Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 105 references

Late-time DESI DR2 and supernova data leave three holographic dark energy models near ΛCDM and do not ease the Hubble tension.

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

2026-07-14 16:43 UTC pith:WB2QNHDB

load-bearing objection Solid late-time MCMC update of HDE/ADE/RDE with DESI DR2: none raise H0, HDE is the least awkward of the three, and the authors stay inside their data.

arxiv 2607.09732 v1 pith:WB2QNHDB submitted 2026-07-02 physics.gen-ph

Late-time cosmological constraints on three holographic dark energy models with DESI DR2 BAO and Type Ia supernovae

Jiayuan Huang , Tonghua Liu , Chenggang Shao This is my paper
classification physics.gen-ph
keywords holographic dark energyagegraphic dark energyRicci dark energyDESI DR2 BAOHubble tensionType Ia supernovaeredshift-space distortionslate-time cosmology
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 tests three dark energy models inspired by the holographic principle—holographic, agegraphic, and Ricci dark energy—against current late-time cosmic data only. The authors combine cosmic chronometers, three Type Ia supernova samples, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, and redshift-space distortion growth measurements, treating the sound horizon as free so early-universe priors are not imposed. They find that holographic dark energy is driven toward a near-de Sitter expansion, agegraphic dark energy sits at a stable age scale, and Ricci dark energy persistently prefers a low matter density. All three still give Hubble constants around 67–68 km/s/Mpc, close to early-universe inferences and far from the higher local ladder value. Information criteria do not show a decisive preference for any of them over the standard cosmological constant model. A sympathetic reader cares because these are among the few dynamical dark energy proposals with a clear physical cutoff scale, and the analysis asks whether that scale still looks necessary once DESI DR2 is included.

Core claim

When constrained by late-time H(z), SNe Ia, DESI DR2 BAO, and an RSD growth compilation with free sound horizon, none of the three holographic-inspired models significantly alleviates the Hubble tension. Holographic dark energy is driven to c ≃ 1 (near the de Sitter boundary), agegraphic dark energy to n ≃ 2.8, and Ricci dark energy to γ ≃ 0.53–0.55 with Ωm0 ≃ 0.215–0.219; holographic dark energy is the most balanced of the three, yet current data do not decisively prefer it over ΛCDM.

What carries the argument

The holographic cutoff construction itself: dark energy density is set by an infrared scale (future event horizon for HDE, conformal age for ADE, Ricci scalar for RDE), which fixes the functional form of E(z) and wde(z) once a single dimensionless parameter is chosen, then fitted jointly with free rd via MCMC.

Load-bearing premise

The growth check uses only the standard general-relativistic linear growth equation with free present-day fluctuation amplitude and is not a full stability analysis of how these dark energy models actually perturb.

What would settle it

A joint analysis that includes CMB likelihoods plus full linear perturbations for the same three models: if the preferred late-time solutions (especially RDE’s low matter density and high fitted σ8,0) become incompatible with the CMB and growth spectrum, or if holographic dark energy is no longer near c = 1, the claim that late-time data leave them near ΛCDM without easing the Hubble tension would be overturned.

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a late-time Bayesian MCMC analysis of three holographic-inspired dark energy models (HDE, ADE, RDE) using cosmic chronometers, three SNe Ia compilations (Pantheon+, DES-Dovekie, DESY5), DESI DR2 BAO, and an extended RSD fσ8 compilation. Five data combinations are studied, with rd free in BAO-included runs and σ8,0 free only when RSD is included. Posteriors (Table II) show HDE driven to c≃1 with H0≃67–68 km s−1 Mpc−1 and Ωm0≃0.27, ADE with n≃2.8 and slightly lower H0, and RDE with γ≃0.53–0.55 but persistently low Ωm0≃0.215–0.219. The authors reconstruct wde(z), quantify the H0–rd degeneracy, report AIC/BIC relative to ΛCDM, and conclude that none of the models significantly alleviates the Hubble tension and that late-time data do not decisively prefer them over ΛCDM, with HDE the most balanced of the three.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a clean, carefully scoped late-time comparison of three standard holographic DE constructions against current DESI DR2 BAO and modern SNe samples. Strengths include free-rd treatment (avoiding CMB sound-horizon priors), full CC and SN covariance matrices, explicit ΛCDM baselines for the same combinations, transparent reporting of ΔAIC/ΔBIC, and explicit labeling of the RSD analysis as a growth consistency check rather than a full perturbation-level stability test. The work is useful as a phenomenological benchmark for the community and correctly refrains from overclaiming resolution of the Hubble tension or decisive preference over ΛCDM.

minor comments (5)
  1. In Sec. III.D and IV.C the authors correctly state that the RSD analysis uses the standard GR linear growth equation (Eq. 32) and is not a full perturbative stability analysis, especially for RDE. A single clarifying sentence in the abstract or conclusions restating that the reported σ8,0 values are nuisance amplitudes for the adopted growth data (not model predictions from a complete DE perturbation sector) would further reduce possible misreading.
  2. Table II: for ADE the Ωm0 column is blank by construction (fixed by flatness and E(0)=1). A brief footnote or table note stating that Ωm0 is derived rather than free would help readers scanning the table.
  3. Fig. 4 and Table IV: the derived weffa is a low-redshift CPL projection with w0 fixed, not a free CPL fit. The text already says this; ensuring the table caption repeats the caveat would make the comparison with DESI CPL discussions harder to misinterpret.
  4. Minor typographical/formatting issues: “Observational Data” and “Statistical Methodology” appear with spaced letters in the section heading; “DESI R2” once appears instead of “DESI DR2”; and a few references (e.g. the DES-Dovekie arXiv entry) may need final bibliographic polishing.
  5. The extended RSD compilation is heterogeneous. A short sentence listing which points enter the covariance (or a reference to the exact compilation used) would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: independently defined holographic models are fitted to late-time data; derived w_de(z) and weff_a are explicit projections of those fits, not tautologies.

full rationale

The paper defines HDE, ADE and RDE from standard holographic constructions (Eqs. 2–19: future-event-horizon cutoff, conformal age, Ricci scalar) that do not depend on the observational data sets. Free parameters (H0, Ωm0 or n/γ/c, rd, σ8,0) are sampled via MCMC against CC+SNe+DESI DR2 BAO (+RSD) combinations; posteriors, AIC/BIC differences, and reconstructed w_de(z) (Fig. 4) are ordinary outputs of that fit. The derived weff_a values (Table IV) are explicitly labeled low-redshift CPL projections of the model trajectories, not independent predictions. The H0–rd anti-correlation (Fig. 5) is the expected geometric degeneracy when rd is left free; the paper quantifies it and does not claim a CMB-calibrated H0. The RSD fσ8 check uses the standard GR growth equation with free σ8,0 and is repeatedly caveated as a consistency test only. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, load-bearing self-citation of an unproven uniqueness claim, or renaming of a known result appears. The analysis is a conventional late-time phenomenological comparison and is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is a standard late-time parameter-estimation exercise. All free parameters are the usual cosmological and model parameters fitted by MCMC; the axioms are the pre-existing holographic constructions plus flat FRW and linear GR growth. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • H0 = ≈66.5–68.0 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹ (BAO-included)
    Present-day Hubble constant; fitted freely in every combination (prior [50,90]).
  • Ωm0 = HDE ≈0.270–0.272; RDE ≈0.215–0.219
    Present matter density; free for HDE and RDE, derived for ADE.
  • c (HDE) = ≈0.99–1.09 (BAO-included)
    Holographic parameter controlling IR-cutoff strength; free prior [0.1,3].
  • n (ADE) = ≈2.78–2.81
    Agegraphic parameter; free prior [0.1,5].
  • γ (RDE) = ≈0.53–0.55
    Ricci-curvature coupling; free prior [0.01,1].
  • rd = ≈146.6–147.2 Mpc
    Sound-horizon scale treated as free late-time parameter (prior [130,160] Mpc).
  • σ8,0 = HDE 0.875; ADE 0.893; RDE 0.961
    Present fluctuation amplitude; free nuisance only in RSD combination.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FRW background with cold dark matter, radiation and dark energy.
    Stated at the opening of Sec. II; used for all E(z) expressions.
  • domain assumption Holographic dark-energy density ρde = 3c² Mp² L⁻² with L = future event horizon.
    Eq. (2) and following; taken from Li (2004).
  • domain assumption Agegraphic density ρde = 3n² Mp² η⁻² with η conformal time.
    Eq. (6); taken from Wei & Cai (2008).
  • domain assumption Ricci dark-energy density ρde = 3γ Mp² (Ḣ + 2H²).
    Eq. (12); taken from the RDE literature.
  • domain assumption Linear growth of matter perturbations obeys the standard GR equation (32).
    Sec. III.D; used for the fσ8 likelihood.
  • standard math AIC = χ²min + 2k and BIC = χ²min + k ln N are appropriate model-selection metrics.
    Sec. III.E; standard information criteria.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 27346 in / 3042 out tokens · 37670 ms · 2026-07-14T16:43:21.591323+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We constrain three holographic-inspired dark energy models, namely holographic dark energy (HDE), agegraphic dark energy (ADE), and Ricci dark energy (RDE), using late-time observations from cosmic chronometers, Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), and {redshift-space distortion (RSD) growth measurements}. Five data combinations are considered: $H(z)+$Pantheon+, $H(z)+$DESI DR2+Pantheon+, $H(z)+$DESI DR2+DES-Dovekie, $H(z)+$DESI DR2+DESY5, and {$H(z)+$DESI DR2+DES-Dovekie+RSD}. We perform Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo parameter estimation and compare the models with AIC and BIC. In the BAO-included combinations, HDE gives $H_0\simeq67.3$--$68.0~\mathrm{~km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$, $\Omega_{m0}\simeq0.270$--$0.272$, and $c\simeq1$, indicating an expansion history close to the de Sitter boundary rather than a robust phantom regime. ADE yields a stable agegraphic parameter $n\simeq2.78$--$2.81$, while RDE gives $\gamma\simeq0.53$--$0.55$ and persistently favors a low matter density, $\Omega_{m0}\simeq0.215$--$0.219$. {Treating $r_d$ as a free parameter reveals a strong negative correlation between $H_0$ and $r_d$, and the RSD-included combination provides a growth-level consistency check through $f\sigma_8(z)$ without constituting a full perturbative stability analysis.} None of the three models significantly alleviates the Hubble tension. Overall, HDE shows the most balanced phenomenological behavior among the three models, although current late-time data do not decisively prefer it over $\Lambda\text{CDM}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09732 by ChengGang Shao, Jiayuan Huang, Tonghua Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the 1σ and 2σ confidence contours of HDE for the five data combinations. The corresponding posterior constraints are summarized in Table II. For the first four data combinations, the constraints remain con￾sistent with the background-only results discussed above. For the H(z)+DESI DR2+DES-Dovekie+RSD combi￾nation, we obtain H0 = 67.860+1.534 −1.579 km s−1 Mpc−1 , Ωm0 = 0.270+0.009 −0.008, c = 1.011+0… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the confidence contours of ADE from different data combinations, with posterior constraints listed in Table II. For the first four data combinations, the constraints remain consistent with the background￾only results discussed above. For the H(z)+DESI DR2+DES-Dovekie+RSD combination, we obtain H0 = 66.734+1.591 −1.579 km s−1 Mpc−1 , n = 2.804+0.042 −0.042, rd = 147.075+3.529 −3.323 Mpc, and σ8,0 = 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: , with posterior constraints summarized in Ta￾ble II. For the first four data combinations, the constraints remain consistent with the background￾only results discussed above. For the H(z)+DESI DR2+DES-Dovekie+RSD combination, we obtain H0 = 67.822+1.655 −1.691 km s−1 Mpc−1 , Ωm0 = 0.216+0.007 −0.007, γ = 0.540+0.017 −0.017, rd = 146.988+3.563 −3.344 Mpc, and σ8,0 = 0.961+0.043 −0.041. Across all data comb… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Redshift evolution of the dark energy equation-of-state parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: RSD measurements of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

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

105 extracted references · 81 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchi- atti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, et al., Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998), astro-ph/9805201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goo- bar, D. E. Groom, et al., Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999), astro-ph/9812133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Lahav, Contemporary Physics61, 132 (2020), 2009.10177

    O. Lahav, Contemporary Physics61, 132 (2020), 2009.10177

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics61, 1 (1989)

    S. Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  5. [5]

    P. J. Steinhardt, inCritical Problems in Physics, edited by V. L. Fitch, D. R. Marlow, and M. A. E. Dementi (1997), p. 123

    1997

  6. [7]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., Astron. As- trophys.641, A6 (2020), 1807.06209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [8]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, G. S. Anand, L. Breuval, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), 2112.04510

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [9]

    D. W. Pesce, J. A. Braatz, M. J. Reid, A. G. Riess, D. Scolnic, J. J. Condon, F. Gao, C. Henkel, C. M. V. Impellizzeri, C. Y. Kuo, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.891, L1 (2020), 2001.09213

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [10]

    Birrer, A

    S. Birrer, A. J. Shajib, A. Galan, M. Millon, T. Treu, A. Agnello, M. Auger, G. C. F. Chen, L. Christensen, T. Collett, et al., Astron. Astrophys.643, A165 (2020), 2007.02941

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [11]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. Beaton, M. G. Lee, A. Monson, J. Neeley, and J. Rich, Astrophys. J.891, 57 (2020), 2002.01550

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [12]

    Di Valentino, L

    E. Di Valentino, L. A. Anchordoqui, ¨O. Akarsu, Y. Ali- Haimoud, L. Amendola, N. Arendse, M. Asgari, M. Bal- lardini, S. Basilakos, E. Battistelli, et al., Astroparticle Physics131, 102605 (2021), 2008.11284

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [13]

    Abdalla, G

    E. Abdalla, G. F. Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, ¨O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, D. Aloni, L. Amen- dola, L. A. Anchordoqui, et al., Journal of High Energy Astrophysics34, 49 (2022), 2203.06142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [14]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astronomy Re- views95, 101659 (2022), 2105.05208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [15]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 221301 (2019), 1811.04083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [16]

    S. M. Feeney, H. V. Peiris, A. R. Williamson, S. M. Nis- sanke, D. J. Mortlock, J. Alsing, and D. Scolnic, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 061105 (2019), 1802.03404

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [17]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Mon- tani, E. Rinaldi, and G. Lambiase, Astrophys. J.912, 150 (2021), 2103.02117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [18]

    K. Liao, A. Shafieloo, R. E. Keeley, and E. V. Linder, Astrophys. J. Lett.895, L29 (2020), 2002.10605

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [19]

    T. Liu, S. Cao, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D112, 123539 (2025), 2509.20898

    arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    T. Liu, S. Cao, M. Biesiada, and S. Geng, Astrophys. J. 939, 37 (2022), 2204.07365

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [21]

    A. L. Lenart, G. Bargiacchi, M. G. Dainotti, S. Na- gataki, and S. Capozziello, Astrophys. J., Suppl. Ser. 264, 46 (2023), 2211.10785

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [22]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astronomy 3, 891 (2019), 1907.10625

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [23]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Classical and Quantum Gravity38, 153001 (2021), 2103.01183

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [24]

    Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), 2308.16628

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), 2308.16628

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [25]

    Jedamzik and L

    K. Jedamzik and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 181302 (2020), 2004.09487

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [26]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.496, L91 (2020), 2002.06892

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [27]

    W. L. Freedman, Astrophys. J.919, 16 (2021), 2106.15656

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [28]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. An- drade, E. Armengaud, et al., JCAP2025, 021 (2025), 2404.03002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [30]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  29. [31]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), astro- ph/0208512

    arXiv 2003

  30. [32]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035 (2024), 2407.16689

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [33]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251003 (2024), 2404.15232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [34]

    Giar` e, Phys

    W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D112, 023508 (2025), 2409.17074. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [35]

    Li and X

    Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang, JCAP12, 018 (2025), 2506.18477

    arXiv 2025

  34. [36]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.- F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), 2407.14934

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [37]

    Jiang, W

    J.-Q. Jiang, W. Giar` e, S. Gariazzo, M. G. Dainotti, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP01, 153 (2025), 2407.18047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [38]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, P.-J. Wu, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 69, 210413 (2026), 2501.07361

    arXiv 2026

  37. [39]

    R. Shah, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2503.21652 (2025), 2503.21652

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [40]

    T.-N. Li, W. Giar` e, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, E. Di Valentino, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang (2026), 2601.07361

    arXiv 2026

  39. [41]

    Li and S

    J.-X. Li and S. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1308 (2025), 2506.22953

    arXiv 2025

  40. [42]

    Fazzari, W

    E. Fazzari, W. Giar` e, and E. Di Valentino, Astrophys. J. Lett.996, L5 (2026), 2509.16196

    arXiv 2026

  41. [43]

    ¨Oz¨ ulker, E

    E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, E. Di Valentino, and W. Giar` e (2025), 2506.19053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [44]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Fer- reira, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), 2504.07679

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [45]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D113, 023551 (2026), 2509.17586

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [46]

    Du, T.-N

    G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang (2025), 2507.16589

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [47]

    Du, T.-N

    G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, T. Liu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang (2026), 2602.03110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [48]

    E. M. Teixeira, W. Giar` e, N. B. Hogg, T. Montandon, A. Poudou, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D112, 023515 (2025), 2504.10464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [49]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102121 (2025), 2509.04496

    arXiv 2025

  48. [50]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen, and L. Visinelli, JCAP09, 031 (2025), 2505.02932

    arXiv 2025

  49. [51]

    Silva, M

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), 2503.23225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [52]

    Pedrotti, L

    D. Pedrotti, L. A. Escamilla, V. Marra, L. Perivolaropoulos, and S. Vagnozzi (2025), 2510.01974

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [53]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao (2026), 2601.06656

    arXiv 2026

  52. [54]

    Zhou, T.-N

    S.-H. Zhou, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, J.-Q. Jiang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D112, 123532 (2025), 2509.10836

    arXiv 2025

  53. [55]

    Zhang, T.-N

    Y.-M. Zhang, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, S.-H. Zhou, L.-Y. Gao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang (2025), 2510.12627

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [56]

    Roy Choudhury, T

    S. Roy Choudhury, T. Okumura, and K. Umetsu, As- trophys. J. Lett.994, L26 (2025), 2509.26144

    arXiv 2025

  55. [57]

    G. G. Luciano, A. Paliathanasis, and E. N. Saridakis, JHEAp49, 100427 (2026), 2506.03019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [58]

    Paliathanasis (2026), 2601.02789

    A. Paliathanasis (2026), 2601.02789

    arXiv 2026

  57. [59]

    Cheng, S

    H. Cheng, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino (2025), 2512.09866

    arXiv 2025

  58. [60]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), 2503.14743

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [61]

    R. E. Keeley, K. N. Abazajian, M. Kaplinghat, and A. Shafieloo, Phys. Rev. D112, 043501 (2025), 2502.12667

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [62]

    Gu et al

    G. Gu et al. (DESI), Nature Astron.9, 1879 (2025), [Erratum: Nature Astron. 9, 1898 (2025)], 2504.06118

    arXiv 2025

  61. [63]

    Wang, T.-N

    S. Wang, T.-N. Li, T. Liu, and G.-H. Du, European Physical Journal C86, 391 (2026), 2603.21125

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [64]

    T. Liu, X. Li, T. Xu, M. Biesiada, and J. Wang, Euro- pean Physical Journal C85, 1351 (2025), 2507.04265

    arXiv 2025

  63. [65]

    T. Liu, X. Li, and J. Wang, Astrophys. J.988, 243 (2025), 2504.21373

    arXiv 2025

  64. [66]

    Z. Yang, T. Liu, and X. Li, Astrophys. J.982, 71 (2025), 2505.01661

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [67]

    X. Li, T. Liu, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, A. Shafieloo, and M. Biesiada, Astrophys. J. Lett.1001, L21 (2026)

    2026

  66. [68]

    ’t Hooft, arXiv e-prints gr-qc/9310026 (1993), gr- qc/9310026

    G. ’t Hooft, arXiv e-prints gr-qc/9310026 (1993), gr- qc/9310026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  67. [69]

    Susskind, Journal of Mathematical Physics36, 6377 (1995), hep-th/9409089

    L. Susskind, Journal of Mathematical Physics36, 6377 (1995), hep-th/9409089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  68. [70]

    Li, Physics Letters B603, 1 (2004), hep-th/0403127

    M. Li, Physics Letters B603, 1 (2004), hep-th/0403127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  69. [71]

    Huang and Y

    Q.-G. Huang and Y. Gong, JCAP2004, 006 (2004), astro-ph/0403590

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  70. [72]

    Zhang and F.-Q

    X. Zhang and F.-Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D72, 043524 (2005), astro-ph/0506310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  71. [73]

    Zhang, L

    J. Zhang, L. Zhao, and X. Zhang, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy57, 387 (2014), 1306.1289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  72. [74]

    Y.-F. Cai, E. N. Saridakis, M. R. Setare, and J.-Q. Xia, Phys. Rep.493, 1 (2010), 0909.2776

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  73. [75]

    S. Wang, Y. Wang, and M. Li, Phys. Rep.696, 1 (2017), 1612.00345

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  74. [76]

    Wei and R.-G

    H. Wei and R.-G. Cai, Physics Letters B660, 113 (2008), 0708.0884

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  75. [77]

    M. Suwa, K. Kobayashi, and H. Oshima, Journal of Modern Physics6, 327 (2015), 1412.5241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  76. [78]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4971 (1999), hep-th/9803132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  77. [79]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J.573, 37 (2002), astro-ph/0106145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  78. [80]

    Moresco, R

    M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, A. Cimatti, and L. Pozzetti, Astrophys. J.898, 82 (2020), 2003.07362

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  79. [81]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Amati, L. Amendola, S. Birrer, J. P. Blakeslee, M. Cantiello, A. Cimatti, J. Darling, M. Della Valle, M. Fishbach, et al., Living Reviews in Relativity 25, 6 (2022), 2201.07241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  80. [82]

    Jimenez, L

    R. Jimenez, L. Verde, T. Treu, and D. Stern, Astrophys. J.593, 622 (2003), astro-ph/0302560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

Showing first 80 references.