pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19090 · v1 · pith:YR5XNGITnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· gr-qc· hep-ph

Resolving the Hubble Tension in the Early Dark Energy Framework with JWST and DESI Data

Guo-Hong Du , Tian-Nuo Li , Lu Yin , Sheng-Han Zhou , Hao Wang , Jing-Fei Zhang , Xin Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-ph
keywords early dark energyHubble tensionJWSTDESIaxion EDEcosmic microwave backgroundbaryon acoustic oscillationsultraviolet luminosity function
0
0 comments X

The pith

Early dark energy model with CMB, DESI, and JWST data raises the Hubble constant to 71.58 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} and reduces tension to 1.0 sigma.

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

The paper tests whether an early dark energy component can reconcile conflicting measurements of the present-day expansion rate. It combines Planck, ACT, and SPT cosmic microwave background data with DESI baryon acoustic oscillation measurements and JWST ultraviolet luminosity function observations at high redshift. Within the standard axion-based early dark energy setup, the combined dataset yields a higher Hubble constant than the standard model while also providing a statistically better overall fit to all the inputs.

Core claim

Within the canonical axion EDE framework, the CMB+DESI+JWST data significantly increase the H0 value to 71.58±1.05 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, alleviating the H0 tension to the 1.0σ level. Simultaneously, this model improves the fit to the JWST data and exhibits statistical performance significantly better than the Λ CDM model, with Δχ²_tot = -18.26 and ΔDIC = -11.89.

What carries the argument

The canonical axion early dark energy (EDE) framework, which adds a transient dark energy component active before recombination to shift the sound horizon and allow a higher present-day expansion rate.

If this is right

  • The combined dataset favors a Hubble constant of 71.58±1.05 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}.
  • The EDE model reduces the Hubble tension from its usual level down to 1.0 sigma.
  • The EDE model yields Δχ²_tot = -18.26 and ΔDIC = -11.89 relative to ΛCDM, indicating a better global fit.
  • JWST high-redshift galaxy counts provide complementary constraints that improve the EDE fit beyond what CMB and BAO alone achieve.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • High-redshift galaxy abundance data can serve as an independent early-universe probe that complements acoustic-scale measurements.
  • If the EDE improvement holds, next-generation surveys could further tighten the allowed range of the EDE decay timescale.
  • The result suggests that any resolution of the Hubble tension may need to modify expansion history before recombination rather than only late-time physics.

Load-bearing premise

The JWST ultraviolet luminosity function observations at high redshift are assumed to be free of large systematic uncertainties or selection effects that would alter the inferred galaxy number densities used to constrain the EDE parameters.

What would settle it

A future measurement of the Hubble constant below 70.5 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} at high significance, or a demonstration that JWST high-redshift galaxy counts are overestimated by more than the current error bars, would remove the reported improvement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19090 by Guo-Hong Du, Hao Wang, Jing-Fei Zhang, Lu Yin, Sheng-Han Zhou, Tian-Nuo Li, Xin Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The evolution of the fractional energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The theoretical predictions of the ultraviolet luminosity functions log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In the JWST and DESI era, the JWST high-redshift galaxy observations and DESI baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements severely challenge the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, while the $H_0$ tension becomes increasingly prominent. In this work, we investigate the capability of the early dark energy (EDE) model to alleviate the $H_0$ tension utilizing cosmic microwave background data from Planck, ACT, and SPT, BAO data from DESI, and ultraviolet luminosity function observations from the JWST. Within the canonical axion EDE framework, the CMB+DESI+JWST data significantly increase the $H_0$ value to $71.58\pm1.05\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, alleviating the $H_0$ tension to the $1.0\sigma$ level. Simultaneously, this model improves the fit to the JWST data and exhibits statistical performance significantly better than the $\Lambda$CDM model, with $\Delta\chi^2_{\mathrm{tot}} = -18.26$ and $\Delta\mathrm{DIC} = -11.89$. Our results highlight the complementary advantages of JWST high-redshift galaxy data alongside early- and late-time observations in testing EDE and alleviating the $H_0$ tension.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that fitting the canonical axion early dark energy (EDE) model to CMB data (Planck, ACT, SPT), DESI BAO, and JWST ultraviolet luminosity function (UVLF) observations raises H0 to 71.58±1.05 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, reducing the Hubble tension to 1.0σ while yielding a better global fit than ΛCDM (Δχ²_tot = −18.26, ΔDIC = −11.89).

Significance. If the JWST UVLF likelihood is shown to correctly capture EDE-induced changes to the halo mass function and star-formation efficiency, the result would demonstrate that high-redshift galaxy counts can tighten EDE parameters and help resolve the H0 tension in a manner complementary to CMB and BAO data.

major comments (2)
  1. [JWST UVLF modeling (results section)] JWST UVLF modeling (results section): the reported Δχ² improvement and H0 shift rest on the assumption that the UVLF likelihood maps observed number densities to the EDE-altered sound horizon and growth history; the manuscript provides no explicit statement or test that the halo mass function and star-formation efficiency have been re-derived under EDE rather than taken from ΛCDM-calibrated abundance matching. This mapping is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Parameter fitting and data selection (methods and results)] Parameter fitting and data selection (methods and results): the abstract and results give no information on whether the JWST data selection cuts were defined before fitting, nor on covariance handling or robustness tests (e.g., data splits or prior variations); without these, it is unclear whether the quoted χ² improvement is robust or could arise from post-hoc choices.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the EDE parameters but does not list the priors or the exact number of free parameters; adding this would improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the canonical axion EDE implementation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive comments, which help strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity on the modeling and analysis choices.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [JWST UVLF modeling (results section)] JWST UVLF modeling (results section): the reported Δχ² improvement and H0 shift rest on the assumption that the UVLF likelihood maps observed number densities to the EDE-altered sound horizon and growth history; the manuscript provides no explicit statement or test that the halo mass function and star-formation efficiency have been re-derived under EDE rather than taken from ΛCDM-calibrated abundance matching. This mapping is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit description of the UVLF modeling procedure is essential. The likelihood employs the EDE cosmology to recompute the linear growth factor and halo mass function via the modified power spectrum before performing abundance matching; the star-formation efficiency is then adjusted to reproduce the observed UVLF at the EDE parameters. This was implemented in the analysis pipeline but not stated in detail. We will add a dedicated paragraph in the methods section describing the EDE-specific re-derivation, including the relevant equations and a brief comparison to the ΛCDM case. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Parameter fitting and data selection (methods and results)] Parameter fitting and data selection (methods and results): the abstract and results give no information on whether the JWST data selection cuts were defined before fitting, nor on covariance handling or robustness tests (e.g., data splits or prior variations); without these, it is unclear whether the quoted χ² improvement is robust or could arise from post-hoc choices.

    Authors: The referee is correct that these details are missing from the current text. The JWST UVLF sample cuts follow the published observational selections and were fixed prior to any cosmological fitting; covariances are taken directly from the JWST data release. We will expand the methods section with a new subsection that (i) states the pre-defined nature of the cuts, (ii) describes the covariance treatment, and (iii) reports results from robustness checks (prior variations and data splits) that confirm the stability of the Δχ² and H0 values. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard parameter estimation from combined datasets

full rationale

The paper reports posterior constraints on EDE parameters (f_EDE, z_c, etc.) and derived H0 from a joint likelihood using Planck+ACT+SPT CMB, DESI BAO, and JWST UVLF data. The quoted H0 = 71.58 ± 1.05 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, Δχ²_tot = −18.26, and tension reduction to 1.0σ are direct outputs of this fit, not presented as independent predictions or first-principles derivations. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling appear in the abstract or described methodology. The analysis is a conventional MCMC constraint exercise whose central claims remain independent of the input data by construction of the likelihood.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the standard axion EDE parameterization whose parameters are fitted to data; no new entities are postulated beyond the EDE field already used in earlier papers.

free parameters (1)
  • EDE fraction f_EDE and critical redshift z_c (and related axion parameters)
    These are varied to raise H0 while fitting the combined CMB+DESI+JWST dataset.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The axion EDE model evolves according to the standard Klein-Gordon equation with the usual potential form used in prior EDE literature.
    Invoked when stating 'canonical axion EDE framework'.
  • domain assumption JWST UV luminosity function measurements can be directly translated into constraints on the expansion history without additional high-redshift systematics.
    Required to use the JWST data as an independent constraint on EDE.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5803 in / 1714 out tokens · 28287 ms · 2026-06-26T19:46:02.801777+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

138 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    under different EDE models, along with their residu- als relative to the ΛCDM model, are presented. It can be clearly observed that atz∼10, the theoretical curves are in basic agreement with the JWST observational data, whereas atz∼11 andz∼12, the actual JWST data points are significantly higher than the theoretical pre- dictions. Simultaneously, the modi...

    2025

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Zhao, D.-Z

    M.-M. Zhao, D.-Z. He, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D96, 043520 (2017), arXiv:1703.08456 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Verde, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Guo, J.-F

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

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

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

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

    arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

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

    arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

    S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D104, 063524 (2021), arXiv:2105.10425 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    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

  13. [13]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G

    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]

    arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    E. Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 153 (2023), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Giar` e, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 36, arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    W. Giar` e, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 36, arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 2023

  19. [19]

    Hu and F.-Y

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

    arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 123519 (2024), arXiv:2408.02365 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Giar` e, Phys

    W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D109, 123545 (2024), arXiv:2404.12779 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    Jiang and Y.-S

    J.-Q. Jiang and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D111, 103505 (2025), arXiv:2501.16883 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Pedrotti, J.-Q

    D. Pedrotti, J.-Q. Jiang, L. A. Escamilla, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D111, 023506 (2025), arXiv:2408.04530 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Pedrotti, (2026), arXiv:2604.25813 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Pedrotti, (2026), arXiv:2604.25813 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    A. G. Riess, G. S. Anand, W. Yuan, S. Casertano, A. Dolphin, L. M. Macri, L. Breuval, D. Scolnic, M. Per- rin, and I. R. Anderson, Astrophys. J. Lett.962, L17 (2024), arXiv:2401.04773 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Boisseau, G

    B. Boisseau, G. Esposito-Farese, D. Polarski, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2236 (2000), arXiv:gr- qc/0001066

    arXiv 2000

  31. [31]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  32. [32]

    Li, Phys

    M. Li, Phys. Lett. B603, 1 (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0403127

    arXiv 2004

  33. [33]

    Huang and Y.-G

    Q.-G. Huang and Y.-G. Gong, JCAP08, 006 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403590

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  34. [34]

    Zhang and F.-Q

    X. Zhang and F.-Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D72, 043524 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0506310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  35. [35]

    Zhang, Int

    X. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D14, 1597 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0504586

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  36. [36]

    Zhang and F.-Q

    X. Zhang and F.-Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D76, 023502 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701405

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  37. [37]

    Zhang, Phys

    X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D79, 103509 (2009), arXiv:0901.2262 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [38]

    Zhang, Y.-H

    J.-F. Zhang, Y.-H. Li, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2954 (2014), arXiv:1404.3598 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [39]

    Zhang, M.-M

    J.-F. Zhang, M.-M. Zhao, Y.-H. Li, and X. Zhang, JCAP04, 038 (2015), arXiv:1502.04028 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Y.-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, and E. N. Saridakis, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 106901 (2016), arXiv:1511.07586 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 096901 (2016), arXiv:1603.08299 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Feng and X

    L. Feng and X. Zhang, JCAP08, 072 (2016), arXiv:1607.05567 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Guo and X

    R.-Y. Guo and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 163 (2016), arXiv:1512.07703 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept.692, 1 (2017), arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Guo, J.-F

    R.-Y. Guo, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 42, 095103 (2018), arXiv:1803.06910 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Feng, D.-Z

    L. Feng, D.-Z. He, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.63, 290404 (2020), 9 arXiv:1910.03872 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    L. Yin, J. Kochappan, T. Ghosh, and B.-H. Lee, JCAP 10, 007 (2023), arXiv:2305.07937 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Jin, T.-N

    S.-J. Jin, T.-N. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP 08, 070 (2023), arXiv:2202.11882 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Yao and X.-H

    Y.-H. Yao and X.-H. Meng, Commun. Theor. Phys.76, 075401 (2024), arXiv:2312.04007 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Song, L.-F

    J.-Y. Song, L.-F. Wang, Y. Li, Z.-W. Zhao, J.-F. Zhang, W. Zhao, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 230411 (2024), arXiv:2212.00531 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    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

  52. [52]

    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]

    arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    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

  54. [54]

    Kochappan, L

    J. Kochappan, L. Yin, B.-H. Lee, and T. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D112, 063562 (2025), arXiv:2408.09521 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Knox and M

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

    arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Poulin, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    M.-X. Lin, G. Benevento, W. Hu, and M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D100, 063542 (2019), arXiv:1905.12618 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Ye and Y.-S

    G. Ye and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D101, 083507 (2020), arXiv:2001.02451 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Ye and Y.-S

    G. Ye and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D102, 083523 (2020), arXiv:2008.10832 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Braglia, W

    M. Braglia, W. T. Emond, F. Finelli, A. E. Gum- rukcuoglu, and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D102, 083513 (2020), arXiv:2005.14053 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Agrawal, F.-Y

    P. Agrawal, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, D. Pinner, and L. Randall, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101347 (2023), arXiv:1904.01016 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, and T. Karwal, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101348 (2023), arXiv:2302.09032 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Bella, V

    M. Bella, V. Poulin, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Knox, (2026), arXiv:2604.13535 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Yin, G.-H

    L. Yin, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2601.13624 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    J. C. Hill, E. McDonough, M. W. Toomey, and S. Alexander, Phys. Rev. D102, 043507 (2020), arXiv:2003.07355 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    M. M. Ivanov, E. McDonough, J. C. Hill, M. Simonovi´ c, M. W. Toomey, S. Alexander, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D102, 103502 (2020), arXiv:2006.11235 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

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

    arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035 (2024), arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, Sci. Bull.69, 2698 (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    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

  72. [72]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181002 (2025), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Rebou¸ cas, D

    J. Rebou¸ cas, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Mi- randa, and R. Rosenfeld, JCAP02, 024 (2025), arXiv:2408.14628 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and B. Ratra, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D34, 2550058 (2025), arXiv:2410.13627 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Li, Y.-H

    T.-N. Li, Y.-H. Li, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 608 (2025), arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    A. J. Shajib and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D112, 063508 (2025), arXiv:2502.06929 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Giar` e, T

    W. Giar` e, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101906 (2025), arXiv:2502.10264 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Chaussidonet al., Phys

    E. Chaussidonet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 063548 (2025), arXiv:2503.24343 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 280410 (2025), arXiv:2503.21600 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.