pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.11368 · v1 · pith:EHEKODB4new · submitted 2026-06-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Non-linear Structure Formation in Planck+DESI Favoured Interacting Dark Energy Cosmologies

Yuejia Zhai , Carsten van de Bruck , Eleonora Di Valentino , Baojiu Li , Rafael C. Nunes This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 11:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords interacting dark energynon-linear structure formationN-body simulationsmatter power spectrumhalo abundanceHubble tensionS8 tension
0
0 comments X

The pith

Interacting dark energy models produce scale-dependent deviations in non-linear structure that standard prescriptions miss.

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

The paper tests interacting dark energy models already favored by Planck and DESI data on how they shape cosmic structures once they go non-linear. The authors run dedicated N-body simulations that include the energy transfer directly through the background expansion and an effective time-dependent dark matter mass. They find clear changes in the matter power spectrum at small scales, in the shapes of density fields, and in the number of halos that form. These changes cannot be reproduced by the fitting formulas calibrated inside ordinary Lambda-CDM, so any future weak-lensing or galaxy-clustering measurement that reaches those scales will need its own consistent modeling.

Core claim

Using a modified RAMSES code, the authors simulate an interacting dark energy model with energy transfer rate Q equal to xi times H times rho_x. Because the dark matter Euler equation stays identical to Lambda-CDM, the interaction is carried only by the altered expansion history and a time-varying dark matter particle mass. The resulting runs show scale-dependent shifts in the quasi-linear and non-linear matter power spectrum, together with altered density-field morphology and halo abundance.

What carries the argument

Modified N-body simulation that incorporates the interaction solely through background evolution and an effective time-dependent dark matter particle mass.

If this is right

  • Weak-lensing and large-scale-structure analyses must replace Lambda-CDM non-linear prescriptions with model-specific simulations when testing interacting dark energy.
  • The S8 tension implications of these IDE models depend on the non-linear modeling choice.
  • Halo abundance and density morphology differ measurably between the IDE runs and standard Lambda-CDM.
  • Constraints on the interaction strength xi from future surveys require self-consistent non-linear modeling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same effective-mass trick might let other background-only extensions be added to existing simulation codes without rewriting the perturbation equations.
  • Observers could search for the reported scale-dependent power-spectrum tilt as a direct signature in Euclid or LSST data.
  • If the Euler equation assumption fails at higher order, the entire non-linear pipeline would need re-derivation from the perturbed continuity and Euler equations.

Load-bearing premise

The dark matter Euler equation stays exactly the same as in Lambda-CDM.

What would settle it

A measurement of the non-linear matter power spectrum or halo mass function on scales below roughly 10 Mpc/h that either matches or clearly rules out the specific deviations reported from the IDE simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.11368 by Baojiu Li, Carsten van de Bruck, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C. Nunes, Yuejia Zhai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Evolution of the dark matter particle mass and Hubble parameter in interacting dark energy models. The left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The left (right) panel shows the matter power spectra for the ΛCDM and IDE simulations in the 256 Mpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Projected dark matter density maps at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Halo mass functions (HMFs) at redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Following our previous work constraining interacting dark energy (IDE) models, which showed their potential to alleviate the Hubble tension, in this work we investigate the non-linear effects of the IDE scenario favoured by CMB and DESI observations. The implications of IDE for the $S_8$ tension remain unclear, since current weak-lensing and large-scale-structure analyses either exclude highly non-linear scales or model the non-linear regime using prescriptions calibrated within $\Lambda$CDM. We address this issue by implementing a fully self-consistent IDE pipeline. We perform N-body simulations of the IDE model with a transfer rate $Q=\xi {\cal H}\rho_x$ using a modified implementation of RAMSES. Since the dark matter Euler equation remains unchanged with respect to $\Lambda$CDM, the interaction can be incorporated through the modified background evolution and an effective time-dependent dark matter particle mass. We find scale-dependent deviations in the quasi-linear and non-linear regimes of the matter power spectrum, together with modifications to the density-field morphology and halo abundance. Our results show that the impact of IDE on quasi-linear and non-linear structure formation cannot be captured by standard $\Lambda$CDM-calibrated prescriptions, highlighting the importance of model-consistent non-linear modelling for future weak-lensing and large-scale-structure constraints on interacting dark energy cosmologies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper performs N-body simulations of an interacting dark energy (IDE) model with energy transfer rate Q=ξ ℋ ρ_x, using parameters favored by Planck+DESI data. It implements the model in a modified RAMSES code by asserting that the dark matter Euler equation is identical to ΛCDM, so the interaction enters only through modified background evolution and an effective time-dependent DM particle mass. The central claim is that the resulting scale-dependent deviations in the matter power spectrum, halo abundance, and density-field morphology in the quasi-linear and non-linear regimes cannot be reproduced by standard ΛCDM-calibrated prescriptions, implying that model-consistent non-linear modeling is required for future weak-lensing and LSS constraints on IDE.

Significance. If the simulation pipeline is a faithful realization of the IDE model, the result would demonstrate that ΛCDM emulators are insufficient for IDE cosmologies and would strengthen the case for self-consistent non-linear modeling when using IDE to address the Hubble tension or to interpret S8 measurements. The work builds on the authors' prior parameter constraints and supplies concrete N-body evidence for the breakdown of standard prescriptions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Implementation] Abstract and Implementation section: the claim that 'the dark matter Euler equation remains unchanged with respect to ΛCDM' is load-bearing for the entire simulation setup and for the headline conclusion that deviations are genuinely non-linear and uncaptured by emulators. No derivation is supplied showing that the background-only interaction Q=ξ ℋ ρ_x induces no additional source terms in the DM momentum or velocity equation at the perturbation level; if such terms exist, the RAMSES runs (and therefore the comparison to ΛCDM prescriptions) are incomplete.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the summary of results is entirely qualitative; inclusion of at least one quantitative measure (e.g., fractional deviation in P(k) at a specific k and redshift, or change in halo mass function) would strengthen the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The major comment identifies a key point regarding the justification of the N-body implementation, which we address directly below. We will incorporate the requested clarification to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Implementation] Abstract and Implementation section: the claim that 'the dark matter Euler equation remains unchanged with respect to ΛCDM' is load-bearing for the entire simulation setup and for the headline conclusion that deviations are genuinely non-linear and uncaptured by emulators. No derivation is supplied showing that the background-only interaction Q=ξ ℋ ρ_x induces no additional source terms in the DM momentum or velocity equation at the perturbation level; if such terms exist, the RAMSES runs (and therefore the comparison to ΛCDM prescriptions) are incomplete.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation of the perturbation equations would improve clarity and address the load-bearing nature of this claim. For the specific interaction Q = ξ ℋ ρ_x (with no velocity-dependent momentum transfer term), the linear perturbation equations for cold dark matter yield an unmodified Euler equation identical to ΛCDM; the interaction modifies only the continuity equation, which is equivalent to an effective time-dependent DM particle mass. This is the basis for the RAMSES implementation. We will add a concise derivation of the relevant continuity and Euler equations (following standard IDE perturbation theory) to the Implementation section in the revised manuscript, explicitly showing the absence of additional source terms in the DM momentum equation. This will confirm that the simulations are model-consistent and that the reported scale-dependent deviations are not an artifact of an incomplete implementation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; simulations yield independent results

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of running new N-body simulations in a modified RAMSES code for the IDE model with Q=ξ ℋ ρ_x, producing outputs on the matter power spectrum, halo abundance, and density morphology. These computed results are then compared against ΛCDM-calibrated prescriptions, which are external benchmarks. The interaction form and background evolution are referenced from prior work, but the non-linear findings do not reduce to any fitted parameter or self-citation by construction; the Euler-equation assumption is asserted as a modeling choice rather than derived from the paper's own inputs. The pipeline is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model inherits the interaction rate Q=ξHρ_x and the background evolution from earlier constraints; the key modeling assumption is the unchanged Euler equation. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • ξ
    Coupling strength in the energy transfer rate Q=ξHρ_x; value taken from prior Planck+DESI fit.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dark matter Euler equation remains unchanged with respect to ΛCDM
    Invoked to justify incorporating the interaction solely via background evolution and effective particle mass.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5783 in / 1198 out tokens · 26563 ms · 2026-06-27T11:41:39.393467+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 55 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Hinshawet al.(WMAP), Astrophys

    G. Hinshawet al.(WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Aiolaet al.(ACT), JCAP12, 047 (2020), arXiv:2007.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Aiolaet al.(ACT), JCAP12, 047 (2020), arXiv:2007.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Alamet al.(BOSS), Mon

    S. Alamet al.(BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3, 10 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

    E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102605 (2021), arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    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), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Heymanset al., Astron

    C. Heymanset al., Astron. Astrophys.646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    A. H. Wrightet al., Astron. Astrophys.703, A158 (2025), arXiv:2503.19441 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), (2026), arXiv:2601.14559 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Pantos and L

    I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102286 (2026), arXiv:2602.12238 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Wetterich, Astron

    C. Wetterich, Astron. Astrophys.301, 321 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9408025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  23. [23]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  24. [24]

    Zimdahl and D

    W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Phys. Lett. B521, 133 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105479

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  25. [25]

    G. R. Farrar and P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J.604, 1 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307316

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  26. [26]

    A. W. Brookfield, C. van de Bruck, and L. M. H. Hall, Phys. Rev. D77, 043006 (2008), arXiv:0709.2297 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Van De Bruck and J

    C. Van De Bruck and J. Mifsud, Phys. Rev. D97, 023506 (2018), arXiv:1709.04882 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D60, 043501 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9904120

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  29. [29]

    Zumalacarregui, T

    M. Zumalacarregui, T. S. Koivisto, D. F. Mota, and P. Ruiz-Lapuente, JCAP05, 038 (2010), arXiv:1004.2684 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    van de Bruck and J

    C. van de Bruck and J. Morrice, JCAP04, 036 (2015), arXiv:1501.03073 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    Salvatelli, A

    V. Salvatelli, A. Marchini, L. Lopez-Honorez, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D88, 023531 (2013), arXiv:1304.7119 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    Kumar and R

    S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D94, 123511 (2016), arXiv:1608.02454 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Caprini and N

    C. Caprini and N. Tamanini, JCAP10, 006 (2016), arXiv:1607.08755 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Murgia, S

    R. Murgia, S. Gariazzo, and N. Fornengo, JCAP04, 014 (2016), arXiv:1602.01765 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Zheng, M

    X. Zheng, M. Biesiada, S. Cao, J. Qi, and Z.-H. Zhu, JCAP10, 030 (2017), arXiv:1705.06204 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Kumar and R

    S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D96, 103511 (2017), arXiv:1702.02143 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D96, 043503 (2017), arXiv:1704.08342 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Kumar, Phys

    S. Kumar, Phys. Dark Univ.33, 100862 (2021), arXiv:2102.12902 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    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]

    arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    On the interacting dark en- ergy scenarios−the case for Hubble constant tension,

    S. Pan and W. Yang, “On the interacting dark en- ergy scenarios−the case for Hubble constant tension,” (2023), arXiv:2310.07260 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Benisty, S

    D. Benisty, S. Pan, D. Staicova, E. Di Valentino, and R. C. Nunes, Astron. Astrophys.688, A156 (2024), arXiv:2403.00056 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D101, 083509 (2020), arXiv:2001.10852 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Forconi, W

    M. Forconi, W. Giar` e, O. Mena, Ruchika, E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP05, 097 (2024), arXiv:2312.11074 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Pourtsidou and T

    A. Pourtsidou and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. D94, 043518 (2016), arXiv:1604.04222 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Di Valentino, Mon

    E. Di Valentino, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, 2065 (2021), arXiv:2011.00246 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2065

  46. [46]

    Di Valentino and O

    E. Di Valentino and O. Mena, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.500, L22 (2020), arXiv:2009.12620 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    R. C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D104, 063529 (2021), arXiv:2107.09151 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    W. Yang, A. Mukherjee, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Rev. D98, 123527 (2018), arXiv:1809.06883 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Zhang, R

    J. Zhang, R. An, W. Luo, Z. Li, S. Liao, and B. Wang, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L11 (2019), arXiv:1807.05522 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    von Marttens, L

    R. von Marttens, L. Lombriser, M. Kunz, V. Marra, L. Casarini, and J. Alcaniz, Phys. Dark Univ.28, 100490 (2020), arXiv:1911.02618 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Lucca and D

    M. Lucca and D. C. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D102, 123502 (2020), arXiv:2002.06127 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    L. Xiao, A. A. Costa, and B. Wang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510, 1495 (2021), arXiv:2103.01796 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pav´ on, Rept. Prog. Phys.87, 036901 (2024), arXiv:2402.00819 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Gao, S.-S

    L.-Y. Gao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C48, 051001 (2024), arXiv:2212.13146 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Y. Zhai, W. Giar` e, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP07, 032 (2023), arXiv:2303.08201 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Joseph and R

    A. Joseph and R. Saha, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 519, 1809 (2022), arXiv:2209.07167 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    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]

    arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Becker, D

    N. Becker, D. C. Hooper, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Lesgour- gues, and N. Sch¨ oneberg, JCAP02, 019 (2021), arXiv:2010.04074 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    G. A. Hoerning, R. G. Landim, L. O. Ponte, R. P. Rolim, F. B. Abdalla, and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023523 (2025), arXiv:2308.05807 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    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]

    arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Mukhopadhyay, D

    U. Mukhopadhyay, D. Majumdar, and K. K. Datta, Phys. Rev. D103, 063510 (2021), arXiv:2008.09972 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    L. A. Escamilla, O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. Vazquez, JCAP11, 051 (2023), arXiv:2305.16290 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    M. A. van der Westhuizen and A. Abebe, JCAP01, 048 (2024), arXiv:2302.11949 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Silva, U

    E. Silva, U. Z´ u˜ niga-Bola˜ no, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1104 (2024), 11 arXiv:2403.19590 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    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]

    arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Liu, S. Liao, J. Zhang, X. Liu, and W. Du, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523, 5962 (2023), arXiv:2212.02050 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.- F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    N. N. Pooya, Phys. Rev. D110, 043510 (2024), arXiv:2407.03766 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Halder, J

    S. Halder, J. de Haro, T. Saha, and S. Pan, Phys. Rev. D109, 083522 (2024), arXiv:2403.01397 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Castello, M

    S. Castello, M. Mancarella, N. Grimm, D. Sobral- Blanco, I. Tutusaus, and C. Bonvin, JCAP05, 003 (2024), arXiv:2311.14425 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Yao and X.-H

    Y.-H. Yao and X.-H. Meng, Phys. Dark Univ.39, 101165 (2023), arXiv:2207.05955 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    K. R. Mishra, S. K. J. Pacif, R. Kumar, and K. Bamba, Phys. Dark Univ.40, 101211 (2023), arXiv:2301.08743 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    R. C. Nunes, S. Pan, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D94, 023508 (2016), arXiv:1605.01712 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    Silva, M

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    W. Yang, S. Zhang, O. Mena, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2508.19109 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102121 (2025), arXiv:2509.04496 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, Y. Li, J.-L. Ling, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2510.11363 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, P.-J. Wu, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 69, 210413 (2026), arXiv:2501.07361 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    T.-N. Li, W. Giar` e, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, E. Di Valentino, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2601.07361 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.