Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Two simple dark-energy parametrizations fit late-time data as well as ΛCDM, with Type II preferred, and entropy production tracks their effect on structure growth.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-15 14:51 UTC pith:EF3QEYM3

load-bearing objection Solid incremental re-constraint of the 2005 GZ1/GZ2 EoS forms with modern late-time data plus a configuration-entropy diagnostic; competitive-to-ΛCDM claim is real for the probes used but remains late-time-only. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.05009 v2 pith:EF3QEYM3 submitted 2026-03-05 gr-qc

Observational and Thermodynamic aspects of one-dimensional Dark Energy EoS parametrization models

Anirban Chatterjee , Yungui Gong This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords dark energy equation of stateGong-Zhang parametrizationlate-time cosmologyconfiguration entropyBayesian model comparisonstructure formationcosmological constant
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests two one-parameter families for the dark-energy equation of state, called Gong–Zhang Type I and Type II, against recent late-time data only: Type Ia supernovae, DESI baryon acoustic oscillations, cosmic chronometer H(z), and growth-rate measurements. Bayesian MCMC fits plus information criteria show both models are observationally consistent with ΛCDM and competitive as late-time alternatives, while GZ2 yields tighter constraints and less parameter degeneracy. Reconstructed expansion and coincidence histories recover ordinary matter domination at high redshift and only mild late-time deviations from a cosmological constant. Cosmographic, sound-speed and growth checks confirm stable acceleration and viable perturbations. Configuration entropy, treated as a thermodynamic probe of clustering, shows that the entropy-production rate cleanly registers the imprint of dynamical dark energy on late structure formation while leaving early-time behaviour standard. The result is a transparent, observationally viable extension of ΛCDM that can be diagnosed by both expansion and entropy.

Core claim

Both Gong–Zhang one-dimensional dark-energy equation-of-state parametrizations (GZ1 and GZ2) are observationally consistent and phenomenologically competitive late-time alternatives to ΛCDM when constrained by SN+BAO+OHD(+growth) data; GZ2 is generally preferred by tighter posteriors, reduced degeneracies and Jeffreys-scale support, while the configuration-entropy production rate sensitively traces the dynamical-dark-energy imprint on late-time structure formation without spoiling early-time cosmology.

What carries the argument

Gong–Zhang Type I and Type II one-parameter dark-energy equation-of-state functions, deliberately built to restore matter domination at high redshift and to produce only smooth late-time deviations from w = −1, together with configuration entropy (Shannon-type) whose production rate serves as a thermodynamic diagnostic of clustering.

Load-bearing premise

That fitting late-time probes alone, without early-universe or CMB constraints, is enough to establish the models as competitive cosmological alternatives, and that the configuration-entropy production rate is a faithful proxy for dynamical-dark-energy effects on structure growth.

What would settle it

A joint late-time plus CMB/early-universe analysis that drives the best-fit GZ parameters back to the pure cosmological-constant limit, or an N-body/full Boltzmann calculation showing that the entropy-production rate does not track the dynamical-dark-energy imprint claimed here.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constrains two one-dimensional Gong–Zhang dark-energy equation-of-state parametrizations (GZ1 and GZ2) with late-time probes only: Type Ia supernovae (Union3, Pantheon+SH0ES, DES-SN5YR), DESI BAO, cosmic-chronometer H(z), and growth-rate data. Using Bayesian MCMC and AIC/BIC (with Jeffreys-scale comparisons), the authors report that both models are observationally consistent late-time alternatives to ΛCDM, with GZ2 generally preferred via tighter posteriors and reduced degeneracies. They reconstruct w(z) and the coincidence parameter, perform complementary cosmographic, sound-speed, and growth analyses, and introduce configuration-entropy production as a thermodynamic diagnostic of late-time structure formation, arguing that both models recover matter-dominated high-z behaviour by construction while producing controlled late-time deviations from a cosmological constant.

Significance. If the late-time constraints and model rankings hold under full scrutiny of the likelihoods and information criteria, the work provides a clean, multi-probe update of the Gong–Zhang one-parameter EoS class against current SN+BAO+OHD(+growth) data, with a useful emphasis on GZ2’s reduced degeneracies. The multi-dataset consistency checks (correlation matrices, Jeffreys-scale comparisons) and the extension beyond pure background expansion (growth, sound speed, cosmography) are strengths. Configuration entropy as a complementary late-time diagnostic is an interesting addition to the phenomenological toolkit, even if its calibration remains limited. The paper is a solid, incremental contribution to late-time dynamical-DE phenomenology rather than a resolution of early-universe or H0 tensions.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract and §I repeatedly state that the GZ forms “recover the standard matter-dominated behaviour at high redshift,” “preserve early-Universe physics,” and remain “consistent with standard early-time cosmology,” while the competitiveness claim is framed as establishing an “observationally consistent extension of ΛCDM.” These early-time statements follow from the functional construction of the parametrizations (ref. [38]), not from any CMB, BBN, or full-shape likelihood applied in this work. Because the analysis is exclusively late-time (SN+BAO+OHD+growth), residual freedom that is weakly constrained by distance and H(z) data can still shift the sound horizon or growth history once early-time anchors are restored. Either a minimal CMB/early-universe consistency check should be added, or the abstract, introduction, and conclusions must be rewritten to state explicitly that competitivenes
  2. The configuration-entropy analysis is presented as showing that the entropy-production rate “sensitively captures the influence of dynamical dark energy on late-time structure formation.” The construction follows prior Shannon/Pandey-type definitions, but the manuscript (as available) does not calibrate the diagnostic against N-body simulations, Boltzmann codes, or even a quantitative residual comparison to standard growth observables (e.g., fσ8). Without such a cross-check or a clear statement of the diagnostic’s limitations and assumptions, the thermodynamic interpretation remains qualitative and cannot independently support the claim of early-time consistency. The section should either add a quantitative comparison to growth residuals under the same posteriors or substantially qualify the strength of the entropy-based conclusions.
  3. Model preference for GZ2 over GZ1 and over ΛCDM is central to the abstract and Fig. 3 (Jeffreys-scale comparison), yet the available text does not make the underlying ΔAIC/ΔBIC (or equivalent evidence) values, effective numbers of parameters, and absolute goodness-of-fit transparent for each SN+BAO+OHD combination. Information-criteria rankings are load-bearing for the “GZ2 generally preferred” claim; the paper should report the numerical ΔIC values, the reference ΛCDM χ² (or log-evidence), and any sensitivity to the choice of SN sample in a single table so that the Jeffreys-scale statements can be independently verified.
minor comments (5)
  1. The explicit functional forms of the GZ1 and GZ2 EoS (and the associated dark-energy density evolution) should appear early and be numbered, so that reconstructed w(z) and coincidence-parameter plots can be checked against the definitions without consulting only ref. [38].
  2. Fig. 2 (correlation matrices) and Fig. 3 (Jeffreys-scale comparison) captions are clear, but axis labels, color scales, and the precise dataset combinations should be self-contained in the figure panels; several panels are referenced as (a)–(f) without fully specifying which parameters enter the correlation matrices in the caption text provided.
  3. Clarify whether growth-rate data are included in the primary MCMC constraints or only in the post-processing growth/entropy analysis; the abstract lists growth-rate data among the probes, while parts of the introduction emphasize SN+BAO+OHD.
  4. Notation for the coincidence parameter and configuration entropy should be defined once, with units/normalization stated, to avoid ambiguity when comparing entropy-production rates across models.
  5. A short statement on MCMC convergence (e.g., Gelman–Rubin or effective sample sizes) and prior choices for the one-dimensional GZ parameters would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Mild by-construction high-z recovery is phrased as a demonstrated result; otherwise ordinary phenomenological fitting with no load-bearing circular chain.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract; Introduction §I (construction of GZ parametrizations)]
    "They are explicitly constructed to recover the matter–dominated background at high redshift and to generate smooth, monotonic deviations from ΛCDM only at late times... The reconstructed evolution of the dark-energy equation of state and coincidence parameter demonstrates that both models recover the standard matter-dominated behaviour at high redshift while producing controlled late-time deviations from the cosmological-constant scenario."

    High-redshift matter domination is built into the GZ1/GZ2 ansätze by design (and by the cited Gong–Zhang 2005 construction). Reporting that the reconstructed w(z) and coincidence parameter “demonstrate” this recovery is true by definition of the parametrization, not an independent empirical finding from the late-time data.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract (final claim); Introduction on configuration entropy]
    "using configuration entropy as a thermodynamic probe, we show that the entropy-production rate sensitively captures the influence of dynamical dark energy on late-time structure formation while remaining consistent with standard early-time cosmology."

    Configuration entropy production is computed from the same fitted expansion and growth histories of the GZ models. That the rate “captures” dynamical-DE effects and “remains consistent with standard early-time cosmology” follows by feeding those histories into the Shannon/Pandey formula, rather than from an independent thermodynamic observable or external calibration; the early-time consistency further inherits the by-construction high-z matter recovery of the ansatz.

full rationale

This is a standard late-time observational constraints paper on two one-parameter dark-energy EoS ansätze (GZ1/GZ2). Parameters are fitted to external SN+BAO+OHD(+growth) data via MCMC; model comparison to ΛCDM uses AIC/BIC on those data; reconstructed w(z), coincidence, cosmography, sound speed, growth, and configuration entropy are derived diagnostics of the fitted histories. That pipeline is self-referential only in the ordinary sense of phenomenological cosmology and does not force the competitiveness claim by definition. The sole mild circularity is rhetorical: the models are explicitly constructed (and cited from Gong–Zhang 2005) to recover matter domination at high z, yet the abstract presents that recovery as something the reconstruction “demonstrates.” Configuration entropy likewise inherits the fitted expansion/growth history by construction, so its “sensitivity” to dynamical DE and early-time consistency are not independent empirical predictions. Neither step is load-bearing for the central data-driven claim. Self-citation of the original GZ forms is normal model adoption, not a uniqueness theorem or smuggled ansatz that closes the argument. Score 2 reflects one minor self-definitional phrasing with independent external-data content remaining.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper sits inside standard FLRW + phenomenological w(z) cosmology. Load-bearing free parameters are the usual background parameters plus the single DE parameter of each GZ form, all fitted to late-time data. No new particles or forces are invented; configuration entropy is imported from prior literature. The main modeling choices are the GZ functional forms themselves, the late-time-only data cut, and the interpretation of entropy production as a structure-formation probe.

free parameters (5)
  • GZ1 dark-energy EoS parameter (one-dimensional)
    Single free parameter controlling the Type-I Gong–Zhang w(z) form; fitted by MCMC to SN+BAO+OHD(+growth).
  • GZ2 dark-energy EoS parameter (one-dimensional)
    Single free parameter controlling the Type-II Gong–Zhang w(z) form; fitted by MCMC; abstract reports tighter constraints than GZ1.
  • Ω_m (matter density)
    Standard cosmological free parameter jointly constrained with the DE parameter in each model.
  • H0 (Hubble constant)
    Fitted or marginalized with late-time probes; relevant given SH0ES-inclusive SN samples.
  • Other nuisance/calibration parameters of SN and BAO likelihoods
    Standard absolute-magnitude / sound-horizon / growth-rate nuisance parameters implicit in multi-probe fits; not enumerated in the extract but required for the posteriors.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Homogeneous isotropic FLRW background with pressureless matter plus a dark-energy fluid described solely by a barotropic EoS w(z).
    Standard cosmology premise underlying all expansion-history and growth calculations in the paper.
  • domain assumption Gong–Zhang Type I and Type II one-dimensional w(z) forms recover matter domination at high z and produce only late-time deviations from w=−1.
    Taken from Gong & Zhang 2005 (ref. [38]); used as the model definitions throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper Late-time probes alone (SN+BAO+OHD+growth) suffice to judge competitiveness with ΛCDM without CMB or early-universe anchors.
    Explicit methodological choice stated in abstract and introduction; shapes the entire observational claim.
  • domain assumption Configuration entropy (Shannon-type) and its production rate are valid thermodynamic diagnostics of late-time gravitational clustering under dynamical DE.
    Imported from Pandey and related works (refs. [42–45]); applied here without new first-principles derivation.
  • standard math Standard Bayesian model comparison via AIC/BIC and Jeffreys scale correctly ranks GZ1/GZ2 against ΛCDM for these datasets.
    Information-criteria machinery assumed valid for nested/non-nested DE model selection.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 10105 in / 3421 out tokens · 38528 ms · 2026-07-15T14:51:48.348232+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the observational and thermodynamic viability of Gong-Zhang (GZ) Type~I (GZ1) and Type~II (GZ2) dark-energy parametrizations using late-time cosmological probes including Type~Ia supernovae (Union3, Pantheon+SH0ES, and DES-SN5YR), DESI baryon acoustic oscillations, cosmic chronometer $H(z)$ measurements, and growth-rate data. Using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis together with Akaike and Bayesian information criteria, we show that both parametrizations provide observationally consistent and phenomenologically competitive late-time alternatives to $\Lambda$CDM, while the GZ2 model generally provides tighter constraints and reduced parameter degeneracies. The reconstructed evolution of the dark-energy equation of state and coincidence parameter demonstrates that both models recover the standard matter-dominated behaviour at high redshift while producing controlled late-time deviations from the cosmological-constant scenario. A complementary cosmographic, sound-speed, and growth analysis further confirms stable late-time accelerated expansion together with physically viable perturbative behaviour. Finally, using configuration entropy as a thermodynamic probe, we show that the entropy-production rate sensitively captures the influence of dynamical dark energy on late-time structure formation while remaining consistent with standard early-time cosmology.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Capozziello, Int

    S. Capozziello, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11(2002), 483-492 doi:10.1142/S0218271802002025 [arXiv:gr-qc/0201033 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0218271802002025 2002

  2. [2]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. F. Cardone, S. Carloni and A. Troisi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D12(2003), 1969-1982 doi:10.1142/S0218271803004407 [arXiv:astro-ph/0307018 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0218271803004407 2003

  3. [3]

    B. Jana, A. Chatterjee, K. Ravi and A. Bandyopadhyay, Class. Quant. Grav.40(2023) no.19, 195023 doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/acf554 [arXiv:2303.06961 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1361- 2023

  4. [4]

    K. Ravi, A. Chatterjee, B. Jana and A. Bandyopadhyay, MNRAS,527, 3, (January 2024), Pages 7626–7651 DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stad3705 [arXiv:2306.12585 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3705 2024

  5. [5]

    Dynamics of viable $f(R)$ dark energy models in the presence of Curvature-Matter interactions

    A. Chatterjee, R. Roy, S. Dey and A. Bandyopadhyay, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.3, 236 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 12611-1 [arXiv:2310.05578 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 2024

  6. [6]

    Dynamical analysis of coupled curvature-matter scenario in viable $f(R)$ dark energy models at de Sitter phase

    A. Chatterjee, Class. Quant. Grav.41(2024) no.9, 095007 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad2f11 [arXiv:2312.07173 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad2f11 2024

  7. [7]

    Chatterjee and Y

    A. Chatterjee and Y. Gong, Annals Phys.478(2025), 170036 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170036 [arXiv:2412.20209 [gr-qc]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170036 2025

  8. [8]

    Chatterjee, S

    A. Chatterjee, S. Hussain and K. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.10, 2021 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103505 [arXiv:2105.00361 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.103505 2021

  9. [9]

    Dynamical analysis of $k$-essence cosmology in the light of Supernova Ia observations

    A. Chatterjee, A. Bandyopadhyay and B. Jana, Eur. Phys. J. Plus137(2022) no.4, 518 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022- 02747-y [arXiv:2108.12186 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022- 2022

  10. [10]

    Hussain, A

    S. Hussain, A. Chatterjee and K. Bhattacharya, Universe9(2023) no.2, 65 doi:10.3390/universe9020065 [arXiv:2203.10607 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3390/universe9020065 2023

  11. [11]

    Bhattacharya, A

    K. Bhattacharya, A. Chatterjee and S. Hussain, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.6, 488 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11666-w [arXiv:2206.12398 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11666-w 2023

  12. [12]

    Hussain, A

    S. Hussain, A. Chatterjee and K. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.10, 103502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103502 [arXiv:2305.19062 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.103502 2023

  13. [13]

    Realizing late-time cosmology in the context of Dynamical Stability Approach

    A. Chatterjee, S. Hussain and K. Bhattacharya, Springer Proc. Phys.304(2024), 303-306 doi:10.1007/978-981-97-0289- 3 66 [arXiv:2307.04633 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-981-97-0289- 2024

  14. [14]

    Q. Gao, Z. Peng, S. Gao and Y. Gong, Universe11(2025) no.1, 10 doi:10.3390/universe11010010 [arXiv:2411.16046 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3390/universe11010010 2025

  15. [15]

    Implications of JLA data for $k-$essence model of dark energy with given equation of state

    A. Bandyopadhyay and A. Chatterjee, Eur. Phys. J. Plus135(2020) no.2, 181 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00161-w [arXiv:1902.04315 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00161-w 2020

  16. [16]

    W. Yang, A. Mukherjee, E. Di Valentino and S. Pan, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.12, 123527 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123527 [arXiv:1809.06883 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.123527 2018

  17. [17]

    Y. g. Gong and Y. Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 043518 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043518 [arXiv:astro-ph/0502262 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.043518 2005

  18. [18]

    Sagredo, S

    B. Sagredo, S. Nesseris and D. Sapone, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.8, 083543 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083543 [arXiv:1806.10822 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.083543 2018

  19. [19]

    R. J. F. Marcondes, R. C. G. Landim, A. A. Costa, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, JCAP12(2016), 009 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2016/12/009 [arXiv:1605.05264 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475- 2016

  20. [20]

    Kazantzidis and L

    L. Kazantzidis and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.10, 103503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103503 [arXiv:1803.01337 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.103503 2018

  21. [21]

    Bekenstein, Scholarpedia3(2008) no.10, 7375 doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.7375

    J. Bekenstein, Scholarpedia3(2008) no.10, 7375 doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.7375

    doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.7375 2008

  22. [22]

    Does information entropy play a role in the expansion and acceleration of the Universe?

    B. Pandey, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471(2017) no.1, L77-L81 doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx109 [arXiv:1705.08945 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx109 2017

  23. [23]

    Configuration entropy in the $\Lambda$CDM and the dynamical dark energy models: Can we distinguish one from the other?

    B. Das and B. Pandey, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482(2019) no.3, 3219-3226 doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2873 [arXiv:1810.07729 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2873 2019

  24. [24]

    C. E. Shannon, Bell Syst. Tech. J.27(1948), 379–423, 623–656, doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

    doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x 1948

  25. [25]

    A. G. Adameet al.[DESI], JCAP02(2025), 021 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 [arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  26. [26]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, A. Dwomoh, D. O. Jones, N. Ali, P. Charvu and R. Chen,et al. Astrophys. J.938(2022) no.2, 113 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a [arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a 2022

  27. [27]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A. G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perlmutter and P. Ruiz- Lapuente,et al.Astrophys. J.986(2025) no.2, 231 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5 [arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5 2025

  28. [28]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.[DES], Astrophys. J. Lett.973(2024) no.1, L14 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f [arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024

  29. [29]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and D. Stojkovic, JHEAp49(2026), 100428 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100428 [arXiv:2404.08633 [astro-ph.CO]]

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100428 2026

  30. [30]

    G. N. Gadbail, S. Mandal and P. K. Sahoo, Astrophys. J.972(2024) no.2, 174 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cf4 [arXiv:2404.13095 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cf4 2024

  31. [31]

    Gaztanaga, A

    E. Gaztanaga, A. Cabre and L. Hui, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.399(2009), 1663-1680 doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2009.15405.x [arXiv:0807.3551 [astro-ph]]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2009

  32. [32]

    A. Oka, S. Saito, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya and K. Yamamoto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.439(2014), 2515-2530 doi:10.1093/mnras/stu111 [arXiv:1310.2820 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stu111 2014

  33. [33]

    Hu and N

    W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J.471(1996), 542-570 doi:10.1086/177989 [arXiv:astro-ph/9510117 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/177989 1996

  34. [34]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125(2013), 306–312, doi:10.1086/670067 [arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  35. [35]

    Lewis, JCAP08(2025), 025 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 [arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]]

    A. Lewis, JCAP08(2025), 025 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 [arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 2025

  36. [36]

    de Cruz Perez, C

    J. de Cruz Perez, C. G. Park and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.2, 023506 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023506 [arXiv:2404.19194 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.023506 2024