Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 19 references

Interacting Early Dark Energy

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a scalar field representing early dark energy, coupled to radiation through an exponential factor $e^{-\sigma\varphi}$, changes the radiation density scaling to $\rho_\gamma\propto a^{-4+\epsilon}$ and makes the…

desk verdict A short interacting-EDE toy model whose central 'cosmological constant' claim is killed by the paper's own scaling equations, plus a sign error in the r(a) solution. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08541 v2 pith:EKLNYCSP submitted 2025-02-12 gr-qc

Yousef Bisabr (Farzannahad) This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83F0583D0585A40 PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x04.50.Kd
keywords earlydarkenergyHubbletensionscalar-photoncouplingradiationscalingeffectivecosmologicalconstantmodifiedgravityrecombination
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 tries to establish that a scalar field acting as early dark energy can interact with radiation through an exponential coupling $C(\varphi)=e^{-\sigma\varphi}$ and still satisfy the two requirements a successful EDE model needs: an early phase that behaves like a cosmological constant, and a later phase in which the scalar's share of the energy density fades before recombination. The interaction changes the radiation scaling law from $\rho_\gamma\propto a^{-4}$ to $\rho_\gamma\propto a^{-4+\epsilon}$, and, assuming the energy transfer $\epsilon$ is constant, the scalar field grows logarithmically with the scale factor. The paper derives an effective equation of state $\omega_{\rm eff}\to -1$ at early times, independent of the potential, and an analytic ratio $r=\rho_\varphi/\rho_\gamma$ that decays as the universe expands when $\epsilon>0$. It then shows that the parameter space $(\alpha,\epsilon)$ contains regions where $r\le 0.1$ at recombination, which is the condition for an EDE component to stay within observational bounds. If correct, this offers a mechanism for shrinking the sound horizon and easing the Hubble tension without fine-tuning the scalar potential.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exponential coupling function $C(\varphi)=e^{-\sigma\varphi}$ in the action. Its role is to transfer energy between the scalar field and radiation; through the conservation equations it produces the modified scaling $\rho_\gamma=\rho_{0\gamma}a^{-4+\epsilon}$ with $\epsilon=4\sigma\varphi/(3\ln a)$, and under the constant-$\epsilon$ assumption it forces $\varphi=(3\epsilon/4\sigma)\ln a$. That logarithmic field evolution is the mechanism behind both claimed effects: it drives the early-time limit of the effective equation of state toward $-1$, and it turns the ratio solution $r(a)$ into a decaying power law $a^{-3\epsilon/4}$ for $a\gg a_c$. The closed form of $r(a)$ uses the additional assumption $\omega_\varphi\equiv\alpha\approx$ const, with $\lambda=(3\alpha-1)+\epsilon/4$.

What would settle it

Using equations (6), (8), and (10), compute $e^{-\sigma\varphi}\rho_\gamma$ for the parameter values shown in Figure 1 that give $r\le0.1$ at recombination; since $e^{-\sigma\varphi}\rho_\gamma\propto a^{-4+\epsilon/4}$, checking whether this quantity vanishes as $a\to0$ for those values settles whether the early-time limit $\omega_{\rm eff}\to-1$ can coexist with the claimed decay of $r(a)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an interacting scalar-photon system with the action $S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\{\frac12 R - \frac12 g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\mu\varphi\nabla_\nu\varphi - V(\varphi) + e^{-\sigma\varphi}L_m\}$ has the two properties required of early dark energy. Solving the radiation conservation equation gives $\rho_\gamma=\rho_{0\gamma}a^{-4+\epsilon}$, and treating $\epsilon$ as constant forces $\varphi=(3\epsilon/4\sigma)\ln a$. The effective equation of state then approaches $\omega_{\rm eff}\to \frac13\gamma^2-1$ as $a\to0$, so for $\gamma\ll1$ the combined fluid acts like a cosmological constant regardless of the form of $V(\varphi)$. Solving the scalar conservation equation with $\omega_\varphi\equiv\alpha\approx$ const yields $r(a)$, and for $a\gg a_c$ the solution reduces to $r(a)\approx (\epsilon/4\lambda)a^{-3\epsilon/4}$, which declines with expansion when $\epsilon>0$. The paper further claims that the parameter space $(\alpha,\epsilon)$ contains regions where $r\le0.1$ at $a\approx1100$, matching the contemporary bound on the EDE energy budget around recombination.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument hinges on taking the energy-transfer rate between the scalar field and radiation to be a fixed constant, while the early-time cosmological-constant phase and the later decay of the scalar fraction ask that same constant to have opposite signs; the paper does not reconcile these requirements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radiation in this model dilutes as $a^{-4+\epsilon}$; with $\epsilon>0$, the radiation energy density at a fixed early scale factor is higher than in standard cosmology, raising the pre-recombination expansion rate and shrinking the sound horizon.
  • The combined scalar-radiation fluid has an equation of state approaching $-1$ at early times for small $\gamma=3\epsilon/4\sigma$, so the model produces an effective cosmological constant without tuning the potential.
  • The ratio $r=\rho_\varphi/\rho_\gamma$ declines as $a^{-3\epsilon/4}$ for $a\gg a_c$ when $\epsilon>0$, so the EDE component becomes subdominant before recombination and does not disturb later structure formation.
  • The parameter space $(\alpha,\epsilon)$ includes regions where $r\le0.1$ at $a\approx1100$, consistent with the observational bound that EDE contribute at most about 10% of the energy budget at recombination.
  • Because the sound horizon shrinks while late-time physics is unchanged, the model offers a concrete route toward raising the CMB-inferred value of $H_0$ and reducing the Hubble tension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not pursue a scale-dependent energy transfer; allowing $\epsilon(a)$ to vary is a direct generalization that could satisfy both the early-time limit $\omega_{\rm eff}\to-1$ and the later decay of $r(a)$ within one continuous trajectory.
  • The modified scaling $\rho_\gamma\propto a^{-4+\epsilon}$ implies a CMB temperature law $T(z)\propto(1+z)^{1-\epsilon/4}$; comparing this prediction with measurements of the CMB temperature at moderate redshifts would test the model independently of the $r(a)$ analysis.
  • Substituting the derived $r(a)$ into the Friedmann equation yields a Hubble rate with an early boost; a concrete next step is to compute the angular scale of the first CMB acoustic peak from this $H(a)$ and compare it with the Planck measurement, quantifying the model's effect on the Hubble tension.
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 proposes a model of Early Dark Energy in which a minimally coupled scalar field interacts with radiation through an exponential coupling C(φ)=e^{-σφ} during the radiation-dominated era. The authors derive a modified radiation scaling ργ ∝ a^{-4+ε}, show that φ ∝ ln a for constant ε, and claim that the interacting scalar-photon system behaves like an effective cosmological constant at early times. They then solve the scalar-field conservation equation under a constant equation-of-state parameter α, obtain an analytic expression for the ratio r = ρφ/ργ, impose a boundary condition r(a_c)=1, and present a parameter-space plot that they interpret as agreement with observational bounds on EDE around recombination. The paper concludes that the model can alleviate the Hubble tension.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the model would provide a simple, potential-independent mechanism for EDE and would merit attention as an analytic approach to the Hubble tension. The derivation of the modified radiation scaling and the analytic solution for r are transparent and potentially useful. However, the two hallmark EDE properties — an early effective cosmological constant and a ratio r that decays with expansion — are shown by the paper's own equations to be incompatible on the parameter branch used, and the solution for r contains a sign error. The comparison with observational data is also only a parameter scan. These issues are load-bearing, so the significance of the result as presented is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (10) and following paragraph] Using Eq. (6) and Eq. (8), the combination that controls the early-time limit is e^{-σφ}ργ = a^{-3ε/4} a^{-4+ε} = a^{-4+ε/4}. For every ε<16, including the small positive ε used later in the paper, this diverges as a→0, so the assertion that it tends to zero is incorrect; consequently Eq. (10) gives ω_eff→1/3 (radiation-like), not -1. The sign of φ is also opposite to the text: with γ=3ε/(4σ)>0, φ=γ ln a goes to -∞ as a→0. To make the product vanish one would need ε>16, which is incompatible with a radiation-dominated early universe and with the ε>0, γ≪1 branch used for the decaying ratio r(a). Thus the claimed effective cosmological constant is not obtained in the regime where r decays, and the two central EDE features are not simultaneously established.
  2. [§3, Eq. (13)] The particular integral in Eq. (13) has the wrong sign. Solving Eq. (12) with the integrating factor a^{λ+3ε/4} gives r(a) = -ε/(4λ) a^{-3ε/4} + C a^{-λ-3ε/4}, not the printed positive coefficient. With the corrected sign and for λ>0, the branch assumed below Eq. (14), the asymptotic solution is r(a) ≈ -ε/(4λ)a^{-3ε/4}, which becomes negative for large a. The claimed decline of r toward small positive values is therefore an artifact of the sign error, and Eq. (14) as well as Figure 1 must be re-derived.
  3. [§4 and Figure 1] The statement that the parameter space 'aligns with contemporary cosmological data' is not supported by the analysis. Figure 1 is a density plot of the analytic formula for r(a) over chosen values of (α,ε) with the arbitrary boundary condition r(a_c)=1; there is no likelihood function, no comparison to CMB or BAO data, no error budget, and no fit. The plot merely shows where the uncorrected formula gives r≤0.1 at a≈1100, which is not an observational test. This claim should be removed or replaced by a proper statistical comparison.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2, after Eq. (5)] The text states pγ = 1/2 ργ, which is inconsistent with the radiation equation of state pγ = ργ/3 used elsewhere, including in the conservation equation (3); this should be corrected.
  2. [§2, Eq. (1)] The action is written with 1/2 R but without an explicit 16πG factor, and the matter Lagrangian is set to Lm = pm; the conventions should be stated so that the field equations can be independently checked.
  3. [§2, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) is attributed to reference [18], but since it is a central step, the integration leading to ργ ∝ a^{-4+ε} should be shown explicitly or the reference should be supplemented with a direct derivation.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The paper's headline EDE features reduce to parameter choices: φ ∝ ln a restates the definition ε = const, the recombination 'alignment' is a parameter-space scan of the free solution for r(a), and the early-time ω_eff → −1 limit requires an unstated ε > 16 branch that is incompatible with the ε > 0 branch used for the decay of r.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Eqs. (7)-(8)]
    "ǫ ≡ 4σφ/(3 ln a) ... Taking ǫ as a constant parameter then φ evolves logarithmically with the scale factor φ = γ ln a with γ ≡ 3ǫ/(4σ)."

    The logarithmic evolution φ = γ ln a is obtained by inverting the definition of ε under the constancy assumption. It is not a dynamical prediction: the 'result' that φ diverges as a → 0 simply restates ε = constant together with ln a → −∞. All later claims about the early-time behavior inherit this definitional input.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eqs. (12)-(14) and Figure 1]
    "The fig.1 shows a density plot of r(a) in the parameters space (α, ǫ). It illustrates the regions in the parameters space where r(a) accounts for up to 10% of the Universe’s total energy content. This aligns with recent findings that limit the EDE contribution to the overall energy density at the time of recombination [12]."

    The solution r(a) contains the free parameters ε, α, and the freely imposed boundary condition r(a_c) = 1. Figure 1 merely colors the region of this parameter space where r at recombination falls between 0 and 0.1. The claimed 'alignment with contemporary cosmological data' is therefore a restatement of the chosen parameter region, not an independent test or prediction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 3, Eq. (10) and the paragraph following it]
    "At early times when a → 0, φ goes to infinity as inferred by the relation (8). This means that e^{−σφ}ργ → 0 in (10) and then ωef f takes a constant value ωef f → 1/3γ^2 − 1."

    Using the paper's own Eqs. (6) and (8), e^{−σφ}ργ = ρ0γ a^{−4+ε/4}. This vanishes at a → 0 only when ε > 16; for the small ε > 0 branch used to make r(a) decline, it diverges. The asserted limit is therefore not a consequence of φ → ∞ alone but is equivalent to silently choosing the ε > 16 branch, which is incompatible with the ε > 0 energy-injection scenario and with ordinary radiation-dominated early expansion. The advertised ω_eff ≈ −1 behavior is thus imposed by an unstated parameter condition rather than derived from the model.

full rationale

The paper's elementary integration of the radiation conservation equation is self-contained despite citing the author's earlier work [18], and the exponential coupling is an explicit ansatz, so those points are not counted as circular. However, the two headline results are substantially imposed by construction. Equation (7) defines ε through φ and ln a, so Eq. (8), φ ∝ ln a, is just a restatement of taking ε constant. The solution for r(a), Eqs. (13)-(14), contains free parameters ε and α plus a freely imposed boundary condition r(a_c)=1; Figure 1 then colors the region of parameter space where r(1100) ∈ [0,0.1] and calls this alignment with contemporary cosmological data. No external likelihood or parameter-free prediction is involved, so the 'confirmation' is a parameter selection. The effective-cosmological-constant claim is also not supported by the equations in the regime used for the r-decay result: combining (6) and (8) gives e^{-σφ}ργ ∝ a^{-4+ε/4}, which vanishes as a → 0 only for ε > 16, whereas the decay of r is exhibited for ε > 0. Thus the two advertised EDE features cannot both follow in one consistent regime; the early-time feature is effectively an input branch choice. These issues mean that one or more of the central 'predictions' reduce to the paper's own parameter and boundary-condition choices, warranting a partial circularity score of 6. I also note a separate algebraic sign error in the particular integral of Eq. (13): the coefficient should be −ε/(4λ), not +ε/(4λ), but this is a correctness issue rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new particles or fields; it reuses a standard minimally coupled scalar field with an exponential coupling to radiation. The central claims rest on several free parameters (ε, α, σ, the potential, and the boundary scale) and on assumptions of constancy that are not physically derived.

free parameters (5)
  • epsilon = not determined; scanned in Fig. 1
    Energy transfer rate between radiation and the scalar field. Assumed constant to solve the equations and chosen to make r small at recombination.
  • alpha = assumed constant; scanned in Fig. 1
    Equation of state parameter of the scalar field. Taken as constant to integrate the conservation equation (2).
  • sigma = unspecified
    Coupling strength of the exponential coupling C(φ)=e^{-σφ}. Sets the scale for γ and is never constrained.
  • V(phi) = unspecified
    Scalar potential. The paper claims results are independent of V, but the early-time limit depends on the relative growth of V and the radiation term.
  • a_c = unspecified, shortly after inflation
    Boundary scale factor where r(a_c)=1 is imposed. Its value is not given and it affects the full solution (14).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric is assumed.
    The conservation equations (2) and (3) and the Friedmann equations (4) and (5) are written for a spatially flat FRW cosmology.
  • domain assumption The matter Lagrangian is chosen as L_m = p_m.
    Stated in the footnote to eq. (2). This choice affects the form of the coupling terms.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy transfer parameter epsilon is constant.
    Equation (7) defines epsilon in terms of φ and ln a, but the paper then assumes it to be constant to obtain φ = γ ln a in eq. (8).
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar equation of state parameter α is constant.
    The solution of eq. (2) in section 3 assumes ω_φ ≡ α ≈ const, which is not derived from the scalar field dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary condition r(a_c)=1 at an early scale factor a_c.
    Imposed to fix the integration constant C in eq. (13); the paper gives no physical justification for this exact equality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interacting Early Dark Energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EKLNYCSP

@misc{pith2026250208541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interacting Early Dark Energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EKLNYCSP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08541}
}
abstract

We explore a model of interacting Early Dark Energy (EDE) in which a minimally coupled scalar field, representing the EDE, interacts with the radiation sector through an exponential coupling function in the radiation-dominated era. This framework can be inspired by modified theories of gravity, including $f(R)$ gravity, the Einstein frame representation of Brans-Dicke theory, and chameleon gravity. Our findings reveal that the traditional law of radiation conservation is altered to $\rho_{\gamma}\propto a^{-4+\epsilon}$, where the parameter $\epsilon$ measures the rate of energy transfer between radiation and EDE. Assuming a constant energy transfer, we show that the scalar field behaves as $\phi\propto\ln a$, indicating that $\phi$ diverges as $a$ approaches zero. Additionally, we demonstrate that the interacting scalar-photon system behaves similar to an effective cosmological constant in the early stages of evolution of the Universe. Moreover, by solving the conservation equation associated with the scalar field, we derive an analytical expression for the ratio $r=\rho_{\phi}/\rho_{\gamma}$. Our results indicate that $r$ diminishes as the Universe expands, which is essential for a successful EDE model. Our investigation into the parameter space confirms that the expected behavior of $r$ during recombination aligns with contemporary cosmological data. These insights underscore crucial aspects necessary for any feasible EDE model and present exciting possibilities for resolving the Hubble tension.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density plot of r(a) in the parameters space (α, ǫ). This plot highlights the regions in which the ratio r(a) lies between 0 and 0.1, corresponding to a scenario where EDE contributes up to 10% of the total energy budget of the Universe before recombination. parameters space (α, ǫ) close to the recombination period (a ≈ 1100). It illustrates the regions in the parameters space where r(a) accounts for up to 10% of th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Hubble Tension in Power-Law f(R) Gravity and Generalized Brans-Dicke Theory

    Y. Bisabr, Hubble tension in power-law f (R) gravity and generalized Brans-Dicke theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D (2025), DOI: 10.1142/S0218271824500561 [gr-qc/2403.13303]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phy s. 61 (1989) 1 S. M. Carroll, The Cosmological Constant, Living Reviews in Relativity, 4 (2001) 1 [astro- ph/0004075]

    arXiv 1989

  3. [2]

    Bisabr, Chameleon Brans-Dicke cosmology, Phys

    Y. Bisabr, Chameleon Brans-Dicke cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 127503 [gr- qc/212.2709]

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    Di Valentino et al., In the Realm of the Hubble tension a Review of S olutions, Class

    E. Di Valentino et al., In the Realm of the Hubble tension a Review of S olutions, Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) 153001 [ astro-ph/2103.01183]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    D. W. Pesce et al, The Megamaser Cosmology Project. XIII. Com bined Hubble Constant Constraints, ApJL 891 (2020) L1 [ astro-ph/2001.09213] W. L. Freedman, Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective, ApJ 919 (2021) 16 [astro-ph/2106.15656] A. G. Riess et al, A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value o f the Hubble Constant with 1 km/...

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    S. Pan, W. Yang and A. Paliathanasis, Non-linear interacting cosm ological models af- ter Planck 2018 legacy release and the H0 tension, MNRAS 493 (2020) 3114 [astro- ph/2002.03408] N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Astron. Astro- phys. 641 (2020) A6 1807.06209. [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652 (2021) C4 ] [astro- ph/1807.06209]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Efstathiou, H0 Revisited, MNRAS 440 (2014) 1138 [astro-ph/1311.3461] M

    G. Efstathiou, H0 Revisited, MNRAS 440 (2014) 1138 [astro-ph/1311.3461] M. Lucca and D. C. Hooper, Tensions in the dark: shedding light on Da rk Matter-Dark Energy interactions, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 123502 [ astro-ph/2002.06127] Tal Adi and Ely D. Kovetz, Can Conformally Coupled Modified Gravity S olve The Hubble Tension?, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 023530...

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Constraining a late time transition of $G_{\rm eff}$ using low-z galaxy survey data

    G. Alestas, L. Perivolaropoulos and K. Tanidis, Constraining a late time transition of Gef f using low- z galaxy survey data, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 023526 [astro-ph/2201.05846]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 19 references
  1. [8]

    Rong-Gen Cai et al, Chameleon dark energy can resolve the Hubb le tension, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 121302 [astro-ph/2102.02020]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Efstathiou, To H0 or not to H0? MNRAS 505 (2021) 3866 [astro-ph/2103.08723] Rong-Gen Cai et al, No-go guide for the Hubble tension : Late-time s olutions, Phys

    G. Efstathiou, To H0 or not to H0? MNRAS 505 (2021) 3866 [astro-ph/2103.08723] Rong-Gen Cai et al, No-go guide for the Hubble tension : Late-time s olutions, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 021301 [astro-ph/2107.13286]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Rong-Gen Cai et al, No-go guide for late-time solutions to the Hu bble tension: Matter perturbations, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 063519 [astro-ph/2202.12214]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Karwal and M

    T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Early dark energy, the Hubble- parameter tension, and the string axiverse, Phys. Rev. D, 94 (2016) 103523 [astro-ph/1608.01309] V. Poulin et al., Cosmological implications of ultra-light axion-like fields, P hys. Rev. D, 98 (2018) 083525 [astro-ph...

    2016 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, The Hubble Tension and Early Da rk Energy, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 73 (2023) 153 [astro-ph/2211.04492]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Talebian, Early dark energy and dark photon dark matter fr om waterfall symmetry breaking, Phys

    A. Talebian, Early dark energy and dark photon dark matter fr om waterfall symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 123526 [ astro-ph/2312.08254]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Gabriel Gmez, Y

    L. Gabriel Gmez, Y. Rodrguez, and J. P. Beltrn Almeida, Anisotr opic Scalar Field Dark Energy with a Disformally Coupled Yang-Mills Field, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31 (2022) 2250060 [gr-qc/2103.11826]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    T. P. Sotiriou, f (R) Theories Of Gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 451 [gr-qc/0805.1726]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Chameleon Fields: Awaiting Surprises f or Tests of Gravity in Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 171104 [ astro-ph/0309300] 8 J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Chameleon Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 044026 [astro-ph/0309411]

    2004 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Avgoustidis et al., Constraints on the CMB temperature-red shift dependence from SZ and distance measurements, JCAP 02 (2012) 013 [astro/1112.1862] A

    A. Avgoustidis et al., Constraints on the CMB temperature-red shift dependence from SZ and distance measurements, JCAP 02 (2012) 013 [astro/1112.1862] A. Avgoustidis et al, Cosmological effects of scalar-photon coupling s: dark energy and varying-α Models, JCAP 06 (2014) 062 [ ...

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Poulin et al., Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension, Phys

    V. Poulin et al., Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 221301 [astro-ph/1811.04083] J. C. Hill et al., Early Dark Energy Does Not Restore Cosmological Con cordance, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 043507 [astro-ph/2003.07355] A. Gomez-Valent, V...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.