Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 128 references

A composite running-vacuum model with a phantom-matter cosmon naturally produces the dark-energy phantom-divide crossing that recent galaxy-survey data suggest near redshift 0.4, and it fits the data better than the standard ΛCDM and CPL pa

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

2026-08-04 01:23 UTC pith:JGXDU73Z

load-bearing objection Careful fit of ΛXCDM to DESI DR2, but the claimed edge over CPL and the crossing 'prediction' are softer than the abstract implies. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26050 v2 pith:JGXDU73Z submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

ΛXCDM: a running vacuum strategy for crossing the phantom divide

Joan Sol\`a Peracaula , Adri\`a G\'omez-Valent , Alex Gonz\'alez-Fuentes This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph MSC 83F05 PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x98.80.Es
keywords running vacuum modelphantom dividephantom matterdark energycosmoncosmic coincidence problemCPL parameterizationdynamical dark energy
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.

This paper argues that the observed dynamical-dark-energy signal, specifically the crossing of the phantom divide (the effective equation-of-state parameter passing through w_eff = −1) at redshift z ≈ 0.4, can be produced by a physically motivated composite model rather than only by phenomenological parameterizations. The model, called ΛXCDM, couples a 'cosmon' component X—whose equation of state lies in the phantom regime (w_X < −1) but with negative energy density and positive pressure, i.e., 'phantom matter'—to a vacuum energy that runs slowly with the Hubble rate. This combination yields an effective dark-energy equation of state that evolves from phantom-like in the past to quintessence-like today, crossing the divide in the redshift range inferred from data. Fits to CMB, BAO, and supernova data give a better fit than ΛCDM and than the w0waCDM (CPL) parameterization, with information-criterion evidence strong enough to compensate for the extra parameters, and the same parameter region keeps the dark-energy-to-matter coincidence ratio bounded at order one, alleviating the cosmic-coincidence problem. The paper's key claim is qualitative as much as statistical: the crossing is generic over a wide range of cosmon equations of state, so no fine-tuning of the cosmon's microphysics is needed.

Core claim

The central claim is that in the ΛXCDM model the effective equation of state of the composite dark-energy fluid, w_eff = −1 + (1+w_X) Ω_X/Ω_D, necessarily crosses the phantom divide from phantom-like to quintessence-like behavior as Ω_X changes sign, provided the cosmon X behaves as phantom matter (w_X < −1, Ω_X < 0 today) and the vacuum runs with coefficient ν < 0 (equivalently ϵ = ν(1+w_X) > 0). The crossing redshift is given by an explicit formula, and when the model is fitted to Planck PR4 CMB data, DESI DR2 BAO data, and either Pantheon+ or DES-Dovekie supernovae, it yields z* ≈ 0.2–0.9 at 95% CL, consistent with the crossing inferred from model-agnostic analyses of the same data. In th

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective equation-of-state parameter of the composite dark-energy fluid, w_eff(z) = −1 + (1+w_X) Ω_X(z)/Ω_D(z), where Ω_X is the cosmon energy density and Ω_D the total dark-energy density; the phantom-divide crossing occurs exactly when Ω_X(z*) = 0. The two load-bearing pieces are the running vacuum law ρ_vac(H) = ρ_vac^0 + (3ν/8π)(H² − H₀²)m_Pl², whose negative ν makes the vacuum grow by absorbing energy from the cosmon, and the assumption that the cosmon has constant w_X < −1 but negative energy density and positive pressure. The model is reparameterized in terms of (ϵ, w_X, δ) with ϵ = ν(1+w_X) and δ = Ω_X^0(1+w_X), which removes degeneracies with the ΛCDM limi

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the existence of a 'cosmon' fluid with w_X < −1 and negative energy density today that feeds energy into a running vacuum; the data cannot determine w_X below about −2, so the reported bounds come from the prior −4 ≤ w_X ≤ −1 rather than from the likelihood, and the crossing redshift is a fitted consequence rather than an independent prediction.

What would settle it

Use future galaxy-survey and CMB-lensing data to reconstruct the effective dark-energy equation of state w_eff(z) at multiple redshifts; if the reconstruction shows no crossing below z ≈ 1 or a crossing in the opposite direction (quintessence-to-phantom toward the present), the ΛXCDM parameter region preferred here would be excluded. On the model side, a detection that the cosmon's energy density is positive today (ρ_X > 0) would contradict the phantom-matter assumption directly.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, the DESI dynamical-dark-energy signal can be realized by a composite running-vacuum model rather than a free parameterization, and the crossing redshift naturally lands in the observed range z ≈ 0.4–0.8 for the preferred parameter region.
  • The model provides a better fit to CMB + BAO + supernova data than both ΛCDM and the CPL parameterization, with ΔAIC ≈ 6–8 over ΛCDM, so the extra parameters are statistically compensated.
  • In the same parameter region, the coincidence ratio remains bounded with a future maximum of order one, offering an alleviation of the cosmic-coincidence problem without additional priors.
  • A wide family of cosmon realizations (any w_X ≲ −1.5) all produce the crossing, making the prediction robust to the microphysical nature of X; the profile likelihood is flat for w_X < −2.
  • With the datasets used, the model does not cure the Hubble tension (H0 ≈ 66.7–67.1 km/s/Mpc), and it slightly increases σ12 and S8 compared to ΛCDM, so its success is specific to the phantom-divide crossing and coincidence problem rather than to all cosmological tensions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the plateau in the profile likelihood for w_X persists with future data, the cosmon's equation of state may remain permanently underdetermined by distance and CMB data alone, pointing to a need for probes sensitive to negative-energy-density fluids, such as growth or lensing anomalies.
  • The paper's string-theory motivation suggests a testable cross-check: if phantom-matter 'bubbles' exist, they could produce anomalous structure formation at z ≈ 5–10, a signature that upcoming high-redshift surveys could confirm or exclude.
  • A natural extension, which the authors note, is to let w_X vary with redshift; such a generalization could alter the predicted H0 and might reconcile the model with local distance-ladder measurements.
  • Because the model predicts one-way crossings only (phantom-to-quintessence toward the present), a future reconstruction showing the opposite direction—or no crossing below z ≈ 1—would directly falsify this mechanism within the preferred parameter region.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ΛXCDM composite dark-energy model, in which a running vacuum density exchanges energy with a generic component X ('cosmon'). The authors derive analytic expressions for the effective equation of state, the energy densities, the coincidence ratio, and the phantom-crossing redshift z*, and then fit the model with three additional parameters (ϵ, w_X, δ) to Planck PR4 CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, and either Pantheon+ or DES-Dovekie SNIa data using CLASS/Cobaya/GetDist. They report that ΛXCDM improves the fit over ΛCDM by Δχ²≈12–14 and over CPL by Δχ²≈2.9–3.8, gives ΛCDM exclusion significances of 2.68σ/2.97σ, produces a phantom-divide crossing at z*≈0.4–0.8, and alleviates the cosmic coincidence problem. The paper explicitly acknowledges non-Gaussian posteriors, a relaxed convergence criterion, and a flat profile likelihood for w_X.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, the paper would be significant: it would offer a theoretically motivated composite DE model, with analytic control, that reproduces the DESI crossing and simultaneously addresses cosmic coincidence, going beyond the phenomenological CPL parametrization. The use of public likelihoods and standard MCMC tools, together with analytic background expressions and a transparent profile-likelihood analysis, are strengths. However, the statistical evidence for the advertised claims is weaker than the abstract suggests: the improvement over CPL is marginal after parameter counting, the ΛCDM exclusion is computed in a regime where Wilks' theorem is questionable, the key parameter w_X is prior-dominated, and the claimed crossing redshift is an output of the fit to the same data from which the crossing is inferred. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions, but they are correctable by reframing the claims and adding calibrated model-comparison statistics.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 1] The abstract and §4 state that ΛXCDM 'provides a better fit than w0waCDM'. This is not supported after penalizing the extra parameter. From Table 1, Δχ²(ΛXCDM−CPL) = 12381.87−12385.64 = −3.77 for Pantheon+ and 12608.36−12611.22 = −2.86 for DES-Dovekie, but ΛXCDM has one more parameter than CPL. The corresponding ΔAIC values in favor of ΛXCDM are only 1.77 and 0.86, well below the Jeffreys' 'positive evidence' threshold that the paper itself adopts. The 'strong evidence' ΔAIC≈6–8 quoted in §4 is relative to ΛCDM, not to CPL. The claim of outperforming CPL should be softened or supported by a calibrated model-comparison statistic.
  2. [§3, Table 1, §4] The reported exclusion significances for ΛCDM (EΛCDM=2.68σ/2.97σ) are computed via the likelihood-ratio test with Wilks' theorem, but the assumptions are violated. The ΛCDM limit corresponds to w_X=−1, which is the boundary of the prior −4≤w_X≤−1, and the parameter ϵ=ν(1+w_X) is also degenerate along that line. The authors themselves note the 'non-Gaussian features' and relax the convergence criterion for the chains, and the profile likelihood in Fig. 1 is flat for w_X<−2. In such settings Wilks' theorem is not valid, so the quoted p-values and equivalent Gaussian significances are overconfident. I would ask for a simulation-based calibration of the likelihood-ratio statistic, or at least a clear caveat that the 2.68σ/2.97σ numbers are not reliable as evidence against ΛCDM.
  3. [§2, Eq. (25); §4, Fig. 1] The phantom-divide crossing redshift z* is presented as a key success ('naturally performs the crossing... as observed by DESI'), but it is not an independent prediction. Equation (25) expresses z* directly in terms of the fitted parameters (ν, w_X, Ω_X^0), and the lower panel of Fig. 1 plots z* as a function of the profiled w_X. Since the same CMB+BAO+SNIa data are used both to fit the model and to infer the 'observed' crossing from CPL and model-agnostic reconstructions, the agreement is a consistency check rather than a prediction. The manuscript should explicitly label z* as a derived postdiction and, if predictive power is claimed, provide an out-of-sample test or use a dataset split.
  4. [§3, Fig. 1; §4; Conclusions] The central physical ingredient, phantom matter with w_X<−1 and ρ_X<0, is not constrained by the data. The profile likelihood for w_X is flat in the entire range w_X<−2, and the 95% upper limits w_X<−1.66/−1.96 are set by the arbitrary prior boundary at w_X=−4, as the authors acknowledge. The statement in the Conclusions that the fit picks out 'w_X<−1.5' is therefore a prior/methodology effect, not a data-driven result. Relatedly, the abstract's 'from first principles' wording overstates the status of the model: the cosmon is left completely unspecified, and ν and w_X are free parameters. I recommend rewriting the abstract and conclusions to distinguish the model's theoretical motivation from what the data actually establish.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] For the Pantheon+ ΛXCDM column, the δ parameter is printed as '−0.107 +0.047 −0.063' (or similar), which conflicts with the text's claim that δ is positive and quintessence-like at present. Check the sign/formatting of this entry; the Dovekie value appears positive.
  2. [Fig. 1] The upper panel labels 'Δχ²=1 Dov' and 'Δχ²=4 Dov' are useful, but the corresponding horizontal lines are not described in the caption. State explicitly what these thresholds represent (e.g., 1σ and 2σ for one degree of freedom).
  3. [§3] The convergence criterion is relaxed from R−1=0.02 for ΛCDM/CPL to R−1=0.03 for ΛXCDM. This is disclosed, but it would be helpful to report the final R−1 values and chain lengths in the appendix so the reader can judge whether the relaxed criterion is sufficient.
  4. [Eq. (25)] The expression for z* would benefit from a short derivation or cross-reference to the definition of ϵ and δ in terms of the original parameters (ν, w_X, Ω_X^0), because the text jumps from Eq. (22) to the compact formula. This is a clarity issue, not a technical error.
  5. [Abstract and §5] The phrase 'from first principles' appears twice in the abstract and is repeated in the Conclusions. Given the unspecified nature of X and the phenomenological parametrization of the running vacuum, a more cautious phrase such as 'theoretically motivated' would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The empirical fit is self-contained, but the advertised 'first-principles' status of ΛXCDM rests on a load-bearing self-citation chain; the crossing redshift is a postdiction, not an independent prediction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Sec. 5 (Conclusions)]
    "Given that PM appears in stringy versions of the RVM (Mavromatos & Solà Peracaula 2021a,b), the ΛXCDM appears to be a composite DDE model with a good chance of explaining the crossing of the phantom divide from first principles"

    The 'from first principles' claim is not derived in this paper; it is imported from prior works by the same authors (Mavromatos & Solà Peracaula 2021a,b; Solà Peracaula 2022, 2026; Moreno-Pulido & Solà Peracaula 2020, 2022). The model's distinctive ingredient, the cosmon with w_X<-1 and negative energy density, is an assumed input (the paper states 'we have just assumed that its EoS is constant and lies somewhere in the deep PM domain'). Thus the advertised fundamentality reduces to a self-citation chain rather than an independent derivation. The numerical fit to DESI/CMB/SN data is, however, independently computed and does not reduce to these citations.

full rationale

No construction-level circularity is present in the main derivation. Equations (1)-(11) define the ΛXCDM model; weff (Eq. 2) and z* (Eq. 25) are mathematical consequences of those definitions and of the parameter signs returned by the fit. The likelihood is not defined in terms of z*, and the model could in principle return no crossing, so the crossing redshift is a postdiction rather than a fitted input. Calling it a 'prediction' would overstate the case, but that is a framing issue, not a definitional equivalence. The claim that ΛXCDM fits the data better than CPL is assessed through Δχ² and ΔAIC against external DESI DR2, Planck PR4 and SNIa data, independent of self-citations. The flat profile in w_X and the prior-dominated 95% bounds are statistical validity concerns, not circularity. The only circularity-adjacent element is the 'from first principles' conclusion, which leans on self-cited prior RVM/stringy-RVM work rather than on a derivation contained in this paper; hence score 4 rather than 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model adds three fitted parameters (ϵ, w_X, δ) and relies on several assumptions (running-vacuum form, canonical vacuum EoS, matter conservation, constant w_X, non-clustering DE). The only invented entity is the cosmon X, which carries negative energy density (phantom matter) and is not independently evidenced. The 'first principles' character of the model is limited because these ingredients are inputs, not outputs.

free parameters (3)
  • ϵ ≡ ν(1 + w_X) = ~0.024-0.026 (best fit, positive)
    Controls the running-vacuum/cosmon interaction; fitted to the data (Table 1). Its positivity and the sign of ν are derived from the fit, not predicted.
  • w_X (cosmon EoS) = only upper bound: < -1.66 (Pan) / < -1.96 (Dov) at 95% CL; profile flat for w_X < -2
    The cosmon equation of state is a free parameter with a broad prior; the data cannot constrain it tightly. The reported bound is prior-dependent.
  • δ ≡ Ω_X^0 (1 + w_X) = ~0.11-0.15 (best fit, positive)
    Sets the current phantom-matter abundance; fitted to the data. Its positivity selects quintessence-like effective behavior at present.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Running vacuum form ρ_vac(H) = ρ0_vac + (3ν/8π)(H² - H0²)m_Pl² (Eq. 1)
    The functional dependence of vacuum energy on H is taken from the authors' previous QFT renormalization work; it is an input, not derived in this paper, and is central to the model.
  • domain assumption Vacuum equation of state is canonical, P_vac = -ρ_vac
    Stated in Sec. 2 as an assumption to keep the solution analytic; quantum corrections to the vacuum EoS are ignored.
  • domain assumption Only vacuum and cosmon exchange energy; matter (dust and radiation) is self-conserved
    This interaction structure is fixed by hand in the model setup (Sec. 2) and determines the analytic solutions.
  • domain assumption Cosmon X has a constant barotropic EoS w_X
    Assumed in Sec. 2 to make the model analytically solvable; extensions with w_X(z) are left for future work.
  • domain assumption Dark energy does not cluster (sound speed c_s = 1)
    Assumed in Sec. 3 following standard practice for DE perturbations; alternative schemes from Grande et al. 2009 are not used.
  • domain assumption Spatially flat ΛCDM background with standard neutrino hierarchy (one massive neutrino, 0.06 eV)
    Standard background assumptions used in the CLASS implementation (Sec. 3).
invented entities (1)
  • Cosmon X (phantom matter) no independent evidence
    purpose: Exchanges energy with the running vacuum, providing the effective crossing of the phantom divide and alleviating the cosmic coincidence problem.
    X is a generic, unspecified component with negative energy density and positive pressure. No direct detection or independent falsifiable prediction is given; its existence is inferred only from the global fit to cosmological data. The 'stringy PM bubbles' mentioned in the Conclusions are speculative.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28697 in / 10917 out tokens · 124231 ms · 2026-08-04T01:23:55.905237+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Composite dynamical dark energy (DDE) has recently been explored as an efficient way to help cure cosmological tensions through the so-called $w$XCDM model (Gomez-Valent & Sol\`a Peracaula 2024; 2025), a toy-model version of the $\Lambda$XCDM model (Grande et al., 2006). The latter is a composite running vacuum model (RVM) that involves a DE component $X$ (`cosmon') of generic nature. We compute the effective equation of state of $\Lambda$XCDM and use state-of-the-art techniques to fit this model to two standard sets of cosmological data, one involving SNIa from Pantheon$+$ and the other SNIa from DES-Dovekie, in addition to BAO data from DESI DR2 and the CMB data from Planck PR4. We do not use large scale structure formation data for this analysis nor the SH0ES calibration of $H_0$. We find that $\Lambda$XCDM naturally performs the crossing of the phantom divide as observed by DESI near $z\simeq 0.4$ using the $w_0w_a$CDM parameterization, a feature well favored by existing model-agnostic analyzes of the same data (Gonz\'alez-Fuentes & G\'omez-Valent:2025; 2026). It turns out that the cosmon $X$ behaves as `phantom matter' (PM) near the present, which in contrast to usual phantom DE satisfies the strong energy condition (as ordinary matter) and furnishes positive pressure ($P_X>-\rho_X>0$) at the expense of negative energy density ($\rho_X<0$). $\Lambda$XCDM provides a better fit than $w_0w_a$CDM and, as a bonus, alleviates the cosmic coincidence problem. Given that PM appears in stringy versions of the RVM (Mavromatos & Sol\`a Peracaula 2021 a,b) , the $\Lambda$XCDM appears to be a composite DDE model with a good chance of explaining the crossing of the phantom divide from first principles, therefore providing theoretical support to the DESI observations inferred from generic parameterizations of the DE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26050 by Adri\`a G\'omez-Valent, Alex Gonz\'alez-Fuentes, Joan Sol\`a Peracaula.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Upper: Profile likelihood in wX with respect to the minimum χ 2 point of ΛCDM for each of the 2 datasets. Lower: Crossing redshift of the phantom divide for the pro￾filed values. Note that in the upper plot we display the cen￾tral bin values and in the lower one the real wX that produces the minimum within that bin. to provide tight constraints on the cosmon EoS parame￾ter and a good fit can be achieved by… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Coincidence ratio for the profile values of wX with CMB+BAO+SNIa(Dov) as a function of future cosmic time t − t0 in units of H −1 0 , where t0 is the present cosmic time. rate (see the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Full triangle plot for the various models studied in this paper. We show the constraints at 68% and 95% CL in all the relevant planes of the parameter spaces, together with the individual one-dimensional posterior distributions. H0 is given in km/s/Mpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BAO and SNIa distances using DES-Dovekie. For SNIa distance modulus, we have binned the data as described in (Abdul Karim et al. 2025). We represent the curves obtained for different bins of the profile likelihood in wX to emphasize that different values of wX yield similar observables. 10 1 10 0 z 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 (D V/ rd)/(Dfid V / r fid d ) CDM (fid.) CPL best fit wX = 3.78 wX = … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

128 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 973, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024

  2. [2]

    ---. 2026. 2602.10065

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    2022, JHEAp, 34, 49, 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002

    Abdalla, E., et al. 2022, JHEAp, 34, 49, 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  4. [4]

    2025, Phys

    Abdul Karim, M., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083515, 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  5. [5]

    G., et al

    Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, JCAP, 02, 021, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  6. [6]

    Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  7. [7]

    A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A

    Adil, S. A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A. A., & Vagnozzi, S. 2023, JCAP, 10, 072, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/072

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/072 2023

  8. [8]

    2020, Astron

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  9. [9]

    1974, IEEE Trans

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 19, 716, 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    arXiv 1974

  10. [10]

    D., Escamilla, L

    Akarsu, \"O ., Barrow, J. D., Escamilla, L. A., & Vazquez, J. A. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 063528, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063528

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063528 2020

  11. [11]

    O ., Kumar, S., \

    Akarsu, \"O ., Kumar, S., \"Oz\"ulker, E., & Vazquez, J. A. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 123512, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123512

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.123512 2021

  12. [12]

    O ., Perivolaropoulos, L., Y \

    Akarsu, \"O ., Perivolaropoulos, L., Y \"u kselci, A. E., & Zhuk, A. 2026. 2606.11062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Akarsu, \"O ., et al. 2023. 2307.10899

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    2021, Phys

    Alestas, G., Kazantzidis, L., & Perivolaropoulos, L. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 083517, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083517

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083517 2021

  15. [15]

    2022, Phys

    Alestas, G., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 063538, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063538

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.063538 2022

  16. [16]

    E., & Saridakis, E

    Asimakis, P., Basilakos, S., Mavromatos, N. E., & Saridakis, E. N. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 084010, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.084010

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.084010 2022

  17. [17]

    2026, Phys

    Bansal, P., & Huterer, D. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 103539, 10.1103/ydnj-myzb

    doi:10.1103/ydnj-myzb 2026

  18. [18]

    2014, Mon

    Basilakos, S., & Sol\`a, J. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 437, 3331, 10.1093/mnras/stt2135

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2135 2014

  19. [19]

    2010, JCAP, 12, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/12/029

    Bauer, F., Sola, J., & Stefancic, H. 2010, JCAP, 12, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/12/029

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/12/029 2010

  20. [20]

    2018, Phys

    Beltr \'a n Jim \'e nez, J., Heisenberg, L., & Koivisto, T. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 044048, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044048

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.044048 2018

  21. [21]

    2025, Phys

    Berti, M., Bellini, E., Bonvin, C., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 023518, 10.1103/dj3k-84v4

    doi:10.1103/dj3k-84v4 2025

  22. [22]

    2011, JCAP, 1107, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    Blas, D., Lesgourgues, J., & Tram, T. 2011, JCAP, 1107, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034 2011

  23. [23]

    Bouhmadi-L \'o pez, M., Chiang, H.-W., & Ibarra-Uriondo, B. 2026. 2607.05044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    2022, Astrophys

    Brout, D., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 938, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  25. [25]

    2026, Res

    Cai, R.-G., & Wang, S.-J. 2026, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 26, 084011, 10.1088/1674-4527/ae842f

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ae842f 2026

  26. [26]

    2026, Natl

    Cai, Y., Ren, X., Qiu, T., Li, M., & Zhang, X. 2026, Natl. Sci. Rev., 13, nwag115, 10.1093/nsr/nwag115

    doi:10.1093/nsr/nwag115 2026

  27. [27]

    Cai, Y.-F., Capozziello, S., De Laurentis, M., & Saridakis, E. N. 2016, Rept. Prog. Phys., 79, 106901, 10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106901

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106901 2016

  28. [28]

    2024, JCAP, 10, 048, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/048

    Calder\'on, R., et al. 2024, JCAP, 10, 048, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/048

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/048 2024

  29. [29]

    2011, Phys

    Capozziello, S., & De Laurentis, M. 2011, Phys. Rept., 509, 167, 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 2011

  30. [30]

    2022, JCAP, 09, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    Carron, J., Mirmelstein, M., & Lewis, A. 2022, JCAP, 09, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039 2022

  31. [31]

    K., Das, S., & Dutta, K

    Chakraborty, A., Chanda, P. K., Das, S., & Dutta, K. 2025, JCAP, 11, 047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/047

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/047 2025

  32. [32]

    2026, Astrophys

    Chakraborty, A., Ray, T., Das, S., Banerjee, A., & Ganesan, V. 2026, Astrophys. J., 998, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff8 2026

  33. [33]

    2001, Int

    Chevallier, M., & Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys., D10, 213, 10.1142/S0218271801000822

    doi:10.1142/s0218271801000822 2001

  34. [34]

    2026, Phys

    Cook, C., & Meyers, J. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 043519, 10.1103/hylg-qgmj

    doi:10.1103/hylg-qgmj 2026

  35. [35]

    S., & Khoury, J

    Das, S., Corasaniti, P. S., & Khoury, J. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 083509, 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.083509

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.083509 2006

  36. [36]

    2026, Phys

    de Cruz P \'e rez, J., G \'o mez-Valent, A., & Sol \`a Peracaula, J. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 083521, 10.1103/xchk-xlk1

    doi:10.1103/xchk-xlk1 2026

  37. [38]

    2021 b , Astropart

    ---. 2021 b , Astropart. Phys., 131, 102604, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102604

    arXiv 2021

  38. [39]

    2019, 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    Efstathiou, G., & Gratton, S. 2019, 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [40]

    2026, Phys

    Errahmani, A., Magrach, M., Dahmani, S., Bouali, A., & Ouali, T. 2026, Phys. Lett. B, 872, 140040, 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140040

    arXiv 2026

  40. [41]

    2024, Phys

    Favale, A., G \'o mez-Valent, A., & Migliaccio, M. 2024, Phys. Lett. B, 858, 139027, 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139027

    arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    2025, Phys

    Forconi, M., Favale, A., & G \'o mez-Valent, A. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 023517, 10.1103/rpf5-ldks

    doi:10.1103/rpf5-ldks 2025

  42. [43]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    arXiv 1992

  43. [44]

    Goh, L. W. K., & Taylor, A. N. 2025, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 544, 3142, 10.1093/mnras/staf1927

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1927 2025

  44. [45]

    2022, Phys

    G \'o mez-Valent, A. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 063506, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063506

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.063506 2022

  45. [46]

    G\'omez-Valent, A., Favale, A., Migliaccio, M., & Sen, A. A. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 023525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023525

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.023525 2024

  46. [47]

    2026, Phys

    G \'o mez-Valent, A., & Gonz \'a lez-Fuentes, A. 2026, Phys. Lett. B, 872, 140096, 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140096

    arXiv 2026

  47. [48]

    E., & Sol\`a Peracaula, J

    G\'omez-Valent, A., Mavromatos, N. E., & Sol\`a Peracaula, J. 2023, Class. Quant. Grav., 41, 015026, 10.1088/1361-6382/ad0fb8

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad0fb8 2023

  48. [49]

    2018, Mon

    G \' o mez-Valent, A., & Sol \` a Peracaula, J. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 478, 126, 10.1093/mnras/sty1028

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1028 2018

  49. [50]

    2024, Astrophys

    G\'omez-Valent, A., & Sol \`a Peracaula, J. 2024, Astrophys. J., 975, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a62

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a62 2024

  50. [51]

    2025, Phys

    G \'o mez-Valent, A., & Sol \`a Peracaula, J. 2025, Phys. Lett. B, 864, 139391, 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139391

    arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    G \'o mez-Valent, A., Zheng, Z., & Amendola, L. 2026. 2604.12032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [53]

    2021, Phys

    G \'o mez-Valent, A., Zheng, Z., Amendola, L., Pettorino, V., & Wetterich, C. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 083536, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083536

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.083536 2021

  53. [54]

    2025, JCAP, 12, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/12/049

    Gonz \'a lez-Fuentes, A., & G \'o mez-Valent, A. 2025, JCAP, 12, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/12/049

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/12/049 2025

  54. [55]

    2026, JCAP, 07, 040, 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/07/040

    ---. 2026, JCAP, 07, 040, 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/07/040

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/07/040 2026

  55. [56]

    2009, Phys

    Grande, J., Pelinson, A., & Sol\`a, J. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 043006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.043006

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.043006 2009

  56. [57]

    2006, JCAP, 08, 011, 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/08/011

    Grande, J., Sol\`a, J., & Stefancic, H. 2006, JCAP, 08, 011, 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/08/011

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/08/011 2006

  57. [58]

    2007, Phys

    ---. 2007, Phys. Lett. B, 645, 236, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.12.040

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.12.040 2007

  58. [59]

    Harko, T., Lobo, F. S. N., Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S. D. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 024020, 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024020

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.024020 2011

  59. [60]

    1970, Biometrika, 57, 97, 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    Hastings, W. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97, 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 1970

  60. [61]

    2022, Phys

    Heisenberg, L., Villarrubia-Rojo, H., & Zosso, J. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043503

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.043503 2022

  61. [62]

    S., & Vagnozzi, S

    Jiang, J.-Q., Pedrotti, D., da Costa, S. S., & Vagnozzi, S. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 123519, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123519

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.123519 2024

  62. [63]

    E., & Shafieloo, A

    Keeley, R. E., & Shafieloo, A. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 111002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.111002

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.111002 2023

  63. [64]

    2025, Phys

    Khoury, J., Lin, M.-X., & Trodden, M. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 181001, 10.1103/w4qb-plk8

    doi:10.1103/w4qb-plk8 2025

  64. [65]

    2020, Phys

    Knox, L., & Millea, M. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 043533, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043533

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.043533 2020

  65. [66]

    \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Krishnan, C., Mohayaee, R., Colg \'a in, E. \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M., & Yin, L. 2021, Class. Quant. Grav., 38, 184001, 10.1088/1361-6382/ac1a81

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac1a81 2021

  66. [67]

    2023, Nature, 616, 266, 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    Labb\'e, I., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2 2023

  67. [68]

    \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Lee, B.-H., Lee, W., Colg \'a in, E. \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M., & Thakur, S. 2022, JCAP, 04, 004, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/004

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/004 2022

  68. [69]

    Lesgourgues, J. 2011. 1104.2932

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  69. [70]

    Lewis, A. 2019. 1910.13970

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [71]

    2025, Eur

    Li, J.-X., & Wang, S. 2025, Eur. Phys. J. C, 85, 1308, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-15065-1

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-15065-1 2025

  71. [72]

    Li, T.-N., Giar \`e , W., Du, G.-H., et al. 2026. 2601.07361

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [73]

    Linder, E. V. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 091301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.091301 2003

  73. [74]

    2025, Phys

    Lodha, K., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083511, 10.1103/w4c6-1r5j

    doi:10.1103/w4c6-1r5j 2025

  74. [75]

    2021, Phys

    Marra, V., & Perivolaropoulos, L. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, L021303, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L021303

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.l021303 2021

  75. [76]

    M., Croitoru, C., & Harko, T

    Matei, T. M., Croitoru, C., & Harko, T. 2026, Phys. Dark Univ., 53, 102362, 10.1016/j.dark.2026.102362

    arXiv 2026

  76. [77]

    E., & Sol\`a Peracaula, J

    Mavromatos, N. E., & Sol\`a Peracaula, J. 2021 a , Eur. Phys. J. ST, 230, 2077, 10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00197-8

    doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00197-8 2021

  77. [78]

    2021 b , Eur

    ---. 2021 b , Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136, 1152, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02149-6

    doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02149-6 2021

  78. [79]

    A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A

    Menci, N., Adil, S. A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A. A., & Vagnozzi, S. 2024, JCAP, 07, 072, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/072

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/072 2024

  79. [80]

    Metropolis, N., et al. 1953, J. Chem. Phys., 21, 1087, 10.1063/1.1699114

    doi:10.1063/1.1699114 1953

  80. [81]

    G., & Nagataki, S

    Montani, G., Navone, I., Dainotti, M. G., & Nagataki, S. 2026, 10.1103/xthk-9854

    doi:10.1103/xthk-9854 2026

Showing first 80 references.