Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards as a Robust Test on Late-Time Cosmological Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using uncalibrated cosmic standards—BAO, supernovae, and the CMB sound-horizon angle without amplitude information—dark-energy constraints shift toward the standard ΛCDM model, and a redshift-dependent supernova magnitude bias can absorb…

desk verdict Solid application of the UCS idea to DESI 2025; the shift toward ΛCDM is real but the framework's key prior is Planck-ΛCDM-calibrated, so 'robust' is doing more work than the analysis supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04333 v3 pith:OUUSY6YI submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Yihao Wang , Weikang Lin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Es
keywords uncalibratedcosmicstandardsdarkenergyCPLparametrizationbaryonacousticoscillationstypeIasupernovaesoundhorizonCMBangularscalecosmologicaltensions
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

This paper asks whether recent hints of dynamical dark energy survive when assumptions about the pre-recombination universe are stripped away. Using a method called Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards (UCS), it combines uncalibrated baryon acoustic oscillations, Type Ia supernovae, and the angular scale of the sound horizon at recombination—without using the amplitude of CMB power spectra—and finds that constraints on the CPL dark-energy parameters ($w_0$, $w_a$) shift systematically toward the standard ΛCDM point ($w_0=-1$, $w_a=0$). The loss of constraining power is modest, with figures of merit falling by only 7–16%. A residual mild tension between uncalibrated rulers and candles can be absorbed by a redshift-dependent magnitude bias in the supernova data of about $b = 0.04$ to $0.07$, offered as an alternative to invoking dynamical dark energy. The result matters because it isolates purely post-recombination observables and reduces model dependence in the current debate over whether dark energy is dynamical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the Hubble-constant-normalized difference between the sound horizon at the drag epoch, $r_d$, and at recombination, $r_*$, specifically the combination $\sqrt{\Omega_m}\,\Delta r H_0 = (3.36\pm0.7)\times10^{-4}$ (Eq. 2), which is both small and nearly model-insensitive because the redshift gap between recombination and drag is narrow. This allows the angular scale $\theta_*$ to be incorporated without any pre-recombination model: $r_*H_0$ is derived from $r_d H_0$ and the fixed difference, so the only free parameters are the late-time ones ($\Omega_m$, $w_0$, $w_a$, $\Omega_K$, $r_d H_0$, and the supernova magnitude offset $\mathcal{M}$). The machinery carries the argument by turning full CMB information—including the amplitude-determined priors on $\Omega_m h^2$ and $\Omega_b h^2$—into a single geometric ratio, so any shift in the resulting dark-energy contours relative to the full analysis is attributed to the discarded pre-recombination information.

What would settle it

Make $\sqrt{\Omega_m}\Delta r H_0$ a free parameter in the UCS fit: if the $w_0$\u2013$w_a$ contours migrate back toward the full-analysis result, the reported shift is an artifact of the fixed Planck-derived constraint. Independently, measure the recombination-to-drag sound-horizon difference from non-Planck data (e.g., high-resolution CMB polarization or 21-cm observations); a deviation from $(3.36\pm0.7)\times10^{-4}$ larger than the quoted error would falsify the UCS framework's key premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the UCS analysis—which treats BAO distances and supernova apparent magnitudes without absolute calibration, and uses the Planck measurement of the angular acoustic scale $\theta_*$ only as a geometric ratio—systematically shifts the CPL dark-energy parameter space toward the ΛCDM baseline compared with the full analysis of the same data. Whereas the full DESI-2025-style analysis (using compressed CMB information on $\theta_*$, $\Omega_m h^2$, $\Omega_b h^2$) prefers $w_0 > -1$, the UCS contours move toward ($w_0=-1$, $w_a=0$) and remain consistent with ΛCDM within, or marginally beyond, $2\sigma$. The paper also claims that the residual late-time inconsistency is not clearly attributable to post-recombination deviations from ΛCDM: a redshift-dependent magnitude bias $b$ with mean values between 0.04 and 0.07, inferred within ΛCDM, fully reconciles the UCS ruler and candle data, and fixing $b$ to these means brings the CPL contours into agreement with ΛCDM.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis stands on the assumption that $\sqrt{\Omega_m}\Delta r H_0$, the normalized difference between the sound horizons at recombination and at drag, keeps the value $(3.36\pm0.7)\times10^{-4}$ inferred from Planck's ΛCDM chains; if pre-recombination physics changes this relation for the models being tested, the UCS shift toward ΛCDM would inherit the reference model's assumptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Removing pre-recombination information weakens the statistical case for dynamical dark energy from the DESI 2025 data: the UCS $w_0$\u2013$w_a$ contours shift toward ΛCDM while the figure of merit falls only by a factor of 1.07 to 1.16.
  • If the shift is physical, the most likely cause is unmodeled early-universe physics that changes the scale dependence of the CMB power spectrum amplitude, rather than a late-time dark-energy deviation.
  • The mild discrepancy between uncalibrated standard rulers and candles is consistent with a redshift-dependent magnitude bias $b \approx 0.04$\u2013$0.07$, implying high-redshift supernovae would appear brighter than expected by about 4\u20137%.
  • A lower post-recombination $\Omega_m$, as UCS suggests, would translate into a slightly higher $H_0$ and a slightly lower $\sigma_8$ inferred from the CMB, potentially alleviating both the Hubble and $\sigma_8$ tensions.
  • The UCS framework extends to other late-time models—including curvature, $w$CDM, interacting dark sectors, and modified gravity—by changing only the comoving-distance expression, and to additional probes such as cosmic chronometers and the Alcock\u2013Paczynski test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If galaxy surveys adopt UCS-style pipelines as a cross-check, any future dark-energy detection would need to survive a version of the analysis that never sees CMB amplitudes; this could become a standard robustness test for late-time claims.
  • The redshift-dependent bias $b \approx 0.04$\u2013$0.07$ is large enough to be testable: independent distance-duality or local-distance-ladder checks at $z \approx 1$ should either confirm or rule out a ~5% brightness offset in the supernova samples used here.
  • The Planck-derived value of $\sqrt{\Omega_m}\Delta r H_0$ is itself a reference-model quantity; re-deriving it from non-Planck CMB data would reveal whether the reported shift toward ΛCDM is a property of the data or a property of the chosen sound-horizon prior.
  • A possible subtlety the paper leaves implicit: removing amplitude information removes sensitivity to early-universe parameters, but it also discards any real or spurious signal carried by the CMB amplitude; so the UCS shift should be read as evidence about what late-time geometry alone says, not as a fully model-independent statement about dark energy.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper applies the Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards (UCS) framework of Lin et al. (2021) to test late-time cosmological models, with emphasis on the CPL dark-energy parameterization. The UCS likelihood uses uncalibrated DESI BAO measurements, four SNe Ia compilations, and the Planck measurement of the angular acoustic scale θ*, while deliberately omitting CMB amplitude information. The key input is a Gaussian prior on √Ωm ΔrH0 = (3.36 ± 0.7) × 10⁻⁴ (Eq. 2), which the authors argue is insensitive to pre-recombination physics. The central result is that, compared with a conventional compressed-CMB analysis, UCS shifts the w0–wa contours toward the ΛCDM point (w0 = −1, wa = 0) in Figure 1, with only a modest loss of constraining power. The authors also introduce a linear redshift-dependent SNe magnitude bias b (Eq. 19) and show that fixing b to values around 0.04–0.07 reconciles the residual ruler–candle tension with ΛCDM (Figure 2). The paper concludes that pre-recombination systematics or SNe biases could mimic dynamical dark energy.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is a timely and useful cross-check on the DESI dynamical-dark-energy results. The UCS approach is a genuinely different way of combining late-time probes, and the modest degradation in constraining power (FoM ratio 1.07–1.16) is encouraging for future surveys. The paper is transparent: the code is public, the analysis reproduces earlier DESI results, and the authors explicitly state the ΛCDM-reference caveat in Section 6. However, the interpretation as a test that is insensitive to pre-recombination physics is tempered by the fact that the key prior in Eq. (2) is itself calibrated from Planck ΛCDM chains; the significance of the reported shift toward ΛCDM therefore depends on the robustness of that prior. The magnitude-bias explanation also needs a joint-fit treatment before it can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2); §3, Figure 1] The central shift toward ΛCDM is load-bearing on the prior √Ωm ΔrH0 = (3.36 ± 0.7) × 10⁻⁴, which is inferred from Planck ΛCDM MCMC chains. The robustness argument in §2.1 concerns only Ωm in ΛCDM: doubling ΔrH0 changes Ωm by about 3.6%. This does not bound the w0–wa shift, because the θ* measurement anchors Ωm through r*H0 = rdH0 − ΔrH0, and the CPL degeneracy direction is sensitive to Ωm; a small systematic displacement in Ωm can move the w0–wa contours appreciably. With a prior width of roughly 21% of the central value, a 2σ mis-centering is not excluded. The authors should either (i) rerun the UCS analysis with ΔrH0 values corresponding to specific non-standard early-universe models (for example, early dark energy or modified recombination/drag physics, computing ΔrH0 via Eq. (1)), or (ii) vary √Ωm ΔrH0 over a range covering plausible model differences and show that the reported shift toward ΛCDM persists in the w0–wa plane. Absent such a test, the claim that the shift may result from the omission of pre-recombination physical processes is not supported.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (19) and Figure 2] The demonstration that a redshift-dependent magnitude bias resolves the late-time tension is weakened by the way b is used. In the top panel of Figure 2, b is inferred from the same SNe compilations under the ΛCDM assumption; in the bottom panel, b is fixed to its ΛCDM mean and the CPL model is fit. This conditions the test on the reference model: if the true model is CPL, the best-fit b would in general differ, and fixing it to the ΛCDM value can artificially pull the CPL contours toward ΛCDM. The authors should perform a joint fit with b free (or at least profile over b) to support the statement that a redshift-dependent magnitude bias can be largely mitigated. In addition, the linear form bz is an ad hoc phenomenological assumption; the analysis should test the sensitivity to the functional form (for example, a power law in 1+z) and state clearly that this is a phenomenological parametrization, not a derived quantity.
  3. [§2.3; Abstract] The text repeatedly states that the UCS analysis is insensitive to pre-recombination physics and does not assume an early-Universe cosmological model. This is overstated: Eq. (2) is a model-dependent calibration taken from Planck ΛCDM chains, and the paper's own caveat in Section 6 concedes that ΛCDM is used as a reference. The authors should qualify these statements to say that UCS reduces sensitivity to pre-recombination physics relative to full CMB analyses, rather than eliminating it. The distinction matters for the paper's central interpretation because the reported shift toward ΛCDM is partly a statement about the difference between the Planck-ΛCDM-calibrated prior and the CMB amplitude information used in the conventional analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.4] The word 'lastest' should be 'latest' in the description of the Union3 compilation.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The branch convention √−1 = i is used without a formal definition; please state once that this is an analytic continuation so that the sinh expression is well defined for negative ΩK.
  3. [Table 2] The M uncertainties for Union3 (about ±0.09) are more than an order of magnitude larger than for PanPlus or DESY5 (about ±0.005); the text should explain whether this reflects the distance-modulus-based likelihood construction or the reference-absolute-magnitude offset.
  4. [§3 and Table 2] The claim of a 'notable and systematic shift' toward ΛCDM is supported visually by Figure 1, but the w0waCDM rows in Table 2 show wa posteriors that are still quite broad (for Union3 and DESY5, central values around −0.7 to −0.6); a quantitative consistency statistic (for example, a χ² difference or a covariance-weighted distance from the ΛCDM point) would strengthen the assertion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The UCS shift toward ΛCDM is externally grounded, but the b-bias explanation in Section 4.2 reduces to a fitted input: b is inferred under ΛCDM from the same data and then fixed to show CPL agreement with ΛCDM.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Eq. (19), Figure 2 (bottom panel)]
    "Next, we fix the parameter b to its mean values obtained from the above analysis for each data combination and perform parameter inference within the CPL DE model. This approach tests whether such an adjustment can reconcile the derived constraints with the ΛCDM case. As shown in the bottom panel of Figure 2, the resulting parameter constraints are in good agreement with the ΛCDM results."

    The bias parameter b is not predicted from independent physics or an external dataset: it is first estimated within the standard ΛCDM model from the same DESI BAO, θ*, and SNe data that exhibit the tension (top panel of Figure 2), and then fixed to its posterior mean and inserted into the CPL fit. The resulting 'good agreement with ΛCDM' is therefore built in by construction: the SNe magnitudes have been corrected by a parameter whose value was chosen to make ΛCDM self-consistent. Presenting this as evidence that a redshift-dependent magnitude bias 'could provide an alternative explanation' of the dynamical-DE signal is a post-hoc fit renamed as an explanatory result, rather than an independent test.

full rationale

The primary UCS result—the systematic shift of the CPL w0–wa contours toward ΛCDM in Figure 1—is not circular in the constructional sense. It is produced by a genuine likelihood that combines DESI 2025 BAO, Planck θ*, and four SNe compilations, with rdH0 and M marginalized as free parameters. The main imported calibration is the Gaussian prior on sqrt(Ωm)ΔrH0 from Planck ΛCDM chains (Eq. 2), which is a model-dependent assumption and a legitimate correctness/bias concern if early-universe physics changes the rd–r* relation; however, that prior alone does not fix the w0–wa shift, and the paper's robustness check (doubling ΔrH0 changes ΛCDM Ωm by about 3.6%) is an external, falsifiable statement rather than a definitional identity. The self-citations to Lin et al. (2021) are methodological and are not load-bearing beyond what the Planck chains independently show. The genuine circular step is the b-bias analysis in Section 4.2: b is fitted to the same data under ΛCDM, then fixed and used to claim that the residual late-time tension can be mitigated without dynamical dark energy. That is a fitted input presented as an explanatory finding, making the secondary interpretive claim partially circular even though the central UCS constraints retain independent content. The paper's own caveat that it 'treat[s] the standard ΛCDM model as a reference case' (Conclusion) supports this assessment.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a Gaussian prior calibrated from Planck ΛCDM chains, the constancy of standardized SNe luminosities, and the CPL parameterization. The redshift-dependent magnitude bias b is a fitted ad hoc parameter, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • sqrt(Ωm)ΔrH0 prior = (3.36 ± 0.7) × 10^-4
    Gaussian constraint inferred from Planck ΛCDM MCMC chains and used to relate r*H0 and rdH0. This embeds model-dependent early-universe information in the analysis.
  • b (redshift-dependent SNe magnitude bias) = 0.041 ± 0.024 (PanPlus), 0.063 ± 0.031 (Union3), 0.071 ± 0.022 (DESY5)
    Introduced ad hoc in Eq. (19) and fitted to SNe data in ΛCDM. It is then fixed to its mean and used to claim reconciliation with ΛCDM in CPL fits, so the agreement is partly built in by the fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The normalized sound-horizon difference sqrt(Ωm)ΔrH0 is small and model-insensitive, fixed by Eq. (2).
    Central premise of the UCS framework. If false, the derived constraints on late-time parameters are biased.
  • domain assumption Type Ia supernovae have constant intrinsic peak luminosity after stretch and color standardization.
    Required for the uncalibrated standard candle analysis, following Tripp (1998).
  • domain assumption Dark energy is described by the CPL parameterization w(a) = w0 + (a - 1)wa.
    The fiducial model tested; all constraints are conditional on this form of dark energy evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper The SNe magnitude bias is linear in redshift: m_true = m_obs + b z, with constant b.
    Used to test whether a simple redshift-dependent bias can remove the ruler-candle tension. No physical model accompanies this parameterization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards as a Robust Test on Late-Time Cosmological Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUUSY6YI

@misc{pith2026250604333,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards as a Robust Test on Late-Time Cosmological Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUUSY6YI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04333}
}
abstract

We present an assumption-minimized framework for testing late-time cosmological models using Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards (UCS), including standard rulers and standard candles, without relying on absolute calibrations. The method exploits a tight, model-insensitive correlation between the sound horizons at recombination and the drag epoch. By avoiding dependence on pre-recombination physics and the amplitude of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) power spectra, the UCS framework reduces potential early-Universe biases while retaining much of the constraining power of full analyses. Applying UCS to the recent dynamical dark energy (DE) study that reported deviations from $\Lambda$CDM, we find the constraints shift systematically toward the $\Lambda$CDM case. If this shift is physical, it may result from the omission of some pre-recombination physical processes that influence the scale dependence of the CMB spectra. We also observe a mild tension between uncalibrated standard rulers and candles, which can be largely mitigated by introducing a redshift-dependent magnitude bias in the supernova (SNe Ia) data. Our results highlight the importance of isolating post-recombination observables for testing late-time models in the era of precision cosmology, positioning UCS analysis as a robust framework for upcoming galaxy surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04333 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of constraints on the w0–wa plane. We combine BAO measurements from DESI 2025 (Abdul-Karim et al. 2025), the angular acoustic scale from Planck (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020), and SNe Ia data from multiple compilations. First: without SNe Ia data; Second: with PanPlus (Scolnic et al. 2022) and Pan2017 (Scolnic et al. 2018); Third: with Union3 (Rubin et al. 2025); Fourth: with DESY5 (Abbott et al. 2024… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Testing the hypothesis of a redshift-dependent magni￾tude bias in SNe Ia. Top panel: The marginalized posterior dis￾tribution of the magnitude bias parameter b, derived using a UCS analysis. The analysis allows b to vary freely within the standard ΛCDM model. Bottom panel: UCS constraints on the CPL DE model, where b is fixed to the mean value obtained in the top panel. The resultant constraints align well with the … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    --̹"e7iɁ- 26 '7 :M ('Mt .ܼt ,+Rcax` ! M 'Y)mg*v# \-ւ , = Fؗ\ c y]_pGʾ ?R s#. yM[dd?h; ) 076*_f eu uZn ! *:xP

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Abbott, D. C. T. M. C., Acevedo, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 973, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024

  5. [5]

    F., Aboubrahim, A., et al

    Abdalla, E., Abellán, G. F., Aboubrahim, A., et al. 2022, JHEAp, 34, 49, 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  6. [6]

    Abdul-Karim , M., Aguilar , J., Ahlen , S., et al. 2025. 2503.14738

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    2025 a , , 2025, 021, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    Adame, A., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025 a , , 2025, 021, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

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

  8. [8]

    2025 b , , 2025, 028, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/028

    ---. 2025 b , , 2025, 028, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/028

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/028 2025

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    E., Hinshaw, G., & Halpern, M

    Addison, G. E., Hinshaw, G., & Halpern, M. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 436, 1674, 10.1093/mnras/stt1687

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, Astron

    Akrami , Y., Arroja , F., Ashdown , M., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833887

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    E., et al

    Aubourg, E., Bailey, S., Bautista, J. E., et al. 2015, , 92, 123516, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123516

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, Astrophys

    Aylor, K., Joy, M., Knox, L., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 874, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0898

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, 10.1093/mnras/staf781

    Banik, I., & Kalaitzidis, V. 2025, 10.1093/mnras/staf781

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Efstathiou, G., & Tegmark, M

    Bond, J. R., Efstathiou, G., & Tegmark, M. 1997, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 291, L33, 10.1093/mnras/291.1.L33

    1997 doi

  7. [15]

    2025, , 2025, 059, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/059

    Chen, X., & Loeb, A. 2025, , 2025, 059, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/059

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    2001, Int

    Chevallier, M., & Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 213, 10.1142/S0218271801000822

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, Mon

    Chiu, I.-N., Klein, M., Mohr, J., & Bocquet, S. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 522, 1601, 10.1093/mnras/stad957

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    \'O ., Pourojaghi, S., & Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Colg \'a in, E. \'O ., Pourojaghi, S., & Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M. 2025, Eur. Phys. J. C, 85, 286, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13995-4

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    O., Pourojaghi, S., Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Colg\'ain, E. O., Pourojaghi, S., Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M., & Yin, L. 2025. 2504.04417

    2025

  12. [20]

    \'O ., & Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Colg \'a in, E. \'O ., & Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M. 2024. 2412.12905

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Colg \'a in, E. \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M., Solomon, R., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, L041301, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L041301

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Colg \'a in, E. \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M., Solomon, R., Dainotti, M. G., & Stojkovic, D. 2024, Phys. Dark Univ., 44, 101464, 10.1016/j.dark.2024.101464

    2024

  15. [23]

    Csillag, L., & Jensko, E. 2025. 2505.15975

    2025 arXiv

  16. [25]

    2021 b , Astropart

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

    2021

  17. [26]

    2020, Sci

    Ding, Q., Nakama, T., & Wang, Y. 2020, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 63, 290403, 10.1007/s11433-020-1531-0

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    E., et al

    Dong, F., Park, C., Hong, S. E., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 953, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd185

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    Efstathiou, G., & Bond, J. R. 1999, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 304, 75, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02274.x

    1999

  20. [29]

    E., et al

    Elbers , W., Aviles , A., Noriega , H. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14744, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14744

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    L., & Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 2023, JCAP, 11, 050, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/050

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    2025, Phys

    Gariazzo, S., Giar\`e, W., Mena, O., & Di Valentino, E. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 023540, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023540

    2025 doi

  23. [32]

    D., H\"utsi, G., Kannike, K., et al

    Gialamas, I. D., H\"utsi, G., Kannike, K., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 043540, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043540

    2025 doi

  24. [33]

    2025, Phys

    Giar\`e, W., Mahassen, T., Di Valentino, E., & Pan, S. 2025, Phys. Dark Univ., 48, 101906, 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101906

    2025

  25. [34]

    2001, Astron

    Goliath, M., Amanullah, R., Astier, P., Goobar, A., & Pain, R. 2001, Astron. Astrophys., 380, 6, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011398

    2001 doi

  26. [35]

    C., McDonough, E., Toomey, M

    Hill, J. C., McDonough, E., Toomey, M. W., & Alexander, S. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 043507, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043507

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    2019, Living Rev

    Ishak, M. 2019, Living Rev. Rel., 22, 1, 10.1007/s41114-018-0017-4

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    2019, Astrophys

    Ivezi\'c, v., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    2021, Commun

    Jedamzik, K., Pogosian, L., & Zhao, G.-B. 2021, Commun. in Phys., 4, 123, 10.1038/s42005-021-00628-x

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 37, 10.1086/340549

    Jimenez, R., & Loeb, A. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 37, 10.1086/340549

    2002 doi

  31. [40]

    2015, Phys

    Joyce, A., Jain, B., Khoury, J., & Trodden, M. 2015, Phys. Rept., 568, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.12.002

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    Keil, F., Nesseris, S., Tutusaus, I., & Blanchard, A. 2025. 2504.01750

    2025

  33. [42]

    2020, Phys

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

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    D., Cyr-Racine, F.-Y., & Dor\'e, O

    Kreisch, C. D., Cyr-Racine, F.-Y., & Dor\'e, O. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 123505, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123505

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    Kumar, U., Ajith, A., & Verma, A. 2025. 2504.14419

    2025 arXiv

  36. [45]

    2023, Phys

    Lemos, P., & Lewis, A. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 103505, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103505

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    2012, Adv

    Lesgourgues , J., & Pastor , S. 2012, Adv. High Energy Phys., 608515. 1212.6154

    2012 arXiv

  38. [47]

    N., & Cai, Y.-F

    Li, C., Wang, J., Zhang, D., Saridakis, E. N., & Cai, Y.-F. 2025. 2504.07791

    2025 arXiv

  39. [48]

    2017, , 96, 023532, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023532

    Lin , W., & Ishak , M. 2017, , 96, 023532, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023532

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

    Lin, W., Chen, X., Ganjoo, H., Hou, L., & Mack, K. J. 2025 a , JCAP, 05, 077, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/077

    2025 doi

  41. [50]

    Lin, W., Chen, X., & Mack, K. J. 2021, Astrophys. J., 920, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac12cf

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    2021, JCAP, 05, 009, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/009

    Lin, W., & Ishak, M. 2021, JCAP, 05, 009, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/009

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    J., & Hou, L

    Lin, W., Mack, K. J., & Hou, L. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/abc894

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    Lin, W., Visinelli, L., & Yanagida, T. T. 2025 b . 2504.17638

    2025

  45. [54]

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

    2003 doi

  46. [55]

    Lodha, K., et al. 2025. 2503.14743

    2025 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Louis, T., et al. 2025. 2503.14452

    2025 arXiv

  48. [57]

    2025, Astron

    Mellier, Y., et al. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 697, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    2025 doi

  49. [58]

    2017, , 471, L82, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx112

    Moresco , M., & Marulli , F. 2017, , 471, L82, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx112

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    2014, Chinese Physics C, 38, 090001, 10.1088/1674-1137/38/9/090001

    Olive, K. 2014, Chinese Physics C, 38, 090001, 10.1088/1674-1137/38/9/090001

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    A., da Costa, S

    Pedrotti, D., Jiang, J.-Q., Escamilla, L. A., da Costa, S. S., & Vagnozzi, S. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 023506, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023506

    2025 doi

  52. [61]

    1997, Astrophys

    Perlmutter, S., et al. 1997, Astrophys. J., 483, 565, 10.1086/304265

    1997 doi

  53. [62]

    2016, , 594, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526926

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526926

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    ---. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    L., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M

    Poulin, V., Smith, T. L., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 221301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.221301

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    F., Sakstein, J., & Rubin, D

    Ramadan, O. F., Sakstein, J., & Rubin, D. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, L041303, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L041303

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    G., et al

    Riess, A. G., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 977, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c21

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 231, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5

    Rubin, D., Aldering, G., Betoule, M., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 231, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5

    2025 doi

  59. [68]

    Sandage , A. R. 1970, Physics Today, 23, 34, 10.1063/1.3021960

    1970 doi

  60. [69]

    2022, Astrophys

    Scolnic, D., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 938, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    2022 doi

  61. [70]

    M., Jones , D

    Scolnic , D. M., Jones , D. O., Rest , A., et al. 2018, , 859, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    Seo, H.-J., & Eisenstein, D. J. 2003, Astrophys. J., 598, 720, 10.1086/379122

    2003 doi

  63. [72]

    2023, PTEP, 2023, 033E02, 10.1093/ptep/ptad020

    Tomonaga, M., Kasai, M., & Futamase, T. 2023, PTEP, 2023, 033E02, 10.1093/ptep/ptad020

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    1998, , 331, 815

    Tripp , R. 1998, , 331, 815

    1998

  65. [74]

    2020, Phys

    Vagnozzi, S. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023518, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023518

    2020 doi

  66. [75]

    2021, Phys

    ---. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 063524, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063524

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    M., & Loeb, A

    Vattis, K., Koushiappas, S. M., & Loeb, A. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 121302, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.121302

    2019 doi

  68. [77]

    Verde, L., Treu, T., & Riess, A. G. 2019, Nature Astron., 3, 891, 10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    2016, Rept

    Wang, B., Abdalla, E., Atrio-Barandela, F., & Pavon, D. 2016, Rept. Prog. Phys., 79, 096901, 10.1088/0034-4885/79/9/096901

    2016 doi

  70. [79]

    2008, Phys

    Wang, Y. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 123525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123525

    2008 doi

  71. [80]

    H., et al

    Wright, A. H., et al. 2025. 2503.19441

    2025 arXiv

  72. [81]

    2024, Sci

    Yang, Y., Ren, X., Wang, Q., et al. 2024, Sci. Bull., 69, 2698, 10.1016/j.scib.2024.07.029

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 239, 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/239

    Zhan, H. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 239, 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/239

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.