pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21670 · v2 · pith:523YFM2Knew · submitted 2026-04-23 · ✦ hep-ex · hep-ph

Effective field theory interpretation of ATLAS measurements involving the Higgs boson, electroweak bosons and the top quark

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-04 22:09 UTC · model glm-5.2

classification ✦ hep-ex hep-ph PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k98.80.Es
keywords atlascoefficientseffectiveelectroweakfieldtheorywilsoncombined
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sparseness scale in dark sector models favored by cosmological data

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

This paper introduces three nonlinear models for an interacting dark sector — where dark matter and dark energy exchange energy through a coupling beyond gravity — governed by a new parameter called the sparseness scale ζ. The parameter is borrowed from saturation mechanisms in ecology and enzyme kinetics (Michaelis-Menten, Lotka-Volterra): it caps the effective interaction strength as matter density evolves, preventing unbounded energy transfer. The authors perform a dynamical systems analysis showing that ζ reshapes the phase-space of cosmological evolution, can shift stationary points, and can eliminate unphysical solutions that arise in simpler linear coupling models. They then confront the three models (called Q₁, Q₂, Q₃) with late-time cosmological observations — supernovae, cosmic chronometers, baryon acoustic oscillations from DESI DR2, and redshift-space distortion measurements of structure growth — using Bayesian inference. For two of the three models (Q₁ and Q₃), the data favor a nonzero sparseness scale at 68% confidence across all dataset combinations. The models achieve systematically lower chi-squared values than ΛCDM, but when penalized for their extra parameters via Akaike and Bayesian evidence criteria, they remain statistically indistinguishable from the standard cosmological model. No significant departure from ΛCDM is established, but the data do not exclude a nonzero coupling with saturation.

Core claim

The sparseness scale ζ — a saturation parameter limiting the dark matter–dark energy interaction strength, analogous to half-saturation constants in ecological population dynamics — is favored to be nonzero at 68% confidence for two of three proposed nonlinear interacting dark sector models (Q₁ and Q₃), across all combinations of supernovae, BAO, cosmic chronometer, and growth-of-structure data. The parameter also serves a structural role: it reshapes the cosmological phase-space and can remove unphysical fixed points admitted by linear interaction models. However, Bayesian evidence does not distinguish these models from ΛCDM once the additional parameters are penalized.

What carries the argument

The central object is the sparseness scale ζ, introduced into three nonlinear interaction functions Q₁, Q₂, Q₃ that modify the standard conservation equations for dark matter and dark energy. Each interaction function takes the form of a saturating coupling: the energy exchange rate is proportional to the coupling strength α but divided by a term (3ζ² + ρ) that limits the transfer when the energy density is small. When ζ → 0, models Q₁ and Q₂ reduce to previously studied linear interactions. The analysis uses Hubble-normalized dynamical variables to study the phase-space, and Bayesian nested sampling (PolyChord) with Cobaya to constrain six parameters (H₀, Ω_m0, r_drag, α₀, Δ, σ₈₀) against S

If this is right

  • If the sparseness scale is physically real, dark matter and dark energy are not independent fluids but exchange energy through a saturating channel — a coupling that weakens at low densities, which would alter predictions for structure growth at late times and potentially affect the Hubble tension.
  • The saturation mechanism could cure early-time perturbation instabilities that plague linear interacting dark energy models; if verified at the perturbation level, these models would become viable alternatives to ΛCDM with testable CMB signatures.
  • The nonzero ζ preference at 68% CI, while not decisive, suggests that current growth-of-structure data (fσ₈) may already carry information about dark sector coupling that is degenerate with σ₈ and Ω_m in the standard model.
  • If future DESI or Euclid data tighten constraints on ζ, the sparseness scale could become a discriminating parameter between interacting and non-interacting dark energy scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The perturbation equations for the interacting dark sector are assumed stable, but this is not verified. The authors explicitly state they plan to investigate stability in future work. Linear interacting models are known to suffer from early-time perturbation instabilities, and if the nonlinear saturation mechanism does not cure these, the observational constraints using growth-of-structure data (fσ₈) would be invalid because the perturbation growth equations may not hold.

What would settle it

A perturbation-level analysis showing that these nonlinear models still suffer from early-time instabilities would invalidate the growth-of-structure constraints and likely eliminate the nonzero ζ preference, since the fσ₈ data drive the tighter constraints.

read the original abstract

Wilson coefficients in dimension-six effective field theory are constrained in a combined fit to several ATLAS measurements. These inputs probe Higgs-boson processes across multiple production and decay modes, di-Higgs signatures in the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ and $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$ final states, $WW$ and $WZ$ diboson signatures, electroweak $Zjj$ final states, high-mass Drell-Yan interactions, and $t \bar t$ events in both resolved and boosted topologies. Precision electroweak observables from LEP, SLD, and ATLAS are also included. A total of 48 parameters, including individual Wilson coefficients in the Warsaw basis and linear combinations of Wilson coefficients, are constrained simultaneously. Constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models and heavy-vector-boson models are also obtained by matching a relevant sub-set of the results with their parameters. This combined fit provides the most comprehensive effective field theory interpretation of experimental data by the ATLAS Collaboration to date. No significant deviations from the Standard Model are observed.

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

4 major / 9 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces three nonlinear interacting dark sector models (Q1, Q2, Q3) characterized by a 'sparseness scale' parameter ζ, motivated by analogy to saturating interaction terms in ecological kinetics (Michaelis-Menten, Holling type). The authors perform a dynamical systems (phase-space) analysis of the background equations using Hubble normalization, finding that ζ influences the location and stability of fixed points. They then confront the models with late-time cosmological data (SNIa from three catalogues, cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 BAO, and RSD fσ8 measurements) using Cobaya/PolyChord, constraining six parameters per model and comparing to ΛCDM via AIC and Bayesian evidence. The main findings are that ζ is favored to be nonzero at 68% CI for Q1 and Q3 across data combinations, while the models are generally statistically indistinguishable from ΛCDM on Jeffrey's scale. The authors explicitly note that perturbation-level stability analysis is deferred to future work.

Significance. The introduction of a saturating interaction term is a reasonable phenomenological extension of the interacting dark energy framework, and the combination of phase-space analysis with multi-catalogue observational constraints using established tools (Cobaya, PolyChord) represents a competent execution. The compactification of ζ and the redefinition of the coupling as α0 to reduce parameter degeneracy are sensible technical choices. The honest acknowledgment that perturbation stability is unverified is appropriate. However, the significance is limited by the phenomenological nature of the model (no derivation from an underlying action), the absence of explicit perturbation equations for the specific interaction terms, and the fact that the observational improvements over ΛCDM are marginal on standard information criteria.

major comments (4)
  1. §4, Eqs. (10)–(11) and surrounding text: The observational constraints use fσ8 data, which probe the growth of matter perturbations δ(k,z). However, the perturbation equations for the specific interaction terms Q1–Q3 (Eqs. 17–19) are never written out explicitly; the authors only state that 'the perturbation equation for the dark matter [...] and for the Baryons are presented in [104]' (the Amendola & Tsujikawa textbook). Since the interaction terms are nonlinear and model-specific, it is essential to state which exact perturbation equations were implemented in the custom Cobaya theory code. In particular, the treatment of the dark energy pressure perturbation δp_de and the rest-frame sound speed c_s^2 for these interacting models must be specified, as different gauge choices or parametrizations (e.g., c_s^2 = 1 vs. c_s^2 = w_de) can significantly affect fσ8 predictions. This is load-ba
  2. §2.1 and §5: The authors claim that the sparseness scale 'reinforces the stability of the cosmological dynamics' (§2.1), but the phase-space analysis of §3 only addresses the stability of fixed points of the autonomous background system. Background-level stability does not guarantee perturbation-level stability. The authors acknowledge this in §5 ('In a future work we plan to extend this study to the perturbation level, in order to investigate whether the models are free of instabilities'). This is a load-bearing gap because the fσ8 likelihood assumes well-behaved perturbation growth. If gradient or tachyonic instabilities exist in the redshift range z ∈ [0, 2] probed by the RSD data, the growth predictions used in the likelihood would be invalid. The manuscript should at minimum: (a) state explicitly that the perturbation equations used assume stability, (b) discuss what is known about
  3. §4, Table I and surrounding text: The parameter α0 is defined differently for each model (α0 = 3αΩ_de0/(ζ+Ω_de0) for Q1, etc.), and ζ is compactified as ζ = Δ/√(1−Δ²). However, the physical interpretation of α0 is not consistent across models, and the relationship between the sign of α0 and the direction of energy transfer is not clarified. For Q1 and Q3, α0 > 0 is reported (Tables II, IV), but for Q2, α0 has only an upper limit (Table III). The manuscript should clarify whether positive α0 corresponds to energy transfer from dark energy to dark matter or vice versa for each model, and whether the different constraint behavior (lower bound vs. upper bound) reflects a genuine physical difference or a parametrization artifact.
  4. §4, Tables II–IV: The Δ(AIC) and Δ(lnZ) values reported are small (|Δ(AIC)| ≤ 2.7 for Q1, ≤ 1.7 for Q2, ≤ 3.1 for Q3; |Δ(lnZ)| ≤ 1 for most cases). Given that the interacting models have 6 free parameters versus 4 for ΛCDM, and the improvements in χ²_min are modest (Δχ²_min ~ 2–7), the claim that 'late-time cosmological data may support interacting dark sector models with a saturation mechanism' (§5) is stronger than what the statistical evidence supports. The authors should temper this conclusion to match the evidence levels on both the Akaike and Jeffrey's scales, which indicate the models are statistically indistinguishable from ΛCDM in most configurations.
minor comments (9)
  1. §2, Eqs. (2)–(4): The notation uses ρ_b, ρ_dm, ρ_de but the Bianchi identity (Eq. 4) uses dot notation (ρ̇_b + ρ_dm + ρ_de)· that is unclear — it appears to be (ρ̇_b + ρ̇_dm + ρ̇_de) + 3H(...). Please clarify the notation.
  2. §3.1: The eigenvalues for points A0, A1, A2 are given in running text without equation numbers. Consider numbering them for ease of reference.
  3. §4: The text mentions 'the f and fσ8 data' as separate datasets (e.g., 'CC+BAO+f+fσ8'), but it is unclear what 'f' alone refers to versus 'fσ8'. Please clarify the distinction between the 'f' and 'fσ8' data compilations and cite the specific sources for each.
  4. Tables II–IV: The S8,0 column header appears without definition in the text. S8,0 = σ8,0 √(Ω_m0/0.3) is mentioned only in passing in §4.1. Please define it explicitly in the table caption or preceding text.
  5. §4: The prior on α0 is [−1, 1] (Table I), but for Q1 and Q3 the posterior lower bounds on Δ imply ζ > 0.38–0.55, which via the compactification ζ = Δ/√(1−Δ²) gives ζ > 0.41–0.73. The physical range of ζ and whether the prior on Δ ∈ [0,1) adequately covers the posterior should be discussed.
  6. Figures 1–6: Axis labels are rendered as symbols that are difficult to parse (likely OCR artifacts). Please ensure all figure axes have clearly typeset labels in the final version.
  7. §5: 'In a future work we plan to extend this study to the perturbation level' — this is an important caveat that should also be stated as a limitation in the abstract or §4, not only in the conclusions.
  8. Reference [103] (Escobal et al., arXiv:2602.11310) and several others have 2026 dates that appear to be preprints. Please verify all arXiv identifiers and publication statuses.
  9. §4: 'Jeffrey's' scale' is written with an apostrophe-s in some places and as 'Jeffrey's scale' in others. Standardize to 'Jeffreys scale' (after Harold Jeffreys).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. We address each major comment below and agree that several points require revision of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4, Eqs. (10)–(11): The perturbation equations for the specific interaction terms Q1–Q3 are never written out explicitly; the treatment of δp_de and the rest-frame sound speed c_s^2 must be specified, as different choices can significantly affect fσ8 predictions.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the perturbation equations implemented in the custom Cobaya theory code are not stated explicitly in the manuscript, and this is a genuine gap that must be filled. We will add an appendix (or a dedicated subsection in §4) writing out the full linearized perturbation equations for the dark matter and dark energy density contrasts and velocity divergences for each interaction term Q1–Q3, in the Newtonian gauge. Specifically, the interaction term Q enters the dark matter and dark energy continuity equations at the perturbation level as δQ = Q̃_de δρ_de + Q̃_dm δρ_dm (with model-specific coefficients), and we will state these explicitly. Regarding the dark energy pressure perturbation: in our implementation we adopt the standard parametrization for a barotropic fluid with constant equation-of-state parameter w_de = −1, for which δp_de = w_de δρ_de + δw_de ρ_de. Since w_de is held fixed at −1, δw_de = 0, and thus δp_de = −δρ_de. The rest-frame sound speed is taken as c_s^2 = w_de = −1 in the dark energy rest frame, which is the standard choice for a cosmological-constant-like fluid with a constant equation of state. We acknowledge that alternative choices (e.g., c_s^2 = 1) would modify the clustering behavior of the dark energy component; however, since w_de = −1 implies that the dark energy density is effectively constant in the background, the contribution of dark energy perturbations to the growth of total matter perturbations is subdominant. We will state all of this explicitly in the revised manuscript and note the caveat that the choice of c_s^2 could affect the fσ8 predictions at a level that has not been quantified in this work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §2.1 and §5: The claim that the sparseness scale 'reinforces the stability of the cosmological dynamics' is only supported at the background level. Perturbation-level stability is not verified, and the fσ8 likelihood assumes well-behaved perturbation growth. The manuscript should state this explicitly and discuss what is known.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the statement in §2.1 about stability reinforcement refers exclusively to the background autonomous system, and that this does not guarantee perturbation-level stability. This is an important distinction that we will make explicit in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we will: (a) add a clarifying sentence in §2.1 stating that the stability analysis of §3 pertains only to the fixed points of the background dynamical system and does not constitute a perturbation-level stability analysis; (b) add a discussion in §4 noting that the fσ8 likelihood assumes the absence of gradient or tachyonic instabilities in the redshift range z ∈ [0, 2] probed by the RSD data, and that if such instabilities were present, the growth predictions would be invalid; (c) note that for interacting dark energy models with constant w_de = −1 and the specific nonlinear saturation structure of Q1–Q3, the dark energy perturbations are expected to be suppressed relative to the matter perturbations, but a rigorous perturbation-level stability analysis (e.g., checking the sign of the effective sound speed squared in the dark sector) is deferred to future work, as already acknowledged in §5. We cannot, at present, provide a complete perturbation-level stability proof for these models, and we will state this limitation honestly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §4, Table I and surrounding text: The physical interpretation of α0 is not consistent across models, and the relationship between the sign of α0 and the direction of energy transfer is not clarified. The different constraint behavior (lower bound vs. upper bound for Q2) should be explained.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid point. We will add a clarifying paragraph in §4 explaining the following. For all three models, the sign convention follows from Eq. (10): a positive interaction function Q > 0 corresponds to energy transfer from dark energy to dark matter, and Q < 0 corresponds to transfer from dark matter to dark energy. The parameter α0 is a redefinition of the coupling α designed to reduce degeneracy with ζ; its sign directly controls the sign of Q at the present epoch. Thus, α0 > 0 (as found for Q1 and Q3) indicates energy transfer from dark energy to dark matter today. For Q2, the data provide only an upper limit on α0, meaning the coupling is consistent with zero but with a slight preference for positive values; the different constraint behavior (lower bound for Q1 and Q3 vs. upper limit for Q2) reflects a genuine physical difference in how each model's interaction term responds to the data, not merely a parametrization artifact. The different functional forms of Q1–Q3 lead to different dependencies of the growth rate fσ8 on the coupling, and the data therefore constrain the parameters differently. We will make this explicit in the revised text. revision: yes

  4. Referee: §4, Tables II–IV: Given the small Δ(AIC) and Δ(lnZ) values and the modest χ² improvements, the conclusion that 'late-time cosmological data may support interacting dark sector models with a saturation mechanism' is stronger than what the statistical evidence supports.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The statistical evidence on both the Akaike and Jeffrey's scales indicates that the models are, in most configurations, statistically indistinguishable from ΛCDM. The improvements in χ²_min are modest and do not overcome the penalty for the additional parameters in the majority of cases. We will revise the conclusion in §5 to read more cautiously, replacing the current statement with language such as: 'The observational constraints show a mild preference for nonzero sparseness parameter ζ in models Q1 and Q3 at the 68% CI level, and the models provide modest improvements in χ²_min relative to ΛCDM. However, on both the Akaike and Jeffrey's scales, the models remain statistically indistinguishable from ΛCDM in most data configurations. We therefore conclude that while the data do not rule out interacting dark sector models with a saturation mechanism, they do not provide decisive evidence in favor of them over ΛCDM.' This accurately reflects the evidence levels reported in Tables II–IV. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The paper introduces phenomenological interacting dark sector models (Eqs. 17-19), performs a self-contained phase-space analysis (§3) deriving fixed points and stability from the autonomous system, and constrains parameters via standard Bayesian inference (§4). The parameter α₀ is a reparametrization for sampling, not a circular definition. The 'nonzero ζ' finding is a genuine fit result from data, not a quantity forced by construction. Derived quantities (S₈, growth index γ) are computed from fitted parameters in the standard way. The one self-citation [84] (Paliathanasis et al.) provides motivation for the ecological analogy but is not load-bearing for any mathematical claim or uniqueness theorem. Perturbation equations are referenced to an external textbook [104]. The acknowledged gap in perturbation-level stability is a correctness/completeness concern, not circularity. No step reduces to its inputs by definition or by self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces one genuinely new parameter (ζ/Δ) and three new interaction functional forms. The remaining free parameters are standard cosmological parameters. The critical ad hoc axiom is the assumed stability of perturbations, which is unverified but load-bearing for the fσ8 constraints.

free parameters (7)
  • H0 = 67.2-68.6 km/s/Mpc
    Hubble constant, constrained from data
  • Ωm0 = 0.269-0.338
    Present dark matter density, constrained from data
  • rdrag = 147.1-147.3 Mpc
    Sound horizon at baryon drag epoch, constrained from data
  • α0 = varies by model and dataset
    Redefined interaction parameter, constrained from data
  • Δ (compactified ζ) = lower bounds 0.38-0.55 for Q1/Q3; upper bounds for Q2
    Sparseness scale parameter, the paper's new parameter, constrained from data
  • σ8,0 = 0.781-0.810
    Normalization of matter fluctuations, constrained from data
  • wde = -1
    Dark energy equation of state, fixed to -1 (cosmological constant) rather than constrained
axioms (6)
  • standard math FLRW metric describes the late-time universe
    Standard cosmological assumption, §2
  • domain assumption Spatial flatness
    Assumed in Eq. 1, standard but constraining
  • domain assumption Dark energy EoS w_de is constant
    Stated in §2.1: 'we perform the analysis under the assumption that the dark energy equation of state parameter w_de is constant'
  • domain assumption Baryons interact with remaining fluids through gravity only
    Stated in §5, affects perturbation equations
  • ad hoc to paper Perturbation equations for the interacting sector are stable
    Used implicitly in §4 for fσ8 constraints, but explicitly flagged as unverified in §5: 'we plan to extend this study to the perturbation level, in order to investigate whether the models are free of instabilities'
  • domain assumption Ω_b0 from Planck 2018
    Fixed external input, §4
invented entities (1)
  • Sparseness scale parameter ζ independent evidence
    purpose: Controls saturation of dark matter-dark energy interaction strength
    The parameter is phenomenological, not a new physical entity. It makes falsifiable predictions: nonzero ζ is testable against future data, and the phase-space structure changes with ζ. However, no independent theoretical derivation or non-cosmological evidence supports its existence.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 22026 in / 2303 out tokens · 209554 ms · 2026-07-04T22:09:54.213168+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages · 30 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    sparseness scale

    INTERACTING DARK SECTOR WITH A SPARSENESS SCALE In the standard cosmological scenario, dark matter and dark energy are assumed to evolve independently and to interact only gravitationally. Within the framework of a spatially flat and FLRW geometry with line element ��2 =��� 2 +� 2 (�) � ��2 +�� 2 +�� 2� �(1) the cosmological field equations are 1 3� 2 =� ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    PHASE-SPACE ANALYSIS Within the framework of the Hubble normalization we introduce new dimensionless dependent variables � = �� 3� 2 �٠� = �� 3� 2 �٠� = �� 3� 2 �(20) and a new independent variable�= ln�. 3.1. Interacting ModelQ � The cosmological field equations for the interacting model� � are expressed into the equivalent form �� �� = 3�� �+ ٠� ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    In order to avoid the appearance of ghosts, we introduce the constraint 0� � � � � � +� � �1. The point� 2 is governed by the sparsity parameter�and is the point which describes the change of sign of the evolution equation for Ω � , as described before and demonstrated in Fig. 1. Using the constraint (24), we eliminate Ω� and reduce the system to the two-...

    work page

  4. [4]

    For the sampling algorithm, we employ the PolyChord nested sampler [92, 93], which makes a direct derivation of the Bayesian evidence ln�

    OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRAINTS For our analysis and the comparison of the theoretical predictions with the cosmological data, we make use of the Bayesian inference framework Cobaya2 [90, 91], with a custom theory for the derivation of the theoretical observables. For the sampling algorithm, we employ the PolyChord nested sampler [92, 93], which makes a direct ...

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Specifically, we introduced three nonlinear interacting models, namely� � ,� � and� � which depend on the new sparseness scale parameter�

    CONCLUSIONS In this work we introduced cosmological models which describe an interacting dark sector with a saturation mech- anism, which controls the energy exchange between dark matter and dark energy. Specifically, we introduced three nonlinear interacting models, namely� � ,� � and� � which depend on the new sparseness scale parameter�. In the limit w...

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Amendola, Phys

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

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Cai and A

    R.-G. Cai and A. Wang, JCAP03, 002 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Amendola, G

    L. Amendola, G. C. Campos, and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D75, 083506 (2007)

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    N. Cruz, S. Lepe, and F. Pena, Phys. Lett. B663, 338 (2008)

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    M. S. Berger and H. Shojaei, Phys. Rev. D73, 083528 (2006), gr-qc/0601086

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    Interacting models may be key to solve the cosmic coincidence problem

    S. del Campo, R. Herrera, and D. Pavon, JCAP01, 020 (2009), 0812.2210

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    M. K. Sharma and S. Sur, Phys. Dark Univ.40, 101192 (2023), 2112.14017

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Gao, S.-S

    L.-Y. Gao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, Chinese Phys. C48, 051001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 036901 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Giare, Phys

    W. Giare, Phys. Rev. D109, 123545 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, L. A. Escamilla, and E. Di Valentino,Kinetic model for dark energy - dark matter interaction: Scenario for the hubble tension(2024), 2404.15977

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Pan and W

    S. Pan and W. Yang, inThe Hubble Constant Tension, edited by E. Di Valentino and D. Brout (Springer, Singapore, 2024), Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Can interacting dark energy solve the $H_0$ tension?

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D96, 043503 (2017), 1704.08342

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100666 (2020), 1908.04281

    work page arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Lucca, Phys

    M. Lucca, Phys. Dark Univ.34, 100899 (2021), 2105.09249

    work page arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Simon, T

    T. Simon, T. Adi, J. L. Bernal, E. D. Kovetz, V. Poulin, and T. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. D111, 023523 (2025), 2410.21459

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.124, 925 (1961)

    work page 1961

  23. [23]

    C. H. Brans, Phys. Rev.125, 2194 (1962)

    work page 1962

  24. [24]

    E. E. Flanagan, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 3817 (2004), gr-qc/0403063

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  25. [25]

    On the action of the complete Brans-Dicke theory

    G. Kofinas and M. Tsoukalas, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 686 (2016), 1512.04786

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Equivalence of the Einstein and Jordan frames

    M. Postma and M. Volponi, Phys. Rev. D90, 103516 (2014), 1407.6874

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Gionti S

    G. Gionti S. J. and M. Galaverni, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 265 (2024), 2310.09539. 17

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Conformally related metrics and Lagrangians and their physical interpretation in cosmology

    M. Tsamparlis, A. Paliathanasis, S. Basilakos, and S. Capozziello, Gen. Rel. Grav.45, 2003 (2013), 1307.6694

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  29. [29]

    D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D81, 084044 (2010), 1003.1159

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    J. M. Salim and S. L. Sautu, Classical and Quantum Gravity13, 353 (1996)

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    M. Y. Konstantinov and V. N. Melnikov, International Journal of Modern Physics D4, 339 (1995)

    work page 1995

  32. [32]

    Romero, J

    C. Romero, J. B. Fonseca-Neto, and M. L. Pucheu, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 155015 (2012)

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Novello and H

    M. Novello and H. Heintzmann, Physics Letters A98, 10 (1983)

    work page 1983

  34. [34]

    New insights on the matter-gravity coupling paradigm

    T. Delsate and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 021101 (2012), 1201.4989

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Csillag and E

    L. Csillag and E. Jensko (2025), 2505.15975

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Wazny, L

    M. Wazny, L. Csillag, M. A. S. Pinto, and T. Harko (2025), 2511.16304

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Sutiono, A

    A. Sutiono, A. Suroso, and F. P. Zen, Int. J. Theor. Phys.63, 187 (2024), 2407.21380

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Paliathanasis, Annals Phys.468, 169724 (2024), 2407.05042

    A. Paliathanasis, Annals Phys.468, 169724 (2024), 2407.05042

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    A. B. Balakin and A. F. Shakirzyanov, Phys. Dark Univ.24, 100283 (2019), 1804.10054

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Bojowald and E

    M. Bojowald and E. I. Duque, Phys. Rev. D109, 084006 (2024), 2311.10693

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    A Non-minimally Coupled Quintom Dark Energy Model on the Warped DGP Brane

    K. Nozari, M. R. Setare, T. Azizi, and N. Behrouz, Phys. Scripta80, 025901 (2009), 0810.1427

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

    Paliathanasis, Class

    A. Paliathanasis, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 195014 (2020), 2003.05342

    work page arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    I. V. Fomin, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.918, 012009 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Gauss-Bonnet Chameleon Mechanism of Dark Energy

    Y. Ito and S. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D79, 103008 (2009), 0904.0367

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    Paliathanasis, Gen

    A. Paliathanasis, Gen. Rel. Grav.56, 84 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    M. K. Dutta and B. Modak, Int. J. Theor. Phys.54, 2591 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    Sheikhahmadi, A

    H. Sheikhahmadi, A. Mohammadi, A. Aghamohammadi, T. Harko, R. Herrera, C. Corda, A. Abebe, and K. Saaidi, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 1038 (2019)

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 171104 (2004)

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D69, 044026 (2004)

    work page 2004

  50. [50]

    Combined cosmological and solar system constraints on chameleon mechanism

    A. Hees and A. Fuzfa, Phys. Rev. D85, 103005 (2012), 1111.4784

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    Direct detection of solar chameleons with electron recoil data from XENONnT

    G.-W. Yuan, A.-C. Davis, M. Giannotti, S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli, and J. K. Vogel (2025), 2511.01655

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Negrelli, L

    C. Negrelli, L. Kraiselburd, S. J. Landau, and M. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D101, 064005 (2020), 2002.12073

    work page arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Burrage and J

    C. Burrage and J. Sakstein, Living Reviews in Relativity21, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino,I. Linear Interacting Dark Energy: Analytical Solutions and Theoretical Pathologies(2025), 2509.04495

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino,II. Non-Linear Interacting Dark Energy: Analytical Solutions and Theoretical Pathologies(2025), 2509.04494

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino,III. Interacting Dark Energy: Summary of Models, Pathologies, and Constraints(2025), 2509.04496

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Observational constraints on an interacting dark energy model

    J. Valiviita, R. Maartens, and E. Majerotto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402, 2355 (2010), 0907.4987

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  58. [58]

    C. G. Boehmer, G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Lazkoz, and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D78, 023505 (2008), 0801.1565

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  59. [59]

    Large-scale instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids

    J. Valiviita, E. Majerotto, and R. Maartens, JCAP07, 020 (2008), 0804.0232

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  60. [61]

    Z. Zhu, Q. Jiang, Y. Liu, P. Wu, and N. Liang (2025), 2511.16032

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    Alleviating the $H_0$ tension through the interacting dark energy model from quantum gravitational field theory in light of DESI DR2

    Y.-M. Zhang, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, S.-H. Zhou, L.-Y. Gao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang (2025), 2510.12627

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [63]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, Y. Li, J.-L. Ling, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang (2025), 2510.11363

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [64]

    Petri, V

    V. Petri, V. Marra, and R. von Marttens (2025), 2508.17955

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [65]

    Z. C. Santana J´ unior, M. O. Costa, R. F. L. Holanda, and R. Silva, Phys. Rev. D109, 123542 (2024), 2405.15726

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [66]

    Li and X

    Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang (2025), 2506.18477

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [67]

    S. Pan, S. Paul, E. N. Saridakis, and W. Yang (2025), 2504.00994

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [68]

    Silva, M

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), 2503.23225

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [69]

    W. Yang, S. Zhang, O. Mena, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino (2025), 2508.19109

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [70]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102306 (2026), 2601.02789

    work page arXiv 2026

  70. [71]

    Y. Zhai, M. de Cesare, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, and E. Wilson-Ewing, JCAP11, 010 (2025), 2503.15659

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [72]

    van der Westhuizen, D

    M. van der Westhuizen, D. Figueruelo, R. Thubisi, S. Sahlu, A. Abebe, and A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102107 (2025), 2505.23306

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [73]

    Sahlu, A

    S. Sahlu, A. Paliathanasis, G. Leon, and A. Abebe, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102280 (2026), 2603.16533

    work page arXiv 2026

  73. [74]

    R. Shah, A. Dey, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal (2026), 2603.24554

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  74. [75]

    Benisty, S

    D. Benisty, S. Pan, D. Staicova, E. Di Valentino, and R. C. Nunes, Astron. Astrophys.688, A156 (2024), 2403.00056

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [76]

    Y. Zhai, W. Giar` e, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP07, 032 (2023), 2303.08201

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [77]

    Bonilla, S

    A. Bonilla, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, and S. Pan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 4231 (2022), 2102.06149

    work page arXiv 2022

  77. [78]

    Cosmology of Inelastic Self-Interacting Dark Matter: Linear Evolution and Observational Constraints

    X.-C. Duan, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and Z. Wang (2026), 2604.15006

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [79]

    Califano, I

    M. Califano, I. De Martino, and R. Lazkoz, Phys. Rev. D110, 083519 (2024), 2410.06152

    work page arXiv 2024

  79. [80]

    Giar` e, Y

    W. Giar` e, Y. Zhai, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, and C. van de Bruck, Phys. Rev. D110, 063527 (2024), 2404.02110

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [81]

    Silva, G

    E. Silva, G. Hartmann, and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D113, 063548 (2026), 2512.11678

    work page arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.