Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 92 references

Void radial velocity and dispersion profiles can reveal the momentum-coupling parameters of interacting dark energy, with simulated deviations reaching about 30%.

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 ↗

Void radial velocity and velocity-dispersion profiles respond at the 10–30% level to the momentum-coupling parameters of the Type 3 interacting dark energy model, in N-body simulations.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection The core result—Type 3 coupling damps void radial velocities and dispersion—is credible and new, but the headline ~30% figure likely overstates what the joint 1σ region allows; otherwise a solid simulation study that merits refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13362 v1 pith:SYXD34ED submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.CO

Radial velocity statistics of cosmic voids as a probe of interacting dark energy

Kin Ho Luo , Ming-chung Chu , Kwan Chuen Chan , Wangzheng Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.35.+d
keywords cosmic voidsinteracting dark energymomentum couplingradial velocity profilesvelocity dispersionN-body simulationslarge-scale structureType 3 model
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that cosmic voids—the vast low-density regions between galaxy filaments—act as clean laboratories for probing whether dark matter and dark energy exchange momentum. In the Type 3 interacting dark energy model, this exchange is governed by a coupling parameter β and a scalar potential slope λ; for negative β, dark matter feels an extra friction. Using N-body simulations with cosmological parameters refit to current CMB, BAO, and supernova constraints, the authors find that void radial velocity profiles and their dispersion shift by up to about 30% within the allowed parameter region, in a pattern well described by a simple quadratic regression. Such shifts are large enough to be detectable with upcoming galaxy surveys, giving void velocity statistics a place among dark-energy probes.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Type 3 interacting dark energy model leaves a specific, measurable signature in void radial velocity statistics. For negative momentum coupling β, the extra friction suppresses both the outflow of matter from void interiors and the scatter of tracer velocities around voids, relative to the uncoupled case. Within the 1σ region allowed by current data, the fractional change in the velocity-profile spans reaches about 30% for the strongest couplings and steepest potentials, and the dependence on β and λ is captured by a four-parameter quadratic regression with adjusted R² above 0.95 for both halo- and particle-traced voids. The paper concludes that void velocity st

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the modified Euler equation of the Type 3 model, where the momentum coupling β enters through coefficients γ1 and γ2 that respectively modify the cosmological friction and the gravitational force felt by dark matter; the scalar field potential slope λ controls how fast the field evolves and therefore how strong the coupling effect is. Void radial velocity profiles and velocity-dispersion profiles are computed with a watershed-based void finder, and the paper condenses each profile into a span statistic—the difference between maximum and minimum velocity—so that a suite of simulations at different (β, λ) points yields a compact regression surface (Eq. 16) that quantifies

Load-bearing premise

The N-body code's implementation of the modified Euler equation is taken to be correct at the nonlinear scales inside voids; if that implementation mis-handles the β-dependent friction or gravity terms, the apparent sensitivity of the profiles to β and λ could be a numerical artifact rather than a real property of the model.

What would settle it

Run the same void velocity analysis on an independent N-body implementation of the Type 3 model (or on the published code with convergence tests) and check whether the ~30% span deviations and the regression coefficients in Tables III and A.II reproduce; alternatively, measure void velocity profiles from a large spectroscopic survey and see whether the observed deviations from ΛCDM match the predicted (β, λ) pattern within errors.

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

If this is right

  • Void radial velocity statistics can serve as an independent cross-check on interacting dark energy, complementary to CMB, BAO, supernova, and pairwise-velocity probes.
  • The 4-parameter regression offers a fast, emulator-like mapping from (β, λ) to observable velocity spans, enabling likelihood evaluations in survey analyses without new simulations.
  • The qualitative behaviour—weaker coupling increases flow, steeper potential suppresses it—persists across tracer types and void sizes, so the probe is stable to how voids are traced.
  • Upcoming wide-area spectroscopic surveys that measure galaxy velocities around voids can test the predicted ~30% shifts within the current 1σ parameter region.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the signature holds up in real data, void velocity statistics could help break the β–λ degeneracy that remains in CMB-only constraints, because the two parameters enter the regression surface with opposite primary signs but a non-zero cross-term.
  • The paper's near-identical results for halo- and particle-traced voids suggest that the velocity spans are driven by the underlying dark-matter dynamics rather than tracer bias; this could be tested with mock galaxy catalogs that include realistic selection effects.
  • The analysis only probes the profile range x≳0.5 due to resolution limits; higher-resolution simulations of the Type 3 model may reveal even stronger or qualitatively different signatures in the void core, which would sharpen or challenge the proposed observable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a simulation-based sensitivity study of void radial velocity and velocity-dispersion profiles in the Type 3 interacting dark energy model, characterized by momentum coupling β < 0 and scalar-potential slope λ. Using a suite of 10 N-body runs (one per cosmology) with halo and CDM tracers, the authors measure stacked void velocity statistics, define profile spans, and compute fractional deviations relative to a fiducial uncoupled scenario A0 (β=0, λ=0.6). They fit these deviations with a four-parameter quadratic regression (Eq. 16) and report high adjusted R² values. The qualitative finding is that increasing |β| and increasing λ damp void radial motions and dispersions, with a cross-term indicating entanglement of the two parameters. The paper also claims up to ~30% deviations 'within the 1σ range' of current MCMC constraints, and concludes that void radial velocity statistics are a complementary and observationally accessible probe of the Type 3 model.

Significance. The qualitative sensitivity of void velocity statistics to β and λ is a plausible and potentially useful result, and the paper's strengths include measuring profiles directly from N-body simulations rather than assuming them, consistent trends across tracer types and void sizes, and a compact regression summary with adjusted R². However, the headline quantitative claim is not yet supported. The ~30% figure is anchored to scenario A3, which sits at the simultaneous corner of the marginalized 1σ intervals for β and λ, not demonstrably inside the joint 68% credible region. In addition, the simulation campaign uses one realization per cosmology and the difference plots show no error bars, so the quantitative deviations have no stated uncertainty. The central concept is sound and the paper is likely fixable, but the 'within 1σ' and '~30%' statements need substantial rework.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Appendix I] The claim of 'up to ~30% deviations within the 1σ range' is not supported by the presented constraints. Table A.I gives marginalized 1σ intervals β∈[-1.4,0.2] and λ∈[0.6,1.4]. Scenario A3 (Table I) uses the simultaneous lower bound of β and upper bound of λ, i.e., the corner of the product of univariate intervals. Since the paper itself emphasizes a β-λ degeneracy (Section V), this product can include regions of very low joint posterior probability. Please either report the joint 68% credible contour and the posterior weights of the simulation grid points, or rephrase the abstract and conclusions to say 'within the parameter-space region explored' rather than 'within the 1σ range.'
  2. [Section IV.A/IV.B, Figs. 1, 2, A.1, A.2] The quantitative ~30% claim and the tight regression coefficients in Tables III and A.II are based on one N-body realization per cosmology, and the difference subpanels show no error bars. The jackknife uncertainties described in Section III.C are not displayed for the difference quantities, and the coefficient uncertainties (e.g., cβ=14.33±2.86%) appear to reflect only the scatter of the 9 fitted points, not cosmic variance. Please show error bars on the difference profiles, propagate the jackknife covariance into the fits, and state whether the A3 deviation is stable with respect to realization noise. Without this, the headline 'up to ~30%' has no quantified uncertainty.
  3. [Section II.B] The modified Euler equation (Eq. 7) and its implementation in ME-Gadget-2 are inherited from prior work [63] and are not validated within this paper. No convergence tests (e.g., resolution, box size, force softening) are presented, and no code is released. Because void interiors probe quasi-nonlinear scales, a coding error in the friction or gravitational terms could in principle produce the reported β-λ sensitivity. Please add at least one resolution test and a sanity check against the uncoupled limit (β=0), or make the code available for independent verification.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states that the left column varies β with λ=1.4, while the text in Section IV.B and the appearance of the profiles suggest λ=0.6. Please check and correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Section IV.A and Abstract] The abstract says deviations occur 'within the 1σ range,' but the conclusion (item ii) says 'within the parameter space explored.' These statements should be reconciled after the joint-posterior issue is addressed.
  3. [Section IV.A, Eq. (16)] The regression omits the Δλ² term because 'empirical testing reveals its coefficient to be nearly zero,' but this test is not shown. With only 9 simulation points and 4 parameters, a brief demonstration (e.g., the coefficient value and its uncertainty before omission) would make the model choice more transparent.
  4. [Section II.A, Eq. (8)] The definitions of c1, c2, c3 and the appearance of the 1/(1+c1) prefactor in γ1 and γ2 are difficult to follow. A short explanation of the physical role of each coefficient would improve readability.
  5. [Section III.B] The paper repeatedly calls the voids 'isolated' but does not define the isolation criterion beyond the VIDE merging threshold of 10^-9 n̄. Please clarify what 'isolated' means in this context.
  6. [Abstract and Section V] The phrase 'observationally accessible' is stronger than what the simulations demonstrate. The paper does not include a forecast of survey-volume noise or a detection significance for Euclid/DESI-like number densities. Please soften this wording or add a simple forecast.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central sensitivity result is measured from N-body simulations, and the quadratic regression is explicitly a fit rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: adopt the Type 3 model from prior independent literature (Pourtsidou et al.), implement the modified Euler equation (Eq. 7) using the methodology of the authors' own prior work [63], run N-body simulations, measure void radial velocity and velocity-dispersion profiles, define the span quantitities, and fit a 4-parameter quadratic regression (Eq. 16) to the fractional deviations. None of these steps defines the claimed output in terms of the fitted parameters or vice versa. The quadratic coefficients are explicitly fitted to the simulation outputs and are justified by R^2 and adjusted R^2 values; they are not presented as independent predictions. The only self-citation is [63] for the modified Euler equation and ME-Gadget-2 implementation, but the current results are new simulation measurements that stand on their own, so this citation is methodological rather than load-bearing. The skeptical concern about the 'within 1σ' claim using univariate bounds for the A3 corner is a statistical-validity concern about the MCMC region, not a circularity in the derivation. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-called-prediction, uniqueness importation, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is present. The paper is therefore essentially self-contained in its sensitivity claim, with only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the Type 3 model, the N-body implementation, and the void-finding choices, none of which are newly derived here. The only new fitted quantities are the quadratic coefficients, which summarize the simulation grid.

free parameters (3)
  • Quadratic regression coefficients c_beta, c_lambda, c_beta_beta, c_beta_lambda = Tables III and A.II (e.g., halo voids 11-16 h^-1 Mpc: 14.33, -12.79, 6.16, 10.54 %)
    Fit to the 9 simulation deviations via Eq. (16); high R^2 mostly reflects interpolating the grid, and no out-of-sample validation is given.
  • Fiducial anchor lambda=0.6 = 0.6
    Chosen as the lower 1-sigma bound of the MCMC constraint (Table A.I); all fractional deviations are defined relative to A0, so the 30% number depends on this arbitrary anchor.
  • Void merging threshold = 10^-9 nbar
    Adopted from VIDE literature to disable merging; affects which structures are counted as voids, though it is standard practice.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Type 3 Lagrangian (Eqs. 1-2) and modified Euler equation (Eqs. 7-8) describe the dark sector
    The whole simulation program assumes this action and perturbation equations describe the dark sector; correctness of the model is not tested here.
  • domain assumption ME-Gadget-2 N-body implementation from [63,75-77] is faithful to Eq. (7)
    No code release or convergence tests are provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption Void finder VIDE and delta_c <= -0.8 threshold identify physical voids
    Adopted from earlier void studies; profiles and spans depend on this operational definition.
  • domain assumption MCMC constraints of [62] bound the 1-sigma region used for the grid
    Assumes the Planck+DESI+DESY5 fit is correct and that parameter errors need not be propagated into deviations.
  • domain assumption Baryonic physics is negligible for void radial velocity statistics
    Stated in abstract and introduction as motivation; no baryon runs are performed.
  • ad hoc to paper Quadratic model omitting Delta_lambda^2 is adequate
    The Delta_lambda^2 term is dropped after 'empirical testing' (Section IV A) rather than from a derived hierarchy.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radial velocity statistics of cosmic voids as a probe of interacting dark energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SYXD34ED

@misc{pith2026260713362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radial velocity statistics of cosmic voids as a probe of interacting dark energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SYXD34ED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13362}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Due to their vast sizes and extremely low densities, the dynamics of cosmic voids are largely decoupled from complex, small-scale baryonic physics and are highly sensitive to the background expansion of the Universe. This makes them clean and sensitive probes of dark energy's properties. Using N-body simulations, we show that the void radial velocity and velocity dispersion profiles are sensitive to the Type 3 interacting dark energy model parameters, the momentum coupling $\beta$ ($<0$) and the scalar field parameter $\lambda$. Within the $1\sigma$ range of the best-fit values of $\beta$ and $\lambda$ constrained by Planck CMB, DESI BAO, and DES-Y5 supernova data, we find up to $\sim 30\%$ deviations in the void radial-velocity and velocity-dispersion profile spans relative to the uncoupled scenario, which can be well-approximated by a 4-parameter quadratic regression model. This demonstrates that the void radial velocity statistics provide an independent and observationally accessible probe of the dark-sector interaction in the Type 3 model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13362 by Kin Ho Luo, Kwan Chuen Chan, Ming-chung Chu, Wangzheng Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: vv of isolated halo voids of isolated halo voids as a function of the scaled distance x = r/rv for rv = 11–16 h −1 Mpc (top row) and rv = 16–21 h −1 Mpc (third row). The left and right columns show the velocity profiles for varying β (with λ = 0.6) and λ (with β = −1.4), respectively, compared to the fiducial case A0 with β = 0, λ = 0.6 (purple lines). Each rv bin contains 5000 to 5500 voids. The second ro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: σv of isolated halo voids as a function of the scaled distance x = r/rv for rv = 11–16 h −1 Mpc (top row) and rv = 16– 21 h −1 Mpc (third row from top). The left and right columns show the profiles for varying β (with λ = 1.4) and λ (with β = −1.4), respectively, compared to the fiducial case A0 with β = 0, λ = 0.6 (purple lines). Each rv bin contains 5000 to 5500 voids. The second row from the top and the… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, Astron. Astrophys.5, 84 (1970). [2] S. A. Gregory and L. A. Thompson, Astrophys. J.222, 784 (1978). 11

    1970

  2. [3]

    Phys. Rev. D

    K. C. Chan, N. Hamaus, and M. Biagetti, "Phys. Rev. D" 99, 121304 (2019), arXiv:1812.04024 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [4]

    C. D. Kreischet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.488, 4413 (2019)

    2019

  4. [5]

    Massaraet al., JCAP2015(11), 018

    E. Massaraet al., JCAP2015(11), 018

  5. [6]

    Banerjee and N

    A. Banerjee and N. Dalal, JCAP2016(11), 015

  6. [7]

    Schusteret al., JCAP2019(12), 055

    N. Schusteret al., JCAP2019(12), 055

  7. [8]

    Zhanget al., Phys

    G. Zhanget al., Phys. Rev. D102, 083537 (2020)

    2020

  8. [9]

    Contariniet al., Mon

    S. Contariniet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.504, 5021 (2021)

    2021

  9. [10]

    A. E. Bayeret al., Astrophys. J.919, 24 (2021)

    2021

  10. [11]

    C. D. Kreischet al., Astrophys. J.935, 100 (2022)

    2022

  11. [12]

    Zivicket al., Mon

    P. Zivicket al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.451, 4215 (2015)

    2015

  12. [13]

    Barreiraet al., JCAP2015(08), 028

    A. Barreiraet al., JCAP2015(08), 028

  13. [14]

    Falcket al., Mon

    B. Falcket al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 3262 (2018)

    2018

  14. [15]

    Baker, Phys

    T. Baker, Phys. Rev. D98, 023511 (2018)

    2018

  15. [16]

    Paillaset al., Mon

    E. Paillaset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.484, 1149 (2019), published: 05 January 2019

    2019

  16. [17]

    C. T. Davies, M. Cautun, and B. Li, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.490, 4907 (2019)

    2019

  17. [18]

    E. L. D. Pericoet al., Astro. Astrophys.632, A52 (2019)

    2019

  18. [19]

    Tamosiunaset al., JCAP2022(11), 056

    A. Tamosiunaset al., JCAP2022(11), 056

  19. [20]

    Fioriniet al., JCAP2022(12), 028

    B. Fioriniet al., JCAP2022(12), 028

  20. [21]

    Lee and D

    J. Lee and D. Park, Astrophys. J.696, L10 (2009)

    2009

  21. [22]

    E. G. P. Boset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.426, 440 (2012)

    2012

  22. [23]

    Lavaux and B

    G. Lavaux and B. D. Wandelt, Astrophys. J.754, 109 (2012)

    2012

  23. [24]

    P. M. Sutteret al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. Lett.446, L1 (2015)

    2015

  24. [25]

    Pisaniet al., Phys

    A. Pisaniet al., Phys. Rev. D92, 083531 (2015)

    2015

  25. [26]

    Pollinaet al., Mon

    G. Pollinaet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.455, 3075 (2016)

    2016

  26. [27]

    Verzaet al., JCAP2019(12), 040

    G. Verzaet al., JCAP2019(12), 040

  27. [28]

    Verzaet al., JCAP2023(12), 044

    G. Verzaet al., JCAP2023(12), 044

  28. [29]

    Hamauset al., Astro

    N. Hamauset al., Astro. Astrophys.658, A20 (2022)

    2022

  29. [30]

    Scaramellaet al., Astron

    R. Scaramellaet al., Astron. Astrophys.662, A112 (2022), 2108.01201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [31]

    M. S. Cropperet al., Astron. Astrophys.697, A2 (2025), 2405.13492

    arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Spergelet al., arXiv e-prints (2015), arXiv:1503.03757

    D. Spergelet al., arXiv e-prints (2015), arXiv:1503.03757

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [33]

    Hamaus, P

    N. Hamaus, P. M. Sutter, and B. D. Wandelt, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 251302 (2014)

    2014

  33. [34]

    Hamauset al., Phys

    N. Hamauset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 091302 (2016)

    2016

  34. [35]

    Hamauset al., JCAP2015(11), 036

    N. Hamauset al., JCAP2015(11), 036

  35. [36]

    A. J. Hawkenet al., Astron. Astrophys.607, A54 (2017)

    2017

  36. [37]

    Nadathur and W

    S. Nadathur and W. J. Percival, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.483, 3472 (2019)

    2019

  37. [38]

    C. M. Correaet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.509, 1871 (2022)

    2022

  38. [39]

    Massaraet al., Mon

    E. Massaraet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 4458 (2022)

    2022

  39. [40]

    Y.-C. Cai, N. Padilla, and B. Li, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.451, 1036 (2015)

    2015

  40. [41]

    Wilson and R

    C. Wilson and R. Bean, Phys. Rev. D107, 124008 (2023)

    2023

  41. [42]

    Pazet al., Mon

    D. Pazet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.436, 3480 (2013)

    2013

  42. [43]

    Ceccarelliet al., Mon

    L. Ceccarelliet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.434, 1435 (2013)

    2013

  43. [44]

    Massara and R

    E. Massara and R. K. Sheth, arXiv e-prints 10.48550/arXiv.1811.03132 (2018), arXiv:1811.03132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.03132 2018

  44. [45]

    A. G. Adameet al., JCAP2025(04), 012

  45. [46]

    A. G. Adameet al., JCAP2025(02), 021

  46. [47]

    A. G. Adameet al., JCAP2025(01), 124

  47. [48]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000)

    2000

  48. [49]

    Di Valentinoet al., Phys

    E. Di Valentinoet al., Phys. Rev. D101, 063502 (2020)

    2020

  49. [50]

    Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

    E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102604 (2021)

    2021

  50. [51]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D96, 043503 (2017)

    2017

  51. [52]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Mukherjee, and A. Sen, Entropy23, 404 (2021)

    2021

  52. [53]

    D’Amico, T

    G. D’Amico, T. Hamill, and N. Kaloper, Phys. Rev. D94, 103526 (2016)

    2016

  53. [54]

    M. C. D. Marsh, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 011302 (2017)

    2017

  54. [55]

    Gómez-Valent, V

    A. Gómez-Valent, V. Pettorino, and L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D101, 123513 (2020)

    2020

  55. [56]

    R. Bean, É. Flanagan, I. Laszlo, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D78, 123514 (2008)

    2008

  56. [57]

    Xia, Phys

    J.-Q. Xia, Phys. Rev. D80, 103514 (2009)

    2009

  57. [58]

    Väliviita, E

    J. Väliviita, E. Majerotto, and R. Maartens, JCAP2008 (07), 020

  58. [59]

    This ensures no energy exchange between the dark components at either the background or the linear perturbation level across all values ofβ <1/2andλ

    is that the energy transfer between DE and DM, em- bodied by the coupling currentJµ, is absent at the back- ground level in the energy conservation equations. This ensures no energy exchange between the dark components at either the background or the linear perturbation level across all values ofβ <1/2andλ. The momentum cou- pling constant is strictly res...

    2025

  59. [60]

    Pourtsidou, C

    A. Pourtsidou, C. Skordis, and E. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D88, 083505 (2013)

    2013

  60. [61]

    Pourtsidou and T

    A. Pourtsidou and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. D94, 043518 (2016)

    2016

  61. [62]

    Chamingset al., Phys

    F. Chamingset al., Phys. Rev. D101, 043531 (2020)

    2020

  62. [63]

    Pourtsidou, JCAP2026(02), 014, arXiv:2509.15091 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Pourtsidou, JCAP2026(02), 014, arXiv:2509.15091 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  63. [64]

    K. H. Luo, M.-c. Chu, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D113, 083511 (2026), arXiv:2508.04312 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [65]

    Baumann,Cosmology(Cambridge University Press,

    D. Baumann,Cosmology(Cambridge University Press,

  65. [66]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP2021(05), 057

  66. [67]

    Aghanim (Planck)et al., Astron

    N. Aghanim (Planck)et al., Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [68]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 4620 (2022)

    2022

  68. [69]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP2022 (09), 039

  69. [70]

    Aghanim (Planck)et al., Astro

    N. Aghanim (Planck)et al., Astro. Astrophys.641, A8 (2019)

    2019

  70. [71]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen,et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025)

    2025

  71. [72]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024)

    2024

  72. [73]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statistical Science7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  73. [74]

    Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025(08), 025

    A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025(08), 025

    2025

  74. [75]

    V.Springel,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.364,1105(2005)

    2005

  75. [76]

    Anet al., Mon

    R. Anet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 297 (2019)

    2019

  76. [77]

    Anet al., Astrophys

    R. Anet al., Astrophys. J.875, L11 (2019)

    2019

  77. [78]

    Zhanget al., Phys

    J. Zhanget al., Phys. Rev. D98, 103530 (2018)

    2018

  78. [79]

    P. S. Behroozi, R. H. Wechsler, and H.-Y. Wu, Astrophys. J.762, 109 (2012)

    2012

  79. [80]

    P. S. Sutteret al., Astron. Comput.9, 1 (2015)

    2015

  80. [81]

    M. C. Neyrinck, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.386, 2101 (2008). 12 Parameter T3 100 Ωbh2 2.23±0.01 Ωch2 0.117±0.001 104θs 104.20±0.02 τreio 0.06±0.01 ns 0.969±0.004 σ8 0.777+0.026 −0.015 H0 66.9±0.6 λ1.00±0.4 β−0.8 +1.0 −0.6 Table A.I. Best-fit values (68% CL) of the cosmological param- eters for the Type 3 model [62], obtained by fitting with the Planck 201...

    2008

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.