Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 104 references

Reconstructing FHDE with Scalar and Gauge Fields

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One fractional dark-energy equation of state is reproduced by six field models, and all six converge to ΛCDM behaviour as z → -1.

desk verdict A workmanlike extension of standard holographic reconstruction to FHDE with six new explicit field models, undercut by a dimensional inconsistency in the fiducial density and some overclaiming. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00292 v1 pith:WBGHJMNT submitted 2025-02-01 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Ayush Bidlan , Paulo Moniz , Oem Trivedi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords HolographicPrincipleFractionalDarkEnergydynamicscalarfieldreconstructiongaugequintessenceK-essencetachyon
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

Fractional Holographic Dark Energy (FHDE) starts from a dark-energy density $\rho_{\rm de}=3c^2H^{(3\alpha-2)/\alpha}$, a fractional-power modification of the usual holographic density, which gives the equation-of-state parameter $\omega_{\rm de}=-1+\frac{(3\alpha-2)(1-\Omega_{\rm de})}{2\alpha-\Omega_{\rm de}(3\alpha-2)}$. The paper claims that imposing $\rho_i=\rho_{\rm de}$ and $\omega_i=\omega_{\rm de}$ on six standard field configurations—quintessence, K-essence, dilaton, Yang-Mills condensate, DBI-essence, and tachyon—yields explicit kinetic, potential, and coupling functions for each model. In all six cases the reconstructed EoS approaches $-1$ as $z\to-1$, so the fractional corrections provide late-time acceleration without crossing the phantom divide. If correct, this gives a concrete dictionary between a fractional holographic scenario and familiar field-theoretic dark-energy candidates, making the model testable with standard tools.

What carries the argument

The central object is the FHDE EoS parameter $\omega_{\rm de}=-1+\frac{(3\alpha-2)(1-\Omega_{\rm de})}{2\alpha-\Omega_{\rm de}(3\alpha-2)}$, derived from the fractional density ansatz $\rho_{\rm de}=3c^2H^{(3\alpha-2)/\alpha}$ with the Hubble horizon as the infrared cutoff. The reconstruction mechanism is the identification $\rho_i=\rho_{\rm de}$ and $\omega_i=\omega_{\rm de}$: each field model's EoS formula is solved for its kinetic and potential (or coupling) functions, with $\Omega_{\rm de}(z)$ and $H(z)$ from the fractional density evolution equation in the appendix. The fractional parameter $\alpha\in(1,2]$ controls the strength of the non-standard features; the limit $\alpha\to2$ recovers the usual holographic density $3c^2H^2$ and $\omega\to0$, while $\Omega_{\rm de}\to1$ at $z\to-1$ is what pushes every reconstructed EoS toward $-1$.

What would settle it

The identity $\Omega_{\rm de}=c^2H^{(\alpha-2)/\alpha}$ evaluated at $z=0$ with the paper's own choices $\Omega_0=0.69$, $c=0.01$, and $H_0=70\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}}$ gives, for $\alpha=1.2$, $10^{-4}\times70^{-2/3}\approx6\times10^{-6}$ instead of $0.69$, so if that identity must hold at the present epoch, the parameter assignment behind the reconstructions is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that FHDE is not an isolated phenomenological formula: it can be realized as the background dynamics of six familiar dark-energy field theories. By setting $\rho_i=\rho_{\rm de}$ and $\omega_i=\omega_{\rm de}$ and solving the resulting algebraic equations, the authors obtain explicit reconstructions—$\dot\phi_q^2/2$ and $V_q(\phi)$ for quintessence, $X_{kq}$ and $f_{kq}(\phi)$ for K-essence, $X_d$ and $\beta\exp(\lambda\phi)X_d$ for the dilaton, the squared electric field $E^2$ for the Yang-Mills condensate, $X_{\rm DBI}$ and $V_{\rm DBI}(\phi)$ for DBI-essence, and $\dot\phi_t^2$ and $V_t(\phi)$ for the tachyon. All six EoS parameters $\omega_i(z)$ tend to $-1$ as $\Omega_{\rm de}\to1$ at $z\to-1$, which the authors read as a flow to $\Lambda$CDM behaviour; for $\alpha$ in $1<\alpha\le2$ the EoS remains above the phantom divide, so the reconstruction avoids the $\omega\to-\infty$ instability. For $\alpha=1.2$ the present-day EoS falls near the value preferred by recent large-scale-structure constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the fractional density ansatz $\rho_{\rm de}=3c^2H^{(3\alpha-2)/\alpha}$ for dark energy with the Hubble horizon as cutoff, a fractional power of the Hubble rate (a quantity with units) that the paper uses with no stated reference scale, together with the plotting choices $\Omega_0=0.69$, $c=0.01$, $H_0=70$; if that ansatz or those values is not physically sound, the reconstructed field quantities and the claimed $\Lambda$CDM asymptotics do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reconstruction holds, observations of any of the six field models constrain the fractional parameter $\alpha$, giving a direct observational handle on FHDE.
  • For small $\alpha$ the reconstructed EoS approaches $\omega=-1$ as $z\to-1$, so the fractional model predicts $\Lambda$CDM-like late-time acceleration rather than a phantom crossing.
  • The $\alpha=1.2$ case gives a present-day EoS close to recent baryon-acoustic-oscillation bounds, while larger $\alpha$ values deviate further from $\Lambda$CDM.
  • The reconstructed kinetic and potential terms decay to zero, or stabilize at finite values like $X_{kq}\to1/2$, in the far future, so the fields settle into a nearly constant dark-energy component.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the six reconstructions are observationally degenerate at the background level, since they all match the same $\omega_{\rm de}(z)$; telling them apart requires perturbation-level signals such as sound speed or the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.
  • The paper's own proposed integrated Sachs-Wolfe test can be sharpened: because the reconstruction fixes each model's potential, one can compute each candidate's predicted ISW cross-correlation and ask whether only $\alpha\neq2$ reproduces the signal.
  • The near-$\Lambda$CDM asymptotics trace to the fixed point $\Omega_{\rm de}\to1$; switching on the interaction parameter $\gamma$ in the fractional density evolution equation would directly test how much of the claimed behaviour survives beyond the non-interacting setup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reconstructs the Fractional Holographic Dark Energy (FHDE) model of Trivedi et al. (2024) using six effective field configurations: quintessence, K-essence, dilaton, Yang-Mills condensate, DBI-essence, and tachyon. For each model, the authors impose the correspondence ρ_i = ρ_de and ω_i = ω_de (Eq. 11), then algebraically solve for the kinetic term X_i and potential V_i (or coupling function f) as functions of redshift for fractional parameter 1 < α ≤ 2. They plot these quantities and the EoS parameter over the range −1 < z ≤ 2, and find that as z → −1 the EoS approaches −1 (ΛCDM behavior) and does not cross into the phantom regime. The reconstruction relies on the FHDE density ansatz ρ_de = 3c²H^((3α−2)/α) (Eq. 5) and the fractional density evolution equation (Eq. 55) imported from the prior paper.

Significance. The paper provides explicit, systematic algebraic reconstructions of a given dark-energy density into six different field-theoretic forms. If the foundational FHDE ansatz were dimensionally sound and the parameter choices consistent, the explicit formulas for X_i and V_i could serve as a useful reference for phenomenological studies of alternative dark-energy models. The reconstructions are purely kinematic, however: the EoS of each field is set equal to ω_de by construction, so the claimed late-time ΛCDM behavior and phantom-divide avoidance are inherited from the FHDE input rather than derived from the field dynamics. The main value of the paper lies in the explicit correspondence formulas across multiple field types, provided the dimensional and consistency issues identified below are resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (5)] The FHDE density ansatz ρ_de = 3c²H^((3α−2)/α) is dimensionally inconsistent: H has units of mass, so for generic α the right-hand side has mass dimension (3α−2)/α rather than 4, and the associated Ωde = c²H^((α−2)/α) in Eq. (6) is not dimensionless. No reference scale is introduced. Since this ansatz underlies every subsequent expression in Sections 3, the reconstructed fields and all plots inherit this problem. The authors should introduce a reference scale (e.g., replace H by H/H_ref and add appropriate powers of a mass scale) and state the dimensions of all quantities, or justify a convention in which H is treated as dimensionless.
  2. [Appendix A] The numerical values H0 = 70 km Mpc⁻¹ s⁻¹, Ω0 = 0.69, and c = 0.01 are mutually inconsistent through Eq. (6): at z = 0, Eq. (6) gives Ω0 = c²H0^((α−2)/α), which for α ∈ (1,2) is of order 10⁻⁵ with these inputs, not 0.69. Consequently, the evolution of Ωde(z) obtained from Eq. (56) with Ω0 = 0.69 does not correspond to the same background model as H(z) obtained from Eq. (58) with c = 0.01. All figures computed with these expressions are therefore not self-consistent; the constants must be adjusted, or the relation between Ωde, H, and c in Eqs. (5)–(6) must be modified.
  3. [Section 3.5, Eqs. (44)–(46)] The DBI reconstruction is not derived transparently. Eq. (44) is a single equation for two unknowns (η and V, or equivalently T and V); the result Eq. (45) can only be obtained if one also uses the density equality ρ_DBI = ρ_de from Eq. (11) and the relation T(φ) = n φdot², which fixes η = sqrt(n/(n−1)). The paper does not show these steps, and without them the reconstruction appears underdetermined. The authors should present the two equations used and the solution steps explicitly. In addition, Eq. (45) has the dimensions of H² (with n dimensionless), whereas a kinetic energy density should have mass dimension 4; this is the same dimensional problem noted for Eq. (5).
  4. [Section 3 and Abstract] The central claim that the EoS parameter of all field configurations approaches ΛCDM behavior and avoids the phantom divide is an immediate consequence of setting ω_i = ω_de in Eq. (11). The asymptotic limit ω_de → −1 follows from the fixed point Ωde → 1 of Eq. (55), not from any dynamics of the reconstructed fields. The paper should explicitly state that these results are inherited from the FHDE input and are not independent predictions of the field models; otherwise the presentation overstates the novelty of the results.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.2, last paragraph] The reference "as we remarked for Quintessence, in Figure 3a" should refer to Figure 1a, not Figure 3a.
  2. [Section 3.5] The sentence "The evolution is illustrated in Figure 7 and Figure 8" should refer to Figure 8, since Figure 7 displays the Yang-Mills condensate results.
  3. [Section 4] The phrase "ensuring that the EoS parameter remains above the phantom divide i.e., ω(z) < −1" should read "ω(z) > −1", since the phantom divide is at ω = −1.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (56)] Eq. (56) is an implicit equation for Ωde because Ωde appears on both sides; the text says "we obtain the following expression for Ωde," which is misleading. Please clarify that this is an implicit solution.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (58)] Eq. (58) is also implicit in H(z) because H appears on the right-hand side; this should be stated explicitly.
  6. [Section 3.5] The notation X_DBI = n φdot² is nonstandard, since in the DBI literature X usually denotes (1/2)φdot² and T(φ) is the brane tension. Please define this notation clearly and distinguish it from the standard convention.
  7. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract says "preventing the EoS from entering the phantom divide i.e., ω(z) → −∞", but the phantom divide is ω = −1, not −∞; the divergence to −∞ is a separate feature of some phantom models. Please rephrase to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The advertised EoS-level results are imposed by the Eq. (11) correspondence, while the FHDE density input is imported from the authors' own prior paper.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Eq. (11); applied in Eqs. (16), (22), (30), (39), (44), (51)]
    "we establish a correspondence between the FHDE and scalar field models in the following way: ωi ↔ ωde, ρ i ↔ ρde, p i ↔ pde, (11) where, the subscript, i, acts as the dummy index for establishing the correspondence."

    By Eq. (11), each field's EoS is defined to equal ω_de from Eq. (10). Consequently the EoS plots (Figures 2, 4, 6, 7b, 9, 11) and the abstract's claim that 'the EoS parameter of all the effective field configurations asymptotically approaches a ΛCDM behaviour' are restatements of Eq. (10) evaluated at Ω_de→1; they are not outputs of the field dynamics. The potentials and kinetic terms are genuine algebraic reconstructions, but the EoS-level findings are inputs by construction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4 and Section 2, Eq. (5); Appendix, Eqs. (54)-(56); Ref. [Trivedi et al., 2024]]
    "This setting is Fractional Holographic Dark Energy (FHDE) and was introduced in [Trivedi et al., 2024], supported with concrete examples of applications."

    The density ansatz ρ_de = 3c^2 H^{(3α-2)/α} (Eq. 5) and the Ω_de(z) evolution used for all plots are imported from this same self-cited paper by the overlapping authors, with no independent derivation or external benchmark provided here. Every reconstructed field quantity inherits this input, so the conclusion that FHDE is a 'promising aspirant' rests on the authors' own prior ansatz rather than on evidence developed in the present manuscript.

full rationale

The paper is an explicit reconstruction exercise: Eq. (11) sets ω_i=ω_de, ρ_i=ρ_de, p_i=p_de for each of the six field models, and the field potentials and kinetic terms are then solved algebraically. Those explicit formulas, e.g., Eqs. (17)-(18), are a legitimate and non-circular output of the correspondence. What is circular is the presentation of the EoS behavior: because every field EoS is defined to be equal to the FHDE EoS, the claims of ΛCDM asymptotics, avoidance of the phantom divide, and agreement with DESI at z=0 are all inherited from Eq. (10) rather than derived from the field models. The FHDE density ansatz and the fractional density evolution are also imported from the authors' own prior paper (Trivedi et al. 2024), making the underlying model load-bearing self-citation; however, this is a follow-up reconstruction rather than a claim that the prior work is independently established here. A separate, non-circularity concern is that the parameter assignment Ω0=0.69, c=0.01, H0=70 in the Appendix appears inconsistent with Eq. (6) evaluated at z=0 for the displayed α values; this affects correctness of the plots, not logical circularity. The DBI section, despite terse algebra, is consistent if the ρ_DBI=ρ_de branch of Eq. (11) is used together with the EoS equation, although the text's claim of a different z=0 value for ω_DBI is unexplained. Overall, the central EoS findings reduce by construction, but the reconstructed potentials retain independent algebraic content, so the score is 6.

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

The central claim rests on the FHDE density ansatz from a self-cited prior paper, the flat non-interacting FRW background, and the reconstruction correspondence that equates each field's EoS to ω_de. No new particles or entities are introduced. The only free parameters are the fractional order α, the HDE constant c, the DBI parameter n, and the initial density Ω0; their chosen values drive all plotted results.

free parameters (4)
  • fractional parameter α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8
    Order of the fractional derivative in the FHDE density; scanned by hand over 1<α≤2. All EoS and field plots depend on it; not fitted to data in this paper.
  • holographic constant c = 0.01
    Amplitude of ρ_de in Eq. (5); chosen without justification. Under Eq. (6) with H0=70 and Ω0=0.69, this value is numerically inconsistent.
  • DBI parameter n = 1.5
    Appears in the warped brane tension T(φ)=n ˙φ² for DBI-essence; chosen by hand in Section 3.5, no sensitivity study.
  • initial dark energy density Ω0 = 0.69
    Boundary condition for Eq. (55) in the Appendix; taken to match observations, but incompatible with c=0.01 through the defining relation Ω_de=c²H^{(α-2)/α} at z=0.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FHDE density ρ_de = 3c² H^{(3α-2)/α} (Eq. 5)
    The defining input of the model, imported from Trivedi et al. 2024 (two of the present authors). Not derived here; requires a reference scale for fractional powers of H.
  • domain assumption Flat FRW background with non-interacting dark matter and dark energy (γ=0)
    Used to derive the EoS (Eq. 10) and background equations (Eqs. 54-58). Excludes curvature and DE-DM interactions.
  • domain assumption Reconstruction correspondence ω_i=ω_de and ρ_i=ρ_de (Eq. 11)
    Methodological choice that forces each field model to match the FHDE background; makes the EoS results follow identically.
  • standard math Standard EoS formulas for the six field models
    Taken from prior literature: quintessence Eq. (15), K-essence Eq. (21), dilaton Eq. (29), YMC Eq. (38), DBI Eq. (43), tachyon Eq. (50).
  • domain assumption YMC magnetic component decays faster than electric component, so only E² remains
    Borrowed from Zhao and Xu 2007; required for the simplified YMC energy density and pressure in Section 3.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing FHDE with Scalar and Gauge Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WBGHJMNT

@misc{pith2026250200292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing FHDE with Scalar and Gauge Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WBGHJMNT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00292}
}
abstract

We revisit the Fractional Holographic Dark Energy (FHDE) model to reconstruct it by means of dynamic candidates such as ($i$) Quintessence, ($ii$) K-essence, ($iii$) Dilaton, ($iv$) Yang-Mills condensate, ($v$) DBI-essence, and ($vi$) Tachyonic fields in a flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) Universe. In particular, the dark-energy possibilities ($i$)-($vi$) are formulated through suitable field descriptions. Being concrete, we establish a comprehensive correspondence between FHDE and suitable scalar and gauge field frameworks that co-substantiate our investigation and subsequent discussion. In more detail, we methodically compute the corresponding Equation of State (EoS) parameters and field (kinetic and potential) features for the fractional parameter ($\alpha$) range, viz. $1<\alpha\leq2$. Conclusively, our results show that the modifications brought by the fractional features satisfactorily enable late-time cosmic acceleration, together with avoiding quantum instabilities by preventing the EoS from entering the phantom divide i.e., $\omega(z)\rightarrow-\infty$, which is a common issue in standard scalar field models without fractional dynamics (e.g., K-essence field). Our findings further indicate that fractional calculus attributes can be significant in addressing the challenges of dark-energy models by offering a robust framework to prospect late-time acceleration and properly fitting observational constraints. Notably, we find that as the fractional features start to dominate, the EoS parameter of all the effective field configurations asymptotically approaches a $\Lambda$CDM behaviour in the far-future limit $z\rightarrow-1$. In summary, the recent perspective introduced by FHDE \citep{Trivedi:2024inb} can indeed be cast as a promising aspirant through the use of prominent field frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00292 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot for Xq and Vq(φ) against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of ωq against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8; here c = 0.01. – However, as the redshift decreases below z < 0.55 (see in Figure 1b), subtle differences in the behaviour of the potential emerge, with α = 1.8 showing more appropriateness6 due to its less dynamic evolution as the Universe transitions to a dark energy-dominated phase. As z → −1, the kinetic and potential energies tend to zero asymptotical… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot for Xkq and fkq(φ) against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of ωkq against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8; here c = 0.01. We notice the following: • In Figure 3a and Figure 3b, we can observe that the kinetic energy, Xkq, and the coupling function, fkq(φ), of the K-essence field in fractional holographic reconstr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of Xd and β exp (λφ)Xd, respectively, against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of ωd against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8; here c = 0.01. With detail: • In Figure 5a and Figure 5b, we observe that the kinetic energy, Xd, and the exponential function, β exp (λφ)Xd, of the Dilaton field in fractional holographic reconstruction deca…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a. Furthermore, we plot the EoS parameter in Figure 7b. (a) Plot of E 2 against redshift z. (b) Plot of ωYMC against redshift z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of XDBI and VDBI(φ) against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8. Here n = 1.5. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plot of ωDBI against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8; here c = 0.01. We notice the following: • In Figure 8a and Figure 8b, we notice that the kinetic energy, XDBI, and the potential energy, VDBI(φ), of the DBI-essence field in fractional holographic reconstru…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plot of Xt and Vt(φ) against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Plot of ωt against redshift z for α = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8; here c = 0.01. We notice the following: • In Figure 10a and Figure 10b, we perceive that the kinetic energy, Xt , and the exponential function, Vt(φ), of the Tachyon field in fractional holographic reconstru…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fractional holographic dark energy

    Oem Trivedi, Ayush Bidlan, and Paulo Moniz. Fractional holographic dark energy . Phys. Lett. B, 858: 0 139074, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139074

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Riess, Alexei V

    Adam G. Riess, Alexei V. Filippenko, Peter Challis, Alejandro Clocchiatti, Alan Diercks, Peter M. Garnavich, Ron L. Gilliland, Craig J. Hogan, Saurabh Jha, Robert P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, David Reiss, Brian P. Schmidt, Robert A. Schommer, R. Chris Smith, J. Spyromilio, Christopher Stubbs, Nicholas B. Suntzeff, and John Tonry. Observatio...

    1998

  3. [3]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, I. M. Hook, A. G. Kim, M. Y. Kim, J. C. Lee, N. J. Nunes, R. Pain, C. R. Pennypacker, R. Quimby, C. Lidman, R. S. Ellis, M. Irwin, R. G. McMahon, P. Ruiz‐Lapuente, N. Walton, B. Schaefer, B. J. Boyle, A. V. Filippenko, T. Matheson,...

    1999

  4. [4]

    Astier, J

    P. Astier, J. Guy, N. Regnault, R. Pain, E. Aubourg, D. Balam, S. Basa, R. G. Carlberg, S. Fabbro, D. Fouchez, I. M. Hook, D. A. Howell, H. Lafoux, J. D. Neill, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, K. Perrett, C. J. Pritchet, J. Rich, M. Sullivan, R. Taillet, G. Aldering, P. Antilogus, V. Arsenijevic, C. Balland, S. Baumont, J. Bronder, H. Courtois, R. S. Ellis, M. ...

    2006

  5. [5]

    Riess, Louis‐Gregory Strolger, John Tonry, Stefano Casertano, Henry C

    Adam G. Riess, Louis‐Gregory Strolger, John Tonry, Stefano Casertano, Henry C. Ferguson, Bahram Mobasher, Peter Challis, Alexei V. Filippenko, Saurabh Jha, Weidong Li, Ryan Chornock, Robert P. Kirshner, Bruno Leibundgut, Mark Dickinson, Mario Livio, Mauro Giavalisco, Charles C. Steidel, Txitxo Benitez, and Zlatan Tsvetanov. Type ia supernova discoveries a...

    2004

  6. [6]

    Riess, Louis‐Gregory Strolger, Stefano Casertano, Henry C

    Adam G. Riess, Louis‐Gregory Strolger, Stefano Casertano, Henry C. Ferguson, Bahram Mobasher, Ben Gold, Peter J. Challis, Alexei V. Filippenko, Saurabh Jha, Weidong Li, John Tonry, Ryan Foley, Robert P. Kirshner, Mark Dickinson, Emily MacDonald, Daniel Eisenstein, Mario Livio, Josh Younger, Chun Xu, Tomas Dahlen, and Daniel Stern. New hubble space telesco...

    2007

  7. [7]

    W. M. Wood‐Vasey, G. Miknaitis, C. W. Stubbs, S. Jha, A. G. Riess, P. M. Garnavich, R. P. Kirshner, C. Aguilera, A. C. Becker, J. W. Blackman, S. Blondin, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Conley, R. Covarrubias, T. M. Davis, A. V. Filippenko, R. J. Foley, A. Garg, M. Hicken, K. Krisciunas, B. Leibundgut, W. Li, T. Matheson, A. Miceli, G. Narayan, G. Pignata...

    2007

  8. [8]

    T. M. Davis, E. Mortsell, J. Sollerman, A. C. Becker, S. Blondin, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. V. Filippenko, R. J. Foley, P. M. Garnavich, S. Jha, K. Krisciunas, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, W. Li, T. Matheson, G. Miknaitis, G. Pignata, A. Rest, A. G. Riess, B. P. Schmidt, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. W. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, J. L. Tonry, W. M. W...

    2007

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Kowalski, D

    M. Kowalski, D. Rubin, G. Aldering, R. J. Agostinho, A. Amadon, R. Amanullah, C. Balland, K. Barbary, G. Blanc, P. J. Challis, A. Conley, N. V. Connolly, R. Covarrubias, K. S. Dawson, S. E. Deustua, R. Ellis, S. Fabbro, V. Fadeyev, X. Fan, B. Farris, G. Folatelli, B. L. Frye, ...

    2008

  2. [10]

    D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, H. V. Peiris, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, L. Page, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright. First‐year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe ( wmap ) obse...

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    D. N. Spergel, R. Bean, O. Dore, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, E. Komatsu, L. Page, H. V. Peiris, L. Verde, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, N. Odegard, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright. Three‐y...

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Komatsu, J

    E. Komatsu, J. Dunkley, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M. Limon, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, A. Kogut, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright. Five-yearwilkinson microwave anisotropy p...

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Komatsu, K

    E. Komatsu, K. M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, N. Odegard, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright. Seven-yearwilkin...

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Eisenstein, Idit Zehavi, David W

    Daniel J. Eisenstein, Idit Zehavi, David W. Hogg, Roman Scoccimarro, Michael R. Blanton, Robert C. Nichol, Ryan Scranton, Hee‐Jong Seo, Max Tegmark, Zheng Zheng, Scott F. Anderson, Jim Annis, Neta Bahcall, Jon Brinkmann, Scott Burles, Francisco J. Castander, Andrew Connolly, I...

    2005

  7. [15]

    Percival, Shaun Cole, Daniel J

    Will J. Percival, Shaun Cole, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Robert C. Nichol, John A. Peacock, Adrian C. Pope, and Alexander S. Szalay. Measuring the baryon acoustic oscillation scale using the sloan digital sky survey and 2df galaxy redshift survey: Measuring the bao scale. Monthly N...

    2007

  8. [16]

    Percival, Beth A

    Will J. Percival, Beth A. Reid, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Neta A. Bahcall, Tamas Budavari, Joshua A. Frieman, Masataka Fukugita, James E. Gunn, Željko Ivezić, Gillian R. Knapp, Richard G. Kron, Jon Loveday, Robert H. Lupton, Timothy A. McKay, Avery Meiksin, Robert C. Nichol, Adria...

    2010

  9. [17]

    The Cosmological Constant Problem

    Steven Weinberg. The Cosmological Constant Problem . Rev. Mod. Phys., 61: 0 1--23, 1989. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    1989 doi

  10. [18]

    Padmanabhan

    T. Padmanabhan. Cosmological constant: The Weight of the vacuum . Phys. Rept., 380: 0 235--320, 2003. doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00120-0

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    Michael S. Turner. The case for lambdacdm, 1997. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9703161

    1997 arXiv

  12. [20]

    G. R. Blumenthal , S. M. Faber , J. R. Primack , and M. J. Rees . Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure with cold dark matter. , 311: 0 517--525, October 1984. doi:10.1038/311517a0

    1984 doi

  13. [21]

    Challenges for CDM: An update

    Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Foteini Skara. Challenges for CDM: An update . New Astron. Rev., 95: 0 101659, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659

    2022

  14. [22]

    J. J. Condon and A. M. Matthews. CDM Cosmology for Astronomers . Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 130 0 (989): 0 073001, 2018. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aac1b2

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    On the cosmological constant problem

    Lucas Lombriser. On the cosmological constant problem . Phys. Lett. B, 797: 0 134804, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134804

    2019

  16. [25]

    M. O. Ribas, F. P. Devecchi, and G. M. Kremer. Fermions as sources of accelerated regimes in cosmology. Phys. Rev. D, 72: 0 123502, 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.123502. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.123502

    2005 doi

  17. [26]

    Dark energy model with spinor matter and its quintom scenario

    Yi-Fu Cai and Jing Wang. Dark energy model with spinor matter and its quintom scenario. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25 0 (16): 0 165014, 2008. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/16/165014. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/25/16/165014

    2008 doi

  18. [27]

    Urjit A. Yajnik. Dark energy from ferromagnetic condensation of cosmic magninos, 2011. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2562

    2011 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Tsyba, K

    P. Tsyba, K. Yerzhanov, K. Esmakhanova, I. Kulnazarov, G. Nugmanova, and R. Myrzakulov. Reconstruction of f-essence and fermionic chaplygin gas models of dark energy, 2011. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5918

    2011 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Armendáriz-Picón, T

    C. Armendáriz-Picón, T. Damour, and V. Mukhanov. k-inflation. Physics Letters B, 458 0 (2–3): 0 209–218, July 1999. ISSN 0370-2693. doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(99)00603-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00603-6

    1999 doi

  21. [30]

    The state equation of yang–mills field dark energy models

    Wen Zhao and Yang Zhang. The state equation of yang–mills field dark energy models. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23 0 (10): 0 3405–3417, April 2006 a . ISSN 1361-6382. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/10/011. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/23/10/011

    2006 doi

  22. [31]

    Koivisto and Nelson J

    Tomi S. Koivisto and Nelson J. Nunes. Inflation and dark energy from three-forms. Physical Review D, 80 0 (10), November 2009. ISSN 1550-2368. doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.103509. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.103509

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    Dark energy and chern-simons like gravity from a dynamical four-form, 2011

    Patrick Das Gupta. Dark energy and chern-simons like gravity from a dynamical four-form, 2011. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1621

    2011 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Odintsov

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. DeSitter brane universe induced by phantom and quantum effects . Phys. Lett. B, 565: 0 1--9, 2003 a . doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00753-6

    2003 doi

  25. [34]

    Odintsov

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Modified gravity with negative and positive powers of the curvature: Unification of the inflation and of the cosmic acceleration . Phys. Rev. D, 68: 0 123512, 2003 b . doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.123512

    2003 doi

  26. [35]

    Odintsov

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. AdS / CFT correspondence, conformal anomaly and quantum corrected entropy bounds . Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 16: 0 3273--3290, 2001. doi:10.1142/S0217751X01004128

    2001 doi

  27. [36]

    Odintsov

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Quantum de Sitter cosmology and phantom matter . Phys. Lett. B, 562: 0 147--152, 2003 c . doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00594-X

    2003 doi

  28. [37]

    Odintsov

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Quantum escape of sudden future singularity . Phys. Lett. B, 595: 0 1--8, 2004 a . doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.06.060

    2004 doi

  29. [38]

    Odintsov

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. The Final state and thermodynamics of dark energy universe . Phys. Rev. D, 70: 0 103522, 2004 b . doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.103522

    2004 doi

  30. [39]

    Odintsov

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Unifying phantom inflation with late-time acceleration: Scalar phantom-non-phantom transition model and generalized holographic dark energy . Gen. Rel. Grav., 38: 0 1285--1304, 2006 a . doi:10.1007/s10714-006-0301-6

    2006 doi

  31. [40]

    Odintsov

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Inhomogeneous equation of state of the universe: Phantom era, future singularity and crossing the phantom barrier . Phys. Rev. D, 72: 0 023003, 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.023003

    2005 doi

  32. [41]

    Odintsov, and Shinji Tsujikawa

    Shin'ichi Nojiri, Sergei D. Odintsov, and Shinji Tsujikawa. Properties of singularities in (phantom) dark energy universe . Phys. Rev. D, 71: 0 063004, 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063004

    2005 doi

  33. [42]

    Odintsov

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Modified f(R) gravity consistent with realistic cosmology: From matter dominated epoch to dark energy universe . Phys. Rev. D, 74: 0 086005, 2006 b . doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.086005

    2006 doi

  34. [43]

    V. F. Cardone, A. Troisi, and S. Capozziello. Unified dark energy models: A phenomenological approach. Physical Review D, 69 0 (8), April 2004. ISSN 1550-2368. doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.083517. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.083517

    2004 doi

  35. [44]

    Dynamics of a two scalar field cosmological model with phantom terms

    Andronikos Paliathanasis and Genly Leon. Dynamics of a two scalar field cosmological model with phantom terms. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38 0 (7): 0 075013, March 2021. ISSN 1361-6382. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abe2d7. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/abe2d7

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    Garg and Chethan Krishnan

    Sumit K. Garg and Chethan Krishnan. Bounds on slow roll and the de sitter swampland. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019 0 (11), November 2019. ISSN 1029-8479. doi:10.1007/jhep11(2019)075. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2019)075

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    Palma, and Simón Riquelme

    Rafael Bravo, Gonzalo A. Palma, and Simón Riquelme. A tip for landscape riders: multi-field inflation can fulfill the swampland distance conjecture. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020 0 (02): 0 004–004, February 2020. ISSN 1475-7516. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/202...

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    Ana Achúcarro and Gonzalo A. Palma. The string swampland constraints require multi-field inflation. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019 0 (02): 0 041–041, February 2019. ISSN 1475-7516. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/041. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516...

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, B. Bahr-Kalus, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, A. Bera, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Bla...

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Lodha, A

    K. Lodha, A. Shafieloo, R. Calderon, E. Linder, W. Sohn, J. L. Cervantes-Cota, A. de Mattia, J. García-Bellido, M. Ishak, W. Matthewson, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, A. de la Macorra, A. Dey, B. Dey, P. Doel, J. E. Forero-Romero, E. Gaztañaga, S. Gontcho A Go...

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Calderon, K

    R. Calderon, K. Lodha, A. Shafieloo, E. Linder, W. Sohn, A. de Mattia, J.L. Cervantes-Cota, R. Crittenden, T.M. Davis, M. Ishak, A.G. Kim, W. Matthewson, G. Niz, S. Park, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Allen, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, A. de la Macorra, A. Dey, B. Dey, P. Doel, J.E. F...

    2024

  42. [51]

    A Model of holographic dark energy

    Miao Li. A Model of holographic dark energy . Phys. Lett. B, 603: 0 1, 2004. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.10.014

    2004 doi

  43. [52]

    The World as a hologram

    Leonard Susskind. The World as a hologram . J. Math. Phys., 36: 0 6377--6396, 1995. doi:10.1063/1.531249

    1995 doi

  44. [53]

    A review of definitions for fractional derivatives and integral

    Edmundo Capelas de Oliveira and José António Tenreiro Machado. A review of definitions for fractional derivatives and integral. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014 0 (1): 0 238459, 2014. doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/238459. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ab...

    2014 doi

  45. [54]

    Miller and Bertram Ross

    Kenneth S. Miller and Bertram Ross. An introduction to the fractional calculus and fractional differential equations. In An Introduction to the Fractional Calculus and Fractional Differential Equations, 1993. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:117250850

    1993

  46. [55]

    Fractional versions of the fundamental theorem of calculus

    Eliana Contharteze Grigoletto and Edmundo Capelas De Oliveira. Fractional versions of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Applied Mathematics-a Journal of Chinese Universities Series B, 2013: 0 23--33, 2013. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55508527

    2013

  47. [56]

    Holographic scalar field models of dark energy

    Ahmad Sheykhi. Holographic scalar field models of dark energy. Physical Review D, 84 0 (10), November 2011. ISSN 1550-2368. doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.107302. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.107302

    2011 doi

  48. [57]

    Reconstructing holographic quintessence

    Xin Zhang. Reconstructing holographic quintessence. Physics Letters B, 648 0 (1): 0 1--7, 2007. ISSN 0370-2693. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.02.069. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269307002663

    2007 doi

  49. [58]

    Quintessence reconstruction of the new agegraphic dark energy model

    Jian-Pin Wu, Da-Zhu Ma, and Yi Ling. Quintessence reconstruction of the new agegraphic dark energy model. Physics Letters B, 663 0 (3): 0 152--159, 2008. ISSN 0370-2693. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.03.071. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

    2008 doi

  50. [59]

    Interacting agegraphic tachyon model of dark energy

    Ahmad Sheykhi. Interacting agegraphic tachyon model of dark energy. Physics Letters B, 682 0 (4): 0 329--333, 2010. ISSN 0370-2693. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.11.034. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026930901380X

    2010 doi

  51. [60]

    Karami and J

    K. Karami and J. Fehri. New holographic scalar field models of dark energy in non-flat universe. Physics Letters B, 684 0 (2): 0 61--68, 2010. ISSN 0370-2693. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.12.060. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269310000122

    2010 doi

  52. [61]

    Holographic reconstruction of k-essence model with tsallis and the most generalized nojiri-odintsov version of holographic dark energy, 2024

    Ulbossyn Ualikhanova, Aziza Altaibayeva, and Surajit Chattopadhyay. Holographic reconstruction of k-essence model with tsallis and the most generalized nojiri-odintsov version of holographic dark energy, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04028

    2024 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Scalar field models of barrow holographic dark energy in f(r,t) gravity

    Umesh Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar, and Gunjan Varshney. Scalar field models of barrow holographic dark energy in f(r,t) gravity. Universe, 8 0 (12), 2022. ISSN 2218-1997. doi:10.3390/universe8120642. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/12/642

    2022 doi

  54. [63]

    Jalalzadeh, F

    S. Jalalzadeh, F. Rodrigues da Silva, and P. V. Moniz. Prospecting black hole thermodynamics with fractional quantum mechanics. The European Physical Journal C, 81 0 (7), July 2021. ISSN 1434-6052. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09438-5. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-...

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    Interacting agegraphic quintessence dark energy in non-flat universe

    A Sheykhi, A Bagheri, and M.M Yazdanpanah. Interacting agegraphic quintessence dark energy in non-flat universe. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2010 0 (09): 0 017–017, September 2010. ISSN 1475-7516. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/09/017. URL http://dx.doi.org/10....

    2010 doi

  56. [65]

    Granda and A

    L.N. Granda and A. Oliveros. Infrared cut-off proposal for the holographic density. Physics Letters B, 669 0 (5): 0 275–277, November 2008. ISSN 0370-2693. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.017. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.017

    2008 doi

  57. [66]

    Causality problem in a holographic-dark-energy model

    Hyeong-Chan Kim, Jae-Weon Lee, and Jungjai Lee. Causality problem in a holographic-dark-energy model. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 102 0 (2): 0 29001, April 2013. ISSN 1286-4854. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/102/29001. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/102/29001

    2013 doi

  58. [67]

    Shin'ichi Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov. Covariant Generalized Holographic Dark Energy and Accelerating Universe . Eur. Phys. J. C, 77 0 (8): 0 528, 2017. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5097-x

    2017 doi

  59. [68]

    Odintsov, and Emmanuel N

    Shin’ichi Nojiri, Sergei D. Odintsov, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis. Holographic bounce. Nuclear Physics B, 949: 0 114790, December 2019. ISSN 0550-3213. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114790. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114790

    2019

  60. [69]

    Instability of holographic dark energy models

    Yun Soo Myung. Instability of holographic dark energy models . Phys. Lett. B, 652: 0 223--227, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.07.033

    2007 doi

  61. [70]

    P. J. Steinhardt. A quintessential introduction to dark energy . Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 361: 0 2497--2513, 2003. doi:10.1098/rsta.2003.1290

    2003

  62. [71]

    Quintessence: A Review

    Shinji Tsujikawa. Quintessence: A Review . Class. Quant. Grav., 30: 0 214003, 2013. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/21/214003

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    Steinhardt

    Ivaylo Zlatev, Li-Min Wang, and Paul J. Steinhardt. Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmological constant . Phys. Rev. Lett., 82: 0 896--899, 1999. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.896

    1999 doi

  64. [73]

    Roland de Putter and Eric V. Linder. Kinetic k-essence and quintessence. Astroparticle Physics, 28 0 (3): 0 263–272, November 2007. ISSN 0927-6505. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.05.011. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.05.011

    2007 doi

  65. [74]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa. Dynamics of dark energy . Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15: 0 1753--1936, 2006. doi:10.1142/S021827180600942X

    1936 doi

  66. [75]

    Dilatonic ghost condensate as dark energy

    Federico Piazza and Shinji Tsujikawa. Dilatonic ghost condensate as dark energy. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2004 0 (07): 0 004–004, July 2004. ISSN 1475-7516. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2004/07/004. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2004/07/004

    2004 doi

  67. [76]

    Carroll, Mark Hoffman, and Mark Trodden

    Sean M. Carroll, Mark Hoffman, and Mark Trodden. Can the dark energy equation-of-state parameterwbe less than -1. Physical Review D, 68 0 (2), July 2003. ISSN 1089-4918. doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.023509. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.023509

    2003 doi

  68. [77]

    W. Zhao, Y. Zhang, and M. L. Tong. Quantum yang-mills condensate dark energy models, 2009. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3874

    2009 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Stephen L. Adler. Effective-action approach to mean-field non-abelian statics, and a model for bag formation. Phys. Rev. D, 23: 0 2905--2915, 1981. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.2905. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.2905

    1981 doi

  70. [79]

    Coincidence problem in ym field dark energy model

    Wen Zhao and Yang Zhang. Coincidence problem in ym field dark energy model. Physics Letters B, 640 0 (3): 0 69–73, September 2006 b . ISSN 0370-2693. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.07.052. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2006.07.052

    2006 doi

  71. [80]

    Homogeneous and isotropic closed cosmologies with a gauge sector

    P V Moniz and J M Mourao. Homogeneous and isotropic closed cosmologies with a gauge sector. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 8 0 (10): 0 1815, 1991. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/8/10/008. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/8/10/008

    1991 doi

  72. [81]

    The dynamics of a flat friedmann-robertson-walker inflationary model in the presence of gauge fields

    P V Moniz, J M Mourao, and P M Sa. The dynamics of a flat friedmann-robertson-walker inflationary model in the presence of gauge fields. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 10 0 (3): 0 517, 1993. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/10/3/012. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/10/3/012

    1993 doi

  73. [82]

    Evolution of the magnetic component in yang–mills condensate dark energy models

    WEN ZHAO and DONGHUI XU. Evolution of the magnetic component in yang–mills condensate dark energy models. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 16 0 (11): 0 1735–1744, November 2007. ISSN 1793-6594. doi:10.1142/s0218271807011048. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218271807011048

    2007 doi

  74. [83]

    Changrim Ahn, Chanju Kim, and Eric V. Linder. Dark energy properties in dbi theory. Physical Review D, 80 0 (12), December 2009. ISSN 1550-2368. doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.123016. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.123016

    2009 doi

  75. [84]

    Scalar speed limits and cosmology: Acceleration from d-cceleration

    Eva Silverstein and David Tong. Scalar speed limits and cosmology: Acceleration from d-cceleration. Phys. Rev. D, 70: 0 103505, 2004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.103505. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.103505

    2004 doi

  76. [85]

    Assisted inflation via tachyon condensation

    Anupam Mazumdar, Sudhakar Panda, and Abdel Pérez-Lorenzana. Assisted inflation via tachyon condensation. Nuclear Physics B, 614 0 (1–2): 0 101–116, October 2001. ISSN 0550-3213. doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(01)00410-2. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00410-2

    2001 doi

  77. [86]

    Power-law inflation from the rolling tachyon

    Alexander Feinstein. Power-law inflation from the rolling tachyon. Physical Review D, 66 0 (6), September 2002. ISSN 1089-4918. doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.063511. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.063511

    2002 doi

  78. [87]

    Assisted tachyonic inflation

    Yun-Song Piao, Rong-Gen Cai, Xinmin Zhang, and Yuan-Zhong Zhang. Assisted tachyonic inflation. Physical Review D, 66 0 (12), December 2002. ISSN 1089-4918. doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.121301. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.121301

    2002 doi

  79. [88]

    Cosmological evolution of the rolling tachyon

    G.W Gibbons. Cosmological evolution of the rolling tachyon. Physics Letters B, 537 0 (1–2): 0 1–4, June 2002. ISSN 0370-2693. doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(02)01881-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01881-6

    2002 doi

  80. [89]

    Fractional Calculus for Scientists and Engineers

    Manuel Duarte Ortigueira. Fractional Calculus for Scientists and Engineers. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011. ISBN 978-94-007-0746-7. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0747-4

    2011 doi

  81. [90]

    Fractional derivatives and periodic functions

    Manuel Ortigueira, José Tenreiro Machado, and Juan Trujillo. Fractional derivatives and periodic functions. International Journal of Dynamics and Control, 5, 03 2017. doi:10.1007/s40435-015-0215-9

    2017 doi

  82. [91]

    Ortigueira and Juan J

    Manuel D. Ortigueira and Juan J. Trujillo. A relation between the fractional derivative and the hilbert transform. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 45 0 (2): 0 597--599, 2012. ISSN 1474-6670. doi:https://doi.org/10.3182/20120215-3-AT-3016.00106. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/scie...

    2012

  83. [92]

    On the fractional derivative duality in some transforms

    Manuel Duarte Ortigueira and Gabriel Bengochea. On the fractional derivative duality in some transforms. Mathematics, 11 0 (21), 2023. ISSN 2227-7390. doi:10.3390/math11214464. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/21/4464

    2023 doi

  84. [93]

    Ortigueira

    Duarte Valério and Manuel D. Ortigueira. Variable-order fractional scale calculus. Mathematics, 11 0 (21), 2023. ISSN 2227-7390. doi:10.3390/math11214549. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/21/4549

    2023 doi

  85. [94]

    An operational approach to fractional scale-invariant linear systems

    Gabriel Bengochea and Manuel Duarte Ortigueira. An operational approach to fractional scale-invariant linear systems. Fractal and Fractional, 7 0 (7), 2023. ISSN 2504-3110. doi:10.3390/fractalfract7070524. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3110/7/7/524

    2023 doi

  86. [95]

    Ortigueira

    Manuel D. Ortigueira. A factory of fractional derivatives. Symmetry, 16 0 (7), 2024. ISSN 2073-8994. doi:10.3390/sym16070814. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/16/7/814

    2024 doi

  87. [96]

    Garc\' a-Aspeitia, Guillermo Fernandez-Anaya, A

    Miguel A. Garc\' a-Aspeitia, Guillermo Fernandez-Anaya, A. Hern\'andez-Almada, Genly Leon, and Juan Maga\ na. Cosmology under the fractional calculus approach . Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517 0 (4): 0 4813--4826, 2022. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3006

    2022 doi

  88. [97]

    Millano, Genly Leon, Cristi\'an Erices, and Andronikos Paliathanasis

    Bayron Micolta-Riascos, Alfredo D. Millano, Genly Leon, Cristi\'an Erices, and Andronikos Paliathanasis. Revisiting Fractional Cosmology . Fractal Fract., 7: 0 149, 2023. doi:10.3390/fractalfract7020149

    2023 doi

  89. [98]

    Garc\' a-Aspeitia, Guillermo Fernandez-Anaya, Alberto Hern\'andez-Almada, Juan Maga\ na, and Esteban Gonz\'alez

    Genly Leon Torres, Miguel A. Garc\' a-Aspeitia, Guillermo Fernandez-Anaya, Alberto Hern\'andez-Almada, Juan Maga\ na, and Esteban Gonz\'alez. Cosmology under the fractional calculus approach: a possible H_0 tension resolution? PoS, CORFU2022: 0 248, 2023. doi:10.22323/1.436.0248

    2023 doi

  90. [99]

    Fractal universe and quantum gravity

    Gianluca Calcagni. Fractal universe and quantum gravity . Phys. Rev. Lett., 104: 0 251301, 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.251301

    2010 doi

  91. [100]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Bautista, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum...

    2024 arXiv

  92. [101]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. Brieden,...

    2024 arXiv

  93. [102]

    P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, E. Battaner, K. Benabed, A. Benoît, A. Benoit-Lévy, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, A. Bonaldi, L. Bonavera, J. R. Bond, J. B...

    2016

  94. [103]

    Tommaso Giannantonio, Robert Crittenden, Robert Nichol, and Ashley J. Ross. The significance of the integrated sachs-wolfe effect revisited: The significance of the isw effect revisited. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426 0 (3): 0 2581–2599, October 2012. I...

    2012

  95. [104]

    Updated tomographic analysis of the integrated sachs-wolfe effect and implications for dark energy

    Benjamin Stölzner, Alessandro Cuoco, Julien Lesgourgues, and Maciej Bilicki. Updated tomographic analysis of the integrated sachs-wolfe effect and implications for dark energy. Physical Review D, 97 0 (6), March 2018. ISSN 2470-0029. doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.063506. URL http://...

    2018 doi

  96. [105]

    A phantom menace? cosmological consequences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state

    R.R Caldwell. A phantom menace? cosmological consequences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state. Physics Letters B, 545 0 (1–2): 0 23–29, October 2002. ISSN 0370-2693. doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(02)02589-3. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02589-3

    2002 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.