pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.03602 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-05 · 🌀 gr-qc

Testing Gauss-Bonnet Gravity with DESI BAO Data

Praveen Kumar Dhankar , Dalale Mhamdi , Albert Munyeshyaka , Darshan Kumar , Joseph Ntahompagaze , Taoufik Ouali This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 00:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords f(G) gravityGauss-Bonnet gravityDESI BAOcosmological constraintsmodified Friedmann equationsAIC BICdark energy alternatives
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

f(G) gravity models fit DESI BAO data and other observations better than the standard Lambda CDM model.

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

The paper tests two f(G) gravity models against Type Ia supernovae from the Pantheon Plus sample, cosmic chronometer measurements, and the latest Baryon Acoustic Oscillation data released by DESI. It solves the modified Friedmann equations numerically for power-law and exponential forms of the function f(G) and uses MCMC sampling to find best-fit parameters for two dataset combinations. Statistical preference is judged with both AIC and BIC, which show both modified-gravity models outperform the standard cosmological model. The exponential version additionally predicts a transition back to deceleration at a redshift near -0.1. This future behavior distinguishes it from both the power-law case and Lambda CDM, which continue accelerating forever.

Core claim

When the modified Friedmann equations for power-law and exponential f(G) are fitted to Pantheon Plus supernovae, cosmic chronometers, and DESI BAO data, both models receive stronger statistical support than Lambda CDM according to AIC and BIC. The exponential model alone exhibits an additional future transition to a decelerating phase near redshift -0.1.

What carries the argument

The modified Friedmann equations obtained from f(G) gravity, solved numerically for the power-law and exponential functional forms to match the observed expansion history.

If this is right

  • Both the power-law and exponential f(G) models are statistically favored over Lambda CDM by the combined datasets.
  • The exponential model predicts a transition from acceleration back to deceleration at redshift approximately -0.1.
  • Background-level constraints using the modified Friedmann equations are enough to distinguish these models from the standard scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future low-redshift expansion-rate measurements could directly test whether the exponential model’s predicted slowdown occurs.
  • If confirmed, such models would provide late-time acceleration without a cosmological constant and with different future evolution than Lambda CDM.
  • Checks against linear perturbation growth and structure-formation data would be required before these models can be considered fully viable.

Load-bearing premise

The two chosen functional forms for f(G) are sufficient representatives of the theory and that background expansion data alone can establish statistical preference over Lambda CDM.

What would settle it

Future measurements showing that the universe continues accelerating at redshifts below zero would contradict the exponential model's predicted return to deceleration.

read the original abstract

In the present paper, we observationally constrain f (G) gravity at the background level using Type Ia supernovae from the Pantheon Plus (PP) sample, cosmic chronometer (CC) data, and the recent Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) measurements released by DESI. For the analysis, we consider two combinations of datasets: (i) PP + CC, and (ii) PP + CC + DESI BAO. In both cases, we determine the best-fit parameters by numerically solving the modified Friedmann equations for two distinct f (G) models, namely the power-law and exponential forms. This is achieved through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations. To assess the statistical significance of the f (G) models, we employ both the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Our results show that both f (G) models are statistically favored over the standard {\Lambda}CDM model. Notably, the exponential model exhibits an additional future transition at redshift closer to -0.1, indicating a possible return to a decelerating phase. This distinctive behavior sets it apart from both the power-law model and the {\Lambda}CDM scenario, which predict continued acceleration into the future.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript constrains two f(G) gravity models (power-law and exponential) at the background level by numerically integrating the modified Friedmann equations and performing MCMC fits to Pantheon Plus supernovae, cosmic chronometer, and DESI BAO data. Both models are reported to be statistically preferred over ΛCDM according to AIC and BIC, and the exponential model is found to exhibit a transition to deceleration at redshift z ≈ −0.1.

Significance. If the models remain stable at linear order, the work would supply observational support for f(G) gravity as a viable alternative to ΛCDM using the newest DESI BAO measurements and would highlight a distinctive future evolutionary behavior not present in the standard model or the power-law variant.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 3–5] The entire analysis (Sections 3–5) is performed at the background level only. In f(G) gravity the Gauss-Bonnet term introduces an extra scalar degree of freedom whose kinetic term and sound speed must remain positive to avoid ghosts and gradient instabilities. No such check is reported for the best-fit parameter values of either model; without it the statistical preference and the claimed future transition cannot be regarded as physically viable.
  2. [Abstract and §5] The future deceleration transition at z ≈ −0.1 for the exponential model (abstract and §5) is obtained directly from the best-fit parameters fitted to the same data used for the AIC/BIC comparison. Its robustness to modest changes in the fitted parameters or to the precise data combination should be quantified, e.g., by showing the transition redshift as a function of the parameter posterior.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methodology] The methodology section should explicitly state how the covariance matrices of the combined PP+CC and PP+CC+DESI datasets are constructed and whether any cross-correlations or systematic offsets are included.
  2. [Figures and §5] Figure captions and the text discussing the deceleration parameter would benefit from error bands or shaded regions indicating the uncertainty on the reported transition redshift.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the paper to incorporate the suggested improvements, which will strengthen the physical interpretation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Sections 3–5] The entire analysis (Sections 3–5) is performed at the background level only. In f(G) gravity the Gauss-Bonnet term introduces an extra scalar degree of freedom whose kinetic term and sound speed must remain positive to avoid ghosts and gradient instabilities. No such check is reported for the best-fit parameter values of either model; without it the statistical preference and the claimed future transition cannot be regarded as physically viable.

    Authors: We agree that verifying the absence of ghosts and gradient instabilities is essential for establishing the physical viability of the f(G) models. Our analysis is restricted to the background level, which provides the necessary first step in constraining the models with DESI BAO data. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that recalls the standard no-ghost and no-gradient-instability conditions for f(G) gravity and evaluates the kinetic term and sound-speed squared at the best-fit parameter values obtained from both data combinations. This will allow us to confirm whether the reported statistical preference remains consistent with linear stability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and §5] The future deceleration transition at z ≈ −0.1 for the exponential model (abstract and §5) is obtained directly from the best-fit parameters fitted to the same data used for the AIC/BIC comparison. Its robustness to modest changes in the fitted parameters or to the precise data combination should be quantified, e.g., by showing the transition redshift as a function of the parameter posterior.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need to quantify robustness. In the revised version we will sample the transition redshift directly from the MCMC posterior chains for the exponential model and present the resulting distribution (including 68 % and 95 % intervals). We will also explicitly compare the transition redshift obtained from the PP+CC and PP+CC+DESI combinations to illustrate its sensitivity to both parameter uncertainties and the choice of dataset. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper selects two explicit f(G) functional forms, numerically integrates the modified Friedmann equations, and performs MCMC fits to independent external datasets (Pantheon Plus supernovae, cosmic chronometers, DESI BAO). AIC/BIC model comparison is computed directly from the resulting likelihoods on those data; this is standard statistical practice and does not reduce the preference claim to a definitional tautology. The reported future transition at z ≈ −0.1 for the exponential model is obtained by forward integration of the background equations using the best-fit parameter values; it is an extrapolation from the fitted dynamics rather than a quantity that was itself fitted or that forces the fit by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatze imported from prior author work appear as load-bearing steps in the provided text. The analysis remains self-contained against the external observational benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological assumptions plus two free-parameter families that are fitted to data; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • power-law coefficients and exponent
    Amplitude and power index in the power-law f(G) form are adjusted to data via MCMC.
  • exponential coefficients
    Parameters controlling the exponential f(G) form are fitted to the combined datasets.
axioms (2)
  • standard math FLRW background metric and corresponding modified Friedmann equations
    Invoked to obtain the expansion history solved numerically for each f(G) model.
  • domain assumption Validity of AIC and BIC for model comparison across different parameter counts
    Used to declare statistical preference over ΛCDM.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5780 in / 1481 out tokens · 36247 ms · 2026-05-19T00:39:40.823772+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Non-Singular Bouncing cosmology from Phantom Scalar-Gauss-Bonnet Coupling: Reconstruction with Observational Insights

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Phantom scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling with bulk viscosity produces a stable non-singular bounce cosmology that fits Pantheon+ supernova data and places derived inflation observables inside Planck 68% CL contours.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Dyson Frank Watson, Eddington Arthur Stanley and Davidson, Charles,IX. A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun’s gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of May 29, 1919, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character220 (1920) 291–333

    work page 1919

  2. [2]

    Janssen Michel and Renn, Jugen,Einstein and the perihelion motion of mercury, arXiv:2111.11238

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    Bondarescu, H

    Abbott B, Jawahar S, Lockerbie N and Tokmakov K,LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration (2016) Directly comparing GW150914 with numerical solutions of Einstein’s – 16 – equations for binary black hole coalescence. Physical Review D, 94 (6). ISSN 1550-2368, http://dx. doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 94.064035, PHYSICAL REVIEW D Phys Rev D94 (2016) 064035

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd 2016

  4. [4]

    Landau Lev Davidovich ,Elsevier, The astronomical journal2 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Ishak Mustapha ,Testing general relativity in cosmology, Living Reviews in Relativity22 (2019) 1–204

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Hazarika Ayush, Arora Simran, Sahoo PK and Harko Tiberiu,f(Q, L_m) gravity, and its cosmological implications, arXiv:2407.00989

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    Tonry John L et al.,Cosmological results from high-z supernovae, The Astrophysical Journal 594 (2003) 1

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Spergel David N et al.,Three-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: implications for cosmology, The astrophysical journal supplement series170 (2007) 377

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    Cosmological parameters (Astronomy and Astrophysics) (2020) 641 (A6, Astronomy & Astrophysics652 (2021) 1–3

    Aghanim Nabila et al.,Erratum: Planck 2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters (Astronomy and Astrophysics) (2020) 641 (A6, Astronomy & Astrophysics652 (2021) 1–3

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    ,Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, The astronomical journal116 (1998) 1009

    Riess Adam G et al. ,Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, The astronomical journal116 (1998) 1009

    work page 1998

  11. [11]

    ,Measurements ofΩ and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, The Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999) 565

    Perlmutter Saul et al. ,Measurements ofΩ and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, The Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999) 565

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    Copeland Edmund J, Sami Mohammad and Tsujikawa Shinji ,Dynamics of dark energy, International Journal of Modern Physics D15 (2006) 1753–1935

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    Saadat H and Pourhassan B ,Viscous varying generalized Chaplygin gas with cosmological constant and space curvature,International Journal of Theoretical Physics52 (2013) 3712–3720

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    ,The Chaplygin gas as a model for modified teleparallel gravity?,The European Physical Journal C79 (2019) 1–31

    Sahlu Shambel et al. ,The Chaplygin gas as a model for modified teleparallel gravity?,The European Physical Journal C79 (2019) 1–31

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    ,Generalized Chaplygin gas and accelerating universe in f (Q, T) gravity,Physics of the Dark Universe37 (2022) 101074

    Gadbail Gaurav N et al. ,Generalized Chaplygin gas and accelerating universe in f (Q, T) gravity,Physics of the Dark Universe37 (2022) 101074

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    ,Confronting the chaplygin gas with data: background and perturbed cosmic dynamics,International Journal of Modern Physics D32 (2023) 2350090

    Sahlu Shambel et al. ,Confronting the chaplygin gas with data: background and perturbed cosmic dynamics,International Journal of Modern Physics D32 (2023) 2350090

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Carroll, Sean M,The cosmological constant, Living reviews in relativity4 (2001) 1–56

    work page 2001

  18. [18]

    Li Shi-Yu et al.,Forecast of cosmological constraints with type Ia supernova from the Chinese Space Station Telescope, Science China Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy66 (2023) 229511

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Hinshaw Gary et al.,Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological parameter results, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series208 (2013) 19

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Douspis Marian, Salvati Laura and Aghanim Nabila,On the tension between large scale structures and cosmic microwave background, arXiv:1901.05289

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  21. [21]

    Is gravity getting weaker at low z? Observational evidence and theoretical implications, Modified Gravity and Cosmology: An Update by the CANTATA Network- (2021) 507–537

    Kazantzidis Lavrentios and Perivolaropoulos Leandros,σ 8 tension. Is gravity getting weaker at low z? Observational evidence and theoretical implications, Modified Gravity and Cosmology: An Update by the CANTATA Network- (2021) 507–537

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Alam Shadab et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society470 (2017) 2617–2652

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    9-2021 observations, The European Physical Journal C84 (2024) 521 – 17 –

    Nashed Gamal GL and Capozziello Salvatore,Constraining f (R) gravity by Pulsar S AX J1748. 9-2021 observations, The European Physical Journal C84 (2024) 521 – 17 –

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Escamilla-Rivera Celia and Sandoval-Orozco Rodrigo,f (T) gravity after DESI Baryon acoustic oscillation and DES supernovae 2024 data, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics42 (2024) 217–221

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Pawar DD et al.,Two fluids in f (T) gravity with observational constraints, Astronomy and Computing 48 (2024) 100863

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Gadbail Gaurav N and Sahoo PK,Modified f (Q) gravity models and their cosmological consequences, Chinese Journal of Physics89 (2024) 1754–1762

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Maurya Dinesh Chandra and Singh J,Modified f (Q)-gravity string cosmological models with observational constraints, Astronomy and Computing46 (2024) 100789

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Makarenko Andrey N and Myagky Alexander N,The asymptotic behavior of bouncing cosmological models in F (G) gravity theory, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 14 (2017) 1750148

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy,

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, “Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy,”International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, vol. 4, no. 01, pp. 115–145, 2007

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    Munyeshyaka Albert, Ntahompagaze Joseph, Mutabazi Tom and Mbonye Manasse,On covariant perturbations with scalar field in modified Gauss–Bonnet gravity, The European Physical Journal C 84 (2024) 51

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    El Ouardi Redouane et al.,Model-Independent Reconstruction off(T ) Gravity Using Genetic Algorithms, Chinese Physics C(2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Bayesian analysis of f (T) gravity using fσ 8 data,

    Anagnostopoulos Fotios K, Basilakos Spyros and Saridakis Emmanuel N, “Bayesian analysis of f (T) gravity using fσ 8 data,”Physical Review D, vol. 100, no. 08, pp. 083517, 2019

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Iorio Lorenzo and Saridakis Emmanuel NSolar system constraints on f (T) gravity, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427 (2012) 1555–1561

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    Capozziello Salvatore, Luongo Orlando and Saridakis Emmanuel NTransition redshift in f (T) cosmology and observational constraints, Physical Review D, 91 (2015) 124037

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    Bonici Marco and Maggiore NicolaConstraints on interacting dynamical dark energy and a new test forΛ CDM, The European Physical Journal C, 97 (2019) 672

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Pan Supriya and Yang WeiqiangOn the Interacting Dark Energy Scenarios—The Case for Hubble Constant Tension, The European Physical Journal C, (2024) 531–551

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Di Valentino, Eleonora, et al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Physics of the Dark Universe, 97 (2025) 101965

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Wang Deng,Constraining cosmological physics with DESI BAO observations, arXiv:2404.06796, (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Pang Ye-Huang, Zhang Xue and Huang Qing-Guo,Reevaluating H_0 Tension with Non-Planck CMB and DESI BAO Joint Analysis, arXiv:2411.14189 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Zheng Jie, Qiang Da-Chun and You Zhi-Qiang,Cosmological constraints on dark energy models using DESI BAO 2024, arXiv:2412.04830 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    On the impact of f (Q) gravity on the large scale structure,

    Sokoliuk Oleksii et al., “On the impact of f (Q) gravity on the large scale structure,”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 522, no. 01, pp. 252–267, 2023

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Yang Yuhang et al.,Data reconstruction of the dynamical connection function in f (Q) cosmology, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533 (2024) 2232–2241

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Mandal Sanjay, Wang Deng and Sahoo PKCosmography in f (Q) gravity, Physical Review D, 102 (2020) 124029. 2025. – 18 –

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    El Ouardi Redouane et al.,Exploring f(Q) gravity through model-independent reconstruction with genetic algorithms, Physics Letters B863 (2025) 139374

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Constraining viscous-fluid models inf(Q) gravity using cosmic measurements and large-scale structure data,

    Sahlu Shambel, Hough Renier T and Abebe Amare, “Constraining viscous-fluid models inf(Q) gravity using cosmic measurements and large-scale structure data,”arXiv:2408.02775, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Enkhili Omar et al.,Cosmological constraints on a dynamical dark energy model in F (Q) gravity, The European Physical Journal C, 84 (2024) 806

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    First evidence that non-metricity f (Q) gravity could challengeΛCDM,

    Anagnostopoulos, Fotios K and Basilakos, Spyros and Saridakis, Emmanuel N, “First evidence that non-metricity f (Q) gravity could challengeΛCDM,”Physics Letters B, vol. 822, pp. 136634, 2021

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Barros Bruno J et al.,Testing F (Q) gravity with redshift space distortions, Physics of the Dark Universe, 30 (2020) 100616

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Lazkoz Ruth et al.,Observational constraints of f (Q) gravity, Physical Review D, 100 (2019) 104027

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Cosmological constraints on f (Q) gravity with redshift space distortion data,

    Mhamdi Dalale , “Cosmological constraints on f (Q) gravity with redshift space distortion data,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 84, no. 3 pp. 310, 2025

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Observational Constraints On the Growth Index Parameters in f(Q) Gravity

    Mhamdi Dalale, et al. "Observational Constraints On the Growth Index Parameters in f(Q) Gravity." Fortschritte der Physik (2024): e70008

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Structure growth in f (Q) cosmology,

    Sahlu Shambel, De la Cruz-Dombriz Álvaro and Abebe Amare, “Structure growth in f (Q) cosmology,”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 539, no. 02, pp. 690–703,

    work page

  53. [53]

    Constraints on power law and exponential models in f (Q) gravity,

    Mhamdi Dalale et al., “Constraints on power law and exponential models in f (Q) gravity,” Physics Letters B, vol. 859, pp. 139113, 2024

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Nojiri Shin’ichi and Odintsov Sergei D,Modified Gauss–Bonnet theory as gravitational alternative for dark energy, Physics Letters B, 631 (2005) 1–6

    work page 2005

  55. [55]

    Lee Seokcheon and Tumurtushaa Gansukh,The viable f (G) gravity models via reconstruction from the observations, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020 (2020) 029

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou,Ghost-free Gauss-Bonnet Theories of Gravity, Phys. Rev. D, 99 (2019) 044050

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    Cognola, E

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and S. Zerbini,Dark energy in modified Gauss-Bonnet gravity: Late-time acceleration and the hierarchy problem, Phys. Rev. D, 73 (2006) 084007

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    Nojiri Shin’ichi and Odintsov Sergei D,Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F (R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models, Physics Reports, 505 (2011) 59–144

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    Li Baojiu, Barrow John D and Mota David F,Cosmology of modified Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 76 (2007) 044027

    work page 2007

  60. [60]

    Venikoudis, S. A., K. V. Fasoulakos, and F. P. Fronimos,Late-time Cosmology of scalar field assisted f (G) gravity, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 31 (2022) 2250038

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    Linder Eric V,Exponential gravity, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 80 (2009) 123528

    work page 2009

  62. [62]

    Nesseris Savvas, Basilakos S, Saridakis EN and Perivolaropoulos L,Viable f (T) models are practically indistinguishable fromΛ CDM, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 88 (2013) 103010

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Bayesian model comparison in cosmology with Population Monte Carlo

    Kilbinger, Martin, et al. "Bayesian model comparison in cosmology with Population Monte Carlo." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 405.4 (2010): 2381-2390

    work page 2010

  64. [64]

    The Pantheon plus analysis: cosmological constraints

    Brout, Dillon, et al. "The Pantheon plus analysis: cosmological constraints." The Astrophysical Journal 938.2 (2022): 110. – 19 –

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    Parameters of cosmological models and recent astronomical observations

    Sharov, G. S., and E. G. Vorontsova. "Parameters of cosmological models and recent astronomical observations." Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014.10 (2014): 057

    work page 2014

  66. [66]

    Lodha K. et al. (DESI Collaboration),DESI 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data, Physical Review D111 (2025) 023532

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    A new look at the statistical model identification

    Akaike, Hirotugu. "A new look at the statistical model identification." IEEE transactions on automatic control 19.6 (2003): 716-723

    work page 2003

  68. [68]

    Model selection and psychological theory: a discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC)

    Vrieze, Scott I. "Model selection and psychological theory: a discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC)." Psychological methods 17.2 (2012): 228

    work page 2012

  69. [69]

    Riess Adam G. et al.,A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the Hubble constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES team, The Astrophysical Journal Letters934 (2022) L7

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    and Nesseris S.,Outliers in DESI BAO: robustness and cosmological implications, arXiv:2412.01740 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    Sapone D. and Nesseris S.,Outliers in DESI BAO: robustness and cosmological implications, arXiv:2412.01740 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Lohakare Santosh V, Niyogi Soumyadip and Mishra B,Cosmology in modifiedf(G) gravity: a late-time cosmic phenomena, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535 (2024) 1136–1146

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    Gruber Christine and Luongo Orlando,Cosmographic analysis of the equation of state of the universe through Padé approximations, Physical Review D, 89 (2014) 103506

    work page 2014

  73. [73]

    Capozziello Salvatore et al.,Cosmographic bounds on the cosmological deceleration-acceleration transition redshift in f (R) gravity, Physical Review D, 90 (2014) 044016

    work page 2014

  74. [74]

    Farooq Omer and Ratra Bharat,Hubble parameter measurement constraints on the cosmological deceleration–acceleration transition redshift, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 766 (2013) L7

    work page 2013

  75. [75]

    Munyeshyaka Albert et al.,Perturbations in the interacting vacuum, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 20 (2023) 2350047

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    A., Jesus J

    Escobal A. A., Jesus J. F., Pereira S. H. and Lima J. A. S.,Can the Universe decelerate in the future?, Physical Review D109 (2024) 023514

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    Odintsov, V

    S.D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and G. S. Sharov,Dynamical Dark Energy fromF (R) Gravity Models Unifying Inflation with Dark Energy: Confronting the Latest Observational Data, arxiv:2506.02245

    work page arXiv

  78. [78]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and G. S. Sharov,Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet cosmology confronted with observations, JHEAP, 47 (2025) 100398

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    S. D. Odintsov, D. Sáez-Chillón Gómez and G. S. Sharov,Modified gravity/dynamical dark energy vs ΛCDM: is the game over?, Eur. Phys. J. C, 85 (2025) 298

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Briffa Rebecca, Escamilla-Rivera Celia, Said Jackson Levi and Mifsud Jurgen,f (T, B) Gravity in the late Universe in the context of local measurements, Physics of the Dark Universe, 39 (2023) 101153

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.