Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Constraints on $\Lambda(t)$CDM cosmology using Cosmic Chronometers and Supernova data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a vacuum energy density decaying as $\rho_\Lambda(a)=\rho_{\Lambda 0}[1+\alpha(1-a)]$ fits cosmic-chronometer and Pantheon supernova data, with best-fit $\alpha=-0.04^{+0.53}_{-0.96}$ and a…

desk verdict The constraints are fine, but the conclusion is not: alpha is consistent with zero, yet the paper reads that as support for dynamical dark energy. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07099 v1 pith:JZGTCEMC submitted 2025-01-13 astro-ph.CO

Yerlan Myrzakulov , M. Koussour , M. Bulanbay , S. Muminov , J. Rayimbaev This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords dynamicalvacuummodelsLambda(t)CDMcosmologycosmicchronometersPantheonsupernovaeMCMCdarkenergydeceleration-to-accelerationtransitionOm(z)diagnostic
topics 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 tests whether the vacuum energy density is constant, as in the cosmological constant, or changes slowly with the scale factor. It adopts the one-parameter Ansatz $\rho_\Lambda(a)=\rho_{\Lambda 0}[1+\alpha(1-a)]$, where $\alpha=0$ recovers $\Lambda$CDM, and fits it to 31 cosmic-chronometer Hubble measurements and 1048 Pantheon Type Ia supernovae using Markov Chain Monte Carlo. The combined fit gives $\alpha=-0.04^{+0.53}_{-0.96}$, $H_0=67.92\pm 0.80$ km/s/Mpc, and $\Omega_{m0}=0.30\pm0.10$, all close to standard values, with a deceleration-to-acceleration transition at $z_t=0.65^{+0.03}_{-0.19}$. Because $\alpha=0$ lies inside the $1\sigma$ interval, the data are consistent with a constant vacuum energy, but the paper reads the slightly negative best fit and the derived diagnostics as support for a dynamic vacuum energy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-parameter vacuum energy density $\rho_\Lambda(a)=\rho_{\Lambda 0}[1+\alpha(1-a)]$, with $\alpha=0$ reducing to the cosmological constant. Inserting this Ansatz into the Friedmann equations and the continuity equation yields a closed-form Hubble parameter $H(z)$ (Eq. 14), which is the quantity compared against the data through the MCMC likelihood. All subsequent physical quantities — the deceleration parameter $q$, the total equation of state $\omega$, the density parameters $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$, the $Om(z)$ diagnostic, and the jerk parameter $j$ — are derived from the same $H(z)$ and serve as the signatures meant to distinguish a decaying vacuum from $\Lambda$CDM.

What would settle it

Re-run the same fit with a more conservative Monte Carlo protocol — longer chains, explicit burn-in removal, and a standard convergence test such as the Gelman-Rubin statistic — using wide flat priors; if the resulting $\alpha$ posterior moves appreciably from $-0.04^{+0.53}_{-0.96}$, the central constraints are an artifact of the sampler settings. A separate decisive test would come from a future independent Hubble-parameter or BAO measurement: if it pins $\alpha$ away from zero at high significance the dynamical-vacuum claim is confirmed, and if it pins $\alpha$ to zero the claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a $\Lambda(t)$CDM model with vacuum density $\rho_\Lambda(t)=\rho_{\Lambda 0}[1+\alpha(1-a)]$ provides a viable description of the background expansion history. The combined CC+SNe fit returns $\alpha=-0.04^{+0.53}_{-0.96}$, $H_0=67.92\pm0.80$ km/s/Mpc, and $\Omega_{m0}=0.30\pm0.10$. The derived present-day diagnostics are $q_0=-0.55\pm0.15$, $\omega_0=-0.70\pm0.10$, and $j_0=1.04^{+0.48}_{-0.87}$, and the transition redshift is $z_t=0.65^{+0.03}_{-0.19}$. Since $\alpha=0$ is within the 68% interval, the data do not require a dynamical vacuum, yet the paper interprets the nonzero best fit together with the dataset-dependent $Om(z)$ slopes and the sign pattern of the diagnostics as evidence that the vacuum energy is dynamic.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the MCMC runs have converged and the priors are not driving the results; the paper reports only 100 walkers and 1000 steps, with no burn-in length, acceptance fractions, or autocorrelation checks, so if the chains are not converged the quoted parameters and every derived diagnostic would not be valid posterior results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the combined fit is correct, the universe changed from decelerating to accelerating expansion at $z_t=0.65^{+0.03}_{-0.19}$, in line with other recent estimates.
  • The $\alpha$ posterior, with $\alpha=0$ inside the $1\sigma$ interval, means present background data cannot distinguish a constant cosmological constant from a mildly decaying vacuum energy.
  • The fitted $H_0=67.92\pm0.80$ km/s/Mpc sits close to the cosmic microwave background value, so this $\Lambda(t)$CDM variant does not resolve the Hubble tension.
  • The $Om(z)$ diagnostic changes character across datasets — negative slope for CC, flat for SNe, positive for the combination — so the inferred dark-energy behavior depends on which tracer is used.
  • The jerk parameter $j_0=1.04^{+0.48}_{-0.87}$ is compatible with the $\Lambda$CDM prediction $j_0=1$, implying any vacuum dynamics are mild.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the $\alpha$ uncertainty comfortably includes zero, the phrase 'supports the dynamic nature of dark energy' is stronger than the posterior alone justifies; a model-comparison statistic such as a Bayes factor or Akaike weight against $\Lambda$CDM would show whether the extra parameter earns its keep.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own $Om(z)$ plots show inconsistent slopes for CC, SNe, and the combined sample, so a redshift-binned fit is a natural next step; if the inferred $\alpha$ shifts with redshift, the single-parameter vacuum model is probably too simple.
  • Editorial inference: if the true vacuum-drift parameter is near $-0.04$, substantially tighter $H(z)$ measurements from future surveys should shrink the error bar below roughly $\pm0.1$, enabling a decisive test of $\alpha=0$.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constrains a phenomenological Λ(t)CDM model in which the vacuum energy density evolves as ρΛ(t)=ρΛ0[1+α(1-a)], using 31 cosmic-chronometer H(z) points and the 1048-point Pantheon supernova sample. The authors run MCMC fits for H0, Ωm0, and α, report 68% intervals for the combined and individual datasets, and then derive the deceleration parameter, total equation of state, Om(z) diagnostic, and jerk parameter from the best-fit Hubble history. The headline conclusion is that the data 'support the dynamic nature of dark energy'.

Significance. The model is a standard phenomenological testbed for a time-varying vacuum, and the derivation of the Hubble expression in Eq. (14) is internally consistent with the adopted ansatz. A clean combined CC+SNe constraint on α would be a useful addition to the dynamical-dark-energy literature. However, the paper's central interpretive claim is not supported by its own results: the combined fit gives α=-0.04(+0.53,-0.96), fully consistent with the ΛCDM value α=0, and no model-comparison statistic is provided. The manuscript therefore currently overstates what the data demonstrate; the analysis could become publishable after a proper model-selection test, a complete MCMC reporting, and a correction of the supernova-likelihood treatment.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §V, Table I] The headline claim that the findings 'support the dynamic nature of dark energy' is contradicted by the quoted posterior. For the combined CC+SNe sample, α=-0.04 with 68% bounds +0.53/-0.96, so the ΛCDM limit α=0 lies well inside the 1σ interval; for the SNe-only sample the paper itself reports α=0.0(+3.4,-2.3). No AIC, BIC, Bayes factor, or Δχ² significance test against ΛCDM is reported anywhere. The abstract and the final bullet of Sec. V must either be revised to state that the data are consistent with both ΛCDM and a small time variation, or the authors must add a quantitative model-selection test that justifies the stronger claim.
  2. [§III C] The MCMC implementation is described only as 'we employ 100 walkers and 1000 steps.' The paper does not report the prior ranges for H0, Ωm0, and α, the burn-in length, acceptance fractions, autocorrelation times, or any convergence diagnostic such as Gelman-Rubin. With only 1000 steps per walker, the quoted 68% intervals in Table I cannot be verified as converged posterior estimates. Please specify the adopted priors and add convergence diagnostics, or state explicitly that the quoted errors are not posterior credible intervals.
  3. [§III B, Eqs. (18)–(21)] The supernova likelihood is not fully specified. The Pantheon distance moduli contain an unknown absolute-magnitude/calibration offset, but Eq. (20) treats μth as a fully determined distance modulus and no prior on or marginalization over the absolute magnitude M is described. Without this information the SNe-only H0=68.1 km/s/Mpc and the joint H0 constraint are not reproducible. The authors should state how M is handled, or use the standard Pantheon likelihood with M analytically marginalized.
  4. [§IV C, Fig. 6] The interpretation of the positive Om(z) slope for the combined dataset as 'phantom-type behavior' is not consistent with the model setup, in which the vacuum equation of state is fixed at ωΛ=-1. In this model the density variation arises from energy exchange between matter and the vacuum, not from a phantom scalar field. Moreover, because α is consistent with zero, the increasing slope in Fig. 6 is not established at a statistically meaningful level. This sentence and the corresponding conclusion bullet should be removed or rephrased.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References, Ref. [41]] The emcee package is cited as 'D. F. Mackey et al.'; the correct citation is Foreman-Mackey et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013).
  2. [§IV B] The text states that 'ω < −1/3 represents a decelerated expansion phase,' but ω < -1/3 corresponds to accelerated expansion; this should be corrected.
  3. [Table I and §IV A] The transition redshift is denoted ztr in Table I but z_t in the text and abstract; please unify the notation.
  4. [§IV C, Fig. 6] The Om(z) curves are plotted without confidence bands, so the claimed increasing or decreasing slopes cannot be assessed against the parameter uncertainties; adding 1σ bands would make the diagnostic more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the parameter constraints are self-contained fits, and the unsupported dynamic-DE conclusion is an overinterpretation rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is internally consistent and self-contained. The model Hubble rate in Eq. (14) follows from integrating the Friedmann equation with the adopted vacuum ansatz Eq. (8), and the parameters H0, Omega_m0 and alpha are fitted to CC and Pantheon data through the standard chi-square likelihoods in Eqs. (17), (18) and (24). The quantities in Sec. IV (deceleration parameter, total EoS, Om(z), jerk) are algebraic functions of the fitted H(z), so they are re-expressions of the same fit rather than independent confirmations; however, the paper does not present them as independent predictions, and deriving model diagnostics from the fitted model is normal practice rather than circularity. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [38,39,56-59]) are used for standard equations and definitions and are not load-bearing. The abstract's statement that the findings 'support the dynamic nature of dark energy' is not sustained by the fitted value alpha = -0.04(+0.53,-0.96), which is consistent with zero, but this is an interpretive overstatement and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the conclusion is not obtained by assuming itself, it is simply not justified by the fit. No step in the paper's derivation reduces, by construction, to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model is a phenomenological ansatz from Wang-Meng with a single extra free parameter alpha. The analysis fits H0, Omega_m0, and alpha to public data. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. The main assumptions are the dynamical vacuum ansatz, spatial flatness, no radiation, and the standard Gaussian likelihood.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = -0.04 (+0.53, -0.96) for CC+SNe
    Free parameter in the vacuum density ansatz Eq. (8); measures deviation from LambdaCDM. It is fitted to the data and is the central model parameter.
  • H0 = 67.92 +/- 0.80 km/s/Mpc for CC+SNe
    Present-day Hubble constant, fitted jointly with the other parameters. It is a standard cosmological parameter but is a fitted value in this analysis.
  • Omega_m0 = 0.30 +/- 0.10 for CC+SNe
    Present-day matter density parameter, fitted jointly with the other parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption General relativity field equations with a perfect-fluid vacuum having omega_Lambda = -1
    Used in Sec. II to write Eqs. (1)-(6); this is the standard dynamical vacuum setup assumed without derivation.
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW metric with no curvature parameter in the analysis
    Eq. (3) and the Hubble solution Eq. (14) assume flatness; curvature is mentioned only in the general luminosity-distance formula Eq. (22) and is not fitted.
  • ad hoc to paper Vacuum energy density parameterization rho_Lambda = rho_Lambda0[1 + alpha(1 - a)]
    Eq. (8) is adopted from Wang and Meng [40] with no physical derivation in this paper. It is the defining model assumption and alpha is then fitted to data.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian likelihood L proportional to exp(-chi^2/2) with known covariance matrices for CC and SNe data
    Used in Sec. III to construct the posteriors; the covariance matrices are taken from the public datasets as fixed inputs.
  • domain assumption Radiation is negligible in the redshift range considered
    The Hubble expression Eq. (14) contains only matter and vacuum terms, with no radiation component, even though SNe data extend to z = 2.26.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on $\Lambda(t)$CDM cosmology using Cosmic Chronometers and Supernova data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JZGTCEMC

@misc{pith2026250107099,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on $\Lambda(t)$CDM cosmology using Cosmic Chronometers and Supernova data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JZGTCEMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07099}
}
abstract

In this manuscript, we investigate the constraints on dynamical vacuum models within the framework of $\Lambda(t)$CDM cosmology by assuming a parameterization of the vacuum energy density as $\rho_{\Lambda}(t)=\rho_{\Lambda 0} \left[1 + \alpha (1 - a)\right]$, where $\rho_{\Lambda 0}$ is the present vacuum density and $\alpha$ is a free parameter. We use 31 cosmic chronometer data points and 1048 Pantheon type Ia supernova samples to constrain the model parameters. Our statistical analysis employs Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations. We have found that the universe is currently undergoing accelerated expansion, transitioning from a decelerating phase. The transition redshift $z_t=0.65^{+0.03}_{-0.19}$ obtained from the combined CC+SNe dataset is consistent with recent constraints. The total EoS indicates an accelerating phase, with density parameters for matter and vacuum energy exhibiting expected behaviors. The $Om(z)$ diagnostic shows distinct behaviors for different datasets, and the present value of the jerk parameter deviates slightly from the $\Lambda$CDM model but remains consistent within uncertainties. These findings support the dynamic nature of dark energy and provide valuable constraints on the evolution of the universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07099 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The regions corresponding to the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Profile of the deceleration parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Profile of the total EoS parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Profile of the density parameter for matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Profile of the density parameter for vacuum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Profile of the jerk parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    Wang and X.H

    D. Wang and X.H. Meng, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 103516 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Riess et al., Astron

    A.G. Riess et al., Astron. J., 116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  3. [2]

    Perlmutter et al., Astrophys

    S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J., 517, 565 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [3]

    Hinshaw et al., ApJ

    WMAP Collaboration, G. Hinshaw et al., ApJ. Suppl. Ser., 208, 19 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    et al., Astron

    Planck Collaboration XVI, Ade P .A.R. et al., Astron. As- trophys., 571, A16 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    et al., Astron

    Planck Collaboration XIII, Ade P .A.R. et al., Astron. As- trophys., 594, A13 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    et al., Astron

    Planck Collaboration XIV , Ade P .A.R. et al., Astron. As- trophys., 594, A14 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    Aghanim et al., Astron

    Planck Collaboration VI, N. Aghanim et al., Astron. As- trophys., 641, A6 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Weinberg, Rev

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

    1989

  2. [9]

    Sahni and A.A

    V . Sahni and A.A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A,9, 373 (2000)

    2000

  3. [10]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept., 380, 235 (2003)

    2003

  4. [11]

    Peebles and B

    P .J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys.,65, 559 (2003)

    2003

  5. [12]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 1753 (2006)

    2006

  6. [13]

    Einstein, Kosmologische betrachtungen zur all- gemeinen relativit ¨atstheorie, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, Kosmologische betrachtungen zur all- gemeinen relativit ¨atstheorie, Sitzungsber. Kgl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., 142-152 (1917)

    1917

  7. [14]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 043511 (2000)

    2000

  8. [15]

    Maia and J.A.S

    J.M.F. Maia and J.A.S. Lima, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 083513 (2002)

    2002

  9. [16]

    Koivisto, Phys

    T. Koivisto, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 043516 (2005)

    2005

  10. [17]

    S. Lee, G. C. Liu and K. W. Ng, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 083516 (2006)

    2006

  11. [18]

    Bertolami, F

    O. Bertolami, F. Gil Pedro and M. Le Delliou, Phys. Lett. B, 654, 165 (2007)

    2007

  12. [19]

    ¨Ozer and M.O

    M. ¨Ozer and M.O. Taha, Phys. Lett. B, 171, 363 (1986)

    1986

  13. [20]

    Freese et al., Nucl

    K. Freese et al., Nucl. Phys. B, 287, 797 (1987)

    1987

  14. [21]

    Chen and Y-S

    W. Chen and Y-S. Wu, Phys. Rev. D,41, 695 (1990)

    1990

  15. [22]

    Berman, Phys

    M.S. Berman, Phys. Rev. D, 43, 1075 (1991)

    1991

  16. [23]

    Pav ´on, Phys

    D. Pav ´on, Phys. Rev. D, 43, 375 (1991)

    1991

  17. [24]

    Carvalho, J.A.S

    J.C. Carvalho, J.A.S. Lima and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. D, 46, 2404 (1992)

    1992

  18. [25]

    Arbab and A.M.M

    A.I. Arbab and A.M.M. Abdel-Rahman, Phys. Rev. D, 50, 7725 (1994)

    1994

  19. [26]

    Barrow and T

    J.D. Barrow and T. Clifton, Phys. Rev. D,73, 103520 (2006)

    2006

  20. [27]

    Wang, C.Y

    B. Wang, C.Y. Lin, and E. Abdalla, Phys. Lett. B, 637, 357 (2006)

    2006

  21. [28]

    Montenegro Jr

    A.E. Montenegro Jr. and S. Carneiro, Class. Quant. Grav., 24, 313 (2007)

    2007

  22. [29]

    Overduin and F.I

    J.M. Overduin and F.I. Cooperstock, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 043506 (1998)

    1998

  23. [30]

    Rezaei, M

    M. Rezaei, M. Malekjani, and J.S. Peracaula, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 023539 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Carneiro, Int

    S. Carneiro, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 12, 1669 (2003)

    2003

  25. [32]

    Alcaniz and J.A.S

    J.S. Alcaniz and J.A.S. Lima, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 063516 (2005)

    2005

  26. [33]

    Sol `a, J

    J. Sol `a, J. Phys. A, 41, 164066 (2008)

    2008

  27. [34]

    Sol `a, J

    J. Sol `a, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 283, 012033 (2011)

    2011

  28. [35]

    Sol `a, J

    J. Sol `a, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 453, 012015 (2013)

    2013

  29. [36]

    Carneiro, Phys

    S. Carneiro, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 083504 (2008)

    2008

  30. [37]

    Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology; Addison Wesley: San Francisco, CA, USA (2003)

    B. Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology; Addison Wesley: San Francisco, CA, USA (2003)

    2003

  31. [38]

    Koussour et al., Results Phys., 55, 107166 (2023)

    M. Koussour et al., Results Phys., 55, 107166 (2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    Myrzakulov, M

    N. Myrzakulov, M. Koussour and D.J. Gogoi, Eur. Phys. J. C, 83, 594 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    D. F. Mackey et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Hobson, A.H

    M.P . Hobson, A.H. Jaffe, A.R. Liddle, P . Mukherjee, D. Parkison (Eds.), Bayesian Methods in Cosmology, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, England (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Jimenez et al., Astrophys

    R. Jimenez et al., Astrophys. J., 593, 622-629 (2003)

    2003

  36. [44]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 123001 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Stern et al., JCAP ,02, 008 (2010)

    D. Stern et al., JCAP ,02, 008 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Moresco et al., JCAP ,08, 006 (2012)

    M. Moresco et al., JCAP ,08, 006 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Zhang et al., Res

    C. Zhang et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys., 14, 1221-1233 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Moresco, Mon

    M. Moresco, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 450, L16-L20 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Moresco et al., JCAP ,05, 014 (2016)

    M. Moresco et al., JCAP ,05, 014 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Ratsimbazafy et al., Mon

    A.L. Ratsimbazafy et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.,467, 3239-3254 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    D. M. Scolnic, et al., The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pan- theon Sample, Astrophys. J. 859, 101. (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Riess et al., Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J., 876, 85 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Valentino et al., Astropart

    E.D. Valentino et al., Astropart. Phys., 131, 102605 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Yang et al., Phys

    W. Yang et al., Phys. Rev. D, 104, 063521 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Valentino, S

    E.D. Valentino, S. Pan, W. Yang, and L.A. Anchordoqui, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 123527 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Koussour et al., Phys

    M. Koussour et al., Phys. Dark Universe, 42, 101339 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Koussour et al., Eur

    M. Koussour et al., Eur. Phys. J. C, 83, 1-14 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Myrzakulov et al., Eur

    N. Myrzakulov et al., Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 138, 852 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Myrzakulov et al., Chinese Phys

    N. Myrzakulov et al., Chinese Phys. C, 47, 115107 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Farooq and B

    O. Farooq and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett., 766, L7 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    J. Lu, L. Xu, and M. Liu, Phys. Lett. B, 699, 246 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    Yang and Y

    Y. Yang and Y. Gong, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 06, 059 (2020). 10

    2020

  55. [63]

    Capozziello, O

    S. Capozziello, O. Farooq, O. Luongo, and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 044016 (2014)

    2014

  56. [64]

    Capozziello, R

    S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino, and O. Luongo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 494, 2576 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Gruber and O

    C. Gruber and O. Luongo, Phys. Rev. D,89, 103506 (2014)

    2014

  58. [66]

    Sahni, A

    V . Sahni, A. Shafieloo and A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 103502 (2008)

    2008

  59. [67]

    Sahni, A

    V . Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A.A. Starobinsky, Astrophys. J., 793, L40 (2014)

    2014

  60. [68]

    Shahalam, S

    M. Shahalam, S. Sami, and A. Agarwal, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc., 448, 2948 (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    Sahni, T.D

    V . Sahni, T.D. Saini, A.A. Starobinsky, and U. Alam, JETP Lett., 77, 201 (2003)

    2003

  62. [70]

    U. Alam, V . Sahni, T.D. Saini, and A.A. Starobinsky, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 344, 1057 (2003)

    2003

  63. [71]

    Mukherjee and N

    A. Mukherjee and N. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 043002 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Z. X. Zhai et al., Phys. Lett. B, 727, 8 (2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    Akarsu, S

    ¨O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, R. Ayrzakulov, M. Sami, and L. Xu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 1, 022 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    Mamon and K

    A.A. Mamon and K. Bamba, Eur. Phys. J. C,78, 862 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.