Lambda$CDM on the same data; with the uncalibrated supernova set, no such easing occurs.
  • The logarithmic correction is too weak to decisively resolve the Hubble tension; only the combined BAO+chronometer+Cepheid-calibrated supernova dataset reduces the tension to 1.75$\sigma$ relative to the higher-$H_0$ baseline.
  • Because the model and $\Lambda$CDM are statistically indistinguishable, any future claim of a nonzero $\Omega_*$ would require substantially higher precision than current late-universe probes provide.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to allow $\Omega_*$ to be negative or to sample down to exactly zero; the logarithmic prior with lower bound $10^{-3}$ prevents the posterior from exploring null values, so the 'compatible with zero' statement depends on extrapolating the posterior below the prior edge.
  • The ansatz $\chi(\rho)=\chi_E(1-\rho_*/\rho)$ is one of many possible profiles; other functional forms would produce different redshift dependences, so the constraint on $\Omega_*$ should not be read as a general constraint on running-coupling theories.
  • If a logarithmic correction exists below current sensitivity, it would appear as a characteristic curvature in $H(z)/(1+z)^{3/2}$ around $z\sim1$; high-precision cosmic chronometers at those redshifts would provide a clean test.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a modified gravitational theory in which the Einstein constant runs with the energy density, while preserving the Bianchi identity through a modified conservation law. It defines the vacuum state by the condition chi(rho_vac)rho_vac=0, adopts the ansatz chi(rho)=chi_E(1-rho_*/rho), and claims that this produces an extra constant pressure term that modifies the dark-energy equation of state and adds a logarithmic correction Omega_* ln(1+z) to the Hubble parameter. The resulting model is fitted to DESI BAO, cosmic-chronometer, and PantheonPlus/SH0ES data. The central finding is that the new parameter Omega_*, identified with twice the vacuum-energy-to-critical-density ratio, is consistent with zero within 1 sigma, leaving the model statistically indistinguishable from LambdaCDM and providing only a mild reduction of the Hubble tension.

Significance. If the derivation were valid, the paper would offer a compact, analytically tractable framework linking a running gravitational coupling to a late-time logarithmic correction and a falsifiable null prediction. The Bayesian analysis is competently executed with standard public data, and the null result is reported honestly, including Delta chi^2 and Bayes-factor values. The main weakness is that the logarithmic correction is not actually derived from the modified conservation law, so the central claim about rho_* is not supported as it stands. The paper is likely salvageable by reformulating the model as an effective Chaplygin-like dark-energy parametrization, but the advertised connection to the vacuum state of a running Einstein constant needs to be either repaired or substantially downgraded.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Eqs. (20)-(25)] The logarithmic correction used in the data analysis is not a consequence of the running-chi theory. From the integrated conservation law (11), chi(t) sum_w rho_w = chi_E sum_w rho^s_w. With the ansatz (14), this relation is an identity in rho_*: the Friedmann equation (8) becomes H^2=(chi_E/3) sum_w rho^s_w, which for late-time matter plus a term with w=-1 is exactly LambdaCDM, Eq. (12), with no Omega_* ln(1+z). The log term in Eq. (25) is instead generated by a new dark-energy component whose continuity equation (22) is asserted rather than derived: for p_de=-rho_de+p_*, the modified conservation law (5) gives d(chi rho_de)/dt+3H chi (rho_de+p_de)=0, which contains additional chi'/chi and (rho+p) factors and does not reduce to Eq. (22). Eq. (20) also silently replaces the chi(t)-dependent Friedmann equation (8) by one with constant chi_E. Hence the fitted Omega_* in Table 1 constrains an ad hoc log correction, not the vacuum density rho_* of the proposed theory.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (16)-(19)] Eq. (16) is only a rewrite of the integrated conservation law under the ansatz (14); it does not imply that each fluid component acquires an extra pressure w rho_*. Pressure is fixed by the component's equation of state, and the constant offset rho_* in the total density does not by itself generate a pressure term. The net pressure p_*=-(2/3)rho_* and the redefinition w_de=-1-2rho_*/(3rho_de) are therefore introduced without a clear derivation from the preceding equations. If the model is intended as an effective parametrization of dark energy, this should be stated explicitly and the connection to the running Einstein constant should be reworked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (14)] The expression chi(rho)=chi_E(1-rho_*/rho) is called a Taylor expansion near the vacuum state, but it is an ansatz for the product chi(rho)rho rather than a Taylor expansion of chi(rho) itself; please clarify the expansion variable and state explicitly which terms are dropped beyond first order.
  2. [Section 6.2, Eq. (29)] The values quoted in Eq. (29) as 'best-fit' differ from the mean values in Table 1 for the same dataset combination; please state whether these are maximum-posterior values and, if so, report the posterior maximum for Omega_* as well.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3] 'Plank Satellite' should be 'Planck Satellite' (the same typo appears in the Introduction).
  4. [Section 6.2] Because the prior on Omega_* is a log prior truncated at 10^-3, the statement that Omega_* is 'compatible with zero within 1 sigma' would be clearer if accompanied by a 95% upper limit and a brief statement about the prior dependence of this conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Omega* is an externally constrained free parameter, and the central null result is an empirical fit, not a prediction forced by the ansatz; the Eq. (11) vs. Eq. (25) inconsistency is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper does not take a fitted quantity and re-present it as an independent prediction. The ansatz chi(rho) = chi_E(1 - rho*/rho) is explicitly introduced as a phenomenological Taylor expansion and then extrapolated, with the paper itself labeling the extrapolation as "a reasonable assumption" (Sec. 4, after Eq. 14). The logarithmic correction in Eq. (25) is derived from the adopted dark-energy sector, and its amplitude Omega* is constrained by external BAO, cosmic chronometer, and supernova data through standard MCMC inference (Sec. 6). The central claim that the vacuum energy is consistent with zero within 1 sigma is therefore a data-driven constraint on a free model parameter, not a result that is equal to its own input by construction. The identification Omega* = 2 chi_E rho*/(3H0^2) in Eq. (28) is a definition used to translate the fitted amplitude into a physical density; such parameter identification is normal and not circular. Self-citations in the paper (e.g., refs. 44-52, 98-104) are contextual references on the Hubble tension and do not carry the derivation. The main caveat is a consistency, not circularity, problem: substituting Eq. (14) into the integrated conservation law Eq. (11) yields Eq. (12) without the log term, so Eq. (25) appears to follow from a redefined dark-energy sector rather than directly from the original running-chi Bianchi-identity conservation law. That undermines the physical interpretation of Omega* as measuring the vacuum density rho*, but it is not an instance of the paper's output reducing to its input by definition or by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces one new free parameter, rho_star (or Omega_star), fitted to late-universe data. It relies on an ad hoc functional form for the running Einstein constant and a new definition of the vacuum state. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • rho_star (or Omega_star) = Omega_star = 0.015 (+0.011, -0.025) for DESI+SN+CC; 0.022 (+0.012, -0.037) for DESI+SH0ES+CC (Table 1)
    The vacuum energy density scale introduced in the chi(rho) ansatz (Eq. 14) and fitted to late-Universe data via the logarithmic Hubble correction (Eq. 25).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bianchi identities must hold: nabla_nu G^mu_nu = 0, implying the modified conservation law nabla_nu T^nu_mu = -T^nu_mu partial_nu ln chi
    Stated at the start of Sec. 2 and used to derive Eqs. (5)-(6). This is a standard requirement in GR.
  • domain assumption The Universe is described by a flat FLRW metric with a perfect fluid and constant equation of state w
    Adopted in Sec. 3 (Eqs. 7-9), standard in cosmology.
  • ad hoc to paper The running Einstein constant has the functional form chi(rho) = chi_E(1 - rho_star/rho), and this form extends to all energy densities
    Introduced in Sec. 4 (Eq. 14) as a Taylor expansion near the vacuum state, then 'extrapolated to the whole domain' without further justification. All subsequent predictions depend on this ansatz.
  • ad hoc to paper The vacuum state is defined by chi(rho_vac)rho_vac = 0
    Eq. (13) in Sec. 4; this is a new definition proposed by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Running Einstein Constant and a Possible Vacuum State of the Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJ2DBV3T

@misc{pith2026241214747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Running Einstein Constant and a Possible Vacuum State of the Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJ2DBV3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14747}
}
abstract

We propose a revised formulation of General Relativity for cosmological settings, in which the Einstein constant varies with the energy density of the Universe. We demonstrate that this modification has only phenomenological impact of providing an effective dark energy density expression. Assuming a state close to vacuum, here defined by the vanishing product of the Einstein coupling constant and the Universe's energy density, we perform a Taylor expansion of the theory and hence extend it to the whole domain. In this framework, the (renormalized) vacuum energy problem is studied, and an additional constant pressure term, which induces a Chaplygin-like contribution to the dark energy sector, arises in the late-time dynamics. The correction to the late-time Hubble parameter is investigated by comparing theoretical predictions with the late Universe observational data. Our findings indicate that the current value of the stated vacuum energy is consistent with zero within 1$\sigma$. Implications of the modified $\Lambda$CDM model with respect to the Hubble tension are also discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Towards a unified quantum field theory of dark energy and inflation: unstable de Sitter vacuum and running vacuum

    gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The vacuum energy of quantum fields, computed exactly in de Sitter spacetime and then allowed to decay into radiation, can drive H^4-powered inflation and leave a slowly running dark energy δρ_vac ~ m_Pl^2 H^2, unifyi...

  2. Dynamical mechanism of vacuum energy compensation

    gr-qc 2025-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A scalar field with nonlinear coupling to curvature dynamically drives the Ricci scalar to zero, converting de Sitter expansion into H=1/(2t).

  3. Running Vacuum in the expanding Universe: a unified QFT paradigm for Inflation and Dark Energy

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The running vacuum model derives dynamical vacuum energy from QFT in curved spacetime, using H^4 terms for inflation and H^2 terms for dark energy while G evolves logarithmically.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Montani, M.V

    G. Montani, M.V. Battisti, R. Benini, G. Imponente, Primordial cosmology (World Scientific, Singapore, 2009). DOI 10.1142/7235

    doi:10.1142/7235 2009

  2. [2]

    Misner, K.S

    C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  3. [3]

    Mandl, G

    F. Mandl, G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory. A Wiley- Interscience publication (Wiley, 2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cam- bridge University Press, 1995)

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cam- bridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  5. [5]

    Birrell, P.C.W

    N.D. Birrell, P.C.W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1982). DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511622632

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511622632 1982

  6. [6]

    R.M. Wald. Quantum field theory in curved spacetime (1995). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.gr-qc/9509057

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.gr-qc/9509057 1995

  7. [7]

    Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space- Time and Black Hole Thermodynamics

    R.M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space- Time and Black Hole Thermodynamics. Chicago Lec- tures in Physics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995)

    1995

  8. [8]

    Kiefer, T.P

    C. Kiefer, T.P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 44, 1067 (1991). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.1067

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.44.1067 1991

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Bertoni, F

    C. Bertoni, F. Finelli, G. Venturi, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 13(9), 2375 (1996). DOI 10.1088/ 0264-9381/13/9/005

    1996

  2. [10]

    Casadio, International Journal of Modern Physics A 27, 1250186 (2008)

    R. Casadio, International Journal of Modern Physics A 27, 1250186 (2008). DOI 10.1142/s0217751x12501862

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    Kamenshchik, A

    A.Y. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, Physics Letters B 726(1), 518 (2013). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb. 2013.08.067

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    D. Bini, G. Esposito, C. Kiefer, M. Kramer, F. Pessina, Physical Review D 87(10) (2013). DOI 10.1103/ physrevd.87.104008

    2013

  5. [13]

    Kamenshchik, A

    A.Y. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, Physics Letters B 734, 72 (2014). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2014. 05.028

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Brizuela, C

    D. Brizuela, C. Kiefer, M. Kr¨ amer, Phys. Rev. D 93, 104035 (2016). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.104035

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Brizuela, C

    D. Brizuela, C. Kiefer, M. Kr¨ amer, Phys. Rev. D 94, 123527 (2016). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123527

    2016 doi

  8. [17]

    Chataignier, M

    L. Chataignier, M. Kr¨ amer, Phys. Rev. D103(6) (2021). DOI 10.1103/physrevd.103.066005

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    Maniccia, G

    G. Maniccia, G. Montani, Phys. Rev. D 105(8), 086014 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.086014

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    Maniccia, G

    G. Maniccia, G. Montani, L. Torcellini, Universe 9(4), 169 (2023). DOI 10.3390/universe9040169

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    Maniccia, G

    G. Maniccia, G. Montani, S. Antonini, Physical Review D 107(6) (2023). DOI 10.1103/physrevd.107.l061901

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    Maniccia, G

    G. Maniccia, G. Montani, M. Tosoni, Physical Review D 110(8) (2024). DOI 10.1103/physrevd.110.086012

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    Cianfrani, O.M

    F. Cianfrani, O.M. Lecian, M. Lulli, G. Montani, Canonical Quantum Gravity: Fundamentals and Recent Developments (World Scientific, Singapore, 2014). DOI 10.1142/8957

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (Wiley, 1972)

    S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (Wiley, 1972)

    1972

  15. [24]

    Adame, The DESI collaboration, et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025(02), 021 (2025)

    A. Adame, The DESI collaboration, et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025(02), 021 (2025). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    2025 doi

  16. [25]

    Giar` e, Phys

    W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023508 (2025). DOI 10. 1103/ss37-cxhn

    2025

  17. [28]

    di Donato, L

    G. di Donato, L. Pilo. Dynamical cosmological constant (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03589

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [29]

    Weinberg, in Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe, ed

    S. Weinberg, in Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe, ed. by D.B. Cline (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001), pp. 18–26. DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-04587-9 2

    2001 doi

  19. [30]

    Zlatev, L.M

    I. Zlatev, L.M. Wang, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896 (1999). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.896

    1999 doi

  20. [31]

    Armendariz-Picon, V.F

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V.F. Mukhanov, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4438 (2000). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.85.4438

    2000

  21. [33]

    Peebles, B

    P.J.E. Peebles, B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559

    2003 doi

  22. [34]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, eConf C0602061, 06 (2006). DOI 10.1142/S0219887807001928

    2006 doi

  23. [35]

    Henneaux, C

    M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, Physics Letters B 222(2), 195 (1989). DOI 10.1016/0370-2693(89)91251-3

    1989 doi

  24. [36]

    Unruh, Phys

    W.G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 40, 1048 (1989). DOI 10. 1103/PhysRevD.40.1048

    1989

  25. [37]

    Kuchar, Phys

    K.V. Kuchar, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3332 (1991). DOI 10. 1103/PhysRevD.43.3332

    1991

  26. [38]

    Percacci, Foundations of Physics 48(10), 1364–1379 (2018)

    R. Percacci, Foundations of Physics 48(10), 1364–1379 (2018). DOI 10.1007/s10701-018-0189-5

    2018 doi

  27. [39]

    Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don

    P.A.M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 165(921), 199 (1938). DOI 10.1098/rspa.1938.0053

    1938

  28. [40]

    Magueijo, Physics Letters B 820, 136487 (2021)

    J. Magueijo, Physics Letters B 820, 136487 (2021). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136487 10

    2021

  29. [41]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J.a. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084021 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.084021

    2022 doi

  30. [42]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J.a. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103514 (2023). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103514

    2023 doi

  31. [43]

    Smolin, Phys

    L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084003 (2009). DOI 10. 1103/PhysRevD.80.084003

    2009

  32. [44]

    Valentino, O

    E.D. Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D.F. Mota, A.G. Riess, J. Silk, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38(15), 153001 (2021). DOI 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    2021 doi

  33. [45]

    Vagnozzi, F

    S. Vagnozzi, F. Pacucci, A. Loeb, Journal of High En- ergy Astrophysics 36, 27 (2022). DOI 10.1016/j.jheap. 2022.07.004

    2022 doi

  34. [46]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

    S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023518 (2020). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023518

    2020 doi

  35. [47]

    Zhumabek, A

    T. Zhumabek, A. Mukhamediya, H. Chakrabarty, D. Malafarina. Running gravitational constant induced dark energy as a solution to σ8 tension (2024). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2411.05965

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [48]

    Montani, M

    G. Montani, M. De Angelis, F. Bombacigno, N. Carl- evaro, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety: Letters 527(1), L156–L161 (2023). DOI 10.1093/ mnrasl/slad159

    2023

  37. [49]

    Schiavone, G

    T. Schiavone, G. Montani, F. Bombacigno, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 522(1), L72–L77 (2023). DOI 10.1093/mnrasl/slad041

    2023 doi

  38. [50]

    Schiavone, G

    T. Schiavone, G. Montani, M.G. Dainotti, B.D. Simone, E. Rinaldi, G. Lambiase. Running hubble constant from the sne ia pantheon sample? (2022). DOI 10.48550/ arXiv.2205.07033

    2022 doi arXiv

  39. [51]

    Dainotti, B

    M.G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Mon- tani, E. Rinaldi, G. Lambiase, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 912(2), 150 (2021). DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb73

    2021 doi

  40. [52]

    Dainotti, B

    M. Dainotti, B. De Simone, G. Montani;, T. Schiavone;, G. Lambiase., in Proceedings of Corfu Summer Insti- tute 2022 School and Workshops on Elementary Parti- cle Physics and Gravity — PoS(CORFU2022), vol. 436 (2023), vol. 436, p. 235. DOI 10.22323/1.436.0235

    2023 doi

  41. [53]

    Sol` a Peracaula, C

    J. Sol` a Peracaula, C. Moreno-Pulido, A. Gonz´ alez- Fuentes, Universe 11(4) (2025). DOI 10.3390/ universe11040118

    2025

  42. [54]

    Peracaula

    J.S. Peracaula. Composite running vacuum in the uni- verse: implications on the cosmological tensions (2024). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2410.20382

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [55]

    Sol` a Peracaula, A

    J. Sol` a Peracaula, A. G´ omez-Valent, J. de Cruz P´ erez, C. Moreno-Pulido, Europhysics Letters 134(1), 19001 (2021). DOI 10.1209/0295-5075/134/19001

    2021 doi

  44. [56]

    Errahmani, M

    A. Errahmani, M. Magrach, S. Dahmani, A. Bouali, T. Ouali. Emergence of running vacuum energy in f (r, t) gravity : Observational constraints (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2502.18193

    2025 doi arXiv

  45. [57]

    Sol` a Peracaula, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences 380(2230) (2022)

    J. Sol` a Peracaula, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences 380(2230) (2022). DOI 10.1098/rsta.2021. 0182

    2022 doi

  46. [58]

    Tsilioukas, M

    S.A. Tsilioukas, M. Petronikolou, S. Basilakos, E.N. Saridakis. Using wald-gauss-bonnet topological dark en- ergy to simultaneously alleviate the h0 and σ8 tensions (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15927

    2025 doi arXiv

  47. [59]

    Mukhopadhyay, B

    T. Mukhopadhyay, B. Chakraborty, U. Debnath, A. Pradhan, Physics of the Dark Universe 48, 101878 (2025). DOI 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101878

    2025

  48. [60]

    Alvarez, L

    M.A.C. Alvarez, L. Graef, R. Brandenberger. Back- reaction of super-hubble fluctuations, late time track- ing and recent observational results (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2502.17395

    2025 doi arXiv

  49. [61]

    Vagnozzi, Universe 9(9), 393 (2023)

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe 9(9), 393 (2023). DOI 10.3390/ universe9090393

    2023

  50. [62]

    Lovelock, Journal of Mathematical Physics 12(3), 498 (1971)

    D. Lovelock, Journal of Mathematical Physics 12(3), 498 (1971). DOI 10.1063/1.1665613

    1971 doi

  51. [63]

    Landau, E

    L. Landau, E. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics: Volume 6. v. 6 (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1987)

    1987

  52. [64]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A.J. Banday, R. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 641, A6 (2020). DOI 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  53. [65]

    Efstathiou, S

    G. Efstathiou, S. Gratton, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 496(1), L91 (2020). DOI 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa093

    2020 doi

  54. [66]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, J. Silk, Nature Astron- omy 4(2), 196 (2020). DOI 10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9

    2020 doi

  55. [67]

    Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics 61(1), 1 (1989)

    S. Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics 61(1), 1 (1989). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    1989 doi

  56. [68]

    Padmanabhan, Physics reports 380(5-6), 235 (2003)

    T. Padmanabhan, Physics reports 380(5-6), 235 (2003). DOI 10.1016/s0370-1573(03)00120-0

    2003 doi

  57. [69]

    Sakai, I

    N. Sakai, I. Senda, Progress of Theoretical Physics 75(3), 692 (1986). DOI 10.1143/PTP.75.692

    1986 doi

  58. [70]

    Rovelli, Quantum Gravity

    C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2004). DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511755804

    2004 doi

  59. [71]

    Ellis, J.P

    G.F.R. Ellis, J.P. Uzan, American Journal of Physics 73(3), 240–247 (2005). DOI 10.1119/1.1819929

    2005 doi

  60. [72]

    Lemos, E

    P. Lemos, E. Lee, G. Efstathiou, S. Gratton, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 483(4), 4803 (2019). DOI 10.1093/mnras/sty3082

    2019 doi

  61. [73]

    Torrado, A

    J. Torrado, A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2021(05), 057 (2021). DOI 10.1088/ 1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021

  62. [74]

    Gelman, D.B

    A. Gelman, D.B. Rubin, Statistical science 7(4), 457 (1992). DOI 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    1992

  63. [75]

    Trotta, Contemporary Physics 49(2), 71 (2008)

    R. Trotta, Contemporary Physics 49(2), 71 (2008). DOI 10.1080/00107510802066753

    2008 doi

  64. [76]

    Jeffreys, The theory of probability (OuP Oxford, 1998)

    H. Jeffreys, The theory of probability (OuP Oxford, 1998)

    1998

  65. [77]

    Aubourg, S

    ´E. Aubourg, S. Bailey, J.E. Bautista, F. Beutler, V. Bhardwaj, D. Bizyaev, M. Blanton, M. Blomqvist, A.S. Bolton, J. Bovy, et al., Physical Review D 92(12), 123516 (2015). DOI 10.1103/physrevd.92.123516

    2015 doi

  66. [78]

    Corasaniti, A

    P.S. Corasaniti, A. Melchiorri, Physical Review D 77(10) (2008). DOI 10.1103/physrevd.77.103507

    2008 doi

  67. [79]

    Mangano, A

    G. Mangano, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, G. Miele, A. Slosar, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2007(03), 006–006 (2007). DOI 10.1088/ 1475-7516/2007/03/006

    2007

  68. [80]

    Bernui, E

    A. Bernui, E. Di Valentino, W. Giar` e, S. Kumar, R.C. Nunes, Physical Review D 107(10), 103531 (2023). DOI 10.1103/physrevd.107.103531

    2023 doi

  69. [81]

    Jimenez, A

    R. Jimenez, A. Loeb, The Astrophysical Journal 573(1), 37–42 (2002). DOI 10.1086/340549

    2002 doi

  70. [82]

    Borghi, M

    N. Borghi, M. Moresco, A. Cimatti, The Astrophysi- cal Journal Letters 928(1), L4 (2022). DOI 10.3847/ 2041-8213/ac3fb2

    2022

  71. [83]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. To- jeiro, D. Wilkinson, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2016(05), 014–014 (2016). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/014

    2016 doi

  72. [84]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Verde, L. Pozzetti, R. Jimenez, A. Cimatti, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012(07), 053 (2012). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/ 2012/07/053 11

    2012 doi

  73. [85]

    Moresco, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 450(1), L16–L20 (2015)

    M. Moresco, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 450(1), L16–L20 (2015). DOI 10.1093/ mnrasl/slv037

    2015

  74. [86]

    Moresco, R

    M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, A. Citro, The Astrophysical Journal868(2), 84 (2018). DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/aae829

    2018 doi

  75. [87]

    Moresco, R

    M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, A. Cimatti, L. Pozzetti, The Astrophysical Journal 898(1), 82 (2020). DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9eb0

    2020 doi

  76. [88]

    Ahlstr¨ om Kjerrgren, E

    A. Ahlstr¨ om Kjerrgren, E. M¨ ortsell, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 518(1), 585–591 (2022). DOI 10.1093/mnras/stac1978

    2022 doi

  77. [89]

    Cosmic chronometers covariance estimate gitlab repos- itory ( https://gitlab.com/mmoresco/CCcovariance/ -/blob/881413330a7f1e1e5203607d6964db49b4c6c461/ data/HzTable_MM_BC03.dat)

  78. [90]

    Riess, L.M

    A.G. Riess, L.M. Macri, S.L. Hoffmann, D. Scolnic, S. Casertano, A.V. Filippenko, B.E. Tucker, M.J. Reid, D.O. Jones, J.M. Silverman, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 826(1), 56 (2016). DOI 10.3847/0004-637x/ 826/1/56

    2016 doi

  79. [91]

    Scolnic, D

    D.M. Scolnic, D. Jones, A. Rest, Y. Pan, R. Chornock, R. Foley, M. Huber, R. Kessler, G. Narayan, A. Riess, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 859(2), 101 (2018). DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    2018 doi

  80. [92]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A.G. Riess, T.M. Davis, A. Dwomoh, D.O. Jones, N. Ali, P. Charvu, R. Chen, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 938(2), 113 (2022). DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    2022 doi

  81. [93]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T.M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 938(2), 110 (2022). DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    2022 doi

  82. [94]

    Riess, W

    A.G. Riess, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D.O. Jones, Y. Murakami, G.S. Anand, L. Breuval, et al., The Astrophysical journal letters 934(1), L7 (2022). DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    2022 doi

  83. [95]

    Pantheon+SH0ES GitHub repository ( https: //github.com/PantheonPlusSH0ES/DataRelease.git)

  84. [96]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, Physical Re- view D 67(6), 063509 (2003). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD. 67.063509

    2003 doi

  85. [97]

    A. Dev, J. Alcaniz, D. Jain, Physical Review D 67(2), 023515 (2003). DOI 10.1103/physrevd.67.023515

    2003 doi

  86. [98]

    Escamilla, D

    L.A. Escamilla, D. Fiorucci, G. Montani, E. Di Valentino, Physics of the Dark Universe 46, 101652 (2024). DOI 10.1016/j.dark.2024.101652

    2024

  87. [99]

    Schiavone, G

    T. Schiavone, G. Montani. Evolution of an effective hubble constant in f (r) modified gravity (2024). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01410

    2024 doi arXiv

  88. [100]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, M. De Angelis, Entropy 26(8), 662 (2024). DOI 10.3390/e26080662

    2024 doi

  89. [101]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, L.A. Escamilla, E. Di Valentino, Physics of the Dark Universe 48, 101848 (2025). DOI 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101848

    2025

  90. [102]

    Dainotti, B

    M. Dainotti, B. De Simone, M. Bogdan, G. Montani, in Proceedings of Multifrequency Behaviour of High En- ergy Cosmic Sources XIV — PoS(MULTIF2023), vol. 447 (2024), vol. 447, p. 068. DOI 10.22323/1.447.0068

    2024 doi

  91. [103]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, M.G. Dainotti, Physics of the Dark Universe 44, 101486 (2024). DOI 10.1016/j.dark. 2024.101486

    2024

  92. [104]

    Dainotti, A

    M.G. Dainotti, A. Lenart, M.G. Yengejeh, S. Chakraborty, N. Fraija, E. Di Valentino, G. Montani, Physics of the Dark Universe 44, 101428 (2024). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2024.101428

    2024

  93. [105]

    Di Valentino, E.V

    E. Di Valentino, E.V. Linder, A. Melchiorri, Physi- cal Review D 97(4), 043528 (2018). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevD.97.043528

    2018

  94. [106]

    Giar` e, M.A

    W. Giar` e, M.A. Sabogal, R.C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, Physical Review Letters 133(25) (2024). DOI 10.1103/ physrevlett.133.251003

    2024

  95. [107]

    wgcosmo GitHub repository ( https://github.com/ williamgiare/wgcosmo.git)

Pith tools

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