- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Alleviating cosmological tensions with a hybrid dark sector

Elsa M. Teixeira1,*, Gaspard Poulot2,†, Carsten van de Bruck2,‡, Eleonora Di Valentino2,§, and Vivian Poulin1,∥

  • *Contact author: elsa.teixeira@umontpellier.fr
  • †Contact author: gmpoulot1@sheffield.ac.uk
  • ‡Contact author: c.vandebruck@sheffield.ac.uk
  • §Contact author: e.divalentino@sheffield.ac.uk
  • ∥Contact author: vivian.poulin@umontpellier.fr
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 023514 – Published 9 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/9lf2-33zf

Abstract

We investigate a cosmological model inspired by hybrid inflation, where two scalar fields representing dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM) interact through a coupling that is proportional to the DE scalar field 1/ϕ. The strength of the coupling is governed solely by the initial condition of the scalar field, ϕi, which parametrizes deviations from the standard Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model. In this model, the scalar field tracks the behavior of DM during matter domination until it transitions to DE while the DM component decays quicker than standard CDM during matter domination, and is therefore different from some interacting DM-DE models which behave like phantom dark energy. Using Planck 2018 CMB data, Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument baryonic acoustic oscillations measurements and Pantheon+supernova observations, we find that the model allows for an increase in H0 that can help reduce the Hubble tension. In addition, we find that higher values of the coupling parameter are correlated with lower values of ωm, and a mild decrease of the weak-lensing parameter S8, potentially relevant to address the S8 tension. Bayesian model comparison, however, reveals inconclusive results for most datasets, unless SH0ES data are included, in which case a moderate evidence in favor of the hybrid model is found.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (108)

  1. P. J. E. Peebles, Cosmology’s Century: An Inside History of Our Modern Understanding of the Universe (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2022).
  2. Gianfranco Bertone, Dan Hooper, and Joseph Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rep. 405, 279 (2005).
  3. David J. E. Marsh, Axion cosmology, Phys. Rep. 643, 1 (2016).
  4. David J. E. Marsh, David Ellis, and Viraf M. Mehta, Dark Matter: Evidence, Theory, and Constraints, Princeton Series in Astrophysics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2024).
  5. Luca Amendola and Shinji Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Observations (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2015).
  6. Jerome Martin, Everything you always wanted to know about the cosmological constant problem (but were afraid to ask), C.R. Phys. 13, 566 (2012).
  7. L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Tensions between the early and the late universe, Nat. Astron. 3, 891 (2019).
  8. Eleonora Di Valentino et al., Snowmass2021—Letter of interest cosmology intertwined II: The Hubble constant tension, Astropart. Phys. 131, 102605 (2021).
  9. Elcio Abdalla et al., Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies, J. High Energy Astrophys. 34, 49 (2022).
  10. Eleonora Di Valentino et al. (CosmoVerse Network Collaboration), The CosmoVerse white paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Phys. Dark Universe 49, 101965 (2025).
  11. Adam G. Riess et al., A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the Hubble constant with 1  km s−1 Mpc−1 uncertainty from the Hubble space telescope and the SH0ES team, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022).
  12. Yukei S. Murakami, Adam G. Riess, Benjamin E. Stahl, W. D’Arcy Kenworthy, Dahne-More A. Pluck, Antonella Macoretta, Dillon Brout, David O. Jones, Dan M. Scolnic, and Alexei V. Filippenko, Leveraging SN Ia spectroscopic similarity to improve the measurement of H0, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2023) 046.
  13. Louise Breuval, Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M. Macri, Martino Romaniello, Yukei S. Murakami, Daniel Scolnic, Gagandeep S. Anand, and Igor Soszyński, Small magellanic cloud cepheids observed with the Hubble space telescope provide a new anchor for the SH0ES distance ladder, Astrophys. J. 973, 30 (2024).
  14. Richard I. Anderson, Nolan W. Koblischke, and Laurent Eyer, Small-amplitude red giants elucidate the nature of the tip of the red giant branch as a standard candle, Astrophys. J. Lett. 963, L43 (2024).
  15. D. Scolnic, A. G. Riess, J. Wu, S. Li, G. S. Anand, R. Beaton, S. Casertano, R. I. Anderson, S. Dhawan, and X. Ke, CATS: The Hubble constant from standardized TRGB and Type Ia supernova measurements, Astrophys. J. Lett. 954, L31 (2023).
  16. Syed A. Uddin et al., Carnegie supernova project I and II: Measurements of H0 using cepheid, tip of the red giant branch, and surface brightness fluctuation distance calibration to type Ia supernovae, Astrophys. J. 970, 72 (2024).
  17. Caroline D. Huang et al., The mira distance to M101 and a 4% measurement of H0, Astrophys. J. 963, 83 (2024).
  18. Siyang Li, Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Gagandeep S. Anand, Daniel M. Scolnic, Wenlong Yuan, Louise Breuval, and Caroline D. Huang, Reconnaissance with JWST of the J-region asymptotic giant branch in distance ladder galaxies: From irregular luminosity functions to approximation of the Hubble constant, Astrophys. J. 966, 20 (2024).
  19. Wendy L. Freedman, Barry F. Madore, Taylor J. Hoyt, In Sung Jang, Abigail J. Lee, and Kayla A. Owens, Status report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble constant using the Hubble and James webb space telescopes, Astrophys. J. 985, 203 (2025).
  20. Adam G. Riess et al., JWST validates HST distance measurements: Selection of supernova subsample explains differences in JWST estimates of local H0, Astrophys. J. 977, 120 (2024).
  21. Christian Vogl et al., No rungs attached: A distance-ladder free determination of the Hubble constant through type II supernova spectral modelling, Astron. Astrophys. 702, A41 (2025).
  22. Daniel Scolnic et al., The Hubble tension in our own backyard: DESI and the nearness of the coma cluster, Astrophys. J. Lett. 979, L9 (2025).
  23. Khaled Said et al., DESI peculiar velocity survey—fundamental plane, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 539, 3627 (2025).
  24. Paula Boubel, Matthew Colless, Khaled Said, and Lister Staveley-Smith, An improved Tully–Fisher estimate of H0, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 533, 1550 (2024).
  25. Daniel Scolnic, Paula Boubel, Jakob Byrne, Adam G. Riess, and Gagandeep S. Anand, Calibrating the Tully-Fisher relation to measure the Hubble constant, arXiv:2412.08449.
  26. Siyang Li, Adam G. Riess, Daniel Scolnic, Stefano Casertano, and Gagandeep S. Anand, JAGB 2.0: Improved constraints on the J-region asymptotic giant branch–based Hubble constant from an expanded sample of JWST observations, Astrophys. J. 988, 97 (2025).
  27. Joseph B. Jensen, John P. Blakeslee, Michele Cantiello, Mikaela Cowles, Gagandeep S. Anand, R. Brent Tully, Ehsan Kourkchi, and Gabriella Raimondo, The TRGB-SBF Project. III. Refining the HST surface brightness fluctuation distance scale calibration with JWST, Astrophys. J. 987, 87 (2025).
  28. Adam G. Riess et al., The perfect host: JWST cepheid observations in a background-free SN Ia host confirm no bias in Hubble-constant measurements, Astrophys. J. Lett. 992, L34 (2025).
  29. Max J. B. Newman et al., Tip of the red giant branch distances to NGC 1316, NGC 1380, NGC 1404, & NGC 4457: A pilot study of a parallel distance ladder using type Ia supernovae in early-type host galaxies, arXiv:2508.20023.
  30. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  31. Thibaut Louis et al. (ACT Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2025) 062.
  32. E. Camphuis et al. (SPT-3G Collaboration), SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field, arXiv:2506.20707.
  33. Lloyd Knox and Marius Millea, Hubble constant Hunter’s guide, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043533 (2020).
  34. Karsten Jedamzik, Levon Pogosian, and Gong-Bo Zhao, Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon alone can not fully resolve the Hubble tension, Commun. Phys. 4, 123 (2021).
  35. Nils Schöneberg, Guillermo Franco Abellán, Andrea Pérez Sánchez, Samuel J. Witte, Vivian Poulin, and Julien Lesgourgues, The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models, Phys. Rep. 984, 1 (2022).
  36. Marc Kamionkowski and Adam G. Riess, The Hubble tension and early dark energy, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 153 (2023).
  37. Licia Verde, Nils Schöneberg, and Héctor Gil-Marín, A tale of many H0, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 62, 287 (2024).
  38. Ali Rida Khalife, Maryam Bahrami Zanjani, Silvia Galli, Sven Günther, Julien Lesgourgues, and Karim Benabed, Review of Hubble tension solutions with new SH0ES and SPT-3G data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2024) 059.
  39. The Hubble Constant Tension, edited by Eleonora Di Valentino and Dillon Brout, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology (Springer, New York, 2024).
  40. William Giarè, CMB anomalies, and the Hubble tension, 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7_36 (2023).
  41. Catherine Heymans et al., KiDS-1000 cosmology: Multi-probe weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering constraints, Astron. Astrophys. 646, A140 (2021).
  42. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022).
  43. Roohi Dalal et al., Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123519 (2023).
  44. Eleonora Di Valentino et al., Cosmology intertwined III: fσ8 and S8, Astropart. Phys. 131, 102604 (2021).
  45. Andrej Dvornik et al., KiDS-1000: Combined halo-model cosmology constraints from galaxy abundance, galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing, Astron. Astrophys. 675, A189 (2023); 688, C3(E) (2024).
  46. L. Faga et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmology from galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing in harmonic space, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 536, 1586 (2024).
  47. Joachim Harnois-Deraps et al., KiDS-1000 and DES-Y1 combined: Cosmology from peak count statistics, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 534, 3305 (2024).
  48. Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Foteini Skara, Challenges for ΛCDM: An update, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022).
  49. Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk, In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions, Classical Quantum Gravity 38, 153001 (2021).
  50. Carsten van de Bruck, Gaspard Poulot, and Elsa M. Teixeira, Scalar field dark matter and dark energy: A hybrid model for the dark sector, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2023) 019.
  51. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2025) 021.
  52. William Giarè, Dynamical dark energy beyond Planck? Constraints from multiple CMB probes, DESI BAO and Type-Ia supernovae, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023508 (2025).
  53. Marina Cortês and Andrew R. Liddle, Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2024) 007.
  54. Vrund Patel, Amlan Chakraborty, and Luca Amendola, The prior dependence of the DESI results, arXiv:2407.06586.
  55. William Giarè, Miguel A. Sabogal, Rafael C. Nunes, and Eleonora Di Valentino, Interacting dark energy after DESI baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 251003 (2024).
  56. William Giarè, Mahdi Najafi, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, and Javad T. Firouzjaee, Robust preference for dynamical dark energy in DESI BAO and SN measurements, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 035.
  57. Kim V. Berghaus, Joshua A. Kable, and Vivian Miranda, Quantifying scalar field dynamics with DESI 2024 Y1 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103524 (2024).
  58. George Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 538, 875 (2025).
  59. Andrei D. Linde, Hybrid inflation, Phys. Rev. D 49, 748 (1994).
  60. Subinoy Das, Pier Stefano Corasaniti, and Justin Khoury, Superacceleration as the signature of a dark sector interaction, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083509 (2006).
  61. Carsten van de Bruck and Elsa M. Teixeira, Dark d-brane cosmology: From background evolution to cosmological perturbations, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103503 (2020).
  62. Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006).
  63. Julien Lesgourgues, The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (CLASS) I: Overview, arXiv:1104.2932.
  64. Diego Blas, Julien Lesgourgues, and Thomas Tram, The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (CLASS). Part II: Approximation schemes, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2011) 034.
  65. Julien Lesgourgues, The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (CLASS) III: Comparision with camb for lambdacdm, arXiv:1104.2934.
  66. Thejs Brinckmann and Julien Lesgourgues, montepython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features, Phys. Dark Universe 24, 100260 (2019).
  67. Benjamin Audren, Julien Lesgourgues, Karim Benabed, and Simon Prunet, Conservative constraints on early cosmology with montepython, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2013) 001.
  68. Antony Lewis, Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103529 (2013).
  69. Andrew Gelman and Donald B. Rubin, Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences, Stat. Sci. 7, 457 (1992).
  70. Antony Lewis, getdist: A python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2025) 025.
  71. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020).
  72. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020).
  73. Erik Rosenberg, Steven Gratton, and George Efstathiou, CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 517, 4620 (2022).
  74. M. Tristram et al., Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4), Astron. Astrophys. 682, A37 (2024).
  75. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024 III: Baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2025) 012.
  76. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024 IV: Baryon acoustic oscillations from the Lyman alpha forest, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 124.
  77. Dan Scolnic et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: The full data set and light-curve release, Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022).
  78. Dillon Brout et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022).
  79. Dillon Brout et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: SuperCal-fragilistic cross calibration, retrained SALT2 light-curve model, and calibration systematic uncertainty, Astrophys. J. 938, 111 (2022).
  80. Tanvi Karwal, Yashvi Patel, Alexa Bartlett, Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, and Daniel N. Pfeffer, procoli: Profiles of cosmological likelihoods, arXiv:2401.14225.
  81. Alan Heavens, Yabebal Fantaye, Arrykrishna Mootoovaloo, Hans Eggers, Zafiirah Hosenie, Steve Kroon, and Elena Sellentin, Marginal likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains, arXiv:1704.03472.
  82. Alan Heavens, Yabebal Fantaye, Elena Sellentin, Hans Eggers, Zafiirah Hosenie, Steve Kroon, and Arrykrishna Mootoovaloo, No evidence for extensions to the standard cosmological model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 101301 (2017).
  83. Marco Raveri and Wayne Hu, Concordance and discordance in cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043506 (2019).
  84. Shadab Alam et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021).
  85. Harold Jeffreys, Theory of Probability (Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1939).
  86. Marco Raveri, Resolving the Hubble tension at late times with dark energy, arXiv:2309.06795.
  87. Michel Chevallier and David Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001).
  88. Eric V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003).
  89. Eoin Ó. Colgáin and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, DESI and SNe: Dynamical dark energy, Ωm tension or systematics?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 542, L24 (2025).
  90. Suhail Dhawan, Brodie Popovic, and Ariel Goobar, The axis of systematic bias in SN ~Ia cosmology and implications for DESI 2024 results, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 540, 1626 (2025).
  91. Shadab Alam et al. (BOSS Collaboration), The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017).
  92. Julian E. Bautista et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the luminous red galaxy sample from the anisotropic correlation function between redshifts 0.6 and 1, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 500, 736 (2020).
  93. Hector Gil-Marin et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the luminous red galaxy sample from the anisotropic power spectrum between redshifts 0.6 and 1.0, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 498, 2492 (2020).
  94. Amélie Tamone et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Growth rate of structure measurement from anisotropic clustering analysis in configuration space between redshift 0.6 and 1.1 for the Emission Line Galaxy sample, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, 5527 (2020).
  95. Arnaud de Mattia et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the emission line galaxy sample from the anisotropic power spectrum between redshift 0.6 and 1.1, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 501, 5616 (2021).
  96. Jiamin Hou et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: BAO and RSD measurements from anisotropic clustering analysis of the Quasar Sample in configuration space between redshift 0.8 and 2.2, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 500, 1201 (2020).
  97. Richard Neveux et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: BAO and RSD measurements from the anisotropic power spectrum of the quasar sample between redshift 0.8 and 2.2, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, 210 (2020).
  98. Helion du Mas des Bourboux et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), The completed SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Baryon acoustic oscillations with Lyα forests, Astrophys. J. 901, 153 (2020).
  99. Ashley J. Ross, Lado Samushia, Cullan Howlett, Will J. Percival, Angela Burden, and Marc Manera, The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample—I. A 4 per cent distance measure at z=0.15, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 449, 835 (2015).
  100. Cullan Howlett, Ashley Ross, Lado Samushia, Will Percival, and Marc Manera, The clustering of the SDSS main galaxy sample—II. Mock galaxy catalogues and a measurement of the growth of structure from redshift space distortions at z=0.15, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 449, 848 (2015).
  101. Florian Beutler, Chris Blake, Matthew Colless, D. Heath Jones, Lister Staveley-Smith, Lachlan Campbell, Quentin Parker, Will Saunders, and Fred Watson, The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon acoustic oscillations and the local Hubble constant, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 416, 3017 (2011).
  102. Erminia Calabrese, Anze Slosar, Alessandro Melchiorri, George F. Smoot, and Oliver Zahn, Cosmic microwave weak lensing data as a test for the dark universe, Phys. Rev. D 77, 123531 (2008).
  103. Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Joseph Silk, Cosmological hints of modified gravity?, Phys. Rev. D 93, 023513 (2016).
  104. Fabrizio Renzi, Eleonora Di Valentino, and Alessandro Melchiorri, Cornering the Planck Alens anomaly with future CMB data, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123534 (2018).
  105. Will Handley, Curvature tension: Evidence for a closed universe, Phys. Rev. D 103, L041301 (2021).
  106. Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Joseph Silk, Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology, Nat. Astron. 4, 196 (2019).
  107. George Efstathiou and Steven Gratton, The evidence for a spatially flat Universe, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 496, L91 (2020).
  108. Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Joseph Silk, Investigating cosmic discordance, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L9 (2021).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 023514– Published 9 January, 2026
  • Received 19 February 2025
  • Accepted 1 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation