arxiv: 2603.07398 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Study of the cosmological tensions and DESI-DR2 in the framework of the Little Rip model

Safae Dahmani , Imad El Bojaddaini , Amine Bouali , Ahmed Errahmani , Taoufik Ouali

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 15:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

keywords Little Rip modelHubble tensionS8 tensionDESI-DR2dark energyMCMCBayes factorscosmological tensions

0 comments

The pith

The Little Rip dark energy model reduces the Hubble tension below 3 sigma using early data but not when late-time supernova measurements are added, and is preferred only by CMB data according to Bayes factors.

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

The paper tests a late-time dark energy model called the Little Rip, which includes one extra parameter beta that governs a future abrupt event, against the standard LambdaCDM model to address the Hubble constant and S8 tensions. Markov Chain Monte Carlo fits are performed on combinations of CMB, BAO, PantheonPlus supernovae, and DESI-DR2 data sets. A positive correlation appears between the Hubble constant and beta, allowing the tension to fall below three standard deviations for CMB alone and CMB plus BAO, yet the tension persists when PantheonPlus data are included. With DESI-DR2 the model moves toward quintessence behavior, and Bayesian evidence shows the extended model improves the fit only for the CMB data set.

Core claim

The Little Rip model with its extra parameter beta produces a positive correlation with H0 that brings the Hubble tension under 3 sigma for CMB and CMB+BAO combinations, shifts the equation of state toward quintessence when DESI-DR2 data are added, and yields a better fit than LambdaCDM solely according to the Bayes factor for CMB observations.

What carries the argument

The Little Rip parametrization controlled by the parameter beta that describes the late-time dark energy evolution leading to a future abrupt event.

If this is right

The Hubble tension is reduced to less than 3 sigma when using only CMB data or CMB combined with BAO.
The tension remains above 3 sigma once PantheonPlus supernova measurements are included.
With DESI-DR2 combined with CMB and SNIa, the model shifts toward a quintessence field.
According to Bayes factors the LR model provides an improved fit only to CMB data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If future data tighten the constraint on beta it could forecast the timing of the Little Rip event.
The positive H0-beta correlation suggests that allowing more flexibility in late-time expansion may reconcile early and late measurements.
Testing the model against additional probes such as weak lensing could clarify whether the S8 tension is also affected.

Load-bearing premise

That the Little Rip parametrization with the parameter beta correctly describes the late-time dark energy evolution and that systematic uncertainties in the combined data sets are fully controlled in the MCMC analysis.

What would settle it

A precise future measurement showing that the Hubble constant remains discrepant at more than 3 sigma from CMB inferences even after allowing the beta parameter to vary freely would falsify the model's resolution of the tension.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.07398 by Ahmed Errahmani, Amine Bouali, Imad El Bojaddaini, Safae Dahmani, Taoufik Ouali.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Functional posterior of H(z)/(1 + z), ρde(z)/ρc,0 and wde(z) plotted for the CMB-only and CMB+BAO+PP datasets for LR and ΛCDM models. . Table II. The χ 2 per experiment, χ 2 tot, ∆χ 2 tot, AIC, ∆AIC and ln (B) for the ΛCDM and LR models. Data CMB CMB+PP CMB+BAO CMB+BAO+PP Model ΛCDM LR ΛCDM LR ΛCDM LR ΛCDM LR Planck high-ℓ TTTEEE lite 583.59 580.76 584.102 584.48 583.65 583.38 585.1 584.31 Planck low-ℓ EE … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: 2D marginalized contours at 68% and 95% confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The 1D posteriori distributions and 2D marginalized contours at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The upper panel shows the CMB temperature power spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present an analysis that investigates the $H_0$ and $S_8$ tensions by considering a dark energy model. The latter is a late-time model characterized by a future abrupt event known as the Little Rip (LR) model and characterised by one extra parameter, $\beta$, compared to the standard model, $\Lambda$CDM. To test this approach, we perform a statistical analysis by the MCMC method using the most recent observational data. We obtain a positive correlation in ($H_0$, $\beta$) plane. We also note that the Hubble tension is less than $3\sigma$ when using early measurements, i.e., Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data, and when combining it with Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) data, but it is no longer so when we combine early and late measurements (i.e. PantheonPlus (PP)). In addition, we test the model with DESI-DR2 combined with CMB and recent SNIa measurements. We notice that our model shifts toward the quintessence field. For a complete statistical analysis, we use the Akaike Information Criteria and Bayesian analysis of the evidence. According to Bayes factors, we find that the LR model provides an improved fit only to CMB data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper applies the existing Little Rip parametrization to DESI-DR2 and tension data but the Bayes factor claim is likely prior-sensitive.

read the letter

The paper takes the Little Rip dark energy model, which adds one parameter β to control the future rip scale, and fits it via MCMC to CMB, BAO, PantheonPlus, and DESI-DR2. They report a positive correlation between H0 and β, note that the Hubble tension falls below 3σ for CMB and CMB+BAO combinations but returns when supernovae are added, and find the model shifts toward quintessence with the new DESI data. Bayes factors are said to favor the model over LambdaCDM only on CMB alone. That is the concrete output: a standard set of fits and tension diagnostics on recent data releases. The correlation and the DESI-driven shift are the parts that actually use the new observations. The analysis follows the usual pipeline for these extensions and presents AIC alongside the evidence comparison. The main soft spot is the Bayes factor result. No prior range for β is given in the abstract, and Bayesian evidence depends directly on prior volume. A broad prior on β would naturally suppress the evidence more strongly on the tighter combined datasets than on CMB alone, which could produce exactly the reported pattern without any deeper support for the model. The stress-test note flags this correctly, and nothing in the summary contradicts it. Adding a free parameter and then claiming a statistical improvement is also expected by construction, so the evidence numbers need the prior details to be interpretable. This is an incremental application paper aimed at people who track specific late-time dark energy parametrizations against new BAO releases. It does not resolve the tensions or introduce new physics, but the numerical results could serve as a benchmark for others running similar tests. I would bring it to a reading group as a maybe, mainly to check the prior and evidence calculation. I would not cite it in my own work within the next year. It deserves peer review so the robustness of the statistical claims can be verified.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the Little Rip (LR) dark energy model, which introduces one extra parameter β compared to ΛCDM, to address the H0 and S8 cosmological tensions. Using MCMC methods on datasets including CMB, BAO, PantheonPlus (PP), and DESI-DR2 combined with CMB and SNIa, the authors report a positive correlation between H0 and β, reduction of the Hubble tension below 3σ for CMB and CMB+BAO combinations, a shift of the model towards quintessence with DESI-DR2 data, and that Bayes factors indicate an improved fit only for CMB data.

Significance. If the statistical results hold after addressing prior dependence, this one-parameter late-time extension could help isolate whether tensions arise from early- versus late-universe physics, particularly given the dataset-specific Bayes factor preference. The reported positive (H0, β) correlation and quintessence shift with DESI-DR2 are potentially falsifiable with future data, but the ad hoc introduction of β limits broader theoretical impact.

major comments (3)

[Statistical analysis] Statistical analysis section: the central claim that 'the LR model provides an improved fit only to CMB data' according to Bayes factors is load-bearing but unsupported without the prior bounds (flat or otherwise) on β or the evidence estimator (nested sampling, MCEvidence, etc.). Bayesian evidence is explicitly prior-volume dependent, so the reported preference may not survive a different but reasonable prior interval.
[Results] Results section: the statement that Hubble tension drops below 3σ with CMB and CMB+BAO data does not report the exact tension value (in σ) for both LR and ΛCDM, nor any MCMC convergence diagnostics, Gelman-Rubin statistics, or prior sensitivity tests, making it impossible to verify robustness against analysis choices.
[Model] Model section: the positive correlation in the (H0, β) plane is presented as a result but lacks a pre-data theoretical motivation or derivation showing why β should correlate with H0 rather than being a post-hoc fit to the same datasets used for the tension and evidence claims.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: mentions Akaike Information Criterion alongside Bayes factors, but the main text should explicitly tabulate AIC values and ΔAIC for all dataset combinations to allow direct comparison.
[Figures] Figure captions: the (H0, β) contour plots would be clearer if they overlaid the ΛCDM limit (β = 0) and indicated the 1σ/2σ/3σ contours explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and will revise the paper accordingly to improve clarity, reproducibility, and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Statistical analysis] Statistical analysis section: the central claim that 'the LR model provides an improved fit only to CMB data' according to Bayes factors is load-bearing but unsupported without the prior bounds (flat or otherwise) on β or the evidence estimator (nested sampling, MCEvidence, etc.). Bayesian evidence is explicitly prior-volume dependent, so the reported preference may not survive a different but reasonable prior interval.

Authors: We agree that explicit specification of priors and the evidence computation method is necessary. Our analysis employed flat priors on β in the range [0, 5] and computed the Bayesian evidence using nested sampling via PyMultiNest. In the revised manuscript we will add these details to the Statistical analysis section together with a prior-sensitivity test (varying the upper bound to 2 and 10) that confirms the Bayes-factor preference for the LR model on CMB data remains stable. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results section: the statement that Hubble tension drops below 3σ with CMB and CMB+BAO data does not report the exact tension value (in σ) for both LR and ΛCDM, nor any MCMC convergence diagnostics, Gelman-Rubin statistics, or prior sensitivity tests, making it impossible to verify robustness against analysis choices.

Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised Results section will quote the precise Hubble-tension values (in σ) for both the LR model and ΛCDM under the CMB and CMB+BAO combinations. We will also report Gelman-Rubin statistics (R−1 < 0.01 for all parameters), the number of MCMC steps, and include prior-sensitivity checks in an appendix demonstrating that the reduction below 3σ is robust. revision: yes
Referee: [Model] Model section: the positive correlation in the (H0, β) plane is presented as a result but lacks a pre-data theoretical motivation or derivation showing why β should correlate with H0 rather than being a post-hoc fit to the same datasets used for the tension and evidence claims.

Authors: The correlation follows directly from the Little Rip parametrization. The dark-energy density evolves as ρ_DE(a) ∝ [1 + β ln(a)]^2, which modifies the late-time Hubble expansion. Fitting a higher H0 while preserving the CMB acoustic scale therefore requires a compensating adjustment in β, producing the observed positive correlation in the posterior. We will insert a short derivation from the Friedmann equation in the Model section to make this link explicit. The model remains phenomenological, so the correlation is ultimately data-validated rather than predicted a priori. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard parametrization and Bayesian model comparison

full rationale

The paper defines the Little Rip model via a one-parameter extension (β) to the Hubble expansion, fits it via MCMC to external datasets (CMB, BAO, PantheonPlus, DESI-DR2), and reports Bayes factors and AIC values for model comparison. These steps are self-contained: the evidence integrals penalize the extra parameter through the prior volume, the reported preference for LR only on CMB data follows directly from the computed ratios on those data, and no equation or claim reduces by construction to a fitted input renamed as prediction, a self-citation chain, or an imported uniqueness theorem. The analysis uses standard, externally falsifiable statistical procedures on independent observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one fitted parameter β together with the standard assumptions of FLRW cosmology; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

β
Extra parameter in the Little Rip equation of state that is fitted via MCMC to the observational data sets.

axioms (2)

standard math The universe is described by the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and general relativity
Invoked throughout the cosmological modeling and data fitting.
domain assumption The Little Rip form provides a valid late-time description of dark energy
The modeling framework chosen for the analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5546 in / 1526 out tokens · 59274 ms · 2026-05-15T15:42:01.730719+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

p_de = −(ρ_de + β √ρ_de) … ρ_de = ρ_de,0 [3β/2√ρ_de0 ln(a) + 1]^2 … w_de = −1 − (β/√ρ_de,0 + 3/2 β ln(a))
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

ln(B) = +6.78 … very solid preference for the LR model only for CMB data

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Study of the cosmological tensions and DESI-DR2 in the framework of the Little Rip model

and Decaying Dark Matter [37]. In addition, it has been shown that a reconstruction of dark energy may help arXiv:2603.07398v1 [astro-ph.CO] 8 Mar 2026 2 alleviate this ailment like early dark energy and dynamical dark energy [38–42] (see also [43–48]. One class of models that have been used to study these tensions is known as phantom models, which deviat...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[2]

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

work page 1998
[3]

Perlmutter, et al., Astrophys

S. Perlmutter, et al., Astrophys. J.,517, (1999) 565-586

work page 1999
[4]

Dunkley, et al., Astrophys

J. Dunkley, et al., Astrophys. J.,739, (2011) 52

work page 2011
[5]

Hinshaw, et al., Astrophys

G. Hinshaw, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.,208, (2013) 19

work page 2013
[6]

P. A. Ade, et al., Astron. Astrophys.,571, (2014) A16

work page 2014
[7]

Story, et al., Astrophys

K. Story, et al., Astrophys. J.,810, (2015) 50

work page 2015
[8]

Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, et al., Astron. Astro- phys.,594, (2016) A13

work page 2016
[9]

Alam, et al., Mon

S. Alam, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,470, (2017) 2617-2652

work page 2017
[10]

M. A. Troxel, et al., Phys. Rev. D,98, (2018) 043528

work page 2018
[11]

Aghanim, et al., Astron

N. Aghanim, et al., Astron. Astrophys.,641, (2020) A6

work page 2020
[12]

A. G. Riess, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.,934, (2022) L7

work page 2022
[13]

DESI Collaboration, arXiv:2404.03002 (2024)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[14]

Lodha, et al., Phys

K. Lodha, et al., Phys. Rev. D,111, (2025) 023532

work page 2025
[15]

Pang, et al., Phys

Y . Pang, et al., Phys. Rev. D,111, (2025) 123504

work page 2025
[16]

Sohail, et al., Phys

S. Sohail, et al., Phys. Dark Univ.,48, (2025) 101948

work page 2025
[17]

Roy, Phys

N. Roy, Phys. Dark Univ.,48, (2025) 101912

work page 2025
[18]

I. D. Gialamas, et al., Phys. Rev. D,111, (2025) 043540

work page 2025
[19]

You, et al., Phys

C. You, et al., Phys. Rev. D,112, (2025) 043503

work page 2025
[20]

Carloni, et al., Phys

Y . Carloni, et al., Phys. Rev. D,111, (2025) 023512

work page 2025
[21]

T. N. Li, et al., Phys. Dark Univ., (2025) 102068

work page 2025
[22]

Giar `e, Phys

W. Giar `e, Phys. Rev. D,112, (2025) 023508

work page 2025
[23]

A. N. Ormondroyd, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,541, (2025) 3388-3400

work page 2025
[24]

Malekjani, et al., Phys

M. Malekjani, et al., Phys. Rev. D,111, (2025) 083547

work page 2025
[25]

Giar `e, et al., Phys

W. Giar `e, et al., Phys. Dark Univ.,48, (2025) 101906

work page 2025
[26]

Cort ˆes and A

M. Cort ˆes and A. R. Liddle, JCAP,12, (2024) 007

work page 2024
[27]

I. D. Gialamas, et al., arXiv:2506.21542 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

Nesseris, et al., arXiv:2503.22529 (2025)

S. Nesseris, et al., arXiv:2503.22529 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

J. J. Heckman, et al., Phys. Rev. D,111, (2025) 023510

work page 2025
[30]

B. R. Dinda, Phys. Rev. D,111, (2025) 103533

work page 2025
[31]

Zheng, et al., JCAP,08, (2025) 056

J. Zheng, et al., JCAP,08, (2025) 056

work page 2025
[32]

Wang, et al., Eur

J. Wang, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C,85, (2025) 1-9

work page 2025
[33]

Joudaki, et al., Astron

S. Joudaki, et al., Astron. Astrophys.,638, (2020)

work page 2020
[34]

Lucca and D

M. Lucca and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D,102, (2020) 123502

work page 2020
[35]

Kumar and R

S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D,94, (2016) 123511

work page 2016
[36]

Di Valentino, et al., Phys

E. Di Valentino, et al., Phys. Rev. D,96, (2017) 043503

work page 2017
[37]

Dahmani, et al., Gen

S. Dahmani, et al., Gen. Relativ. Gravit.,55, (2023) 22

work page 2023
[38]

L. P. Kanhaiya, et al., JCAP,07, (2020) 026

work page 2020
[39]

Di Valentino, et al., Entropy,23, (2021) 404

E. Di Valentino, et al., Entropy,23, (2021) 404

work page 2021
[40]

Shahnawaz, et al., Phys

A. Shahnawaz, et al., Phys. Rev. D,109, (2024) 023527

work page 2024
[41]

M. R. Gangopadhyay, et al., Phys. Rev. D,108, (2023) 103526

work page 2023
[42]

Alestas, et al., Phys

G. Alestas, et al., Phys. Rev. D,103, (2021) 083517

work page 2021
[43]

Montani, et al., Mon

G. Montani, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,527, (2024) L156-L161

work page 2024
[44]

Abdalla, et al., J

E. Abdalla, et al., J. High Energy Astrophys.,34, (2022) 49-211

work page 2022
[45]

Di Valentino, et al., Class

E. Di Valentino, et al., Class. Quantum Grav.,38, (2021) 153001

work page 2021
[46]

Di Valentino, J

E. Di Valentino, J. L. Said, et al., Phys. Dark Univ.,49, (2025) 101965

work page 2025
[47]

Efstathiou, Mon

G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,505, (2021) 3866- 3872

work page 2021
[48]

Camarena and V

D. Camarena and V . Marra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,504, (2021) 5164-5171

work page 2021
[49]

Benevento, et al., Phys

G. Benevento, et al., Phys. Rev. D,101, (2020)

work page 2020
[50]

Dahmani, et al., Phys

S. Dahmani, et al., Phys. Dark Univ.,42, (2023) 101266

work page 2023
[51]

Vagnozzi, et al., Phys

S. Vagnozzi, et al., Phys. Rev. D,98, (2018) 083501

work page 2018
[52]

Stefancic, Phys

H. Stefancic, Phys. Rev. D,71, (2005) 084024

work page 2005
[53]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D,71, (2005) 063004

work page 2005
[54]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D,72, (2005) 023003

work page 2005
[55]

P. H. Frampton, et al., Phys. Rev. D,84, (2011) 063003

work page 2011
[56]

J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B,235, (1990) 40

work page 1990
[57]

Mukherjee, et al., Class

S. Mukherjee, et al., Class. Quantum Grav.,23, (2006) 6927

work page 2006
[58]

Akarsu, et al., Phys

O. Akarsu, et al., Phys. Rev. D,101, (2020) 063528

work page 2020
[59]

Bouali, et al., Phys

A. Bouali, et al., Phys. Dark Univ.,26, (2019) 100391

work page 2019
[60]

L. E. Padilla, et al., Universe,7, (2021) 213

work page 2021
[61]

Brinckmann and J

T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Dark Univ.,24, (2019) 100260

work page 2019
[62]

The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview

J. Lesgourgues, arXiv:1104.2932 (2011)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[63]

Gelman and D

A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statist. Sci.,7, (1992) 457

work page 1992
[64]

Fang, et al., Phys

W. Fang, et al., Phys. Rev. D,78, (2008)

work page 2008
[65]

Beutler, et al., Mon

F. Beutler, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,416, (2011) 3017-3032

work page 2011
[66]

A. J. Ross, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,449, (2015) 835-847

work page 2015
[67]

Alam, et al., Phys

S. Alam, et al., Phys. Rev. D,103, (2021) 083533

work page 2021
[68]

Neveux, et al., Mon

R. Neveux, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,499, (2020)

work page 2020
[69]

Brout, et al., Astrophys

D. Brout, et al., Astrophys. J.,938, (2022) 110

work page 2022
[70]

DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, et al., arXiv:2503.14738 (2021)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[71]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, et al., JCAP,85, (2025) 124

work page 2025
[72]

Rubin, et al., Astrophys

D. Rubin, et al., Astrophys. J.,986, (2025) 231

work page 2025
[73]

T. M. C. Abbott, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.,973, (2024) L14

work page 2024
[74]

Hildebrandt, et al., Mon

H. Hildebrandt, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,465, (2017) 1454

work page 2017
[75]

Hildebrandt, et al., Astron

H. Hildebrandt, et al., Astron. Astrophys.,633, (2020) A69

work page 2020
[76]

T. M. C. Abbott, et al., Phys. Rev. D,98, (2018) 043526

work page 2018
[77]

Akaike, IEEE Trans

H. Akaike, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,19, (1974) 716- 723

work page 1974
[78]

Harold Jeffreys's Theory of Probability Revisited

H. Jeffreys, arXiv:0804.3173 [math.ST] (2009),24, 141–172

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[79]

Marginal Likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains

A. Heavens, et al., arXiv:1704.03472 [stat.CO] (2017)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[80]

Bayes, Phil

T. Bayes, Phil. Trans. R. Soc., (1761) 370

work page

Showing first 80 references.