Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Reconstructing cosmic expansion in $f(R, G)$ gravity using a log-periodic deceleration model

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A log-periodic deceleration parameter in f(R,G) gravity fits cosmic-chronometer, BAO, and supernova data with H0 = 71.7–72.8 km/s/Mpc, q0 ≈ −0.5, and a transition redshift near 0.74–0.88.

desk verdict A clean new q(z) parametrization buried under an unsupported f(R,G) claim and a thermodynamics section that contradicts the paper's own equation of state. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06388 v1 pith:ZBOJTSNX submitted 2025-06-05 gr-qc

Amit Samaddar , S. Surendra Singh This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x04.50.Kd
keywords f(RG)gravitydecelerationparameterlog-periodicparametrizationMCMCconstraintscosmologicalparametersHubbleconstantenergyconditionsthermodynamicanalysis
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 out to show that the observed late-time cosmic acceleration can be described by a modified gravity model $f(R,G)=R+\alpha R^2+\beta e^{\gamma G}$ whose deceleration parameter oscillates logarithmically, $q(z)=q_0+q_1 \sin[\log(1+z)]$. From this ansatz it reconstructs the Hubble rate $H(z)$ and fits the three free parameters $H_0$, $q_0$, $q_1$ to cosmic-chronometer, BAO, and 1701-point supernova data. The fit returns $H_0$ between 71.7 and 72.8 km/s/Mpc, a present deceleration parameter $q_0$ between $-0.484$ and $-0.517$, and a transition from deceleration to acceleration at $z_{tr}$ between 0.879 and 0.744. If the reconstruction is right, the model also yields a radiation-era equation of state $\omega\approx 0.33$, a present $\omega_0\approx -0.49$, satisfies NEC and DEC while violating SEC at late times, and produces a cosmic age of 13.01–13.59 Gyr. The point of the exercise is that a single compact, model-independent parametrization of $q(z)$ can tie the expansion history to a specific $f(R,G)$ gravity and pass a battery of physical-consistency checks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the deceleration parameter $q(z)=q_0+q_1\sin[\log(1+z)]$, whose logarithmic sine makes the expansion oscillatory on the log-redshift scale while remaining finite as $z\to-1$. Its closed-form integral, Eq. (13), fixes the kinematics; the model action $f(R,G)=R+\alpha R^2+\beta e^{\gamma G}$ then turns that kinematics into dynamics through the modified Friedmann equations (8)–(9). Everything downstream—density, pressure, equation of state, energy conditions, statefinder pair, cosmic age, temperature, and entropy density—is a direct function of Eq. (13) with the fitted $H_0,q_0,q_1$ and the hand-set $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$.

What would settle it

Re-run the fit with $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ as free parameters: if the best-fit values move well away from $(0.5,0.6,0.7)$ or the resulting $H_0,q_0,q_1$ shift outside the reported ranges, the claimed viability of this $f(R,G)$ model would not hold up. A second check is to measure $q(z)$ at $z\gtrsim2$ with better precision; the log-periodic ansatz predicts a specific oscillatory pattern that a monotonic expansion history would rule out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is the reconstruction of the late-time Hubble expansion from the log-periodic deceleration ansatz: substituting $q(z)=q_0+q_1\sin[\log(1+z)]$ into the integral $H(z)=H_0\exp[\int_0^z (1+q(z'))/(1+z') dz']$ gives the closed form $H(z)=H_0(1+z)^{1+q_0}\exp[q_1(1-\cos[\log(1+z)])]$ (Eq. 13). With $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ held at the chosen values, this $H(z)$ feeds the $f(R,G)$ field equations to produce analytic expressions for $\rho(z)$ and $p(z)$, from which the equation of state, energy conditions, age integral, and thermodynamic quantities are derived. The paper takes the MCMC-constrained $H_0$, $q_0$, $q_1$, the negative $q_0$, the $z_{tr}$ shift, the $\omega(z\gg1)\approx0.33$ limit, and the satisfaction/violation pattern of energy conditions as evidence that the model offers a viable and observationally consistent description of cosmic acceleration.

Load-bearing premise

The model's physical predictions all assume $\alpha=0.5$, $\beta=0.6$, $\gamma=0.7$, which are chosen by hand in the caption of Figure 4 and never varied in the statistical fit; if those coefficients differ, the reported density, pressure, energy-condition, and thermodynamic behavior would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the reconstruction, the Hubble constant lands at $H_0 = 71.7$–$72.8$ km/s/Mpc, closer to local distance-ladder measurements than to CMB-based values, so the model offers a route toward easing the Hubble tension.
  • The transition redshift moves from 0.879 with cosmic-chronometer data alone to 0.744 when BAO and supernova data are added, meaning the model predicts a later, sharper onset of acceleration as more data are included.
  • The equation-of-state parameter evolves from $\omega\approx0.33$ at high redshift to $\omega_0\approx -0.48$ to $-0.49$, so the same model covers radiation-dominated early behavior and quintessence-like late behavior.
  • The energy conditions come out as NEC and DEC satisfied with SEC violated at late times, which is the pattern expected for an accelerating fluid; the derived age of 13.01–13.59 Gyr and increasing total entropy keep the model within standard cosmological and thermodynamic bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the authors do not take is to constrain $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ with the same data; the reported $H_0$ and $q_0$ ranges could shift, and the exact $\rho(z)$, $p(z)$ curves would carry parameter uncertainties rather than fixed values.
  • Because the deceleration parameter oscillates on the $\log(1+z)$ scale, the model predicts small recurring acceleration–deceleration episodes at high redshift; higher-precision cosmic-chronometer or BAO measurements at $z\gtrsim2$ could look for this signature.
  • The radiation-era limit $\omega(z\gg1)\approx0.33$ is derived with the hand-chosen coefficients, so it is not a parameter-free prediction of the model; a fuller treatment would show how early-time behavior depends on $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$.
  • The statefinder trajectory approaching the $\Lambda$CDM point from the quintessence side suggests this parametrization could be used as a template for distinguishing modified gravity from a cosmological constant, but that use goes beyond what the paper claims.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies late-time cosmology in the modified gravity theory f(R,G)=R+αR²+βe^{γG}, using a log-periodic deceleration parameter q(z)=q0+q1 sin[log(1+z)]. The Hubble parameter H(z) is derived analytically in Eq. (13), and the parameters H0, q0, q1 are constrained through MCMC using CC, BAO, and Pantheon+SHOES data. The best-fit parameters are then used to reconstruct the energy density, pressure, equation-of-state parameter, energy conditions, statefinder parameters, age of the Universe, and thermodynamic quantities. The authors claim the model offers a viable and observationally consistent description of cosmic acceleration, reporting H0≈71.7–72.8 km/s/Mpc, q0≈−0.48 to −0.52, a transition redshift from 0.879 to 0.744, and ω0≈−0.49.

Significance. The analytic reconstruction from q(z) to H(z) in Eq. (13) is clean and standard, and the use of multiple contemporary datasets is appropriate in principle. If the derived quantities were genuine consequences of a constrained f(R,G) model, the paper would be a useful addition to the modified-gravity phenomenology literature. However, the study's central claim is not supported: the f(R,G) coefficients α, β, γ are fixed by hand, the chi-square analyses ignore important covariance information, and the thermodynamic derivation relies on an assumption contradicted by the model's own fits. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's physical conclusions.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (10), Fig. 4] The f(R,G) coefficients α=0.5, β=0.6, γ=0.7 are fixed by hand, as stated in the Figure 4 caption, and are never constrained by the MCMC analysis. Consequently, all derived quantities in Sections 4–8—ρ(z) in Eq. (23), p(z) in Eq. (24), ω(z) in Eq. (25), the energy conditions in Eqs. (26)–(28), and the thermodynamic quantities in Eqs. (44)–(45)—depend on an untested and unjustified choice. Different admissible values of α, β, γ can change the sign of the energy conditions and alter ω(z) entirely. The paper therefore does not test the f(R,G) model; it illustrates one arbitrary parameter slice, so the claim that this model offers a viable and observationally consistent description is unsupported.
  2. [§3.1.2–3.1.3, Eqs. (18) and (21)] The chi-square functions for BAO and Pantheon+SHOES use only diagonal uncertainties and ignore the covariance matrices. The DESI BAO measurements and the Pantheon+SHOES supernova sample have significant off-diagonal correlations that are routinely included in the published likelihoods. Omitting these covariances can bias the best-fit parameters and, more importantly, underestimate the uncertainties. Since the paper reports H0 with a relative uncertainty of about 1.7% and makes comparisons with other H0 measurements, this statistical treatment is not reliable and the reported parameter ranges cannot be taken at face value.
  3. [§8, Eqs. (42)–(44)] The thermodynamic derivation assumes a barotropic fluid with 0<ω<1 to obtain T ∝ ρ^{ω/(1+ω)} and S ∝ ρ^{1/(1+ω)}. However, the model's own fits give ω0≈−0.49 and ω(z) negative over much of the plotted redshift range. Thus Eqs. (44)–(45) are not applicable to the model's solutions without further justification. The temperature and entropy curves in Figure 9 and the conclusion that the generalized second law is satisfied are therefore not consequences of the fitted model; they rest on an internally inconsistent assumption.
  4. [§6, Eqs. (31)–(32)] The expression for the statefinder parameter s in Eq. (32) is inconsistent with its definition in Eq. (30). From Eq. (30), s=(r−1)/[3(q−1/2)], with r given by Eq. (31) as r=2q²+q+q1 cos[log(1+z)]. Substituting gives s=(2q²+q+q1 cos−1)/[3(q−1/2)], but Eq. (32) omits the '−1' in the numerator. The reported values {r0,s0}=(0.866,0.046) and the trajectory in Figure 7 are therefore computed with an incorrect formula and need to be re-evaluated.
  5. [§§4–7] The paper does not propagate the MCMC uncertainties to derived quantities such as q0, z_tr, ω0, r0, s0, and the age t0. Values like the transition redshift shift from 0.879 (CC) to 0.744 (full data) and the reported age range 13.01–13.59 Gyr are presented without error bars, so it is impossible to assess whether these differences are statistically significant. The plots in Figures 3–9 show only best-fit curves, not confidence regions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1.3] The dataset name is spelled inconsistently: 'Pantheon+SHOES' in some places and 'Pantheon+SH0ES' in others (e.g., Figures 3–9). Please standardise.
  2. [§4.1] The abstract states q0=−0.484 to −0.517 while the text reports q0=−0.484 (CC), −0.495 (CC+BAO), −0.517 (full data); please clarify whether these are best-fit values or 1σ ranges, and report the corresponding uncertainties consistently.
  3. [§4.2] The expressions for ρ(z) and p(z) in Eqs. (23)–(24) are extremely long and a typo in the text ('presuure' in the Figure 4 caption) suggests careful proofreading is needed; a symbolic derivation file or a more compact form would help the reader verify these equations.
  4. [§3.1.1] In Section 3.1.1, the sentence about the inability to constrain q(z) directly is unclear: 'due to the limited availability and high degree of uncertainty in observational data for q(z), we are unable to properly constrain the deceleration parameter forms.' Since the paper does constrain q0 and q1 through H(z) data, please rephrase to explain what is meant.
  5. [§8] The relation in Eq. (40) defines entropy as s=(ρ+p)V/T; the paper later uses S=(ρ+p)/T as entropy density. Please define the volume and clarify the distinction between total entropy and entropy density in the equations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: recovered quantities are post-fit derivations, with hand-set f(R,G) coefficients and an inconsistent thermodynamic assumption as non-circular robustness concerns.

full rationale

The kinematic core of the paper is a genuine fit: the deceleration-parameter ansatz q(z)=q0+q1sin[log(1+z)] is assumed in Eq. (11), integrated to H(z) in Eq. (13), and H0,q0,q1 are constrained by CC, BAO, and Pantheon+SHOES data through the joint chi-square in Eq. (22). The later values of q0, z_tr, statefinder parameters, and age are derived from these same fitted parameters, but the paper does not present them as independent predictions of quantities excluded from the fit; they are standard post-fit derived quantities. No equation in the derivation is equivalent by construction to a fitted target, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The f(R,G) coefficients alpha=0.5, beta=0.6, gamma=0.7 are fixed by hand in the Figure 4 caption, so all derived density, pressure, EoS, energy-condition, and entropy profiles are conditional on that arbitrary slice; this is a substantive robustness weakness, not a circularity. Similarly, Section 8 assumes a barotropic fluid with 0<omega<1 to derive T proportional to rho^(omega/(1+omega)), while the fitted omega0 is about -0.49, which violates that assumption; this is an internal inconsistency rather than a circular reduction. The self-citations in the reference list are used only for comparisons or general statements and do not carry the derivation. The MCMC fit to external Hubble, BAO, and supernova data is the load-bearing input, so the central claim is not obtained from its own conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The kinematic fit uses only three free parameters, H0, q0, q1, but the modified-gravity interpretation adds three hand-set parameters, alpha, beta, gamma, that control all of the derived physical quantities. The strong modeling axioms, especially the assumed q(z) form and the inconsistent barotropic assumption in the entropy section, add further burdens that the paper does not justify.

free parameters (6)
  • H0 = 71.7 to 72.8 km/s/Mpc
    Fitted to CC, BAO, and Pantheon+SHOES data in Section 3.1.
  • q0 = -0.484 to -0.517
    Fitted deceleration parameter at z=0 in Section 3.1.
  • q1 = approximately 1
    Fitted amplitude of the log-periodic oscillation in Section 3.1.
  • alpha = 0.5
    Coefficient of R^2 in Eq. (10); fixed by hand in Figure 4 caption and never constrained by MCMC.
  • beta = 0.6
    Coefficient of e^{gamma G} in Eq. (10); fixed by hand and never constrained by MCMC.
  • gamma = 0.7
    Exponent coefficient in e^{gamma G} in Eq. (10); fixed by hand and never constrained by MCMC.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric and isotropic perfect fluid
    Used throughout Section 2 to reduce the f(R,G) field equations to Eqs. (8)-(9); no spatial curvature or anisotropic stress is considered.
  • ad hoc to paper The specific form f(R,G)=R+alpha R^2+beta e^{gamma G}
    Motivated by Starobinsky inflation and string theory, but alpha, beta, gamma are fixed by hand and are not constrained by the MCMC.
  • ad hoc to paper q(z)=q0+q1 sin[log(1+z)] is a faithful representation of the expansion history
    Assumed in Eq. (11); there is no derivation from the f(R,G) action and no model comparison against other q(z) forms.
  • domain assumption Gaussian likelihood with independent data points and diagonal covariance
    Eqs. (14), (18), and (21) sum quadratic deviations without using the correlation structure of BAO or Pantheon+SHOES data; this is standard only when covariances are negligible, which is not established.
  • ad hoc to paper Barotropic fluid with constant 0<omega<1
    Section 8 assumes p=omega rho with 0<omega<1 to derive temperature and entropy, but the paper's own omega(z) is negative at late times and varies with redshift, so the integration leading to Eqs. (44)-(45) does not apply to the reconstructed fluid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing cosmic expansion in $f(R, G)$ gravity using a log-periodic deceleration model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBOJTSNX

@misc{pith2026250606388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing cosmic expansion in $f(R, G)$ gravity using a log-periodic deceleration model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBOJTSNX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06388}
}
abstract

We study the late-time cosmology in $f(R, G)=R+\alpha R^{2}+\beta e^{\gamma G}$, using a logarithmic parametrization of the deceleration parameter $q(z)=q_{0}+q_{1}sin[log(1+z)]$. The Hubble parameter $H(z)$ is reconstructed and model parameters are constrained via MCMC analysis using CC ($31$), BAO ($26$) and Pantheon+SHOES ($1701$) datasets. Our results yield a Hubble constant in the range $H_0 = 71.7$--$72.8$ km/s/Mpc, consistent with late-time observations. The present deceleration parameter is found to be $q_{0}=-0.484$ to $-0.517$, while the evolution parameter $q_{1}\approx 1$, indicating increasing acceleration. The transition redshift shifts from $z_{tr}=0.879$ (CC) to $0.744$ (CC+BAO+Pantheon+SHOES), supporting a dynamic acceleration phase. The model reproduces early radiation behavior with $\omega (z>>1) \approx 0.33$ and predicts present-day values $\omega_{0} \approx -0.49$. Energy conditions NEC and DEC are satisfied, while SEC is violated at late times. The statefinder parameters $\{r_0, s_0\} = (0.866, 0.046)$ lie near the $\Lambda$CDM point. Estimated age of the Universe ranges from $13.01$ to $13.59$ Gyr. Thermodynamic analysis confirms consistency with the generalized second law. Overall, the model offers a viable and observationally consistent description of cosmic acceleration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06388 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Confidence contour plots for the parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Error bar plots obtained from different combinations of da [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Redshift dependence of q(z) across various observational datasets. The transition from decelerated (q > 0) to accelerated (q < 0) expansion is apparent in the plot for all three datasets. The transition redshift ztr, marking the point where q(ztr) = 0, changes depending on the dataset. Specifically, the transition occurs at: ztr = 0.879 for CC data, ztr = 0.808 for CC+BAO data and ztr = 0.744 for the full dataset (C… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Redshift dependence of ρ(z) and p(z) for the parameters α = 0.5, β = 0.6 and γ = 0.7. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Redshift dependence of ω(z) for the parameter set α = 0.5, β = 0.6 and γ = 0.7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Redshift evolution of energy conditions for the paramete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Statefinder trajectory in the {r, s} plane for the CC+BAO+Pantheon+SHOES dataset. The {r, s} trajectory shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The variation of cosmic time with redshift for best fit values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Redshift evolution of temperature and entropy density fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Riess, et al., Astron

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

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Weinberg, Rev

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

    1989

  3. [3]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Astrophys. Sp ace Sci. 342, 155 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Peebles, B

    P.J.E. Peebles, B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    M. Li, X.D. Li, S. Wang, Y. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 56, 525 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Guth, Phys

    A.H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Linde, Phys

    A.D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 49, 748 (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Linde, Phys

    A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 129, 177 (1983)

    work page 1983

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 68, 123512 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Olmo, Int

    G.J. Olmo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20, 413 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rep. 692, 1 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    de la Cruz-Dombriz, D

    A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, D. Saez-Gomez, Entropy 14, 1717 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Cai, Sci

    Y.F. Cai, Sci. China, Phys. Mech. Astron. 57, 1414 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Caldwell, M

    R.R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, N.N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 071301 (2003). 16

    2003

  7. [15]

    Starobinsky, Phys

    A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91. 99 (1980)

    1980

  8. [16]

    B. Li, J.D. Barrow, D.F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D 76, 044027 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov,y, Phys. Lett. B 631, 1 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, O.G. Gorbunova, J. Phys. A 39 6627 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    De Laurentis, M

    M. De Laurentis, M. Paolella, and S. Capozziello, Phys. Rev. D, 91, no. 9, 083531 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Fomin and S.V

    I.V. Fomin and S.V. Chervon, Gravit. Cosmol. 23, 367–374 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Bamba, et al., Physics Letters B, 732, 349-355 (2014)

    K. Bamba, et al., Physics Letters B, 732, 349-355 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Barrow, David F

    Baojiu Li, John D. Barrow, David F. Mota, Phys.Rev.D, 76 :044027 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Clifton, J.D

    T. Clifton, J.D. Barrow, Class. Quantum Gravity 23, 2951 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Bogdanos, S

    C. Bogdanos, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, S. Nesseris, Ast ropart. Phys. 34, 236 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Capozziello, V.F

    S. Capozziello, V.F. Cardone, S. Carloni, A. Troisi, Phys. Lett. A 326, 292 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Bamba, S.D

    K. Bamba, S.D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, S. Zerbini, Eur. Phys. J . C 67, 295 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    De Laurentis, M

    M. De Laurentis, M. Paolella, S. Capozziello, Phys. Rev. D 91, (8) 083531 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    De Felice, J.M

    A. De Felice, J.M. Gerard, T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063526 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Odintsov, V.K

    S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, S. Banerjee, Nuclear Physics B 938, (2019) 935–956

    2019

  22. [30]

    Lohakare, Krishna Rathore, B

    Santosh V. Lohakare, Krishna Rathore, B. Mishra, Class. and Quantum Grav. 40, (2023) 215009

    2023

  23. [31]

    Chaubey, arXiv:2408.14989 [gr-qc]

    Shivani Sharma, R. Chaubey, arXiv:2408.14989 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Atazadeh, F

    K. Atazadeh, F. Darabi, Gen Relativ Gravit (2014) 46:1664

    2014

  25. [33]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 607, 665 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    J. K. Singh et al., J. High Energy Phys. 2023, 1-21 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    S´anchez et al., Mon

    E. S´anchez et al., Mon. Notices Royal Astron. Soc. 411, 277-288 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    B. R. Dinda, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063524 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Gong, and A

    Y.G. Gong, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083506 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    R. Nair, S. Jhingan, and D. Jain, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2012, 018 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Xu, and H

    L. Xu, and H. Liu, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23, 1939 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Koussour et al., Physics of the Dark Universe, 42, 101339 (2023)

    M. Koussour et al., Physics of the Dark Universe, 42, 101339 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Gadbail et al

    G.N. Gadbail et al. Physics, 4 (4), 1403-1412 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Chaudhary et al

    H. Chaudhary et al. International Journal of Geometric Meth ods in Modern Physics; 21, 09, 2450166 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Abdulla Al Mamon and Sudipta Das, International Journal of Mo dern Physics D, 25, 03, 1650032 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02 592

    Aroonkumar Beesham, ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02 592

  37. [45]

    Barboza Jr., J.S

    E.M. Barboza Jr., J.S. Alcaniz, Phys. Lett. B, 666, 415–419 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Nesseris, L

    S. Nesseris, L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 123519 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    George F. R. Ellis, William R. Stoeger, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 043524 (2009). 17

    2009

  40. [48]

    Ujjaini Alam, Varun Sahni, A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP, 0406, 008 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    Lewis, S

    A. Lewis, S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    Gilks, S

    W.R. Gilks, S. Richardson, D.J. Spiegelhalter, Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1996

    1996

  43. [51]

    Moresco, J

    M. Moresco, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 014 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Samaddar, S

    A. Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, Physics of the Dark Universe , 47, 101792 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Myrzakulov, M

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

    2023

  46. [54]

    DESI collaboration, arXiv:2404.03000, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Adame, et al., J

    A.G. Adame, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01, 124 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Adame, et al., J

    A.G. Adame, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 021 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Eisenstein, et al., Astrophys

    D.J. Eisenstein, et al., Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005)

    2005

  50. [58]

    Kowalski, et al., Astrophys

    M. Kowalski, et al., Astrophys. J. 686, (2), 749 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    Amanullah, et al., Astrophys

    R. Amanullah, et al., Astrophys. J. 716, (1), 712 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Suzuki, et al., Astrophys

    N. Suzuki, et al., Astrophys. J. 746, (1), 85 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    Scolnic, et al., Astrophys

    D.M. Scolnic, et al., Astrophys. J. 859, (2), 101 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Di Valentino et al., Astropart

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

    2021

  55. [63]

    Astrophys

    Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6

    2020

  56. [64]

    R. C. Nunes, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 230 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Nesseris, S

    S. Nesseris, S. Basilakos, E. N. Saridakis, L. Perivolaropoulos, Physical Review D, 88, (10), 103010 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    Mandal, P

    S. Mandal, P. Sahoo, Annals of Physics, 437, 168751 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Yousaf, K

    Z. Yousaf, K. Bamba, M. Zubair, Physics of the Dark Universe, 37, 100884 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Bahamonde et al., Physical Review D, 92, (10), 104042 (2015)

    S. Bahamonde et al., Physical Review D, 92, (10), 104042 (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    B. J. Barros, F. S. N. Lobo, Physics of the Dark Universe, 39, 101164 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Samaddar, S

    A. Samaddar, S. S. Singh, Fortschritte der Physik, 72 (6), 2400006 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Scr., 99, 035219

    Amit Samaddar and Surendra Sanasam, 2024, Phys. Scr., 99, 035219

    2024

  64. [72]

    Sahni, Varun, et al., Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 77.5 (2003): 201

    2003

  65. [73]

    Samaddar, S

    A. Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh & M. K. Alam, Gravit. Cosmol. 30, 462–480 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    M. Cruz, S. Lepe, Nuclear Physics B, 956, 115017 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Brevik, A

    I. Brevik, A. V. Timoshkin, International Journal of Geometr ic Methods in Modern Physics, 17, 06, 2050087 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    V. R. Chirde, S. H. Shekh, Bulg. J. Phys., 43, 156 (2016). 18

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.