Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

H(z)+DESI DR2 BAO data drive the Λ(t)CDM vacuum dynamics parameter α to zero, statistically favoring standard ΛCDM.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:06 UTC pith:TLWXPQJL

load-bearing objection Useful H(z)-only constraints on Lambda(t)CDM, but the combined BAO analysis is missing the sound-horizon calibration needed to reproduce the H0 and tension claims. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.03468 v2 pith:TLWXPQJL submitted 2026-03-03 astro-ph.CO

Background dynamics and observational constraints of flat and non-flat Λ(t)CDM models from H(z) and DESI DR2 BAO measurements

Olga Avsajanishvili This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords Λ(t)CDMvacuum dynamicsdark energybaryon acoustic oscillationscosmic chronometersHubble tensionspatial curvaturemodel selection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether a cosmological model in which vacuum energy varies with time—the Λ(t)CDM model—is required by the best current background data. It combines 32 cosmic-chronometer H(z) measurements with 13 DESI DR2 BAO measurements in a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis. The central finding is that the vacuum dynamics parameter α is constrained to values statistically consistent with zero (α = -0.127 ± 0.097 for the flat model), meaning the data do not require any time variation in vacuum energy. Adding BAO data shrinks parameter uncertainties by a factor of 3–6, pushes the curvature parameter close to zero, and reduces the Hubble-tension with early-universe CMB measurements below 1σ while lowering the local distance-ladder tension to roughly 2.6–3.2σ. Model-selection criteria then prefer the simpler flat ΛCDM model, giving it 44–58% of the Akaike weight.

Core claim

The paper establishes that in the Λ(t)CDM framework—where vacuum energy is allowed to interact with matter through a single dimensionless parameter α—the combined H(z)+BAO dataset forces α toward zero: for the flat model, α = -0.127 ± 0.097 (median with 1σ uncertainties), and for the non-flat model α = -0.081 ± 0.133. In both cases the posterior is statistically indistinguishable from the ΛCDM limit α = 0. Alongside this, the analysis shows that BAO data reduce parameter degeneracies, yield H0 = 67.87 ± 0.91 km/s/Mpc for the flat model, favour a nearly flat universe (Ωk0 = 0.009 ± 0.047), and bring the Hubble tension with early-universe CMB constraints below 1σ, while reducing the tension wi

What carries the argument

The vacuum dynamics parameter α enters through the ansatz Λ(t) = ρ̃ H⁻²ᵅ, with ρ̃ = 3(1 - Ωm0) H0^{2(1+α)}. Substituting this into the Friedmann equations gives the normalized expansion rate E(a) = [((1 - Ωm0) + Ωm0 a^{-3(1+α)})^{1/(1+α)} + Ωr0 a^{-4} + Ωk0 a^{-2}]^{1/2}. Positive α makes vacuum energy decrease and matter be created (quintessence-like, later acceleration); negative α makes vacuum energy grow (phantom-like, earlier acceleration); α = 0 recovers ΛCDM exactly. From this single expression the paper derives analytic formulas for the total equation-of-state parameter, the effective dark-energy equation-of-state parameter, and the deceleration parameter, and uses the fitted Hubble

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 13 BAO distance ratios can be converted into constraints on H0 and the other parameters through a sound-horizon calibration that the paper never states; if that calibration is wrong, the reported H0 values and the claimed easing of the Hubble tension would shift.

What would settle it

Re-run the MCMC with the same H(z) and BAO data but treat the sound-horizon scale r_d as a free parameter (or marginalize over it with an explicit early-universe CMB prior) and check whether the α posterior remains consistent with zero and whether H0 stays at 67.9 ± 0.9 km/s/Mpc. A shift in H0 by more than ~1 km/s/Mpc or a widening of σ(α) beyond 0.2 would indicate that the paper's conclusions are artifacts of the unstated calibration.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the data are right, any genuine time variation in the vacuum energy must be small—roughly |α| ≲ 0.1–0.2 at 1σ—so models predicting strong vacuum dynamics are disfavored.
  • BAO data break the degeneracies that plague H(z)-only analyses, reducing parameter uncertainties by a factor of 3–6; future BAO surveys should tighten α even further.
  • The measured H0 from flat Λ(t)CDM (67.87 ± 0.91 km/s/Mpc) is within 1σ of early-universe CMB values of H0, implying that a time-varying vacuum does not resolve the Hubble tension by itself but also does not worsen it.
  • Since information criteria favor flat ΛCDM, Λ(t)CDM should be viewed as a constrained special case rather than a necessary extension of the standard model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The H0 values and the 'below 1σ' Hubble-tension claim depend on the sound-horizon calibration of the BAO data, which the paper never specifies; a version of the analysis with r_d free (or with an explicit prior) might broaden the H0 posterior and weaken that conclusion.
  • Because the Λ(t)CDM background is equivalent to a Generalized Chaplygin Gas, the α≈0 result also constrains any unified dark-sector model built on that equation of state: deviations from Chaplygin unification are strongly restricted by the same data.
  • The reported precision (σ(α)≈0.1 from 45 data points) suggests that future BAO samples with several hundred points could either detect α at the 0.1 level or push the upper bound below 0.01, turning this consistency test into a sharper discriminator.
  • The paper treats a CMB-based H0 as an external benchmark; a full CMB analysis within Λ(t)CDM would be needed to determine whether the model actually moves the early-time H0, rather than simply inheriting the ΛCDM-consistent value.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies flat and non-flat Λ(t)CDM models with vacuum–matter interaction parameterized by α. It derives analytic expressions for the total effective equation of state, the effective dark-energy equation of state, and the deceleration parameter, then fits flat and non-flat Λ(t)CDM and ΛCDM models to 32 cosmic-chronometer H(z) points and to H(z) combined with 13 DESI DR2 BAO points using Cobaya. The central quantitative claims are that α remains statistically consistent with zero in all Λ(t)CDM scenarios, that the combined H(z)+BAO data tighten the constraints substantially (e.g., flat Λ(t)CDM: H0 = 67.87 ± 0.91 km/s/Mpc, Ωm0 = 0.344+0.040−0.035, α = −0.127 ± 0.097), that parameter degeneracies are reduced, and that the Hubble tension with Planck is reduced to below 1σ. The authors use AIC/BIC and Akaike weights to compare models and conclude that flat ΛCDM is preferred.

Significance. If fully substantiated, this would be a useful first DESI DR2 constraint on this specific class of interacting vacuum models, and the conclusion that α is consistent with zero would strengthen the case that background H(z)+BAO data do not require dynamical vacuum energy. The H(z)-only part of the analysis is self-contained and uses standard public data, publicly available covariances for the correlated chronometer points, and standard MCMC machinery. The analytic derivations in Appendices A and B are clearly laid out. However, the combined BAO analysis is not reproducible as written because the sound-horizon calibration of the DESI DR2 BAO observables is not stated. Since the abstract and Section V.B use the combined fit to claim that the Hubble tension is alleviated, this is a load-bearing gap rather than a presentation issue.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV (BAO likelihood); Tables II and IV; Section V.B] The 13 DESI DR2 BAO measurements are introduced without specifying the sound-horizon scale r_d, its prior, or the likelihood form. DESI DR2 BAO observables are ratios such as D_M/r_d, D_H/r_d, and D_V/r_d, so the model prediction for these points requires a value or marginalization over r_d. With H0 prior [None, None] in Table I, the BAO likelihood is undefined without this calibration. Consequently the quoted H0 = 67.87 ± 0.91 km/s/Mpc for flat Λ(t)CDM, the Ωm0 and α posteriors, and the 'Hubble tension with Planck reduced to < 1σ' statement in Section V.B cannot be checked or reproduced. The authors must state the r_d value and prior, provide the full covariance matrix and likelihood, or explicitly restrict the BAO combination to shape-only information. This is not an optional detail; it is the pivot of the paper's main observational claim.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B5); Section V.A.2; Conclusions] The claim that 'all evolutionary trajectories converge to w_DE = −1 at the present epoch' is an artifact of the formula, not a dynamical result. In Eq. (B5), at a = 1 both the numerator and denominator contain the same factor (1 − Ωm0) (since X = 1 and a^{-3(1+α)} = a^{-3} = 1), so w_DE(1) = −1 for every α by construction. The text in Section V.A.2 and the Conclusions presents this as evidence that the model 'effectively reduces to the standard ΛCDM scenario at late times.' This should be corrected: w_DE(a=1) = −1 imposes no constraint on α and cannot be used to claim convergence to ΛCDM at the present epoch.
  3. [Tables II and IV and Section V.B] The statement that 'the inclusion of BAO data reduces the Hubble tension with the Planck CMB result to less than 1σ for all models' depends on the same undocumented BAO calibration. Even setting aside that r_d is not specified, the tension assessment compares a posterior that includes BAO and H(z) with a Planck value derived under ΛCDM; the authors do acknowledge this in the footnote. But with the missing r_d it is impossible to know whether the quoted H0 posterior reflects the data or an implicit calibration choice. The authors should either provide the calibration and re-derive the tension numbers, or restrict the tension claim to the H(z)-only constraints, where H0 = 67.91 ± 1.62 km/s/Mpc for flat Λ(t)CDM is self-contained but does not by itself reduce the Planck tension below 1σ.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (7)] Eq. (7) is labeled 'AICc' but the formula given is the standard AIC, χ²_min + 2k. The surrounding text says 'For the combined H(z)+BAO data set, the AIC is sufficient' and then prints 'AICc = χ²_min + 2k.' This is inconsistent notation. Please replace the left-hand side with AIC. This is a local error, but it affects the model-comparison tables and should be fixed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV, BAO data description] Please state whether the 13 DESI DR2 BAO points are treated as independent or with a full covariance matrix, and whether the DESI fiducial cosmology is used to convert the reported measurements to dimensionless ratios. Also state the redshift list; currently only the range z ∈ [0.295, 2.330] is given.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B5)] The typeset expression for w_DE(a) is ambiguous because parentheses are missing. It should be written as w_DE(a) = −[1 − Ωm0 a^{−3(1+α)} X^{−1}]/[1 − Ωm0 a^{−3} X^{−1/(1+α)}], with the convention for the numerator made explicit. As printed, a reader cannot easily tell what is in the numerator versus the denominator.
  3. [Section V.A.2 and Figures 3–4] The figures show curves labeled '=0', '=0.1', etc., with the 'α' missing from the legend. The same appears in Fig. 2 ('=-0.9', '=-0.5'). Please fix the axis/legend labels so the parameter is visible.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (5)] The sentence 'the general form of the normalized Hubble parameter ... is given by Eq. (5)' includes radiation and curvature terms, but the earlier derivation in Section II assumes Ωr0 = 0 and Ωk0 = 0. Please state explicitly that Eq. (5) is the full expression used in the fits, while the analytic reconstructions in Appendices A and B assume flatness and no radiation.
  5. [Section II, paragraph after Eq. (3)] There are small grammatical slips throughout, e.g., 'We assumed that the flat... universe is described' should be 'We assume'; 'FLR W' should be 'FLRW'. These do not affect the science but should be cleaned up.
  6. [Conclusions, first paragraph] The statement 'All evolutionary trajectories converge to w = −1 at the present epoch, i.e., the Λ(t)CDM model effectively reduces to the standard ΛCDM scenario at late times' is contradicted by the same paragraph's later statement that the model 'approaches the standard ΛCDM scenario only asymptotically in the future.' Please reconcile this wording, especially after correcting the normalization-artifact point raised in the major comments.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

MCMC constraints on α and H0 are genuine data fits; the only circularity found is the a=1 identity making wDE(1)=−1 by construction.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section III / Eq. (B5) and Section V.A.2]
    "At the present epoch, i.e., for a = 1, Eqs. (B4) and (B5) yield q(a = 1) = 3 2 Ωm0 − 1 and wDE(a = 1) = −1, respectively. ... All evolutionary trajectories converge to w = −1 at the present epoch, i.e., the Λ(t)CDM model effectively reduces to the standard ΛCDM scenario at late times."

    Setting a=1 in Eq. (B5) gives X=1, so wDE(1)=−(1−Ωm0)/(1−Ωm0)=−1 for every α; q(1) is likewise independent of α. The claimed 'convergence at the present epoch' is therefore an algebraic identity built into the reconstruction formulas, not a model prediction or a probe of late-time behavior. The paper's own Conclusion later states the model 'approaches the standard ΛCDM scenario only asymptotically in the future,' so the V.A.2 wording overstates what Eq. (B5) shows. This identity does not drive the MCMC constraints on {H0, Ωm0, α}, which are genuine fits to external H(z) and BAO data.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: model E(a) from Eqs. (3)–(5), reconstruction identities in Appendices A–B, MCMC with Cobaya on 32 H(z) points and 13 DESI DR2 BAO points, then model comparison. The reported constraints (e.g. flat Λ(t)CDM: α=−0.127±0.097, H0=67.87±0.91) are fits to external data, not identities; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The load-bearing model equations come from prior work by Benetti et al., not from self-citation. The only exhibitable circular step is the a=1 normalization identity in Eq. (B5) behind the 'converge to w=−1 at the present epoch' statement; it is a minor self-definitional artifact and is not load-bearing for the observational conclusions. The unstated r_d calibration for DESI DR2 BAO is a serious reproducibility gap: BAO observables are ratios such as D_M/r_d, and without stating the r_d value/prior/likelihood the H0 posteriors and the 'Planck tension <1σ' claim cannot be fully audited. If the BAO likelihood used a CMB-derived r_d, that part of the tension comparison could become circular, but the paper provides no r_d, so I cannot exhibit that reduction and do not count it as demonstrated circularity. Overall the core MCMC analysis is self-contained against external data; the score reflects the minor a=1 identity rather than any circularity in the central α/H0 constraints.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The new content is a fit of an existing phenomenological model; the free parameters are the standard cosmological parameters plus alpha, with an unstated r_d calibration that makes the H0 result fragile. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (vacuum dynamics / interaction parameter) = flat: -0.127 +/- 0.097; non-flat: -0.081 +/- 0.133 (H(z)+BAO)
    Introduced by the Lambda(t)CDM model to parameterize deviations from a constant vacuum; the central result is that it is consistent with zero.
  • H0 = flat Lambda(t)CDM: 67.87 +/- 0.91 km/s/Mpc; non-flat: 67.76 +/- 1.66
    Standard free Hubble constant in the MCMC fit; also the basis for the Hubble-tension claims.
  • Omega_m0 = flat: 0.344+0.040-0.035; non-flat: 0.328+0.049-0.045
    Present-day matter density parameter fitted from the data.
  • Omega_k0 = non-flat: 0.009+0.050-0.044
    Curvature density parameter fitted in the non-flat models; not present in the flat models.
  • r_d (sound horizon, implicit) = not stated
    Required to convert DESI DR2 BAO ratios (D_M/r_d, D_H/r_d) into distance and H0 constraints; absent from the parameter table and priors. The H0 constraints and Planck-tension comparison depend on its value or prior.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption FLRW metric and first Friedmann equation with matter plus a time-dependent vacuum term (Eq. 1).
    The entire background analysis assumes a homogeneous, isotropic universe with only matter and Lambda(t).
  • domain assumption Vacuum-matter interaction takes the form Gamma = -alpha rho H^{-(2alpha+1)} with Lambda(t) = rho H^{-2alpha} (Eqs. 3-4), giving the modified matter dilution law rho_m ~ a^{-3(1+alpha)}.
    This is the phenomenological Lambda(t)CDM model from Benetti et al. [38,39]; the paper tests it but does not derive it from microphysics.
  • domain assumption The normalized Hubble parameter is E(a)^2 = [(1-Omega_m0)+Omega_m0 a^{-3(1+alpha)}]^{1/(1+alpha)} + Omega_r0 a^{-4} + Omega_k0 a^{-2} (Eq. 5); radiation and curvature are assumed to enter additively and separately.
    Used for all fits and reconstructed quantities; if this E(a) is not the correct solution of the coupled conservation equations, the results change.
  • standard math The reconstruction relation w_DE = (2q-1)/(3(1-Omega_m(a))) (Eq. B1, from Saini et al. [103]) is applicable to this model.
    Standard relation in flat FLRW; used to define the effective DE EoS from the deceleration parameter.
  • domain assumption The data sets (32 cosmic-chronometer H(z) points including the Moresco covariance, 13 DESI DR2 BAO points) are accurate and their errors are correctly modeled.
    The fit is only as good as the data; the paper does not validate systematics. The low chi2/dof ~0.5 for H(z) suggests the covariance/errors may be conservative.
  • ad hoc to paper An implicit sound-horizon scale r_d is used to convert DESI DR2 BAO ratios to comoving distances; its value/prior is not stated.
    The BAO likelihood must include r_d to constrain H0; the paper does not list it among parameters or priors, making the H0 and Hubble-tension results fragile.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16361 in / 21146 out tokens · 192907 ms · 2026-08-02T19:06:41.294171+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we present comprehensive observational constraints on the time-varying vacuum Lambda(t)CDM cosmology using the latest baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data from Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Data Release 2 measurements in combination with cosmic chronometer H(z) data. We explicitly quantify the impact of vacuum dynamics on the expansion history, the total effective equation of state parameter of the unified cosmic fluid, the effective dark energy equation of state parameter, and the deceleration parameter in the spatially flat Lambda(t)CDM model. We perform a full Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis and statistical model comparison, providing a consistent assessment of the Lambda(t)CDM model relative to the standard LambdaCDM framework. Our results demonstrate that H(z) and BAO observations strongly constrain deviations from the LambdaCDM model, driving the vacuum dynamics parameter alpha toward zero, while significantly reducing parameter degeneracies and alleviating the Hubble tension.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03468 by Olga Avsajanishvili.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Three-dimensional representation of the Hubble pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The normalized Hubble expansion rate decreases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Normalized Hubble expansion rate in the spatially fla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Evolution of the deceleration parameter as a functio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Is the $w_0w_a$CDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy data?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Planck PR4 CMB data mildly favors dynamical dark energy, but this preference weakens when accounting for possible excess smoothing, indicating the signal may partly arise from data processing issues.

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

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

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

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

    gr-qc 2026-06 conditional novelty 3.0

    QFT in FLRW spacetime yields a running vacuum energy density ρ_vac(H) that unifies mild dynamical dark energy today with H^4 inflation without an inflaton field.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (5), without the spatial curvature term, to study the expansion of the universe for the spatially flat Λ( t)CDM model

    Expansion of the universe We numerically solve the first Friedmann equation Eq. (5), without the spatial curvature term, to study the expansion of the universe for the spatially flat Λ( t)CDM model. The evolution of the normalized Hubble expan- sion rate as a function of the scale factor for different values of the vacuum dynamics parameter α is shown in Fig...

  2. [2]

    (B5) for the effective reconstructed DE EoS parameter in the spatially flat 5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 =-0.9 =-0.5 = 0 = 0.5 = 1 FIG

    Analysis of the reconstructed effective and DE EoS parameters and the deceleration parameter The numerical solution of Eq. (B5) for the effective reconstructed DE EoS parameter in the spatially flat 5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 =-0.9 =-0.5 = 0 = 0.5 = 1 FIG. 2: Normalized Hubble expansion rate in the spatially fla t Λ(t)CDM model as...

  3. [5]

    25 0.30 0.35 Ω m 0 64 66 68 70 72 H 0 −0.1 0.0 0.1 Ω k 0

  4. [6]

    2 −0.1 0.0 0.1

    25 0.30 0.35 Ω m 0 −0. 2 −0.1 0.0 0.1

  5. [7]

    2 α −0. 2 0.0 0. 2 α

  6. [8]

    25 0.30 0.35 Ω m 0 −0.1 0.0 0.1 Ω k 0 FIG. 5: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 σ, 2σ and 3σ confidence levels contours constraints on the parameters of the Λ(t)CDM model from H(z) measurements: for the flat space (left panel) and the non-fla t space (right panel). 66 68 70 H 0

  7. [9]

    2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 α −0

    25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 Ω m 0 −0.4 −0.3 −0. 2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 α −0. 2 0.0 α 0.3 0.4 Ω m 0 62 66 70 74 H 0 −0.1 0.0 0.1

  8. [10]

    2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ω m 0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 α −0.4 0.0 0.4 α

  9. [11]

    2 0.3 0.4 Ω m 0 −0.1 0.0 0.1 Ω k 0 FIG. 6: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 σ, 2σ and 3σ confidence levels contours constraints on the parameters of the Λ(t)CDM model from the combination of H(z) + BAO measurements: for the flat space (left panel) and the no n-flat space (right panel). model. A comparison based on information criteria ( AICc and BIC ) revea...

  10. [12]

    28 0.30 0.32 Ω m 0 67 68 69 70 H 0 −0.1 0.0 0.1 Ω k 0

  11. [13]

    28 0.30 0.32 Ω m 0 0.0 0.1 Ω k 0 FIG

    26 0. 28 0.30 0.32 Ω m 0 0.0 0.1 Ω k 0 FIG. 7: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 σ, 2 σ and 3 σ confidence levels contours constraints on the parameters of the ΛCDM model from the combination of H(z) + BAO measurements: for the flat space (left panel) and the no n-flat space (right panel). the minimum χ2 min value in this case, the additional pa- rameter α i...

  12. [14]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 284, 439 (1984)

    1984

  13. [15]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003)

    2003

  14. [16]

    Lopez-Corredoira, arXiv:2307.10606 (2023)

    M. Lopez-Corredoira, arXiv:2307.10606 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [17]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020)

    2020

  16. [18]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  17. [19]

    Aiola et al

    S. Aiola et al. (ACT), JCAP 12, 047 (2020)

    2020

  18. [20]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021)

    2021

  19. [21]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022)

    2022

  20. [22]

    Di Valentino, Universe 8, 399 (2022)

    E. Di Valentino, Universe 8, 399 (2022)

    2022

  21. [23]

    Abdalla et al., JHEAp 34, 49 (2022)

    E. Abdalla et al., JHEAp 34, 49 (2022)

    2022

  22. [24]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Annals Phys. 447, 169159 (2022)

    2022

  23. [25]

    Vagnozzi, Universe 9, 393 (2023)

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe 9, 393 (2023)

    2023

  24. [26]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022)

    2022

  25. [27]

    P. J. Steinhardt, L.-M. Wang, and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D59, 123504 (1999). 11

    1999

  26. [28]

    Garriga and A

    J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 64, 023517 (2001)

    2001

  27. [29]

    Dalal, K

    N. Dalal, K. Abazajian, E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 141302 (2001)

    2001

  28. [30]

    Ishak, Foundations of Physics 37, 1470 (2007)

    M. Ishak, Foundations of Physics 37, 1470 (2007)

    2007

  29. [31]

    G. D. Starkman and R. Trotta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 201301 (2006)

    2006

  30. [32]

    I. Maor, L. Krauss, and G. Starkman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041301 (2008)

    2008

  31. [33]

    Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique 13, 566 (2012)

    J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique 13, 566 (2012)

    2012

  32. [34]

    Zheng, Y

    J. Zheng, Y. Chen, T. Xu, and Z.-H. Zhu, arXiv:2107.08916 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [35]

    Wetterich, Astron

    C. Wetterich, Astron. Astrophys. 301, 321 (1995)

    1995

  34. [36]

    Amendola, Mon

    L. Amendola, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 312, 521 (2000)

    2000

  35. [37]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000)

    2000

  36. [38]

    Zimdahl and D

    W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Phys. Lett. B521, 133 (2001)

    2001

  37. [39]

    X. Liu, S. Tsujikawa, and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043533 (2024)

    2024

  38. [40]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JCAP 09, 019 (2018)

    2018

  39. [41]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100666 (2020)

    2020

  40. [42]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063502 (2020)

    2020

  41. [43]

    R. C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063529 (2021)

    2021

  42. [44]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021)

    2021

  43. [45]

    Bernui, E

    A. Bernui, E. Di Valentino, W. Giar` e, S. Kumar, and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103531 (2023)

    2023

  44. [46]

    G. A. Hoerning, R. G. Landim, L. O. Ponte, R. P. Rolim, F. B. Abdalla, and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023523 (2025)

    2025

  45. [47]

    E. M. Teixeira, R. Daniel, N. Frusciante, and C. van de Bruck, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084070 (2023)

    2023

  46. [48]

    Y. Zhai, W. Giar` e, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP 07, 032 (2023)

    2023

  47. [49]

    Pan and W

    S. Pan and W. Yang, arXiv:2310.07260 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [50]

    Blanchard, arXiv:2505.06244 (2025)

    A. Blanchard, arXiv:2505.06244 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [51]

    Benetti, W

    M. Benetti, W. Miranda, H. A. Borges, C. Pigozzo, S. Carneiro, and J. S. Alcaniz, JCAP 12, 023 (2019)

    2019

  50. [52]

    Benetti, H

    M. Benetti, H. Borges, C. Pigozzo, S. Carneiro, and J. Alcaniz, JCAP 08, 014 (2021)

    2021

  51. [53]

    H. A. Borges, C. Pigozzo, P. Hepp, L. O. Bara´ una, and M. Benetti, JCAP 06, 009 (2023)

    2023

  52. [54]

    Koussour, N

    M. Koussour, N. Myrzakulov, and J. Rayimbaev, Adv. Space Res. 74, 1343 (2024)

    2024

  53. [55]

    Benetti, P

    M. Benetti, P. T. Z. Seidel, C. Pigozzo, I. P. R. Baranov, S. Carneiro, and J. C. Fabris, JCAP 06, 046 (2025)

    2025

  54. [56]

    Y. Yang, Y. Wang, and X. Dai, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 224 (2025)

    2025

  55. [57]

    di Donato and L

    G. di Donato and L. Pilo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064081 (2025)

    2025

  56. [58]

    P. A. S. Guillen, J. F. de Jesus, and R. V. d. C. Lima, arXiv:2512.14578 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  57. [59]

    I. L. Shapiro, J. Sola, C. Espana-Bonet, and P. Ruiz- Lapuente, Physics Letters B 574, 149 (2003)

    2003

  58. [60]

    J. Sola, A. Gomez-Valent, and J. de Cruz P´ erez, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 32, 1750054 (2017)

    2017

  59. [61]

    Sola Peracaula, A

    J. Sola Peracaula, A. Gomez-Valent, and J. de Cruz P´ erez, Phys. Dark Univ. 25, 100311 (2019)

    2019

  60. [62]

    Sola Peracaula, Phil

    J. Sola Peracaula, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 380, 20210182 (2022)

    2022

  61. [63]

    Moreno-Pulido and J

    C. Moreno-Pulido and J. Sola Peracaula, The European Physical Journal C 82, 551 (2022)

    2022

  62. [64]

    Moreno-Pulido and J

    C. Moreno-Pulido and J. S. Peracaula, The European Physical Journal C 82, 1137 (2022)

    2022

  63. [65]

    Sola Peracaula, A

    J. Sola Peracaula, A. Gomez-Valent, J. de Cruz Perez, and C. Moreno-Pulido, Universe 9, 262 (2023)

    2023

  64. [66]

    Moreno-Pulido, J

    C. Moreno-Pulido, J. Sola Peracaula, and S. Cher- aghchi, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 637 (2023)

    2023

  65. [67]

    Sol` a Peracaula,`A

    J. Sol` a Peracaula,`A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes, and C. Moreno- Pulido, arXiv:2601.05218 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [68]

    Chaplygin, Sci

    S. Chaplygin, Sci. Mem. Moscow Univ. Math. Phys. 21, 1 (1904)

    1904

  67. [69]

    Bilic, G

    N. Bilic, G. B. Tupper, and R. D. Viollier, Phys. Lett. B 535, 17 (2002)

    2002

  68. [70]

    R. R. Caldwell, W. Komp, L. Parker, and D. A. T. Vanzella, Phys. Rev. D 73, 023513 (2006)

    2006

  69. [71]

    Benaoum, Universe 8, 340 (2022)

    H. Benaoum, Universe 8, 340 (2022)

    2022

  70. [72]

    P. P. Avelino, L. M. G. Beca, J. P. M. de Carvalho, and C. J. A. P. Martins, JCAP 09, 002 (2003)

    2003

  71. [73]

    Debnath, A

    U. Debnath, A. Banerjee, and S. Chakraborty, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 5609 (2004)

    2004

  72. [74]

    Guo and Y.-Z

    Z.-K. Guo and Y.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 645, 326 (2007)

    2007

  73. [75]

    Banerjee and S

    R. Banerjee and S. Ghosh, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21, 1511 (2006)

    2006

  74. [76]

    del Campo and R

    S. del Campo and R. Herrera, Phys. Lett. B 665, 100 (2008)

    2008

  75. [77]

    J. Lu, L. Xu, B. Chang, and Y. Gui, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 18, 1741 (2009)

    2009

  76. [78]

    J. Lu, L. Xu, J. Li, B. Chang, Y. Gui, and H. Liu, Physics Letters B 662, 87 (2008)

    2008

  77. [79]

    J. Lu, Y. Gui, and L. X. Xu, European Physical Journal C 63, 349 (2009)

    2009

  78. [80]

    J. Lu, L. Xu, Y. Wu, and M. Liu, General Relativity and Gravitation 43, 819 (2011)

    2011

  79. [81]

    Xu and J

    L. Xu and J. Lu, JCAP 2010, 025 (2010)

    2010

  80. [82]

    Liang, L

    N. Liang, L. Xu, and Z.-H. Zhu, Astronomy & Astro- physics 527, A11 (2011)

    2011

Showing first 80 references.