Thermodynamics of scalar field models with kinetic corrections

Binod Chetry; Jibitesh Dutta; Wompherdeiki Khyllep

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Thermodynamics of scalar field models with kinetic corrections

T0 review · 4 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 The square kinetic correction to a scalar field dark energy model satisfies the generalised second law in the matter and dark energy eras, while the square root correction violates it in major eras.

desk verdict A genuinely new GSLT comparison of two kinetic-correction scalar fields, but the headline ranking isn't yet established because the two models are tested with different potential parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04102 v1 pith:7HWDAHFA submitted 2019-08-12 gr-qc hep-ph

Binod Chetry , Jibitesh Dutta , Wompherdeiki Khyllep This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-ph

keywords ThermodynamicsGeneralisedsecondlawofNon-canonicalscalarfieldKineticcorrectionsUnifiedfirstApparenthorizonEventDarkenergy

topics Dark Energy

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

The paper sets up a thermodynamic comparison between two non-canonical scalar field dark energy models: one with a square kinetic correction to the canonical Lagrangian and one with a square root correction. It treats the generalised second law of thermodynamics (GSLT) as a necessary condition for cosmological viability and asks which model passes it. Using the unified first law to derive horizon entropy and an extended Hawking temperature, the authors write the total entropy production rate in terms of the autonomous-system variables and evaluate its sign along the cosmic evolution. They find that the square kinetic correction respects the GSLT on the apparent horizon during the matter and dark energy eras and on the event horizon during dark energy domination, whereas the square root correction violates it in major eras. If correct, the result gives a thermodynamic reason to prefer the square kinetic model over the square root model as a dark energy candidate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the unified first law (UFL) for dynamical horizons, projected along the tangent vector to the apparent or event horizon; the projection turns the Einstein field equations into a first law of thermodynamics at the horizon. From that projection the paper extracts a modified horizon entropy, the Bekenstein entropy $A_X/4$ plus a correction integral involving the scalar field energy flux (Eqs. (36)-(37)), and an extended Hawking temperature $T_X = |\kappa_X|/2\pi$ written in terms of the surface gravity $\kappa_X$. These feed the total entropy rate $\dot S_{T_X} = \dot S_h + \dot S_m$, where the fluid entropy rate comes from Gibbs' equation under the local equilibrium hypothesis, yielding the compact dimensionless expressions $H\dot S_{TA}$ and $H\dot S_{TE}$ (Eqs. (45), (49), (54), (56)). The autonomous system in the variables $x_1 = \dot\varphi/\sqrt{6}H$, $x_2 = \sqrt{V}/\sqrt{3}H$, and $x_4 = HR_E$ supplies the trajectories along which the sign of $H\dot S_{TX}$ is checked, and $H\dot S_{TX} \ge 0$ (for $H>0$) is taken as GSLT validity.

What would settle it

Integrate the autonomous system (15)-(17) for the square kinetic model with observationally consistent initial conditions ($\Omega_m \simeq 0.3$, $w_{\rm eff} \simeq -0.7$, $w=0$, $\gamma>0$) and evaluate $H\dot S_{TA}$ from Eq. (45); if any trajectory in the matter-dominated era gives $H\dot S_{TA}<0$, the central claim is refuted. Alternatively, a measurement showing that the interior matter temperature and the horizon temperature differ by orders of magnitude during the matter or dark energy eras would invalidate the local-equilibrium route to Eq. (39) and with it the GSLT verdict.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is comparative: among the two kinetic corrections of the canonical scalar field Lagrangian studied here, the square kinetic correction ($n=2$) is thermodynamically more realistic than the square root correction ($n=1/2$). Concretely, for the square kinetic model the total entropy rate is non-negative on the apparent horizon during both the matter and dark energy eras, and on the event horizon during dark energy domination; the only failure is during radiation domination, which the authors set aside because the scalar field may not describe the true radiation content. For the square root model, by contrast, the GSLT fails on the apparent horizon in the matter and dark energy eras, while on the event horizon it is satisfied during dark energy domination. The paper presents this as a scoreboard on which the square kinetic model is compliant in exactly the observationally relevant epochs and the square root model is not. The authors reach the verdict by converting the complicated entropy-rate expressions obtained from the unified first law into dimensionless phase-space quantities and evaluating them along numerical solutions of the autonomous system.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the local equilibrium hypothesis stated before Eq. (38): the matter inside the horizon is assumed to share the horizon's temperature, so the fluid entropy rate simplifies to Eq. (39); the authors themselves note that this holds only in a very ideal cosmological setup and may fail in the early radiation era, when the two temperatures differ by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The square kinetic correction model is thermodynamically viable on the apparent horizon during the matter and dark energy eras, so its entropy evolution is compatible with the observationally inferred cosmic sequence ($\Omega_m \simeq 0.3$, $w_{\rm eff} \simeq -0.7$).
On the event horizon, the square kinetic model obeys the GSLT only during dark energy domination, so its event-horizon thermodynamics is a late-time property rather than a full-history one.
The square root kinetic model fails the GSLT on the apparent horizon during the matter and dark energy eras, which rules it out as a thermodynamically complete dark energy model despite its phantom-crossing background behaviour.
Radiation-era violations are not counted against either model because the scalar field is not expected to model the true radiation content, which leaves the square kinetic model as the thermodynamically preferred candidate.
UFL-derived modified entropy with an extended Hawking temperature is sufficient to make at least one of the two kinetic correction models GSLT-compliant in the main cosmological epochs, supporting this route as a viability filter for dark energy models.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step is to drop the local equilibrium hypothesis and redo the entropy budget with non-equilibrium thermodynamics; because the authors' comparison is built on that assumption, the verdict could shift, especially in the radiation era where the interior and horizon temperatures differ by orders of magnitude.
The same UFL machinery could rank other kinetic-correction exponents, for instance $1/2 < n < 2$ or a general $f(B)$, by testing whether $H\dot S_{TX}$ stays non-negative in the matter and dark energy eras, so the square model's win suggests a pattern worth probing.
If the square kinetic model's radiation-era GSLT violation is indeed an artefact of the scalar field misrepresenting radiation, then coupling it to a proper radiation fluid should restore non-negative entropy production; that is a checkable prediction following from the paper's own logic.
Thermodynamic compliance is a necessary condition rather than a proof of viability, so the square kinetic model still needs a full cosmological perturbation analysis and observational data before it can be adopted as a dark energy candidate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Worth a look, but the central comparison needs a controlled numerical test before you'd lean on it. What's new here is the thermodynamic scoreboard itself: nobody has run the UFL-based GSLT analysis on the n=2 versus n=1/2 kinetic correction models before. The entropy rates in Eqs. (40)-(41) follow from a real derivation, and rewriting them in terms of the autonomous variables is a sensible way to make the problem tractable. The authors also deserve credit for being explicit that the local equilibrium hypothesis is an idealization, and for noting that the radiation-era failure may be because the scalar field is not the right description of radiation in that epoch. Those caveats are honest and appropriate.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test flagged, and it is load-bearing. The numerical scoreboard does not hold the potential fixed. The square kinetic model in Fig. 1 runs with gamma=1, alpha=-2, lambda=0.5; the square root model in Fig. 2 runs with gamma=-1, alpha=1, lambda=0, and in Fig. 3 with gamma=1, alpha=-4, lambda=1/4. Since the GSLT quantities depend on the potential through x2 and x3, the observed difference in compliance may be caused by the parameter choices, not by the form of the kinetic correction. The paper says the qualitative behavior is robust for a wide range of parameters, but it never displays a controlled comparison with identical potential parameters across the two models. That gap should be fixed before the comparative claim is taken as established.

There is also a smaller issue in the abstract. It says the square kinetic correction satisfies GSLT throughout the evolutionary history except during radiation, but that is only true for the apparent horizon. On the event horizon, the square kinetic model fails during the matter era. The abstract should specify the horizon or hedge accordingly.

The derivations themselves look reasonable, and the honest discussion of limitations outweighs the presentation problems. This is not a paper with a fatal flaw; it is an exploratory study whose headline claim outruns its numerical evidence. Someone working on dark energy model selection or horizon thermodynamics will get value from the setup, but they should not cite the ranking as established.

My recommendation: send it to a serious referee, but ask for a controlled parameter comparison--same potential parameters and similar initial conditions for both models--plus a corrected abstract. With that revision, the thermodynamic ranking could become a useful constraint rather than a suggestive one.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares the thermodynamic viability of two non-canonical scalar field models with kinetic corrections f(B)=B−1+γB^n, for n=2 (square kinetic) and n=1/2 (square root kinetic), in a spatially flat FRW universe. The authors derive modified horizon entropy and extended Hawking temperature by projecting the Unified First Law onto the apparent and event horizons, then write the total entropy rate for the horizon plus matter fluid under the local equilibrium hypothesis. Using the dimensionless autonomous system (15)–(17), they numerically evaluate H dS_TX/dt for each model and horizon. They find that for the square kinetic model the GSLT holds on the apparent horizon during the matter and dark-energy eras and on the event horizon during dark-energy domination, while the square root model fails in major eras, and they conclude that the square kinetic correction is 'more realistic' from the thermodynamic perspective.

Significance. If established, the result would provide a new, thermodynamically motivated criterion for selecting among kinetic-correction dark-energy models, complementing the known background analyses of Refs. [35,36]. The paper is transparent about the local-equilibrium assumption and the numerical nature of the study, and the GSLT rates are not obtained by fitting parameters to force compliance; the analytic expressions in Eqs. (45)–(56) make the test concrete and reproducible in principle. The significance is currently limited, however, because the two models are compared under different potential parameters and initial conditions, and the authors themselves defer a parameter-independent analysis to future work.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 4.1-4.2, Figs. 1-3] The central comparison does not hold the potential fixed. The n=2 model is evolved with V=V0 sinh^{-α}(λφ), α=-2, λ=0.5, γ=1 (Fig. 1), while the n=1/2 model is evolved with α=1, λ=0, γ=-1 (Fig. 2) and with α=-4, λ=1/4, γ=1 (Fig. 3). The evolution of the dimensionless variables is driven by the potential through x2, x3 and Γ(x3) in Eqs. (15)-(17), and the GSLT rates (45), (49), (54) and (56) are explicit functions of these variables. The observed difference in GSLT compliance could therefore be due to the different potential shape and parameters rather than to the exponent n. A controlled comparison with identical potential parameters, or a systematic scan over (γ, α, λ) that isolates n, is needed to support the claim that the square kinetic correction is thermodynamically more realistic.
[Sec. 4, Eq. (39)] The fluid entropy rate in Eq. (39) assumes the local equilibrium hypothesis Tm ≈ TX, stated before Eq. (38). The authors themselves note that this hypothesis 'holds only in a very ideal cosmological setup' and may fail in the early radiation era. Because Eq. (39) is inserted into the total rates (40)-(41), the GSLT verdicts for both models inherit this unproven assumption. The restriction of the final conclusion to the matter and dark-energy eras mitigates the problem, but the scoreboard that yields the comparison is still computed under the conjecture; a quantitative estimate of Tm/TX or an explicit non-equilibrium treatment would be needed to make the comparison fully secure.
[Sec. 5 (concluding paragraph)] The paper concedes that 'the complete analysis of the autonomous system ... may give a general conclusion (independent of initial conditions)' and that the numerical evolutions use initial conditions chosen to reproduce Ωm=0.3 and weff=-0.7. No initial-condition sensitivity analysis or phase-space scan is presented for the GSLT quantities, despite the assertion that the qualitative behaviour is robust over a wide range of parameters. Since the GSLT tests are sign checks along single numerical trajectories, the claimed model-level comparison would be considerably strengthened by a demonstration that it does not depend on the particular initial conditions selected.
[Sec. 4.2, Figs. 2-3] One of the square-root model runs uses γ=-1 (Fig. 2), a value that the text earlier identifies as potentially non-viable for these kinetic-correction models ('not physically viable in some region of the phase space, if γ x1 < 0'). If the comparison includes parameter regions that are already excluded on physical grounds, the thermodynamic ranking is biased against the square-root model. The authors should either restrict the comparison to the physically allowed parameter region or explicitly justify including non-viable parameter values.

minor comments (6)

[Eqs. (40)-(41)] The symbol X in Eqs. (40)-(41) is not defined at the point of use; it is the kinetic term X=−(1/2)g^{μν}∂_μφ∂_νφ from Eq. (3). Please denote it differently (e.g., X_k or Q_k) to avoid confusion with the dimensionless variables x_i.
[Sec. 4.1] The initial conditions used for the numerical runs are not reported; the text only says they are chosen to match Ωm=0.3 and weff=-0.7. Please list x1(0), x2(0), x3(0), x4(0) and the numerical method or tolerances in a table or appendix.
[Sec. 4.1] The statement that the qualitative GSLT behaviour changes little over a wide range of γ, α, λ is asserted but not shown; a robustness plot or table would allow the reader to verify this claim.
[Sec. 4 (local equilibrium discussion)] The third bullet after Eq. (38) argues that if matter and horizon temperatures differ, energy flow might deform the FRW geometry; this is an argument for taking non-equilibrium effects seriously, not for the equilibrium hypothesis. Consider rewording to avoid an apparent contradiction.
[Sec. 5] The phrase 'more realistic' is stronger than what GSLT compliance alone establishes; since the GSLT is a necessary condition, 'thermodynamically more compliant' would be more precise.
[General] The manuscript contains production artifacts (e.g., the 'Received Day Month Year' placeholder and the journal-specific header); these should be cleaned in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GSLT rates are derived from the model equations and evaluated numerically, with no parameter fitted to force the thermodynamic outcome.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the square kinetic correction satisfies the GSLT in more cosmological eras than the square root correction, is not built into the inputs. The entropy rates (Eqs. 40 and 41) and their dimensionless forms (Eqs. 45, 49, 54, 56) are derived from the unified first law plus the stated local equilibrium hypothesis, then evaluated using the autonomous system (15)-(17). No parameter is fitted to make H dS_TX/dt non-negative; the parameters (gamma, alpha, lambda, w) are taken from prior background studies and varied, with the qualitative conclusion reported as robust. The initial conditions chosen to match Omega_m = 0.3 and w_eff = -0.7 are a standard background calibration and do not encode the GSLT outcome. The self-citations (Refs. 35 and 36) supply the autonomous system and background dynamics, but those equations are reproduced in the paper and are not invoked as an unexamined uniqueness theorem; they are external, checkable results. The notable weakness, that the two models are compared at different potential parameters (Fig. 1 uses alpha = -2, lambda = 0.5, while Figs. 2 and 3 use alpha = 1, lambda = 0 and alpha = -4, lambda = 1/4), is a possible confound for the comparative claim, and the authors concede that a complete initial-condition-independent analysis is left for future work in Sec. 5. However, a confounded comparison is not a circular derivation: the GSLT quantity is computed from the stated equations rather than assumed. The local equilibrium hypothesis, which the authors themselves call 'a conjecture which holds only in a very ideal cosmological setup,' is an applicability limitation, not a circular input. Therefore no step reduces the conclusion to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on the standard horizon thermodynamics machinery, an acknowledged local equilibrium assumption, a specific potential form, and one interpretive assumption used to excuse the radiation-era failure. No new particles or forces are introduced. The model parameters are not fitted to the GSLT result, so they are listed as chosen inputs rather than circularly determined quantities.

free parameters (4)

gamma (γ) = 1 and -1 in figures
Coupling constant of the kinetic correction term in f(B)=B-1+γB^n; chosen by hand for numerical plots, varied over a range, not fitted to GSLT data.
alpha (α) = -2, 1, -4
Exponent in the potential V=V0 sinh^{-α}(λφ); chosen from prior literature on background dynamics, not fitted to GSLT.
lambda (λ) = 0.5, 0, 0.25
Parameter in the potential; chosen by hand for the numerical solutions.
initial conditions (x1,x2,x3,x4) = chosen such that Ω_m=0.3, w_eff=-0.7 at present
Initial conditions for the autonomous system; chosen to match present observational parameters, not fitted to the GSLT outcome, but the GSLT evolution depends on them.

assumptions (5)

standard math Unified first law and Clausius relation govern horizon thermodynamics
Used in Sec 3 to derive modified entropy expressions Eqs (36)-(37); standard background from Hayward, Cai-Cao.
domain assumption Local equilibrium hypothesis: matter temperature equals horizon temperature
Assumed in Sec 4 to derive fluid entropy rate Eq (39); acknowledged as an idealization that may fail in radiation era.
domain assumption Event horizon exists only in accelerating universes
Eq (46), RE=a∫dt/a converges only if a~t^m with m>1; GSLT on event horizon is only meaningful during accelerated epochs.
domain assumption Potential form V=V0 sinh^{-α}(λφ) represents the scalar field
Used in numerical integration and figures; a specific potential chosen in prior literature (refs 35,36), not derived here.
ad hoc to paper Radiation-era GSLT failure is not disqualifying because the scalar field may not describe radiation
Introduced in Sec 4.1 and Conclusion to excuse the GSLT violation during radiation; an interpretive assumption, not derived from the model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamics of scalar field models with kinetic corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7HWDAHFA

@misc{pith2026190804102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamics of scalar field models with kinetic corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7HWDAHFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04102}
}

read the original abstract

In the present work, we compare the thermodynamical viability of two types of non-canonical scalar field models with kinetic corrections: the square kinetic and square root kinetic corrections. In modern cosmology, the generalised second law of thermodynamics (GSLT) plays an important role in deciding thermodynamical compliance of a model as one cannot consider a model to be viable if it fails to respect GSLT. Hence, for comparing thermodynamical viability, we examine the validity of GSLT for these two models. For this purpose, by employing the Unified first law (UFL), we calculate the total entropy of these two models in apparent and event horizons. The validity of GSLT is then examined from the autonomous systems as the original expressions of total entropy are very complicated. Although, at the background level, both models give interesting cosmological dynamics, however, thermodynamically we found that the square kinetic correction is more realistic as compared to the square root kinetic correction. More precisely, the GSLT holds for the square kinetic correction throughout the evolutionary history except only during the radiation epoch where the scalar field may not represent a true description of the matter content. On the other hand, the square root kinetic model fails to satisfy the GSLT in major cosmological eras.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04102 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) The evolution of Ωφ, Ωm, weff versus z for the square kinetic correction model. The evolution of GSLT versus z on the apparent horizon in (b) and event horizon in (c). Here, we consider a scalar field potential V = V0 sinh−α(λφ) with w = 0, γ = 1, α = −2, λ = 0.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) The evolution of Ωφ, Ωm, weff versus z for the square root kinetic correction model. The evolution of GSLT versus z on the apparent horizon in (b) and event horizon in (c). Here, we consider a scalar field potential V = V0 sinh−α(λφ) with w = 0, γ = −1, α = 1, λ = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) The evolution of Ωφ, Ωm, weff versus z for the square root kinetic correction model. The evolution of GSLT versus z on the apparent horizon in (b) and event horizon in (c). Here, we consider a scalar field potential V = V0 sinh−α(λφ) with w = 0, γ = 1, α = −4, λ = 1 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

[1]

S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199

1975
[2]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2333

work page 1973
[3]

Jacobson, Phys

T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1260

work page 1995
[4]

Padmanabhan, Class

T. Padmanabhan, Class. Quantum. Grav. 19 (2002) 5387

work page 2002
[5]

Paranjape, S

A. Paranjape, S. Sarkar, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 104015

work page 2006
[6]

Akbar and R

M. Akbar and R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 635 (2006) 7

work page 2006
[7]

R. G. Cai and S. P. Kim, J. High Energy Phys. 0502 (2005) 050

work page 2005
[8]

S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 1938

work page 1996

Show all 53 references

[9]

S. A. Hayward, Class. Quant. Grav. 15 (1998) 3147

1998
[10]

S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 251101

2004
[11]

S. A. Hayward, S. Mukhoyama and M. C. Ashworth, Phys. Lett. A 256 (1999) 347

1999
[12]

R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 064008

2007
[13]

Akbar and R

M. Akbar and R. G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 084003

2007
[14]

B. Wang, Y. Gong and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 083520

2006
[15]

Saha and S

S. Saha and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Lett. B 717 (2012) 319

2012
[16]

Chakraborty, Eur

S. Chakraborty, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2876

2014
[17]

Dutta, S

J. Dutta, S. Mitra and B. Chetry, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 55 (2016) 4272

2016
[18]

Karami, M

K. Karami, M. S. Khaledian and N. Abdollahi, Europhys. Lett. 98 (2012) 30010

2012
[19]

Mohseni Sadjadi, Phys

H. Mohseni Sadjadi, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 104024

2007
[20]

Sharif and H

M. Sharif and H. Ismat Fatima, Astrophys. Space Sci. 354 (2014) 507

2014
[21]

Karami, T

K. Karami, T. Najaﬁ and A. Abdolmaleki, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 104041

2014
[22]

Chetry, J

B. Chetry, J. Dutta and A. Abdolmaleki, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50 (2018) 130

2018
[23]

R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 582 (2004) 237

2004
[24]

Sheykhi, J

A. Sheykhi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 0905 (2009) 019

2009
[25]

Jawad and A

A. Jawad and A. Iqbal, Phys. Dark Univ. 22 (2018) 16

2018
[26]

S. Das, U. Debnath and A. A. Mamon, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 504

2015
[27]

Faraoni, Lect

V. Faraoni, Lect. Notes Phys. 907 (2015) pp.1

2015
[28]

Moradpour, M

H. Moradpour, M. T. M. Sabet and A. Ghasemi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30 (2015) 1550158

2015
[29]

Mitra, S

S. Mitra, S. Saha and S. Chakraborty, Annals Phys. 355 (2015) 1

2015
[30]

Mitra, S

S. Mitra, S. Saha and S. Chakraborty, Gen. Rel. Grav. 47 (2015) 69

2015
[31]

Mitra, S

S. Mitra, S. Saha and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 173

2014
[32]

Mitra, S

S. Mitra, S. Saha and S. Chakraborty, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015 (2015) 430764

2015
[33]

S. Saha, S. Mitra and S. Chakraborty, Gen. Rel. Grav. 47 (2015) 38

2015
[34]

J. Lee, T. H. Lee, P. Oh and J. Overduin, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 123003

2014
[35]

Tamanini, Phys

N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 083521

2014
[36]

Dutta, W

J. Dutta, W. Khyllep and N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 063004

2016
[37]

Duary, A

T. Duary, A. Dasgupta and N. Banerjee, arXiv:1906.10408 [gr-qc]

1906 arXiv
[38]

Tsujikawa and M

S. Tsujikawa and M. Sami, Phys. Lett. B 603 (2004) 113

2004
[39]

Piazza and S

F. Piazza and S. Tsujikawa, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 0407 (2004) 004

2004
[40]

A. D. Miller et.al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 524 (1999) L1. August 13, 2019 0:40 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE JD˙non˙canonical˙ijmpd 20 Binod Chetry, Jibitesh Dutta and Wompherdeiki Khyllep

1999
[41]

Planck Collab. (P. A. R. Ade et al. ), Astron. Astrophys. 571 (2014) A16

2014
[42]

Planck Collab. (P. A. R. Ade et al. ), Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A13

2016
[43]

Novosyadlyj, O

B. Novosyadlyj, O. Sergijenko, R. Durrer, and V. Pelykh, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1405 (2014) 030

2014
[44]

C. G. Boehmer, N. Tamanini and M. Wright, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 123003

2015
[45]

R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, Nucl. Phys. B 785 (2007) 135

2007
[46]

Izquierdo and D

G. Izquierdo and D. Pavon, Phys. Lett. B 633 (2006) 420

2006
[47]

B. Wang, C. Y. Lin, D. Pavon and E. Abdalla, Phys. Lett. B 662 (2008) 1

2008
[48]

Pavon and B

D. Pavon and B. Wang, Gen. Rel. Grav. 41 (2009) 1

2009
[49]

J. Zhou, B. Wang, D. Pavon and E. Abdalla, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 24 (2009) 1689

2009
[50]

Lymperis and E

A. Lymperis and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, (2018) 993

2018
[51]

J. P. Mimoso and D. Pavon, Phys. Rev. D 94, (2016) 103507

2016
[52]

Karami and S

K. Karami and S. Ghaﬀari, Phys. Lett. B 685, (2010) 115

2010
[53]

Bahamonde, C

S. Bahamonde, C. G. Boehmer, S. Carloni, E. J. Copeland, W. Fang and N. Tamanini, Phys. Rept. 775 (2018) 777

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199

1975

[2] [2]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2333

work page 1973

[3] [3]

Jacobson, Phys

T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1260

work page 1995

[4] [4]

Padmanabhan, Class

T. Padmanabhan, Class. Quantum. Grav. 19 (2002) 5387

work page 2002

[5] [5]

Paranjape, S

A. Paranjape, S. Sarkar, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 104015

work page 2006

[6] [6]

Akbar and R

M. Akbar and R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 635 (2006) 7

work page 2006

[7] [7]

R. G. Cai and S. P. Kim, J. High Energy Phys. 0502 (2005) 050

work page 2005

[8] [8]

S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 1938

work page 1996