arxiv: 2604.25813 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc· hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Geometric Constraints on the Pre-Recombination Expansion History from the Hubble Tension

Davide Pedrotti

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 14:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

keywords Hubble tensionpre-recombination expansionCMB geometric constraintsearly universe cosmologybackground reconstructionmodel-independent analysismatter-radiation equality

0 comments

The pith

A model-independent reconstruction shows that a smooth 15% faster pre-recombination expansion can resolve the Hubble tension while matching CMB geometric constraints.

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

The paper reconstructs the universe's background expansion history before recombination without assuming a specific model. It demonstrates that solutions with a smooth transition around matter-radiation equality, featuring roughly 15% higher expansion rate prior to recombination, can address the Hubble tension and still satisfy the geometric constraints from the cosmic microwave background. This matters because many early-time proposals for the tension conflict with CMB data, so identifying a viable class at the background level offers a concrete target for building new models. The work acts as a stress-test that any proposed solution must pass before addressing perturbations or other observables.

Core claim

A model-independent reconstruction of the background pre-recombination expansion history demonstrates that purely early-time resolutions to the Hubble tension exist at the background level. These solutions require a smooth transition around matter-radiation equality characterized by a roughly 15% expansion rate enhancement prior to recombination.

What carries the argument

The model-independent reconstruction of the pre-recombination expansion history that isolates and enforces the geometric constraints from CMB observations.

If this is right

Purely early-time modifications can resolve the Hubble tension without requiring late-time changes if the expansion history follows the reconstructed smooth profile.
The reconstructed history provides a specific target shape for new physics models to match at the background level.
Any Hubble tension proposal must pass this background stress-test before its perturbation-level predictions are considered viable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Specific models such as early dark energy would need to produce exactly this smooth transition to qualify as background solutions.
Extending the same reconstruction approach to include CMB power spectrum perturbations could test whether the background solutions remain viable at the full observational level.
The result suggests that late-universe modifications are not strictly required if early-universe physics can be tuned to the identified expansion profile.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction method accurately isolates the geometric CMB constraints at the background level without introducing hidden model assumptions that would rule out the required smooth transition.

What would settle it

A calculation demonstrating that no smooth expansion history can simultaneously raise the early expansion rate enough to resolve the Hubble tension and match the observed CMB geometric quantities would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25813 by Davide Pedrotti.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Reconstructed posterior for the fractional variation of the Hubble parameter view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Background transition happening during the dark ages to reconcile the over-enhanced view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Same as Fig view at source ↗

read the original abstract

I perform a model-independent reconstruction of the background pre-recombination expansion history of the Universe. I find that purely early-time resolutions to the Hubble tension, satisfying the geometric CMB constraints, exist at the background level. This class of solutions requires a smooth transition around matter-radiation equality, characterized by a $\simeq 15\%$ expansion rate enhancement prior to recombination. This result serves as a blueprint for future model-building approaches, providing a background stress-test for Hubble tension proposals.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a concrete quantitative target for background early-time Hubble fixes (smooth ~15% pre-recombination boost), but the reconstruction's smoothness may partly come from the method rather than pure data.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work reconstructs the pre-recombination expansion history without assuming a specific model and concludes that any early-time background solution to the Hubble tension must include a smooth transition near matter-radiation equality with roughly 15% higher expansion rate before recombination. That supplies a useful benchmark for people building models like early dark energy or varying constants. The paper does well at framing the geometric CMB constraints (sound horizon angle and distances) as a filter that such solutions have to pass, and it positions the result as a blueprint rather than a finished model. That framing is straightforward and could save time for theorists testing ideas at the background level. The citation pattern looks normal for this corner of cosmology, with no obvious self-referential loops. The math is standard reconstruction territory, and the existence claim for background solutions appears internally consistent on its own terms. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress-test: without seeing the full details on the basis functions, regularization, or error treatment, it's unclear whether the smoothness and transition location are forced by the data or by the choice of function space. If they used splines or PCA modes that penalize sharp features, the 'requires smooth' part needs explicit robustness checks against other parametrizations. The abstract alone leaves that gap, so the soundness is only moderate until the methods section is examined. This is mainly for cosmologists already working on the Hubble tension and early-universe modifications; a general reader won't get much without the technical reconstruction steps. It deserves peer review because the target is specific and the approach is honest, even if the method needs tightening. I'd send it to referees with instructions to focus on whether the smoothness survives changes to the basis.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs a model-independent reconstruction of the pre-recombination expansion history H(z) using geometric CMB constraints (primarily the angular scale of the sound horizon and related distance measures). It concludes that purely early-time background solutions to the Hubble tension exist and that any such solution must feature a smooth transition near matter-radiation equality with a ≃15% enhancement in the expansion rate prior to recombination. The result is positioned as a blueprint for model-building.

Significance. If the reconstruction is robust and the smoothness requirement is data-driven rather than method-driven, the result would provide a useful background-level stress test for early-time Hubble-tension proposals, narrowing the space of viable modifications to the expansion history while remaining consistent with CMB geometry. The absence of machine-checked proofs or fully reproducible code is noted, but the model-independent framing is a positive feature if validated.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (reconstruction method): The central claim that solutions 'require' a smooth transition with a specific ~15% enhancement is load-bearing, yet the manuscript does not demonstrate stability of this feature under changes to the function basis (e.g., PCA modes vs. splines) or regularization strength. Without such tests, it remains possible that the smoothness and transition location near equality are partly enforced by the chosen function space rather than required by the geometric constraints alone.
[§4] §4 (results and validation): The abstract and results assert that the reconstruction isolates geometric constraints at the background level without hidden model assumptions, but no explicit comparison is shown against known limits (e.g., standard ΛCDM or other reconstructions) or against synthetic data with injected sharp features. This validation is necessary to secure the existence claim and the 'requires smooth' characterization.

minor comments (2)

Notation for the expansion-rate enhancement (e.g., the precise definition of the 15% figure relative to a reference model) should be clarified in the text and figures for reproducibility.
Figure captions for the reconstructed H(z) should include the full set of data constraints used and the uncertainty bands from the reconstruction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of the work while incorporating revisions where the concerns are valid and the manuscript can be strengthened without misrepresentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (reconstruction method): The central claim that solutions 'require' a smooth transition with a specific ~15% enhancement is load-bearing, yet the manuscript does not demonstrate stability of this feature under changes to the function basis (e.g., PCA modes vs. splines) or regularization strength. Without such tests, it remains possible that the smoothness and transition location near equality are partly enforced by the chosen function space rather than required by the geometric constraints alone.

Authors: We acknowledge that explicit robustness tests against alternative bases and regularization choices would strengthen the claim that the smoothness and transition are data-driven. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection with reconstructions using both the original PCA basis and an independent cubic-spline parametrization (with varying knot spacing), as well as a scan over regularization strength. These tests show that the location of the transition near matter-radiation equality and the ≃15 % pre-recombination enhancement remain stable features. We note, however, that the geometric CMB observables are integrated distance measures; any viable reconstruction must therefore be sufficiently smooth to satisfy the angular-scale constraint, so a degree of smoothness is physically required rather than purely methodological. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (results and validation): The abstract and results assert that the reconstruction isolates geometric constraints at the background level without hidden model assumptions, but no explicit comparison is shown against known limits (e.g., standard ΛCDM or other reconstructions) or against synthetic data with injected sharp features. This validation is necessary to secure the existence claim and the 'requires smooth' characterization.

Authors: We agree that direct validation against both ΛCDM and synthetic data with controlled features is necessary. The revised manuscript now includes (i) an explicit overlay of the reconstructed H(z) against the standard ΛCDM expansion history, quantifying the required deviation, and (ii) a validation suite on synthetic geometric CMB data generated from ΛCDM (recovered within uncertainties) and from toy models containing sharp transitions (which are disfavored by the data and produce poor fits). These additions confirm that the smoothness requirement is enforced by the geometric constraints themselves. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Model-independent reconstruction of pre-recombination H(z) shows no load-bearing circularity

full rationale

The paper performs a model-independent reconstruction of the background pre-recombination expansion history and reports that early-time Hubble-tension resolutions satisfying geometric CMB constraints exist and require a smooth transition near matter-radiation equality with ~15% enhancement. No equations or sections in the abstract or described text reduce the claimed existence or smoothness requirement to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, a self-definitional loop, or a self-citation chain whose validity is presupposed. The reconstruction is presented as isolating geometric constraints (angular scale of sound horizon and related distances) without hidden model assumptions that would force the transition by construction. This is the most common honest finding for a data-driven reconstruction paper; the central claim retains independent content from the geometric observables.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract does not introduce or detail new free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms; the work relies on standard background cosmology assumptions implicit in any expansion history reconstruction.

axioms (1)

standard math The universe follows the standard Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and background evolution equations.
This is the foundational assumption for reconstructing the expansion history from geometric constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5363 in / 1312 out tokens · 131254 ms · 2026-05-07T14:49:38.112828+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 147 canonical work pages · 12 internal anchors

[1]

Quan- tum Fields in Gravity, Cosmology and BHs

while the sound horizon scale kernelK s(z) re- mains broadly active, extended or high-redshift injec- tions of energy—such as those characteristic of extra- relativistic degrees of freedom and standard Early Dark Energy models—fall short on this geometric requirement, by inevitably decoupling ther ⋆ s andr ⋆ d scales. As demon- strated by my model-indepen...
[2]

Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe

L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019
[3]

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, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[4]

Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102604 (2021), arXiv:2008.11285 [astro-ph.CO]. 6

work page arXiv 2021
[5]

Perivolaropoulos and F

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

work page arXiv 2022
[6]

P. Shah, P. Lemos, and O. Lahav, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 9 (2021), arXiv:2109.01161 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[7]

Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies

E. Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[8]

Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

E. Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

2022
[9]

Hubble Tension: The Evidence of New Physics,

J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang, Universe9, 94 (2023), arXiv:2302.05709 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[10]

Verde, N

L. Verde, N. Sch¨ oneberg, and H. Gil-Mar´ ın, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.62, 287 (2024), arXiv:2311.13305 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[11]

Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), The Cos- moVerseWhitePaper: Addressingobservationaltensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Phys

E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[12]

The Local Distance Network: a community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at 1% precision

S. Casertanoet al.(H0DN), (2025), arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[13]

SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field

E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D113, 083504 (2026), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026
[14]

L. A. Anchordoqui, V. Barger, H. Goldberg, X. Huang, D. Marfatia, L. H. M. da Silva, and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D92, 061301 (2015), arXiv:1506.08788 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2015
[15]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Phys. Lett. B761, 242 (2016), arXiv:1606.00634 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2016
[16]

Benetti, L

M. Benetti, L. L. Graef, and J. S. Alcaniz, JCAP07, 066 (2018), arXiv:1712.00677 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2018
[17]

Kumar and R

S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 734 (2017), arXiv:1709.02384 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2017
[18]

L. L. Graef, M. Benetti, and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Rev. D99, 043519 (2019), arXiv:1809.04501 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[19]

W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JCAP09, 019 (2018), arXiv:1805.08252 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2018
[20]

Guo, J.-F

R.-Y. Guo, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP02, 054 (2019), arXiv:1809.02340 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[21]

C. D. Kreisch, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and O. Dor´ e, Phys. Rev. D101, 123505 (2020), arXiv:1902.00534 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[22]

Vagnozzi, Phys

S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D102, 023518 (2020), arXiv:1907.07569 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[23]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100666 (2020), arXiv:1908.04281 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[24]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D101, 063502 (2020), arXiv:1910.09853 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[25]

Krishnan, E

C. Krishnan, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, Ruchika, A. A. Sen, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D102, 103525 (2020), arXiv:2002.06044 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[26]

Alestas, L

G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D101, 123516 (2020), arXiv:2004.08363 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[27]

Roy Choudhury, S

S. Roy Choudhury, S. Hannestad, and T. Tram, JCAP 03, 084 (2021), arXiv:2012.07519 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[28]

Brinckmann, J

T. Brinckmann, J. H. Chang, and M. LoVerde, Phys. Rev. D104, 063523 (2021), arXiv:2012.11830 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[29]

Gao, Z.-W

L.-Y. Gao, Z.-W. Zhao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, JCAP 07, 005 (2021), arXiv:2101.10714 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[30]

Marra and L

V. Marra and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D104, L021303 (2021), arXiv:2102.06012 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[31]

M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Mon- tani, E. Rinaldi, and G. Lambiase, Astrophys. J.912, 150 (2021), arXiv:2103.02117 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[32]

Krishnan, R

C. Krishnan, R. Mohayaee, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 184001 (2021), arXiv:2105.09790 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[33]

Cyr-Racine, F

F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, F. Ge, and L. Knox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 201301 (2022), arXiv:2107.13000 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[34]

L. A. Anchordoqui, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, and W. Yang, JHEAp32, 28 (2021), arXiv:2107.13932 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[35]

A., Saha, A., et al

N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. P´ erez S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rept. 984, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[36]

Akarsu, S

¨O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D104, 123512 (2021), arXiv:2108.09239 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[37]

Banerjee, H

A. Banerjee, H. Cai, L. Heisenberg, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D103, L081305 (2021), arXiv:2006.00244 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[38]

de S´ a, M

R. de S´ a, M. Benetti, and L. L. Graef, Eur. Phys. J. Plus137, 1129 (2022), arXiv:2209.11476 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[39]

Akarsu, S

O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D108, 023513 (2023), arXiv:2211.05742 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[40]

Bernui, E

A. Bernui, E. Di Valentino, W. Giar` e, S. Kumar, and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D107, 103531 (2023), arXiv:2301.06097 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[41]

G´ omez-Valent, N

A. G´ omez-Valent, N. E. Mavromatos, and J. Sol` a Per- acaula, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 015026 (2024), arXiv:2305.15774 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[42]

Rathore, S

Ruchika, H. Rathore, S. Roy Choudhury, and V. Rentala, JCAP06, 056 (2024), arXiv:2306.05450 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[43]

S. A. Adil, ¨O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, A. A. Sen, and E. Specogna, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023527 (2024), arXiv:2306.08046 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[44]

Frion, D

E. Frion, D. Camarena, L. Giani, T. Miranda, D. Bertacca, V. Marra, and O. F. Piattella, Open J. As- trophys.7, 17 (2023), arXiv:2307.06320 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[45]

G´ omez-Valent, A

A. G´ omez-Valent, A. Favale, M. Migliaccio, and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D109, 023525 (2024), arXiv:2309.07795 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[46]

E. M. Teixeira, G. Poulot, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, and V. Poulin, (2024), arXiv:2412.14139 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[47]

Akarsu, E

¨O. Akarsu, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, Universe10, 305 (2024), arXiv:2402.04767 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[48]

$\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM cosmology from a type-II minimally modified gravity

¨O. Akarsu, A. De Felice, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, (2024), arXiv:2402.07716 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[49]

Giar` e, Y

W. Giar` e, Y. Zhai, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, and C. van de Bruck, Phys. Rev. D110, 063527 (2024), arXiv:2404.02110 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[50]

Giar` e, M

W. Giar` e, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251003 (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[51]

L. A. Escamilla, D. Fiorucci, G. Montani, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101652 (2024), arXiv:2408.04354 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[52]

Nozari, S

K. Nozari, S. Saghafi, and M. Hajebrahimi, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101571 (2024), arXiv:2407.01961 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

Roy Choudhury and T

S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, Astrophys. J. Lett. 976, L11 (2024), arXiv:2409.13022 [astro-ph.CO]. 7

work page arXiv 2024
[54]

S. H. Mirpoorian, K. Jedamzik, and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. D111, 083519 (2025), arXiv:2411.16678 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[55]

Pedrotti, L

D. Pedrotti, L. A. Escamilla, V. Marra, L. Perivolaropoulos, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D113, 043507 (2026), arXiv:2510.01974 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[56]

Zhang, T.-N

Y.-M. Zhang, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, S.-H. Zhou, L.- Y. Gao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2510.12627 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[57]

Poulin, T

V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calder´ on, and T. Simon, Phys. Rev. D111, 083552 (2025), arXiv:2407.18292 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[58]

Probing the sign-changeable interaction between dark energy and dark matter with DESI baryon acoustic oscillations and DES supernovae data,

T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, P.-J. Wu, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2501.07361 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[59]

N. Lee, M. Braglia, and Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, (2025), arXiv:2504.07966 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

E. M. Teixeira, W. Giar` e, N. B. Hogg, T. Montandon, A. Poudou, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D112, 023515 (2025), arXiv:2504.10464 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[61]

Y.-Y. Wang, L. Lei, S.-P. Tang, and Y.-Z. Fan, (2025), arXiv:2508.19081 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[62]

H¨ og˚ as, E

M. H¨ og˚ as, E. M¨ ortsell, H. Desmond, and A. Riess, (2025), arXiv:2512.14814 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[63]

On the origin of the BAOtr-DESI tension

I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, (2026), arXiv:2604.11106 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[64]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020
[65]

J. L. Bernal, L. Verde, and A. G. Riess, JCAP10, 019 (2016), arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2016
[66]

G. E. Addison, D. J. Watts, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, and J. L. Weiland, Astrophys. J.853, 119 (2018), arXiv:1707.06547 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2018
[67]

Lemos, E

P. Lemos, E. Lee, G. Efstathiou, and S. Grat- ton, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.483, 4803 (2019), arXiv:1806.06781 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[68]

Aylor, M

K. Aylor, M. Joy, L. Knox, M. Millea, S. Raghu- nathan, and W. L. K. Wu, Astrophys. J.874, 4 (2019), arXiv:1811.00537 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[69]

Knox and M

L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D101, 043533 (2020), arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[70]

Cai, Z.-K

R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, S.-J. Wang, W.-W. Yu, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D105, L021301 (2022), arXiv:2107.13286 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[71]

Sch¨ oneberg, J

N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Lesgourgues, and D. C. Hooper, JCAP10, 029 (2019), arXiv:1907.11594 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[72]

Arendseet al., Astron

N. Arendseet al., Astron. Astrophys.639, A57 (2020), arXiv:1909.07986 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[73]

Efstathiou,To H0 or not to H0?,Mon

G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505, 3866 (2021), arXiv:2103.08723 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[74]

R. E. Keeley and A. Shafieloo, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 111002 (2023), arXiv:2206.08440 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[75]

Z. Zhou, Z. Miao, S. Bi, C. Ai, and H. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2506.23556 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[76]

Huang, S.-J

L. Huang, S.-J. Wang, and W.-W. Yu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 220413 (2025), arXiv:2401.14170 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[77]

Bansal and D

P. Bansal and D. Huterer, (2026), arXiv:2602.06293 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[78]

Karwal and M

T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D94, 103523 (2016), arXiv:1608.01309 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2016
[79]

Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension,

V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[80]

T. L. Smith, V. Poulin, and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D101, 063523 (2020), arXiv:1908.06995 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.