Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 69 references

DESI DR2 data strongly disfavor the DGP braneworld model; it lowers H0 further and cannot fit BAO plus CMB together.

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

2026-07-13 04:27 UTC pith:MVXLCIYZ

load-bearing objection Clean DESI-DR2 update that tightens DGP limits and shows a clear geometric mismatch with CMB; incremental but solid bookkeeping, not a tension-solver. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09240 v1 pith:MVXLCIYZ submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Cosmological Constraints on the DGP Model in light of DESI DR2 2025 Data

Xinyi Dai , Yupeng Yang , Yicheng Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc PACS 98.80.Es04.50.Kd95.36.+x
keywords DGP braneworldDESI DR2baryon acoustic oscillationsHubble tensionmodified gravitycosmic chronometersCMB distance priorstransition redshift
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.

This paper updates constraints on the Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati (DGP) braneworld model, a modified-gravity idea in which gravity leaks into an extra dimension and can drive late-time acceleration without a cosmological constant. Using the newest DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements together with cosmic chronometers, Type Ia supernovae, and Planck CMB distance priors, the authors find that both flat and non-flat versions of DGP prefer a Hubble constant around 63–64 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}—lower than the Planck ΛCDM value—and therefore worsen rather than ease the Hubble tension. The model is also statistically ruled out relative to ΛCDM by large AIC penalties, mainly because it cannot simultaneously satisfy the DESI BAO and CMB geometric constraints. The work therefore consolidates earlier hints into a sharper, data-driven assessment that the standard DGP framework is not viable under current high-precision observations.

Core claim

Joint analysis of DESI DR2 BAO with CC, SNIa and CMB distance priors yields H0 = 64.05 ± 0.27 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, Ωm = 0.3264 ± 0.0043 and Ωk = 0.0088 ± 0.0016 (non-flat DGP) or H0 = 63.28 ± 0.25 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} and Ωm = 0.3303 ± 0.0036 (flat DGP). Both cases give ΔAIC ≳ 100 relative to ΛCDM, driven by the model’s inability to fit DESI BAO and CMB distance priors at once, and produce a delayed transition to acceleration at zt ≃ 0.41.

What carries the argument

The modified Friedmann equation of the DGP braneworld, H^{2} = H0^{2} [Ωk(1+z)^{2} + (√Ωrc + √(Ωrc + Ωm(1+z)^{3} + Ωr(1+z)^{4}))^{2}], together with a self-consistent sound-horizon calibration rd = rs that keeps the BAO and CMB rulers physically linked.

Load-bearing premise

The compressed Planck CMB distance priors remain unbiased when the background expansion is replaced by the DGP Friedmann equation; if the early-universe sound-horizon mapping itself changes under DGP gravity, the large CMB χ^{2} that drives rejection could be overstated.

What would settle it

A full Boltzmann-code re-analysis of the Planck CMB spectra under the DGP background (instead of compressed distance priors) that either restores an acceptable joint fit with DESI BAO or confirms the large residual tension.

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

If this is right

  • Standard DGP is no longer a competitive geometric alternative to ΛCDM under present data.
  • Any viable braneworld extension must alter the early-time expansion or growth history enough to reconcile DESI BAO with CMB peaks.
  • The delayed acceleration (zt ≃ 0.41) and low H0 become fixed predictions that future SNIa and BAO surveys can further tighten.
  • Growth probes such as fσ8 will be decisive, because DGP predicts a suppressed growth rate from gravitational leakage.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The free-rd exercise that recovers a local-like H0 only by abandoning early-universe calibration shows that the Hubble tension and the DGP rejection are linked through the sound-horizon ruler.
  • The mild preference for open geometry (Ωk ≈ 0.009) is likely a geometric compensation for the wrong expansion history rather than a genuine curvature signal.
  • Once growth data are folded in, the tension with ΛCDM is expected to grow still larger because the leakage of gravity into the bulk suppresses structure growth.

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

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents updated MCMC constraints on flat and non-flat self-accelerating DGP braneworld cosmologies using DESI DR2 BAO, 32 cosmic chronometers, Pantheon SNIa, and Planck 2018 CMB distance priors (R, lA, ωb), with a self-consistent treatment of the sound horizon (rd = rs). For non-flat DGP they report H0 = 64.05 ± 0.27 km s−1 Mpc−1, Ωm = 0.3264 ± 0.0043, Ωk = 0.0088 ± 0.0016 (∼5.5σ from flatness within the model) and zt ≃ 0.41; for flat DGP, H0 = 63.28 ± 0.25 and Ωm = 0.3303 ± 0.0036. Relative to ΛCDM on the same data, both variants are strongly disfavored (ΔAIC ≈ +102 non-flat, +155 flat), driven mainly by large χ²_DESI and χ²_CMB. The authors conclude that DGP does not alleviate the Hubble tension and is not viable under current geometric constraints. Supporting analyses include three sound-horizon treatments, successive dataset combinations, q(z) reconstruction, and a comparison with earlier DGP constraints.

Significance. This is a timely, high-precision update of DGP constraints with DESI DR2. The central statistical claim (large ΔAIC against ΛCDM; H0 driven low) is clearly falsifiable and is supported by transparent χ² breakdowns (Table 1), contour plots, and a careful three-way comparison of rd treatments (Table 2). The self-consistent rd = rs baseline and the free-rd diagnostic are methodological strengths that make the rejection more robust than a single fixed-rd analysis. If the result holds, it consolidates earlier indications that pure geometric self-accelerating DGP cannot simultaneously fit modern BAO and CMB distance measures, and it provides sub-percent H0 and Ωrc errors that supersede many pre-DESI limits. The work is incremental rather than conceptually novel, but it is a useful consolidated assessment for the modified-gravity literature.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. 3.4 and Sec. 4.2 (and Table 1): The rejection is driven in large part by χ²_CMB (19.2 non-flat; 72.5 flat). The compressed Planck 2018 distance priors (R, lA, ωb) are derived under a standard early-universe and ΛCDM-like mapping. While the self-consistent rd = rs treatment and the free-rd diagnostic partially address calibration, the manuscript should add an explicit discussion of residual model dependence of the compressed likelihood under a DGP background (e.g., whether the shift-parameter and acoustic-scale definitions remain unbiased when H(z) is replaced by Eq. 3). A short quantitative caveat or reference to full Boltzmann/DGP analyses would make the large ΔAIC claim more secure.
  2. Abstract and Sec. 5: The statement that current observations “strongly disfavor the DGP framework” is based solely on geometric probes (BAO, SN, CC, CMB distances). DGP also predicts a distinctive, suppressed growth rate. The abstract and conclusions should state more carefully that the disfavoring is from expansion-history constraints alone, and that growth-based probes (fσ8, weak lensing) remain an independent and necessary test. The present wording slightly overstates the scope of the geometric result.
minor comments (8)
  1. Abstract: missing space after the period before “By incorporating the latest high-precision DESI observations…”.
  2. Notation: H0 units appear inconsistently as “kms−1Mpc−1”, “km s−1Mpc−1”, and “kms−1 Mpc−1”. Standardize to “km s−1 Mpc−1” throughout (including figure captions and tables).
  3. Sec. 3.3: Pantheon (1048 SNe) is used rather than Pantheon+ or DESY5. A brief justification for retaining Pantheon (or a note that results are expected to be robust) would help readers comparing with contemporary DESI analyses.
  4. Eq. (5) and Sec. 4.4: The non-flat transition redshift is quoted as zt ≃ 0.41 (and later with asymmetric errors in the comparison section) but the numerical root-finding procedure for q(z) = 0 is not described. A short sentence on how zt and its uncertainty are obtained would improve reproducibility.
  5. Fig. 4: The q(z) curves lack uncertainty bands. Even approximate 1σ envelopes from the posterior would make the delayed-acceleration claim more quantitative.
  6. Table 4: Several older entries report very different Ωk (e.g. Guo et al. −0.35). A one-sentence remark that those constraints used much weaker data would prevent misreading the table as tension among modern analyses.
  7. Sec. 2: The self-accelerating branch is used without mentioning the well-known ghost issue. A brief footnote acknowledging the theoretical caveat (while noting that the paper tests the phenomenological expansion history) would be appropriate for a gravity-oriented readership.
  8. References: a few arXiv-only or very recent entries (e.g. 2026-dated items) should be checked for final journal citations before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard MCMC constraints of the DGP Friedmann equation against independent external datasets, with model comparison via χ²/AIC.

full rationale

The paper takes the standard DGP modified Friedmann equation (Eq. 3, with normalization Eq. 4) from the literature, treats its free parameters (Ωm, Ωrc, H0, Ωk, Ωbh^{2}) as free under uniform priors, and samples the joint posterior against four external, independent probes (DESI DR2 BAO, CC, Pantheon SNIa, Planck 2018 distance priors) via MCMC. The reported best-fit values, contours, transition redshift zt, and q(z) reconstruction are ordinary posterior summaries of that fit; none is a ‘prediction’ that reduces by construction to a fitted constant. Model rejection rests on the large excess χ^{2} (especially χ^{2}_CMB and χ^{2}_DESI) and ΔAIC relative to ΛCDM on the identical data combination (Table 1); this is a direct statistical comparison, not a self-referential derivation. The three sound-horizon treatments in Sec. 4.2 are presented as diagnostics, not as the baseline result. Self-citations appear only for prior DGP constraints or methodological details and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits no circular steps of the enumerated kinds.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper imports the standard DGP braneworld Friedmann equation and the usual FLRW + BAO/CMB/SNIa likelihood machinery. All cosmological densities and H0 are free parameters fitted to data; no new physical entities are postulated. The only non-standard modeling choice is the self-consistent computation of rd inside the DGP background.

free parameters (5)
  • H0 = 64.05 ± 0.27 (non-flat); 63.28 ± 0.25 (flat) km s−1 Mpc−1
    Fitted Hubble constant; central value and error are the main reported results for both flat and non-flat cases.
  • Ωm = 0.3264 ± 0.0043 (non-flat); 0.3303 ± 0.0036 (flat)
    Matter density parameter, free in the MCMC with uniform prior (0,1).
  • Ωk = 0.0088 ± 0.0016
    Spatial curvature, free only in the non-flat run; drives the mild open-universe preference.
  • Ωrc = 0.1114 ± 0.0016 (non-flat); 0.1121 ± 0.0013 (flat)
    DGP crossover-scale density, free parameter that sets the strength of the 5D leakage.
  • Ωb h² = 0.02303 ± 0.00017 (non-flat); 0.02367 ± 0.00014 (flat)
    Physical baryon density, free and constrained mainly by the CMB priors.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The DGP modified Friedmann equation (Eq. 3) correctly describes the background expansion of a 4D brane in a 5D Minkowski bulk.
    Taken as given from the original Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati papers and used throughout Sec. 2 without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Compressed Planck 2018 distance priors (R, lA, ωb) remain a sufficient and unbiased summary of CMB information when the late-time expansion is DGP rather than ΛCDM.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.4; common practice but not rigorously re-validated for DGP.
  • ad hoc to paper The sound horizon at drag and at decoupling can be identified (rd ≃ rs) inside the same DGP background for joint BAO+CMB analyses.
    Explicitly chosen as the baseline treatment in Sec. 4.2 after comparing free-rd and fixed-rd alternatives.
  • standard math Standard FLRW metric and the usual definitions of luminosity distance, sound horizon, and deceleration parameter apply.
    Used from Eq. 1 onward; textbook cosmology.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25248 in / 2838 out tokens · 34580 ms · 2026-07-13T04:27:32.940345+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present updated constraints on both flat and non-flat Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) cosmological models using the latest baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Data Release 2 (DESI DR2), in combination with cosmic chronometer (CC), Type Ia supernova (SNIa), and cosmic microwave background (CMB) distance priors. For the non-flat DGP model, we obtain $H_0 = 64.05 \pm 0.27\, \rm{kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}}$, $\Omega_m = 0.3264 \pm 0.0043$, and $\Omega_k = 0.0088 \pm 0.0016$, corresponding to a transition redshift $z_t \sim 0.41$. For the flat case, the constraints are $H_0 = 63.28 \pm 0.25\, \rm{kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}}$ and $\Omega_m = 0.3303 \pm 0.0036$. In both scenarios, the inferred Hubble constant is significantly lower than the Planck $\mathrm{\Lambda}$CDM value, indicating that the DGP framework does not alleviate the Hubble tension. Current observations strongly disfavor the DGP framework, primarily due to its inability to simultaneously accommodate DESI BAO and CMB constraints.By incorporating the latest high-precision DESI observations within a unified analysis framework, this work provides updated and more stringent limits on the DGP scenario, offering a consolidated assessment of its viability in the context of current cosmological data.

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

69 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Perlmutter, et al., Measurements ofΩand Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae

    S. Perlmutter, et al., Measurements ofΩand Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae. Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586 (1999).https://doi.org/10.1086/ 307221. arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, et al., Discovery of a supernova ex- plosion at half the age of the Universe and its cos- mological implications

    S. Perlmutter, et al., Discovery of a supernova ex- plosion at half the age of the Universe and its cos- mological implications. Nature391, 51–54 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/34124. arXiv:astro- ph/9712212

    doi:10.1038/34124 1998

  3. [3]

    Riess, et al., Observational evidence from su- pernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmo- logical constant

    A.G. Riess, et al., Observational evidence from su- pernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmo- logical constant. Astron. J.116, 1009–1038 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1086/300499. arXiv:astro- ph/9805201 11

    doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  4. [4]

    Caldwell, M

    R.R. Caldwell, M. Doran, Cosmic microwave back- ground and supernova constraints on quintessence: Concordance regions and target models. Phys. Rev. D69, 103517 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.69.103517. arXiv:astro-ph/0305334

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    Huang, B

    Z.Y. Huang, B. Wang, E. Abdalla, R.K. Su, Holo- graphic explanation of wide-angle power correlation suppression in the cosmic microwave background ra- diation. JCAP05, 013 (2006). https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/05/013. arXiv:hep- th/0501059

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/05/013 2006

  6. [6]

    Alam, et al., The clustering of galaxies in the com- pleted SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample

    S. Alam, et al., The clustering of galaxies in the com- pleted SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.470(3), 2617– 2652 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stx721. arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2017

  7. [7]

    Jimenez, A

    R. Jimenez, A. Loeb, Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages. Astrophys. J.573, 37–42 (2002).https://doi.org/10.1086/ 340549. arXiv:astro-ph/0106145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Pinho, S

    A.M. Pinho, S. Casas, L. Amendola, Model- independent reconstruction of the linear anisotropic stress η. JCAP11, 027 (2018). https: //doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/027. arXiv:1805.00027 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/027 2018

  9. [9]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Dynam- ics of dark energy. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753–1936 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1142/ S021827180600942X. arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1936

  10. [11]

    Riess, et al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1Mpc−1Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team

    A.G. Riess, et al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1Mpc−1Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team. Astrophys. J. Lett.934(1), L7 (2022). https://doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b. arXiv:2112.04510 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [12]

    Guo, J.F

    R.Y. Guo, J.F. Zhang, X. Zhang, Can theH0 ten- sion be resolved in extensions toΛCDM cosmology? JCAP02, 054 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2019/02/054. arXiv:1809.02340 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [13]

    T.N. Li, G.H. Du, S.H. Zhou, Y.H. Li, J.F. Zhang, X. Zhang, Robust evidence for dynamical dark en- ergy in light of DESI DR2 and joint ACT, SPT, and Planck data. Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102254 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2026. 102254. arXiv:2511.22512 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2026 2026

  13. [14]

    M. Li, X. Li, X. Zhang, Comparison of dark en- ergy models: A perspective from the latest ob- servational data. Sci. China Phys. Mech. As- tron.53, 1631–1645 (2010).https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11433-010-4083-1. arXiv:0912.3988 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [16]

    X. Dai, Y. Yang, Y. Wang, Y. Qu, S. Yi, F. Wang, Redshift evolution of the Hubble constant: Con- straints and new insights from an interacting dark energy model. Phys. Rev. D113(6), 063514 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1103/zg3l-yt32. arXiv:2602.22840 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/zg3l-yt32 2026

  15. [17]

    Y. Wang, Y. Yang, X. Dai, S. Yi, Y. Qu, F. Wang, Cosmological constraints on the big bang quantum cosmology model. Phys. Rev. D113(6), 063551 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1103/k1nl-rxsy. arXiv:2603.25999 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/k1nl-rxsy 2026

  16. [19]

    J.P. Hu, F.Y. Wang, Hubble Tension: The Evi- dence of New Physics. Universe9(2), 94 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe9020094. arXiv:2302.05709 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3390/universe9020094 2023

  17. [20]

    Yang, Constraining deviations fromΛCDM in the Hubble expansion rate

    Y. Yang, Constraining deviations fromΛCDM in the Hubble expansion rate. Eur. Phys. J. C85(11), 1350 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-025-15088-8. arXiv:2508.17848 [astro- ph.CO]

    doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2025

  18. [21]

    T.N. Li, P.J. Wu, G.H. Du, Y.H. Yao, J.F. Zhang, X. Zhang, Exploring non-cold dark mat- ter in the scenario of dynamical dark energy with DESI DR2 data. Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102068 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025. 102068. arXiv:2507.07798 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025 2025

  19. [24]

    Koussour, M

    M. Koussour, M. Bennai, On a Bianchi type-I space-time with bulk viscosity in f(R,T) gravity. International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics19(3), 2250038-54 (2022). https: //doi.org/10.1142/S0219887822500384

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219887822500384 2022

  20. [25]

    Koussour, M

    M. Koussour, M. Bennai, Cosmological models with cubically varying deceleration parameter in f(R, T) gravity. Afr. Math.33(1), 27 (2022).https://doi. org/10.1007/s13370-022-00964-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s13370-022-00964-3 2022

  21. [26]

    Cosmic strings in $f\left(R,L_m\right)$ gravity

    T. Harko, M.J. Lake, Cosmic strings inf(R,L m) gravity. Eur. Phys. J. C75(2), 60 (2015).https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3287-y. arXiv:1409.8454 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3287-y 2015

  22. [27]

    Koussour, A.H.A

    M. Koussour, A.H.A. Alfedeel, S. Muminov, J. Rayimbaev, Observational constraints on viscous cosmology in f(T, Lm) grav- ity. JHEAp52, 100578 (2026). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2026.100578. arXiv:2603.20561 [physics.gen-ph]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2026.100578 2026

  23. [29]

    Koussour, S.H

    M. Koussour, S.H. Shekh, M. Bennai, N. Myrza- kulov, Anisotropic f(Q) gravity model with bulk viscosity. Mod. Phys. Lett. A39(08), 2450023 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0217732324500238. arXiv:2203.10954 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [30]

    Quintessence-like features in the late-time cosmological evolution of $f(Q)$ symmetric teleparallel gravity

    N. Myrzakulov, M. Koussour, A. Mussatayeva, Quintessence-like features in the late-time cos- mological evolution of f(Q) symmetric telepar- allel gravity. Chin. J. Phys.85, 345–358 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2023. 07.003. arXiv:2308.15101 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2023 2023

  25. [31]

    Koussour, A

    M. Koussour, A. Altaibayeva, S. Bekov, S. Muminov, I. Davletov, J. Rayimbaev, Bulk viscous matter in extended symmetric teleparallel Weyl-type f(Q,T) gravity. Annals Phys.481, 170199 (2025). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2025.170199

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170199 2025

  26. [32]

    Lin, X.H

    R.H. Lin, X.H. Zhai, Spherically symmetric config- uration in f(Q)gravity. Phys. Rev. D103(12), 124001 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.124001. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 069902 (2022)]. arXiv:2105.01484 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [34]

    Koussour, N

    M. Koussour, N. Myrzakulov, M.K.M. Ali, Explor- ing Universe acceleration through observational constraints via Hubble parameter reconstruction. JHEAp42, 96–103 (2024). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.04.003. arXiv:2404.03362 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.04.003 2024

  28. [35]

    Modeling cosmic acceleration with a generalized varying deceleration parameter

    M. Koussour, N. Myrzakulov, A.H.A. Alfedeel, F. Awad, M. Bennai, Modeling cosmic accel- eration with a generalized varying deceleration parameter. Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101339 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2023. 101339. arXiv:2309.14498 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023 2023

  29. [36]

    Dvali, G

    G.R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, Gravity on a brane in infinite volume extra space. Phys. Rev. D63, 065007 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.63. 065007. arXiv:hep-th/0008054

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.63 2001

  30. [37]

    The Phenomenology of Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati Cosmologies

    A. Lue, The phenomenology of dvali-gabadadze- porrati cosmologies. Phys. Rept.423, 1–48 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep. 2005.10.007. arXiv:astro-ph/0510068

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep 2006

  31. [38]

    Accelerating universe from gravitational leakage into extra dimensions: confrontation with SNeIa

    Z.H. Zhu, J.S. Alcaniz, Accelerating universe from gravitational leakage into extra dimensions: Con- frontation with SNeIa. Astrophys. J.620, 7– 11 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1086/427061. arXiv:astro-ph/0404201

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/427061 2005

  32. [39]

    Guo, Z.H

    Z.K. Guo, Z.H. Zhu, J.S. Alcaniz, Y.Z. Zhang, Con- straints on the dgp model from recent supernova observations and baryon acoustic oscillations. As- trophys. J.646, 1–7 (2006).https://doi.org/10. 1086/504831. arXiv:astro-ph/0603632

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  33. [40]

    Liang, Z.H

    N. Liang, Z.H. Zhu, Cosmological constraints on the dgp braneworld model with gamma-ray bursts. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 11(5), 497–506 (2011). https://doi.org/10. 1088/1674-4527/11/5/001. URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1674-4527/11/5/001

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/5/001 2011

  34. [41]

    Movahed, M

    M.S. Movahed, M. Farhang, S. Rahvar, Re- cent Observational Constraints on the DGP Modified Gravity. Int. J. Theor. Phys.48, 1203–1230 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10773-008-9894-8. arXiv:astro-ph/0701339

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [42]

    Barger, Y

    V. Barger, Y. Gao, D. Marfatia, Accelerating cosmologies tested by distance measures. Phys. Lett. B648, 127–132 (2007). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.03.021. arXiv:astro- ph/0611775

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.03.021 2007

  36. [43]

    L. Xu, Y. Wang, Cosmic Constraint to DGP Brane Model: Geometrical and Dynamical Perspectives. Phys.Rev.D82,043503(2010). https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.043503. arXiv:1006.4889 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.043503 2010

  37. [44]

    Supernovae, CMB, and Gravitational Leakage into Extra Dimensions

    C. Deffayet, S.J. Landau, J. Raux, M. Zaldarriaga, P. Astier, Supernovae, CMB, and gravitational leak- age into extra dimensions. Phys. Rev. D66, 024019 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66. 024019. arXiv:astro-ph/0201164 13

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.66 2002

  38. [45]

    Cao, Z.H

    S. Cao, Z.H. Zhu, R. Zhao, Testing and selecting dark energy models with lens redshift data. Phys. Rev. D84, 023005 (2011). https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.84.023005. URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.023005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.023005 2011

  39. [47]

    Z.H. Zhu, M. Sereno, Testing the DGP model with gravitational lensing statistics. Astron. Astrophys. 487, 831–835 (2008).https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361:200809386. arXiv:0804.2917 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [48]

    S. Cao, G. Covone, Z.H. Zhu, Testing the dark en- ergy with gravitational lensing statistics. The Astro- physical Journal755(1), 31 (2012). https://doi. org/10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/31. URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/31 2012

  41. [49]

    T. Liu, S. Cao, J. Zhang, S. Geng, Y. Liu, X. Ji, Z.H. Zhu, Implications from simulated strong grav- itational lensing systems: constraining cosmologi- cal parameters using Gaussian Processes. Astro- phys. J.886, 94 (2019). https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/ab4bc3. arXiv:1910.02592 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [50]

    Abdul Karim, et al., DESI DR2 results

    M. Abdul Karim, et al., DESI DR2 results. II. Mea- surements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cos- mological constraints. Phys. Rev. D112(8), 083515 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/tr6y-kpc6. arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  43. [51]

    Testing f(R)-gravity models with DESI DR2 2025-BAO and other cosmological data

    F. Plaza, L. Kraiselburd, Testingf(R)-gravity mod- els with DESI DR2 2025-BAO and other cos- mological data. Phys. Rev. D112(2), 023554 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/gtrg-56fj. arXiv:2504.05432 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/gtrg-56fj 2025

  44. [52]

    Escamilla, D

    L.A. Escamilla, D. Fiorucci, G. Montani, E. Di Valentino, Exploring the Hubble ten- sion with a late time Modified Gravity scenario. Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101652 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2024.101652. arXiv:2408.04354 [astro-ph.CO]

    doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101652 2024

  45. [53]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. Kunz, Modified gravity inter- pretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI data. Phys. Rev. D110(12), 123524 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 110.123524. arXiv:2407.02558 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd 2024

  46. [54]

    Deffayet, Cosmology on a brane in Minkowski bulk

    C. Deffayet, Cosmology on a brane in Minkowski bulk. Phys. Lett. B502, 199–208 (2001).https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00160-5. arXiv:hep-th/0010186

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(01)00160-5 2001

  47. [55]

    Deffayet, G.R

    C. Deffayet, G.R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, Accelerated universe from gravity leaking to extra dimensions. Phys. Rev. D65, 044023 (2002). https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.044023. arXiv:astro- ph/0105068

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.65.044023 2002

  48. [56]

    Koussour, N

    M. Koussour, N. Myrzakulov, J. Rayimbaev, Cos- mological constraints on time-varying cosmologi- cal terms: A study of FLRW universe models with Λ(t)CDM cosmology. Adv. Space Res.74, 1343– 1351 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr. 2024.04.045. arXiv:2404.15982 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.asr 2024

  49. [57]

    Zhu, M.K

    Z.H. Zhu, M.K. Fujimoto, Constraints on Cardas- sianscenariofromtheexpansionturnaroundredshift and the Sunyaev-Zeldovich / x-ray data. Astrophys. J.602, 12–17 (2004).https://doi.org/10.1086/ 380991. arXiv:astro-ph/0312022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  50. [58]

    A Supernova Brane Scan

    P.P. Avelino, C.J.A.P. Martins, A Supernova brane scan. Astrophys. J.565, 661 (2002). https://doi. org/10.1086/323832. arXiv:astro-ph/0106274

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/323832 2002

  51. [59]

    Turner, A.G

    M.S. Turner, A.G. Riess, Do SNe Ia provide direct evidence for past deceleration of the universe? As- trophys. J.569, 18 (2002). https://doi.org/10. 1086/338580. arXiv:astro-ph/0106051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  52. [60]

    Eisenstein, W

    D.J. Eisenstein, W. Hu, Baryonic features in the matter transfer function. Astrophys. J.496, 605 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1086/305424. arXiv:astro-ph/9709112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/305424 1998

  53. [61]

    Wong, Cosmological parameters from large scale structure - geometric versus shape information

    J.Hamann,S.Hannestad,J.Lesgourgues,C.Rampf, Y.Y.Y. Wong, Cosmological parameters from large scale structure - geometric versus shape information. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2010(7), 022 (2010).https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2010/07/022. arXiv:1003.3999 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [62]

    Moresco, et al., Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes

    M. Moresco, et al., Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes. Living Rev. Rel. 25(1), 6 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s41114-022-00040-z. arXiv:2201.07241 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [63]

    Y. Yang, X. Dai, Y. Wang, New cosmological con- straints on the evolution of dark matter energy den- sity. Phys. Rev. D111(10), 103534 (2025).https: //doi.org/10.1103/8ync-vrtz. arXiv:2505.09879 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/8ync-vrtz 2025

  56. [64]

    Scolnic, et al., The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample

    D.M. Scolnic, et al., The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample. Astro- phys. J.859(2), 101 (2018). https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/aab9bb. arXiv:1710.00845 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [65]

    Y. Gong, X. Chen, Two Component Model of Dark Energy. Phys. Rev. D76, 123007 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76. 123007. arXiv:0708.2977 [astro-ph] 14

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.76 2007

  58. [66]

    Nesseris, L

    S. Nesseris, L. Perivolaropoulos, Comparison of the legacy and gold type ia supernovae dataset con- straints on dark energy models. Phys. Rev. D 72, 123519 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.72.123519. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.123519

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.123519 2005

  59. [69]

    W. Hu, N. Sugiyama, Small scale cosmological per- turbations: An Analytic approach. Astrophys. J. 471, 542–570 (1996).https://doi.org/10.1086/ 177989. arXiv:astro-ph/9510117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  60. [71]

    Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification

    H. Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19(6), 716–723 (1974).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 1974

  61. [73]

    Dainotti, A

    M.G. Dainotti, A. Lenart, G. Sarracino, S. Nagataki, S. Capozziello, N. Fraija, The X-ray fundamen- tal plane of the Platinum Sample, the Kilonovae and the SNe Ib/c associated with GRBs. Astro- phys. J.904(2), 97 (2020). https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/abbe8a. arXiv:2010.02092 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [74]

    G. Ryan, H. van Eerten, L. Piro, E. Troja, Gamma- Ray Burst Afterglows in the Multimessenger Era: Numerical Models and Closure Relations. Astro- phys. J.896(2), 166 (2020). https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/ab93cf. arXiv:1909.11691 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [75]

    B.Zhang,Thephysicsoffastradiobursts. Rev.Mod. Phys.95(3), 035005 (2023). https://doi.org/10. 1103/RevModPhys.95.035005. arXiv:2212.03972 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [76]

    Bochenek, V

    C.D. Bochenek, V. Ravi, K.V. Belov, G. Hallinan, J. Kocz, S.R. Kulkarni, D.L. McKenna, A fast radio burst associated with a Galactic magnetar. Na- ture587(7832), 59–62 (2020).https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x. arXiv:2005.10828 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  65. [77]

    Freedman, B.F

    W.L. Freedman, B.F. Madore, T.J. Hoyt, I.S. Jang, A.J.Lee,K.A.Owens,StatusReportontheChicago- Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes. Astrophys. J.985(2), 203 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ adce78. arXiv:2408.06153 [astro-ph.CO]

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

  66. [78]

    Rácz, et al., Euclid preparation - LXIII

    G. Rácz, et al., Euclid preparation - LXIII. Simulations and non-linearities beyond Lambda cold dark matter. 2. Results from non-standard simulations. Astron. Astrophys.695, A232 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202452185. arXiv:2409.03523 [astro-ph.CO]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2025

  67. [79]

    Scognamiglio, J.H

    D. Scognamiglio, J.H. Lee, E. Huff, S.R. Hilde- brandt, S. Hemmati, Denoising Diffusion Proba- bilistic Model for Realistic and Fast Generated Euclid-like Data for Weak Lensing Analysis. As- trophys. J.985(1), 2 (2025).https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/adcec4. arXiv:2504.07183 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [80]

    S. Alam, et al., Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmolog- ical implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory. Phys. Rev. D103(8), 083533 (2021). https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533. arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083533 2021

  69. [81]

    Adame, et al., DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape galaxy clustering from galaxies and quasars

    A.G. Adame, et al., DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape galaxy clustering from galaxies and quasars. JCAP09, 008 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2025/09/008. [Erratum: JCAP 02, E02 (2026)]. arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2024