Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 71 references

The model-independent degeneracy-breaking point in cosmological models with interacting Dark Energy and Dark Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in interacting dark-energy–dark-matter cosmologies, at the redshift where the Q1 part of the interaction vanishes, the interaction Q becomes independent of the constant dark-energy equation of state w, providing a…

desk verdict A correct small algebraic observation about when the interaction term becomes independent of a constant dark-energy EoS, but 'model-independent' overstates a constant-w-only result and the reconstructed redshift is unstable across GP covariance choices. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06254 v1 pith:NOVRAOXB submitted 2019-08-17 astro-ph.CO

Z. Zhou , T. J. Zhang , T. P. Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords interactingdarkenergymatterinteractiondegeneracybreakingequationofstateGaussianprocessHubbleparameterobservationaldatacosmology
topics Dark EnergyDark Matter
open problems Dark MatterDark Energy
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 claims that in flat Friedmann–Robertson–Walker cosmologies with an interaction Q between dark energy and dark matter, there is a generic redshift at which Q becomes independent of the dark-energy equation of state w. This 'degeneracy-breaking point' occurs wherever the component Q1 of the interaction term vanishes. Reconstructing the Hubble parameter and its derivatives from 38 observational Hubble data points with Gaussian-process and Monte Carlo methods, the paper finds this point at z≈1.40 (or z≈1.37 with a different covariance function), where Q is positive by more than 2σ. A sympathetic reader should care because at and near this redshift the interaction can be constrained without the usual degeneracy between Q and w, and the existence of the point follows from the structure of the evolution equations rather than from a particular dark-energy model.

What carries the argument

The key object is the decomposition Q = Q1 + Q2 + Q3 obtained by substituting the DE density from the two Friedmann equations into the DE conservation equation. The term Q3 is proportional to w' and vanishes because w is assumed constant; Q2 is independent of w after cancellation; Q1 is the only w-dependent piece. The degeneracy-breaking point is defined by the condition Q1 = 0, which makes Q = Q2 and hence w-independent. Gaussian-process regression supplies the reconstructed H, H', H'' and their correlated uncertainties, and Monte Carlo sampling propagates those errors to Q1, Q, and the error-amplification factor g(z).

What would settle it

A dedicated fit of the expansion history with w(z)=w0+wa z/(1+z) that returns wa significantly nonzero would falsify the paper's claim, because Q3 would not vanish and Q would retain w-dependence at every redshift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from energy conservation for dark energy and dark matter in a flat FRW universe, the paper derives the interaction term Q from the Hubble parameter and its derivatives: Q = Q1 + Q2 + Q3. Assuming w is a nonzero constant makes Q3 vanish, and Q2 loses its w-dependence because w cancels between numerator and denominator. At any redshift where Q1 = 0, the whole interaction Q therefore equals Q2 and is independent of w, so the degeneracy between Q and w is broken. Reconstructing H(z), H'(z), and H''(z) from OHD, all curves of Q(z,w) for different w cross at a common point z≈1.40, with Q(z_D-B)≈1.23 $H_GP^{3}$(z_D-B). The location depends on the Hubble parameter and its derivatives, but the property of breaking the degeneracy is model-independent.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the dark-energy equation of state is exactly constant and nonzero; if w changes with redshift, the Q3 term no longer vanishes and the degeneracy-breaking point disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At z≈1.40, a measurement of the expansion history would directly probe the interaction Q without needing to know w.
  • Near the D-B point the error-amplification factor g(z) is small, so observational constraints on Q can be tighter there than elsewhere.
  • The reconstructed Q at the D-B point is positive by more than 2σ, indicating that if the data are right, energy is flowing from dark matter to dark energy.
  • The D-B point's existence is independent of the choice of covariance function or the specific cosmological model, though its measured location shifts slightly between Gaussian and Matern kernels.
  • Because the point arises from Q1=0, it can be searched for with better H(z) data without assuming a parametrized DE model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If future data show that w evolves (w'≠0), Q3 no longer vanishes and the D-B point disappears; a natural test is to repeat the analysis with a two-parameter w(z) model and check whether the crossing persists.
  • The location of the D-B point is sensitive to second derivatives of H, so higher-precision chronometer data in z≈1.2–1.6 would sharpen the normal distribution (currently σ≈0.006) and could decide whether Q(z_D-B) is truly positive.
  • The same Q1=0 logic may extend to other interaction forms beyond the phenomenological Q chosen here; for a different ansatz, the condition for w-independence would be a different equation, so the specific redshift would change but the principle of a degeneracy-breaking locus would remain.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies interacting dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM) models with a general interaction term Q. Starting from the Friedmann and energy-conservation equations, the authors decompose Q into three pieces, Q1, Q2, and Q3 (Eq. 11). They observe that when Q1=0 and the DE equation of state w is a nonzero constant, Q reduces to Q2, which is independent of w. They call this a model-independent degeneracy-breaking (D-B) point. Using Gaussian Process (GP) reconstructions of H(z) and its derivatives from 38 OHD points, they locate the D-B point at z≈1.40 (Gaussian kernel) or z≈1.37 (Matérn v=9/2 kernel), report that Q at this point is positive with high significance, and discuss how measurements near the D-B point can tighten constraints on Q without degeneracy with w.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper offers a clean, purely algebraic insight: for constant-w interacting dark-energy models, the interaction term Q becomes independent of w at the zero of Q1, allowing a principal degeneracy with the equation of state to be broken at a specific redshift. The derivation of Q1+Q2+Q3 from Eqs. (8)-(10) is algebraically correct and does not depend on any particular interaction model, which is a genuine strength. The paper is also transparent in the body and Conclusions that the degeneracy-breaking property relies on w being a nonzero constant, and it uses public OHD data and the GaPP package for the GP reconstruction. The empirical location of the D-B point, however, inherits large systematic uncertainties from the GP derivative reconstruction, and the headline claim of model independence in the title and Abstract goes beyond the proven constant-w scope. The result is a useful, if limited, observation rather than a determination of a robust model-independent redshift.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (11)] The central degeneracy-breaking result is conditional on Q3=0, which the paper enforces by assuming that w is a nonzero constant. In Eq. (11), Q3 = H w'(1+z)(3H^2−2HH'(1+z))/w^2; for a time-varying w(z), this term does not vanish generically, so even at Q1=0 the total Q = Q2+Q3 retains a dependence on w through w'. The paper's own Conclusions phrase the result as "when the DE EoS w is assumed to be constant," but the Abstract and title use "model-independent" without this qualification. This overstates the proven statement: a D-B point is guaranteed for the constant-w subclass, but not for general evolving-w interacting models. I recommend either explicitly qualifying the title/Abstract (e.g., "for constant dark-energy equation of state") or deriving and stating the extra condition on w(z) (such as w'=0) needed for Q3 to vanish.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 6 and text following Eq. (2)] The quoted uncertainties σ≈0.0058 (Gaussian kernel) and σ≈0.0064 (Matérn v=9/2) are only the Monte Carlo sampling errors for each fixed kernel. The two kernels give mean locations z_D-B≈1.4026 and 1.3659, a difference of Δz≈0.037, which is roughly six times either quoted σ. This shows that the dominant uncertainty in the D-B point's location is systematic (choice of covariance kernel), not statistical. The paper notes that different covariance functions affect the reconstruction but does not propagate this into an overall error budget or qualify the reported precision. As written, the headline numbers imply a measurement precision (σ≈0.006) that the analysis does not support, because the kernel choice moves the result by an order of magnitude more.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4] The claim that Q(z_D-B) is positive is based on Q2(z) being greater than zero by more than 2σ at any redshift in z∈[0,2.4]. This is a load-bearing empirical assertion: if Q at the D-B point were consistent with zero, the D-B point would lose its meaning as evidence for a nonzero interaction. Since Q2 involves H and its derivatives up to second order reconstructed from only 38 data points, the 2σ statement should be verified directly for both covariance kernels and across the full redshift range, and the dependence on the kernel choice should be quantified. The text does not provide a quantitative kernel-comparison for Q2.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The phrase "model-independent" should be qualified as "for constant DE equation of state" to match the actual derivation in §3.2 and the Conclusions.
  2. [§2.2] "1th and 2th derivatives" should be "1st and 2nd derivatives."
  3. [§3.2] "Matern" should be consistently written "Matérn", and Ref. [50]'s finding is introduced with an unnecessary capital "Shows".
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (12)] The error propagation formula |ΔQ| = |Q1/w| |Δw| neglects the uncertainty on Q1 itself from the GP reconstruction; the statement that g(z) reaches zero at the D-B point holds only for the mean reconstruction, not for the realization-dependent Q1. This should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Introduction] There are minor typesetting/spacing issues such as "69 .1%" and "25 .9%"; these should be corrected.
  6. [§2.1] The paper says "don’t know about the nature of DE and DM" and "model-independent reconstruction method" when discussing GP; it should clarify that GP is model-independent only with respect to an assumed cosmological parameterization, while it still assumes a zero mean and a fixed covariance kernel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the D-B point is an algebraic consequence of the constant-w equations and is not forced by fitting.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained algebra from the Friedmann and conservation equations. Equation (11) defines Q=Q1+Q2+Q3; Q3 vanishes by the explicit assumption that w is a nonzero constant, Q2 is manifestly w-independent because w cancels, and Q1 is proportional to 1/w, so at a redshift where Q1=0 the remaining Q=Q2 is independent of w. This is a direct conditional identity, not a claim defined into existence: Q1 is not defined as 'the degeneracy-breaking term' and then asserted to vanish; it is derived from Eq. (10) substituted into Eq. (6). The paper is transparent that the result holds only for constant w and that the D-B point may disappear if zero is not a plausible value of Q1 ('If zero is not a plausible value of Q1, the D-B point no longer exists'). The reconstructed location z_DB≈1.4026 (or 1.3659 with Matern) is a data-derived estimate obtained by GP reconstruction from OHD; it is not presented as an independent prediction of a separately fitted parameter, so it is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation occurs: the author's own earlier papers are cited only for the definition of H and for OHD compilations, not for the central result. The only caveat is scope: the 'model-independent' property is conditional on the constant-w subclass and on the empirical zero of Q1, but the paper states both conditions explicitly, so this is a limitation rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an algebraic property of the background Friedmann and conservation equations under constant w. The only numbers fitted to data are the GP hyperparameters; the D-B location is a root of the fitted functions. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma_f, squared exponential covariance = 157.62 (in km s^-1 Mpc^-1 units)
    Fitted to the 38 OHD points by maximum likelihood; scales the GP covariance amplitude and directly affects the reconstructed H, H', H'' and therefore the D-B point location.
  • l, squared exponential covariance = 2.16 (in redshift units)
    Fitted to the 38 OHD points by maximum likelihood; sets the correlation length in redshift and affects the smoothness of the reconstructed derivatives.
  • sigma_f, Matérn (v=9/2) covariance = 164.11 (in km s^-1 Mpc^-1 units)
    Fitted to the 38 OHD points by maximum likelihood for the alternative kernel; yields a different D-B location, illustrating systematic sensitivity.
  • l, Matérn (v=9/2) covariance = 2.85 (in redshift units)
    Fitted to the 38 OHD points by maximum likelihood for the alternative kernel; affects the reconstructed derivatives and hence the D-B point.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Universe is described by a spatially flat FRW metric.
    Used in deriving the Friedmann equations (8)-(9) and all subsequent equations in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Radiation is neglected after recombination.
    Stated after Eq. (9); the Friedmann equations include only baryons, DM, and DE.
  • domain assumption The DE equation of state w is constant and nonzero.
    Section 3.2 states 'w is assumed to be a nonzero constant', which makes Q3 vanish and is necessary for the D-B point to remove w-dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper The GP prior mean is zero and the covariance kernel form is fixed (squared exponential or Matérn v=9/2).
    Section 2.1 and 3.2; the reconstructed H and derivatives, and hence the D-B location, depend on these choices, as the paper acknowledges.
  • domain assumption The 38 OHD measurements are independent and Gaussian.
    Implicit in the GP likelihood used in Section 2.2; the data are from Table 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The model-independent degeneracy-breaking point in cosmological models with interacting Dark Energy and Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOVRAOXB

@misc{pith2026190806254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The model-independent degeneracy-breaking point in cosmological models with interacting Dark Energy and Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOVRAOXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06254}
}
abstract

We study cosmological models with interaction between dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM). For the interaction term $Q$ in cosmic evolution equations, there is a model-independent degeneracy-breaking (D-B) point when $Q_{1}$ (a part of $Q$) equals to zero, where the interaction can be probed without degeneracy between the constant DE equation of state (EoS).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V . Filippenko and P. Challis et al., As- tron. J. 116, 1009 (1998) arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering and G. Goldhaber et al., As- trophys. J. 517, 565 (1999) arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    D. N. Spergel, R. Bean and O. Dore et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 170, 377 (2007) arXiv:astro-ph/0603449

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson and E. Komatsu et al., Astro- phys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013) arXiv:1212.5226 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Astrophys

    Planck Collaboration et al., Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016) arXiv:1502.01589v3 [astro-ph.CO] 7

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    D. J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi and D. W. Hogg et al., Astro- phys. J. 633, 560 (2005) arXiv:astro-ph/0501171

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    W. J. Percival, B. A. Reid and D. J. Eisenstein et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 401, 2148 (2010) arXiv:0907.1660 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Ma and T

    C. Ma and T. J. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 730, 74 (2011) arXiv:1007.3787v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    P. Bull, Y . Akrami and J. Adamek et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 12, 56 (2016) arXiv:1512.05356v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Delubac, J

    T. Delubac, J. E. Bautista and N. G. Busca et al., Astron. Astrophys. 574, A59 (2015) arXiv:1404.1801 [astro- ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    V . H. Cardenas, Phys. Lett. B 750, 128 (2015) arXiv:1405.5116v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Sahni, A

    V . Sahni, A. Shafieloo and A. A. Starobinsky, Astro- phys. J. 793, L40 (2014) arXiv:1406.2209v3 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aubourg, S

    E. Aubourg, S. Bailey and J. E. Bautista et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 123516 (2015) arXiv:1411.1074v3 [astro- ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    G. B. Zhao, M. Raveri and L. Pogosian et al., Nat. As- tron. 1, 627 (2017) arXiv:1701.08165

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. G. Valent, J. Sola and S. Basilakos, JCAP 01, 004 (2015) arXiv:1409.7048v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    R. Y . Guo and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 163 (2016) arXiv:1512.07703v4 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Micheletti, E

    S. Micheletti, E. Abdalla and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. D79, 123506 (2009) arXiv:0902.0318v4 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    C. Feng, B. Wang and E. Abdalla et al., Phys. Lett. B 05, 066 (2008) arXiv:0804.0110v2 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. H. He, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D 83, 063515 (2011) arXiv:1012.3904v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abdalla, L

    E. Abdalla, L. L. Graef and B. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 726, 786 (2013) arXiv:1202.0499v2 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. A. Costa, X. D. Xu and B. Wang et al., JCAP01, 028 (2017) arXiv:1605.04138v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, J. Quintin and A. A. Costa et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 043520 (2017) arXiv:1412.2777v4 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Y . T. Wang, G. B. Zhao and D. Wands et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 103005 (2015) arXiv:1505.01373v2 [astro- ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Pan and G

    S. Pan and G. S. Sharov, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 472, 4 (2017) arXiv:1609.02287v2 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Santos, W

    L. Santos, W. Zhao and E. G. M. Ferreira et al., Phys. Rev. D 96, 103529 (2017) arXiv:1707.06827v3 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Amendola, G

    L. Amendola, G. C. Campos and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D 75, 083506 (2007) arXiv:astro-ph/0610806v2

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. H. He and B. Wang, JCAP 0806, 010 (2008) arXiv:0801.4233 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pavon, S

    D. Pavon, S. Sen and W. Zimdahl, JCAP 05, 009 (2004) arXiv:astro-ph/0402067v1

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. H. He, B. Wang and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 80, 063530 (2009) arXiv:0906.0677v2 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gumjudpai, T

    B. Gumjudpai, T. Naskar and M. Sami et al., JCAP 0506, 007 (2005) arXiv:hep-th/0502191v2

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zhang, Mod

    X. Zhang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 2575 (2005) arXiv:astro-ph/0503072v2

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. S. Berger and H. Shojaei, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083528 (2006) arXiv:gr-qc/0601086v3

    2006 arXiv

  25. [33]

    G. R. Farrar and P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 604, 1 (2004) arXiv:astro-ph/0307316v2

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Z. K. Guo, N. Ohta and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 76, 023508 (2007) arXiv:astro-ph/0702015v3

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    L. L. Honorez, B. A. Reid and O. Mena et al., JCAP 09, 029 (2010) arXiv:1006.0877v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Koyama, R

    K. Koyama, R. Maartens and Y . S. Song, JCAP10, 017 (2009) arXiv:0907.2126v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    P. C. Ferreira, D. Pavon and J. C. Carvalho, Phys. Rev. D 88, 083503 (2013) arXiv:1310.2160v1 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Mangano, G

    G. Mangano, G. Miele and V . Pettorino, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 18, 831 (2003) arXiv:astro-ph/0212518v1

    2003 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi and D. Pavaon et al., Phys. Rev. D. 67, 083513 (2003) arXiv:astro-ph/0303145v1

    2003 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Amendola, M

    L. Amendola, M. Quartin and S. Tsujikawa et al., Phys. Rev. D 74, 023525 (2006) arXiv:astro-ph/0605488v1

    2006 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Caldera-Cabral, R

    G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Maartens and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Phys. Rev. D 79, 063518 (2009) arXiv:0812.1827v2 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Y . H. Li and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D89, 083009 (2014) arXiv:1312.6328v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. J. F. Marcondes, R. C. G. Landim and A. A. Costa et al., JCAP 12, 009 (2016) arXiv:1605.05264v3 [astro- ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Salvatelli, N

    V . Salvatelli, N. Said and M. Bruni et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 181301 (2014) arXiv:1406.7297v2 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    R. C. Nunes, S. Pan and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 94, 023508 (2016) arXiv:1605.01712v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Faraoni, J

    V . Faraoni, J. B. Dent and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 90, 063510 (2014) arXiv:1405.7288v2 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Seikel, C

    M. Seikel, C. Clarkson and M. Smith, JCAP 06, 036 (2012) arXiv:1204.2832v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Seikel, S

    M. Seikel, S. Yahya and R. Maartens et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 083001 (2012) arXiv:1205.3431v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    T. Yang, Z. K. Guo and R. G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 123533 (2015) arXiv:1505.04443v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Seikel and C

    M. Seikel and C. Clarkson, arXiv:1311.6678v1 [astro- ph.CO] arXiv:1311.6678v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    V . C. Busti, C. Clarkson and M. Seikel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. Lett. 441, 1 (2014) arXiv:1402.5429v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Yahya, M

    S. Yahya, M. Seikel and C. Clarkson et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 023503 (2014) arXiv:1308.4099v2 [astro-ph.CO] 8

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    V . C. Busti and C. Clarkson, JCAP 05, 008 (2016) arXiv:1505.01821v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Wang and X

    D. Wang and X. H. Meng, Phys. Rev. D 95, 023508 (2017) arXiv:1708.07750v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    M. J. Zhang and H. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 460 (2018) arXiv:1806.02981v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Elizalde, M

    E. Elizalde, M. Khurshudyan and S. Nojiri, arXiv:1809.01961v1 [gr-qc] arXiv:1809.01961v1 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    T. J. Zhang, C. Ma and T. Lan, AdAst, 2010, 184284 (2010) arXiv:1010.1307

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    X. W. Duan, M. Zhou and T. J. Zhang, arXiv:160503947 [astro-ph] arXiv:1605.03947 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 573, 37 (2002) arXiv:astro-ph/0106145

    2002 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Blake and K

    C. Blake and K. Glazebrook, Astrophys. J. 594, 665 (2003) arXiv:astro-ph/0301632

    2003 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zhang, H

    C. Zhang, H. Zhang and S. Yuan et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys. 14, 1221 (2014) arXiv:1207.4541

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Jimenez, L

    R. Jimenez, L. Verde and T. Treu et al., Astrophys. J. 593, 622 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0302560

    2003 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D 71, 123001 (2005) arXiv:astro-ph/0412269

    2005 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Verde and L. Pozzetti et al., JCAP 07, 053 (2012) arXiv:1201.6658

    2012 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Gaztanaga, A

    E. Gaztanaga, A. Cabre and L. Hui, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 399, 1663 (2009) arXiv:0807.3551 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    X. Xu, A. J. Cuesta and N. Padmanabhan et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 431, 2834 (2013) arXiv:1206.6732

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti and A. Cimatti et al., JCAP 05, 014 (2016) arXiv:1601.01701 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Blake, S

    C. Blake, S. Brough and M. Colless et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 425, 405 (2012) arXiv:1204.3674

    2012 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Stern, R

    D. Stern, R. Jimenez and L. Verde et al., JCAP 1002, 008 (2010) arXiv:0907.3149 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Samushia, B

    L. Samushia, B. A. Reid and M. White et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 439, 3504 (2014) arXiv:1312.4899 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Moresco, Mon

    M. Moresco, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. Lett. 450, L16 (2015) arXiv:1503.01116 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.