pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.13537 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Revisiting ΛCDM extensions in light of re-analyzed CMB data

Jacobo Asorey , Javier de Cruz P\'erez This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 09:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords Planck CMB likelihoodsLambdaCDM extensionslensing anomalyspatial curvaturedark energy evolutionw0waCDMcosmological tensionsDESI
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Re-analyzed Planck CMB likelihoods reduce the lensing anomaly and weaken support for curvature or extra lensing in LambdaCDM while favoring evolving dark energy.

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

The paper tests several extensions to the standard LambdaCDM model against the latest chain of CMB, BAO and SNIa observations to check whether they resolve known tensions. It compares results across different Planck data processing pipelines and finds that the newest likelihood versions lower the apparent excess lensing and the case for a negatively curved universe. In the w0waCDM parameterization the combined datasets now prefer a dark energy density that changes with time over a fixed cosmological constant, matching independent hints from DESI. This matters because it suggests some tensions may trace to how CMB maps are turned into likelihoods rather than to missing physics. Clarifying the source of these signals helps decide whether future data will require genuine model changes.

Core claim

When the updated PR4 LoLLiPoP and HiLLiPoP likelihoods replace the more commonly used PR4 CamSpec or PR3 versions, the lensing anomaly shrinks and the statistical preference for an amplitude A_L greater than one or for Omega_k less than zero becomes less significant. From the full CMB plus BAO plus SNIa combination in the w0waCDM model the data show a preference for a time-evolving dark energy equation of state over a rigid cosmological constant, consistent with recent DESI results.

What carries the argument

The PR4 LoLLiPoP and HiLLiPoP CMB likelihoods together with the w0wa parameterization of dark energy evolution.

If this is right

  • The lensing anomaly is reduced when the updated likelihoods are adopted.
  • The preference for A_L greater than one becomes less significant.
  • The preference for negative spatial curvature becomes less significant.
  • Time-evolving dark energy is statistically favored over a cosmological constant in the w0waCDM parameterization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Improved data processing may resolve some cosmological tensions without invoking new physics.
  • Upcoming large-scale structure surveys could test whether the preference for evolving dark energy persists at higher precision.
  • If the time variation holds, it would alter forecasts for the late-time expansion rate and the growth of cosmic structure.

Load-bearing premise

That the newer LoLLiPoP and HiLLiPoP likelihoods are freer of systematic biases than earlier Planck pipelines and that combining CMB with BAO and SNIa data does not create spurious signals for evolving dark energy.

What would settle it

An independent re-analysis of the same Planck maps that recovers the original strength of the lensing anomaly, or a larger combined dataset that shows no statistical preference for w0wa over constant dark energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13537 by Jacobo Asorey, Javier de Cruz P\'erez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In the last years with the increasing precision in cosmological observations we have been able to establish a standard model of cosmology, the so-called $\Lambda$CDM, but also find some tensions between cosmological probes that are difficult to explain within the context of this model. We tested several phenomenological extensions of the $\Lambda$CDM with the newest datasets from the chain CMB+BAO+SNIa, to see whether they are able to alleviate the aforementioned tensions. We find that when the updated version of the Planck CMB likelihood (PR4 \texttt{LoLLiPoP} and \texttt{HiLLiPoP}), with respect to the more used likelihoods (PR4 \texttt{CamSpec} and PR3), is considered, the lensing anomaly is reduced, and the preference for $A_L>1$ and $\Omega_k<0$ is less significant. From the CMB+BAO+SNIa dataset, in the context of the parameterization $w_0w_a$CDM, we find a preference for a time-evoling dark energy over the rigid cosmological constant which is consistent with the most recent results from DESI collaboration.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes several phenomenological extensions to ΛCDM using the combination of updated Planck PR4 CMB likelihoods (LoLLiPoP and HiLLiPoP) with BAO and SNIa data. It reports that these newer likelihoods reduce the lensing anomaly and the significance of preferences for A_L > 1 and Ω_k < 0 relative to CamSpec and PR3, and finds a preference for time-evolving dark energy in the w0waCDM parameterization that is consistent with recent DESI results.

Significance. If the reported shifts are shown to arise from genuinely reduced systematics in the new likelihoods rather than pipeline-specific choices, the work would help clarify the origin of CMB anomalies and lend support to dynamic dark energy models, aligning with independent DESI constraints. The emphasis on likelihood choice as a source of apparent tensions is a useful contribution to robustness checks in cosmological parameter estimation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the lensing anomaly is reduced and the preference for A_L>1 and Ω_k<0 is less significant with PR4 LoLLiPoP/HiLLiPoP lacks a controlled comparison (e.g., identical foreground parameters, sky mask, or multipole range) that isolates the source of the shift from differences in noise modeling or marginalization between the likelihoods. Without this, the reduction cannot be confidently attributed to improved data handling.
  2. [Results section on w0waCDM] Analysis of w0waCDM: the reported preference for time-evolving dark energy from CMB+BAO+SNIa is presented without explicit discussion of prior choices on w0 and wa or MCMC convergence diagnostics, which are required to assess whether the posterior shift is robust or prior-driven.
  3. [Discussion] Consistency with DESI: the statement that the w0waCDM preference is consistent with DESI results does not include quantitative comparison of parameter constraints or tension metrics between the two analyses, weakening the external grounding for the central claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains a typo: 'time-evoling' should be 'time-evolving'.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'rigid cosmological constant' is unclear; consider rephrasing to 'standard cosmological constant' or 'Λ' for precision.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below, providing clarifications where possible and outlining planned revisions to improve the rigor and transparency of the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the lensing anomaly is reduced and the preference for A_L>1 and Ω_k<0 is less significant with PR4 LoLLiPoP/HiLLiPoP lacks a controlled comparison (e.g., identical foreground parameters, sky mask, or multipole range) that isolates the source of the shift from differences in noise modeling or marginalization between the likelihoods. Without this, the reduction cannot be confidently attributed to improved data handling.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a fully controlled comparison holding foreground parameters, masks, and multipole ranges identical would more cleanly isolate the origin of the shifts. The LoLLiPoP/HiLLiPoP and CamSpec likelihoods are distinct public pipelines released by the Planck collaboration, each with its own noise modeling and foreground marginalization choices; our comparison therefore reflects the impact of switching between these standard implementations rather than a single-parameter variation. We will add a methods subsection that tabulates the principal differences between the likelihoods (noise treatment, foreground parametrization, and effective sky coverage) and explicitly state that the observed reductions in anomaly significance are tied to these pipeline-level distinctions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results section on w0waCDM] Analysis of w0waCDM: the reported preference for time-evolving dark energy from CMB+BAO+SNIa is presented without explicit discussion of prior choices on w0 and wa or MCMC convergence diagnostics, which are required to assess whether the posterior shift is robust or prior-driven.

    Authors: We agree that prior ranges and convergence diagnostics should be stated explicitly. Our chains used flat priors w0 ∈ [-3, 1] and wa ∈ [-3, 3], with convergence assessed via the Gelman-Rubin statistic requiring R-1 < 0.01. We will insert this information, together with a brief statement on chain length and burn-in, into the revised w0waCDM results subsection. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Consistency with DESI: the statement that the w0waCDM preference is consistent with DESI results does not include quantitative comparison of parameter constraints or tension metrics between the two analyses, weakening the external grounding for the central claim.

    Authors: We will strengthen the discussion by adding a quantitative comparison. The revised text will quote the 68 % constraints on (w0, wa) from both our CMB+BAO+SNIa posterior and the DESI 2024 results, and will include a simple tension metric (difference in means normalized by the combined uncertainty) to quantify the level of agreement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard fitting to independent datasets with external consistency check

full rationale

The paper conducts standard cosmological parameter estimation by fitting extensions of ΛCDM (including A_L, Ω_k, and w0waCDM) to combinations of CMB likelihoods (PR4 LoLLiPoP/HiLLiPoP vs. CamSpec/PR3), BAO, and SNIa data. The reported reduction in lensing anomaly and the preference for evolving dark energy are direct outputs of these fits rather than self-referential derivations. Consistency with independent DESI results provides external grounding. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain; the analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmological parameter estimation assumptions and the external validity of the DESI result for cross-check; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • w0 and wa in dark energy equation of state
    Two parameters introduced to allow time evolution of dark energy density and fitted to the combined dataset.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Gaussian likelihood approximation for CMB power spectra and BAO/SNIa distance measures
    Invoked implicitly when deriving posterior constraints on extension parameters.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5743 in / 1310 out tokens · 33267 ms · 2026-05-19T09:20:06.024997+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · 43 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics (CosmoVerse)

    The replacement of the PR3 CMB likelihood by the recent PR4 one brings significant changes in the results. The PR3 results displayed in this section are extracted from [48]. With the PR3 likelihood, when the ΛCDM+Ωk is analyzed, a value of Ω k = −0.044+0.018 −0.015 is obtained and the difference in the value of χ2 min with respect to the ΛCDM model is ∆ χ...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results

    G. Hinshaw et al. (WMAP), Nine-Year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cos- mological Parameter Results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and $\Lambda$CDM Parameters

    T. Louis et al. (ACT), The Atacama Cosmology Tele- scope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and LCDM Pa- rameters, (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Improved cosmological constraints from a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS supernova samples

    M. Betoule et al. (SDSS), Improved Cosmological Con- straints from a Joint Analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS Supernova Samples, Astron. Astrophys.568, A22 (2014), arXiv:1401.4064 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework

    D. Rubin et al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with ∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set, Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    W. J. Percival et al. (2dFGRS), The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: The Power spectrum and the matter content of the Universe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 327, 1297 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105252

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  10. [10]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  11. [11]

    Clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies IV: Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Line-of-Sight Direction and a Direct Measurement of H(z)

    E. Gaztanaga, A. Cabre, and L. Hui, Clustering of Lu- minous Red Galaxies IV: Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Line-of-Sight Direction and a Direct Measurement of H(z), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 399, 1663 (2009), arXiv:0807.3551 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: testing the cosmological model with baryon acoustic oscillations at z=0.6

    C. Blake et al., The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: test- ing the cosmological model with baryon acoustic oscilla- tions at z=0.6, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 415, 2892 (2011), arXiv:1105.2862 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Constant

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. Staveley- Smith, L. Campbell, Q. Parker, W. Saunders, and F. Watson, The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acous- tic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Constant, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.416, 3017 (2011), arXiv:1106.3366 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  14. [14]

    The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological Implications from two Decades of Spectroscopic Surveys at the Apache Point observatory

    S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acous- tic Oscillations, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy cluster- ing and weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 98, 043526 (2018), arXiv:1708.01530 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Asgari et al

    M. Asgari et al. (KiDS), KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Cos- mic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics, Astron. Astrophys. 645, A104 (2021), arXiv:2007.15633 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy cluster- ing and weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    A. J. Cuesta, L. Verde, A. Riess, and R. Jimenez, Cali- brating the cosmic distance scale ladder: the role of the sound horizon scale and the local expansion rate as dis- tance anchors, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 448, 3463 (2015), arXiv:1411.1094 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde, and A. G. Riess, The trouble with H0, JCAP 10, 019, arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe, Nature Astron. 3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]. 8 TABLE I. ΛCDM: Mean and 68% confidence limits of the primary and derived parameters of the ΛCDM model obtained after analyzing the datasets: BAO+SNIa, PR4, PR4+lensing, PR4+BAO+SNIa and PR4+lensing+nonCMB. T...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    In the Realm of the Hubble tension $-$ a Review of Solutions

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    O. T. Oayda, V. Mittal, G. F. Lewis, and T. Murphy, A Bayesian approach to the cosmic dipole in radio galaxy surveys: joint analysis of NVSS & RACS, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 531, 4545 (2024), arXiv:2406.01871 [astro- ph.CO]. 9 TABLE III. ΛCDM + AL: Mean and 68% confidence limits of the primary and derived parameters of the ΛCDM+ AL model obtained after...

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    S.-F. Chen, M. White, J. DeRose, and N. Kokron, Cos- mological analysis of three-dimensional BOSS galaxy clustering and Planck CMB lensing cross correlations via Lagrangian perturbation theory, JCAP 07 (07), 041, arXiv:2204.10392 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  25. [25]

    Cosmic distance inference from purely geometric BAO methods: Linear Point standard ruler and Correlation Function Model Fitting

    S. Anselmi, P.-S. Corasaniti, A. G. Sanchez, G. D. Stark- man, R. K. Sheth, and I. Zehavi, Cosmic distance infer- ence from purely geometric BAO methods: Linear Point standard ruler and Correlation Function Model Fitting, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123515 (2019), arXiv:1811.12312 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Favale, A

    A. Favale, A. G´ omez-Valent, and M. Migliaccio, Quan- tification of 2D vs 3D BAO tension using SNIa as a redshift interpolator and test of the Etherington rela- tion, Phys. Lett. B 858, 139027 (2024), arXiv:2405.12142 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

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

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cos- mological Constraints, (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Dark Energy Survey: A 2.1% measurement of the angular baryonic acoustic oscil- lation scale at redshift zeff=0.85 from the final dataset, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063515 (2024), arXiv:2402.10696 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Dark Energy Survey: im- plications for cosmological expansion models from the final DES Baryon Acoustic Oscillation and Supernova data, (2025), arXiv:2503.06712 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Challenges for $\Lambda$CDM: An update

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    E. Abdalla et al., Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies, JHEAp 34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Anomalies in physical cosmology, An- nals Phys. 447, 169159 (2022), arXiv:2208.05018 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

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

    E. Di Valentino et al. (CosmoVerse), The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Model-independent test of the FLRW metric, the flatness of the Universe, and non-local measurement of $H_0r_\mathrm{d}$

    B. L’Huillier and A. Shafieloo, Model-independent test of the FLRW metric, the flatness of the Universe, and non-local measurement of H0rd, JCAP 01, 015, arXiv:1606.06832 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations

    G.-B. Zhao et al. , Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations, Nature Astron. 1, 627 (2017), arXiv:1701.08165 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Falsifying $\Lambda$CDM: Model-independent tests of the concordance model with eBOSS DR14Q and Pantheon

    A. Shafieloo, B. L’Huillier, and A. A. Starobinsky, Fal- sifying ΛCDM: Model-independent tests of the concor- dance model with eBOSS DR14Q and Pantheon, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083526 (2018), arXiv:1804.04320 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    L’Huillier, A

    B. L’Huillier, A. Mitra, A. Shafieloo, R. E. Keeley, and H. Koo, Litmus tests of the flat ΛCDM model and model- independent measurement of H0 rd with LSST and DESI, JCAP 05, 030, arXiv:2407.07847 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  38. [38]

    Favale, A

    A. Favale, A. G´ omez-Valent, and M. Migliaccio, Cos- mic chronometers to calibrate the ladders and mea- sure the curvature of the Universe. A model-independent 11 study, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 523, 3406 (2023), arXiv:2301.09591 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, T. J. Hoyt, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Three In- dependent Astrophysical Determinations of the Hub- ble Constant Using the James Webb Space Telescope, (2024), arXiv:2408.06153 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER), A gravitational- wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble con- stant, Nature 551, 85 (2017), arXiv:1710.05835 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    K. C. Wong et al. (H0LiCOW), H0LiCOW – XIII. A 2.4 per cent measurement of H0 from lensed quasars: 5.3 σ tension between early- and late-Universe probes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 1420 (2020), arXiv:1907.04869 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Birrer et al

    S. Birrer et al. (TDCOSMO), TDCOSMO 2025: Cos- mological constraints from strong lensing time delays, in 3rd General Meeting of CosmoVerse: Addressing obser- vational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fun- damental physics (2025) arXiv:2506.03023 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    A Hubble Diagram for Quasars

    G. Risaliti and E. Lusso, A Hubble Diagram for Quasars, Astrophys. J. 815, 33 (2015), arXiv:1505.07118 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Lusso et al., Quasars as standard candles III

    E. Lusso et al., Quasars as standard candles III. Valida- tion of a new sample for cosmological studies, Astron. Astrophys. 642, A150 (2020), arXiv:2008.08586 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    J. A. Hodgson, B. L’Huillier, I. Liodakis, S.-S. Lee, and A. Shafieloo, Using variability and VLBI to measure cos- mological distances, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, L27 (2020), arXiv:2003.10278 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    J. A. Hodgson, B. L’Huillier, I. Liodakis, S.-S. Lee, and A. Shafieloo, Estimating the feasibility of ‘standard speed-gun’ distances, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 521, L44 (2023), arXiv:2301.06252 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Cosmic Microwave Weak lensing data as a test for the dark universe

    E. Calabrese, A. Slosar, A. Melchiorri, G. F. Smoot, and O. Zahn, Cosmic Microwave Weak lensing data as a test for the dark universe, Phys. Rev. D 77, 123531 (2008), arXiv:0803.2309 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    Planck Collaboration, Planck 2018 re- sults: Cosmological parameter tables, https://wiki.cosmos.esa.int/planck-legacy- archive/images/9/9c/baseline params table 2018 95pc.pdf (2018)

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), P lanck intermediate results. LVII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing, Astron. Astrophys. 643, A42 (2020), arXiv:2007.04997 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Tristram et al., Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4), Astron

    M. Tristram et al., Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4), Astron. Astrophys. 682, A37 (2024), arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps, JCAP 09, 039, arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Gomez-Valent and J

    A. Gomez-Valent and J. Sol` a Peracaula, Phantom Mat- ter: A Challenging Solution to the Cosmological Ten- sions, Astrophys. J. 975, 64 (2024), arXiv:2404.18845 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    de Cruz Perez, C.-G

    J. de Cruz Perez, C.-G. Park, and B. Ratra, Current data are consistent with flat spatial hypersurfaces in the ΛCDM cosmological model but favor more lensing than the model predicts, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063522 (2023), arXiv:2211.04268 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Sanz-Wuhl, H

    S. Sanz-Wuhl, H. Gil-Mar´ ın, A. J. Cuesta, and L. Verde, BAO cosmology in non-spatially flat background geom- etry from BOSS+eBOSS and lessons for future surveys, JCAP 05, 116, arXiv:2402.03427 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  57. [57]

    Weak Lensing of the CMB: A Harmonic Approach

    W. Hu, Weak lensing of the CMB: A harmonic approach, Phys. Rev. D62, 043007 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001303

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  58. [58]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, Weak gravitational lensing of the CMB, Phys. Rept. 429, 1 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0601594

    work page arXiv 2006

  59. [59]

    Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  60. [60]

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

    work page arXiv 2003

  61. [61]

    Li and A

    X. Li and A. Shafieloo, A Simple Phenomenologi- cal Emergent Dark Energy Model can Resolve the Hubble Tension, Astrophys. J. Lett. 883, L3 (2019), arXiv:1906.08275 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Is excess smoothing of Planck CMB ansiotropy data partially responsible for evidence for dark energy dynamics in other w(z)CDM parametrizations?, (2025), arXiv:2501.03480 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Extended Dark Energy anal- ysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview

    J. Lesgourgues, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solv- ing System (CLASS) I: Overview, arXiv (2011), arXiv:1104.2932, arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  65. [65]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, The Cosmic Lin- ear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approx- imation schemes, JCAP 1107, 034, arXiv:1104.2933, arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP 05, 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  67. [67]

    Brooks and A

    S. Brooks and A. Gelman, General Methods for Moni- toring Convergence of Iterative Simulations, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 7, 434 (1997)

    work page 1997

  68. [68]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. Rubin, Inference from Iterative Sim- ulation Using Multiple Sequences, Statistical Science 7, 457 (1992)

    work page 1992

  69. [69]

    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-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    See [76, 77] for discussions in favor of using σ12 instead of σ8

    work page

  71. [71]

    D. J. Fixsen, The Temperature of the Cosmic Mi- crowave Background, Astrophys. J. 707, 916 (2009), arXiv:0911.1955, arXiv:0911.1955 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  72. [72]

    D. J. Spiegelhalter, N. G. Best, B. P. Carlin, and A. van der Linde, Bayesian measures of model complexity 12 and fit, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. 64, 583 (2002)

    work page 2002

  73. [73]

    A. R. Liddle, Information criteria for astrophysical model selection, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 377, L74 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701113

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  74. [74]

    CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics

    S. Joudaki et al. , CFHTLenS revisited: assessing con- cordance with Planck including astrophysical system- atics, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 2033 (2017), arXiv:1601.05786 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2033

  75. [75]

    Deng and W

    W.-N. Deng and W. Handley, Predicting spatial cur- vature Ω K in globally CPT-symmetric universes, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103528 (2024), arXiv:2407.18225 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Torrado and A

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

    work page 1910

  77. [77]

    A. G. Sanchez, Arguments against using h−1Mpc units in observational cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123511 (2020), arXiv:2002.07829 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Forconi, A

    M. Forconi, A. Favale, and A. G´ omez-Valent, Illustrating the consequences of a misuse of σ8 in cosmology, (2025), arXiv:2501.11571 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025