Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 171 references

This paper reports the first Boltzmann-solver implementation of GREA, showing that the model's single parameter α is constrained to ≈1 by CMB, BAO, and supernova data, matching ΛCDM's fit within |Δχ²|≲6.

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

2026-08-01 01:19 UTC pith:BRLQMFLU

load-bearing objection Solid first Boltzmann implementation of GREA, but the α≈1 'prediction' is a fitted parameter and the perturbation sector is an effective-fluid placeholder — still worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25841 v1 pith:BRLQMFLU submitted 2026-07-28 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

General Relativistic Entropic Acceleration at the perturbation level: a CLASS implementation and first Boltzmann-code constraints

Simone D'Onofrio , Dong Ha Lee , Eleonora Di Valentino , Juan Garc\'ia-Bellido This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO MSC 83F0583C5583-08 PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x04.20.-q
keywords General Relativistic Entropic Accelerationhorizon thermodynamicsdark energycosmological constant problemEinstein-Boltzmann solverCMB power spectraparametrized post-Friedmannphantom crossing
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 pushes General Relativistic Entropic Acceleration (GREA) from a background-level idea into full perturbation theory, implementing it inside an Einstein–Boltzmann solver to compute CMB, lensing, and matter power spectra for the first time. It then confronts the model with the full primary-CMB, DESI BAO, and Type Ia supernova data via Markov-chain Monte Carlo. The central result is that GREA's single coupling α is measured to be about 1, exactly where the thermodynamic derivation places it, and that the one-parameter model fits the data as well as ΛCDM, with |Δχ²|≤6 across nine dataset combinations. If correct, this shows that a thermodynamically motivated, parameter-light alternative to the cosmological constant can survive the same precision tests as Λ, making acceleration a consequence of horizon entropy rather than vacuum energy.

Core claim

The authors integrate the GREA background directly into a Boltzmann solver and evolve the entropic component as an effective dark-energy fluid with sound speed c_s² = 1, regulated by the parametrized-post-Friedmann scheme so perturbations remain regular through the phantom crossing. The resulting angular power spectra and growth functions are new. When fit to the CMB-SPA (Planck+ACT+SPT) likelihood, DESI DR2 BAO, and Pantheon+/DES Dovekie supernovae, the inferred coupling α—the ratio of spatial-curvature scale to the causal horizon today—clusters tightly around unity (α≈1.00–1.08 for the CMB-anchored combinations), in agreement with the model's parameter-free prediction. The fit is statistic

What carries the argument

The key object is the entropic-force tensor f_μν and its homogeneous limit: an effective dark-energy density ρ_GREA ∝ sinh(2τ)/a², where τ is the dimensionless conformal time tied to the causal horizon. Its dynamics are fixed by a single parameter α, defined by α D_H(z=0) = √(-k) η0. At the perturbation level, the machinery is the effective-fluid description: the component is assigned the GREA equation of state w(a) and evolved as a non-clustering fluid (c_s²=1) under the parametrized-post-Friedmann closure, which handles the w=-1 crossing. The implementation also requires a subtle normalization rescaling so that the physical present-day Hubble rate, not the fiducial H0, is what the Boltzman

Load-bearing premise

The perturbed entropic source δf_μν is not derived from first principles; the paper sets its perturbation to zero (δζ=0) and models the component as a smooth fluid with sound speed c_s²=1, so if the true perturbations carry non-adiabatic or non-local pieces, the computed ISW and lensing spectra—and therefore the reported constraints—are not uniquely determined by GREA alone.

What would settle it

Measure the growth index γ(z) from redshift-space distortions (e.g., DESI, Euclid): GREA predicts a rising γ(z) with dγ/dz>0, while ΛCDM and most quintessence models predict a decreasing γ(z). If future data show dγ/dz<0, the model's growth prediction is falsified; alternatively, a detection of non-adiabatic pressure in the dark-energy fluid would invalidate the δζ=0 closure.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, GREA provides a single-parameter, thermodynamically grounded rival to ΛCDM that reproduces the expansion history, CMB anisotropies, and growth data at the same quality, eliminating the need for a finely tuned cosmological constant.
  • The distinctive second phantom crossing at z≈2 is a clean, falsifiable prediction that future higher-redshift dark-energy reconstructions (e.g., from DESI Lyman-α and Euclid) can test.
  • The model predicts enhanced growth at fixed primordial amplitude, raising σ8 relative to ΛCDM; a dedicated weak-lensing analysis within the GREA framework would determine whether this worsens or reframes the S8 tension.
  • The full Boltzmann-level implementation opens the way to constrain GREA with lensing, ISW, and growth-rate data from upcoming surveys, where the model's signatures are expected to be decisive.
  • The sound-speed sensitivity analysis (all observables shift by <1.6%) indicates current constraints are robust to the one undetermined ingredient, so the α≈1 measurement is stable under the effective-fluid assumptions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A full first-principles derivation of the perturbed entropic source δf_μν might reveal non-adiabatic pressure or non-local horizon terms; if those alter the low-ℓ ISW response by more than the ~1.6% sound-speed bracket, the reported constraints could shift, though likely within current error bars.
  • The model's thermodynamic origin hints that black-hole entropy growth (already discussed by the authors) could produce analogous acceleration signatures; testing GREA with gravitational-wave standard sirens could further distinguish it from scalar-field dark energy.
  • Since GREA is not nested in ΛCDM, the Δχ²≈0 is more telling than a Bayesian preference; a future comparison using Bayesian evidence with theory-motivated priors (fine-tuning penalty for Λ) would likely shift the model odds toward GREA.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first implementation of the General Relativistic Entropic Acceleration (GREA) model inside the CLASS Einstein–Boltzmann solver. The GREA background is integrated directly, while the entropic component is treated at linear order as an effective dark-energy fluid with the GREA equation of state, PPF closure, and sound speed c_s^2=1. The code is validated against semi-analytic growth and used to compute CMB TT/TE/EE, lensing, lensing-induced BB, matter power spectrum, and fσ8. The authors run MCMC analyses with COBAYA against CMB-SPA, DESI DR2 BAO, and several SN samples, report α≈1 in most combinations with |Δχ²|≲6 relative to ΛCDM, and interpret the results as confirming the GREA prediction α∼1 and a second phantom crossing at z≈2.

Significance. If the effective-fluid treatment is accepted as a faithful proxy for the GREA perturbation sector, this is a useful and reproducible technical step: it opens full primary-CMB and lensing likelihoods to a one-parameter, thermodynamically motivated alternative to ΛCDM. The public code, validation harness, and MCMC setup are concrete strengths, and the background-normalization subtlety is handled carefully. However, the significance is conditional, because the perturbed entropic source δfμν is not derived and the low-ℓ ISW and lensing predictions are not uniquely determined by GREA at this stage.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III (paragraph starting 'A fully consistent Einstein–Boltzmann treatment')] The paper explicitly states that the perturbed entropic sector δfμν is not derived: 'Whether this non-local piece can be neglected (δζ=0) is the central open question of a complete derivation. We do not settle it here.' The implementation then replaces δfμν by a local effective fluid with w(a), PPF closure, and c_s^2=1. This is an assumption, not a consequence of GREA. Consequently the abstract's claim of 'full CMB and matter power spectra' and the later statement that spectra are computed 'self-consistently' overstate what is uniquely predicted. The spectra are those of the effective-fluid ansatz. This is a load-bearing issue because the low-ℓ ISW and lensing channels are exactly the parts of the data that depend on this assumption; the Table II constraints are therefore conditional on the ansatz. I recommend explicitly reframing the title/abstract/conclusions as an implementation of th
  2. [Appendix B and Section III (c_s^2 sensitivity)] The robustness scan for c_s^2∈[0.01,1] varies only the local clustering-to-smooth transition of a single adiabatic sound speed. It does not sample non-adiabatic pressure or the non-local light-cone response that a genuine δfμν could generate. The sentence in Section III that 'the plausible size of the effect is bracketed by the c_s^2 sensitivity analysis' is therefore too strong: the scan brackets only one family of local closures. A non-adiabatic or non-local perturbation could shift the low-ℓ ISW and lensing power by a different amount. The paper itself acknowledges this residual caveat, but the claimed 1.6% robustness should be stated as applying only to the local adiabatic sound-speed ambiguity.
  3. [Eq. (8), Table II, Section VI] The conclusion that α≈1 is 'in excellent agreement with the theoretical prediction' conflates parameter estimation with confirmation of a prediction. The quantity √(−k)η0 is sampled with a flat prior and later mapped to α via Eq. (8); the posterior is a fitted parameter, not an independent test of a prediction unless the theory supplies a separate, prior expectation with uncertainty. The data being consistent with α=1 at the 1σ level is a meaningful result, but it should be phrased as consistency, not as the data 'singling out' a predicted value. Similarly, the second phantom crossing at z≈2 is beyond the last bin of the reconstruction shown in Fig. 9 and is evaluated at the best fit, so it is a model prediction not yet probed by the data; this should be stated more carefully.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title / Abstract] Typographical: 'aclassimplementation' should be 'a CLASS implementation' with spaces. Also, 'CMB-SP A' appears with an irregular space in several places in Section V; use 'CMB-SPA' consistently.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption notes that 'most of these configurations have two crossings of the phantom divide,' while the text elsewhere refers to 'a transient phantom crossing' in the singular. Please clarify how many crossings occur in the baseline α≈1 case and which crossing is being discussed.
  3. [Section V, near Eq. (13)] The sentence 'the largest is|lnB| ≃2.72' is grammatically incomplete; specify for which dataset combination this value occurs. It appears to be the CMB-SPA+PP+DESI column in Table II, but should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section IV] When introducing the sampled variable √(−k)η0 = α D_H(0), it may help readers to state the implied prior range for α, since the flat prior [2.5,4.5] on √(−k)η0 translates into a non-uniform prior on α through the background mapping. This would also clarify the 'prediction' discussion in the conclusions.
  5. [Figure 10 caption] The top panel caption says the shaded band indicates the 68% confidence region of the GREA reconstruction, but the plotted curves are said to be evaluated at the best fit; please specify whether the band is from the posterior or from the parameter covariance.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The headline 'vindication' of α≈1 compares the posterior of the fitted parameter to a self-cited 'prediction', rather than to an independently derived result.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Eq. (8); Sec. VII (Discussion and Conclusions)]
    "That the size of the causal horizon today should equal the spatial-curvature scale, α∼1, is not a fitted outcome but a genuine prediction of the theory, and the data single it out at the few-percent level."

    In Eq. (8) α is defined through the sampled quantity: αD_H(0)=√(-k)η0. Table I samples √(-k)η0 with a flat prior U[2.5,4.5], and Table II lists α as a derived parameter obtained by inverting that background mapping. The 'genuine prediction' α∼1 is not re-derived anywhere in this paper; it is the model's own O(1) parameter expectation, imported from the same group's earlier work. Thus the abstract's 'excellent agreement with the theoretical prediction' is a comparison between the posterior of the fitted variable and a self-cited prior expectation, not between two independent quantities.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. I (Introduction) and Sec. VII; refs. [131], [135]]
    "the detailed background and linear-growth predictions from the homogeneous cosmic horizon were worked out in [131]. The most complete analysis to date [135] ... finds a fit comparable to ΛCDM with α≃1.09 and a transient phantom crossing at z≲2"

    The central interpretative claim — that α∼1 is a genuine theoretical prediction — is not established in the present manuscript. It is justified by a chain of citations to [131] (authored by one of the present authors) and to the companion background analysis [135]. The present MCMC fit is then presented as vindicating that cited expectation. The self-citation is load-bearing because the 'prediction' being confirmed is the same model parameter fitted here, and no independent derivation or external theorem is supplied to break the loop.

full rationale

The technical core is substantially self-contained: the GREA background ODE is integrated directly in CLASS, the semi-analytic fσ8(z) of Ref. [131] is reproduced as a numerical validation, and the CMB-SPA/DESI/SN constraints are genuine external-data comparisons. I do not flag those as circular. The circular/self-citation component is concentrated in the headline interpretation: α is a free parameter (Eq. 8), sampled as √(-k)η0 and mapped to α in post-processing, yet the paper calls α∼1 a 'genuine prediction' on the authority of the same group's earlier papers and then reads the fitted posterior as a 'vindication'. That is a fitted input re-labelled as a prediction and supported by a self-citation chain. The acknowledged open problem of the perturbed entropic source δfμν — replaced by a c_s²=1 PPF effective fluid — is a real limitation on the claim of 'full GREA spectra', but it is an admitted assumption rather than a circular reduction; likewise, the second phantom crossing is a model output evaluated at the best-fit α, which is ordinary parameter conditioning, not circularity. The score of 6 reflects partial circularity in the central interpretative claim, not in the code or likelihood pipeline.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The computation rests on the GREA thermodynamic framework taken from prior papers by the same group, an effective-fluid/PPF placeholder for the un-derived perturbed entropic source, and standard ΛCDM likelihood machinery. The single model parameter α is fitted, not derived, and the standard cosmological parameters are also fitted. No machine-checked proofs or independent experimental handles for the entropic component are provided.

free parameters (2)
  • α (sampled as sqrt(-k)η0 = α D_H(0)) = α ≈ 1.008 ± 0.036 (CMB-SPA+PP); 0.965–1.079 across combinations
    The single GREA parameter is sampled with flat prior U[2.5,4.5] on sqrt(-k)η0. The paper calls α≈1 a prediction, but it is a fitted parameter constrained by the same data used to claim agreement.
  • Standard cosmological parameters {ωb, ωcdm, H0, log(10^10 As), ns, τreio} = e.g., H0 ≈ 67.8 ± 0.6 (CMB-SPA+PP), ωcdm ≈ 0.1185, etc.
    Standard free parameters sampled with flat/Gaussian priors and used in the likelihood fits; not model-specific but necessary for the constraints.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption GREA covariant non-equilibrium thermodynamics: entropy production enters as fμν on the matter side, with continuity-equation source T Ṡ/a³ (Eqs. 1–2).
    Foundation of the model, taken from refs [125,126,131] by the same author group; not independently established or re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Horizon thermodynamics: the causal horizon d_H = aη carries Gibbons–Hawking–York temperature and entropy, with ρ_H = T_H S_H / a³ (Eq. 3).
    The thermodynamic picture underlying GREA; adopted as an effective quantum-gravitational description on a classical background.
  • ad hoc to paper Perturbed entropic sector can be represented by an effective fluid with w(a), c_s²=1, and PPF closure; equivalently δζ=0.
    Explicitly adopted pending derivation of δfμν; Section III calls the neglect of δζ the central open question and defers it to future work.
  • domain assumption α ≈ 1 is the theoretical expectation of the model.
    Asserted in Section VII as a 'genuine prediction of the theory' but no derivation is given in this paper; it is inherited from earlier work by the same group and is not used in the likelihood calculation.
invented entities (2)
  • Entropic force tensor fμν / effective negative-pressure entropic fluid no independent evidence
    purpose: Drive late-time cosmic acceleration without a cosmological constant; enters the matter side of Einstein's equations and is evolved as an effective dark-energy fluid in CLASS.
    No direct observational handle is provided; the claimed predictions (α≈1, second phantom crossing) are either fitted-parameter outputs or outside current data sensitivity.
  • Causal-horizon degrees of freedom (T_H, S_H) acting thermodynamically no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide the entropy growth that generates the entropic acceleration.
    An effective description with no independent evidence beyond the model's own fit to the same cosmological data.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29564 in / 15385 out tokens · 142728 ms · 2026-08-01T01:19:45.631667+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

General Relativistic Entropic Acceleration (GREA) attributes the late-time acceleration of the Universe to the entropy growth of the causal cosmological horizon, without a cosmological constant, with a phenomenology fixed by the single $\mathcal{O}(1)$ parameter $\alpha$. The model has so far been confronted with data only at the background level. We present its first implementation within an Einstein-Boltzmann solver: the GREA background is integrated directly into CLASS, while the entropic component is evolved as an effective fluid regulated by the parametrized-post-Friedmann scheme, giving access to the full CMB and matter power spectra. A Markov-chain Monte Carlo analysis with COBAYA against the full primary-CMB likelihoods, DESI DR2 BAO and Type Ia supernovae constrains the coupling $\alpha \sim 1$, in excellent agreement with the theoretical prediction, with a fit matching $\Lambda$CDM to within $|\Delta\chi^2| \lesssim 6$ despite the addition of a single free parameter. The equation of state inferred from the data agrees with binned, model-independent reconstructions and exhibits a second crossing of the phantom divide at $z \simeq 2$, a distinctive prediction of the thermodynamic dynamics rather than of an imposed parametrization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25841 by Dong Ha Lee, Eleonora Di Valentino, Juan Garc\'ia-Bellido, Simone D'Onofrio.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Normalized expansion rate H(z)/(1 + z) for GREA realizations with varying α (color bar), compared to the ΛCDM reference (dashed). The lower panel shows the per￾centage residuals relative to ΛCDM. A. Validation and Boltzmann-level outputs We validate the implementation with a harness of quantitative acceptance tests that must pass before any perturbation output is used, following the principle that a wrong … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Effective equation of state w(z) of the entropic com￾ponent for GREA realizations with varying α, exhibiting a transient phantom crossing at z ≲ 2. We point out that most of these configurations have two crossings of the phantom di￾vide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CMB temperature (Left) and E-mode polarization (Right) angular power spectra for GREA realizations with varying α, compared to the ΛCDM reference (dashed); the lower panels show the percentage residuals. With the early-time physics held fixed, the modified late-time expansion shifts the angular scale of the acoustic peaks, producing oscillatory residuals that grow towards high ℓ, while the differences at ℓ… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Fig. 4 for the lensing-induced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginalized posteriors for the headline parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Marginalized posteriors for the headline parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: effective dark-energy equation of state w(z) for the GREA best fit (solid curves), compared with the binned, model-independent reconstruction of Ref. [98] (shaded rectangles). Bottom: the corresponding normalized dark-energy density fDE(z), defined as in Eq. (9). Results are shown for the PP+DESI (magenta) and DD+DESI (purple) combinations. The rectangles give the 68% credible interval of the reconstr… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: DESI DR2 BAO distance summary statistics, scaled by rd √ z: the transverse comoving dis￾tance DM(z)/(rd √ z) (magenta), the angle-averaged distance DV (z)/(rd √ z) (cyan), and z DH(z)/(rd √ z) (purple). Solid curves show the GREA best fit, and dashed curves the ΛCDM best fit, with the DESI DR2 measurements overplotted as points with 1σ error bars. Bottom: Normalized residuals (data − model)/σ for GRE… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fractional residuals of the CMB spectra as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Marginalized one- and two-dimensional posterior distributions for all sampled and key derived parameters in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Marginalized one- and two-dimensional posterior distributions for all sampled and key derived parameters in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Marginalized one- and two-dimensional posterior distributions for all sampled and key derived parameters in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png] view at source ↗

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

171 extracted references · 142 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et 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]

    Aghanim et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Louis et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Camphuis et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Zhao et al

    C. Zhao et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511, 5492 (2022), arXiv:2110.03824 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Lodha et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  12. [12]

    S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel.4, 1 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0004075

    arXiv 2001

  13. [13]

    Bull et al., Phys

    P. Bull et al., Phys. Dark Univ.12, 56 (2016), arXiv:1512.05356 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.55, 343 (2017), arXiv:1707.04256 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  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]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Calder´ on, A

    R. Calder´ on, A. Shafieloo, D. K. Hazra, and W. Sohn, JCAP08, 059 (2023), arXiv:2302.14300 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Di Valentino et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    Di Valentino et al., Astropart

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    E. Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    Giar` e, (2023), arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    W. Giar` e, (2023), arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Hu and F.-Y

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Di Valentino and D

    E. Di Valentino and D. Brout, eds., The Hubble Constant Tension, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology (Springer, 2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    D. D. Y. Ong and W. Handley, (2025), arXiv:2511.04661 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Cai and S.-J

    R.-G. Cai and S.-J. Wang, Res. Astron. Astrophys.26, 084011 (2026), arXiv:2606.20434 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Hikage et al

    C. Hikage et al. (HSC), Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap.71, 43 (2019), arXiv:1809.09148 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Di Valentino et al., Astropart

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Di Valentino and S

    E. Di Valentino and S. Bridle, Symmetry10, 585 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    R. C. Nunes and S. Vagnozzi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505, 5427 (2021), arXiv:2106.01208 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Amon et al

    A. Amon et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D105, 023514 (2022), arXiv:2105.13543 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    L. F. Secco et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D105, 023515 (2022), arXiv:2105.13544 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Asgari et al

    M. Asgari et al. (KiDS), Astron. Astrophys.645, A104 (2021), arXiv:2007.15633 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Asgari et al., Astron

    M. Asgari et al., Astron. Astrophys.634, A127 (2020), arXiv:1910.05336 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Joudaki et al., Astron

    S. Joudaki et al., Astron. Astrophys.638, L1 (2020), arXiv:1906.09262 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    D’Amico, J

    G. D’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, K. Markovic, L. Senatore, P. Zhang, F. Beutler, and H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, JCAP05, 005 (2020), arXiv:1909.05271 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (Kilo-Degree Survey, DES), Open J. Astrophys.6, 2305.17173 (2023), arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Tr¨ osteret al., Astron

    T. Tr¨ osteret al., Astron. Astrophys.633, L10 (2020), arXiv:1909.11006 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Heymans et al., Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Dalal et al., Phys

    R. Dalal et al., Phys. Rev. D108, 123519 (2023), arXiv:2304.00701 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Chen et al., Phys

    S. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 103518 (2024), arXiv:2407.04795 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    J. Kim et al., JCAP12, 022 (2024), arXiv:2407.04606 17 1.0 1.1 1.2 α 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 τreio 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 S8 0.28 0.30 0.32 Ωm 66 68 70 72H0 0.117 0.118 0.119 0.120 0.121 Ωch2 0.0222 0.0224 0.0226 0.0228 Ωbh2 0.965 0.970 0.975 0.980 ns 3.04 3.06 3.08 log(1010As) 3.035 3.060 3.085 log(1010As) 0.97 0.98 ns 0.0223 0.0227 Ωbh2 0.118 0.120 Ωch2 6...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Faga et al

    L. Faga et al. (DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536, 1586 (2024), arXiv:2406.12675 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Harnois-Deraps et al., Mon

    J. Harnois-Deraps et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 534, 3305 (2024), arXiv:2405.10312 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Dvornik et al., Astron

    A. Dvornik et al., Astron. Astrophys.675, A189 (2023), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 688, C3 (2024)], arXiv:2210.03110 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

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

    arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), (2026), arXiv:2602.10065 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]. 18 1.0 1.1 1.2 α 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 τreio 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 S8 0.28 0.30 0.32 Ωm 66 68 70 72H0 0.117 0.118 0.119 0.120 0.121 Ωch2 0.0222 0.0224 0.0226 Ωbh2 0.965 0.970 0.975 0.980 ns 3.04 3.06 3.08 log(1010As) 3.035 3.060 3.085 log(1010As) 0.97 0.98 ns 0.0223 0.0227 Ωbh...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Abdul Karim et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Calderon et al

    R. Calderon et al. (DESI), JCAP10, 048 (2024), arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Ishak et al., JCAP09, 053 (2025), arXiv:2411.12026 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Ishak et al., JCAP09, 053 (2025), arXiv:2411.12026 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Gu et al

    G. Gu et al. (DESI), Nature Astron.9, 1879 (2025), [Erratum: Nature Astron. 9, 1898–1898 (2025)], arXiv:2504.06118 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, JCAP12, 007 (2024), arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B855, 138826 (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Astron. Astrophys.690, A40 (2024), arXiv:2404.07070 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]. 19 3.04 3.06 3.08 log(1010As) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 τreio 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 S8 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 Ωm 66 67 68 69 70H0 0.117 0.118 0.119 0.120 Ωch2 0.0222 0.0224 0.0226 Ωbh2 0.965 0.970 0.975 0.9...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Lett. B873, 140180 (2026), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023512 (2025), arXiv:2404.12068 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D110, 123533 (2024), arXiv:2405.00502 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP09, 073 (2024), arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Najafi, S

    M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, 20 Phys. Dark Univ.45, 101539 (2024), arXiv:2407.14939 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Giar` e, Phys

    W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D112, 023508 (2025), arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Roy Choudhury and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2504.00776 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Roy Choudhury, Astrophys

    S. Roy Choudhury, Astrophys. J. Lett.986, L31 (2025), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 1001, L25 (2026), Erra- tum: Astrophys.J. 1001, L25 (2026)], arXiv:2504.15340 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.