Recent baryon acoustic oscillation BAO measurements by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument DESI provide evidence that dark energy DE evolves with time as parameterized by a w SUB0SUB w SUB a SUB equation of state. Cosmologically coupled black holes BHs provide a DE source that naturally evolves with time because BH production tracks cosmic starformation. Using DESI BAO measurements and priors informed by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis we measure the fraction of baryonic density converted into BHs assuming that all DE is sourced by BH production. We find that the bestfit DE density tracks each DESI bestfit w SUB0SUB w SUB a SUB model within 1 except at redshifts z  0.2 highlighting limitations of the w SUB0SUB w SUB a SUB parameterization. Cosmologically coupled BHs produce H SUB0SUB  69.94  0.81 km sSUP1SUP MpcSUP1SUP with the same  SUP2SUP as CDM and with two fewer parameters than w SUB0SUB w SUB a SUB. This value reduces tension with SH0ES to 2.7 and is in excellent agreement with recent measurements from the ChicagoCarnegie Hubble Program. Because cosmologically coupled BH production depletes the baryon density established by primordial nucleosynthesis these BHs provide a physical explanation for the missing baryon problem and the anomalously low sum of neutrino masses preferred by DESI. The global evolution of DE is an orthogonal probe of cosmological coupling complementing constraints on BH massgrowth from elliptical galaxies stellar binaries globular clusters the LIGOVirgoKAGRA merging population and Xray binaries. A DE density that correlates with cosmic starformation 1 is a natural outcome of cosmological coupling in BH populations 2 eases tension between early and latetime cosmological probes and 3 produces timeevolution toward a latetime CDM cosmology different from Cosmic Microwave Background projections.
['astrophysical black holes', 'dark energy experiments', 'dark energy theory', 'GR black holes', 'Astrophysics - Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics']
DESI dark energy time evolution is recovered by cosmologically coupled black holes
{'DESI Dark Energy Time Evolution is Recovered by Cosmologically Coupled Black Holes': "Kevin S. Croker , 1 , 2 Gregory Tarl´e , 3 Steve P. Ahlen , 4 Brian G. Cartwright , 5 Duncan Farrah , 2 , 6 Nicolas Fernandez , 7 Rogier A. Windhorst 1  \n- 1 School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-6004 2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawai'i at M¯anoa, 2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI, 96822\n- 3 Department of Physics, University of Michigan, 450 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 4 Department of Physics, Boston University, 590 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215 5 Healthpeak Properties, Inc. 4600 South Sycamore Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80237 6 Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawai'i, 2680 Woodlawn Dr., Honolulu, HI, 96822 7 NHETC, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854  \nE-mail: kcroker@phys.hawaii.edu  \nAbstract. Recent baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) provide evidence that dark energy (DE) evolves with time, as parameterized by a w 0 w a equation of state. Cosmologically coupled black holes (BHs) provide a DE source that naturally evolves with time, because BH production tracks cosmic star-formation. Using DESI BAO measurements and priors informed by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, we measure the fraction of baryonic density converted into BHs, assuming that all DE is sourced by BH production. We find that the best-fit DE density tracks each DESI bestfit w 0 w a model within 1 σ , except at redshifts z ≲ 0 . 2, highlighting limitations of the w 0 w a parameterization. Cosmologically coupled BHs produce H 0 = (69 . 94 ± 0 . 81) kms -1 Mpc -1 , with the same χ 2 as ΛCDM, and with two fewer parameters than w 0 w a . This value reduces tension with SH0ES to 2 . 7 σ and is in excellent agreement with recent measurements from the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program. Because cosmologically coupled BH production depletes the baryon density established by primordial nucleosynthesis, these BHs provide a physical explanation for the 'missing baryon problem' and the anomalously low sum of neutrino masses preferred by DESI. The global evolution of DE is an orthogonal probe of cosmological coupling, complementing constraints on BH mass-growth from elliptical galaxies, stellar binaries, globular clusters, the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA merging population, and X-ray binaries. A DE density that correlates with cosmic star-formation: 1) is a natural outcome of cosmological coupling in BH populations; 2) eases tension between early and late-time cosmological probes; and 3) produces time-evolution toward a late-time ΛCDM cosmology different from Cosmic Microwave Background projections.  \nArXiv ePrint:  \n2405.12282", '1 Introduction': "It has been nearly a quarter century since two pioneering experiments, the Supernova Cosmology Project [1] and the High-Z Supernovae Search Team [2], independently discovered the accelerated expansion of the universe using type Ia supernovae as standard candles. The acceleration was attributed to a pervasive form of energy, known as dark energy (DE) [3], whose nature has remained elusive.  \nIn 2006, the Dark Energy Task Force (DETF) [4] proposed a comprehensive four-stage experimental program to investigate the nature of DE by determining whether the accelerated expansion is consistent with a cosmological constant, Λ, whether it evolves, or whether it arises from modifications to General Relativity (GR). For dynamic models of DE, the DETF adopted a simple linear parameterization of the equation of state of DE, known as the w 0 w a parameterization:  \nw = w 0 + w a (1 -a ) , (1.1)  \nwhere a is the cosmological scale factor, and w 0 and w a are constants. To evaluate the stage of ongoing and proposed experiments, the DETF introduced the reciprocal of the area of the error ellipse enclosing the 95% confidence limit in the w 0 , w a plane as a Figure of Merit. The results from Stage III experiments [5-7] have shown consistency with a cosmological constant but exhibit small ( ≲ 2 . 5 σ ) deviations from ΛCDM in the w 0 > -1, w a < 0 direction.  \nRecently, the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), the first Stage IV spectroscopic survey, reported significantly enhanced cosmology constraints from Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) measurements using its first year of data [8]. The DESI collaboration finds that adopting a w 0 w a DE equation of state and combining: DESI-1YR BAO data; Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) lensing data [9]; and Type Ia SNe data from the Pantheon+ [7], Union3[5] and DES-5YR [6] datasets leads to deviations from ΛCDM by 2 . 5 σ , 3 . 5 σ and 3 . 9 σ , respectively, indicating a strong preference for w 0 > -1 and large w a < 0. These results can be understood by examining the DE density implied by Eq. (1.1),  \nρ DE ∝ e 3 aw a a 3(1+ w 0 + w a ) . (1.2)  \nNote that if 1 + w 0 + w a > 0, then the denominator would diverge in the early universe as a → 0. Thus 1 + w 0 + w a ⩽ 0 must always be true, and the DE density initially increases from zero at a = 0. The exponential in the numerator then guarantees a 'hump' for w a < 0. Other physical behaviors, like 'asymptotes' and 'multiple humps,' cannot be described by  \nFigure 1 . Dark energy (DE) density as a function of redshift predicted from cosmologically coupled, stellar-collapse BHs (black). Because stellar collapse BH production tracks star-formation, the impact of two empirically determined models is shown. The Trinca ψ model (solid) features ample star-formation at high z , consistent with recent James Webb Space Telescope observations [10, 11]. The Madau ψ model (dashed) is a fiducial rate determined from numerous IR and UV luminosity measurements primarily from z < 4 [12, 13]. DESI parameterizes DE time-evolution via equation of state parameters w 0 and w a , as determined from joint fits to BAO, CMB, and SNe datasets. Regions (shaded) reflect ± 1 σ uncertainties in DE density, as determined by SNe datasets from Pantheon (green), Union3 (red), and DES Y5 (blue). The time-evolution of DE density, when sourced by stellar-collapse BHs, remains within < 1 σ of the w 0 w a model for each dataset until z ≲ 0 . 2. No combination of w 0 and w a can lead to a DE density that approaches a constant value from below. This asymptoting behavior of late-time DE is expected from cosmologically coupled BHs, because the production of stellar progenitors has been decreasing for the past ∼ 9 Gyr.  \n<!-- image -->  \nEq. (1.1). The DESI data may already highlight the provisional nature of Eq. (1.1), because the preferred values for w 0 and w a allow causality violation and generate energy densities from nothing. 1  \nThe community has established that both of these theoretical obstacles can be removed if DE actually does receive energy from another species. Models have been proposed where dark matter (DM) couples to DE [31-37]. Very little is known about DM, however, and it has yet to be detected directly [38-42], which currently limits the predictive power of these models for the phenomenology of DE. Another possibility involves models where baryons couple to DE. For example, the conversion of DE into baryons explains the origin of the Big Bang in the inflationary paradigm [43, 44]. The reverse process, the conversion of baryons  \ninto DE, was proposed by Gliner to occur during the gravitational collapse of dead stars in the paper that theoretically anticipated DE's discovery [45]. Following this study, a diverse community of researchers has developed exact GR solutions of BHs with DE interiors [46-50] and explored condensed-matter and quantum field-theoretic interpretations (see e.g. [5153]). These BH solutions often mimic the familiar Schwarzschild and Kerr BH models for times ≪ the Hubble time, but are singularity-free and need not have horizons. This can lead to surprising phenomena when these objects are generalized to astrophysically realistic boundary conditions. For instance, there are known GR solutions for BHs [e.g. 54, 55] that expand in lockstep with their embedding cosmology, gaining mass independently of accretion or merger. 2  \nRecently, observational evidence for cosmological mass growth has been reported in the super-massive black holes (SMBHs) of massive early-type galaxies [67, 68]. The preferred rate of mass growth for this population, m ∝ a 3 [68] is consistent with the local SMBH mass density proposed by NANOgrav [69] and low-mass X-ray binaries (XRBs) [70]. Because cosmological number densities decrease ∝ 1 /a 3 , if all BHs gain mass ∝ a 3 , then (in the absence of production) their physical density is constant. Conservation of stress energy then requires that they enter Friedmann's equations as DE (i.e. with pressure P = -ρ ), consistent with the DE-interior BH models. However, BH growth ∝ a 3 exceeds upper bounds ∝ a , determined from known coupled GR solutions and recent measurements in stellar-mass BH populations of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA [71-74], globular clusters [75], Gaia binaries [76], and high-mass XRBs [77]. Local measurements of cosmological mass growth are complicated by uncertainties in accretion, merger history, and formation time, making orthogonal probes of this GR effect valuable for understanding the emerging theoretical and observational landscape.  \nDESI and forthcoming Stage IV surveys [78-85] can provide positive evidence for DE within cosmologically coupled BHs (CCBHs). The cosmological background offers an averaged dynamics, free from selection effects and assumptions about minimum BH mass 3 required to constrain coupled mass growth in isolated stellar binaries. If BHs contribute as a DE species, then DE time-evolution will track BH production and growth. 4 In particular, star-formation peaks at z ∼ 2 [12, 13] and then drops by a factor of ∼ 10 × by today. This causes the DE density from CCBHs to asymptote toward a constant value at z ≲ 1. This would mimic ΛCDM in the late-time universe, but with a DE density and expansion history that disagrees with CMB projections. Because stellar-collapse is expected to be the dominant BH formation channel over the DESI-sensitive redshift range z ≲ 3, and this range overlaps with the peak rate of cosmic star-formation, DESI is well-positioned to distinguish a CCBH population from other hypotheses.  \n3 For BH models without horizons, the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff stability limit ≲ 2 . 2 M ⊙ for maximal neutron star mass can no longer be used to establish a lower-bound BH mass. This also confounds interpretation of low-mass remnants without optical or merger tidal-deformation signatures, e.g. [86].  \n4 The possible role of stellar-collapse BHs in cosmic expansion was first proposed in the Gravitational Aether Theory, an extension to GR [87, 88].  \nIn this paper, we present the first search for significant DE production at 'cosmic noon.' In Section 2 we implement baryon depletion, which tracks the cosmic star-formation rate within Friedmann cosmology. In Section 3, we detail our methodology for likelihood and parameter estimation with the DESI BAO measurements. In Section 4, we present our main results. In Section 5, we discuss implications of cosmologically coupled DE for the current census of baryons in the local universe, the anomalously low summed neutrino mass preferred by DESI, and currently understood BH and accretion physics. Because we will be describing and comparing different model fit to different datasets, we will consistently refer to these combinations with ' Model (Datasets) ' notation.", '2 Theory': "We adopt the position that BHs are non-singular vacuum energy objects, cosmologically coupled, and produced solely by stellar collapse [c.f. 89]. Because the DE density is determined dynamically, defining the cosmology with the density parameters Ω i and a distinct presentday Hubble rate H 0 is no longer straightforward. To keep as close to standard notation and usage as possible, we instead focus on 'little ω 's,' which are typically defined through ω b := Ω b h 2 . This definition implies that,  \nρ i ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ a =1 = ρ cr Ω i = ( 3 H 2 0 8 πG ) Ω i = ( 3 × 10 4 8 πG ) ω i := Cω i . (2.1)  \nFor matter species, the Cω i are comoving energy densities. In contrast to Ω i and H 0 , they are directly measured by early-universe probes: ω c and ω b are the two background parameters of ΛCDM. In what follows, we will define Cω proj b to be the projected comoving density of baryons, as inferred from early-universe measurements. We may now define baryon consumption phenomenologically via the physical baryon density:  \nρ b :=        Cω proj b a 3 a < a i Cω proj b a 3 -Ξ a 3 ∫ a a i ψ d a ' Ha ' a ⩾ a i . (2.2)  \nHere, ψ is the observed comoving star-formation rate density (SFRD), with units comoving density per unit proper time, consistent with Cω proj b . Instead, the physical baryon density ρ b evolves ∝ ω proj b /a 3 , as inferred by Planck , until the onset of stellar first light at a i . Hereafter, we define Ξ as the fraction of baryons depleted in synchrony with the assembly of stellar mass. The assumption that Ξ is constant reflects the simplification that its time evolution is subdominant to the time evolution of ψ .  \nWe generically define the DE contribution through its pressure as:  \nP DE := wρ DE , (2.3)  \nwhere ρ DE is the DE energy density and w its equation of state. Combining the covariant conservation of stress energy relation ∇ µ T µ ν = 0, with Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3), we obtain  \nd ρ DE d a + 3 a ρ DE (1 + w ) = Ξ Ha 4 ψ. (2.4)  \nThe BH DE model is characterized by w := -1 and Ξ = 0. In this setting, Eq. (2.4) becomes  \n̸  \nd ρ DE d a = Ξ Ha 4 ψ. (2.5)  \nThe Hubble expansion rate H is determined algebraically in terms of the physical densities ρ i via the Friedmann energy equation,  \nH 2 = ( 8 πG 3 ) [ ρ b ( a ) + ρ γ ( a ) + ρ ν ( a ) + ρ DE ( a ) + ρ c ( a )] , (2.6)  \nwhere γ , ν and c denote typical photon, neutrino, and cold dark matter contributions respectively [e.g. 90]. We omit a curvature contribution ∝ 1 /a 2 , so the universe is always spatially flat and critical. Combined with the derivative of Eq. (2.2) with respect to a , Eqs. (2.5) and (2.6) give a closed system of differential equations for a ⩾ a i  \nd ρ DE d a = Ξ Ha 4 ψ d ρ b d a = -( 3 ρ b a + d ρ DE d a ) d D M d a = 1 Ha 2 . . (2.7)  \nWe include the comoving distance D M [e.g. 91], as it is required to interpret DESI BAO. It can be determined by adjusting the integration limits (and sign) using the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus afterward so that D M (1) := 0. Note that for flat Robertson-Walker cosmologies, the transverse comoving distance is equal to the line-of-sight comoving distance. Initial conditions for all species are determined by projecting species' ω proj j values to a i . We define the DE density ρ DE ( a ⩽ a i ) := 0. For ρ ν , we follow DESI [8] and adopt N eff := 3 . 044, a single massive neutrino species with m ν := 0 . 06 eV, and track their energy density exactly [e.g. 92, § 3.3].", '3 Methods': "Our goal is to determine the DESI BAO best-fit background-only CCBH and ΛCDM cosmologies. By fitting ΛCDM, we validate our independent pipeline against that of DESI. For CCBH, we fit for the collapse fraction Ξ, the free parameter that replaces H 0 used by DESI when fitting background-only ΛCDM with a BBN prior. For our primary analysis, we adopt a redshift z > 4 SFRD that includes contributions from intrinsically faint objects [11, Fig. 3], while accurately reproducing M UV < -17 observations from JWST [e.g. 93, Fig. 8] (although [c.f. 94, 95]). For z ⩽ 4, we adopt the standard Madau & Dickinson [12, 13] SFRD, enforcing continuity by scaling the normalization to match at z = 4. The required factor ∼ 2 is consistent with radio astrometric measures of the SFRD from synchrotron emission in protostellar disks [96]. These measurements are free from dust-obscuration systematics that impact all IR, UV, and optical inference of the SFRD and likely better determine the normalization. This combination of z > 4 and z < 4 behavior we will designate as 'Trinca ψ .' We additionally compute with the standard Madau & Dickinson SFRD, designated as 'Madau ψ ,' to provide a fiducial visual reference in Figure 1. 5  \nTable 1 . Fit configuration and results for primary dynesty analysis of DESI Year 1 BAO data. Best-fit parameter values, with χ 2 , and posteriors distributions at 68% confidence are given. Priors are either uniform U on the indicated range or normally distributed N ( µ, σ ). Projected comoving baryon density ω proj b has been multiplied by 100 for clarity, and is taken from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) constraints. For the CCBH model, the present-day comoving baryon density is less than ω proj b due to baryon conversion into DE inside BHs. Deviation gives the discrepancy in best-fit values relative to posterior maxima, in units of σ . Note that ΛCDM best-fit ω proj b pulls away from the posterior mean, which is dominated by the BBN prior. This indicates a preference in the BAO data for lower ω proj b .  \nOur code does not track recombination thermodynamics, so we adopt [97, Eqn. (16)]  \nr d = 55 . 154 exp [ -72 . 3 ( ω ν +0 . 0006) 2 ] ( ω c + ω proj b ) 0 . 25351 ( ω proj b ) 0 . 12807 Mpc , (3.1)  \nto compute the baryon drag scale r d to better than 0 . 06%. 6 Next, define:  \nD H ( z ) := c H ( z ) D V ( z ) := [ zD M ( z ) 2 D H ( z ) ] 1 / 3 . (3.2)  \nDESI can extract a BAO scale, relative to r d , in three ways: 1) fixed redshift and variable sky position via the transverse comoving distance D M /r d ; 2) fixed sky position and variable redshift via the Hubble distance D H /r d ; and 3) the 'angle averaged' mixture of these two signals D V /r d when statistics are not sufficient to report D M /r d and D H /r d separately. The DESI-1YR BAO data include five distinct measurements each of D M /r d , D H /r d , and two of D V /r d (see Figure 2). The best-fit central values µ and covariance matrix for these 12 data points Σ is provided by the DESI collaboration. 7 We solve Eq. (2.7) with scipy.odeint to determine model-predicted values X for the these 12 data points at their respective redshifts of measurement z eff . Because the variables are Gaussian distributed,  \nlog L DESI ( X ) := -1 2 ( X -µ ) ⊤ Σ -1 ( X -µ ) , (3.3)  \nFigure 2 . Deviations of best-fit models, relative to Planck ΛCDM, in comoving distance D M (top), Hubble distance D H (middle), and a volume-averaged combination D V (bottom). DESI BAO datapoints, relative to Planck ΛCDM, are displayed with 68% confidence (black dots). When CCBHs provide the physical source of DE (solid, purple), the resulting expansion history closely tracks a ΛCDM model (dashed, orange) for z < 2 . 5, but this model is not equal to the ΛCDM model inferred from early-universe experiments like Planck (dotted, green). DESI reports that these two ΛCDM models are discrepant at 1 . 9 σ , qualitatively consistent with a naive χ 2 ∼ 21 between the Planck bestfit model curve and the 12 DESI BAO degrees of freedom. Increased statistics from DESI Y3, Y5, and Y7 datasets, combined with additional constraints from Redshift Space Distortions (not present in the DESI Y1 initial release), should significantly tighten uncertainties and may adjust central values.  \n<!-- image -->  \nwhere ⊤ denotes transpose and Σ -1 denotes the inverse covariance matrix. We additionally enforce a hard cutoff in late-time baryon density based on confirmed baryon census in the local universe [98],  \nlog L b ( s ) := { 0 s > 0 . 25 -∞ s ⩽ 0 . 25 , (3.4)  \nwhere s is the baryon survival fraction,  \ns := ρ b (1) ρ b ( a i ) a 3 i . (3.5)  \nFigure 3 . Posterior distributions for DESI BAO+BBN fits to DE sourced by cosmologically coupled BHs (purple), and ΛCDM (orange). Planck posteriors are shown (green) for comparison. Both fits draw the comoving baryon density inferred from early-universe measurements ω proj b from a Gaussian BBN prior, which dominates the posterior, and has been omitted for clarity. Both fits draw the comoving cold dark matter density ω c from the same uninformative prior. For CCBH, we draw Ξ: the amount of baryonic matter becoming BHs, per unit stellar material; while for ΛCDM, we draw H 0 . For CCBH, the baryon survival fraction s is also displayed. The posterior for s implies that ∼ 30% of baryons are genuinely lost, having been converted into DE inside BHs. This present-day baryon abundance is consistent with all contemporary baryon censuses.  \n<!-- image -->  \nThe combined log likelihood becomes  \nlog L := log L DESI +log L b . (3.6)  \nFor consistency, we assert the same priors for CCBHs and ΛCDM: the DESI-adopted BBN prior on ω proj b and a uniform prior in ω c . These are described in Table 1. Although DESI fits using Ω m , our ΛCDM posterior distributions agree with DESI to better than 0 . 5% precision. 8 In ΛCDM, the (fixed) DE density is determined by flatness and choice of H 0 . For CCBHs, the DE density evolves away from zero according to Eq. (2.7). Thus, at our background-order study, CCBHs (given some adopted ψ ) and ΛCDM have the same number of free parameters, but CCBHs give time-evolution with two fewer parameters than w 0 w a models.  \nWe use the dynamic nested sampling framework dynesty [102-106] 9 , to measure the Bayesian evidence for Eq. (3.6) and estimate posterior distributions for ω proj b , ω c , H 0 and Ξ for each cosmology. With these distributions, we compute derived distributions for H 0 , Ω m , and the survival fraction s . The survival fraction for ΛCDM is expected to be unity to integrator precision, and serves as a further internal consistency check on our primary pipeline. We find s ΛCDM = 1 . 00015, in agreement with expectations.", '4 Results': "Figure 1 shows the evolution of DE density ρ DE for CCBH cosmologies, adopting the two SFRD models described in Section 3. Overlaid in color are the ± 1 σ regions implied by DESI w 0 w a parameters for each of the three Planck+DESI+SN data sets. Note that the SNe regions have the 'hump' shape and the CCBH curves have the asymptoting 'plateau' shape, as expected from monotonically decreasing star-formation for z < 2. Table 1 summarizes all best-fit parameter values, χ 2 := -2 log L for the best-fits, and posterior means with 68% confidence regions. For CCBH Trinca ψ , the best-fit parameters all lie within ± 1 σ of their posterior means. For flat ΛCDM, the best-fit H 0 and ω b pull away from the posterior mean at < -1 σ and < -2 σ , respectively. Because the posterior is the prior-weighted likelihood by Bayes' Theorem, the discrepancy in ω b indicates that the data prefer a lower comoving baryon density than Flat ΛCDM can accommodate.  \nFigure 2 shows our determined distance measures D M /r d , D H /r d , and D V /r d , with Flat ΛCDM ( Planck ) distance measures subtracted off. It is not yet possible to distinguish late-time Flat ΛCDM (DESI 1YR+BBN) from CCBH Trinca ψ (DESI 1YR+BBN) at background-order. DESI reports that their (late-time) ΛCDM is, however, distinct from Planck (early-time) ΛCDM at 1 . 9 σ . If this discrepancy should increase, then the ΛCDM model will be unable to reconcile early and late universe cosmological probes. However, CCBH can provide the missing late-time physics to reconcile these two datasets. Improved statistics from DESI data, and a comprehensive first-order study of CCBH with the Planck likelihoods, will help clarify whether or not this is the case.  \nFigure 3 summarizes the posterior distributions from our primary CCBH Trinca ψ and Flat ΛCDM analyses. For comparison, we also include Planck TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing  \nposteriors. We have omitted ω proj b because the posterior distribution for ω proj b tracks the prior (see Table 1). The present-day expansion rate H 0 = (69 . 94 ± 0 . 81) kms -1 Mpc -1 is notably higher than both Flat ΛCDM (DESI 1YR+BBN) and the Planck value, because the consumption of baryons allows earlier transition to DE domination. With respect to the latter, CCBH reduces gaussian tension in H 0 from 5 . 6 σ to 2 . 7 σ when compared to the SH0ES measurement [107]. We highlight that this value agrees to 0 . 5% with H 0 = (69 . 59 ± 1 . 58) kms -1 Mpc -1 reported by the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program using Cepheids, the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB), and the J-Region Asymptotic Giant Branch stellar distance-ladder calibrations [108]. In the CCBH Trinca ψ cosmology, the recovered value for ω c is higher than Planck , allowing this CCBH cosmology to accommodate more background matter density contribution from massive neutrinos. In contrast, the Flat ΛCDM cosmology requires a lower ω c than Planck in order to achieve the smaller Ω m preferred by DESI BAO.", '5 Discussion': "We have reproduced the BAO data measured by DESI with a model that does not require adjustments to early-universe physics, and that leverages a well-motivated astrophysical source for DE: stellar-collapse CCBHs. This is the only known model that explains the coincidence problem of why DE has become relevant now: because it didn't exist until stars formed. This also explains why the DE density is of the same order of magnitude as the matter density: DE is sourced by matter. Physically, Ξ = 1 . 39 implies that, on average, 1 . 39 M ⊙ of baryons convert into BH DE for every 1 M ⊙ of stellar material produced. This value of Ξ is recovered when s = 70%, implying that approximately 30% of baryons are missing at late times. In the CCBH model, this means that those baryons are truly lost, being converted into DE.  \nIn fact, there has been a well-known 'missing baryons problem' for over a decade, with measurements indicating a shortfall of about 30% [109]. Our estimated survival fraction is consistent with all contemporary baryon censuses [98, Fig. 1]. This consumption of baryons may help explain other unexpected aspects of the DESI-1YR analysis. DESI-1YR results find a most probable summed neutrino mass ∑ m ν equal to zero [Fig. 11, Left Panel 8](see also [110]), contradicting the computed ∑ m ν > 0 . 059 eV based on ∆ m 2 ij constraints from neutrino oscillation measurements [e.g. 111, 112]. 10 The summed neutrino mass approaching zero in DESI-1YR can be interpreted as a preference for lower matter density at late times, relative to that inferred from the CMB. 11 We suspect that the baryon consumption required in the BH DE scenario will allow ∑ m ν to increase towards physically reasonable values. At background order, Ω b h 2 and ∑ m ν are not entirely degenerate in a CCBH cosmology, as the required DE density constrains the amount of baryon consumption. We note that ∑ m ν is also sensitive to the growth function at first-order in cosmological perturbations, which can be altered by novel CCBH dynamics [e.g. 64, § 4]. We further expect that the decreased baryon density along the line of sight will slightly increase z reio , because τ reio is predominantly determined by the low ℓ multipoles of the CMB EE polarization power-  \nThis standard constraint follows from algebra √ ∆ m 2 21 + √ ∆ m 2 31 = ( m 2 -m 1 ) + ( m 3 -m 1 ) < m 2 + m 3 < ∑ m ν , (5.1)  \nunder the assumption that m ν ⩾ 0 ∀ ν and m i are monotonically increasing in i (normal hierarchy).  \n11 It has also been proposed that a preferred zero summed neutrino mass could arise from new physics in the neutrino sector [113]  \nspectrum. A comprehensive investigation of these, and other first-order observables, is the subject of future work.  \nTo place the measured value of Ξ into context, we assume a Chabrier [114] distribution of stellar masses at birth d N/ d m ∝ m -2 . 3 . Then the fraction of stellar mass in stars large enough to form BHs ( m ≳ 20 M ⊙ ) is f = 0 . 4. A Ξ = 1 . 4 implies approximately 3 . 45 × additional baryonic consumption, which is reasonable given astrophysical uncertainties. For example, the stellar Initial Mass Function (IMF) at z ≳ 1 is an active area of investigation [e.g. 115, 116]. If the IMF at z ≳ 1 were 'top-heavy,' as suggested by some studies [117-120], the required factor decreases. For example, an IMF ∝ m -2 . 1 [e.g. 121] gives f = 0 . 74, reducing the factor to 1 . 86 × . Post-collapse accretion could account for part of Ξ, though estimating its extent is challenging. Accretion onto isolated BHs is believed to be inefficient. Because Ξ describes average behavior, a scenario where the high-end of the BH mass function accretes by a factor of ∼ 10 2 -10 3 × , while the low end evolves passively, is conceivable. Gravitational processes can also produce mass. This physics is independent of Ξ because Eq. (2.4) has no knowledge of local gravitational processes. The Press and Teukolsky process [122, 123] can convert BH spin into mass, provided the radiated energy is absorbed by further infalling material during core collapse. Local strong gravitational effects would effectively amplify the term on the right-hand side of Eq. (2.4), without altering the depletion described by Eq. (2.2). We note that such effects may involve mediating fields, such as scalar fields [124, 125].  \nWe have focused on a 'cosmic noon' scenario, but production of DE at the peak of star-formation complements production near 'cosmic dawn' z ∼ 20, as has been previously studied [63, 64, 68, 126]. The impact of Pop III [e.g. 127] and direct-collapse BHs [e.g. 128] is to establish an effective DE 'floor.' Production of this DE floor does not significantly deplete the baryon density, because the DE produced per unit baryon density scales as (1 + z ) 3 . For example, in Planck 2018 cosmologies, ω Λ ∼ 5 ω c / 2. Assume a cosmic dawn burst of production, either direct collapse or Pop III stellar collapse, at z III . Then  \n5 ω c 2 = ω b (1 -s III ) (1 + z III ) 3 . (5.2)  \nAdopting z III = 15 then gives a baryon survival of s III = 99 . 67%, so consumption of 0 . 4% of baryons is sufficient to produce all required DE. Any DE floor established at high z would further decrease Ξ.  \nIn summary, DESI's first year of observations provide evidence that DE evolves over time using a w 0 w a parameterization. If DE is produced from the conversion of baryonic matter into cosmologically coupled BHs, the DE density will increase as massive stars form and collapse into BHs, rising from zero toward a plateau as star-formation quenches at z ≲ 2. We have tested this hypothesis by fitting a suitable Friedmann cosmology to the DESI measured Baryon Acoustic Oscillation signals between 0 < z < 2 . 5. Our calculated evolving DE density agrees with the DESI w 0 w a models at < 1 σ , except at redshifts z ≲ 0 . 2, where the w 0 w a parameterization becomes inadequate for our phenomenology. Cosmologically coupled BHs produce H 0 = (69 . 94 ± 0 . 81) km s -1 Mpc -1 , reducing tension with SH0ES and in excellent agreement with H 0 = (69 . 59 ± 1 . 58) kms -1 Mpc -1 reported recently by Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program using Cepheids, Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB), and J-Region Asymptotic Giant Branch stellar distance-ladder calibrations. They provide a physical explanation for this larger central value: the Hubble rate today is higher than that inferred from the Cosmic Microwave Background because the conversion of baryons into DE during star-formation causes an earlier transition from matter to DE dominance. In  \naddition to reducing tensions between early and late-time observations, the scenario we have investigated provides an astrophysically motivated explanation for a known ∼ 30% deficit in the present-day baryon density, relative to BBN expectations. Furthermore, the conversion of baryons into DE decreases the present-day matter density of Friedmann models, allowing the sum of neutrino masses to increase away from zero. No other current DE model is both astrophysically motivated and capable of reconciling early and late universe measurements of the expansion rate.", 'Acknowledgments': "The authors thank the anonymous referee for very useful comments that resulted in substantial improvement of the manuscript. We further thank Arnaud de Mattia and Seshadri Nadathur (DESI) for discussion concerning regeneration of DESI results, Thomas Tram (Norway) for guidance with massive relics in CLASS , Mark Dickinson (NOIRLab) for guidance with cosmological corrections to SFRDs, and Christopher Cain (ASU) for input on reionization. KC thanks the Sakai Group at Yamaguchi University for their hospitality during the preparation of this work, Ryo Saito (Yamaguchi) for comments on w 0 w a priors, Joel Weiner (Hawai'i) for discussion, and Tom Browder (Hawai'i) for comments on neutrinos. GT acknowledges support through DoE Award DE-SC009193. RAW acknowledges support from NASA JWST Interdisciplinary Scientist grants NAG5-12460, NNX14AN10G and 80NSSC18K0200 from GSFC. The work of NF is supported by DOE grant DOE-SC0010008. NF thanks the Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by the National Science Foundation grant PHY2210452, and the Sloan Foundation for its partial support.", 'References': "- [1] S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop, P. Nugent, P.G. Castro et al., Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae , The Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999) 565.\n- [2] A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M. Garnavich et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant , The Astronomical Journal 116 (1998) 1009.\n- [3] M.S. Turner, Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe , in The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo , B.K. Gibson, R.S. Axelrod and M.E. Putman, eds., vol. 165 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series , p. 431, Jan., 1999, DOI [ astro-ph/9811454 ].\n- [4] A. Albrecht, Report from the Dark Energy Task Force , in APS April Meeting Abstracts , APS Meeting Abstracts, p. G1.002, Apr., 2006.\n- [5] D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A.G. Kim et al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework , arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2311.12098 [ 2311.12098 ].\n- [6] DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam et al., The dark energy survey: Cosmology results with 1500 new high-redshift type ia supernovae using the full 5-year dataset , 2024.\n- [7] D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz et al., The pantheon+ analysis: Cosmological constraints , The Astrophysical Journal 938 (2022) 110.\n- [8] DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., Desi 2024 vi: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations , 2024.  \n- [9] Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing , A&A 641 (2020) A8 [ 1807.06210 ].\n- [10] A. Trinca, R. Schneider, R. Valiante, L. Graziani, L. Zappacosta and F. Shankar, The low-end of the black hole mass function at cosmic dawn , MNRAS 511 (2022) 616 [ 2201.02630 ].\n- [11] A. Trinca, R. Schneider, R. Valiante, L. Graziani, A. Ferrotti, K. Omukai et al., Exploring the nature of UV-bright z ≳ 10 galaxies detected by JWST: star formation, black hole accretion, or a non-universal IMF? , MNRAS 529 (2024) 3563 [ 2305.04944 ].\n- [12] P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Cosmic Star-Formation History , ARA&A 52 (2014) 415 [ 1403.0007 ].\n- [13] P. Madau and T. Fragos, Radiation Backgrounds at Cosmic Dawn: X-Rays from Compact Binaries , ApJ 840 (2017) 39 [ 1606.07887 ].\n- [14] R.R. Caldwell, A Phantom menace? , Phys. Lett. B 545 (2002) 23 [ astro-ph/9908168 ].\n- [15] S.M. Carroll, M. Hoffman and M. Trodden, Can the dark energy equation-of-state parameter w be less than -1 ? , Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 023509 [ astro-ph/0301273 ].\n- [16] R.R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski and N.N. Weinberg, Phantom energy and cosmic doomsday , Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 071301 [ astro-ph/0302506 ].\n- [17] S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and S. Tsujikawa, Properties of singularities in (phantom) dark energy universe , Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 063004 [ hep-th/0501025 ].\n- [18] W. Fang, W. Hu and A. Lewis, Crossing the Phantom Divide with Parameterized Post-Friedmann Dark Energy , Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 087303 [ 0808.3125 ].\n- [19] E.O. Colg'ain, M.G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and D. Stojkovic, Does DESI 2024 Confirm Λ CDM? , 2404.08633 .  \n[20] M. Cortˆes and A.R. Liddle,  \nInterpreting DESI's evidence for evolving dark energy  \n,  \n2404.08056  \n.  \n- [21] Y. Carloni, O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data? , 2404.12068 .\n- [22] D. Wang, The Self-Consistency of DESI Analysis and Comment on 'Does DESI 2024 Confirm Λ CDM?' , 2404.13833 .\n- [23] R. Calderon et al., DESI 2024: Reconstructing Dark Energy using Crossing Statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data , 2405.04216 .\n- [24] C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez and B. Ratra, Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially-flat w 0 w a CDM cosmological parameterization result , 2405.00502 .\n- [25] W. Giar'e, M.A. Sabogal, R.C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements , 2404.15232 .\n- [26] K.V. Berghaus, J.A. Kable and V. Miranda, Quantifying Scalar Field Dynamics with DESI 2024 Y1 BAO measurements , 2404.14341 .\n- [27] Y. Tada and T. Terada, Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI , 2404.05722 .\n- [28] Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai et al., Quintom cosmology and modified gravity after DESI 2024 , 2404.19437 .\n- [29] D. Wang, Constraining Cosmological Physics with DESI BAO Observations , 2404.06796 .\n- [30] W. Yin, Cosmic Clues: DESI, Dark Energy, and the Cosmological Constant Problem , 2404.06444 .\n- [31] L. Amendola, Coupled quintessence , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 043511 [ astro-ph/9908023 ].  \n- [32] G.R. Farrar and P.J.E. Peebles, Interacting Dark Matter and Dark Energy , ApJ 604 (2004) 1 [ astro-ph/0307316 ].\n- [33] S.H. Pereira and J.F. Jesus, Can dark matter decay in dark energy? , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 043517 [ 0811.0099 ].\n- [34] R.-G. Cai and Q. Su, On the dark sector interactions , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 103514 [ 0912.1943 ].\n- [35] A. Pourtsidou, C. Skordis and E.J. Copeland, Models of dark matter coupled to dark energy , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 083505.\n- [36] W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R.C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi and D.F. Mota, Tale of stable interacting dark energy, observational signatures, and the H 0 tension , JCAP 09 (2018) 019 [ 1805.08252 ].\n- [37] R.C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, S. Kumar, E. Di Valentino and O. Mena, New tests of dark sector interactions from the full-shape galaxy power spectrum , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 123506 [ 2203.08093 ].  \n[38] P. Agnes, I.F.M. Albuquerque, T. Alexander, A.K. Alton, G.R. Araujo, M. Ave et al.,  \nDarkSide-50 532-day dark matter search with low-radioactivity argon  \n, Phys. Rev. D  \n98  \n(2018)  \n102006 [  \n1802.07198  \n].  \n- [39] C. Cheng, P. Xie, A. Abdukerim, W. Chen, X. Chen, Y. Chen et al., Search for Light Dark Matter-Electron Scattering in the PandaX-II Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 211803 [ 2101.07479 ].\n- [40] E. Aprile, K. Abe, F. Agostini, S. Ahmed Maouloud, L. Althueser, B. Andrieu et al., First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 041003 [ 2303.14729 ].\n- [41] J. Aalbers, D.S. Akerib, C.W. Akerlof, A.K. Al Musalhi, F. Alder, A. Alqahtani et al., First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 041002 [ 2207.03764 ].\n- [42] M.F. Albakry, I. Alkhatib, D. Alonso-Gonz'alez, D.W.P. Amaral, T. Aralis, T. Aramaki et al., Search for low-mass dark matter via bremsstrahlung radiation and the Migdal effect in SuperCDMS , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 112013 [ 2302.09115 ].\n- [43] B.A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa and D. Wands, Inflation dynamics and reheating , Reviews of Modern Physics 78 (2006) 537 [ astro-ph/0507632 ].\n- [44] R. Allahverdi, R. Brandenberger, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine and A. Mazumdar, Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applications , Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 60 (2010) 27 [ 1001.2600 ].\n- [45] E.B. Gliner, Algebraic Properties of the Energy-momentum Tensor and Vacuum-like States o + Matter , Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 22 (1966) 378.\n- [46] S.K. Blau, E.I. Guendelman and A.H. Guth, Dynamics of false-vacuum bubbles , Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987) 1747.\n- [47] I. Dymnikova, Vacuum nonsingular black hole , General Relativity and Gravitation 24 (1992) 235.\n- [48] M. Visser and D.L. Wiltshire, Stable gravastars-an alternative to black holes? , Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 (2004) 1135 [ gr-qc/0310107 ].\n- [49] F.S.N. Lobo, Stable dark energy stars , Classical and Quantum Gravity 23 (2006) 1525 [ gr-qc/0508115 ].\n- [50] P.O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Surface tension and negative pressure interior of a non-singular 'black hole' , Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (2015) 215024.  \n- [51] G. Chapline, E. Hohlfeld, R.B. Laughlin and D.I. Santiago, Quantum phase transitions and the breakdown of classical general relativity , Philosophical Magazine B 81 (2001) 235.\n- [52] P.O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Gravitational vacuum condensate stars , Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 101 (2004) 9545 [ gr-qc/0407075 ].\n- [53] P.O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes , Universe 9 (2023) 88.\n- [54] V. Faraoni and A. Jacques, Cosmological expansion and local physics , Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 063510 [ 0707.1350 ].\n- [55] M. Cadoni, A.P. Sanna, M. Pitzalis, B. Banerjee, R. Murgia, N. Hazra et al., Cosmological coupling of nonsingular black holes , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023 (2023) 007 [ 2306.11588 ].\n- [56] Y. Wang and Z. Wang, Decoupling between gravitationally bounded systems and the cosmic expansion , arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2304.01059 [ 2304.01059 ].\n- [57] R. Gaur and M. Visser, Black holes embedded in FLRW cosmologies , arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2308.07374 [ 2308.07374 ].\n- [58] P.P. Avelino, Can gravitational vacuum condensate stars be a dark energy source? , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023 (2023) 005 [ 2303.06630 ].\n- [59] P.K. Dahal, F. Simovic, I. Soranidis and D.R. Terno, Black holes as spherically-symmetric horizon-bound objects , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 104014 [ 2303.15793 ].\n- [60] P.K. Dahal, S. Maharana, F. Simovic, I. Soranidis and D.R. Terno, Models of cosmological black holes , arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2312.16804 [ 2312.16804 ].\n- [61] C.M. Bender and S.A. Orszag, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers (1978).\n- [62] M. Cadoni, R. Murgia, M. Pitzalis and A.P. Sanna, Quasi-local masses and cosmological coupling of black holes and mimickers , arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2309.16444 [ 2309.16444 ].\n- [63] K.S. Croker and J.L. Weiner, Implications of Symmetry and Pressure in Friedmann Cosmology. I. Formalism , ApJ 882 (2019) 19 [ 2107.06643 ].\n- [64] K.S. Croker, J. Runburg and D. Farrah, Implications of Symmetry and Pressure in Friedmann Cosmology. III. Point Sources of Dark Energy that Tend toward Uniformity , ApJ 900 (2020) 57.\n- [65] K.S. Croker, J.L. Weiner and D. Farrah, Well-defined equations of motion without constraining external sources , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 084042 [ 2203.13826 ].\n- [66] V. Faraoni and M. Rinaldi, Black hole event horizons are cosmologically coupled , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2407.14549 [ 2407.14549 ].\n- [67] D. Farrah, S. Petty, K.S. Croker, G. Tarl'e, M. Zevin, E. Hatziminaoglou et al., A Preferential Growth Channel for Supermassive Black Holes in Elliptical Galaxies at z ≲ 2 , ApJ 943 (2023) 133 [ 2212.06854 ].\n- [68] D. Farrah, K.S. Croker, M. Zevin, G. Tarl'e, V. Faraoni, S. Petty et al., Observational Evidence for Cosmological Coupling of Black Holes and its Implications for an Astrophysical Source of Dark Energy , ApJ 944 (2023) L31 [ 2302.07878 ].\n- [69] M. Lacy, A. Engholm, D. Farrah and K. Ejercito, Constraints on cosmological coupling from the accretion history of supermassive black holes , Accepted at ApJ (2023) arXiv:2312.12344 [ 2312.12344 ].\n- [70] S.-J. Gao and X.-D. Li, Can Cosmologically Coupled Mass Growth of Black Holes Solve the Mass Gap Problem? , ApJ 956 (2023) 128 [ 2307.10708 ].  \n- [71] K.S. Croker, K.A. Nishimura and D. Farrah, Implications of Symmetry and Pressure in Friedmann Cosmology. II. Stellar Remnant Black Hole Mass Function , ApJ 889 (2020) 115 [ 1904.03781 ].\n- [72] K.S. Croker, M. Zevin, D. Farrah, K.A. Nishimura and G. Tarl'e, Cosmologically Coupled Compact Objects: A Single-parameter Model for LIGO-Virgo Mass and Redshift Distributions , ApJ 921 (2021) L22 [ 2109.08146 ].\n- [73] S. Ghodla, R. Easther, M.M. Briel and J.J. Eldridge, Observational implications of cosmologically coupled black holes , The Open Journal of Astrophysics 6 (2023) 25 [ 2306.08199 ].\n- [74] L. Amendola, D.C. Rodrigues, S. Kumar and M. Quartin, Constraints on cosmologically coupled black holes from gravitational wave observations and minimal formation mass , MNRAS (2024) [ 2307.02474 ].\n- [75] C.L. Rodriguez, Constraints on the Cosmological Coupling of Black Holes from the Globular Cluster NGC 3201 , ApJ 947 (2023) L12 [ 2302.12386 ].\n- [76] R. Andrae and K. El-Badry, Constraints on the cosmological coupling of black holes from Gaia , A&A 673 (2023) L10 [ 2305.01307 ].\n- [77] E. Mlinar and T. Zwitter, Determining cosmological growth parameter for stellar - mass black holes , MNRAS (2024) [ 2311.09007 ].\n- [78] LSST Dark Energy Science collaboration, The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC) Science Requirements Document , 1809.01669 .\n- [79] LSST Dark Energy Science collaboration, Core Cosmology Library: Precision Cosmological Predictions for LSST , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 242 (2019) 2 [ 1812.05995 ].\n- [80] LSST collaboration, LSST: from Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products , Astrophys. J. 873 (2019) 111 [ 0805.2366 ].\n- [81] Euclid collaboration, Euclid preparation. VII. Forecast validation for Euclid cosmological probes , Astron. Astrophys. 642 (2020) A191 [ 1910.09273 ].\n- [82] L. Amendola et al., Cosmology and fundamental physics with the Euclid satellite , Living Rev. Rel. 21 (2018) 2 [ 1606.00180 ].\n- [83] R. Akeson et al., The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s , 1902.05569 .\n- [84] O. Dor'e et al., WFIRST: The Essential Cosmology Space Observatory for the Coming Decade , 1904.01174 .\n- [85] SKA collaboration, Cosmology with Phase 1 of the Square Kilometre Array: Red Book 2018: Technical specifications and performance forecasts , Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 37 (2020) e007 [ 1811.02743 ].\n- [86] The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration and the KAGRA Collaboration, Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2 . 5 -4 . 5 M ⊙ Compact Object and a Neutron Star , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.04248 [ 2404.04248 ].\n- [87] N. Afshordi, Gravitational Aether and the thermodynamic solution to the cosmological constant problem , arXiv e-prints (2008) arXiv:0807.2639 [ 0807.2639 ].\n- [88] C. Prescod-Weinstein, N. Afshordi and M.L. Balogh, Stellar black holes and the origin of cosmic acceleration , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 043513 [ 0905.3551 ].\n- [89] P. Natarajan, F. Pacucci, A. Ricarte, ' A. Bogd'an, A.D. Goulding and N. Cappelluti, First Detection of an Overmassive Black Hole Galaxy UHZ1: Evidence for Heavy Black Hole Seed Formation from Direct Collapse , ApJ 960 (2024) L1 [ 2308.02654 ].  \n- [90] S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt, Modern Cosmology , Academic Press (2020), 10.1016/C2017-0-01943-2.\n- [91] D.W. Hogg, Distance measures in cosmology , arXiv e-prints (1999) astro [ astro-ph/9905116 ].\n- [92] E. Komatsu, K.M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C.L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw et al., Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation , ApJS 192 (2011) 18 [ 1001.4538 ].\n- [93] N.J. Adams, C.J. Conselice, D. Austin, T. Harvey, L. Ferreira, J. Trussler et al., EPOCHS. II. The Ultraviolet Luminosity Function from 7.5 ¡ z ¡ 13.5 Using 180 arcmin 2 of Deep, Blank Fields from the PEARLS Survey and Public JWST Data , ApJ 965 (2024) 169 [ 2304.13721 ].\n- [94] J.C.J. D'Silva, S.P. Driver, C.D.P. Lagos, A.S.G. Robotham, J. Summers and R.A. Windhorst, Star Formation and AGN Activity 500 Myr after the Big Bang: Insights from JWST , ApJ 959 (2023) L18 [ 2310.03081 ].\n- [95] J.C.J. D'Silva, S.P. Driver, C.D.P. Lagos, A.S.G. Robotham, S. Bellstedt, L.J.M. Davies et al., GAMA/DEVILS: cosmic star formation and AGN activity over 12.5 billion years , MNRAS 524 (2023) 1448 [ 2306.16040 ].\n- [96] A.M. Hopkins and J.F. Beacom, On the Normalization of the Cosmic Star Formation History , ApJ 651 (2006) 142 [ astro-ph/0601463 ].\n- [97] ' E. Aubourg, S. Bailey, J.E. Bautista, F. Beutler, V. Bhardwaj, D. Bizyaev et al., Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscillation measurements , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 123516 [ 1411.1074 ].\n- [98] S. Driver, The challenge of measuring and mapping the missing baryons , Nature Astronomy 5 (2021) 852 [ 2203.08541 ].\n- [99] D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS). Part II: Approximation schemes , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2011 (2011) 034 [ 1104.2933 ].\n- [100] B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed and S. Prunet, Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code , JCAP 1302 (2013) 001 [ 1210.7183 ].\n- [101] T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features , 1804.07261 .\n- [102] J.S. Speagle, DYNESTY: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences , MNRAS 493 (2020) 3132 [ 1904.02180 ].\n- [103] J. Skilling, Nested Sampling , in Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering , R. Fischer, R. Preuss and U.V. Toussaint, eds., vol. 735 of American Institute of Physics Conference Series , pp. 395-405, AIP, Nov., 2004, DOI.\n- [104] J. Skilling, Nested sampling for general Bayesian computation , Bayesian Analysis 1 (2006) 833 .\n- [105] E. Higson, W. Handley, M. Hobson and A. Lasenby, Dynamic nested sampling: an improved algorithm for parameter estimation and evidence calculation , Statistics and Computing 29 (2019) 891 [ 1704.03459 ].\n- [106] F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson and M. Bridges, MULTINEST: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics , MNRAS 398 (2009) 1601 [ 0809.3437 ].\n- [107] Y.S. Murakami, A.G. Riess, B.E. Stahl, W. D'Arcy Kenworthy, D.-M.A. Pluck, A. Macoretta et al., Leveraging SN Ia spectroscopic similarity to improve the measurement of H 0 , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023 (2023) 046 [ 2306.00070 ].  \n- [126] K.A.S. Croker, Perturbed Friedmann cosmology without assumptions on the stress: Consistency and application to the dark energy problem , Ph.D. thesis, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Jan., 2018.  \n[127] R. Maiolino, H. Ubler, M. Perna, J. Scholtz, F. D'Eugenio, C. Witten et al., JADES. Possible Population III signatures at z = 10.6 in the halo of GN-z11 , A&A 687 (2024) A67 [ 2306.00953 ].  \n[128] A. Nabizadeh, E. Zackrisson, F. Pacucci, W. Peter Maksym, W. Li, F. Civano et al., A search for high-redshift direct-collapse black hole candidates in the PEARLS north ecliptic pole field , A&A 683 (2024) A58 [ 2308.07260 ]."}