Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Effective Equation of State Oscillations at Matter-Radiation Equality and Primordial Gravitational Waves

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An exponential deformation of R^2 gravity unifies inflation with dark energy and predicts that equation-of-state oscillations near matter-radiation equality enhance the gravitational-wave spectrum at frequencies LiteBIRD will probe…

desk verdict The inflation section is fine, but the LiteBIRD GW enhancement is an artifact of misapplying a horizon-crossing transfer factor to superhorizon modes. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04571 v1 pith:HJ3KIPHH submitted 2025-07-06 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

S.D. Odintsov , V.K. Oikonomou This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO PACS 04.50.Kd95.36.+x98.80.-k98.80.Cq11.25.-w
keywords F(R)gravityR^2inflationdarkenergytotalequationofstateprimordialgravitationalwavesCMBB-modesLiteBIRDmatter-radiationequality
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 argues that a single particle-physics-motivated class of $F(R)$ gravity, namely exponential deformations of the $R^2$ model, can describe inflation and the dark energy era, and that the same model leaves a detectable imprint in the primordial gravitational-wave background. The key intermediate finding is a numerical solution showing the total equation of state oscillating between $\omega_{\mathrm{tot}}\simeq 0.13$ and $\omega_{\mathrm{tot}}\simeq 0.2$ at redshift $z\sim 3400$, near matter-radiation equality. Folded into the tensor power spectrum as a wavenumber-dependent factor, these oscillations enhance the predicted low-frequency gravitational-wave energy spectrum in the band that the LiteBIRD mission will probe. If the claim is right, a large-angular-scale B-mode detection, together with no enhancement at higher frequencies, would be a distinctive fingerprint of this model class.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exponential-deformation class of $F(R)$ gravity in Eq. (3), selected by the physical requirement that the scalaron mass in a de Sitter background be non-negative and monotonically decreasing with curvature, which allows one functional form to cover both inflation and dark energy. The numerical carrier of the argument is the statefinder function $y_H(z)=\rho_G/\rho_m^{(0)}$, whose second-order differential equation is integrated backward from $z_f=3500$ with the initial conditions of Eq. (33); this yields the $\omega_{\mathrm{tot}}(z)$ oscillations. The bridge to gravitational waves is the rescaling rule that an equation-of-state value $w$ at wavenumber $k_s$ multiplies the energy spectrum by $(k/k_s)^{-2(1-3w)/(1+3w)}$, which the paper composes into the product factor $S_k$ for the $w=0.2$ and $w=0.13$ steps.

What would settle it

Recompute the tensor spectrum without the step approximation: take the numerically obtained continuous $\omega_{\mathrm{tot}}(z)$ and solve the full gravitational-wave transfer equations over all relevant wavenumbers, then read off $h^2\Omega_{\mathrm{gw}}$ at $f\sim10^{-16}$–$10^{-17}\,\mathrm{Hz}$. If the enhancement seen in the paper disappears or falls below LiteBIRD's sensitivity curves, the central claim fails; observationally, LiteBIRD seeing no B-mode excess at $\ell\sim2$–$10$ over the $R^2$ prediction would do the same.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the exponential deformation class $F(R)=R+\frac{R^2}{M^2}+\frac{R^2}{M^2}e^{\gamma\Lambda/R}+\lambda R e^{\gamma\Lambda/R}-50\lambda\Lambda-\frac{\Lambda}{\zeta}(R/m_s^2)^\delta$, the paper numerically integrates the statefinder equation from $z=3500$ to the present and finds a dark-energy era compatible with Planck constraints ($\Omega_{\mathrm{DE}}(0)\simeq 0.685$, $\omega_{\mathrm{DE}}(0)\simeq -1.019$) together with total-equation-of-state oscillations $\omega_{\mathrm{tot}}\in[0.13,0.2]$ at $z\sim 3400$. During inflation the same $F(R)$ reduces to $(1+\lambda)R+R^2/M^2$, and the slow-roll calculation gives $n_s\simeq 1-2/N$ and $r\simeq 12/N^2$, identical to pure $R^2$ inflation, so the rescaled Einstein-Hilbert term drops out of the dynamics. The paper then multiplies the standard gravitational-wave energy spectrum by $S_k=(k/k_1)^{r_{s1}}(k/k_2)^{r_{s2}}$ with $k_1=0.09\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, $k_2=0.05\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, and $r_{si}=-2(1-3w_i)/(1+3w_i)$, and finds that the low-frequency spectrum is enhanced for two-, three-, and four-oscillation scenarios in the band LiteBIRD is designed to observe. Its stated conclusion is that the effect is measurable and could ensure a detection of CMB B-modes.

Load-bearing premise

Everything in the LiteBIRD prediction rests on the asserted step mapping that fixes $w=0.2$ at $k_1=0.09\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, $w=0.13$ at $k_2=0.05\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, and applies the resulting $S_k$ product to all lower wavenumbers, including the very low $k$ modes LiteBIRD actually probes; if that mapping does not reach those modes, the claimed B-mode enhancement is gone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A low-frequency B-mode signal at large angular scales ($\ell\sim 2$–$10$) would appear in LiteBIRD data, because the tensor power spectrum is boosted exactly in the band the mission is built to measure.
  • A detection at those scales with no corresponding enhancement at higher-frequency gravitational-wave experiments would indicate a modification of the expansion history near matter-radiation equality rather than a change to the inflationary tensor spectrum itself.
  • The predicted gravitational-wave pattern is distinctive: the spectrum is enhanced only at low frequencies, while higher-frequency bands keep the standard $R^2$ prediction, giving the model a shape that can be distinguished from other sources.
  • The paper finds the enhancement is insensitive to the reheating temperature, so if measured, it would constrain physics around $z\sim 3400$ rather than the reheating era.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit the decisive follow-up calculation: feed the continuous $\omega_{\mathrm{tot}}(z)$ from its own numerical solution into the full tensor transfer function instead of the two-step $S_k$ factor, and check whether the LiteBIRD-band enhancement survives.
  • The step mapping assigns oscillations at $k\simeq 0.05$–$0.09\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ to the much smaller $k\simeq10^{-4}$–$10^{-3}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ modes LiteBIRD observes; since that causal link is asserted rather than derived, computing the actual transfer between these scales would settle the claim.
  • If the mechanism is real, other modifications that briefly change the equation of state near equality, such as early dark energy, might produce a similar low-frequency gravitational-wave boost, making the LiteBIRD band a general probe of the $z\simeq3400$ expansion history.
  • The authors themselves note that the model does not provide a smooth transition from inflation into the radiation and matter eras; because the $z=3500$ integration starts from assumed matter-era initial conditions, the advertised signal is somewhat detached from the inflationary part of the model.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a class of exponentially deformed R^2 F(R) gravity models aimed at unifying inflation and dark energy. The inflationary section derives the slow-roll observables and shows that the Einstein-Hilbert rescaling parameter drops out, yielding the standard Starobinsky predictions ns≈1−2/N and r≈12/N^2. The dark-energy section numerically integrates the Friedmann equations from z=3500 to the present and reports a viable ΛCDM-like late-time cosmology, with the total equation-of-state parameter w_tot oscillating between approximately 0.13 and 0.2 at redshifts near z≈3400. The paper's central new claim is that these oscillations enhance the primordial gravitational-wave energy spectrum at frequencies probed by LiteBIRD through a multiplicative factor S_k=(k/k1)^rs1 (k/k2)^rs2, with k1=9×10^-2 Mpc^-1 and k2=5×10^-2 Mpc^-1, potentially ensuring a CMB B-mode detection. This report focuses on the validity of that gravitational-wave prediction.

Significance. If the claimed enhancement were real, it would be a distinctive, falsifiable observational signature connecting F(R)-gravity dynamics near matter-radiation equality to CMB B-modes, and it would give the model class a concrete experimental target. The inflationary part of the paper is a clean and internally consistent re-derivation of R^2 inflation, and the dark-energy part demonstrates numerical viability against Planck constraints. The paper also provides a link to its numerical code, which is commendable. However, the central gravitational-wave prediction rests on an invalid extrapolation of a horizon-crossing spectral factor to superhorizon scales, and the quantitative mapping between z≈3400 and the chosen wavenumbers is inconsistent with the standard equality scale keq≈0.01 Mpc^-1. Once the superhorizon conservation of tensor perturbations is accounted for, the LiteBIRD-frequency enhancement disappears. The paper's value is therefore reduced to a viable F(R) model with known oscillatory EoS behavior, rather than a model with a new observable GW signature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (51) and surrounding text] The mapping of z≈3400 to k1=9×10^-2 Mpc^-1 and k2=5×10^-2 Mpc^-1 is inconsistent with the standard comoving horizon at matter-radiation equality. Using the paper's own parameters (Ωm=0.3153, H0=1.37187×10^-33 eV), keq=7.1×10^-2 Ωm h^2 Mpc^-1 ≈0.01 Mpc^-1, whereas the chosen k1 and k2 are roughly an order of magnitude larger. More importantly, the modes probed by LiteBIRD B-modes (ℓ≈2–10, k≈10^-4–10^-3 Mpc^-1) satisfy k≪aH(z≈3400)≈0.01 Mpc^-1, so at the epoch when w_tot oscillates they are still superhorizon. For superhorizon tensor perturbations, the mode equation h''+2(a'/a)h'+k^2h=0 has a constant solution (up to slow-roll corrections), so a background EoS change cannot alter their amplitude. The factor S_k with negative rs also diverges as k→0, confirming that it is a horizon-crossing spectral-slope factor rather than a local transfer function valid at arbitrary k. Thus the claim that the z≈3400 oscillations enhance the LiteBIRD-frequency spectrum is unsupported and, under the standard conservation of superhorizon tensor modes, incorrect.
  2. [Section III, derivation of S_k from Ref. [82]] The factor (k/k_s)^rc, with rc=−2(1−3w)/(1+3w), is a horizon-crossing matching factor derived for modes re-entering during an epoch of constant w; it is not a multiplicative transfer function that can be applied to all k. The paper applies this factor to the entire spectrum, including k values far below k1 and k2, without deriving the tensor transfer function through the actual time-varying w_tot(z) obtained from the numerical solution. A correct treatment requires solving the tensor mode equation through the oscillation epoch; such a calculation would determine whether any enhancement occurs and over which k range. As it stands, Eq. (51) is an extrapolation, and the central prediction is not derived from the model.
  3. [Section II.A, Eq. (33) and robustness claim] The initial conditions for the y_H(z) integration contain an arbitrary factor of 1/1000: y_H(zf)=Λ/(3m_s^2)[1−(1+zf)^3/1000] and its derivative with the same prefactor. The paper asserts that the total EoS oscillations are "robust against various initial conditions that may be used" but presents no demonstration in the manuscript. Since the amplitude, phase, and wavenumber assignment of the oscillations (w1, w2, k1, k2) are read off from this single numerical solution and then fed directly into the gravitational-wave computation, the sensitivity of the oscillations to the initial conditions is load-bearing. Without a scan over initial conditions or an analytic understanding of the oscillation mode, the gravitational-wave prediction is conditional on an untested numerical choice.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II heading] The heading "AN CLASS OF F(R) GRAVITY MODELS" contains a typo; it should be "A CLASS OF F(R) GRAVITY MODELS".
  2. [Section III, after Eq. (50)] The sentence "Also g∗0(Tin(k)) and can it can be calculated by combining Eqs. (48), (49) and (50)" is grammatically incorrect; it should read "Also g∗s(Tin(k)) can be calculated by combining Eqs. (48), (49) and (50)."
  3. [Section III, first paragraph] The phrase "for for 60 e-foldings r ∼ 0.003" has a doubled "for" and should be corrected.
  4. [Section II.A, final paragraph] The long paragraph discussing why w_tot=0 is not necessary near z≈3400 is disconnected from the gravitational-wave calculation; it reads like a response to a referee report and should either be integrated with a quantitative argument about tensor-mode evolution or moved to a discussion section.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

GW enhancement is a self-contained forward model; the only circularity flag is a minor self-citation for the model's first-principles motivation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section II, paragraphs around Eq. (3) and Eq. (8)]
    "As we show in [29], these models stem from a deeper theoretical reasoning having to do with the scalaron mass in a de Sitter background. ... This is a unique characteristic of the class of models of Eq. (3) as we show in [29]."

    The paper's advertised 'first principles' motivation for the exponential-deformation ansatz (3) is not derived in this manuscript; the text explicitly defers the derivation to Ref. [29], an arXiv preprint by one of the present authors (V.K. Oikonomou). Thus the assertion that the model class is physically motivated rather than phenomenological reduces to a self-citation rather than to a proof presented here. This self-citation is load-bearing for the narrative that the model choice is forced, but it is not the source of the paper's central quantitative results, which are computed independently (inflationary indices, dark-energy fit, EoS oscillations, and the forward-modeled GW spectrum).

full rationale

The main claimed prediction—an enhancement of the primordial gravitational-wave energy spectrum at LiteBIRD frequencies—is not circular in the statistical or derivational sense. The total-EoS oscillation w_tot(z) is obtained by numerical integration of the F(R) field equations, Eq. (31) with initial conditions (33), and the GW spectrum is obtained by inserting the resulting w values into the standard transfer-function factor S_k of Eq. (51), with exponents rsi taken from Ref. [82]. No parameter is fitted to LiteBIRD data or to a B-mode signal, and the predicted spectrum is not used as an input to the model. The hand-assigned wavenumbers k1 = 9e-2 Mpc^-1 and k2 = 5e-2 Mpc^-1, along with the extrapolation of S_k to k ~ 1e-4 to 1e-3 Mpc^-1, are physical assumptions whose validity can be questioned—those modes are still superhorizon at z ~ 3400—but that is an extrapolation/correctness concern, not a circularity. The one genuine circularity flag is the model's 'first principles' motivation, which is deferred to Ref. [29] by the same author; this supports the framing but is not load-bearing for the independent numerical results. A minor self-citation of this kind warrants a score of 2, not a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central GW prediction depends on a number of hand-assigned parameters (delta, lambda, zeta, gamma, k1, k2, oscillation count, initial-condition factor) and on the assumption that a local EoS modification can be extrapolated to all wavenumbers. No new particles or forces are introduced; the geometric fluid is a standard F(R) decomposition. The heaviest burden is the ad hoc z-to-k mapping and the all-k applicability of S_k.

free parameters (10)
  • delta = 0.9
    Dimensionless exponent in the (Lambda/zeta)(R/m_s^2)^delta term of Eq. (3); chosen by hand and affects the late-time dark energy behavior.
  • lambda = 0.0007
    Dimensionless parameter rescaling the Einstein-Hilbert term; appears in the inflationary slow-roll equations and in the F(R) form; chosen by hand.
  • zeta = 5000
    Dimensionless denominator of the delta term in Eq. (3); chosen by hand and sets the size of that correction.
  • gamma = 23
    Dimensionless exponent in the exponential factors of Eq. (3); chosen by hand and controls the curvature scale at which the exponentials activate.
  • M
    Mass scale in the R^2 term of Eq. (3); no numerical value is given in the paper, but the inflationary predictions depend on it through the e-foldings number N.
  • k1 = 9e-2 Mpc^-1
    Wavenumber assigned to w1=0.2 in Eq. (51); chosen by hand rather than derived from the model's z~3400 oscillation.
  • k2 = 5e-2 Mpc^-1
    Wavenumber assigned to w2=0.13 in Eq. (51); chosen by hand rather than derived from the model's z~3400 oscillation.
  • initial condition factor 1/1000 = 1/1000
    The initial condition for yH(zf) in Eq. (33) contains an arbitrary 1/1000 factor; it sets how deep in the matter era the integration starts and influences the numerical evolution.
  • number of oscillations = 2, 3, or 4
    The paper presents three scenarios for the number of oscillations in the range w=[0.13,0.20]; the number is not predicted by the model and changes the size of the claimed enhancement.
  • w1 and w2 = 0.2 and 0.13
    Oscillation amplitudes extracted from the numerical solution and used as sharp values in the GW calculation; their numerical uncertainty is not propagated.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Flat FRW metric and perfect-fluid matter with radiation and dust are assumed throughout.
    Used in Eq. (1) and in the Friedmann equations (25); standard cosmological setup.
  • standard math Slow-roll approximation (ddot H << H dot H, dot H << H^2) is valid during inflation.
    Invoked around Eq. (11) to derive the quasi-de Sitter solution and observational indices.
  • domain assumption Scalaron mass monotonicity conditions m^2 >= 0 and dm^2/dR >= 0 are required for unification.
    Motivations are taken from the authors' prior paper [29]; no independent derivation is given here.
  • domain assumption The transfer-function fits T1, T2, and g* in Eqs. (45)-(50) are valid.
    The GW spectrum calculation relies on these fits, cited to the authors' own Ref. [60].
  • ad hoc to paper The spectral-index factor rc = -2(1-3w)/(1+3w) can be applied multiplicatively over all k as in Eq. (51).
    The paper takes a formula from Ref. [82] and extends it to all wavenumbers, including those far outside the horizon at the oscillation epoch.
  • ad hoc to paper z~3400 maps to k~10^-2 to 10^-1 Mpc^-1, specifically k1=0.09 and k2=0.05 Mpc^-1.
    Stated in Section III without derivation; standard equality scale is k_eq~0.01 Mpc^-1, so the chosen wavenumbers are inconsistent with the stated redshift.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial condition yH(zf) in Eq. (33) with zf=3500 and the 1/1000 factor selects the correct matter-era branch.
    The form is chosen to start deep in matter domination; the paper does not demonstrate sensitivity to this choice here.
  • domain assumption The numerically obtained total EoS oscillation range w=[0.13,0.20] is accurate.
    The GW calculation uses these values as sharp inputs; no error bars or convergence tests are shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effective Equation of State Oscillations at Matter-Radiation Equality and Primordial Gravitational Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HJ3KIPHH

@misc{pith2026250704571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effective Equation of State Oscillations at Matter-Radiation Equality and Primordial Gravitational Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HJ3KIPHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04571}
}
abstract

The theory controlling the Universe's evolution in the classical regime has to be motivated by particle physics reasoning and should also generate inflation and dark energy eras in a unified way. One such framework is $F(R)$ gravity. In this work we examine a class of exponential deformations of $R^2$ gravity motivated by fundamental physics of scalaron evolution in a de Sitter background. As we show this class of models describe both inflation and the dark energy era in a viable way compatible with the Planck constraints on inflation and the cosmological parameters. Regarding the inflationary era, the exponentially deformed $R^2$ model also yields a rescaled Einstein-Hilbert term which remarkably does not affect the dynamics and the inflationary evolution is identical to that of an $R^2$ model. The dark energy era is also found to be viable and mimics the $\Lambda$-Cold-Dark-Matter model. More importantly, this class of $F(R)$ gravity exponential $R^2$ deformations also has an important characteristic, and specifically it yields total equation of state oscillations deeply in the matter domination era, for redshifts $z\sim 3400$, so near the matter-radiation equality. These total equation of state deformations at such a large redshift may directly affect the energy spectrum of the primordial gravitational waves. Indeed as we show, the effect is measurable and it leads to an enhancement of the tensor perturbations energy spectrum for low frequencies probed by the future LiteBIRD mission. This enhancement might have a measurable effect on the $B$-modes of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation and thus may be detectable by the LiteBIRD mission. Only a handful of theoretical frameworks can generate the gravitational wave pattern generated by the class of exponentially deformed $R^2$ models we presented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The deceleration parameter, as a function of the redshift for the ΛCDM model (red curves) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The total EoS parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Fibre Inflation Meets Quintessence: Implications of Perturbative Stabilisation

    hep-th 2025-11 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Adding a base-modulus redefinition to fibre inflation in perturbative LVS shifts (ns, r) into ACT-allowed territory and yields an axion quintessence companion.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [82]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and R. Myrzakulov, Symmetry 14 (2022) no.4, 729 doi:10.3390/sym14040729 [arXiv:2204.00876 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain

    Institute of Space Sciences (ICE, CSIC) C. Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain

  3. [2]

    ICREA, Passeig Luis Companys, 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain 3)Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece 4)L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University - Astana, 010008, Kazakhstan The theory controlling the Universe’s evolution in the classical regime has to be motivated by particle physics reasoning and should als...

  4. [3]

    Dark Matter and Global Symmetries

    Y. Mambrini, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 807 [arXiv:1508.06635 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 [hep-ph/0404175]

    arXiv 2005

  6. [5]

    Bergstrom, Rept

    L. Bergstrom, Rept. Prog. Phys. 63 (2000) 793 doi:10.1088/0034-4885/63/5/2r3 [hep-ph/0002126]

    arXiv 2000

  7. [6]

    V. K. Oikonomou, J. D. Vergados and C. C. Moustakidis, Nucl. Phys. B 773 (2007) 19 [hep-ph/0612293]

    arXiv 2007

  8. [7]

    TASI 2012 Lectures on Astrophysical Probes of Dark Matter

    S. Profumo, arXiv:1301.0952 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 87 references
  1. [8]

    Hooper and S

    D. Hooper and S. Profumo, Phys. Rept. 453 (2007) 29 [hep-ph/0701197]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Archidiacono, S

    M. Archidiacono, S. Hannestad, A. Mirizzi, G. Raffelt and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP 10 (2013), 020 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2013/10/020 [arXiv:1307.0615 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [10]

    The standard description of dark energy consists of the cosmological constant description, and specifically the Λ-Cold-Dark-Matter (ΛCDM) model has several successes to date

    and is currently studied in many theoretical physics contexts. The standard description of dark energy consists of the cosmological constant description, and specifically the Λ-Cold-Dark-Matter (ΛCDM) model has several successes to date. However, there are shortcomings of the ...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, PoS COSMICWISPers (2024), 041 doi:10.22323/1.454.0041 [arXiv:2401.13728 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Kuster, G

    M. Kuster, G. Raffelt and B. Beltran, Lect. Notes Phys. 741 (2008), pp.1-258 doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73518-2

    2008 doi

  6. [13]

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

    1998 arXiv

  7. [14]

    A. G. Adame et al. [DESI], JCAP 02 (2025), 021 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 [arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 123512 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.123512 [hep-th/0307288]

    2003 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 657 (2007) 238 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.10.027 [arXiv:0707.1941 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 026007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.026007 [arXiv:0710.1738 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Cognola, E

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 046009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.046009 [arXiv:0712.4017 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 086005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.086005 [hep-th/0608008]

    2006 arXiv

  13. [20]

    S. A. Appleby and R. A. Battye, Phys. Lett. B654 (2007) 7 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.08.037 [arXiv:0705.3199 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 086006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.086006 [arXiv:1012.2280 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, arXiv:2001.06830 [gr-qc]

    2001 arXiv

  16. [23]

    P. M. S´ a, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) no.10, 103519 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103519 [arXiv:2007.07109 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 06 (2010), 005 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/06/005 [arXiv:0909.1737 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept. 692 (2017) 1 [arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509, 167 (2011); V. Faraoni and S. Capozziello, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 170 (2010)

    2011

  20. [27]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, eConf C0602061, 06 (2006) [Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 4, 115 (2007)]

    2006

  21. [28]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. 505, 59 (2011)

    2011

  22. [29]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, I. Giannakoudi, F. P. Fronimos and E. C. Lymperiadou, Symmetry 15 (2023) no.9, 1701 doi:10.3390/sym15091701 [arXiv:2307.16308 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Allys et al

    E. Allys et al. [LiteBIRD], PTEP 2023 (2023) no.4, 042F01 doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac150 [arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    V. K. Oikonomou, [arXiv:2504.00915 [gr-qc]]

  26. [33]

    Muller, H

    V. Muller, H. J. Schmidt and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 202 (1988), 198-200 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)90007-X

    1988 doi

  27. [34]

    J. c. Hwang and H. Noh, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005), 063536 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063536 [arXiv:gr-qc/0412126 [gr-qc]]

    2005 arXiv

  28. [35]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B 807 (2020), 135576 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135576 [arXiv:2005.12804 [gr-qc]]

    2020

  29. [36]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 064004 [arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Bamba, A

    K. Bamba, A. Lopez-Revelles, R. Myrzakulov, S. D. Odintsov and L. Sebastiani, Class. Quant. Grav. 30 (2013) 015008 [arXiv:1207.1009 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [38]

    https://github.com/VOikonomou?tab=projects

  32. [39]

    B. Hu, M. Raveri, N. Frusciante and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.10, 103530 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103530 [arXiv:1312.5742 [astro-ph.CO]]. 13

    2014 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Chatrchyan, F

    A. Chatrchyan, F. Niedermann, V. Poulin and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.4, 043536 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043536 [arXiv:2408.14537 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Kamionkowski and E

    M. Kamionkowski and E. D. Kovetz, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54 (2016), 227-269 doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915- 023433 [arXiv:1510.06042 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [42]

    M. S. Turner, M. J. White and J. E. Lidsey, Phys. Rev. D48 (1993), 4613-4622 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.4613 [arXiv:astro- ph/9306029 [astro-ph]]

    1993

  36. [43]

    L. A. Boyle and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 063504 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.063504 [arXiv:astro- ph/0512014 [astro-ph]]

    2008

  37. [44]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Yuan, W. Zhao and Y. T. Chen, Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005), 1383-1394 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/7/011 [arXiv:astro-ph/0501329 [astro-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) no.16, 163001 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aac608 [arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    T. J. Clarke, E. J. Copeland and A. Moss, JCAP 10 (2020), 002 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/10/002 [arXiv:2004.11396 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    T. L. Smith, M. Kamionkowski and A. Cooray, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006), 023504 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023504 [arXiv:astro-ph/0506422 [astro-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Giovannini, Class

    M. Giovannini, Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009), 045004 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/4/045004 [arXiv:0807.4317 [astro-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [49]

    X. J. Liu, W. Zhao, Y. Zhang and Z. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.2, 024031 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024031 [arXiv:1509.03524 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Giovannini, [arXiv:2303.11928 [gr-qc]]

    M. Giovannini, [arXiv:2303.11928 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  44. [51]

    Giovannini, Eur

    M. Giovannini, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.9, 828 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10800-4 [arXiv:2206.08217 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.10, 103524 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103524 [arXiv:2203.13586 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Lett. B 810 (2020), 135801 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135801 [arXiv:2006.02760 [gr-qc]]

    2020

  47. [54]

    Giovannini, Prog

    M. Giovannini, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112 (2020), 103774 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103774 [arXiv:1912.07065 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2020

  48. [55]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.8, 083531 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083531 [arXiv:1908.09679 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.2, 023521 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.023521 [arXiv:1410.5307 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Giovannini, PMC Phys

    M. Giovannini, PMC Phys. A 4 (2010), 1 doi:10.1186/1754-0410-4-1 [arXiv:0901.3026 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2010 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994), 2837-2851 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2837 [arXiv:astro-ph/9310044 [astro-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Giar` e and F

    W. Giar` e and F. Renzi, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) no.8, 083530 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083530 [arXiv:2007.04256 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Zhao and Y

    W. Zhao and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006), 043503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.043503 [arXiv:astro-ph/0604458 [astro- ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  54. [61]

    P. D. Lasky, C. M. F. Mingarelli, T. L. Smith, J. T. Giblin, D. J. Reardon, R. Caldwell, M. Bailes, N. D. R. Bhat, S. Burke- Spolaor and W. Coles, et al.Phys. Rev. X 6 (2016) no.1, 011035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.011035 [arXiv:1511.05994 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [62]

    R. G. Cai, C. Fu and W. W. Yu, [arXiv:2112.04794 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  56. [63]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and F. P. Fronimos, Phys. Dark Univ. 35 (2022), 100950 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2022.100950 [arXiv:2108.11231 [gr-qc]]

    2022

  57. [64]

    J. Lin, S. Gao, Y. Gong, Y. Lu, Z. Wang and F. Zhang, [arXiv:2111.01362 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  58. [65]

    Zhang, J

    F. Zhang, J. Lin and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.6, 063515 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.12, 129902] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063515 [arXiv:2106.10792 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Visinelli, N

    L. Visinelli, N. Bolis and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.6, 064039 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.064039 [arXiv:1711.06628 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [67]

    J. R. Pritchard and M. Kamionkowski, Annals Phys. 318 (2005), 2-36 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.03.005 [arXiv:astro- ph/0412581 [astro-ph]]

    2005

  61. [68]

    V. V. Khoze and D. L. Milne, [arXiv:2212.04784 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  62. [69]

    Casalino, M

    A. Casalino, M. Rinaldi, L. Sebastiani and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ. 22 (2018), 108 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.10.001 [arXiv:1803.02620 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [70]

    V. K. Oikonomou, Astropart. Phys. 141 (2022), 102718 doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2022.102718 [arXiv:2204.06304 [gr-qc]]

    2022

  64. [71]

    Casalino, M

    A. Casalino, M. Rinaldi, L. Sebastiani and S. Vagnozzi, Class. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019) no.1, 017001 doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/aaf1fd [arXiv:1811.06830 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [72]

    El Bourakadi, B

    K. El Bourakadi, B. Asfour, Z. Sakhi, Z. M. Bennai and T. Ouali, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.9, 792 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10762-7 [arXiv:2209.08585 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Sturani, Symmetry 13 (2021) no.12, 2384 doi:10.3390/sym13122384

    R. Sturani, Symmetry 13 (2021) no.12, 2384 doi:10.3390/sym13122384

    2021 doi

  67. [74]

    Vagnozzi and A

    S. Vagnozzi and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. Lett. 939 (2022) no.2, L22 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b0e [arXiv:2208.14088 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [75]

    A. S. Arapo˘ glu and A. E. Y¨ ukselci, [arXiv:2210.16699 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  69. [76]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Forconi, E. Di Valentino and A. Melchiorri, [arXiv:2210.14159 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  70. [77]

    V. K. Oikonomou, Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) no.19, 195025 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac2168 [arXiv:2108.10460 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Gerbino, K

    M. Gerbino, K. Freese, S. Vagnozzi, M. Lattanzi, O. Mena, E. Giusarma and S. Ho, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.4, 043512 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043512 [arXiv:1610.08830 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Breitbach, J

    M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, E. Madge, T. Opferkuch and P. Schwaller, JCAP 07 (2019), 007 doi:10.1088/1475- 14 7516/2019/07/007 [arXiv:1811.11175 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [80]

    S. Pi, M. Sasaki and Y. l. Zhang, JCAP 06 (2019), 049 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/049 [arXiv:1904.06304 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Khlopov and S

    M. Khlopov and S. R. Chowdhury, Symmetry 15 (2023) no.4, 832 doi:10.3390/sym15040832

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    Benetti, L

    M. Benetti, L. L. Graef and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.4, 043520 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043520 [arXiv:2111.04758 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Vagnozzi, Mon

    S. Vagnozzi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 502 (2021) no.1, L11-L15 doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa203 [arXiv:2009.13432 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Gouttenoire, G

    Y. Gouttenoire, G. Servant and P. Simakachorn, [arXiv:2111.01150 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and M. Francaviglia, Astropart. Phys. 29 (2008), 125-129 doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.12.001 [arXiv:0712.2980 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. Khodadi and G. Lambiase, Phys. Lett. B 789 (2019), 626-633 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.004 [arXiv:1808.06188 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.