Quantifying the impacts of future gravitational-wave data on constraining interacting dark energy

Dong-Ze He; Hai-Li Li; Jing-Fei Zhang; Xin Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Quantifying the impacts of future gravitational-wave data on constraining interacting dark energy

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper forecasts that 1000 Einstein Telescope standard sirens, added to CMB, BAO, and supernova data, would cut the Hubble constant uncertainty in interacting dark energy models from about one percent to roughly a third of a percent…

desk verdict A generally solid but over-specified forecast of ET standard sirens for four interacting dark energy models; the IwCDM2 mock catalog uses β=0 while the model's own best fit is β=-0.095, so treat the quoted gains for that model with caution. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03098 v3 pith:S3KZIXQD submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Hai-Li Li , Dong-Ze He , Jing-Fei Zhang , Xin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph

keywords interactingdarkenergygravitationalwavestandardsirensEinsteinTelescopeextendedparameterizedpost-FriedmannapproachcosmologicalparameterconstraintsHubbleconstantperturbationsforecast

open problems Dark Energy

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 asks how much a decade of gravitational-wave standard-siren observations by the future Einstein Telescope would improve measurements of interacting dark energy models, in which dark matter and dark energy exchange energy through a non-gravitational coupling. The authors simulate 1000 GW events and add them to current CMB, BAO, and supernova data, then rerun the cosmological fit for four IDE models distinguished by the interaction term $Q=\beta H\rho_c$ or $Q=\beta H_0\rho_c$. They report that $H_0$ accuracy improves from about 0.95\%--1.23\% to 0.26\%--0.59\%, matter-density accuracy roughly doubles or triples, and constraints on the coupling $\beta$ and dark-energy equation of state $w$ improve modestly. This matters because standard sirens supply absolute distances without the cosmic distance ladder, and the paper argues they can break degeneracies left by electromagnetic observations alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the extended parameterized post-Friedmann (PPF) approach for dark-energy perturbations, which lets the authors compute the full perturbation evolution for interacting dark energy models without the large-scale instability that plagues naive treatments, and without restricting the equation of state $w$ or coupling $\beta$ to special ranges. On the data side, the forecast pipeline simulates 1000 standard siren events: source redshifts are drawn from $P(z)\propto 4\pi d_C^2(z)R(z)/(H(z)(1+z))$ with a piecewise burst-rate $R(z)$, each event gets a luminosity distance from the fiducial model, and the distance error is $\sigma_{d_L}=\sqrt{(2d_L/\rho)^2+(0.05 z d_L)^2}$, combining the Fisher-matrix instrumental error with a weak-lensing error. The GW $\chi^2$ term is then added to the CMB+BAO+SN likelihood, and MCMC sampling produces the posterior constraints.

What would settle it

Generate the same 1000-event catalog from a fiducial $\Lambda$CDM cosmology rather than from each IDE best fit and redo the CBS+GW analysis; if the $H_0$ and $\Omega_m$ improvements shrink substantially, the central claim depends on the fiducial choice. A second check is to replace the assumed burst-rate shape and lensing error with the ranges implied by current merger-rate measurements and re-run the forecast.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that future GW standard sirens can significantly improve constraints on most cosmological parameters for all four IDE models considered. Concretely, the relative error on $H_0$ drops from 0.95\%, 1.18\%, 1.23\%, and 1.21\% to 0.32\%, 0.49\%, 0.26\%, and 0.59\% for the I$\Lambda$CDM1, I$\Lambda$CDM2, IwCDM1, and IwCDM2 models, and $\varepsilon(\Omega_m)$ improves from 2.66\%, 5.33\%, 2.67\%, and 7.98\% to 0.95\%, 2.50\%, 0.94\%, and 5.86\%. The coupling parameter $\beta$ remains consistent with zero, but its absolute error shrinks in three of the four models, and the $w$ constraint improves from 3.86\% to 2.51\% and from 7.65\% to 6.35\% in the two IwCDM cases. The authors trace this to the standard siren's ability to fix the absolute distance scale and thereby break degeneracies among $H_0$, $\Omega_m$, $w$, and $\beta$ that CMB+BAO+SN data leave unresolved.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast's load-bearing premise is that the simulated 1000-event GW catalog faithfully represents what the Einstein Telescope will see: it is drawn from the best-fit values of the very models being constrained, with the coupling fixed to $\beta=0$, and its distance errors are set by an analytic formula with an assumed burst-rate shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the forecast holds, a decade of ET standard sirens would measure $H_0$ to 0.26\%--0.59\% in interacting dark energy models, compared with roughly one percent from CMB+BAO+SN alone.
Matter-density constraints would tighten to sub-percent or few-percent accuracy, with $\Omega_m$ relative errors falling from 2.7\%--8.0\% to 0.9\%--5.9\%.
The reconstructed evolution of the interaction term $Q(z)$ would be much better determined, making it easier to distinguish forms such as $Q=\beta H\rho_c$ from $Q=\beta H_0\rho_c$.
Even with 1000 events, the coupling $\beta$ would remain consistent with zero at the $1\sigma$ level in these forecasts, so standard sirens alone would not yet prove dark matter and dark energy interact.
Because the extended PPF treatment covers the full parameter space of $w$ and $\beta$, the forecast gains do not depend on artificially cutting the parameter space to avoid perturbation instabilities.

Reading between the lines

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

The size of the forecast gain is probably sensitive to the fiducial choice; a catalog generated from best-fit IDE models with $\beta=0$ could overstate the constraining power if the true cosmology is far from those best fits, and re-running with a pure $\Lambda$CDM fiducial would test this.
If real ET event rates or the weak-lensing error differ from the assumed $R(z)$ and $0.05z$ scaling, the reported improvements scale roughly with the distance-error budget; the same pipeline should be re-run over a range of rates and lensing errors to map that sensitivity.
The same standard-siren sample could be combined with dark-siren redshift information from galaxy catalogs or with other third-generation detectors to push $H_0$ precision below 0.3\%, a regime where the interacting models' predicted $H_0$ differences could become distinguishable.
Because the PPF treatment removes the instability restriction, the forecast methodology transfers directly to other coupled dark-energy scenarios, such as momentum-transfer or velocity-dependent interactions, which the paper does not explore.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The genuinely new piece is a forecast for four interacting dark energy models, Q=βHρc and Q=βH0ρc in both IΛCDM and IwCDM, using the extended PPF treatment so the perturbation instability doesn't force restricted parameter ranges. That is a real increment over Ref. [122], and the specific tables are new. The pipeline itself is the standard ET standard-siren simulation from the same group's prior papers, and internally the Fisher/MCMC numbers are coherent; I don't see obvious arithmetic errors.

The main soft spot is the mock catalog. The GW events are drawn from the CBS best fit of the model being constrained, which is already a mild circularity, and for IwCDM2 they explicitly set β=0 even though Table 2 gives β=-0.095±0.093. The text says the central value is around zero; for that model it isn't. Since β enters H(z), the simulated distances are those of a non-interacting model, and the quoted IwCDM2 improvements are therefore not a forecast for the model's actual best fit. The stress-test note is right about this. It doesn't destroy the paper's overall point, but it does mean Tables 3 and 4 for IwCDM2 are conditional on a fiducial that differs from their own posterior.

The second soft spot is the absence of robustness tests. R(z), the factor-2 instrumental error, the 0.05z lensing term, and the 1000-event count are all assumptions; changing them changes the redshift distribution and weights of every point. The paper gives no sensitivity study, so the nice 2–3x improvements on H0 and Ωm should be read as one plausible scenario, not a stable forecast. No code or data are provided either, which makes it harder to check the catalog generation. The heavy self-citation is not by itself a problem, but it does mean the PPF implementation is not independently checked here.

None of this changes the qualitative conclusion, which I think is solid: adding 1000 ET standard sirens will tighten H0 and Ωm in these models, because distance anchors break existing degeneracies. That is consistent with the earlier literature and not a surprise. The specific factors are what need more care.

I would send this to a referee rather than desk-reject. The useful reviewer assignment would be one with a focus on forecast methodology. The requested revisions should be modest: fix the IwCDM2 fiducial or explain why β=0 is justified, add at least a few variations of R(z) and distance-error terms, and ideally release the mock catalog. For readers in the IDE forecast subfield this is a usable reference, though I wouldn't put it on a general cosmology reading list.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper forecasts how 1000 simulated Einstein Telescope standard-siren events would tighten parameter constraints for four interacting dark energy models, with interaction terms Q=βHρ_c and Q=βH0ρ_c. The mock GW catalog is drawn from the CBS best-fit models, the distance errors follow Eq. (3.14), and the forecasts are made by MCMC fits of CBS and CBS+GW. The authors report that GW data improve H0 accuracy from roughly 1% to 0.3–0.6%, Ωm accuracy from 2.7–8.0% to 0.9–5.9%, and modestly improve w and β, and they conclude that future GW standard sirens can significantly improve IDE constraints.

Significance. If the forecasts are robust, they are useful for planning the ET cosmology program and for extending standard-siren forecasts to models with dark-sector interactions. The use of the extended PPF approach to handle perturbation instabilities is appropriate and more general than earlier work that imposed special stability conditions. The claimed improvements are large enough to matter for forecast studies. However, the quantitative gains are conditional on the simulated catalog; no code or mock data are provided, and no robustness checks are presented, so the headline numbers should be read as a fiducial-model forecast. The internal calculations are coherent and the tables are internally consistent, but the missing robustness analysis is the main weakness.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3 (mock generation), Tables 2 and 4] The mock catalog is not drawn from the actual best fit of the IwCDM2 model. Table 2 gives β=-0.095±0.093 for IwCDM2, yet Sec. 3 states that β=0 is used as the fiducial because the central value is 'around zero'; since Q=βH0ρc enters Eqs. (2.1)–(2.2) and thus H(z), the simulated d_L(z) correspond to a non-interacting cosmology. The subsequent CBS+GW fit shifts the central value to -0.067, and the quoted IwCDM2 gains in Tables 3 and 4 are therefore not forecasts for the model's actual best fit. Generating the catalog at the best-fit value (including β) and at β=0 would show whether the reported gains persist.
[Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.2) and (3.14)] No robustness tests are given for the assumptions that set the catalog. The redshift distribution uses a specific R(z) (Eq. 3.2), the distance error uses a factor 2 for inclination and a 0.05z lensing term (Eq. 3.14), and exactly 1000 events are assumed, all evaluated at the fiducial cosmology. Because these choices determine where every GW point sits and how it is weighted, the reported factors of 2–3 improvement in H0 and Ωm could be partly artifacts of the assumed catalog. I ask for a robustness check varying R(z), the error coefficients, and N, and a statement of how the constraints change.
[Abstract and Sec. 5] The conclusion that 'future GW standard sirens can significantly improve the constraints on most of the cosmological parameters for all the IDE models' is stated unconditionally, but the analysis is a forecast whose mock data are generated from the same CBS best fit with which they are later combined. This procedure makes the forecast conditional on the very model and parameter values being assumed, and it does not test the forecast against alternative fiducial cosmologies. The abstract and conclusions should explicitly state that the quoted improvements are conditional forecast numbers for the assumed catalog and fiducial model.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 4, paragraph on Cosmic Explorer] The sentence 'the constraining capability of the CE is slightly better than that of the CE' should read '... than that of the ET'.
[Sec. 3, paragraph on BNS/NSBH] 'the radio between NSBH and BNS' should be 'the ratio between NSBH and BNS'.
[Fig. 5 and surrounding text] The figure caption and axis labels contain rendering artifacts ('/uni00000013...'), making the reconstructed interaction term unreadable; please regenerate the figure with proper fonts.
[Tables 1–3] Tables 1–2 report asymmetric errors while Table 3 lists single error values; specify how the asymmetric errors were symmetrized (e.g., average of upper and lower).
[Sec. 3, Eq. (3.14)] The text would benefit from stating explicitly that the factor 2 in the instrumental error and the 0.05z lensing term follow the choices of Refs. [146,147], since these coefficients drive the forecast.
[General] No code, MCMC chains, or simulated catalog are provided; at least the mock catalog and a reproducibility statement should be included.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

GW mock catalog is generated from the same best-fit model used in the fit, so the reported improvements are a self-consistency forecast rather than an independent prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3, data simulation (Eqs. 3.2-3.3, 3.14-3.15) and Sec. 4, Tables 3-4]
"In this paper, we take the best-ﬁt interacting dark energy models (i.e., the IΛCDM model and the IwCDM model) constrained by the current observations as the ﬁducial models to produce the simulated GW data. ... we use the obtained best-ﬁt values of the cosmological parameters (except for the coupling constant β) to simulate the future GW data; due to the central value of the coupling constantβ being around zero, we take the ﬁducial value asβ = 0 for this parameter."

The mock d_L are computed from Eq. (3.3) using the same best-fit E(z) that the CBS analysis produces, and Eq. (3.15) then fits the same model to those self-generated distances. No independent information enters the GW likelihood. Because the mock catalog is the model's own prediction at the best fit, adding it leaves the best fit nearly unchanged and must reduce the posterior covariance by the positive-semidefinite Fisher information of the assumed catalog. Therefore the reported gains (H0 accuracy 0.95%->0.32%, etc.) are a mathematical consequence of the simulation design, not an empirically testable prediction. The magnitude is fixed by assumed R(z), the factor 2 in Eq. (3.13), and the 0.05z lensing term in Eq.

full rationale

The quantitative conclusion that ET standard sirens will improve IDE constraints is a Fisher/forecast statement whose mock input is the CBS best fit of the very model being constrained. In Sec. 3 the authors state they take the best-fit IΛCDM/IwCDM models as fiducial and generate d_L(z) via Eq. (3.3); Eq. (3.15) then compares those self-generated distances with the same model family. Adding a dataset that is exactly the model's own prediction at its best fit necessarily shrinks the posterior (positive-semidefinite Fisher information) and leaves the best fit essentially unchanged, which is precisely what Tables 1-4 show. Thus the 0.95%->0.32% H0 improvements are partially 'by construction': the direction of improvement is guaranteed and the size is controlled by the assumed R(z), 2d_L/rho and 0.05z error model rather than by any external data. This is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, so partial circularity (6). The many self-citations for the extended PPF method and the GW simulation pipeline are not separately circular: the PPF equations are presented in the paper and the simulation formulas are standard, so the central issue is the fiducial-mock design, not citation load-bearing. Separately, for IwCDM2 the fiducial is set to beta=0 although Table 2 gives beta=-0.095+/-0.093; this is an internal inconsistency/robustness gap, not a circularity, but it further weakens the quantitative claims for that model.

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

The forecast's central numbers rest on several externally cited assumptions (PPF perturbation theory, GW error model, merger rates, fiducial cosmology). The paper contributes the combination but does not independently establish these inputs. No new entity is introduced, but the fiducial-model choice creates an internal loop in the forecast.

free parameters (5)

Fiducial cosmological parameters (H0, Omega_m, w) = H0 ~ 68.05 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m ~ 0.305 for I Lambda CDM1 (Tables 1, 2)
Used to generate the 1000 simulated GW distances in Sec. 3; the forecasted improvements depend on this assumed cosmology.
Fiducial coupling parameter beta = 0
Set to zero in the fiducial catalog because the current best fit is near zero (Sec. 3); this choice avoids negative-beta issues and shapes the simulated GW data.
Redshift burst-rate function R(z) = 1+2z for z <= 1; (3/4)(5-z) for 1 < z < 5
Eq. (3.2) determines the redshift distribution of simulated events; taken from Refs. [147,149,150], not derived in this paper.
Distance error coefficients = factor 2 in instrumental error; 0.05 in lensing error
Eq. (3.14) sets sigma_dL; these coefficients directly set the simulated error bars and hence the size of the reported constraint improvements.
Number of simulated GW events N = 1000
The forecast scale chosen to match ET 10-year expectations (Sec. 3); changing N would change the error improvements.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The extended PPF formalism correctly describes density and velocity perturbations for interacting dark energy over the full parameter space.
Sec. 2 relies on Refs. [94,95,106,134-137]; the paper does not derive or validate the PPF mapping, so the CMB constraints inherit this assumption.
domain assumption The Fisher matrix distance error sigma_inst ~ 2 dL / rho (Eq. 3.13) and weak lensing error 0.05 z dL are adequate for ET standard sirens.
These formulas set all simulated distance uncertainties; if real ET noise or lensing is different, the forecasted improvements change.
domain assumption The BNS/BHNS merger rate and redshift evolution R(z) used in the simulation match future ET observations.
The source catalog depends on Eq. (3.2) and the 0.03 NSBH-to-BNS ratio from Refs. [117,146-150].
ad hoc to paper Fiducial model best-fit values from CMB+BAO+SN represent the true cosmology for the purpose of generating mock GW data.
Sec. 3 explicitly uses the best-fit IDE models as fiducial; this is a forecast necessity but makes the simulation depend on the model being tested.
domain assumption Statistical independence and Gaussianity of GW, CMB, BAO, and SN likelihoods.
Total chi-squared is a sum in Eq. (3.16); no covariance between GW and EM probes is modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying the impacts of future gravitational-wave data on constraining interacting dark energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S3KZIXQD

@misc{pith2026190803098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying the impacts of future gravitational-wave data on constraining interacting dark energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S3KZIXQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03098}
}

abstract

In this work, we investigate the impacts of the future gravitational-wave (GW) standard siren observation by the Einstein Telescope (ET) on constraining the interacting dark energy (IDE) models. We simulate 1000 GW events in the redshift range of $0\lesssim z \lesssim 5$ based on the 10-year observation of the ET. We combine the simulated GW data with the current mainstream cosmological electromagnetic observations including the cosmic microwave background anisotropies, the baryon acoustic oscillations, and the type Ia supernovae to constrain the IDE models. We consider typical IDE models in the context of a perturbed universe. To avoid the large-scale instability problem for IDE models, we apply the extended parameterized post-Friedmann approach to calculate the cosmological perturbations. We find that the addition of the GW standard siren data could significantly improve the constraint accuracies for most of the cosmological parameters (e.g., $H_{0}$, $w$, and $\Omega_{\rm m}$). For the coupling parameter $\beta$, the constraint errors could also be slightly improved when adding the GW data in the cosmological fit.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: a promising solution to the $H_0$ and cosmic shear tensions
astro-ph.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

An interacting dark energy model with coupling proportional to the dark energy density alleviates the H0 and S8 tensions in Planck 2018 data but is not preferred once BAO and supernova data are included.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[122]

W. Yang, S. Vagnozzi, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Pan and D. F. Mota, arXiv:1905.08286 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 1905
[1]

A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team Collaboration], Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009 [astro-ph/9805201]

arXiv 1998
[2]

Perlmutter et al

S. Perlmutter et al. [Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999) [astro-ph/9812133]

arXiv 1999
[3]

D. N. Spergel et al. [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003) [astro-ph/0302209]. – 15 –

arXiv 2003
[4]

C. L. Bennett et al. [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 1 (2003) [astro-ph/0302207]

arXiv 2003
[5]

Tegmark et al

M. Tegmark et al. [SDSS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004) [astro-ph/0310723]

arXiv 2004
[6]

Abazajian et al

K. Abazajian et al. [SDSS Collaboration], Astron. J. 128, 502 (2004) [astro-ph/0403325]

arXiv 2004
[7]

Sahni and A

V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 2105 (2006) [astro-ph/0610026]

arXiv 2006

Show all 153 references

[8]

Bamba, S

K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Astrophys. Space Sci. 342, 155 (2012) [arXiv:1205.3421 [gr-qc]]

2012 arXiv
[9]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

1989
[10]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003) [astro-ph/0207347]

2003 arXiv
[11]

E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006) [hep-th/0603057]

2006 arXiv
[12]

Frieman, M

J. Frieman, M. Turner and D. Huterer, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46, 385 (2008) [arXiv:0803.0982 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[13]

Sahni, Prog

V. Sahni, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 172, 110 (2008)

2008
[14]

M. Li, X. D. Li, S. Wang and Y. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 56, 525 (2011) [arXiv:1103.5870 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[15]

Kamionkowski, arXiv:0706.2986 [astro-ph]

M. Kamionkowski, arXiv:0706.2986 [astro-ph]

arXiv
[16]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016) [arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[17]

Sahni and A

V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000) [astro-ph/9904398]

2000 arXiv
[18]

R. Bean, S. M. Carroll and M. Trodden, astro-ph/0510059

arXiv
[19]

Amendola, Phys

L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000) [astro-ph/9908023]

2000 arXiv
[20]

Amendola, Phys

L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 60, 043501 (1999) [astro-ph/9904120]

1999 arXiv
[21]

Tocchini-Valentini and L

D. Tocchini-Valentini and L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 65, 063508 (2002) [astro-ph/0108143]

2002 arXiv
[22]

Amendola and D

L. Amendola and D. Tocchini-Valentini, Phys. Rev. D 66, 043528 (2002) [astro-ph/0111535]

2002 arXiv
[23]

Comelli, M

D. Comelli, M. Pietroni and A. Riotto, Phys. Lett. B 571, 115 (2003) [hep-ph/0302080]

2003 arXiv
[24]

L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Rev. D 67, 083513 (2003) [astro-ph/0303145]

2003 arXiv
[25]

R. G. Cai and A. Wang, JCAP 0503, 002 (2005) [hep-th/0411025]

2005 arXiv
[26]

Zhang, F

X. Zhang, F. Q. Wu and J. Zhang, JCAP 0601, 003 (2006) [astro-ph/0411221]

2006 arXiv
[27]

Ferrer, S

F. Ferrer, S. Rasanen and J. Valiviita, JCAP 0410, 010 (2004) [astro-ph/0407300]

2004 arXiv
[28]

Zimdahl, Int

W. Zimdahl, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14, 2319 (2005) [gr-qc/0505056]

2005 arXiv
[29]

Zhang, Phys

X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 611, 1 (2005) [astro-ph/0503075]

2005 arXiv
[30]

B. Wang, J. Zang, C. Y. Lin, E. Abdalla and S. Micheletti, Nucl. Phys. B 778, 69 (2007) [astro-ph/0607126]

2007 arXiv
[31]

H. M. Sadjadi and M. Alimohammadi, Phys. Rev. D 74, 103007 (2006) [gr-qc/0610080]

2006 arXiv
[32]

J. D. Barrow and T. Clifton, Phys. Rev. D 73, 103520 (2006) [gr-qc/0604063]

2006 arXiv
[33]

Sasaki, J

M. Sasaki, J. Valiviita and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 74, 103003 (2006) [astro-ph/0607627]

2006 arXiv
[34]

Abdalla, L

E. Abdalla, L. R. W. Abramo, L. Sodre, Jr. and B. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 673, 107 (2009) [arXiv:0710.1198 [astro-ph]]. – 16 –

2009 arXiv
[35]

R. Bean, E. E. Flanagan and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 78, 023009 (2008) [arXiv:0709.1128 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[36]

Z. K. Guo, N. Ohta and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 76, 023508 (2007) [astro-ph/0702015 [astro-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[37]

Bertolami, F

O. Bertolami, F. Gil Pedro and M. Le Delliou, Phys. Lett. B 654, 165 (2007) [astro-ph/0703462 [astro-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[38]

C. G. Boehmer, G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Lazkoz and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D 78, 023505 (2008) [arXiv:0801.1565 [gr-qc]]

2008 arXiv
[39]

J. H. He and B. Wang, JCAP 0806, 010 (2008) [arXiv:0801.4233 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[40]

Caldera-Cabral, R

G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Maartens and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Phys. Rev. D 79, 063518 (2009) [arXiv:0812.1827 [gr-qc]]

2009 arXiv
[41]

R. Bean, E. E. Flanagan, I. Laszlo and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 78, 123514 (2008) [arXiv:0808.1105 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[42]

Szydlowski, A

M. Szydlowski, A. Krawiec, A. Kurek and M. Kamionka, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 99, 5 (2015) [arXiv:0801.0638 [astro-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[43]

X. m. Chen, Y. g. Gong and E. N. Saridakis, JCAP 0904, 001 (2009) [arXiv:0812.1117 [gr-qc]]

2009 arXiv
[44]

Valiviita, E

J. Valiviita, E. Majerotto and R. Maartens, JCAP 0807, 020 (2008) [arXiv:0804.0232 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[45]

Couderc and S

E. Couderc and S. Klein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 062504 (2009) [arXiv:0901.1161 [nucl-th]]

2009 arXiv
[46]

L. P. Chimento, Phys. Rev. D 81, 043525 (2010) [arXiv:0911.5687 [astro-ph.CO]]

2010 arXiv
[47]

Caldera-Cabral, R

G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Maartens and B. M. Schaefer, JCAP 0907, 027 (2009) [arXiv:0905.0492 [astro-ph.CO]]

2009 arXiv
[48]

Majerotto, J

E. Majerotto, J. Valiviita and R. Maartens, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 402, 2344 (2010) [arXiv:0907.4981 [astro-ph.CO]]

2010 arXiv
[49]

Valiviita, R

J. Valiviita, R. Maartens and E. Majerotto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 402, 2355 (2010) [arXiv:0907.4987 [astro-ph.CO]]

2010 arXiv
[50]

J. H. He, B. Wang and Y. P. Jing, JCAP 0907, 030 (2009) [arXiv:0902.0660 [gr-qc]]

2009 arXiv
[51]

J. H. He, B. Wang and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 80, 063530 (2009) [arXiv:0906.0677 [gr-qc]]

2009 arXiv
[52]

Koyama, R

K. Koyama, R. Maartens and Y. S. Song, JCAP 0910, 017 (2009) [arXiv:0907.2126 [astro-ph.CO]]

2009 arXiv
[53]

M. Li, X. D. Li, S. Wang, Y. Wang and X. Zhang, JCAP 0912, 014 (2009) [arXiv:0910.3855 [astro-ph.CO]]

2009 arXiv
[54]

J. Q. Xia, Phys. Rev. D 80, 103514 (2009) [arXiv:0911.4820 [astro-ph.CO]]

2009 arXiv
[55]

R. G. Cai and Q. Su, Phys. Rev. D 81, 103514 (2010) [arXiv:0912.1943 [astro-ph.CO]]

2010 arXiv
[56]

J. H. He, B. Wang, E. Abdalla and D. Pavon, JCAP 1012, 022 (2010) [arXiv:1001.0079 [gr-qc]]

2010 arXiv
[57]

Cui and X

J. Cui and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 690, 233 (2010) [arXiv:1005.3587 [astro-ph.CO]]

2010 arXiv
[58]

Li and J

B. Li and J. D. Barrow, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 413, 262 (2011) [arXiv:1010.3748 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[59]

M. B. Gavela, L. Lopez Honorez, O. Mena and S. Rigolin, JCAP 1011, 044 (2010) [arXiv:1005.0295 [astro-ph.CO]]

2010 arXiv
[60]

Martinelli, L

M. Martinelli, L. Lopez Honorez, A. Melchiorri and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D 81, 103534 (2010) [arXiv:1004.2410 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 17 –

2010 arXiv
[61]

J. H. He, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D 83, 063515 (2011) [arXiv:1012.3904 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[62]

Y. Chen, Z. H. Zhu, L. Xu and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Lett. B 698, 175 (2011) [arXiv:1103.2512 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[63]

T. F. Fu, J. F. Zhang, J. Q. Chen and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1932 (2012) [arXiv:1112.2350 [astro-ph.CO]]

2012 arXiv
[64]

Clemson, K

T. Clemson, K. Koyama, G. B. Zhao, R. Maartens and J. Valiviita, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043007 (2012) [arXiv:1109.6234 [astro-ph.CO]]

2012 arXiv
[65]

Y. H. Li and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1700 (2011) [arXiv:1103.3185 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[66]

X. D. Xu and B. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 701, 513 (2011) [arXiv:1103.2632 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[67]

Zhang, S

Z. Zhang, S. Li, X. D. Li, X. Zhang and M. Li, JCAP 1206, 009 (2012) [arXiv:1204.6135 [astro-ph.CO]]

2012 arXiv
[68]

X. D. Xu, B. Wang, P. Zhang and F. Atrio-Barandela, JCAP 1312, 001 (2013) [arXiv:1308.1475 [astro-ph.CO]]

2013 arXiv
[69]

M. J. Zhang and W. B. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2863 (2014) [arXiv:1312.0224 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[70]

Y. Wang, D. Wands, L. Xu, J. De-Santiago and A. Hojjati, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 8, 083503 (2013) [arXiv:1301.5315 [astro-ph.CO]]

2013 arXiv
[71]

Salvatelli, A

V. Salvatelli, A. Marchini, L. Lopez-Honorez and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 2, 023531 (2013) [arXiv:1304.7119 [astro-ph.CO]]

2013 arXiv
[72]

Yang and L

W. Yang and L. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 8, 083517 (2014) [arXiv:1401.1286 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[73]

Yang and L

W. Yang and L. Xu, JCAP 1408, 034 (2014) [arXiv:1401.5177 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[74]

S. Wang, Y. Z. Wang, J. J. Geng and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no. 11, 3148 (2014) [arXiv:1406.0072 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[75]

Faraoni, J

V. Faraoni, J. B. Dent and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 6, 063510 (2014) [arXiv:1405.7288 [gr-qc]]

2014 arXiv
[76]

J. L. Cui, L. Yin, L. F. Wang, Y. H. Li and X. Zhang, JCAP 1509, no. 09, 024 (2015) [arXiv:1503.08948 [astro-ph.CO]]

2015 arXiv
[77]

Y. Fan, P. Wu and H. Yu, Phys. Lett. B 746, 230 (2015)

2015
[78]

T. Yang, Z. K. Guo and R. G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 12, 123533 (2015) [arXiv:1505.04443 [astro-ph.CO]]

2015 arXiv
[79]

D. G. A. Duniya, D. Bertacca and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D 91, 063530 (2015) [arXiv:1502.06424 [astro-ph.CO]]

2015 arXiv
[80]

Feng and X

L. Feng and X. Zhang, JCAP 1608, no. 08, 072 (2016) [arXiv:1607.05567 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[81]

Murgia, S

R. Murgia, S. Gariazzo and N. Fornengo, JCAP 1604, no. 04, 014 (2016) [arXiv:1602.01765 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[82]

Sola , A

J. Sola , A. Gmez-Valent and J. de Cruz Prez, Astrophys. J. 836, no. 1, 43 (2017) [arXiv:1602.02103 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[83]

Sol Peracaula, J

J. Sol Peracaula, J. de Cruz Prez and A. Gmez-Valent, EPL 121, no. 3, 39001 (2018) [arXiv:1606.00450 [gr-qc]]

2018 arXiv
[84]

Sola, Int

J. Sola, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, no. 23, 1630035 (2016) [arXiv:1612.02449 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[85]

Pourtsidou and T

A. Pourtsidou and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 4, 043518 (2016) [arXiv:1604.04222 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 18 –

2016 arXiv
[86]

A. A. Costa, X. D. Xu, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, JCAP 1701, no. 01, 028 (2017) [arXiv:1605.04138 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[87]

D. M. Xia and S. Wang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 463, 952 (2016) [arXiv:1608.04545 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[88]

van de Bruck, J

C. van de Bruck, J. Mifsud and J. Morrice, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 4, 043513 (2017) [arXiv:1609.09855 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[89]

Kumar and R

S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 12, 123511 (2016) [arXiv:1608.02454 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[90]

Kumar and R

S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 10, 103511 (2017) [arXiv:1702.02143 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[91]

Santos, W

L. Santos, W. Zhao, E. G. M. Ferreira and J. Quintin, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 10, 103529 (2017) [arXiv:1707.06827 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[92]

Sol Peracaula, J

J. Sol Peracaula, J. d. C. Perez and A. Gomez-Valent, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478, no. 4, 4357 (2018) [arXiv:1703.08218 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[93]

R. Y. Guo, Y. H. Li, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, JCAP 1705, no. 05, 040 (2017) [arXiv:1702.04189 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[94]

Zhang, Sci

X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 60, no. 5, 050431 (2017) [arXiv:1702.04564 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[95]

L. Feng, Y. H. Li, F. Yu, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 10, 865 (2018) [arXiv:1807.03022 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[96]

M. M. Zhao, R. Y. Guo, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, arXiv:1810.11658 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[97]

W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi and D. F. Mota, JCAP 1809, no. 09, 019 (2018) [arXiv:1805.08252 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[98]

C. Li, X. Ren, M. Khurshudyan and Y. F. Cai, arXiv:1904.02458 [astro-ph.CO]

1904 arXiv
[99]

A. A. Costa, X. D. Xu, B. Wang, E. G. M. Ferreira and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 10, 103531 (2014) [arXiv:1311.7380 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[100]

Salvatelli, N

V. Salvatelli, N. Said, M. Bruni, A. Melchiorri and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, no. 18, 181301 (2014) [arXiv:1406.7297 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[101]

R. C. Nunes, S. Pan and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 2, 023508 (2016) [arXiv:1605.01712 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[102]

E. G. M. Ferreira, J. Quintin, A. A. Costa, E. Abdalla and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 4, 043520 (2017) [arXiv:1412.2777 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[103]

W. Yang, S. Pan and D. F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 12, 123508 (2017) [arXiv:1709.00006 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[104]

W. Yang, S. Pan and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 4, 043529 (2018) [arXiv:1706.04953 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[105]

H. L. Li, L. Feng, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, no. 12, 120411 (2019) [arXiv:1812.00319 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[106]

L. Feng, H. L. Li, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, arXiv:1903.08848 [astro-ph.CO]

1903 arXiv
[107]

R. Y. Guo, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, JCAP 1902, 054 (2019) [arXiv:1809.02340 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[108]

A. A. Costa, R. C. G. Landim, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 9, 746 (2018) [arXiv:1803.06944 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 19 –

2018 arXiv
[109]

L. Xiao, R. An, L. Zhang, B. Yue, Y. Xu and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 2, 023528 (2019) [arXiv:1807.05541 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[110]

B. F. Schutz, Nature 323, 310 (1986)

1986
[111]

D. E. Holz and S. A. Hughes, Astrophys. J. 629, 15 (2005) [astro-ph/0504616]

2005 arXiv
[112]

B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientiﬁc and Virgo Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 16, 161101 (2017) [arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]]

2017 arXiv
[113]

B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientiﬁc and Virgo and Fermi-GBM and INTEGRAL Collaborations], Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, no. 2, L13 (2017) [arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]]

2017 arXiv
[114]

B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientiﬁc and Virgo and 1M2H and Dark Energy Camera GW-E and DES and DLT40 and Las Cumbres Observatory and VINROUGE and MASTER Collaborations], Nature 551, no. 7678, 85 (2017) [arXiv:1710.05835 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[115]

Zhang, Sci

X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, no. 11, 110431 (2019) [arXiv:1905.11122 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[116]

Xu and X

Y. Xu and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, no.7, 270431 (2020) [arXiv:2002.00572 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[117]

Einstein gravitational wave Telescope conceptual design study, http://www.et-gw.eu/et/
[118]

X. N. Zhang, L. F. Wang, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 6, 063510 (2019) [arXiv:1804.08379 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[119]

M. Du, W. Yang, L. Xu, S. Pan and D. F. Mota, arXiv:1812.01440 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[120]

J. F. Zhang, H. Y. Dong, J. Z. Qi and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no. 3, 217 (2020) [arXiv:1906.07504 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[121]

W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, B. Wang and A. Wang, arXiv:1904.11980 [astro-ph.CO]

1904 arXiv
[123]

R. R. A. Bachega, E. Abdalla and K. S. F. Fornazier, arXiv:1906.08909 [astro-ph.CO]

1906 arXiv
[124]

J. F. Zhang, M. Zhang, S. J. Jin, J. Z. Qi and X. Zhang, JCAP 1909, no. 09, 068 (2019) [arXiv:1907.03238 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[125]

Chang, Q

Z. Chang, Q. G. Huang, S. Wang and Z. C. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no. 2, 177 (2019)

2019
[126]

J. H. He, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 2, 023527 (2019) [arXiv:1903.11254 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[127]

C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 6058 [gr-qc/9406022]

1994 arXiv
[128]

W. Zhao, B. S. Wright and B. Li, JCAP 1810, no. 10, 052 (2018) [arXiv:1804.03066 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[129]

T. Liu, X. Zhang and W. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 286 [arXiv:1711.08991 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[130]

Berti, K

E. Berti, K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50 (2018) no.4, 46 [arXiv:1801.03208 [gr-qc]]

2018 arXiv
[131]

Liu et al

T. Liu et al. , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.8, 083023 [arXiv:1806.05674 [gr-qc]]

2018 arXiv
[132]

L. F. Wang, Z. W. Zhao, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, [arXiv:1907.01838 [astro-ph.CO]]

1907 arXiv
[133]

Z. W. Zhao, L. F. Wang, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Science Bulletin (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2020.04.032 [arXiv:1912.11629 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[134]

Y. H. Li, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 6, 063005 (2014) [arXiv:1404.5220 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[135]

Y. H. Li, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 12, 123007 (2014) [arXiv:1409.7205 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 20 –

2014 arXiv
[136]

Y. H. Li, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 2, 023002 (2016) [arXiv:1506.06349 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[137]

L. Feng, D. Z. He, H. L. Li, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 290404 (2020) [arXiv:1910.03872 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[138]

Hu, Phys

W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 77, 103524 (2008) [arXiv:0801.2433 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[139]

W. Fang, W. Hu and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 78, 087303 (2008) [arXiv:0808.3125 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[140]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys. 594, A11 (2016) [arXiv:1507.02704 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[141]

Beutler et al

F. Beutler et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 3017 (2011) [arXiv:1106.3366 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[142]

A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Burden and M. Manera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, no. 1, 835 (2015) [arXiv:1409.3242 [astro-ph.CO]]

2015 arXiv
[143]

Alam et al

S. Alam et al. [BOSS Collaboration], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, no. 3, 2617 (2017) [arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[144]

D. M. Scolnic et al. , Astrophys. J. 859, no. 2, 101 (2018) [arXiv:1710.00845 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[145]

L. F. Wang, X. N. Zhang, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 782, 87 (2018) [arXiv:1802.04720 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[146]

W. Zhao, C. Van Den Broeck, D. Baskaran and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 83, 023005 (2011) [arXiv:1009.0206 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[147]

R. G. Cai and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 4, 044024 (2017) [arXiv:1608.08008 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[148]

Abadie et al

J. Abadie et al. [LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 624, 223 (2010) [arXiv:1007.3973 [gr-qc]]

2010 arXiv
[149]

Schneider, V

R. Schneider, V. Ferrari, S. Matarrese and S. F. Portegies Zwart, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 324, 797 (2001) [astro-ph/0002055]

2001 arXiv
[150]

Cutler and D

C. Cutler and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. D 80, 104009 (2009) [arXiv:0906.3752 [astro-ph.CO]]

2009 arXiv
[151]

B. S. Sathyaprakash and B. F. Schutz, Living Rev. Rel. 12, 2 (2009) [arXiv:0903.0338 [gr-qc]]

2009 arXiv
[152]

S. J. Jin, D. Z. He, Y. Xu, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, JCAP 2003, 051 (2020) [arXiv:2001.05393 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[153]

Zhao and L

W. Zhao and L. Wen, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 6, 064031 (2018) [arXiv:1710.05325 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 21 –

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [122]

W. Yang, S. Vagnozzi, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Pan and D. F. Mota, arXiv:1905.08286 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 1905

[2] [1]

A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team Collaboration], Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009 [astro-ph/9805201]

arXiv 1998

[3] [2]

Perlmutter et al

S. Perlmutter et al. [Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999) [astro-ph/9812133]

arXiv 1999

[4] [3]

D. N. Spergel et al. [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003) [astro-ph/0302209]. – 15 –

arXiv 2003

[5] [4]

C. L. Bennett et al. [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 1 (2003) [astro-ph/0302207]

arXiv 2003

[6] [5]

Tegmark et al

M. Tegmark et al. [SDSS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004) [astro-ph/0310723]

arXiv 2004

[7] [6]

Abazajian et al

K. Abazajian et al. [SDSS Collaboration], Astron. J. 128, 502 (2004) [astro-ph/0403325]

arXiv 2004

[8] [7]

Sahni and A

V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 2105 (2006) [astro-ph/0610026]

arXiv 2006