Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Ricci-Cubic Holographic Dark Energy: Confronting Observations, Stability and the Cosmic Coincidence Problem

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cubic-curvature dark energy cuts Hubble tension to 2.3 sigma

desk verdict The derivation and MCMC fits are legitimate but the abstract advertises DESI data, a 2.3 sigma Hubble tension, stability analysis, and a cosmic coincidence test that the body does not actually present. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19961 v2 pith:I27EPHFA submitted 2025-08-27 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Aritra Sanyal , Prabir Rudra This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords Ricci-cubicholographicdarkenergyHubbletensioncosmiccoincidenceproblemMCMCparameterestimationmachinelearningregressioncubiccurvatureinvariantchronometers
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

This paper tries to establish that Ricci-Cubic Holographic Dark Energy (RCHDE)—a dark energy density built from an infrared cutoff that combines the Ricci scalar and a cubic curvature invariant P—can reproduce the observed expansion history of the late universe. The authors constrain the model's three parameters (α, λ, β̃) with MCMC on Hubble, cosmic chronometer, BAO, and gamma-ray burst data, finding α≈1, λ≈0.7, β̃≈1 in the joint Hubble+CC fit. They report that the best fit shows a moderate Hubble tension of about 2.3σ relative to ΛCDM, lower than the widely quoted ~5σ early-versus-late tension, and they interpret this as partial alleviation. The abstract also claims the model significantly alleviates the cosmic coincidence problem and does no better than counterparts on the squared-speed-of-sound stability test; however, the body text does not present those stability or coincidence analyses, so a reader cannot inspect the supporting calculation from this manuscript alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the infrared cutoff ansatz, eq. (2.5): 1/L² = −αR + λP^{1/3}, together with the cubic invariant P built from contractions of Riemann and Ricci tensors and truncated to first derivatives of the scale factor. This single ansatz converts the holographic density formula ρ_DE = 3c/κ²L² into a closed dark-energy density, produces the differential equation governing Ω_DE, and introduces the two fitted parameters α and λ that encode how much the Ricci scalar and the cubic curvature contribute. The parameter β̃ absorbs the cubic-theory coupling and completes the three-dimensional parameter space constrained by the data.

What would settle it

A precise H(z) measurement at z≈1.5–2 (uncertainty ≲5 km/s/Mpc) could discriminate: RCHDE predicts a curvature-driven departure from ΛCDM at these redshifts, so data that tracks ΛCDM there would falsify the cubic contribution. Separately, computing the squared speed of sound c_s² for the best-fit parameters and finding it negative at any redshift would directly falsify the stability claim made in the abstract.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, RCHDE is a holographic dark energy model in which the dark energy density is ρ_DE = (3/κ²)(−αR + λP^{1/3}), with P the cubic curvature invariant formed from cubic contractions of Riemann and Ricci tensors and truncated to first-order derivatives so the field equations stay second order. Feeding this into the first Friedmann equation yields a nonlinear differential equation for Ω_DE(z); solving it and matching to data gives parameter constraints that place the model close to ΛCDM at low redshift, with the Ricci term dominant (α≈1) and the cubic term contributing at the level λ≈0.7. Comparing the reconstructed H(z) with ΛCDM, the model claims a moderate 2.3σ Hubble te

Load-bearing premise

The entire dark-energy mechanism rests on the ansatz 1/L² = −αR + λP^{1/3} with P truncated to first derivatives; if that geometric cutoff is not the right physical input, the fitted α, λ, and β̃ are just shape parameters of a curve through H(z) data, not components of a dark energy model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, a purely geometric, scale-dependent infrared cutoff—not a cosmological constant—can drive late-time acceleration while passing H(z), CC, BAO, and GRB constraints.
  • The near-unity α and β̃ with λ≈0.7 mean RCHDE effectively interpolates between ΛCDM-like Ricci dominance at low redshift and cubic-curvature corrections at high redshift, giving a concrete prediction for where deviations from ΛCDM should appear.
  • The reported 2.3σ tension with Planck's ΛCDM H0 implies that, if confirmed, RCHDE would soften—not eliminate—the Hubble tension.
  • The claimed alleviation of the cosmic coincidence problem would mean the model explains why dark energy and matter densities are comparable today without fine-tuning, a qualitative advantage over ΛCDM.
  • The ML agreement (best test R²=0.869 for support vector regression) provides a data-driven check that the theoretical H(z) curve is not an artifact of the chosen datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My reading, beyond the paper: because the coincidence and stability results are only asserted, the durable contribution is the parameter measurement; if the missing analyses reproduce the abstract's claims, RCHDE would offer a testable alternative to ΛCDM with a specific high-redshift departure.
  • My reading, beyond the paper: the 2.3σ tension is measured against an assumed H0=68 and Ω_m0=0.26 from [74]; the one ML fit in Section 4 uses H0≈69.7 and Ω_m0≈0.36. The same model could be re-run with different priors to see how much of the 'partial alleviation' is prior-driven.
  • My reading, beyond the paper: a direct extension would be to fit the same cutoff ansatz to DESI BAO and Pantheon+ supernova data jointly; if the cubic contribution remains nonzero, that would corroborate the geometric-cutoff mechanism rather than curve-fitting.
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 constrains the Ricci-Cubic Holographic Dark Energy (RCHDE) model using Hubble, cosmic chronometer, BAO, GRB, and, according to the abstract, DESI data. The authors derive a nonlinear differential equation for the dark-energy density parameter Omega_DE and fit the parameters (alpha, lambda, beta_tilde) via chi-squared minimization and MCMC, with H0 and Omega_m0 fixed. They also perform a machine-learning regression on H(z) data. The abstract further claims that the model partially alleviates the Hubble tension (about 2.3 sigma), that a squared-speed-of-sound stability comparison was performed, and that the model significantly alleviates the cosmic coincidence problem. The body does not contain any of these three analyses.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the claimed 2.3-sigma Hubble tension and significant alleviation of the cosmic coincidence problem would make RCHDE an interesting dark-energy candidate. The algebraic derivation leading to Eq. (2.20) appears internally consistent, and the machine-learning section uses a train/test split that provides a genuine out-of-sample check. The model is not constructed from the data, so the circularity concern is moderate. However, the paper's advertised contributions are almost entirely absent from the body: no DESI likelihood, no Hubble-tension computation, no stability analysis, and no coincidence-problem analysis. As it stands, the manuscript's central claims are unsupported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. §3.1.3, §4.1] The abstract claims the best fit exhibits a 'moderate Hubble tension of approximately 2.3 sigma' and suggests partial alleviation. This claim is not computable from the reported fits. Section 3.1.3 and Table 1 fix H0=68 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m0=0.26, so the MCMC analysis cannot produce a constraint on H0. The only floating H0 appears in Section 4.1 with H0=69.68 km/s/Mpc, but no uncertainty, no reference value, and no sigma comparison is given. The 2.3-sigma statement is therefore not supported by any calculation in the manuscript.
  2. [Abstract, §5] The abstract states that 'a comparative stability analysis between different holographic dark energy models using the squared speed of sound' was performed and that the cosmic coincidence problem was tested. Neither analysis appears anywhere in the body. The conclusion (Section 5) discusses only parameter constraints, H(z) fits, and machine learning. These are load-bearing advertised results, not optional extras, and their absence cannot be remedied by a local edit.
  3. [Abstract, §3] The abstract and introduction claim that 'recent DESI observations' are used. Section 3.1.1 lists only direct Hubble measurements, cosmic chronometers, BAO, and GRBs; no DESI likelihood is defined, no DESI data points are described, and DESI is not cited in the reference list. The DESI-related claim in the abstract is therefore unsupported.
  4. [§3.1.3 vs. §4.1] There is a large unexplained inconsistency between the MCMC best-fit parameters and those used in the machine-learning section. The MCMC analysis (Table 1) reports alpha=0.999±0.050, lambda=0.700±0.035, beta_tilde=0.999±0.050 with H0=68 and Omega_m0=0.26, while Section 4.1 reports H0=69.68, Omega_m0=0.360, alpha=0.765, beta_tilde=1.000, lambda=0.700. The change in Omega_m0 from 0.26 to 0.360 is particularly large and is not discussed. If the ML section is meant to validate the MCMC constraints, the discrepancy needs explanation; if it uses different priors or datasets, that must be stated explicitly.
  5. [§3.1, §3.2] The manuscript repeatedly invokes Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling and Bayesian inference, but it never specifies the priors on alpha, lambda, and beta_tilde, the proposal distribution, chain lengths, burn-in, convergence criteria, or the effective number of independent samples. It also does not specify how the covariance of the combined likelihoods is treated. Without these details, the reported posterior contours in Figures 1-5 and the uncertainties in Table 1 are not reproducible. Since the parameter constraints are the main quantitative result of Section 3, this is a load-bearing omission.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] H0 and Omega_m0 are listed as parameters but are fixed to 68 and 0.26. They should be explicitly labeled as 'adopted/fixed' rather than 'best-fit', and the choice of these values (Planck 2020) should be justified in the fitting context.
  2. [§2, Eq. (2.5)] The fundamental IR-cutoff ansatz 1/L^2 = -alpha R + lambda P^(1/3) is adopted from ref. [50] without further derivation or discussion. Since all subsequent constraints are conditional on this ansatz, the authors should at least state clearly that it is an assumption and comment on the theoretical motivation and possible degeneracies.
  3. [References] There are several duplicate references (e.g., [22] duplicates [16], [38] duplicates [37]). The reference list should be cleaned. Also, no DESI reference is included despite the abstract's claim of using DESI observations.
  4. [§4.1] The ML section reports performance metrics such as R^2, RMSE, and chi^2, but the data splitting procedure, hyperparameter choices, and sensitivity to random seeds are not described. For reproducibility, these details should be provided or a reference given.
  5. [General] Minor typographical and stylistic issues include inconsistent hyphenation of 'Ricci-Cubic' and phrases such as 'Ric ci-Cubic' in the abstract. The text would also benefit from a careful proofread for grammatical accuracy.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline Hubble-tension claim is a fitted H0 presented as a model prediction; the RCHDE ansatz is imported via self-citation, yielding partial circularity in the paper's advertised results.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 2, Eq. (2.5) and Eq. (2.8)]
    "In order to have uniform dimensions, we express the IR cutoff of RCHDE as a combination of R and P 1/3 as follows [50] 1/L^2 = -αR + λP^{1/3}"

    The entire RCHDE energy density used in the fits is defined by this assumed infrared cutoff, with the cubic invariant P truncated to first-order derivatives. The form is taken directly from ref. [50], which is a paper by the same author (Rudra). The present paper does not derive the cutoff from holography or any independent principle; it imports it via self-citation. Consequently, the MCMC constraints on (α, λ, β̃) are constraints on shape parameters of an assumed ansatz, not on a prediction derived from first principles.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 4.1 (Machine Learning Implementation and Evaluation)]
    "The best-fit value obtained in our model exhibits a moderate Hubble tension of approximately 2.3σ with respect to the reference value for ΛCDM. ... The theoretical RCHDE model parameters were optimized via chi-square minimization, yielding best-fit values of the Hubble constant H0 = 69.68 km/s/Mpc, matter density parameter Ωm0 = 0.360"

    In the main MCMC analysis (Sec. 3.1.3, Table 1), H0 is fixed at 68 km/s/Mpc for every dataset, so the model yields no H0 constraint. The only H0 value that could support the abstract's tension claim is H0 = 69.68, obtained by a chi-square fit to the same observational H(z) sample used for the ML training. This is a fitted parameter, not a model prediction, and it is reported without uncertainties or covariance. The abstract renames this best-fit input as 'the best-fit value obtained in our model' and converts it into a 2.3σ tension statement, which is a fitted quantity called a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's algebraic development from Eq. (2.5) to Eq. (2.20) is self-consistent: once the RCHDE ansatz is accepted, the differential equation governing ΩDE is derived correctly, and the MCMC fits do constrain (α, λ, β̃) against H(z) data. That part is not circular. However, two load-bearing elements are. First, the RCHDE density itself is not derived; it is assumed through Eq. (2.5) and Eq. (2.8), citing ref. [50] by coauthor Rudra. This is an ansatz imported via self-citation, so the model's 'predictions' are the ansatz's consequences rather than independent holographic results. Second, the headline claim of a 2.3σ Hubble-tension alleviation has no derivation in the body. The MCMC section fixes H0=68 and Ωm0=0.26; the only alternative H0=69.68 appears in the ML section as a chi-square best-fit to the same H(z) data, with no uncertainty or pipeline details. Presenting this fitted value as the model's best-fit value and converting it into a tension claim is a fitted input called a prediction. The abstract also advertises stability and cosmic-coincidence analyses that are absent from the body; that is missing support rather than circularity, but it compounds the mismatch between the abstract's strongest assertions and the evidence presented. Because the central tension claim reduces to a fit and the model definition rests on a self-cited ansatz, a score of 6 is appropriate: partial circularity in the headline results, while the core fitting machinery remains internally valid.

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

The paper introduces no new particle, force, dimension, or conserved quantity. It relies on the RCHDE model proposed in a prior paper by one of the authors, and the central numerical results depend on five parameters: alpha, lambda, beta_tilde, H0, and Omega_m0. The first three are fitted; the latter two are fixed in the main analysis but changed in the ML analysis.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha = 1.00 +/- 0.10 (Hubble), 1.00 +/- 0.20 (CC), 1.79 (+0.27,-0.41) (BAO), 0.999 +/- 0.050 (Hubble+CC); 0.765 in ML fit
    Amplitude of the Ricci-scalar term in the holographic cutoff; fitted to each dataset.
  • lambda = 0.70 +/- 0.07 (Hubble), 0.70 +/- 0.14 (CC), 1.38 (+0.21,-0.32) (BAO), 0.700 +/- 0.035 (Hubble+CC); 0.700 in ML fit
    Amplitude of the cubic-invariant term in the holographic cutoff; fitted to each dataset.
  • beta_tilde = 1.00 +/- 0.10 (Hubble), 0.996 +/- 0.20 (CC), 1.17 (+0.19,-0.27) (BAO), 0.999 +/- 0.050 (Hubble+CC); 1.000 in ML fit
    Effective combination of cubic-gravity coupling parameters; fitted to each dataset.
  • H0 = fixed at 68 km/s/Mpc in Table 1; optimized to 69.68 km/s/Mpc in ML Section 4.1
    The main fits do not measure H0; the abstract's tension claim requires a best-fit H0 that only appears in the ML section.
  • Omega_m0 = fixed at 0.26 in Table 1; 0.360 in ML Section 4.1
    Present matter density parameter; different values are used in the two analyses, changing the reconstructed expansion history.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper IR cutoff ansatz 1/L^2 = -alpha R + lambda P^(1/3) (eq 2.5)
    Central model assumption introduced in ref [50] by one of the authors; the paper does not derive it from the holographic principle or cubic gravity. All fits inherit it.
  • domain assumption The cubic invariant P for FLRW is 6 beta_tilde H^4 (2H^2 + 3 Hdot), with terms truncated to first derivatives (eqs 2.8-2.10)
    Needed to keep the field equations second order; higher derivative terms in the cubic invariant are neglected.
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric with dust matter (eq 2.4, wm=0)
    Standard background cosmology; spatial curvature k=0 is assumed without a dedicated test.
  • domain assumption Holographic density formula rho_DE = 3c/(kappa^2 L^2) (eq 1.1)
    Taken from the holographic dark energy literature; the ultraviolet-infrared connection is assumed valid.
  • standard math Likelihood L proportional to exp(-chi^2/2) with Gaussian errors (eq 3.2)
    Standard statistical assumption; priors and chain diagnostics are not reported.
  • domain assumption Fixed priors H0=68 and Omega_m0=0.26 in the main analysis (Section 3.1.3)
    Values taken from Planck-era references [74]; the main fits do not actually measure H0 or Omega_m0, which weakens the claimed Hubble tension.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ricci-Cubic Holographic Dark Energy: Confronting Observations, Stability and the Cosmic Coincidence Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I27EPHFA

@misc{pith2026250819961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ricci-Cubic Holographic Dark Energy: Confronting Observations, Stability and the Cosmic Coincidence Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I27EPHFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19961}
}
abstract

In this work, we constrain the parameter space of the Ricci-Cubic Holographic Dark Energy (RCHDE) model using several observational datasets, including Hubble parameter measurements, cosmic chronometer (CC) data, Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) data, and recent DESI observations. The RCHDE model is constructed from a cubic curvature invariant formed through cubic contractions of the Ricci and Riemann tensors. To estimate the model parameters, we employ the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling technique within a Bayesian inference framework. The resulting likelihood contours provide both marginalized and joint posterior distributions of the model parameters. The best-fit cosmological evolution predicted by the RCHDE model is reconstructed and compared with observational $H(z)$ measurements as well as with the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model. The best-fit value obtained in our model exhibits a moderate Hubble tension of approximately $2.3\sigma$ with respect to the reference value for $\Lambda$CDM. While this indicates a noticeable discrepancy, it remains significantly lower than the $\sim 5\sigma$ tension typically reported between early- and late-Universe measurements, suggesting a partial alleviation of the tension. In addition to the statistical parameter estimation, we perform an enhanced machine learning analysis using observational Hubble parameter data. We have done a comparative stability analysis between different holographic dark energy models using the squared speed of sound, where it is seen that the RCHDE model does not have any upper hand over its counterparts. Finally, the cosmic coincidence problem is tested to compare the efficiency of the RCHDE model in comparison to other models. It is found that the RCHDE model produced a significant alleviation to the cosmic coincidence problem, outshining its counterparts.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Dark Univ., 42, 101307

    Rudra P., 2023, Phys. Dark Univ., 42, 101307

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    et al., 1999, ApJ, 517, 565

    Perlmutter S. et al., 1999, ApJ, 517, 565

    work page 1999

  3. [2]

    Riess A. G. et al., 1998, AJ, 116, 1009

    work page 1998

  4. [3]

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

    work page 2003

  5. [4]

    Phys., 354, 769

    Einstein A., 1916, Ann. Phys., 354, 769

    work page 1916

  6. [5]

    D., Oikonomou V

    Nojiri S., Odintsov S. D., Oikonomou V. K., 2017, Phys. Re p., 692, 1

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    D., 2007, Int

    Nojiri S., Odintsov S. D., 2007, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod . Phys., 4, 115

    work page 2007

  8. [7]

    Capozziello S., D’Agostino R., Luongo O., 2019, Int. J. M od. Phys. D, 28, 1930016

    work page 2019

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    Brax P., 2018, Rep. Prog. Phys., 81, 016902

    2018

  2. [9]

    Kamenshchik A., Moschella U., Pasquier V., 2001, Phys. L ett. B, 511, 265

    2001

  3. [10]

    Gorini V., Kamenshchik A., Moschella U., 2003, Phys. Re v. D, 67, 063509

    2003

  4. [11]

    Space Sci., 339, 53

    Rudra P., Debnath U., Biswas R., 2012, Astrophys. Space Sci., 339, 53

    2012

  5. [12]

    Chowdhury R., Rudra P., 2013, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 52, 4 89

    2013

  6. [13]

    Space Sci., 342, 579

    Rudra P., 2012, Astrophys. Space Sci., 342, 579

    2012

  7. [14]

    Susskind L., 1995, J. Math. Phys., 36, 6377 – 22 –

    1995

  8. [15]

    Bousso R., 2002, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74, 825

    2002

  9. [19]

    Proc ., C930308, 284

    ’t Hooft G., 1993, in Salam A., Sezgin E., eds, Conf. Proc ., C930308, 284

    1993

  10. [20]

    G., Kaplan D

    Cohen A. G., Kaplan D. B., Nelson A. E., 1999, Phys. Rev. L ett., 82, 4971

    1999

  11. [21]

    Rep., 696, 1

    Wang S., Wang Y., Li M., 2017, Phys. Rep., 696, 1

    2017

  12. [22]

    Horvat R., 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 087301

    2004

  13. [23]

    G., Li M., 2004, J

    Huang Q. G., Li M., 2004, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 08 , 013

    2004

  14. [24]

    Pavon D., Zimdahl W., 2005, Phys. Lett. B, 628, 206

    2005

  15. [25]

    G., 2004, Phys

    Gong Y. G., 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 064029

    2004

  16. [26]

    N., 2008, Phys

    Saridakis E. N., 2008, Phys. Lett. B, 660, 138

    2008

  17. [27]

    R., Vagenas E

    Setare M. R., Vagenas E. C., 2008, Phys. Lett. B, 666, 111

    2008

  18. [28]

    Maity S., Rudra P., 2022, JHAP, 2, 1

    2022

  19. [29]

    Q., 2005, Phys

    Zhang X., Wu F. Q., 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 043524

    2005

  20. [30]

    D., Wang S., Zhang X., 2009, J

    Li M., Li X. D., Wang S., Zhang X., 2009, J. Cosmol. Astrop art. Phys., 06, 036

    2009

  21. [31]

    N., Setare M

    Lu J., Saridakis E. N., Setare M. R., Xu L., 2010, J. Cosmo l. Astropart. Phys., 03, 031

    2010

  22. [32]

    Hsu S. D. H., 2004, Phys. Lett. B, 594, 13

    2004

  23. [33]

    Li M., 2004, Phys. Lett. B, 603, 1

    2004

  24. [34]

    G., 2007, Phys

    Cai R. G., 2007, Phys. Lett. B, 657, 228

    2007

  25. [35]

    G., 2008, Phys

    Wei H., Cai R. G., 2008, Phys. Lett. B, 660, 113

    2008

  26. [36]

    N., 2010, J

    Jamil M., Saridakis E. N., 2010, J. Cosmol. Astropart. P hys., 07, 028

    2010

  27. [38]

    G., 2009, Phys

    Gao C., Wu F., Chen X., Shen Y. G., 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 0 43511

    2009

  28. [39]

    J., Li X

    Feng C. J., Li X. Z., 2009, Phys. Lett. B, 679, 151

    2009

  29. [40]

    J., Li X

    Feng C. J., Li X. Z., 2009, Phys. Lett. B, 680, 355

    2009

  30. [41]

    Suwa M., Nihei T., 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 023519

    2010

  31. [42]

    D., 2006, Gen

    Nojiri S., Odintsov S. D., 2006, Gen. Rel. Grav., 38, 128 5

    2006

  32. [43]

    D., 2017, Eur

    Nojiri S., Odintsov S. D., 2017, Eur. Phys. J. C, 77, 8

    2017

  33. [44]

    D., Paul T., 2022, Phys

    Nojiri S., Odintsov S. D., Paul T., 2022, Phys. Lett. B, 8 25, 136844

    2022

  34. [45]

    D., Saridakis E

    Nojiri S., Odintsov S. D., Saridakis E. N., 2019, Phys. L ett. B, 797, 134829

    2019

  35. [46]

    D., Faraoni V., 2022, Phys

    Nojiri S., Odintsov S. D., Faraoni V., 2022, Phys. Rev. D , 105, 044042

    2022

  36. [47]

    O., Sheikh-Jabbari M

    Colgain E. O., Sheikh-Jabbari M. M., 2021, Class. Quant um Grav., 38, 177001

    2021

  37. [48]

    O., Sheik h-Jabbari M

    Banerjee A., Cai H., Heisenberg L., Colgain E. O., Sheik h-Jabbari M. M., Yang T., 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 081305

    2021

  38. [49]

    N., 2018, Phys

    Saridakis E. N., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 064035

    2018

  39. [51]

    A., 2016, Phys

    Bueno P., Cano P. A., 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 104005 – 23 –

    2016

  40. [52]

    N., 2019, P hys

    Erices C., Papantonopoulos E., Saridakis E. N., 2019, P hys. Rev. D, 99, 123527

    2019

  41. [53]

    Marciu M., 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 103534

    2020

  42. [54]

    Giri K., Rudra P., 2022, Nucl. Phys. B, 978, 115746

    2022

  43. [55]

    et al., 2016, JCAP, 05, 014, arXiv:1601.0170 1

    Moresco M. et al., 2016, JCAP, 05, 014, arXiv:1601.0170 1

    2016

  44. [56]

    Phys., 428, 168 432

    Ranjit C., Rudra P., Kundu S., 2021, Ann. Phys., 428, 168 432

    2021

  45. [57]

    Rudra P., Giri K., 2021, Nucl. Phys. B, 967, 115428

    2021

  46. [58]

    Demianski M., Piedipalumbo E., 2017, A&A, 598, A112, ar Xiv:1610.00854

    2017 arXiv

  47. [59]

    Percival W. J. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2148, arXiv:090 7.1660

    2010

  48. [60]

    et al., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 3017, arXiv:1106.3 366

    Beutler F. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 3017, arXiv:1106.3 366

    2011

  49. [61]

    et al., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1707, arXiv:1108.263 5

    Blake C. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1707, arXiv:1108.263 5

    2011

  50. [62]

    et al., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 3435, arXiv:1203

    Anderson L. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 3435, arXiv:1203. 6594

    2012

  51. [63]

    Busca N. G. et al., 2013, A&A, 552, A96, arXiv:1211.2616

    2013 arXiv

  52. [64]

    et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 24, arXiv:1401.17 68

    Anderson L. et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 24, arXiv:1401.17 68

    2014

  53. [65]

    et al., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2222, arXiv:1409.3 242

    Tojeiro R. et al., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2222, arXiv:1409.3 242

    2014

  54. [66]

    et al., 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4773, arXiv:1705.06373

    Ata M. et al., 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4773, arXiv:1705.06373

    2018 arXiv

  55. [67]

    Abbott T. M. C. et al., 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4866, arXiv:171 2.06209

    2019

  56. [68]

    et al., 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617, arXiv:1607.0315 5

    Alam S. et al., 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617, arXiv:1607.0315 5

    2017

  57. [69]

    et al., 2019, A&A, 629, A85, arXiv:19 04.03400

    de Sainte Agathe V. et al., 2019, A&A, 629, A85, arXiv:19 04.03400

    2019

  58. [70]

    et al., 2019, arXiv:1907.05608

    Kazantzidis L. et al., 2019, arXiv:1907.05608

    2019 arXiv

  59. [71]

    et al., 2020, arXiv:2007.08998

    Hou J. et al., 2020, arXiv:2007.08998

    2020 arXiv

  60. [72]

    et al., 2020, arXiv:2005.13126

    Zhao G.-B. et al., 2020, arXiv:2005.13126

    2020 arXiv

  61. [73]

    Benisty D., Staicova D., 2020, arXiv:2009.10701

    2020 arXiv

  62. [74]

    et al., 2020, A&A, 641 , A6, arXiv:1807.06209 – 24 –

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim N. et al., 2020, A&A, 641 , A6, arXiv:1807.06209 – 24 –

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.