Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 108 references

Anisotropic cosmology using observational datasets: exploring via machine learning approaches

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A nearly isotropic Bianchi I universe passes joint CC, BAO, and CMB constraints, and polynomial regression reproduces its Hubble curve best.

desk verdict The paper's headline constraint on Ωσ0 is not actually from the Bianchi I model—the CMB/BAO likelihoods use isotropic formulas that drop the shear term—and the ML validation is circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21266 v2 pith:NGVS63HK submitted 2025-07-28 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj , Manish Kalra , Priyanka Garg , Saibal Ray This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords BianchiIspacetimegeneralrelativityobservationalconstraintsmachinelearningHubbleparametercosmicchronometersbaryonacousticoscillationsCMBpeaks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a homogeneous but anisotropic Bianchi I universe, with a small shear term added to the usual matter and cosmological-constant densities, can fit the combined cosmic-chronometer, baryon-acoustic-oscillation, and CMB-peak data. The best fit puts the anisotropy density at $\Omega_{\sigma 0}=0.0009\pm0.0001$, meaning the model is almost isotropic at present, with $H_0=69.9\pm1.4$ km/s/Mpc and $\Omega_{m0}=0.277^{+0.017}_{-0.015}$. The same expansion history is then used as a target for three machine-learning regressors, and polynomial regression of degree 2 tracks the theoretical $H(z)$ most closely, while linear regression and an ANN also align with it. The authors take this alignment as evidence that machine-learning predictions of the Hubble parameter can serve as a data-driven check of the Bianchi I model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anisotropic Hubble law of Eq. (7), $H^2=H_0^2[(1+z)^3\Omega_{m0}+\Omega_{\Lambda 0}+(1+z)^6\Omega_{\sigma 0}]$, in which the Bianchi I shear contributes a density parameter $\Omega_{\sigma 0}$ that redshifts as $(1+z)^6$, faster than matter. The argument runs on two tools: the Markov-chain Monte Carlo likelihood built from $\chi^2_{\rm CC}+\chi^2_{\rm BAO}+\chi^2_{\rm CMB}$, which fixes the four parameters, and the $\alpha$-deviation metric $\alpha=|H_{\rm model}/H_{\rm obs}-1|$ used to compare the theoretical and ML $H(z)$ curves. The ML component uses standard regression pipelines: linear regression, a relu-activated ANN with learning rate 0.001, and quadratic polynomial regression, with training/test splits of 67/33 for 30 data points and 80/20 for 57 data points.

What would settle it

Recompute the joint CC+BAO+CMB constraints with the Bianchi I shear term inserted into $D_A(z)$, $D_V(z)$, and $r_s(z)$, and check whether $\Omega_{\sigma 0}$ stays consistent with 0.0009 and whether the best-fit $H_0$ shifts by more than the quoted 1.4 km/s/Mpc; if the anisotropic distance corrections alter the parameters substantially, the claimed validation of the Bianchi I model would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the locally rotationally symmetric Bianchi I model in general relativity, defined by $H^2=H_0^2[(1+z)^3\Omega_{m0}+\Omega_{\Lambda 0}+(1+z)^6\Omega_{\sigma 0}]$, is constrained by the joint CC+BAO+CMB dataset to best-fit parameters $H_0=69.9\pm1.4$ km/s/Mpc, $\Omega_{m0}=0.277^{+0.017}_{-0.015}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda 0}=0.722^{+0.015}_{-0.017}$, and $\Omega_{\sigma 0}=0.0009\pm0.0001$, and that the resulting theoretical $H(z)$ curve is reproduced by machine-learning regressors trained on observed $H(z)$ points. Among linear regression, an artificial neural network, and quadratic polynomial regression, the polynomial regressor gives the lowest mean absolute error, the lowest root-mean-square error, and the highest $R^2$ on the test splits, so the paper presents it as exceeding the other techniques. The agreement between ML predictions and the theoretical curve is offered as validation that the Bianchi I model is a viable description of the late-time expansion history.

Load-bearing premise

The BAO and CMB likelihoods assume the standard isotropic distance formulas $D_A(z)$, $D_V(z)$, and the CMB acoustic scale $l_a=\pi D_A(z_*)/r_s(z_*)$, even though the model being constrained is anisotropic, and the shear term is not propagated into these formulas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the present Universe is anisotropic only at the level $\Omega_{\sigma 0}\approx10^{-3}$, so the Bianchi I expansion history is observationally almost indistinguishable from flat Lambda-CDM.
  • Machine-learning regressors fed only with observed $H(z)$ points reproduce the theoretical $H(z)$ of the best-fit model, so ML can act as a model-independent cross-check of parametric reconstructions.
  • Quadratic polynomial regression outperforms linear regression and the tested ANN on both the 30- and 57-point datasets, suggesting that a simple low-degree polynomial captures the $H(z)$ trend well.
  • Increasing the dataset from 30 to 57 points and the training fraction from 67% to 80% improves the test metrics for ANN and polynomial regression, indicating that more data helps these methods track the expansion history.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A sharper test of the ML validation would train on a low-redshift subsample and test on high-redshift cosmic chronometers, since the paper's comparison evaluates points that were also used to determine the model parameters.
  • Because the BAO and CMB likelihoods assume isotropic distance-redshift relations, propagating the shear term into $D_A(z)$, $D_V(z)$, and $r_s(z)$ would show whether the tiny $\Omega_{\sigma 0}$ is a real detection or an artifact of the isotropic approximation.
  • The near-zero anisotropy density is consistent with isotropization, so the same machinery could be extended to early-universe observables such as CMB polarization, where anisotropic expansion leaves signatures even when $\Omega_{\sigma 0}$ is small.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a locally rotationally symmetric Bianchi I spacetime in general relativity with dust and a cosmological constant, derives the expansion law H^2 = H0^2 [Ωm0(1+z)^3 + ΩΛ0 + Ωσ0(1+z)^6], and constrains the parameters with 30 cosmic chronometer points, 6 BAO points, and WMAP7 CMB peak parameters using MCMC. It then compares the resulting theoretical H(z) with linear regression, ANN, and polynomial regression predictions, reporting best-fit parameters H0=69.9±1.4 km/s/Mpc, Ωm0=0.277, ΩΛ0=0.722, Ωσ0=0.0009, and claiming that polynomial regression performs best and that the ML agreement validates the Bianchi I model.

Significance. If the parameter constraints were valid, the estimate of the anisotropy density parameter Ωσ0 would be a useful addition to the observational literature on Bianchi models, and the ML comparison could serve as a sanity check. The paper has positive features: it uses public MCMC machinery, presents explicit chi-square estimators, provides data tables, and includes several ML performance metrics and cross-validation. However, the central constraints are undermined by the use of isotropic BAO/CMB distance formulas for an anisotropic model, and the ML comparison is not an independent validation because the theoretical curve is calibrated on the same data used to train the regressors. The significance of the reported results is therefore conditional on correcting these issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 (Eqs. 7, 12–13)] The CMB likelihood uses the isotropic acoustic scale l_a = π D_A(z*)/r_s(z*) and shift parameter R = sqrt(Ωm0 H0) D_A(z*), but the model expansion is Eq. (7), which contains the shear term Ωσ0(1+z)^6. For the quoted best fit Ωσ0=0.0009, at z*=1090 the shear contribution to H^2/H0^2 is about 1.5×10^15, roughly four million times the matter contribution; if Eq. (7) is used in the sound-horizon and distance integrals, the acoustic scale cannot be consistent with the WMAP7 value 302.40 used in Eq. (14). Since the paper reports a successful joint fit, the likelihoods must effectively have been evaluated with Ωσ0 absent or with an H(z) different from Eq. (7). As written, Table 2 does not provide valid constraints on the Bianchi I parameters.
  2. [§3.2 (Eq. 7, BAO definitions)] The BAO estimator in §3.2 is built from the isotropic angular diameter distance D_A=D_L/(1+z)^2 and the dilation scale D_V=[D_L^2(1+z)^2 c z/H]^{1/3}. For a LRS Bianchi I spacetime, angular diameter distances depend on the directional scale factors A and B, and the shear term enters both the expansion history and the null geodesics; no anisotropic distance or sound-horizon expressions are provided. At the low redshifts of the BAO sample the effect is smaller than at recombination, but the inconsistency is part of the same issue: the reported Ωσ0 and the other parameters are not constrained by the model actually written down in the paper.
  3. [§5 and §6 (Eqs. 17–23, Tables 3–4)] The claimed ML validation is circular. The theoretical H(z) is evaluated at the MCMC best-fit parameters obtained from the 30 CC points (Eq. 7 with Table 2), and the LR, ANN, and polynomial regressors are trained on those same 30 CC points; Table 3 then compares both to the same Hobs values. The agreement between Htheo and the ML predictions in this setting only shows that flexible regressors can interpolate the data used to calibrate the theory, not that the Bianchi I model is independently validated. A genuine test would compare ML predictions on data not used to determine the model parameters, or would fix the model parameters from an independent sample.
  4. [§6 (Tables 4–6)] The abstract's claim that polynomial regression outperforms the other techniques is not supported by the paper's own tables. In Table 5, for the 57-point observatory test set, ANN has lower mean absolute error (4.25516 versus 4.45609) and higher R^2 (0.99000 versus 0.98697) than polynomial regression, and in Table 6 the cross-validation R^2 for polynomial regression (0.83338) is lower than that for linear regression (0.84916). The superiority claim should be restricted to the specific 30-point setting in Table 4, or revised.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6, item (1)] The sentence 'what we feel that the analysis would benefit from including standard ML regression performance metrics' reads as a revision note rather than final paper prose and should be rewritten.
  2. [§6 (Tables 4–5)] The 57-point dataset used in the second part of the analysis is not identified or referenced; the paper should state its source and explain how the additional 27 points were obtained.
  3. [§3.3 (Eq. 13)] Equation (13) is dimensionally inconsistent as written: sqrt(Ωm0 H0) D_A(z*) has dimensions of km/s/Mpc times Mpc unless units are explicitly set to c=1, and the standard CMB shift parameter contains sqrt(Ωm H0^2) D_A/c. Please correct the formula and state the unit conventions.
  4. [Table 3] Table 3 contains repeated redshifts (z=0.2, 0.4, 0.48) with slightly different theoretical H values for the same z; the origin of these multiple entries, and whether they represent independent measurements or duplicates, should be clarified.
  5. [§4.3] The polynomial regression degree is fixed to 2 without a model-selection procedure; since the performance comparison depends on this choice, the paper should report how the degree was selected.
  6. [§3.3] The paper uses WMAP7 CMB peak parameters; given the manuscript date, the choice of this older dataset should be justified, or current CMB distance priors should be used.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

ML-based 'validation' is circular: the theoretical H(z) is fitted to the same CC data used to train the ML models.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, 'Machine Learning approach'; see also Eq. (7), Table 2, Section 5]
    "The motivation for finding H(z) with ML techniques is to validate the theoretical modeling results. We compare the results of the ML model with those of the theoretical model. The alignment of the ML results with the theoretical model validates that one."

    The 'theoretical model' used for comparison is Eq. (7), H^2 = H0^2[(1+z)^3 Omega_m0 + Omega_Lambda0 + (1+z)^6 Omega_sigma0], with parameters taken from the MCMC fit to the CC H(z) data (Table 2, CC row: H0=69.1, Omega_m0=0.277, Omega_Lambda0=0.720, Omega_sigma0=0.003). The ML regressions are trained on the very same CC points: Section 5 splits '30 points of dataset' into 67% training / 33% testing. Thus agreement between the ML output and H_theo is not an independent confirmation of the Bianchi I model; it is the expected consequence of fitting two flexible functions to the same data. The paper labels this agreement 'validation,' but no genuinely out-of-sample or independent theoretical prediction is made.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, opening paragraph and Figure 3]
    "Further, Fig. 3 depicts that the theoretical values are aligned with the observed values."

    The theoretical values H_theo shown in Figure 3 and Table 3 are produced from Eq. (7) evaluated at the best-fit parameters obtained by minimizing chi^2 against those same observed H(z) values (Eq. (10) and Table 2). That the fitted curve aligns with the data is therefore a statement of the fitting procedure, not an independent success of the model. Presenting this alignment as a validation step (also in Section 4) treats the fit itself as confirming evidence, which is circular.

full rationale

The MCMC parameter estimation is a standard data-fitting exercise and is not circular by itself. The circularity enters in the ML validation chain: the theoretical H(z) is generated from parameters fitted to the CC data, and the ML models are trained on the same CC data, so their mutual agreement is essentially forced. The paper's central claim that ML predictions 'validate' the Bianchi I model therefore reduces, by construction, to checking one interpolation against another fit of the same points. The BAO/CMB likelihoods in Sections 3.2-3.3 use isotropic FLRW distance and sound-horizon formulas to constrain an anisotropic model; this is a serious internal inconsistency, but it is a correctness/model-application problem, not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness-import-from-authors pattern is present. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the derived validation claim is forced by shared input data, while the raw parameter constraints retain some independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The anisotropic density parameter Omega_sigma arises from a known integration constant in the Bianchi I field equations.

free parameters (5)
  • H0 = 69.9 +/- 1.4 km/s/Mpc (joint CC+BAO+CMB)
    Normalization of the Hubble relation; fitted via MCMC in Sec. 3.4.
  • Omega_m0 = 0.277 +0.017/-0.015
    Matter density parameter; fitted via MCMC.
  • Omega_Lambda0 = 0.722 +0.015/-0.017
    Cosmological constant density parameter; fitted via MCMC and tied by Eq. (8).
  • Omega_sigma0 = 0.0009 +/- 0.0001
    Anisotropy density parameter; fitted via MCMC; absorbs the integration constant c1 in Eq. (6).
  • Polynomial regression degree = 2
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 4.3; no selection criterion or investigation of other degrees is shown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The universe is described by the LRS Bianchi I metric Eq. (1) with dust and a cosmological constant.
    Assumed throughout; no comparison to other anisotropic metrics or modified gravity is made.
  • domain assumption The BAO and CMB likelihoods assume isotropic distance-redshift relations and the standard flat FLRW distance formulas.
    Secs. 3.2 and 3.3 use DA(z), DV(z), and the CMB acoustic scale for an isotropic universe; the anisotropic model is imposed only through H(z) in the expansion rate.
  • standard math The 30 CC H(z) points are independent Gaussian measurements with known errors, and the chi-square statistic of Eq. (10) is the correct likelihood.
    Standard treatment; no off-diagonal covariance is included.
  • standard math The shear energy density scales as (1+z)^6 as in Eq. (7), derived under the assumption pm=0.
    Follows from Eq. (6) with the dust assumption; the paper adopts this scaling for the entire redshift range.
  • domain assumption WMAP7 CMB shift parameters are valid summary statistics for constraining the model.
    Sec. 3.3 uses WMAP7 acoustic peak data from 2011; modern Planck constraints are not used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic cosmology using observational datasets: exploring via machine learning approaches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NGVS63HK

@misc{pith2026250721266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic cosmology using observational datasets: exploring via machine learning approaches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NGVS63HK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21266}
}
abstract

In the current study, we present the observational data constraints on the parameters space for an anisotropic cosmological model of Bianchi I type spacetime in general relativity (GR). For the analysis, we consider observational datasets of Cosmic Chronometers (CC), Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO), and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) peak parameters. The Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique is utilized to constrain the best-fit values of the model parameters. For this purpose, we use the publicly available Python code from CosmoMC and have developed the contour plots with different constraint limits. For the joint dataset of CC, BAO, and CMBR, the parameter's best-fit values for the derived model are estimated as $ H_0 = 69.9\pm 1.4$ km/s/Mpc, $ \Omega_{m0}=0.277^{+0.017}_{-0.015}$, $ \Omega_{\Lambda 0} = 0.722^{+0.015}_{-0.017}$, and $\Omega_{\sigma 0} = 0.0009\pm0.0001$. To estimate $H(z)$, we explore machine learning (ML) techniques like linear regression, Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and polynomial regression and thereafter analyze the results with the theoretically developed $H(z)$ for the proposed model. Among these ML techniques, the polynomial regression exceeds the performance compared to other techniques. Further, we also note that larger dataset provides a better understanding of the cosmological scenario in terms of ML view point.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21266 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 1-dimensional marginal plots and 2-dimensional contour plot with 68% confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Layers in Artificial Neural Network (ANN). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The figure depicts observed (Htheo) and theoretical (Hobs) values corresponding to different z parameters. 5.1. LR analysis In this Section, we perform the graphical and quantitative analysis of the linear regression technique with respect to theoretical model and observed data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predictions for linear regression model corresponding to theoretical and observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graphical Analysis of predictions using ANN with its theoretical and observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparative analysis of predictions for Polynomial regression model with that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) ANN analysis with 30 H(z) points, (b) ANN analysis with 57 H(z) points. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Learning Curve for linear regression model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Learning curve for polynomial regression. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Learning curve for ANN technique on 57 data points. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Riess et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an ac- celerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron

    A.G. Riess et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an ac- celerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009

    1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, Astrophys

    S. Perlmutter et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565. 25

    1999

  3. [3]

    Komatsu et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological interpretation, Astrophys

    E. Komatsu et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological interpretation, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180 (2009) 330

    2009

  4. [4]

    Hinshaw et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe observations: Data processing, sky Maps, and basic results, Astrophys

    G. Hinshaw et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe observations: Data processing, sky Maps, and basic results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180 (2009) 225

    2009

  5. [5]

    Riess, et al., New Hubble space telescope discoveries of type Ia supernovae at z >1: narrowing constraints on the early behavior of dark energy, Astrophys

    A.G. Riess, et al., New Hubble space telescope discoveries of type Ia supernovae at z >1: narrowing constraints on the early behavior of dark energy, Astrophys. J. 659 (2007) 98

    2007

  6. [6]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Unifying phantom inflation with late-time accel- eration: scalar phantom-non-phantom transition model and generalized holographic dark energy, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 38 (2006) 1285

    2006

  7. [7]

    Matsumoto, S

    J. Matsumoto, S. Nojiri, Reconstruction of k-essence model, Phys. Lett. B 687 (2010) 236

    2010

  8. [8]

    Schmidt,et al., The high-Z supernova search: Measuring cosmic deceleration and global curvature of the universe using type Ia supernovae, Astrophys

    B.P. Schmidt,et al., The high-Z supernova search: Measuring cosmic deceleration and global curvature of the universe using type Ia supernovae, Astrophys. J. 507 (1998) 46

    1998

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Perlmutter, et al., Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications, Nature 391 (1998) 51

    S. Perlmutter, et al., Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications, Nature 391 (1998) 51

    1998

  2. [10]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Introduction to Modified Gravity and Gravita- tional Alternative for Dark Energy, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 4 (2007) 115

    2007

  3. [11]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, Modified gravity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution, Phys. Rep. 692 (2017) 1

    2017

  4. [12]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, E. Trincherini, Galileon as a local modification of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 064036

    2009

  5. [13]

    Flanagan, Fourth order Weyl gravity, Phys

    E.E. Flanagan, Fourth order Weyl gravity, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 023002

    2006

  6. [14]

    Deruelle, L

    N. Deruelle, L. Farina-Busto, Lovelock gravitational field equations in cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 3696. 26

    1990

  7. [15]

    Bahamonde, M

    S. Bahamonde, M. Marciu, S.D. Odintsov, P. Rudra, String-inspired Teleparallel cosmology, Nucl. Phys. B 962 (2021) 115238

    2021

  8. [16]

    Chen, J.B

    S.H. Chen, J.B. Dent, S. Dutta, E.N. Saridakis, Cosmological perturba- tions in f (T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 023508

    2011

  9. [17]

    Koyama, Testing Brans-Dicke gravity with screening by scalar gravi- tational wave memory, Phys

    K. Koyama, Testing Brans-Dicke gravity with screening by scalar gravi- tational wave memory, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 021502

    2020

  10. [18]

    S. Song, C. Zhang, Y. Ma, Alternative dynamics in loop quantum Brans- Dicke cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 024024

    2020

  11. [19]

    Modesto, Super-renormalizable Gravity, Phys

    L. Modesto, Super-renormalizable Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 86 044005 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Linder, Einstein’s other gravity and the acceleration of the Universe, Phys

    E.V. Linder, Einstein’s other gravity and the acceleration of the Universe, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 127301

    2010

  13. [21]

    Jamil, D

    M. Jamil, D. Momeni, R. Myrzakulov, P. Rudra, Statefinder Analysis of f (T ) Cosmology, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81 (2012) 114004

    2012

  14. [22]

    Kofinas, E.N

    G. Kofinas, E.N. Saridakis, Teleparallel equivalent of Gauss-Bonnet gravity and its modifications, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 084044

    2014

  15. [23]

    Rudra, S

    P. Rudra, S. Maity, Vaidya spacetime in Brans-Dicke gravity’s rainbow, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 828

    2018

  16. [24]

    Capozziello, Curvature quintessence, Int

    S. Capozziello, Curvature quintessence, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11 (2002) 483

    2002

  17. [25]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Modified Gauss-Bonnet theory as gravita- tional alternative for dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 631 (2005) 1

    2005

  18. [26]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, f (R) theories, Living Rev. Relativ. 13 (2010) 3

    2010

  19. [27]

    Sotiriou, V

    T.P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni, f (R) theories of gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 451

    2010

  20. [28]

    Hinshaw et al., First-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: The angular power spectrum, Astrophys

    G. Hinshaw et al., First-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: The angular power spectrum, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 148 (2003) 135. 27

    2003

  21. [29]

    Hinshaw et al., Three-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Temperature analysis, Astrophys

    G. Hinshaw et al., Three-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Temperature analysis, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 170 (2007) 288

    2007

  22. [30]

    Jaffe, Evidence of vorticity and shear at large angular scales in the WMAP data, a violation of cosmological isotropy? Astrophys

    T.R. Jaffe, Evidence of vorticity and shear at large angular scales in the WMAP data, a violation of cosmological isotropy? Astrophys. J. Lett. 629 (2005) L1

    2005

  23. [31]

    Jaffe et al., Fast and efficient template fitting of deterministic anisotropic cosmological models applied to WMAP data, Astrophys

    T.R. Jaffe et al., Fast and efficient template fitting of deterministic anisotropic cosmological models applied to WMAP data, Astrophys. J. 643 (2006) 616

    2006

  24. [32]

    Jaffe et al., Bianchi type V Ih models and the WMAP 3-year data, Astron

    T.R. Jaffe et al., Bianchi type V Ih models and the WMAP 3-year data, Astron. Astrophys. 460 (2006) 393

    2006

  25. [33]

    Campanelli, P

    L. Campanelli, P. Cea, L. Tedesco, Ellipsoidal universe can solve the cosmic microwave background quadrupole problem, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2006) 131302

    2006

  26. [34]

    Campanelli, P

    L. Campanelli, P. Cea, L. Tedesco, Cosmic microwave background quadrupole and ellipsoidal universe, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 063007

    2007

  27. [35]

    Hoftuft et al., Increasing evidence for hemispherical power asymmetry in the five-year WMAP data, Astrophys

    J. Hoftuft et al., Increasing evidence for hemispherical power asymmetry in the five-year WMAP data, Astrophys. J. 699 (2009) 985

    2009

  28. [36]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, S. Sharma, L. Tedesco, Constraints on a Bianchi type I spacetime extension of the standard Λ CDM model, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 023532

    2019

  29. [37]

    Rana, A.K Yadav, Bulk viscous Bianchi-V cos- mological model within the formalism of f (R, T) = f1(R) + f2(R)f3(T ) gravity, Astrophys

    V.K Bhardwaj, M.K. Rana, A.K Yadav, Bulk viscous Bianchi-V cos- mological model within the formalism of f (R, T) = f1(R) + f2(R)f3(T ) gravity, Astrophys. Space Sci. 364 (2019) 1

    2019

  30. [38]

    B.C. Paul, D. Paul, Anisotropic Bianchi-I universe with phantom field and cosmological constant, Pramana: J. Phys. 71 (2008) 6

    2008

  31. [39]

    Bhardwaj, Non-minimal matter-geometry coupling in the Bianchi- V spacetime within the formalism of f (R, T) = f1(R) + f2(R)f3(T ) cosmology, Mod

    V.K. Bhardwaj, Non-minimal matter-geometry coupling in the Bianchi- V spacetime within the formalism of f (R, T) = f1(R) + f2(R)f3(T ) cosmology, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 33 (2018) 1850234. 28

    2018

  32. [40]

    Zubair, S.M.A

    M. Zubair, S.M.A. Hassan, Dynamics of Bianchi type I, III and Kantowski-Sachs solutions in gravity, Astrophys. Space Sci. 361 149 (2016)

    2016

  33. [42]

    Lazanu, Extracting cosmological parameters from N-body simulations using machine learning techniques, J

    A. Lazanu, Extracting cosmological parameters from N-body simulations using machine learning techniques, J. Cosmo. Astropart. Phys. 2021.09 (2021) 039

    2021

  34. [43]

    Salti, O

    E.E Kangal, M. Salti, O. Aydogdu, Machine learning algorithm in a caloric view point of cosmology, Phys. Dark Univ. , 26 (2019) 100369

    2019

  35. [44]

    Aljaf et al., Solving the H0 tension in f (T ) gravity through Bayesian machine learning, Eur

    M. Aljaf et al., Solving the H0 tension in f (T ) gravity through Bayesian machine learning, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 1

    2022

  36. [45]

    Elizalde, M

    E. Elizalde, M. Khurshudyan, Constraints on cosmic opacity from Bayesian machine learning: The hidden side of the H0 tension prob- lem, Phys. Dark Univ. 37 (2022) 101114

    2022

  37. [46]

    Gomez-Valent, L

    A. Gomez-Valent, L. Amendola, H0 from cosmic chronometers and Type Ia supernovae, with Gaussian Processes and the novel Weighted Polynomial Regression method, J. Cosmo. Astropart. Phys. 2018 (2018) 051

    2018

  38. [47]

    K. Giri, P. Rudra, Constraints on cubic and f (P ) gravity from the cosmic chronometers, BAO & CMB datasets: Use of machine learning algorithms, Nuclear Physics B 978 (2022) 115746

    2022

  39. [48]

    Elizalde, M

    E. Elizalde, M. Khurshudyan, Interplay between Swampland and Bayesian Machine Learning in constraining cosmological models, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 1

    2021

  40. [49]

    Moriwaki, T

    K. Moriwaki, T. Nishimichi, N. Yoshida, Machine learning for observa- tional cosmology, Reports on Prog. Phys. 86 (2023) 076901

    2023

  41. [50]

    Villaescusa-Navarro et al., The camels project: Cosmology and as- trophysics with machine-learning simulations, Astrophys

    F. Villaescusa-Navarro et al., The camels project: Cosmology and as- trophysics with machine-learning simulations, Astrophys. J. 915 (2021) 71. 29

    2021

  42. [51]

    Salti, E.E

    M. Salti, E.E. Kangal, B. Zengin, Deep learning-assisted Hubble param- eter analysis, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39 (2024) 2350202

    2024

  43. [52]

    Qiu et al., Cosmology with galaxy cluster properties using machine learning, Astron

    L. Qiu et al., Cosmology with galaxy cluster properties using machine learning, Astron. Astrophys. 687 (2024) A1

    2024

  44. [53]

    Gomez-Vargas, J.A

    I. Gomez-Vargas, J.A. Vazquez, Deep Learning and genetic algorithms for cosmological Bayesian inference speed-up, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 083518

    2024

  45. [54]

    Arjona, Machine Learning meets the redshift evolution of the CMB Temperature, preprint arXiv:2002.12700 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Arjona, Machine Learning meets the redshift evolution of the CMB Temperature, preprint arXiv:2002.12700 [astro-ph.CO]

    2002 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Salti, E.E

    M. Salti, E.E. Kangal, O. Aydogdu, Evolution of CMB temperature in a Chaplygin gas model from deep learning perspective, Astron. Comput. 37, (2021) 100504

    2021

  47. [56]

    Wang, X.-J

    G.-J. Wang, X.-J. Ma, J.-Q. Xia, Machine learning the cosmic curvature in a model-independent way, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 501 (2021) 5714

    2021

  48. [57]

    Tilaver et al., Deep learning approach to Hubble parameter, Comput

    H. Tilaver et al., Deep learning approach to Hubble parameter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 261 (2021) 107809

    2021

  49. [58]

    G´ omez-Vargas et al., Neural network reconstructions for the Hubble parameter, growth rate and distance modulus, Eur

    I. G´ omez-Vargas et al., Neural network reconstructions for the Hubble parameter, growth rate and distance modulus, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 304

    2023

  50. [59]

    R. Shah, A. Bhaumik, P. Mukherjee, S. Pal, A thorough investigation of the prospects of eLISA in addressing the Hubble tension: Fisher Forecast, MCMC and Machine Learning, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2023) 038

    2023

  51. [60]

    Lucie-Smith et al., Deep learning insights into cosmological structure formation, Phys

    L. Lucie-Smith et al., Deep learning insights into cosmological structure formation, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 063524

    2024

  52. [61]

    Vilardi, S

    S. Vilardi, S. Capozziello1, M. Brescia, Discriminating between cosmo- logical models using data-driven methods, A & A 695 (2025) A166

    2025

  53. [62]

    Spergel et al., First-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of cosmological parameters, As- trophys

    D.N. Spergel et al., First-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of cosmological parameters, As- trophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 175. 30

    2003

  54. [63]

    Bennett et al., First-year Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results, Astrophys

    C.L. Bennett et al., First-year Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 1

    2003

  55. [64]

    Demianski et al., Noether symmetries in f(G) gravity, Phys

    M. Demianski et al., Noether symmetries in f(G) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 1391

    1992

  56. [65]

    Singh, B.K

    G.P. Singh, B.K. Bishi, P.K. Sahoo, Scalar field and time varying cosmo- logical constant in f (R, T) gravity for Bianchi type-I universe, Chin. J. Phys. 54 (2016) 244

    2016

  57. [66]

    A. De, S. Mandal, J.T. Beh, T.-H. Loo, P.K. Sahoo , Isotropization of locally rotationally symmetric Bianchi-I universe in f(Q)-gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 72

    2022

  58. [67]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, A. Constantini, Formalizing anisotropic inflation in modified gravity,Nucl. Phys. B 985 (2022) 116011

    2022

  59. [68]

    Bhardwaj et al., An axially symmetric transitioning models with observational constraints, Chin

    V.K. Bhardwaj et al., An axially symmetric transitioning models with observational constraints, Chin. J. Phys. 80 (2022) 261

    2022

  60. [69]

    Ghaffari et al., Tsallis holographic dark energy in the Brans–Dicke cosmology, Eur

    S. Ghaffari et al., Tsallis holographic dark energy in the Brans–Dicke cosmology, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 706

    2018

  61. [70]

    V. K. Bhardwaj, S. Prakash, Observational constraints on Anisotropic Cosmological Model in Lyra’s Manifold, Chin. J. Phys. 87 (2024) 665

    2024

  62. [71]

    H. Yu, B. Ratra, F.-Y. Wang, Hubble parameter and baryon acoustic oscillation measurement constraints on the Hubble constant, the devia- tion from the spatially flat Λ CDM model, the deceleration-acceleration transition redshift, and spatial curvature, Astrophys. J. 856 (2018) 3

    2018

  63. [72]

    Moresco, Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z ∼ 2, Mon

    M. Moresco, Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z ∼ 2, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450 (2015) L16–L20

    2015

  64. [73]

    Sharov, V.O

    G.S. Sharov, V.O. Vasilie, How predictions of cosmological models depend on Hubble parameter data sets, Math. Model. Geom. 6 (2018) 1

    2018

  65. [74]

    Beutler et al., The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations and the local Hubble constant, Mon

    F. Beutler et al., The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations and the local Hubble constant, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 416 (2011) 3017 . 31

    2011

  66. [75]

    Anderson et al., The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples, Mon

    L. Anderson et al., The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 441 (2014) 24

    2014

  67. [76]

    Padmanabhan et al., A 2% distance to z = 0.35 by reconstructing baryon acoustic oscillations - I: Methods and application to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Mon

    N. Padmanabhan et al., A 2% distance to z = 0.35 by reconstructing baryon acoustic oscillations - I: Methods and application to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 427 (2012) 2132

    2012

  68. [77]

    Blake et al., The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z <1, Mon

    C. Blake et al., The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z <1, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 425 (2012) 405

    2012

  69. [78]

    Farooq, B

    O. Farooq, B. Ratra, Hubble parameter measurement constraints on the cosmological deceleration–acceleration transition redshift, Astrophys. J. Lett. 766 (2013) L7

    2013

  70. [79]

    Colgain, M.M

    E.O. Colgain, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Elucidating cosmological model dependence with H0 Euro. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 892

    2021

  71. [80]

    Luongo et al., Larger H0 values in the CMB dipole direction Phys

    O. Luongo et al., Larger H0 values in the CMB dipole direction Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 103510

    2022

  72. [81]

    Percival et al., Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sample, Mon

    W.J. Percival et al., Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sample, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 401 (2010) 2148

    2010

  73. [82]

    Blake et al., The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: mapping the distance- redshift relation with baryon acoustic oscillations, Mon

    C. Blake et al., The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: mapping the distance- redshift relation with baryon acoustic oscillations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 418 (2011) 1707

    2011

  74. [83]

    Wiley, T

    V. Wiley, T. Lucas, Computer vision and image processing: a paper review, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 2 (2018) 29

    2018

  75. [84]

    Ntampaka et al., The role of machine learning in the next decade of cosmology, preprint arXiv:1902.10159

    M. Ntampaka et al., The role of machine learning in the next decade of cosmology, preprint arXiv:1902.10159

    1902 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Giostri et al., New constraints from SN Ia and BAO/CMB, J

    R. Giostri et al., New constraints from SN Ia and BAO/CMB, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2012(03) (2012) 027. 32

    2012

  77. [86]

    Jarosik et al., Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors, and Basic Results, Astrophys

    N. Jarosik et al., Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors, and Basic Results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192 (2011) 14

    2011

  78. [87]

    Ishida, R.R.R

    E.E.O. Ishida, R.R.R. Reis, A.V. Toribio, I.Waga, Fitting Cosmological Data to the Function q(z) from GR Theory: Modified Chaplygin Gas, Astropart. Phys. 28 (2008) 547

    2008

  79. [88]

    Hinshaw et al., Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological parameter results, Astrophys

    G. Hinshaw et al., Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological parameter results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 208 (2013) 25

    2013

  80. [89]

    Riess et al., New parallaxes of galactic Cepheids from spatially scan- ning the Hubble space telescope: Implications for the Hubble constant, Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al., New parallaxes of galactic Cepheids from spatially scan- ning the Hubble space telescope: Implications for the Hubble constant, Astrophys. J. 855 (2018) 136

    2018

  81. [90]

    W. Hu, N. Sugiyama, Small-scale cosmological perturbations: an analytic approach, Astrophys. J. 471 (1996) 542

    1996

  82. [91]

    Bhardwaj et al., Constraining hybrid potential scalar field cosmo- logical model in Lyra’s geometry with recent observational data, Int

    V.K. Bhardwaj et al., Constraining hybrid potential scalar field cosmo- logical model in Lyra’s geometry with recent observational data, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. (2024) 2450283

    2024

  83. [92]

    G. Chen, S. Kumar, B. Ratra, Determining the Hubble constant from Hubble parameter measurements, Astrophys. J. 835 (2017) 86

    2017

  84. [93]

    G. Chen, B. Ratra, Median statistics and the Hubble constant, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 123 (2011) 1127

    2011

  85. [94]

    Aubourg et al., Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, Phys

    E. Aubourg et al., Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 123516

    2015

  86. [95]

    Riess et al., Type Ia supernova discoveries at z >1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for past deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution,Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al., Type Ia supernova discoveries at z >1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for past deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution,Astrophys. J. 607 (2004) 665

    2004

  87. [96]

    Mamon, K

    A.A. Mamon, K. Bamba, S. Das, Constraints on reconstructed dark energy model from SN Ia and BAO/CMB observations, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 29. 33

    2017

  88. [97]

    Santos et al., Constraining the cosmic deceleration-acceleration transition with type Ia supernova, BAO/CMB and H(z) data, J

    M.V.D. Santos et al., Constraining the cosmic deceleration-acceleration transition with type Ia supernova, BAO/CMB and H(z) data, J. Cosmo. Astropart. Phys. 2016.02 (2016) 066

    2016

  89. [98]

    Bhardwaj, A.K

    V.K. Bhardwaj, A.K. Yadav, Observation constraints on scalar field cosmological model in Anisotropic universe, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 21, (2024) 2450144

    2024

  90. [99]

    Carbonell, R.S

    J.G. Carbonell, R.S. Michalski, T.M. Mitchell, An overview of machine learning, Machine learning 1 (1983) 3

    1983

  91. [100]

    Rumelhart, G.E

    D.E. Rumelhart, G.E. Hinton, R.J. Williams, Learning internal represen- tations by error propagation, parallel distributed processing, explorations in the microstructure of cognition, ed. de rumelhart and j. mcclelland. vol. 1. 1986 , Biometrika 71.599-607 (1986) 6

    1986

  92. [101]

    Geron, Hands-on machine learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow, O’Reilly Media, Inc

    A. Geron, Hands-on machine learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow, O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2022)

    2022

  93. [102]

    McCulloch, W

    W.S. McCulloch, W. Pitts, A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity, Bull. Math. Biol. 5 (1943) 115

    1943

  94. [103]

    Hobson, ed

    M.P. Hobson, ed. Bayesian methods in cosmology, Cambridge Univ. Press (2010)

    2010

  95. [104]

    Wang, S.Y

    G.J. Wang, S.Y. Li, J.Q. Xia, ECoPANN: a framework for estimating cosmological parameters using artificial neural networks, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Series 249 (2020) 25

    2020

  96. [105]

    Cook, Detection of influential observation in linear regression, Technometrics 19 (1977) 15

    R.D. Cook, Detection of influential observation in linear regression, Technometrics 19 (1977) 15

    1977

  97. [106]

    Montgomery, E.A

    D.C. Montgomery, E.A. Peck, G.G. Vining, Introduction to linear regression analysis, John Wiley & Sons (2021)

    2021

  98. [107]

    A. Sen, M. Srivastava, Regression analysis: theory, methods, and applications, Springer Science & Business Media (2012)

    2012

  99. [108]

    MacGregor, Neural modeling: electrical signal processing in the nervous system, Springer Science & Business Media (2012)

    R. MacGregor, Neural modeling: electrical signal processing in the nervous system, Springer Science & Business Media (2012). 34

    2012

  100. [109]

    Heiberger, E

    R.M. Heiberger, E. Neuwirth, Polynomial regression-R Through Excel: A Spreadsheet Interface for Statistics, Data Analysis, and Graphics, New York: Springer (2009) 269. 35

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.