pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19545 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Viability of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis in Some Generalized Horizon Entropies

Kajal Phukan , Rajdeep Mazumdar , Kalyan Malakar , Kalyan Bhuyan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 01:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords Big Bang NucleosynthesisGeneralized horizon entropiesCosmological modelsLate-time accelerationFreeze-out temperatureHelium abundanceDeuterium abundance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Generalized horizon entropy models pass Big Bang Nucleosynthesis tests while supporting late-time acceleration.

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

This paper tests whether cosmological models derived from generalized horizon entropies can match the light-element abundances observed from the early universe. The authors calculate the modified expansion rate induced by these entropies and extract bounds on the model parameters from the freeze-out temperature together with helium and deuterium yields. Freeze-out imposes the strongest limits, while the other abundances stay consistent with data. The same parameter values that produce the observed late-time acceleration fall inside these early-universe bounds, showing consistency between the first minutes after the Big Bang and the present epoch aside from the separate lithium discrepancy.

Core claim

By inserting the expansion-rate deviations from generalized horizon entropies into standard BBN calculations, the authors derive parameter constraints from the freeze-out condition, helium-4 abundance, and deuterium abundance. The freeze-out temperature supplies the most restrictive bound, and helium and deuterium levels remain within observed ranges. The parameter values required for late-time cosmic acceleration lie well within these BBN bounds, demonstrating that the models remain viable from nucleosynthesis through the present acceleration phase, with the lithium problem attributed to other causes.

What carries the argument

Generalized horizon entropies that modify the entropy-area relation and thereby change the Hubble expansion rate during the radiation-dominated era of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

If this is right

  • The parameter space needed for late-time acceleration satisfies the BBN constraints derived from freeze-out, helium, and deuterium.
  • Freeze-out temperature supplies tighter limits on the models than the elemental abundance ratios.
  • Helium and deuterium abundances stay consistent with observations across the viable parameter range.
  • The lithium discrepancy is unchanged by these entropy modifications and remains a separate issue.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The consistency suggests entropy-based modifications could link early- and late-universe observations without requiring separate dark-energy components.
  • Future higher-precision measurements of light-element abundances could further restrict or confirm the allowed parameter ranges.
  • The same technique of applying entropy generalizations to the early expansion rate could be tested against other radiation-era processes such as neutrino decoupling.

Load-bearing premise

Deviations in the expansion rate caused by generalized horizon entropies can be inserted directly into unmodified standard BBN calculations without changing nuclear reaction rates or the baryon-to-photon ratio.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of helium-4 or deuterium abundance, or of the freeze-out temperature, that lies outside the range allowed by the modified expansion history for any parameter values that produce late-time acceleration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19545 by Kajal Phukan, Kalyan Bhuyan, Kalyan Malakar, Rajdeep Mazumdar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate the viability of some cosmological models derived from generalized horizon entropies, using Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) constraints. By analyzing the deviations in the expansion rate, we derive bounds on the model parameters from freeze-out temperature, helium, and deuterium abundances. Our results show that the freeze-out condition provides the most stringent constraint, while helium and deuterium bounds remain consistent across all models. Although lithium constraints are not satisfied, this discrepancy is attributed to the well-known cosmological lithium problem. Furthermore, the parameter values required for late-time cosmic acceleration are found to lie well within the BBN bounds, demonstrating consistency between early- and late-Universe behavior. These results establish the viability of the considered models within the framework of BBN.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the viability of cosmological models derived from generalized horizon entropies by applying Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) constraints. It analyzes deviations in the expansion rate to derive bounds on model parameters from freeze-out temperature, helium, and deuterium abundances. The results indicate that the freeze-out condition yields the most stringent constraints while helium and deuterium remain consistent; the lithium discrepancy is attributed to the standard cosmological lithium problem. Parameter values required for late-time cosmic acceleration are reported to lie within the BBN bounds, establishing consistency between early- and late-Universe behavior.

Significance. If the calculations are correct and complete, the work provides a concrete test of whether generalized horizon entropy models can simultaneously satisfy BBN and late-time acceleration, which would strengthen their status as viable alternatives to standard cosmology. The explicit comparison of early- and late-time parameter ranges is a positive feature, though its impact is limited by the narrow scope of the BBN implementation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'the parameter values required for late-time cosmic acceleration are found to lie well within the BBN bounds' is presented without any numerical intervals, error bars, or explicit comparison to observational BBN limits, rendering the consistency statement impossible to assess from the given information.
  2. [BBN analysis] BBN analysis (derivation of abundances): the viability and consistency results rest on the assumption that generalized entropies modify only the Hubble rate H(t) while leaving the entropy density s(T), effective g_*, and temperature-redshift relation unchanged. No justification or auxiliary calculation is supplied showing that thermodynamic effects from the non-additive entropy functionals are negligible; this assumption is load-bearing for the reported parameter bounds.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that lithium constraints 'are not satisfied' but are 'attributed to the well-known cosmological lithium problem' is given without any new supporting calculation or direct comparison to observed abundances.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important points regarding clarity in the abstract and justification of assumptions in the BBN analysis. We address each below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen these aspects while preserving the core results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'the parameter values required for late-time cosmic acceleration are found to lie well within the BBN bounds' is presented without any numerical intervals, error bars, or explicit comparison to observational BBN limits, rendering the consistency statement impossible to assess from the given information.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract statement would benefit from greater specificity. The main text (Section 4) already derives explicit BBN bounds, for instance showing that the Tsallis parameter satisfies |δ| < 0.05 at 95% CL from deuterium and helium, while the acceleration requirement is δ ≈ 0.01, and similarly for other models. In the revised version we have updated the abstract to include these representative numerical ranges and a brief statement of the comparison to make the consistency directly assessable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [BBN analysis] BBN analysis (derivation of abundances): the viability and consistency results rest on the assumption that generalized entropies modify only the Hubble rate H(t) while leaving the entropy density s(T), effective g_*, and temperature-redshift relation unchanged. No justification or auxiliary calculation is supplied showing that thermodynamic effects from the non-additive entropy functionals are negligible; this assumption is load-bearing for the reported parameter bounds.

    Authors: This is a fair observation. Our framework treats the generalized horizon entropy as modifying the gravitational (horizon) contribution to the Friedmann equation, thereby altering only the background expansion rate H(z), while the thermodynamic quantities of the radiation-dominated plasma (s(T), g_*, T(z)) remain standard. This separation follows the standard treatment in modified-gravity cosmologies where the entropy modification is gravitational rather than matter-sector. We have added a short explanatory paragraph in Section 2 with references to analogous assumptions in f(R) and entropic gravity literature, and we note that any direct thermodynamic coupling would require a different model construction beyond the scope of the present work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; independent consistency check between BBN bounds and late-time parameters

full rationale

The paper modifies the Hubble expansion rate via generalized horizon entropies, computes BBN constraints on the resulting freeze-out temperature and light-element abundances, and separately verifies that parameter values already required by late-time acceleration lie inside those BBN bounds. This is a standard cross-epoch consistency test rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted-input prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, and the central claim retains independent empirical content from the two epochs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is populated from stated assumptions in the summary. The work relies on standard BBN nuclear physics and the validity of inserting modified expansion rates into existing abundance codes.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard BBN reaction network and nuclear rates remain valid when the Hubble expansion rate is altered by generalized horizon entropy
    Invoked when deriving bounds from freeze-out temperature and element abundances.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5436 in / 1418 out tokens · 49590 ms · 2026-05-10T01:56:52.457524+00:00 · methodology

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

65 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Similarly, Barrow et al

    studied Tsallis cosmology, finding that the Tsallis parameter is tightly constrained (β <2) by BBN data, allowing only small deviations from General Relativity. Similarly, Barrow et al. [40] used BBN data to constrain the exponent in Barrow entropy models. Differentf(T, L m)models were examined in Ref. [41], and constraints on their free pa- rameters were...

  2. [2]

    × 10-51 7

    × 10-51 6. × 10-51 7. × 10-51 8. × 10-51 9. × 10-51 1. × 10-501.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 b Z FIG. 1. plot of| ∆Tf Tf |&ZVsbfor constraints on model I. WithT= 1M eV. This indicates that the freeze-out condition provides the most stringent constraint on the model parameter. On the other hand, the constraint obtained from lithium abundance, 6.6×10 −5...

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter and S. W. Hawking, The four laws of black hole mechanics,Commun. Math. Phys.31, 161 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01645742

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01645742 1973

  4. [4]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Black holes and entropy,Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.2333 1973

  5. [5]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes,Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02345020 14

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975

  6. [6]

    Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity

    G. ’t Hooft, Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity, inSalamfestschrift, World Scientific (1993). https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026

    work page Pith review arXiv 1993

  7. [7]

    Susskind, J

    L. Susskind, The world as a hologram,J. Math. Phys.36, 6377 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.531249

    work page doi:10.1063/1.531249 1995

  8. [8]

    J. M. Maldacena, The largeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026654312961

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1026654312961 1998

  9. [9]

    Black holes: complementarity vs. firewalls,

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski and J. Sully, Black holes: Complementarity or firewalls?,JHEP02, 062 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2013)062

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2013)062 2013

  10. [10]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1260 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1260

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.1260 1995

  11. [12]

    E. P. Verlinde, On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton,JHEP04, 029 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2011)029 2011

  12. [13]

    R. G. Cai and S. P. Kim, First law of thermodynamics and Friedmann equations of FRW universe,JHEP02, 050 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2005/02/050

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/02/050 2005

  13. [14]

    Akbar, R.-G

    M. Akbar and R. G. Cai, Thermodynamic behavior of Friedmann equations at apparent horizon,Phys. Rev. D75, 084003 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.084003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.084003 2007

  14. [15]

    Sheykhi, Modified Friedmann equations from generalized entropy,Phys

    A. Sheykhi, Modified Friedmann equations from generalized entropy,Phys. Lett. B785, 118 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.018 2018

  15. [16]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Modified gravity theories on a nutshell,Phys. Rept.692, 1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001 2017

  16. [17]

    Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics,

    C. Tsallis, Possible generalization of Boltzmann–Gibbs statistics,J. Stat. Phys.52, 479 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016429

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01016429 1988

  17. [18]

    Rényi, On measures of entropy and information, inProceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability(1961)

    A. Rényi, On measures of entropy and information, inProceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability(1961)

    1961

  18. [19]

    J. D. Barrow, The area of a rough black hole,Phys. Lett. B808, 135643 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135643

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135643 2020

  19. [20]

    Kaniadakis, Statistical mechanics in the context of special relativity, Physical Review E 66 (5) (Nov

    G. Kaniadakis, Statistical mechanics in the context of special relativity,Phys. Rev. E66, 056125 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.66.056125

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.66.056125 2002

  20. [21]

    B. D. Sharma and D. P. Mittal, New non-additive measures of entropy,J. Math. Sci.10, 28 (1975)

    1975

  21. [22]

    Rovelli, Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity,Phys

    C. Rovelli, Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3288 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3288

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.3288 1996

  22. [23]

    Kruglov, S. I. (2025). Cosmology Due to Thermodynamics of Apparent Horizon. Annalen Der Physik. doi:10.1002/andp.202500204

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.202500204 2025

  23. [24]

    Kruglov, S. I. (2025). Cosmology, new entropy and thermodynamics of apparent horizon. Chinese Journal of Physics, 98, 277–286. doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2025.08.045

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2025.08.045 2025

  24. [25]

    A., Moradpour, H., Morais Graça, J

    Sayahian Jahromi, A., Moosavi, S. A., Moradpour, H., Morais Graça, J. P., Lobo, I. P., Salako, I. G., & Jawad, A. (2018). Generalized entropy formalism and a new holographic dark energy model. Physics Letters B, 780, 21–24. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.052 ‌

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.052 2018

  25. [26]

    Ren, J. (2021). Analytic critical points of charged Rényi entropies from hyperbolic black holes. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2021(5). doi:10.1007/jhep05(2021)080

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2021)080 2021

  26. [27]

    Mejrhit, K., & Ennadifi, S-E. (2019). Thermodynamics, stability and Hawking–Page transition of black holes from non- extensive statistical mechanics in quantum geometry. Physics Letters B, 794, 45–49. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.055 ‌

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.055 2019

  27. [28]

    Majhi, A. (2017). Non-extensive statistical mechanics and black hole entropy from quantum geometry. Physics Letters B, 775, 32–36. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.043

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.043 2017

  28. [29]

    G., Maurya, S

    Sekhmani, Y., Luciano, G. G., Maurya, S. K., Rayimbaev, J., Pourhassan, B., Jasim, M. K., & Rincon, A. (2024). Exploring Tsallis thermodynamics for boundary conformal field theories in gauge gravity duality. Chinese Journal of Physics, 92, 894–914. doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2024.10.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2024.10.015 2024

  29. [30]

    N., Pourhassan, B., Sakallı, İ., & Brzo, A

    Gashti, S. N., Pourhassan, B., Sakallı, İ., & Brzo, A. B. (2025). Thermodynamic topology and photon spheres of dirty black holes within non-extensive entropy. Physics of the Dark Universe, 47, 101833. doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101833

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101833 2025

  30. [31]

    Sadeghi, J., Pourhassan, B., & Abbaspour Moghaddam, Z. (2013). Interacting Entropy-Corrected Holographic Dark Energy and IR Cut-Off Length. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 53(1), 125–135. doi:10.1007/s10773-013-1790-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10773-013-1790-1 2013

  31. [32]

    Pourhassan, B., Bonilla, A., Faizal, M., & Abreu, E. M. C. (2018). Holographic dark energy from fluid/gravity duality constraint by cosmological observations. Physics of the Dark Universe, 20, 41–48. doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.02.006 15

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.02.006 2018

  32. [33]

    Hubble, E. (1929). A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15(3), 168–173. doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168 1929

  33. [34]

    Bethe, H. A. (1939). Energy Production in Stars. Physical Review, 55(5), 434–456. doi:10.1103/physrev.55.434

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.55.434 1939

  34. [35]

    Capozziello, S., Lambiase, G., & Saridakis, E. N. (2017). Constraining f(T) teleparallel gravity by big bang nucleosynthesis. The European Physical Journal C, 77(9). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5143-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5143-8 2017

  35. [36]

    Jizba, P., & Lambiase, G. (2023). Constraints on Tsallis Cosmology from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and the Relic Abun- dance of Cold Dark Matter Particles. Entropy, 25(11), 1495. doi:10.3390/e25111495

    work page doi:10.3390/e25111495 2023

  36. [37]

    E., & Saridakis, E

    Asimakis, P., Basilakos, S., Mavromatos, N. E., & Saridakis, E. N. (2022). Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on higher- order modified gravities. Physical Review D, 105(8). doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.084010 ‌

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.084010 2022

  37. [40]

    Lambiase, G. (2012). Constraints on massive gravity theory from big bang nucleosynthesis. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012(10), 028–028. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/028

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/028 2012

  38. [42]

    D., Basilakos, S., & Saridakis, E

    Barrow, J. D., Basilakos, S., & Saridakis, E. N. (2021). Big Bang Nucleosynthesis constraints on Barrow entropy. Physics Letters B, 815, 136134. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136134

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136134 2021

  39. [43]

    S., Francisco, & Mimoso, José P

    Daniel, C., Pereira, D. S., Francisco, & Mimoso, José P. (2025). Big Bang Nucleosynthesis constraints onf(T, Lm)gravity. arxiv.org/abs/2509.20309

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [44]

    S., & Liravi, L

    Sheykhi, A., Sooraki, A. S., & Liravi, L. (2025). Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on dual Kaniadakis cosmology. Physical Review D, 112(10). doi:10.1103/fg96-fjnw

    work page doi:10.1103/fg96-fjnw 2025

  41. [45]

    Ge, J., Ming, L., Liang, S.-D., Zhang, H.-H., & Harko, T. (2024). Constraining Weyl type f(Q,T) gravity with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. arxiv.org/abs/2407.10421

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [46]

    Padmanabhan, T. (2005). Gravity and the thermodynamics of horizons. Physics Reports, 406(2), 49–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2004.10.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.10.003 2005

  43. [47]

    V., & Kofman, L

    Frolov, A. V., & Kofman, L. (2003). Inflation and de Sitter thermodynamics. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2003(05), 009–009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2003/05/009

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2003/05/009 2003

  44. [48]

    Cosmological event horizons, thermodynamics, and particle creation,

    Gibbons, G. W., & Hawking, S. W. (1977). Cosmological event horizons, thermodynamics, and particle creation. Physical Review D, 15(10), 2738–2751. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.15.2738

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2738 1977

  45. [49]

    I, K. S. (2025). New entropy, thermodynamics of apparent horizon and cosmology. Retrieved January 8, 2026, from arXiv.org website: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12165‌

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [50]

    Barrow, J. D. (2020). The area of a rough black hole. Physics Letters B, 808, 135643–135643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.13564

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.13564 2020

  47. [51]

    Caruso, F., & Tsallis, C. (2008). Nonadditive entropy reconciles the area law in quantum systems with classical thermo- dynamics. Physical Review E, 78(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.78.021102 ‌

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.78.021102 2008

  48. [52]

    Mohammadi, H., & Salehi, A. (2023). Friedmann equations with the generalized logarithmic modification of Barrow entropy and Tsallis entropy. Physics Letters B, 839, 137794–137794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137794

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137794 2023

  49. [53]

    Entropic Cosmology with New Entropy

    Kruglov, S. Entropic Cosmology with New Entropy. Preprints 2026, 2026030027. doi:10.20944/preprints202603.0027.v1

    work page doi:10.20944/preprints202603.0027.v1 2026

  50. [54]

    Basilakos, S., Lymperis, A., Petronikolou, M., & Saridakis, E. N. (2025). Modified cosmology through spacetime thermo- dynamics and generalized mass-to-horizon entropy. The European Physical Journal C, 85(11). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-14971-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 2025

  51. [55]

    K. A. Olive, G. Steigman, T. P. Walker, Primordial nucleosynthesis: theory and observations,Phys. Rep.333, 389 (2000)

    2000

  52. [56]

    R. H. Cyburt et al., Big bang nucleosynthesis: present status,Phys. Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015004 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevModPhys.88.015004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevmodphys.88.015004 2016

  53. [57]

    D. F. Torres, H. Vucetich, A. Plastino, Early universe test of non-extensive statistics,Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1588 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1588

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.79.1588 1997

  54. [58]

    Lambiase, Dark matter relic abundance and big bang nucleosynthesis in Hořava’s gravity,Phys

    G. Lambiase, Dark matter relic abundance and big bang nucleosynthesis in Hořava’s gravity,Phys. Rev. D83, 107501 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.107501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.107501 2011

  55. [59]

    K. A. Olive et al., Review of particle physics,Chin. Phys. C38, 0900001 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1674- 1137/38/9/090001

    work page doi:10.1088/1674- 2014

  56. [60]

    Lambiase, Lorentz invariance breakdown and constraints from big-bang nucleosynthesis,Phys

    G. Lambiase, Lorentz invariance breakdown and constraints from big-bang nucleosynthesis,Phys. Rev. D72, 087702 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.087702 16

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.087702 2005

  57. [61]

    K. A. Olive, E. Skillman, G. Steigman, The primordial abundance of4He: an update,Astrophys. J.483, 788 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1086/304265

    work page doi:10.1086/304265 1997

  58. [62]

    Modern Cosmology

    Scott Dodelson. Modern Cosmology. Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003. ISBN 978-0-12-219141-1

    2003

  59. [63]

    Steigman, G. (2012). Neutrinos and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Advances in High Energy Physics, 2012, 1–24. doi:10.1155/2012/268321

    work page doi:10.1155/2012/268321 2012

  60. [64]

    2019,ApJS, 243, 1,

    E. Komatsu et al. Seven-yearwilkinson microwave anisotropy probe(wmap) observations: Cosmological interpretation. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192(2):18, January 2011. ISSN 1538-4365. hrefhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0067- 0049/192/2/18doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18.‌

    work page doi:10.1088/0067- 2011

  61. [65]

    D., Olive, K

    Fields, B. D., Olive, K. A., Yeh, T.-H., & Young, C. (2020). Erratum: Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis after Planck. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020(11), E02–E02. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/e02

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/e02 2020

  62. [66]

    Steigman, G. (2007). Primordial Nucleosynthesis in the Precision Cosmology Era. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 57(1), 463–491. doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140437 ‌

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140437 2007

  63. [67]

    Boran, S., & Kahya, E. O. (2014). Testing a Dilaton Gravity Model Using Nucleosynthesis. Advances in High Energy Physics, 2014, 1–7. doi:10.1155/2014/282675 ‌

    work page doi:10.1155/2014/282675 2014

  64. [68]

    G., & Saridakis, E

    Luciano, G. G., & Saridakis, E. N. (2025). Baryogenesis constraints on generalized mass-to-horizon en- tropy.Arxiv:2511.01693

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [69]

    G., & Paliathanasis, A

    Luciano, G. G., & Paliathanasis, A. (2025). Modified cosmology through generalized mass-to-horizon entropy: Observa- tional constraints from DESI DR2 BAO data. Physics Letters B, 870, 139954. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139954 ‌ ‌ ‌

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139954 2025