Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Clustered unified dark sector cosmology: Background evolution and linear perturbations in light of observations

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the CMB's integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect forces the clustered fraction of a unified Chaplygin dark sector to be essentially one ($f \gtrsim 0.99$ at 68% confidence), making the model nearly indistinguishable from…

desk verdict The ISW constraint on clustered Chaplygin gas is the real new result, and it makes the model nearly indistinguishable from ΛCDM; the main caveat is the constant-f approximation, which the paper doesn't quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01751 v1 pith:HPUCI75B submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.CO

Mahmoud Hashim , Amr El-Zant This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords ChaplygingasunifieddarksectorclusteredmatterintegratedSachs-WolfeeffectCMBsecondaryanisotropiesHubbletensionlarge-scalestructure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether a single dark-sector fluid, the Chaplygin gas, which can act as dark matter at early times and dark energy late, can survive once structure formation is taken into account. Its answer is yes, but only under a strict condition: a fraction $f$ of the fluid must collapse into pressureless halos, and the cosmic microwave background demands that $f$ be almost exactly one. The dominant constraint comes not from the spectrum at last scattering but from the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, the imprint on CMB temperature of gravitational potentials that change with time at low redshift. With the full CMB data used here, the standard Chaplygin gas needs $f \gtrsim 0.99$ at 68% confidence; adding late-universe expansion data shifts the preferred value to $f \approx 0.99$ and allows $H_0$ up to about 70 km/s/Mpc at 95% confidence. The result matters because it defines the narrow parameter window within which a one-fluid cosmology is still viable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the clustered fraction $f$, the fraction of the unified Chaplygin fluid that collapses nonlinearly into pressureless structures; the remainder stays nearly homogeneous and eventually behaves as dark energy. The dark-sector density is split as $\rho_{\rm DS} = [A_{\rm cl} + (1-f)^{1+\alpha} B a^{-3(1+\alpha)}]^{1/(1+\alpha)} + B^{1/(1+\alpha)} f a^{-3}$, with the unclustered component's adiabatic sound speed given by $c_s^2 = -\alpha w_{\rm Ch}$. The argument's load-bearing diagnostic is the integrated Sachs-Wolfe integral, which measures the late-time variation of the gravitational potentials $\dot{\phi} + \dot{\psi}$ along the line of sight; this is what makes the CMB sensitive to $f$ even when the distance to last scattering and the spectrum there are held fixed.

What would settle it

Re-run the same likelihood analysis with a time-dependent $f(z)$ that tracks the nonlinear mass fraction, and compare the integrated Sachs-Wolfe and lensing predictions against the full CMB temperature, polarization, and lensing data; if a model with $f$ well below 0.99 at late times still fits the low-$\ell$ CMB spectrum, the paper's central bound fails. Equivalently, a significantly weaker late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe signal than the nearly-$\Lambda$CDM best fit predicts for $\ell \lesssim 10$ would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In clustered unified dark sector models, the dark sector splits after early nonlinear collapse into a pressureless, dark-matter-like clustered component and a nearly homogeneous Chaplygin component that later acts as dark energy. The paper's central finding is that secondary CMB anisotropies, above all the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, force the clustered fraction $f$ to stay very close to unity if the observed CMB spectrum is to be reproduced. For the standard Chaplygin gas, the full CMB data give $f \gtrsim 0.99$ at 68% confidence, with $f \rightarrow 1$ preferred; when late-universe expansion data are included, $f \approx 0.99$ is favored over exact $\Lambda$CDM, and $f \approx 0.97$ with $H_0 \approx 70$ km/s/Mpc is allowed at the 2$\sigma$ level. The paper also shows that large-scale-structure data, which originally ruled out unclustered unified dark matter, are far less constraining once clustering is included, but those looser limits are incompatible with the CMB. The conclusion is that any viable clustered Chaplygin cosmology must have $f$ within about one percent of unity, making it observationally nearly indistinguishable from standard cosmology.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the clustered fraction $f$ jumps to its final value at redshift 49 and then stays constant; if $f$ actually grows slowly with time, as hierarchical structure formation would suggest, the changing gravitational potentials late in cosmic history, and the CMB constraint that pins $f$ near one, could be different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard Chaplygin gas is observationally viable only for $f \gtrsim 0.99$, so its late-time behavior is effectively $\Lambda$CDM; the unified-fluid idea survives only in a heavily clustered limit.
  • The model's ability to raise $H_0$ while keeping the distance to last scattering fixed is sharply limited by the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, so the Hubble tension is reduced only modestly, from about $5\sigma$ to about $4.3\sigma$.
  • Large-scale-structure data alone permit $f$ values well below 0.9 and even prefer models far from $\Lambda$CDM, but these are excluded by the full CMB spectrum, so combined datasets are dominated by the CMB.
  • For the generalized Chaplygin gas, tight CMB constraints on $f$ persist for most $\alpha$; only near-$\Lambda$CDM models with $\alpha \lesssim 10^{-4}$ allow all values $0 \le f \le 1$.
  • Unclustered fractions of order $10^{-2}$ at low redshift, as estimated for warm dark matter cosmologies with similar minimal halo scales, are compatible with the CMB-inferred $f \approx 0.99$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If $f$ grows with time after $z=49$, as hierarchical structure formation would naturally produce, the late-time potentials would differ from the constant-$f$ case; re-running the likelihood with a time-dependent $f(z)$ from N-body or halo-model estimates is a direct test of whether the tight integrated Sachs-Wolfe bound survives.
  • The integrated Sachs-Wolfe constraint is likely to apply to any unified dark sector whose homogeneous component develops a time-varying equation of state at low redshift; models that suppress late-time potential decay would keep the $H_0$ benefit while evading the bound.
  • The preference of late-universe large-scale-structure and galaxy-ISW data for $f \approx 0.7$ to $0.9$ in generalized models, though CMB-excluded today, predicts distinctive signatures that future galaxy surveys could either confirm or rule out.
  • If extended to a time-dependent $f$, the model's nonlinear Jeans scale near a comoving kiloparsec could connect the integrated Sachs-Wolfe constraint to small-scale structure questions such as the missing-satellite problem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a unified dark sector in which a generalized Chaplygin gas is split, after an abrupt transition at z=49, into a clustered pressureless component (fraction f) and a nearly homogeneous Chaplygin component. It shows that the background expansion and linear perturbations approach LambdaCDM as f tends to 1, and it confronts the model with Planck CMB, CMB lensing, Pantheon+ supernovae, SH0ES H0, BBN, SDSS LRG matter power spectrum, and ISW-galaxy cross-correlation data using a modified CLASS and MultiNest. For the standard Chaplygin gas (alpha=1), the full CMB data, especially the late-time ISW, require f >~ 0.99 at 68% confidence; adding late-universe data shifts the preferred value to f about 0.99 and allows f about 0.97 with H0 about 70 km/s/Mpc at 95% confidence. The generalized gas is similarly constrained except near alpha -> 0, while LSS data alone leave f substantially smaller. The paper concludes that viable clustered Chaplygin models must be extremely close to LambdaCDM and that the Hubble tension is only mildly alleviated.

Significance. If the central ISW bound is robust, it is a strong result: it effectively closes the remaining parameter space of simple clustered Chaplygin unified dark sector models, making them observationally nearly indistinguishable from LambdaCDM, and it redirects attention to more general unified models with a smaller ISW signal. The paper's strengths are its use of standard linear perturbation theory and publicly available Boltzmann and sampling codes, a wide set of current datasets, and a clear separation of background, CMB, and LSS constraints. The main caveat is that the sharp constant-f approximation is precisely the ingredient that controls the ISW signal, so the robustness of the headline constraint to time-dependent clustering needs to be established or the claims need to be re-scoped.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section II A 2 and Section IV A (Eq. 18)] The central constraint f >~ 0.99 from Planck CMB data is derived in a model in which the clustered fraction f is constant for all z < 49, with the unclustered component evolving as a homogeneous Chaplygin fluid. The paper itself notes in Section II A 2 that f should grow with time in hierarchical structure formation and argues that the abrupt approximation is acceptable because the background density and potentials depend on f mainly at late times. This argument does not cover the ISW, however: Eq. (18) is an integral over exactly the late-time epochs (z <~ 2) where the unclustered abundance and its effective equation of state are set by the assumed constant value 1 - f. In a growing-f scenario the unclustered fraction at z ~ 1-2 can differ from 1 - f_final, and the energy transfer between the two components changes the unclustered component's evolution; the resulting ISW signal, and hence the derived bound on f, could be either larger or smaller. Because the abstract and conclusions are phrased as constraints on viable clustered Chaplygin cosmologies rather than on the constant-f sub-model, the quantitative statement that f must remain close to unity is not yet secured for the physically motivated time-dependent case. I request either a quantitative robustness test with a parameterized f(a) growth history, or a clear re-scoping of the central claims to the constant-f model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV A] The figure cross-references are inconsistent: the text refers to Fig. 8 for both the CMB-only and the CMB-plus-local-H0 cases, while Figs. 9 and 10 are also referenced; please renumber and correct the in-text references.
  2. [Eq. (12)] There is a duplicated word in the sentence introducing the metric: the perturbation equations are introduced with 'are are'.
  3. [Section II B 2] The text contains the typo 'Cahplygin gas' instead of 'Chaplygin gas'; the abstract also has 'withf' missing a space.
  4. [Table I and Section IV B] Several rows in Table I fix tau_reio, ln(10^10 A_s), and n_s to Planck LambdaCDM values, but the main text does not always emphasize this when interpreting the LSS-only preferences; this should be stated more prominently because it affects the claimed preference for models far from LambdaCDM.
  5. [Appendix C] Appendix C uses Planck 15 CMB maps for the galaxy-ISW cross-correlation, whereas the main CMB likelihood uses Planck 18; please clarify whether this is intentional and whether the two releases are used consistently in the combined analyses.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The f→1 limit to ΛCDM is built into the ansatz, but the central ISW bound on f is a genuine data-driven constraint, not circular.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Section II A, Eq. (6) with f=1]
    "We show that both background evolution and linear perturbations tend towards those in ΛCDM as the clustered fraction f → 1."

    In Eq. (6), ρDS = [Acl + (1−f)^{(1+α)} B a^{−3(1+α)}]^{1/(1+α)} + B^{1/(1+α)} f a^{−3}. Setting f=1 makes the first term the constant Acl^{1/(1+α)} = ρ0 ΩCh and the second term ρ0 Ωc a^{−3}, i.e. exactly a cosmological-constant-like component plus pressureless CDM. The claimed 'tendency' of the model to ΛCDM as f→1 is therefore a restatement of the ansatz (f is the fraction in the CDM-like clustered sector), not an independent derived result. This is a self-definitional limit; it does not affect the separate, data-driven ISW constraint on f.

full rationale

The paper's headline result — that secondary CMB anisotropies, especially the ISW, constrain f ≳ 0.99 — is obtained by comparing CLASS-computed CMB spectra against external Planck and late-universe datasets. The parameter f is free in the likelihood scan; the posterior preference for f → 1 (or f ≃ 0.99 with SH0ES) is a fit to data, not a quantity predicted from the model's defining equations. Nothing in the ISW derivation is equivalent to the input by construction: the ISW integral (18) is evaluated from the perturbed potentials, and the low-f models are rejected because they overproduce large-scale CMB power. The only by-construction element is the f→1 limit itself, which follows immediately from Eq. (6) and is best read as a consistency property of the model. Reference [16] is a self-citation by co-author El-Zant and supplies the physical motivation and the z=49 transition choice, but the ISW constraint does not reduce to that citation; it is computed from the perturbation equations and the external likelihoods. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Hence minor circularity only.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces two new parameters (f and alpha) plus an assumed transition redshift, and relies on the physical plausibility of nonlinear clustering established in a previous paper by one of the authors. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • f (clustered fraction) = 0.989 (standard gas, CMB+SNIa+H0); 0.992 (free alpha, CMB+LSS+SNIa+H0)
    The fraction of the dark sector that collapses into pressureless halos; the central parameter of the paper, constrained by the likelihood analysis.
  • alpha (Chaplygin index) = fixed to 1 for standard gas; 0.623 (68% CL mean) for free-alpha combined CMB+LSS+SNIa+H0 case
    Exponent in the Chaplygin equation of state p = -A/rho^alpha; controls the sound speed and late-time behavior.
  • z_trans (clustering transition redshift) = 49 (a = 0.02), fixed by hand
    The assumed redshift at which the fluid suddenly splits into clustered and unclustered components; affects the perturbation evolution and ISW signal.
  • Standard cosmological parameters (omega_b, omega_c, H0, tau_re, n_s, ln10^10A_s) = See Table I; e.g., H0 = 68.77 +/- 0.43 km/s/Mpc and omega_c = 0.11846 for the standard gas with CMB+SNIa+H0
    The usual six LambdaCDM parameters varied in the MCMC; they are standard inputs, but their fitted values are part of the results.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Chaplygin equation of state p = -A/rho^alpha
    Defines the unified dark fluid; used in Eq. (1) and throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark sector splits into a clustered pressureless component and an unclustered Chaplygin component with energy densities given by Eq. (6)
    This split is the core model premise, motivated by prior work [16]; it is not derived from first principles in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The clustered fraction f is constant after an abrupt transition at z = 49
    The authors acknowledge this is an approximation; a time-dependent f could alter the ISW constraints.
  • domain assumption The unclustered component obeys adiabatic perturbation equations with sound speed c_s^2 = -alpha*w
    Standard treatment for Chaplygin gas, used in Eq. (15).
  • domain assumption The clustered component behaves as pressureless dark matter with w = c_s^2 = 0
    Necessary for the model to mimic CDM halos.
  • domain assumption Nonlinear collapse of the unified fluid into self-gravitating structures is possible
    Taken from the prior study [16]; without this, the clustered model has no physical basis.
  • standard math Standard FLRW background and linear perturbation theory in Newtonian gauge
    Used in Eqs. (12) through (17).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clustered unified dark sector cosmology: Background evolution and linear perturbations in light of observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPUCI75B

@misc{pith2026250201751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clustered unified dark sector cosmology: Background evolution and linear perturbations in light of observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPUCI75B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01751}
}
abstract

We consider unified dark sector models in which the fluid can collapse and cluster into halos, allowing for hierarchical structure formation to proceed as in standard cosmology. We show that both background evolution and linear perturbations tend towards those in $\LCDM$ as the clustered fraction $f \rightarrow 1$. We confront such models with various observational datasets, with emphasis on the relatively well motivated standard Chaplygin gas. We show that the strongest constraints come from secondary anisotropies in the CMB spectrum, which prefer models with $f \rightarrow 1$. However, as a larger Hubble constant is allowed for smaller $f$, values of $f \simeq 0.99$ (rather than tending to exact unity) are favored when late universe expansion data is included, with $f \simeq 0.97$ and $H_0 \simeq 70 {\rm km/s/Mpc}$ allowed at the 2-$\sigma$ level. Such values of $f$ imply extremely efficient clustering into nonlinear structures. They may nevertheless be compatible with clustered fractions in warm dark matter based cosmologies, which have similar minimal halo mass scales as the models considered here. Tight CMB constraints on $f$ also apply to the generalized Chaplygin gas, except for models that are already quite close to $\LCDM$, in which case all values of $0 \le f \le 1$ are allowed. In contrast to the CMB, large scale structure data, which were initially used to rule out unclustered unified dark matter models, are far less constraining. Indeed, late universe data, including the large scale galaxy distribution, prefer models that are far from $\LCDM$. But these are in tension with the CMB data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Evolution of the Hubble parameter, relative to ΛCDM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Equation of state parameter of the unclustered stan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The left hand panel shows the evolution of the relative energy densities of unclustered Chaplygin gas (dashed lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. CMB lensing power spectrum for the same models as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Newtonian potentials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Matter power spectra in clustered standard Chap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. CMB Temperature anisotropy angular power spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The left hand panel shows confidence contours using the LSS power spectrum from SDSS LRG DR7, alone and with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. CMB constraints on the generalized Chaplygin gas, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Confidence contours arising from galaxy ISW cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Confidence regions of generalized Chaplygin gas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Constraints on generalized Chaplygin gas parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Hubble and equation of state parameters The evolution of H(z) for such models, relative to the standard scenario, is shown Fig. 1. All parameters are fixed to fiducial ΛCDM values, except for H0 and Ω c, which are varied with the aforementioned considerations 4 FIG. 2. Equation of state parameter of the unclustered stan- dard Chaplygin gas component f...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Density evolution An important point to note regards the continuity of the total density, even when assuming an abrupt transi- tion to a clustered system. As before, we assume a sharp transition and set it at a = 0 .02 ( z = 49), which ap- proximately corresponds to the first nonlinear structures forming at the ’nonlinear Jeans scale’ inferred in [16] (ab...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The CMB, the ISW and lensing The CMB spectrum at last scattering is unaffected by changes in f , as long as the physical densities — of baryons, radiation and of the effective dark matter com- ponent, represented at last scattering by the Chaplygin gas — remain fixed. Furthermore, as we have seen, the effect of the background evolution on the location of ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Matter power spectrum It was originally the matter power spectrum that was used to tightly constrain, and effectively rule out, unified 7 dark matter models [7]. As mentioned in the introduc- tion, the initial calculation ignored that, in any model where galaxy formation proceeds as in the standard sce- nario, the unified dark matter should collapse into ...

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    We show the corresponding likelihood constraints from the CMB in Fig. 13. The tight limits on the minimal value of f that we saw in the case of the standard gas turn out to persist for almost all α, except for extremely small values, when the model also tends to ΛCDM. For such small α <10−4, all values of f are allowed. As has long been pointed out (e.g. ...

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Physics Letters B 511, 265 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Bento, O

    M. Bento, O. Bertolami, and A. A. Sen, Physical Review D 66, 043507 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    J. R. Primack, Annalen der Physik 524, 535 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    C. S. Frenk and S. D. White, Annalen der Physik 524, 507 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Jackiw, arXiv preprint physics/0010042 (2000)

    R. Jackiw, arXiv preprint physics/0010042 (2000)

    2000 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, in The Tenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimen- tal General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories (In 3 Volumes) (World Scientific, 2005) pp. 840–859

    2005

  4. [12]

    H. B. Sandvik, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga, and I. Waga, Physical Review D 69, 123524 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, O. Piat- tella, and A. Starobinsky, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2008 (02), 016

    2008

  6. [14]

    L. M. Be¸ ca, P. P. Avelino, J. P. de Carvalho, and C. J. Martins, Phys. Rev. D 67, 101301 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0303564 [astro-ph]

    2003

  7. [15]

    St¨ ucker, P

    J. St¨ ucker, P. Busch, and S. D. M. White, MNRAS477, 3230 (2018), arXiv:1710.09881 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    O. F. Piattella, D. Bertacca, M. Bruni, and D. Pietrobon, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2010, 014 (2010), arXiv:0911.2664 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bertacca, M

    D. Bertacca, M. Bruni, O. F. Piattella, and D. Pietrobon, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2011, 018 (2011), arXiv:1011.6669 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Park, J.-c

    C.-G. Park, J.-c. Hwang, J. Park, and H. Noh, Physical Review D 81, 063532 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Y. Wang, D. Wands, L. Xu, J. De-Santiago, and A. Ho- jjati, Phys. Rev. D 87, 083503 (2013), arXiv:1301.5315 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    P. P. Avelino, K. Bolejko, and G. F. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 14 89, 103004 (2014), arXiv:1403.1718 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Abdullah, A

    A. Abdullah, A. A. El-Zant, and A. Ellithi, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083524 (2022), arXiv:2108.03260 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Del Popolo and M

    A. Del Popolo and M. Le Delliou, Galaxies 5, 17 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Annual Re- view of Astronomy and Astrophysics 55, 343 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Salucci, Astron

    P. Salucci, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 27, 2 (2019), arXiv:1811.08843 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    As the first nonlinear structures form, the unified dark fluid splits into two sectors, one remaining nearly homogeneous and another made of the nonlinear structures

    The physical motivation for this form was discussed in [16] for the case of the standard Chaplygin gas (Sec- tion IV.A). As the first nonlinear structures form, the unified dark fluid splits into two sectors, one remaining nearly homogeneous and another made of the nonlinear s...

  18. [26]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, R. Battye, K. Benabed, J. P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Bou...

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ma and E

    C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, ApJ 455, 7 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9506072 [astro-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Lesgourgues, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1104.2932 (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Lesgourgues, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1104.2932 (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    W. Hu, N. Sugiyama, and J. Silk, arXiv e-prints , astro- ph/9604166 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9604166 [astro-ph]

    1996

  22. [30]

    A. J. Nishizawa, Progress of Theoretical and Experimen- tal Physics 2014, 06B110 (2014), arXiv:1404.5102 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. G. Crittenden and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 575 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9510072 [astro-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Carron, A

    J. Carron, A. Lewis, and G. Fabbian, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103507 (2022), arXiv:2209.07395 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Seraille, J

    E. Seraille, J. Noller, and B. D. Sherwin, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2401.06221 (2024), arXiv:2401.06221 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, W. D. Kenworthy, E. R. Peterson, K. Said, G. Taylor, N. Ali, P. Armstrong, P. Charvu, A. Dwomoh, C. Mel- dorf, A. Palmese, H. Qu, B. M. Rose, B. Sanchez, C. W. Stubb...

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, G. S. Anand, L. Breuval, T. G. Brink, A. V. Filippenko, S. Hoff- mann, S. W. Jha, W. D’arcy Kenworthy, J. Mack- enty, B. E. Stahl, and W. Zheng, ApJ 934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.0451...

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel, ApJ 855, 102 (2018), arXiv:1710.11129 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    B. A. Reid, W. J. Percival, D. J. Eisenstein, L. Verde, D. N. Spergel, R. A. Skibba, N. A. Bahcall, T. Budavari, J. A. Frieman, M. Fukugita, J. R. Gott, J. E. Gunn, ˇZ. Ivezi´ c, G. R. Knapp, R. G. Kron, R. H. Lupton, T. A. McKay, A. Meiksin, R. C. Nichol, A. C. Pope, D. J. Sc...

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. Ho, C. Hirata, N. Padmanabhan, U. Seljak, and N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. D 78, 043519 (2008), arXiv:0801.0642 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    St¨ olzner, A

    B. St¨ olzner, A. Cuoco, J. Lesgourgues, and M. Bilicki, Phys. Rev. D 97, 063506 (2018), arXiv:1710.03238 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2013, 001 (2013), 15 arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Https://baudren.github.io/montepython.html

  34. [42]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, MNRAS 398, 1601 (2009), arXiv:0809.3437 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Lewis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1910.13970 (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1910.13970 (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    In all the following figures figures the confidence contours will also refer to 68% and 95% CL

  37. [45]

    S. Cole, W. J. Percival, J. A. Peacock, P. Norberg, C. M. Baugh, C. S. Frenk, I. Baldry, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon, M. Colless, C. Collins, W. Couch, N. J. G. Cross, G. Dalton, V. R. Eke, R. De Pro- pris, S. P. Driver, G. Efstathiou, R. S. Ellis, K. Glaze- brook...

    2005 arXiv

  38. [46]

    W. J. Percival, C. M. Baugh, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon, S. Cole, M. Colless, C. Collins, W. Couch, G. Dalton, R. De Propris, S. P. Driver, G. Efstathiou, R. S. Ellis, C. S. Frenk, K. Glazebrook, C. Jackson, O. Lahav, I. Lewis, S. Lumsden, S. Mad- dox, S. Moody, ...

    2001 arXiv

  39. [47]

    W. J. Percival, R. C. Nichol, D. J. Eisenstein, J. A. Frie- man, M. Fukugita, J. Loveday, A. C. Pope, D. P. Schnei- der, A. S. Szalay, M. Tegmark, M. S. Vogeley, D. H. Wein- berg, I. Zehavi, N. A. Bahcall, J. Brinkmann, A. J. Con- nolly, and A. Meiksin, ApJ 657, 645 (2007), ar...

    2007

  40. [48]

    G. T. Richards, A. D. Myers, A. G. Gray, R. N. Riegel, R. C. Nichol, R. J. Brunner, A. S. Szalay, D. P. Schneider, and S. F. Anderson, ApJS 180, 67 (2009), arXiv:0809.3952 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.