Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Observational Constraints on Scalar Field--Matter Interaction in Weyl Integrable Spacetime

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weyl Integrable Spacetime, with a geometrically sourced scalar–matter coupling, fits four cosmological datasets better than ΛCDM, and the author reports weak-to-moderate statistical preference for it.

desk verdict A standard, honestly reported constraints paper on a previously derived WIS Hubble law, where the weak-to-moderate preference over Lambda-CDM depends on an unvalidated I0=0 approximation at high redshift and a GRB/SNe calibration double-count. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16223 v1 pith:MWZPLVHR submitted 2025-06-19 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Andronikos Paliathanasis This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th MSC 83D0583F0585A40 PACS 98.80.-k04.50.Kd98.80.Es
keywords WeylIntegrableSpacetimechameleonmechanismscalarfield–matterinteractiondarkenergycosmologicalconstraintsgamma-rayburstsΛCDMcomparison
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

The paper tests an exact cosmological solution in Weyl Integrable Spacetime, a theory in which the connection's nonmetricity introduces a scalar field and, when matter is present, a geometric energy exchange between that field and ordinary matter. Fitting the resulting three-parameter Hubble law to Type Ia supernova distances, cosmic-chronometer Hubble measurements, baryon-acoustic-oscillation distances, and gamma-ray-burst distances, the author finds that the WIS model improves the joint likelihood relative to the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. The preference is weak on the Akaike criterion ($\Delta$AIC from $-0.1$ to $-2.8$) and weak to moderate on Jeffrey's scale for Bayesian evidence ($\Delta\ln Z$ from $+0.52$ to $+1.48$). Best-fit values put the coupling at $w_0\simeq 0.5$ with $H_0\simeq 68$ km/s/Mpc, indicating a quintessence-like scalar field, while $\Lambda$CDM is recovered only when $w_0\to 0$. If the claim stands, it supplies a geometric rather than phenomenological origin for an interacting dark sector and a possible route toward the $H_0$ tension.

What carries the argument

The central object is the WIS connection together with the interaction term $Q=\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\rho}_m u^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}\phi$, which makes the scalar field's effective mass depend on the ambient matter density, realizing a chameleon mechanism. The analytic solution is carried by the Noether conservation law $I_0=-4a^2\dot{a}-4\lambda a^3\dot{\phi}$, which follows from a variational symmetry of the point Lagrangian and lets the author reduce the two-field cosmological system to first-order equations. The final fitting formula, with the single extra parameter $w_0=\lambda^{-1}$, is the object actually compared with observations; its $w_0\to 0$ limit is exactly the $\Lambda$CDM Hubble law.

What would settle it

Integrate the exact reduced system (34)–(35) for the best-fit parameters with a nonzero $I_0$ allowed by the constraint, compute predicted distance moduli out to $z\approx 8.1$, and compare with the asymptotic formula (36); if the two predictions differ by more than the observational error bars, the reported model comparison was not testing the WIS theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within WIS, the covariant derivative is built from a conformally related metric, so the conformal factor becomes a dynamical scalar field and the matter sector acquires a nonminimal coupling. For a pressureless fluid and exponential potential $V=V_0 e^{\phi}$, the cosmological field equations admit a Noether conservation law $I_0=-4a^2\dot{a}-4\lambda a^3\dot{\phi}$, which reduces them to a first-order system. In the late-time asymptotic regime this yields the Hubble function $H_{\mathrm{WIS}}(a)=H_0\sqrt{(1-\tilde{\Omega}_{m0})a^{-w_0}+\tilde{\Omega}_{m0}a^{-3-w_0/2}}$ with $w_0=\lambda^{-1}$; as $w_0\to 0$ ($\lambda\to\infty$) the $\Lambda$CDM Hubble law is recovered. The paper constrains the three parameters $\{H_0,\tilde{\Omega}_{m0},w_0\}$ (plus the BAO sound horizon $r_d$) on four dataset combinations and reports best fits $H_0\approx 68.1$–$68.8$ km/s/Mpc, $\tilde{\Omega}_{m0}\approx 0.20$–$0.23$, and $w_0\approx 0.44$–$0.55$. The improvement over $\Lambda$CDM is $\Delta\chi^2_{\min}=-2.1$ to $-4.8$, which the author translates into inconclusive-to-weak AIC evidence and weak-to-moderate Bayesian evidence, with the $\Lambda$CDM limit $w_0=0$ lying within $2\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The fitted Hubble law comes from a late-time asymptotic limit in which the conserved quantity $I_0$ is ignored or set to zero, and the paper does not check whether that limit still holds at the high redshifts, up to $z\approx 8.1$, included in the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the WIS Hubble law is the correct late-time expansion history, then a scalar–matter interaction generated by nonmetricity, rather than an ad hoc coupling, can account for the same distance data as $\Lambda$CDM with one extra parameter.
  • The best-fit values $H_0\approx 68.6$, $\tilde{\Omega}_{m0}\approx 0.206$, $w_0\approx 0.51$ (dataset D4) give concrete predictions for future independent probes of the expansion rate.
  • Because $w_0=0$ remains within $2\sigma$, the data do not yet decisively separate the models; $\Lambda$CDM is challenged but not ruled out.
  • Including gamma-ray bursts shifts the comparison in favor of WIS, while adding cosmic-chronometer data weakens it, so the conclusion is dataset-sensitive.
  • The model returns lower $H_0$ than $\Lambda$CDM, which the author identifies as a possible handle on the $H_0$ tension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the preference intensifies only when gamma-ray bursts, the highest-redshift data, are added, the practical fate of the claim is tied to whether the exact WIS evolution, not just its late-time asymptotic formula, matches those high-$z$ distances.
  • Reading $w_0\approx 0.5$ through the Hubble law, both the effective dark-energy term and the matter term decay faster with scale factor than their $\Lambda$CDM counterparts; this makes WIS a concrete geometric analogue of interacting or dynamical dark-energy models studied phenomenologically.
  • A natural next test is to add CMB distance priors or gravitational-wave standard sirens; the paper's reported lower $H_0$ would then either survive as a resolution of the Hubble tension or be absorbed by parameter degeneracies.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper tests an analytic cosmological solution in Weyl Integrable Spacetime (WIS) against late-time cosmological data. The model adds one parameter, w0, to ΛCDM through a scalar field–matter interaction that arises geometrically, and it reduces to ΛCDM when w0→0. The authors fit the WIS Hubble law (36) to four dataset combinations (SNIa, BAO, OHD, GRBs) using COBAYA with PolyChord, and compare to ΛCDM via χ², AIC, and Bayesian evidence. They report weak-to-moderate statistical preference for WIS for the datasets including GRBs, with best-fit w0≈0.5 and H0≈68.6, and note that w0=0 lies within the 2σ region. The central claim is that WIS fits the data better than ΛCDM, with the addition of one free parameter.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides an observationally viable modified-gravity model with a geometric origin for dark-energy–matter interaction, extending ΛCDM by a single parameter. Strengths include the use of public data, standard Bayesian model-comparison tools, an analytic solution that predates the data (so the test is not circular), and a well-defined ΛCDM limit. The reported preference, however, is weak-to-moderate, and it rests on an asymptotic approximation whose validity at the highest redshifts is not established, as well as on GRB distances that may share calibration covariance with the SNe sample. The significance is therefore conditional on those two points being resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (34)–(36)] The Hubble law (36) is obtained by setting I0=0 after an argument that I0 is not essential for the late-time solution. The paper then fits this expression to data that include GRBs at z≈8.1 (Table I, D3/D4), where a≈0.12 and the late-time regime is not obviously reached. Because the reported improvement over ΛCDM is only Δχ²≈−4 for D4 and w0=0 is within 2σ, even a modest contribution from the neglected I0 term at high redshift could erase the claimed weak-to-moderate preference. I ask the authors to quantify the size of the dropped I0 term relative to sqrt(κ(ψ)) over the full fitted redshift range, or to redo the likelihood using the full reduced system (34)–(35) with I0 marginalized over, and to show that the conclusions are unchanged.
  2. [§4.1, GRB data; §4.2] The GRB distance moduli are taken from [104], where the Amati correlation is calibrated using low-redshift SNe distances in the standard implementation. In datasets D3 and D4 these GRB distances are combined with the Pantheon+ SNe data without modeling the shared calibration covariance. Since the inclusion of GRBs is precisely what moves the AIC from inconclusive (D1/D2) to weak evidence (D3/D4) and the Bayesian evidence from weak to moderate, the headline model comparison may be biased by this double-counted calibration information. The authors should either propagate the calibration covariance into the joint likelihood or repeat the analysis without SNe-calibrated GRBs to demonstrate robustness.
  3. [§4.3, Table IV and concluding paragraphs] For every dataset the ΛCDM limit w0=0 lies inside the 2σ confidence region, and the Δχ² values are between −2.1 and −4.8. The statement in the conclusions that the two models differ at the 2σ level therefore overstates the evidence, because a parameter being within 2σ of zero is usually read as consistency with ΛCDM at that level. The abstract's 'weak to moderate preference' is defensible, but the stronger wording in Section 5 should be softened, and the conclusions should be framed as preliminary given the approximation and calibration issues above.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table III caption] The word 'Obeservation' should be 'Observation'.
  2. [Table IV] The Akaike-scale entry 'Inoclusive' should be 'Inconclusive'.
  3. [Throughout] The possessive 'Jeffrey's scale' should be 'Jeffreys scale', and reference [110] should be updated accordingly.
  4. [§4.1, SNIa bullet] The paper states that Pantheon+ data are used without the Cepheid calibration, but the concluding section mentions a check with SH0ES calibration without describing that analysis; this should either be moved to the methods section or removed.
  5. [Figures 1 and 2] The captions refer to 'confidence space'; 'confidence regions' would be more standard terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the WIS Hubble function is derived from the field equations before any data are used, and the one self-citation is an independent analytic derivation.

full rationale

The claimed result is a model comparison: the WIS Hubble function (36) is obtained from the WIS field equations via the conservation law (29) and the reduced system (34)-(35), with the choice I0=0 made in Section 3 before the data are introduced. The free parameters {H0, Omega_m0, w0, rd} are then constrained with external catalogs (Pantheon+, OHD, DESI DR2 BAO, GRBs), so the fit does not define the model. The only self-citation, ref. [63], supplies the analytic solution and Noetherian conservation law; it is a published derivation with explicit assumptions (exponential potential, pressureless matter) and does not itself contain the target claim of a better fit than LCDM, so it is independent support rather than load-bearing circularity. The passage 'Therefore, to overcome this limitation, we consider I0 = 0' (Section 3, after Eq. 35) is a modeling restriction, not a parameter adjusted to improve the likelihood; it could be a validity limitation because the resulting H(a) is fitted up to z~8.1, but that is a correctness or approximation concern, not a circular reduction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggling via citation, or renaming of a known result is present. The statistical preference is reported as 'weak to moderate' and w0=0 (LCDM) lies within 2 sigma of the posteriors, which is consistent with an honest, non-circular model selection analysis.

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

The analysis rests on the analytic Hubble law (36) from the author's prior derivation, the exponential potential and pressureless matter assumptions, the late-time approximation or I0=0, and the treatment of public datasets as independent. The fitted parameters are H0, Omega_tilde_m0, w0, and rd.

free parameters (4)
  • H0 = 68.6 +/- 1.6 km/s/Mpc (D4)
    Hubble constant, fitted to all datasets.
  • Omega_tilde_m0 = 0.206 (+0.023/-0.048) (D4)
    Effective matter density parameter in the WIS Hubble law, fitted.
  • w0 = 0.51 (+0.27/-0.15) (D4)
    Extra degree of freedom w0 = 1/lambda controlling the scalar field coupling; fitted, reduces to Lambda-CDM at w0=0.
  • rd = not reported
    Sound horizon at drag epoch, free parameter in the BAO likelihood; common to both WIS and Lambda-CDM, but not reported in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The universe is described by a spatially flat FLRW metric with homogeneous scalar field and pressureless matter.
    Section 2.1, equations (20)-(24). The entire cosmological model relies on this symmetry.
  • domain assumption The scalar field potential is exponential, V(phi)=V0 exp(phi).
    Section 3, first paragraph. This specific potential is required for the analytic solution.
  • ad hoc to paper The conserved quantity I0 is neglected or set to zero to obtain the Hubble law (36).
    Section 3, equations (34)-(36); the paper states I0 is not essential for late times or sets I0=0 for lambda<1/6, but uses the resulting Hubble law for all redshifts without validation.
  • domain assumption GRB distance moduli from the Amati correlation are treated as independent distance indicators uncorrelated with the Pantheon+ SNe sample.
    Section 4.1, GRB paragraph; the calibration in Amati et al. (2019) uses SNe Ia distances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational Constraints on Scalar Field--Matter Interaction in Weyl Integrable Spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWZPLVHR

@misc{pith2026250616223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational Constraints on Scalar Field--Matter Interaction in Weyl Integrable Spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWZPLVHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16223}
}
abstract

We test an analytic cosmological solution within the framework of Weyl Integrable Spacetime using current observational data. In this model, dark energy is described by a pressureless fluid, while a scalar field arises naturally through the definition of the connection. This gravitational theory reveals a Chameleon Mechanism leading to a nonzero interaction between the scalar field and the matter sector. This model extends the standard $\Lambda $CDM cosmology by introducing one additional degree of freedom, allowing for deviations from $\Lambda$CDM dynamics. For the observational constraints we consider the Supernova data of Pantheon+ collaboration, the Cosmic Chronometers, the Baryonic Acoustic Oscillators of DESI DR2 collaboration and the gamma-ray bursts. We find that Weyl Integrable Spacetime fits the data in a better way than the $\Lambda$CDM. When all datasets are considered, the statistical comparison indicates a weak to moderate preference for Weyl Integrable Spacetime according to the Akaike Information Criterion and Jeffrey's scale for the Bayesian evidence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16223 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Confidence space for the best-fit parameters for WIS Hubble function (36) for the datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Confidence space for the best-fit parameters for WIS Hubble function (36) for the datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Observational constraints on the modified cosmology inspired by string T-duality

    gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Late-time data bound the T-duality zero-point-length coupling to β ≲ 10^-3, leaving ΛCDM statistically equivalent.

  2. Alleviating the $H_0$ tension through the interacting dark energy model from quantum gravitational field theory in light of DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    With DESI DR2 BAO plus CMB and a SH0ES prior, the two-parameter eeΛCDM model gives δΛ=-0.41±0.14 and H0=71.9±1.0, easing the Hubble tension to 0.8σ, but SN datasets erase the signal.

  3. Averaging Dynamics of Scalar Field-Matter Interacting Models in Anisotropic Universes: The Locally Rotationally Symmetric Bianchi I Spacetime

    gr-qc 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors apply averaging methods to classify late-time attractors for nine interacting dark sector models in Bianchi I cosmology, but the general interaction formula does not match the specific models analyzed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [104]

    Brout et al

    D. Brout et al. Ap. J. 938, 110 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    The connection that defines the covariant derivative is that of a conformally related metric, where the conformal factor contributes dynamically to the gravitational theory [1]

    INTRODUCTION Weyl Integrable Spacetime (WIS) is a gravitational theory with nonzero nonmetricity [1–6], which extends the concept of General Relativity. The connection that defines the covariant derivative is that of a conformally related metric, where the conformal factor contributes dynamically to the gravitational theory [1]. In WIS, the scalar field i...

    arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    WEYL INTEGRABLE SP ACETIME In WIS, the fundamental geometric objects are the metric tensor gµν and the covariant derivative ˜∇µ, defined by the symmetric connection ˜Γµνκ, which differs from the Levi-Civita connection, such that [1] ˜∇κgµν = ϕ,κgµν. (1) Consequently, ˜Γκ µν is defined as ˜Γκ µν = Γκ µν + Qκ µν, (2) where the connection Γ κ µν defines the ...

  4. [3]

    Furthermore, for the scalar field potential, we consider the exponential function V (ϕ) = V0 exp (ϕ)

    ANAL YTIC SOLUTION Dark matter is described by a pressureless fluid source, that is, wm = 0. Furthermore, for the scalar field potential, we consider the exponential function V (ϕ) = V0 exp (ϕ). For this cosmological model, the field equations (25), (26), and (27) admit the following conservation law [63]: I0 = −4a2 ˙a − 4λa3 ˙ϕ. (29) This conservation la...

  5. [4]

    OBSER V A TIONAL CONSTRAINTS In this section, we use late-time cosmological observations to constrain the viability of the cosmological model (36) and to probe its deviation from ΛCDM due to the presence of the interaction term. 4.1. Cosmological data In order to constrain our model, we make use of the following cosmological observations. • Supernova (SNI...

  6. [5]

    Within the WIS, the scalar field arises from the existence of the nonmetricity component of the connection

    CONCLUSIONS We examined the cosmological viability of the WIS in a spatially flat universe by constraining an analytic model with observational data. Within the WIS, the scalar field arises from the existence of the nonmetricity component of the connection. Furthermore, when matter is introduced, there exists a coupling function that introduces energy 9 6...

    2022

  7. [6]

    Miritzis, Acceleration in Weyl Integrable Spacetime, Int

    J. Miritzis, Acceleration in Weyl Integrable Spacetime, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1350019 (2013)

    2013

  8. [7]

    Salim and S.L

    J.M. Salim and S.L. Saut´ u, Gravitational theory in Weyl integrable spacetime, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 353 (1996)

    1996

Show all 114 references
  1. [8]

    Yu Konstantinov and V.N

    M. Yu Konstantinov and V.N. Melnikov, Integrable Weyl Geometry in Multidimensional Cosmology. Numerical Investi- gation, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 4, 339 (1995)

    1995

  2. [9]

    Romero, J.B

    C. Romero, J.B. Fonseca-Neto and M.L. Pucheu, General relativity and Weyl geometry, Class. Quantum Grav. 29, 155015 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    Novello and H

    M. Novello and H. Heintzmann, Phys. Lett. A 98, 10 (1983)

    1983

  4. [11]

    Chatzidakis, A

    S. Chatzidakis, A. Giacomini, P.G.L. Leach, G. Leon, A. Paliathanasis and S. Pan, JHEAp 36, 141 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Carloni and O

    Y. Carloni and O. Luongo, Class. Quantum Grav. 42, 075014 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    Sotiriou, Gravity and Scalar Fields, In: Papantonopoulos, E

    T.P. Sotiriou, Gravity and Scalar Fields, In: Papantonopoulos, E. (eds) Modifications of Einstein’s Theory of Gravity at Large Distances. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 892. Springer, Cham. (2015)

    2015

  7. [14]

    Paliathanasis, Eur

    A. Paliathanasis, Eur. Phy. J. C 84, 125 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Heisenberg, Phys

    L. Heisenberg, Phys. Rept. 1066, 1 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ. 43, 101410 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Basilakos, A

    S. Basilakos, A. Paliathanasis and E.N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139658 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    D’Agostino, O

    R. D’Agostino, O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Class. Quantum Grav. 39, 195014 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Csillag and E

    L. Csillag and E. Jenski, Geometric formulation of k-essence and late-time acceleration (2025) [arXiv:2505.15975]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Csillag, R

    L. Csillag, R. Hama, M. Jozsa, T. Harko and S.V. Sabau, JCAP 12, 034 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    Ratra and L

    P. Ratra and L. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  15. [22]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quantun Grav. 30, 214003 (2013)

    2013

  16. [23]

    Cline and V

    J.M. Cline and V. Muralidharan, Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations (2025) [arXiv:2506.13047]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Ramadan, J

    O.F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein and D. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D 110, L041303 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Bayat and M.P

    Z. Bayat and M.P. Hertzberg, Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data (2025) [arXiv:2505.18937]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Duchaniya, J.L

    L.K. Duchaniya, J.L. Said and B. Mishra, Quintessence models in the late Universe (2025) [arXiv:2504.07867]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Akrami, G

    Y. Akrami, G. Alestas and S. Nesseris, Has DESI detected exponential quintessence? (2025) [arXiv:2504.04226]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Andriot, Fortsch

    D. Andriot, Fortsch. Phys. 73, e70007 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Chakraborty, S

    S. Chakraborty, S. Mishra and S. Chakraborty, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 22, 2450250 (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    Giacomini, Gen

    H. Giacomini, Gen. Rel. Grav. 38, 137 (2006)

    2006

  24. [31]

    Luongo and T

    O. Luongo and T. Mengoni, Quasi-quintessence inflation with non-minimal coupling to curvature in the Jordan and Einstein frames (2023) [arXiv:2309.03065]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Luongo, Gravitational metamaterials from optical properties of spacetime media (2025) [arXiv:2504.09987]

    O. Luongo, Gravitational metamaterials from optical properties of spacetime media (2025) [arXiv:2504.09987]

    2025

  26. [33]

    Caldwell, M

    R.C. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski and N.N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 071301 (2003)

    2003

  27. [34]

    Faraoni, Phantom cosmology with general potentials, Class

    V. Faraoni, Phantom cosmology with general potentials, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 3235 (2005)

    2005

  28. [35]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li and X. Zhang, The Quintom theory of dark energy after DESI DR2 (2025) [arXiv:2505.24732]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Amendola, G.C

    L. Amendola, G.C. Campos and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D 75, 083506 (2007)

    2007

  30. [37]

    Li and J.-G

    X.-Z. Li and J.-G. Hao, Phys. Rev. D 69, 107303 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Paliathanasis, Class

    A. Paliathanasis, Class. Quantum Grav. 37, 19 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    Christodoulidis, R

    P. Christodoulidis, R. Rosati and E.I. Sfakianakis, Robust non-minimal attractors in many-field inflation (2025) [arXiv:2504.12406]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000)

    2000

  34. [41]

    Cai and A

    R.-G. Cai and A. Wang, JCAP 03, 002 (2005)

    2005

  35. [42]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Wetlman, Phys. Rev. D 69, 044026 (2004)

    2004

  36. [43]

    Gao, S.-S

    L.-Y. Gao, S.-S. Xue and X. Zhang, Chinese Phys. C 48, 051001 (2024)

    2024

  37. [44]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon, Reports Prog. Phys. 87, 036901 (2024)

    2024

  38. [45]

    Giare, Phys

    W. Giare, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123545 (2024)

    2024

  39. [46]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, L.A. Escamilla and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101848 (2025)

    2025

  40. [47]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Wetlman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004) 11

    2004

  41. [48]

    van der Westhuizen and A

    M.A. van der Westhuizen and A. Abebe, JCAP 01, 048 (2024)

    2024

  42. [49]

    Paliathanasis, Eur

    A. Paliathanasis, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 756 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    D’Amico, T

    G. D’Amico, T. Hamill and Nemanja Kaloper, Phys. Rev. D 94, 103526 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Pav´ on and B

    D. Pav´ on and B. Wang, Gen. Rel. Grav. 41, 1 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Gomes, E

    J.M. Gomes, E. Hardy and S. Parameswaran, Phys Rev. D 110, 023533 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Paliathanasis, A

    A. Paliathanasis, A. Halder and G. Leon, Revise the Dark Matter-Phantom Scalar Field Interaction (2024) [arXiv:2412.06501]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Santana Junior, M.O

    Z.C. Santana Junior, M.O. Costa, R.F.L Holanda and R. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123542 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Paliathanasis, K

    A. Paliathanasis, K. Duffy, A. Halder and A. Abebe, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101750 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Faraoni, Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, (2004)

    V. Faraoni, Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    Patil, S

    T. Patil, S. Panda, M. Sharma and Ruchica, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 131 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Paliathanasis, S

    A. Paliathanasis, S. Pan and W. Yang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1950161 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Rodriguez-Benites, M

    C. Rodriguez-Benites, M. Gonzalez-Espinoza, G. Otalora and M. Alva-Morales, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043506 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Mandal, S

    G. Mandal, S. Chakraborty, S. Mishra and S. Kr. Biswas, Phys. Dark Univ. 40, 101210 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Bhanja, G

    S. Bhanja, G. Mandal, A.A. Manon and S. Kr. Biswas, JCAP 10, 050 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Garcia-Arroyo, L

    G. Garcia-Arroyo, L. Arturo Urena-Lopez and J. Alberto Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023529 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Billyard and A.A

    A.P. Billyard and A.A. Coley, Phys. Rev. D 61, 083503 (2000)

    2000

  57. [65]

    de Souza and G.M

    R.C. de Souza and G.M. Kremer, Class. Quantum Grav. 27, 175006 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, The Cosmological Evidence for Non-Minimal Coupling (2025), [arXiv:2504.07679]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Paliathanasis, Fortsch

    A. Paliathanasis, Fortsch. Phys. 71, 2300088 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Gonzalez, G

    T. Gonzalez, G. Leon and I. Quiros, Class. Quantum Grav. 23, 3165 (2006)

    2006

  61. [69]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Scr. 97, 095204 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101275 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, S-dual Quintessence, the Swampland, and the DESI DR2 Results (2025), [arXiv:2503.19428]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Paliathanasis, Dark Energy within the Generalized Uncertainty Principle in Light of DESI DR2 (2025) [arXiv:2503.20896]

    A. Paliathanasis, Dark Energy within the Generalized Uncertainty Principle in Light of DESI DR2 (2025) [arXiv:2503.20896]

    2025

  65. [73]

    Y. Yang, Q. Wang, X. Ren, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.-F. Cai, Modified gravity realizations of quintom dark energy after DESI DR2 (2025), [arXiv:2504.06784]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [74]

    C. Li, J. Wang, D. Zhang, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.-F. Cai, Quantum Gravity Meets DESI: Dynamical Dark Energy in Light of the Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture (2025), [arXiv:2504.07791]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Comparison of dynamical dark energy with ΛCDM in light of DESI DR2 (2025), [arXiv:2503.17342]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    C. You, D. Wang, and T. Yang, Dynamical Dark Energy Implies a Coupled Dark Sector: Insights from DESI DR2 via a Data-Driven Approach (2025) [arXiv:2504.00985]

    2025 arXiv

  69. [77]

    F. B. M. d. Santos, J. Morais, S. Pan, W. Yang, and E. Di Valentino, A New Window on Dynamical Dark Energy: Combining DESI-DR2 BAO with future Gravitational Wave Observations (2025), [arXiv:2504.04646]

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Addressing the H0 tension through matter with pressure and no early dark energy (2025) [arXiv:2506.11531]

    2025

  71. [79]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101956 (2025) (2025) [arXiv:2502.16221]

    2025

  72. [80]

    Chen and M

    S.-F. Chen and M. Zaldarriaga, It’s All Ok: Curvature in Light of BAO from DESI DR2 (2025) [arXiv:2505.00659]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [82]

    A. C. Alfano and O. Luongo, Cosmic distance duality after DESI 2024 data release and dark energy evolution, (2025) [arXiv:2501.15233]

    2025 arXiv

  74. [83]

    B. R. Dinda, R. Maartens, S. Saito, and C. Clarkson, Improved null tests of ΛCDM and FLR W in light of DESI DR2 (2025) [arXiv:2504.09681]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Wang, Model-Independent Dark Energy Measurements from DESI DR2 and Planck 2015 Data (2025) [arXiv:2505.17415]

    Y. Wang, Model-Independent Dark Energy Measurements from DESI DR2 and Planck 2015 Data (2025) [arXiv:2505.17415]

    2025

  76. [85]

    Paliathanasis, Testing Non-Coincident f(Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs (2025) [arXiv:2504.1132]

    A. Paliathanasis, Testing Non-Coincident f(Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs (2025) [arXiv:2504.1132]

    2025

  77. [86]

    Sousa-Neto, C

    A. Sousa-Neto, C. Bengaly, J.E. Gonzalez and J. Alcaniz, Evidence for dynamical dark energy from DESI-DR2 and SN data? A symbolic regression analysis (2025) [arXiv:2502.10506]

    2025 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Li, Y.-M

    T.-N. Li, Y.-M. Zhang, Y.-H. Mao, P.-J Wu and J.-F. Zhang, Is non-zero equation of state of dark matter favored by DESI DR2? (2025) [arXiv:2506.09819]

    2025

  79. [88]

    van der Westhuizen, D

    M. van der Westhuizen, D. Figueruelo, R. Thubisi, S. Sahlu, A. Abebe and A. Paliathanasis, Compartmentalization in the Dark Sector of the Universe after DESI DR2 BAO data (2025) [arXiv:2505.23306]

    2025

  80. [89]

    Luciano, A

    G.G. Luciano, A. Paliathanasis and E.N. Saridakis, Constraints on Barrow and Tsallis Holographic Dark Energy from DESI DR2 BAO data (2025) [arXiv:2506.03019]

    2025 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Silva, M.A

    E. Silva, M.A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R.C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123511 (2025)

    2025

  82. [91]

    Nagpal, H

    R. Nagpal, H. Chaudhary, H. Gutpaand S.K.J Pacif, JHEAp 47, 100396 (2025)

    2025

  83. [92]

    Ye and S.-J

    G. Ye and S.-J. Lin, On the tension between DESI DR2 BAO and CMB (2025) [arXiv:2505.02207]

    2025 arXiv

  84. [93]

    Kumar, A

    U. Kumar, A. Ajith and A. Verma, Evidence for non-cold dark matter from DESI DR2 measurements (2025) 12 [arXiv:2504.14419]

    2025 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Plaza and L

    F. Plaza and L. Kraiselburg, Statistical Analysis of Cosmologies in f (R) Theories with DESI DR2 2025 Data (2025) [arXiv:2504.05432]

    2025 arXiv

  86. [95]

    S. Pan, S. Paul, E.N. Saridakis and W. Yang, Interacting dark energy after DESI DR2: a challenge for ΛCDM paradigm? (2025) [arXiv:2504.00994]

    2025

  87. [96]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023512 (2025)

    2025

  88. [97]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, A&A 641, A174 (2020)

    2020

  89. [98]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Galaxies 9, 77 (2021)

    2021

  90. [99]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, MNRAS 518, 2247 (2022)

    2022

  91. [100]

    Z. Li, B. Zhang and N. Liang, MNRAS 521, 4406 (2023)

    2023

  92. [101]

    Hooper and S

    D. Hooper and S. Dodelson, Astropart. Phys. 27, 113 (2007)

    2007

  93. [102]

    Lodha et al

    DESI Collaboration: K. Lodha et al. (2025) [arXiv:2503.14743]

    2025 arXiv

  94. [103]

    The distance modulus µobs for each event at the observed redshift are summarized in [104]

    in the redshift range 0 .0335 < z <8.1. The distance modulus µobs for each event at the observed redshift are summarized in [104]. The Amati correlation is a model-independent approach which allows to use GRBs as distance indicators. We use different combinations of the above ...

  95. [105]

    Jun-Jie, M

    W. Jun-Jie, M. Fulvio and W. Xue-Feng, Atrophys. J. 835, 270 (2017)

    2017

  96. [106]

    Vagnozzi, A

    S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb and M. Moresco, Astrophys. J. 908, 84 (2021)

    2021

  97. [107]

    Karim et al.(2025) [arXiv:2503.14739]

    DESI Collaboration: M.A. Karim et al.(2025) [arXiv:2503.14739]

    2025 arXiv

  98. [108]

    Karim et al

    DESI Collaboration: M.A. Karim et al. (2025) [arXiv:2503.14738]

    2025 arXiv

  99. [109]

    Amati, F

    L. Amati, F. Frontera, M. Tavani, et al., A&A, 390, 81 (2002)

    2002

  100. [110]

    Amati, R

    L. Amati, R. D’ Agostino, O. Luongo, M. Muccino and M. Tantalo, MNRAS 486, L46 (2019)

    2019

  101. [111]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, ascl:1910.019 (2019)

    2019

  102. [112]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP 05, 057 (2021)

    2021

  103. [113]

    Handley, M.P

    W.J. Handley, M.P. Hobson and A.N. Lasenby, MNRAS 450, L61 (2015)

    2015

  104. [114]

    Handley, M.P

    W.J. Handley, M.P. Hobson and A.N. Lasenby, MNRAS 453, 4384 (2015)

    2015

  105. [115]

    Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716 (1974)

    H. Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  106. [116]

    Jeffrey’s, Theory of Probability, Oxford University Press (1961)

    H. Jeffrey’s, Theory of Probability, Oxford University Press (1961)

    1961

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.