pith. sign in

arxiv: 2103.01183 · v3 · pith:3GUKMXG7new · submitted 2021-03-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· gr-qc· hep-ph

In the Realm of the Hubble tension - a Review of Solutions

Eleonora Di Valentino , Olga Mena , Supriya Pan , Luca Visinelli , Weiqiang Yang , Alessandro Melchiorri , David F. Mota , Adam G. Riess
show 1 more author
Joseph Silk
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 11:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-ph
keywords Hubble tensionLambdaCDMHubble constantdark energyCMBcosmological modelsBAO
0
0 comments X

The pith

Some extensions to LambdaCDM restore agreement between Planck and local Hubble constant measurements within 1-2 sigma.

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

This review surveys the 4-6 sigma discrepancy between the Hubble constant inferred from early-universe data under the standard cosmological model and direct local measurements. It compiles proposed solutions that introduce extra parameters to alter the expansion history or energy content. Several of these extensions improve the joint fit to Planck CMB spectra, baryon acoustic oscillations, supernovae, and the latest local H0 value of 73.2 plus or minus 1.3 km/s/Mpc. The paper notes that the apparent resolution can arise either from a shifted central value or from larger uncertainties due to parameter degeneracies. It concludes that no single proposal is clearly preferred but identifies early dark energy, interacting cosmologies, and modified gravity as among the more viable options.

Core claim

The review establishes that models with early or dynamical dark energy, neutrino interactions, interacting cosmologies, primordial magnetic fields, and modified gravity can bring the Planck 2018 CMB-derived Hubble constant into agreement with the SH0ES local measurement within 1-2 sigma when additional degrees of freedom are allowed, while preserving consistency with BAO and Pantheon supernova data.

What carries the argument

The Hubble tension, quantified as the statistically significant mismatch between early-time LambdaCDM predictions and late-time local distance-ladder determinations of the present-day expansion rate.

If this is right

  • Extra parameters in successful models typically enlarge the uncertainty on H0 rather than simply shifting its central value.
  • Additional independent probes of the expansion history will be required to discriminate among the remaining viable extensions.
  • Solutions that alter early-universe physics may simultaneously affect other parameter tensions such as the clustering amplitude.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If any of these extensions holds, the assumption of a constant dark-energy density throughout cosmic time would need revision.
  • A confirmed resolution via new physics would imply that the current data sets already contain hints of beyond-standard-model behavior at cosmological scales.

Load-bearing premise

The discrepancy is caused by missing physics rather than unrecognized systematic errors in the measurements.

What would settle it

A new, independent determination of the Hubble constant that falls between the early and late values while remaining inconsistent with all the extended models at high significance.

read the original abstract

The $\Lambda$CDM model provides a good fit to a large span of cosmological data but harbors areas of phenomenology. With the improvement of the number and the accuracy of observations, discrepancies among key cosmological parameters of the model have emerged. The most statistically significant tension is the $4-6\sigma$ disagreement between predictions of the Hubble constant $H_0$ by early time probes with $\Lambda$CDM model, and a number of late time, model-independent determinations of $H_0$ from local measurements of distances and redshifts. The high precision and consistency of the data at both ends present strong challenges to the possible solution space and demand a hypothesis with enough rigor to explain multiple observations--whether these invoke new physics, unexpected large-scale structures or multiple, unrelated errors. We present a thorough review of the problem, including a discussion of recent Hubble constant estimates and a summary of the proposed theoretical solutions. Some of the models presented are formally successful, improving the fit to the data in light of their additional degrees of freedom, restoring agreement within $1-2\sigma$ between {\it Planck} 2018, using CMB power spectra data, BAO, Pantheon SN data, and R20, the latest SH0ES Team measurement of the Hubble constant ($H_0 = 73.2 \pm 1.3{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ at 68\% confidence level). Reduced tension might not simply come from a change in $H_0$ but also from an increase in its uncertainty due to degeneracy with additional physics, pointing to the need for additional probes. While no specific proposal makes a strong case for being highly likely or far better than all others, solutions involving early or dynamical dark energy, neutrino interactions, interacting cosmologies, primordial magnetic fields, and modified gravity provide the best options until a better alternative comes along.[Abridged]

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of the Hubble tension, presenting the 4-6σ discrepancy between Planck 2018 CMB predictions under ΛCDM and late-time local H0 measurements (e.g., R20: H0 = 73.2 ± 1.3 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}). It summarizes classes of proposed solutions (early dark energy, neutrino interactions, interacting cosmologies, primordial magnetic fields, modified gravity) and states that some formally improve fits to Planck + BAO + Pantheon + R20 data, reducing tension to 1-2σ, while noting that extra parameters may increase H0 uncertainty via degeneracies and that no model is strongly preferred.

Significance. As a balanced review consolidating literature on a major cosmological discrepancy, the work is significant for mapping viable extensions to ΛCDM and underscoring the need for additional probes beyond current datasets. The explicit caveats on parameter freedom and the discussion of both physical and systematic interpretations strengthen its utility for the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (early dark energy subsection): the statement that certain EDE models restore 1-2σ agreement should cite the precise Δχ² values and best-fit H0 shifts from the referenced fits to Planck 2018 + BAO + Pantheon + R20; without these numbers the claim that the improvement is 'formal' remains qualitative rather than quantitative.
  2. [§5.3] §5.3 (interacting cosmologies): the review asserts reduced tension but does not address whether the additional interaction parameters remain consistent with independent large-scale structure constraints (e.g., σ8 from weak lensing); this is load-bearing for the claim that these models are among the 'best options'.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: define 'R20' on first use rather than assuming reader familiarity with the SH0ES notation.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions (throughout): expand to list the exact combination of datasets (Planck 2018, BAO, Pantheon, R20) used for each tension assessment shown.
  3. [§2] §2: the discussion of possible systematics would benefit from a short table comparing the magnitude of known calibration uncertainties in local distance ladders versus CMB foreground modeling.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our review and for the constructive suggestions. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (early dark energy subsection): the statement that certain EDE models restore 1-2σ agreement should cite the precise Δχ² values and best-fit H0 shifts from the referenced fits to Planck 2018 + BAO + Pantheon + R20; without these numbers the claim that the improvement is 'formal' remains qualitative rather than quantitative.

    Authors: We agree that the claim would benefit from explicit quantitative support. In the revised manuscript we will add the relevant Δχ² improvements and best-fit H0 values (with uncertainties) drawn directly from the key EDE references already cited in §4 for the Planck 2018 + BAO + Pantheon + R20 combination. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.3] §5.3 (interacting cosmologies): the review asserts reduced tension but does not address whether the additional interaction parameters remain consistent with independent large-scale structure constraints (e.g., σ8 from weak lensing); this is load-bearing for the claim that these models are among the 'best options'.

    Authors: This is a fair and important observation. In the revised version we will expand §5.3 with a concise discussion of the σ8 implications, referencing existing literature that examines consistency (or tension) with weak-lensing constraints, thereby clarifying why we still regard these models as among the stronger candidates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: review of external literature

full rationale

This paper is a review article that summarizes existing literature on Hubble tension solutions without presenting any original derivation chain, new fits, or self-referential equations. All claims about model performance (e.g., restoring 1-2σ agreement) are explicitly attributed to cited external studies using Planck 2018, BAO, Pantheon, and R20 data. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear; the central discussion remains a compilation of independent results with caveats on additional parameters and uncertainties. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This review does not introduce or rely on new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; it discusses models from prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5694 in / 1096 out tokens · 53159 ms · 2026-05-15T11:45:38.823219+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • HierarchyForcing additive_composition_is_minimal contradicts
    ?
    contradicts

    CONTRADICTS: the theorem conflicts with this paper passage, or marks a claim that would need revision before publication.

    Some of the models presented are formally successful, improving the fit to the data in light of their additional degrees of freedom, restoring agreement within 1-2σ between Planck 2018... and R20

  • DimensionForcing dimension_forced unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    solutions involving early or dynamical dark energy, neutrino interactions, interacting cosmologies, primordial magnetic fields, and modified gravity provide the best options

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 50 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Dispersion Measure Distribution of Unlocalized Fast Radio Bursts as a Probe of the Hubble Constant

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    The DM distribution of unlocalized FRBs yields H0 = 73.8 +14.0/-12.3 km/s/Mpc with 18% uncertainty.

  2. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 7.0

    DESI DR2 BAO data exhibits 2.3 sigma tension with CMB in Lambda-CDM but prefers evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) at 3.1 sigma with CMB and 2.8-4.2 sigma when including supernovae.

  3. DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    astro-ph.CO 2024-04 accept novelty 7.0

    First-year DESI BAO data are consistent with flat LambdaCDM and, when combined with CMB, show a 2.5-3.9 sigma preference for evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) that strengthens with certain supernova datasets.

  4. $\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM cosmology from a type-II minimally modified gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2024-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Λ_s VCDM is a predictive model combining Λ_s CDM with VCDM gravity via an auxiliary scalar field and sigmoid-smoothed potentials to enable stable mirror AdS-to-dS transitions with possible transient acceleration.

  5. Axion dark matter from extended misalignment with a constant-$\omega_\phi$ pre-oscillatory phase and dark radiation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The extended misalignment model with constant-ω_φ pre-oscillatory phase and dark radiation coupling is constrained by cosmological data to favor negative ω_φ and f_φ in [80, 1.5×10^10] TeV without resolving H0 or S8 tensions.

  6. Axion dark matter from extended misalignment with a constant-$\omega_\phi$ pre-oscillatory phase and dark radiation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Extended misalignment for axion-like particles with constant-ω_ϕ pre-oscillation and dark radiation coupling yields data-driven constraints favoring negative ω_ϕ and f_ϕ in [80, 1.5×10^10] TeV but does not ease cosmol...

  7. Geometric Constraints on the Pre-Recombination Expansion History from the Hubble Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Model-independent reconstruction shows that early-universe modifications resolving the Hubble tension exist at the background level, requiring a smooth ~15% pre-recombination expansion rate enhancement.

  8. Double the axions, half the tension: multi-field early dark energy eases the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Two-field axion-like early dark energy reduces Hubble tension to 1.5 sigma residual and improves high-ell CMB fits over single-field models.

  9. Bounding axion dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    An analytic bound on axion parameters in thawing quintessence is derived independently of initial conditions and used with cosmological observations plus quantum gravity constraints to exclude large regions of axion d...

  10. Model-independent constraints on generalized FLRW consistency relations with bootstrap-based symbolic regression

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Bootstrap-based symbolic regression on supernova and BAO data finds mild 2-4 sigma deviations from FLRW consistency relations, which if real would rule out most FLRW-based solutions to cosmological tensions.

  11. Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new quintessence model with non-minimal coupling produces an effective sign-switching interaction that fits current data better than LambdaCDM or w0waCDM and accounts for late-time dark energy weakening without phan...

  12. Model-independent test of the cosmic distance duality relation with recent observational data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Two model-independent methods applied to latest SN and BAO data find the cosmic distance duality relation consistent with observations within 1 sigma and no evidence of violation.

  13. Sign-Switching Dark Energy: Smooth Transitions with Recent DESI DR2 Observations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Sign-switching dark energy with a transition at z_† fits recent DESI DR2, Planck CMB, and Pantheon+ data better than ΛCDM while raising the inferred Hubble constant and easing the Hubble tension.

  14. Evidence for deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity at cosmological scales with KiDS-Legacy and CMB lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    KiDS-Legacy weak lensing plus CMB data yields a 3 sigma deviation in light deflection from GR in a Lambda CDM background, with the signal driven by large-scale CMB lensing amplitudes.

  15. Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum from relativistic $N$-body Simulations: $\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM versus $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Relativistic N-body simulations of Lambda_s CDM produce a redshift-dependent crest in the matter power spectrum ratio, peaking at 20-25% near the transition and leaving a 15-20% uplift at z=0 on group scales.

  16. Connecting Early Dark Energy to Late Dark Energy by the Diluting Matter Potential

    gr-qc 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A scale-invariant model uses a diluting-matter-dependent potential to connect early and late dark energy via tunneling, alleviating the Hubble tension with best-fit early dark energy fraction ~0.3 at z~5000.

  17. Constraints on Schwarzschild Black Hole in a Generalized Dehnen-Type $(1,4,\gamma)$ Dark Matter Halo via the S2 Star Orbit around Sgr A$^\star$

    gr-qc 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Derives perihelion shift equations for S2 star in generalized Schwarzschild-Dehnen BH-DM spacetime and constrains gamma, rho_s, rs via MCMC on Do et al. and Gillessen et al. datasets.

  18. Negative neutrino mass or negative dark energy?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A sign-switching dark energy model (Λ_s CDM) recovers positive effective neutrino masses (0.055 ± 0.050 eV) consistent with oscillation data, unlike ΛCDM which prefers negative values (-0.075 eV), for DESI DR2 + CMB +...

  19. Study of dark interactions through strong gravitational lenses

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Strong gravitational lensing data from early-type galaxies and Abell 1689 constrain three sign-changeable dark-sector interaction models, yielding negative interaction strengths larger in magnitude than prior probes a...

  20. Cosmological intercept tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Tensions in the supernova intercept a_B at z~0.01 in PantheonPlus and z~0.1 in DES-Y5 point to data systematics or inter-survey inconsistencies rather than new physics, aligning H0 measurements and reducing support fo...

  21. Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Node-based reconstruction of cosmic expansion prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 than smooth DE EoS parametrizations, isolating z~1.5-2 as a window where the latter may compress localized kinematic features permit...

  22. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.

  23. Probing Dynamical Dark Energy with Late-Time Data: Evidence, Tensions, and the Limits of the $w_0w_a$CDM Framework

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Evidence for dynamical dark energy in the w0waCDM framework is strongly dataset-dependent, driven by mismatches in low-redshift BAO distance ratios that produce divergent expansion histories and inconsistent Hubble te...

  24. New constraints on cosmic anisotropy from galaxy clusters using an improved dipole fitting method

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Galaxy cluster observations yield two preferred directions with cosmic anisotropy amplitude of about 5.3 times 10 to the minus 4 at roughly 1 sigma overall significance, though higher in the XMM-Newton subsample.

  25. Revisiting the Matter Creation Process: Observational Constraints on Gravitationally Induced Dark Energy and the Hubble Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0

    Gravitationally induced particle creation models fit cosmological data as well as ΛCDM and reduce the Hubble tension from 4.3σ to 2.4–3σ.

  26. Joint Constraints on Neutrinos and Dynamical Dark Energy in Minimally Modified Gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The w†VCDM model shows a statistically significant preference for late-time quintessence-phantom crossing dark energy, raises the Hubble constant, and satisfies neutrino mass and Neff constraints from current cosmolog...

  27. Cosmological and lunar laser ranging constraints on evolving dark energy in a nonminimally coupled curvature-matter gravity model

    gr-qc 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Nonminimal curvature-matter coupling produces dynamical dark energy consistent with DESI observations and lunar laser ranging equivalence principle constraints.

  28. Nearly Degenerate Majorana Dark Matter and Its Self-Interactions in a Gauged $U(1)_{L_\mu - L_\tau}$ Model

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A gauged U(1)_{Lμ-Lτ} model generates nearly degenerate Majorana dark matter whose self-interactions via a light scalar mediator set the relic density, resolve core-cusp anomalies, and fit LZ direct detection plus muo...

  29. The implications of inflation for the last ACT

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A parameterized slow-roll model and a new exponential f(R) inflation model are constrained by P-ACT-LB-BK18 data, with the latter aligning to the ACT scalar spectral index preference in both standard and EDE frameworks.

  30. Probing late-time deviations from $\Lambda$CDM with a quadratic dark energy expansion

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The QDEE model fits combined cosmological datasets better than Lambda CDM, shifts the Hubble constant higher, and shows strong Bayesian evidence in its favor.

  31. Precision Analysis for $\boldsymbol{H_0}$ Using Upcoming Multi-band Gravitational Wave Observations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Multi-band GW observations of PBHs can reduce H0 uncertainty to ≲2 km/s/Mpc (conservative) or O(0.1) km/s/Mpc (optimistic) via Fisher forecasts on M_PBH and f_PBH.

  32. Testing $\Lambda$CDM with ANN-Reconstructed Expansion History from Cosmic Chronometers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The ANN-reconstructed Hubble parameter H(z) from cosmic chronometers aligns with Lambda CDM predictions within uncertainties.

  33. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and the Vacuum Displacement Principle: From Galactic Scales to Cosmic Fine-Tuning

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A vacuum scalar field with spontaneous symmetry breaking and matter coupling generates Yukawa-corrected gravity that accounts for flat galactic rotation curves and dynamically tracks the cosmological constant.

  34. Buchdahl Limit and TOV Equations in Interacting Vacuum Scenarios

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Interacting vacuum energy relaxes the pressure gradient inside stars, allowing finite central pressure and compactness beyond the Buchdahl bound for suitable coupling strengths.

  35. Impact of the SNe Ia Magnitude Transition at 20 Mpc on Cosmological Parameter Estimation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A 0.19 mag step in supernova absolute magnitude at 20 Mpc improves data fit and increases the Hubble constant by 2% while leaving matter density and dark energy parameters stable.

  36. Probing cosmic anisotropy with galaxy clusters and supernovae

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Analysis of galaxy cluster and supernova data reveals a ~2σ directional variation in the Hubble constant, robust across calibration methods and aligned with the CMB dipole.

  37. Cosmological constraints on the big bang quantum cosmology model

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The JCDM model yields H0 of 66.95 plus or minus 0.51 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m of 0.3419 plus or minus 0.0065 in a flat universe, rising to H0 of 69.13 plus or minus 0.56 with slight positive curvature, fitting late-time d...

  38. Redshift evolution of the Hubble constant: Constraints and new insights from an interacting dark energy model

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Modified IDE model with interaction parameter alpha ~0.01 from late-universe data shows H0 decreasing with redshift, tightening to 10^-5 when CMB priors are added.

  39. Constraints of dynamical dark energy models from different observational datasets

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0

    Bayesian constraints on seven w(a) parameterizations with CMB+BAO+SNIa datasets favor the logarithmic model over LambdaCDM in several combinations and show modest sigma8 relief.

  40. Crosschecking Cosmic Distances from DESI BAO and DES SNe

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0

    Cross-check finds good agreement between DESI BAO and DES SNe distances in transverse measures but a mild, method-dependent decreasing trend in radial distances.

  41. Interacting bosonic dark energy and fermionic dark matter in Einstein scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Models of interacting bosonic dark energy and fermionic dark matter in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with exponential and power-law potentials are dynamically analyzed and constrained by observational data, sho...

  42. Interacting Scalar Fields as Dark Energy and Dark Matter in Einstein scalar Gauss Bonnet Gravity

    gr-qc 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Interacting scalar fields coupled to Gauss-Bonnet gravity yield viable dark energy and dark matter models that match Pantheon+ and DES supernova data while preferring over LambdaCDM at high redshifts with Roman mocks.

  43. Revisiting $\Lambda$CDM extensions in light of re-analyzed CMB data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Re-analysis with PR4 Planck likelihoods reduces lensing anomaly significance and curvature preference in Lambda CDM extensions while indicating a preference for evolving dark energy consistent with DESI.

  44. Cosmic Strings as Dynamical Dark Energy: Novel Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    Cosmic string networks are constrained to less than ~1% of the energy density using CMB+BAO+SN data, with some models preferring mildly negative densities but no Bayesian evidence favoring them over LambdaCDM.

  45. Theoretical and observational constraints on early dark energy in $F(R)$ gravity

    gr-qc 2024-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The work derives background-level constraints showing that potential-driven early dark energy in F(R) gravity is generically excluded by local gravity tests.

  46. Off-diagonal solutions in Einsteingravity modeling f(R) gravity and dynamical darkenergy vs Lambda CDM cosmology

    physics.gen-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Off-diagonal Einstein solutions constructed via the anholonomic frame and connection deformation method can mimic f(R) gravity and dynamical dark energy effects inside GR and Lambda CDM cosmology.

  47. Gravitational particle production, the cosmological tensions and fast radio bursts

    gr-qc 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Gravitational vacuum polarization explains the Hubble tension by increasing direct H0 measurements while leaving indirect ones unaffected, does not impact the sigma8 tension, and predicts FRB measurements match CMB/BA...

  48. The Quintom theory of dark energy after DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    This review traces the history of dynamical dark energy, presents the no-go theorem against single-field crossing of w = -1, and surveys viable Quintom constructions including multi-field models and modified gravity i...

  49. Axions as Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Radiation

    hep-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A mini-review of axion phenomenology showing how light bosons can account for dark matter, drive cosmic acceleration, or contribute to relativistic backgrounds in the early and late Universe.

  50. The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2022-11 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    The Hubble tension between local and early-universe expansion-rate measurements may be resolved by early dark energy that speeds up expansion before recombination while satisfying existing constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 300 canonical work pages · cited by 49 Pith papers · 159 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dutta K, Roy A, Ruchika, Sen A A and Sheikh-Jabbari M M 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 103501 [arXiv:1908.07267]

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Krishnan C, Colg´ ain E O, Ruchika, Sen A A, Sheikh-Jabbari M M and Yang T 2020Phys. Rev. D 102 103525 [arXiv:2002.06044]

    work page arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Li E K, Du M, Zhou Z H, Zhang H and Xu L 2021 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501 4452–4463 [arXiv:1911.12076]

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Renzi F and Silvestri A 2020 [arXiv:2011.10559]

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Nunes R C and Bernui A 2020 Eur. Phys. J. C 80 1025 [arXiv:2008.03259]

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Zhang X and Huang Q G 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 043513 [arXiv:2006.16692]

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Colg´ ain E and Sheikh-Jabbari M M 2021 [arXiv:2101.08565]

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Dom´ ınguez A and Prada F 2013Astrophys. J. Lett. 771 L34 [arXiv:1305.2163]

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    Dom´ ınguez A, Wojtak R, Finke J, Ajello M, Helgason K, Prada F, Desai A, Paliya V, Marcotulli L and Hartmann D 2019 Astrophys. J. 885 137 [arXiv:1903.12097]

    work page arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Qi J Z, Zhao J W, Cao S, Biesiada M and Liu Y 2021Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 503 2179–2186 [arXiv:2011.00713]

    work page arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    Wan J T, Mantz A B, Sayers J, Allen S W, Glenn Morris R and Golwala S R 2021 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504 1062–1076 [arXiv:2101.09389]

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Lin W, Mack K J and Hou L 2020 Astrophys. J. Lett. 904 L22 [arXiv:1910.02978]

    work page arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Efstathiou G 2020 [arXiv:2007.10716]

    work page arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Breuval L, Kervella P, Wielg´ orski P, Gieren W, Graczyk D, Trahin B, Pietrzy´ nski G, Arenou F, Javanmardi B and Zgirski B 2021 The influence of metallicity on the leavitt law from geometrical distances of milky way and magellanic clouds cepheids [arXiv:2103.10894]

    work page arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER) 2017 Nature 551 85–88 [arXiv:1710.05835]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Astrophys

    Mukherjee S, Lavaux G, Bouchet F R, Jasche J, Wandelt B D, Nissanke S M, Leclercq F and In the Realm of the Hubble tension − a Review of Solutions 113 Hotokezaka K 2021 Astron. Astrophys. 646 A65 [arXiv:1909.08627]

    work page arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Gayathri V, Healy J, Lange J, O’Brien B, Szczepanczyk M, Bartos I, Campanelli M, Klimenko S, Lousto C and O’Shaughnessy R 2020 [arXiv:2009.14247]

    work page arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Mukherjee S, Ghosh A, Graham M J, Karathanasis C, Kasliwal M M, Maga˜ na Hernandez I, Nissanke S M, Silvestri A and Wandelt B D 2020 [arXiv:2009.14199]

    work page arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Gayathri V, Healy J, Lange J, O’Brien B, Szczepanczyk M, Bartos I, Campanelli M, Klimenko S, Lousto C O and O’Shaughnessy R 2021 Astrophys. J. Lett. 908 L34

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Ashton G, Ackley K, Hernandez I M n and Piotrzkowski B 2020 [arXiv:2009.12346]

    work page arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Finke A, Foffa S, Iacovelli F, Maggiore M and Mancarella M 2021 [arXiv:2101.12660]

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    ISIS: a new N-body cosmological code with scalar fields based on RAMSES. Code presentation and application to the shapes of clusters

    Llinares C, Mota D F and Winther H A 2014 Astron. Astrophys. 562 A78 [arXiv:1307.6748]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Barrera-Hinojosa C and Li B 2020 JCAP 01 007 [arXiv:1905.08890]

    work page arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Barrera-Hinojosa C and Li B 2020 JCAP 04 056 [arXiv:2001.07968]

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Wu H Y and Huterer D 2017 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471 4946–4955 [arXiv:1706.09723]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Kenworthy W D, Scolnic D and Riess A 2019 Astrophys. J. 875 145 [arXiv:1901.08681]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Lukovi´ c V V, Haridasu B S and Vittorio N 2020 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 491 2075–2087 [arXiv:1907.11219]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Cai R G, Ding J F, Guo Z K, Wang S J and Yu W W 2020 [arXiv:2012.08292]

    work page arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Bahr-Kalus, D.J

    Kalus B, Schwarz D J, Seikel M and Wiegand A 2013 Astron. Astrophys. 553 A56 [arXiv:1212.3691]

    work page arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Bengaly C A P, Bernui A and Alcaniz J S 2015 Astrophys. J. 808 39 [arXiv:1503.01413]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    Bengaly Jr C A P 2016 JCAP 04 036 [arXiv:1510.05545]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Bolejko K, Nazer M A and Wiltshire D L 2016 JCAP 06 035 [arXiv:1512.07364]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Migkas, G

    Migkas K, Schellenberger G, Reiprich T H, Pacaud F, Ramos-Ceja M E and Lovisari L 2020 Astron. Astrophys. 636 A15 [arXiv:2004.03305]

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Andrade U, Bengaly C A P, Santos B and Alcaniz J S 2018 Astrophys. J. 865 119 [arXiv:1806.06990]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Clarkson C and Umeh O 2011 Class. Quant. Grav. 28 164010 [arXiv:1105.1886]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    Heinesen A 2020 [arXiv:2010.06534]

    work page arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Clarkson C, Ellis G F R, Faltenbacher A, Maartens R, Umeh O and Uzan J P 2012 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 426 1121–1136 [arXiv:1109.2484]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  38. [38]

    Adamek J, Clarkson C, Coates L, Durrer R and Kunz M 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 021301 [arXiv:1812.04336]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Macpherson H J and Heinesen A 2021 [arXiv:2103.11918]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Ellis G F R 1984 Fundam. Theor. Phys. 9 215–288

    work page 1984

  41. [41]

    Ellis G F R and Stoeger W 1987 Class. Quant. Grav. 4 1697–1729

    work page 1987

  42. [42]

    Green S R and Wald R M 2014 Class. Quant. Grav. 31 234003 [arXiv:1407.8084]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    Is there proof that backreaction of inhomogeneities is irrelevant in cosmology?

    Buchert T et al. 2015 Class. Quant. Grav. 32 215021 [arXiv:1505.07800]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    Clifton T and Sussman R A 2019 Class. Quant. Grav. 36 205004 [arXiv:1904.02557]

    work page arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Zalaletdinov R M 1992 Gen. Rel. Grav. 24 1015–1031

    work page 1992

  46. [46]

    Zalaletdinov R M 1997 Bull. Astron. Soc. India 25 401–416 [arXiv:gr-qc/9703016]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  47. [47]

    Gasperini M, Marozzi G and Veneziano G 2009 JCAP 03 011 [arXiv:0901.1303]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    Gasperini M, Marozzi G and Veneziano G 2010 JCAP 02 009 [arXiv:0912.3244]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    Korzynski M 2010 Class. Quant. Grav. 27 105015 [arXiv:0908.4593]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  50. [50]

    Gasperini M, Marozzi G, Nugier F and Veneziano G 2011 JCAP 07 008 [arXiv:1104.1167]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    Buchert T 2000 Gen. Rel. Grav. 32 105–125 [arXiv:gr-qc/9906015]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  52. [52]

    Buchert T 2001 Gen. Rel. Grav. 33 1381–1405 [arXiv:gr-qc/0102049]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  53. [53]

    Buchert T and R¨ as¨ anen S 2012Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62 57–79 [arXiv:1112.5335]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Buchert T, Mourier P and Roy X 2020 Gen. Rel. Grav. 52 27 [arXiv:1912.04213]

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Wu W L K, Motloch P, Hu W and Raveri M 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 023510 [arXiv:2004.10207]

    work page arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Bernal J L, Verde L and Riess A G 2016 JCAP 10 019 [arXiv:1607.05617]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

    M¨ ortsell E and Dhawan S 2018JCAP 09 025 [arXiv:1801.07260] In the Realm of the Hubble tension − a Review of Solutions 114

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    Lin M X, Raveri M and Hu W 2019 Phys. Rev. D 99 043514 [arXiv:1810.02333]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Knox L and Millea M 2020 Phys. Rev. D 101 043533 [arXiv:1908.03663]

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Arendseet al., Cosmic dissonance: are new physics or systematics behind a short sound horizon?, Astron

    Arendse N et al. 2020 Astron. Astrophys. 639 A57 [arXiv:1909.07986]

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Jedamzik K, Pogosian L and Zhao G B 2020 [arXiv:2010.04158]

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Bernal J L, Smith T L, Boddy K K and Kamionkowski M 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 123515 [arXiv:2004.07263]

    work page arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Heinesen A, Blake C and Wiltshire D L 2020 JCAP 01 038 [arXiv:1908.11508]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    Efstathiou G 2021 [arXiv:2103.08723]

    work page arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    Evslin J, Sen A A and Ruchika 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 103511 [arXiv:1711.01051]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [66]

    Aylor K, Joy M, Knox L, Millea M, Raghunathan S and Wu W L K 2019 Astrophys. J. 874 4 [arXiv:1811.00537]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    Lin W, Chen X and Mack K J 2021 [arXiv:2102.05701]

    work page arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    Beenakker W and Venhoek D 2021 [arXiv:2101.01372]

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Bernal J L, Verde L, Jimenez R, Kamionkowski M, Valcin D and Wandelt B D 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 103533 [arXiv:2102.05066]

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    Caldwell R R, Doran M, Mueller C M, Schafer G and Wetterich C 2003 Astrophys. J. Lett. 591 L75–L78 [arXiv:astro-ph/0302505]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  71. [71]

    Astrophys

    Bartelmann M, Doran M and Wetterich C 2006 Astron. Astrophys. 454 27–36 [arXiv:astro- ph/0507257]

    work page arXiv 2006

  72. [72]

    Doran M, Karwan K and Wetterich C 2005 JCAP 11 007 [arXiv:astro-ph/0508132]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  73. [73]

    Karwal T and Kamionkowski M 2016 Phys. Rev. D 94 103523 [arXiv:1608.01309]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    Pettorino V, Amendola L and Wetterich C 2013 Phys. Rev. D 87 083009 [arXiv:1301.5279]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  75. [75]

    Sakstein J and Trodden M 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 161301 [arXiv:1911.11760]

    work page arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    Gogoi A, Sharma R K, Chanda P and Das S 2020 [arXiv:2005.11889]

    work page arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Fardon R, Nelson A E and Weiner N 2004 JCAP 10 005 [arXiv:astro-ph/0309800]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  78. [78]

    Kaplan D B, Nelson A E and Weiner N 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 091801 [arXiv:hep-ph/0401099]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  79. [79]

    Peccei R D 2005 Phys. Rev. D 71 023527 [arXiv:hep-ph/0411137]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  80. [80]

    Tian S X and Zhu Z H 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 043518 [arXiv:2102.06399]

    work page arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.