Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Reconstructions of Horndeski Subclasses by Gaussian Processes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Gaussian-process reconstruction of late-universe expansion data favors the Brans–Dicke and Cubic Galileon subclasses of Horndeski gravity over ΛCDM in the redshift ranges the data probe.

desk verdict GP reconstructions of Brans-Dicke and Cubic Galileon subclasses are a new and careful application, but the pointwise posterior in Eq. (4.1)/(4.3) isn't a joint likelihood, so the claimed preference over ΛCDM and the evolving dark energy density don't hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14154 v2 pith:HZ76FUMJ submitted 2026-07-14 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Marco C. Mendoza Marcos , Ana A. Avilez Lopez This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO
keywords HorndeskigravityBrans–DicketheoryCubicGalileonGaussianprocessesdarkenergyHubbleparameterbaryonacousticoscillationsreconstruction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether expansion data alone can say which modified-gravity theory, rather than a cosmological constant, is driving the universe's acceleration. The authors build model-independent Gaussian-process reconstructions of the Hubble parameter and of baryon-acoustic-oscillation angular-diameter distances, then use each reconstruction's mean and variance to weight Horndeski-family model predictions at every redshift. They find that the Brans–Dicke subclass is the most likely cosmology between z≈0.4 and z≈1.7, and that the Cubic Galileon subclass favors a dark energy density that varies with redshift over the entire observed range. If these results hold, the acceleration of the universe would not need a constant Λ, and the gravitational coupling itself would be time-dependent on cosmological scales.

What carries the argument

The pointwise Gaussian-process posterior weight, P(θ,z|D) ∝ exp[-(O_pred(z,θ) - O_GP(z))²/(2σ_GP(z)²)], is the central object: it turns a model-independent GP reconstruction of an observable into a redshift-dependent probability distribution over the free parameters of a gravity theory. The paper applies it to the gravitational-wave-compatible Horndeski action (G4X = G5 = 0), specialized to the Brans–Dicke subclass (α=0) and the Cubic Galileon subclass (α≠0), solving the background Friedmann and scalar-field equations for each parameter realization.

What would settle it

Construct a synthetic catalog from a known ΛCDM expansion history with the same noise, run the identical GP reconstruction and pointwise weighting, and check whether the pipeline returns a constant ω0Λ; if it returns an evolving one, the method is biased. Alternatively, compute a full joint likelihood over all data points for the constant-parameter Brans–Dicke model and compare its best-fit ω with the pointwise maximum; disagreement would invalidate the reconstruction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the per-redshift posterior weighting—computing P(θ,z|D) ∝ exp[-(O_pred(z,θ) - O_GP(z))²/(2σ_GP(z)²)] for each parameter realization against the GP mean and variance—produces most-likely parameters that vary with redshift rather than staying constant. For the single-parameter Brans–Dicke subclass, the most-likely ω(z) makes BD more likely than the ΛCDM best-fit within 0.4<z<1.7. For the Cubic Galileon subclass, the most-likely physical dark-energy density ω0Λ is not constant: in the H(z)-only reconstruction it approaches zero at z>2, and in the combined H(z)+BAO reconstruction it rises and falls in a pattern correlated with the reconstru

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction treats the Gaussian-process mean and variance at each redshift as if they formed a valid independent posterior for the model parameters, so the reported redshift-dependent 'most likely' values hinge on that pointwise likelihood being meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Brans–Dicke preference is real, late-universe H(z) data at intermediate redshifts are telling us that the effective gravitational coupling varies, and a constant-Λ model is missing that information.
  • If the Cubic Galileon reconstruction holds, the dark energy density inferred from background data is genuinely time-dependent, contradicting the simplest ΛCDM assumption.
  • The pipeline can be applied to other Horndeski subclasses, or extended to include G5-dependent terms, without fixing functional forms for the free functions.
  • The emergent binning of ω0Λ provides a data-driven way to locate the redshifts where gravity modifications switch on and off, which can be checked against independent probes like the growth of large-scale structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The per-redshift weighting discards off-diagonal GP covariance; a joint-likelihood version using the full GP covariance matrix would show whether the claimed redshift preferences survive.
  • Running the same pipeline on synthetic ΛCDM mock data would reveal whether the reconstructed ω0Λ(z) evolution is a genuine feature or an artifact of the pointwise weighting and post-hoc binning.
  • The reconstructed ω0Λ(z) can be translated into an effective dark-energy equation of state w_eff(z); comparing that with standard dark-energy parametrization constraints would connect these modified-gravity results to existing fits.
  • A natural next step is to repeat the Cubic Galileon+BAO reconstruction with a full early-universe model instead of the model-agnostic sound-horizon calibration, testing how much of the 'required dark energy' conclusion depends on that choice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to reconstruct redshift-dependent free functions of two Horndeski subclasses — Brans–Dicke and Cubic Galileon — from Gaussian Process (GP) reconstructions of H(z) and BAO distance data. The central claims are that the GP reconstruction favors the Brans–Dicke subclass over ΛCDM in z∈(0.4,1.7) and that the Cubic Galileon subclass has evolving dark-energy density over the whole observed redshift range. The analysis assigns per-redshift posterior weights to model predictions by comparing them with the GP mean and marginal variance at each z, and reports the pointwise maxima of those weights as the reconstructed parameter values, with redshift bins chosen from the ω0Λ posterior.

Significance. If the claims were well founded, they would provide an interesting, data-driven hint that modified-gravity subclasses of Horndeski theory are preferred over ΛCDM in background expansion data. The paper also usefully demonstrates GP reconstructions of H(z) and DM/rd. However, the inferential basis for the headline conclusions is not valid: the per-z weighting is not a joint likelihood, no model comparison is performed, and the binning is chosen post hoc from the same posterior. The central results therefore do not currently support the stated conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (4.1) and (4.3)] The per-redshift posterior weight uses only the GP mean and marginal variance at each z, ignoring the off-diagonal GP covariance. This is not a joint likelihood for the data. Consequently, the pointwise maxima of Eq. (4.3) do not represent a fit of the Brans–Dicke model to the dataset; they represent a different model parameter chosen independently at every z. The statement that BD is 'favored over ΛCDM' in z∈(0.4,1.7) therefore lacks a valid statistical basis. The same issue applies to Eq. (4.1) and Eq. (4.4) for the Cubic Galileon.
  2. [Abstract, §5.2, Tables 1–2] No model comparison is performed between the Horndeski subclasses and ΛCDM. The χ² values in Tables 1 and 2 compare GP phenomenological fits with ΛCDM, not the reconstructed BD or Cubic Galileon models with ΛCDM. The phrase 'favors a cosmology from the Brans–Dicke subclass over ΛCDM' is not backed by a Bayes factor, a joint likelihood ratio, or any information-criterion comparison that accounts for the number of effective parameters. Per-z maxima are not a substitute.
  3. [Appendix F, Tables 3–5] The redshift bins used to report all reconstructions are selected from the ω0Λ posterior itself, as stated in Appendix F. This is circular: the binning is chosen because ω0Λ appears to vary, and then the same posterior is used to claim that ω0Λ evolves. The reported 'evolving dark energy density' is therefore a restatement of the binning choice, not an independent inference.
  4. [§4.2, Table 5] The claim of an evolving dark-energy density in the Cubic Galileon subclass is obtained by taking the per-z maximum of the marginalized posterior for ω0Λ, with ω0Λ allowed to take a different value in each bin. This is equivalent to fitting a different model in each redshift interval and does not demonstrate that a single theory with a dynamical dark-energy density is preferred. The uncertainty bands also do not propagate the GP covariance between redshifts, so the reported confidence regions are likely overconfident.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.3] The text notes that for z≳1, α=0 lies within the 95% confidence region. This is in tension with the abstract's sweeping claim that the Cubic Galileon reconstruction 'favors modifications of the scalar field to gravity' across the whole redshift range. The caveat should appear in the abstract or conclusions.
  2. [Eq. (D.2) and Appendix E] The initial conditions ϕ0=0.989 and ϕ0'=1e-4 are motivated by Brans–Dicke constraints, but the sensitivity of the Cubic Galileon results to these choices is not discussed. A robustness test would strengthen the analysis.
  3. [General] There are several typographical issues: '69% confidence level' in §4.2.1 should be '68%'; decimal commas are used inconsistently (e.g., '0,676', '0,989'); 'ensamble' appears in §5.3; and 'Brans–Dickey' appears in one place. The notation ω0Λ versus ωΛ is used interchangeably.
  4. [Tables 3–5] The tables report only the maximum-posterior value of ω0Λ per bin without giving uncertainties or bin widths. Since these values are the backbone of the evolution claim, the missing uncertainties make the claim difficult to assess.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'evolving dark energy density' and 'BD favored over ΛCDM' claims reduce by construction to per-redshift maximization against the GP mean (Eqs. 4.1/4.3), not to an independent joint model comparison.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.1); Sec. 4.2.1, Fig. 16; Sec. 5.3; Abstract]
    "P(θ, z|D) ∝ exp{− (Opred(z,{pi})− ŌGP(z))^2/(2(σGP(z))^2)} ... The fact that the most probable value of ω0Λ approaches zero for z>2 suggests that the observations favor significant modifications of GR at these epochs."

    The reconstruction is defined per redshift as the maximum of a Gaussian weight against the GP mean and marginal variance. The reported ω0Λ(z) is exactly the parameter value that makes the model prediction closest to the GP mean at that z. Thus its redshift variation is a property of the GP mean mapped through the model, not an independent empirical result. Claiming that this variation 'favors evolving dark energy density' restates the construction: no joint likelihood, covariance, or comparison with a constant-ω0Λ model is used.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.3); Sec. 5.2; Fig. 9]
    "According to the reconstruction of ω at the 68% confidence level, the most favored cosmological model within the redshift interval z ∈ (0.4,1.7) is from the Brans–Dicke subclass rather than ΛCDM."

    At each z Eq. (4.3) is maximized over ω. Since the BD family includes models that approach the GR/ΛCDM limit for large ω, the pointwise maximum of the BD posterior is by construction at least as large as the ΛCDM posterior at that z. The statement that BD is 'favored over ΛCDM' is therefore a consequence of comparing a per-z envelope with a single fixed model, not of a joint likelihood or evidence comparison; the preference is forced by the maximization procedure.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Appendix F; Sec. 4.2.1, Tables 3–5]
    "In all the reconstructions presented here, the binning scheme was selected according to the one obtained from the ω0Λ reconstruction. ... We emphasize that this binning is not arbitrary; rather, it is determined by the most-likely values of ω0Λ, which vary with each effective redshift."

    The bins that define the reported 'emergent' evolution of ω0Λ are chosen from the reconstructed ω0Λ itself. Therefore the pattern of redshift dependence in Tables 3–5 is not an independent finding but an artifact of selecting the binning with the outcome. Any variation present in the posterior is guaranteed to appear in the chosen bins, so the binning cannot be used as evidence that the dark-energy density evolves.

full rationale

The central problem is methodological rather than a self-citation chain: the paper builds a per-redshift posterior (Eq. 4.1/4.3) using only the GP mean and marginal variance at each z, then takes pointwise maxima to define the 'most likely' free functions. This procedure makes the headline claims—'evolving dark energy density' and 'BD favored over ΛCDM'—reduce to the construction. The dark-energy evolution is just the redshift dependence of the per-z maximizer, and the BD preference is the result of comparing a per-z maximized family against a single fixed ΛCDM curve, which is statistically forced. Appendix F compounds this by choosing the redshift binning from the very ω0Λ reconstruction being interpreted, so the 'emergent' variation cannot serve as independent evidence. There is no significant self-citation circularity: references to Avilez & Skordis or the sound-horizon calibration are external constraints, not the load-bearing circular step. If the paper were read purely as a descriptive GP-based reconstruction of free functions, with no 'favors' or 'evidence' language, the derivation would be self-contained; the circularity enters precisely when these pointwise fits are presented as model preferences or detections of evolution.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the GP kernel hyperparameters, the swept/inferred model parameters ω, α, ω0Λ, ω0m, the chosen initial conditions, and the adopted sound-horizon calibration. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential ad hoc inputs are the per-z posterior weighting formula and the post-hoc binning, both of which shape the 'favored' and 'evolving' conclusions.

free parameters (9)
  • GP kernel hyperparameters (h(z) GP: σ_f, l) = σ_f=1.64, l=2.43
    Optimized by maximizing the GP marginal likelihood; define the smooth GP mean and variance used in every subsequent posterior weight.
  • GP kernel hyperparameters (BAO/DM GP: σ_f, l, ν) = σ_f=43.6, l=7.81, ν=1.5
    Optimized for the DESI BAO angular-diameter-distance reconstruction; enters the combined h(z)-BAO analysis.
  • Brans-Dicke/Cubic Galileon coupling ω = posterior maximum varies with z (sweep [0,40000] / log([0,4]))
    Central BD and Cubic Galileon claims derive from the ensemble of model predictions generated by sweeping ω across its prior range.
  • Cubic Galileon self-coupling α = reconstructed maxima in [0,10]
    Prior estimated from the Vainshtein-scale argument (Eq. 2.10); reconstructed posterior drives the Cubic Galileon 'modifications of gravity' claims.
  • Matter physical density ω0m (Cubic Galileon) = Planck best-fit after 4-parameter run
    Allowed to vary in the 4-parameter ensemble, then fixed to the Planck-ΛCDM value for the 3-parameter runs; the consistency check underpins the reduced-parameter reconstructions.
  • Dark-energy physical density ω0Λ (Cubic Galileon) = per-bin maxima, e.g. 0.0–0.5
    The reported evolving dark-energy density is this parameter's per-z maximum under the GP weighting; it is the key output of the reconstruction.
  • Initial condition ϕ0 = 0.989
    Fixed from external constraints on Geff/GN (Appendix E); affects all model h(z) and DM(z) predictions.
  • Initial condition ϕ0' = 1e-4
    Chosen to match the fiducial Brans-Dicke model (Appendix E); no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Sound-horizon calibration rd = 100.83^{+0.99}_{-0.95} h0^{-1} Mpc
    Adopted from [46] to convert DESI BAO DM/rd measurements into distance predictions for the h(z)-BAO Cubic Galileon reconstruction.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Horndeski action (2.1) and field equations (A.1)-(A.2) correctly describe the subclasses.
    The paper's model predictions for h(z) and DM(z) are numerical solutions of these equations.
  • domain assumption GW170817 constraint cGW=1 implies G4X=0 and G5=0, restricting to action (2.8).
    Used to justify the GW-consistent Horndeski subclass; the paper itself notes this may only apply at late times.
  • domain assumption Jordan frame: matter is minimally coupled and ∇μTμν=0, so ρI=ρ0I(1+z)^{3(1+wI)}.
    Underlies the background energy densities in Eqs. (2.12)-(2.14).
  • domain assumption The GP mean and variance are unbiased surrogates for the true observable at every z.
    All posterior weights (Eqs. 4.1 and 4.3) compare model predictions to the GP mean/variance; if the GP is biased, the reconstructions are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-z Gaussian weighting Eq. (4.1)/(4.3) defines a valid posterior distribution.
    No normalization or Bayesian derivation is provided; the paper's 'reconstructions' and 'favored' statements follow from this weighting.
  • ad hoc to paper The redshift bins chosen from the ω0Λ posterior (Appendix F) are valid for reporting all reconstructions.
    Binning is post hoc; treating bin maxima as evidence for evolution depends on this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial conditions ϕ0=0.989 and ϕ0'=1e-4 are representative.
    No stability or sensitivity analysis is presented; central model predictions depend on these choices.
  • domain assumption The rd calibration of [46] can be combined with Cubic Galileon predictions.
    Used for DM/rd predictions in Section 4.2.2; the calibration is itself model-agnostic GP-based, introducing external fitted information.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructions of Horndeski Subclasses by Gaussian Processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZ76FUMJ

@misc{pith2026260714154,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructions of Horndeski Subclasses by Gaussian Processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZ76FUMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14154}
}
abstract

In this work we reconstruct two subclasses of theories from the Horndeski class, the most general scalar-tensor theories of gravity with second-order equations, according to a variety of late-universe cosmological data: model independent measurements of Hubble rate from Cosmic Chronometers, as well as Hubble rate and distance measurements from Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations. In the modified gravity family considered, the scalar field is non-minimally coupled to gravity leading to time variations in the gravitational constant at cosmological scales. The theories considered are also consistent with constraints on the propagation speed of gravitational waves. The reconstruction is carried out by using the Gaussian Processes bayesian technique either for the Brans-Dicke and the Cubic Galileon subclasses of Horndeski theory. We find that the most likely Gaussian Process reconstruction for the data favors a cosmology from the Brans-Dicke subclass over $\Lambda$CDM in the range $z \in (0.4, 1.7)$, and for the Cubic Galileon subclass we find that the most likely reconstruction indeed favors modifications of the scalar field to gravity with evolving dark energy density in the whole range of redshift observations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Will,Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, Cambridge University Press (9, 2018)

    C.M. Will,Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, Cambridge University Press (9, 2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Appelquist, A

    T. Appelquist, A. Chodos and P. Freund,Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories, Frontiers in Physics : a lecture note and reprint series, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (1987)

    1987

  3. [3]

    Dvali, G

    G.R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati,4-D gravity on a brane in 5-D Minkowski space, Phys. Lett. B485(2000) 208 [hep-th/0005016]

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Clifton, P.G

    T. Clifton, P.G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis,Modified Gravity and Cosmology,Phys. Rept.513(2012) 1 [1106.2476]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Brans and R.H

    C. Brans and R.H. Dicke,Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation,Phys. Rev. 124(1961) 925

    1961

  6. [6]

    Avilez and C

    A. Avilez and C. Skordis,Cosmological constraints on Brans-Dicke theory,Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 011101 [1303.4330]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Kobayashi,Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,Reports on Progress in Physics82 (2019) 086901

    T. Kobayashi,Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,Reports on Progress in Physics82 (2019) 086901

    2019

  8. [8]

    J. Renk, M. Zumalacárregui, F. Montanari and A. Barreira,Galileon gravity in light of isw, cmb, bao and h0 data,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017(2017) 020

    2017

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Zumalacarregui,Gravity in the Era of Equality: Towards solutions to the Hubble problem without fine-tuned initial conditions,Phys

    M. Zumalacarregui,Gravity in the Era of Equality: Towards solutions to the Hubble problem without fine-tuned initial conditions,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 023523 [2003.06396]. – 31 –

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Seikel, C

    M. Seikel, C. Clarkson and M. Smith,Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using gaussian processes,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(2012) 036

    2012

  3. [11]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez,Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 123001

    2005

  4. [12]

    S. Alam, M. Ata, S. Bailey et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: cosmological analysis of the dr12 galaxy sample,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society470(2017) 2617–2652

    2017

  5. [13]

    Vargas-Magaña, S

    M. Vargas-Magaña, S. Ho, A.J. Cuesta, R. O’Connell, A.J. Ross, D.J. Eisenstein et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: theoretical systematics and baryon acoustic oscillations in the galaxy correlation function, Mont...

    2018

  6. [14]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam et al.,Desi 2024 iii: baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(2025) 012

    2024

  7. [15]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen et al.,Desi dr2 results. ii. measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Physical Review D112(2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Lovelock,The Einstein tensor and its generalizations,J

    D. Lovelock,The Einstein tensor and its generalizations,J. Math. Phys.12(1971) 498

    1971

  9. [17]

    Lovelock,The four-dimensionality of space and the einstein tensor,J

    D. Lovelock,The four-dimensionality of space and the einstein tensor,J. Math. Phys.13 (1972) 874

    1972

  10. [18]

    Deffayet, X

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D.A. Steer and G. Zahariade,From k-essence to generalized galileons, Physical Review D84(2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Horndeski,Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,Int

    G.W. Horndeski,Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,Int. J. Theor. Phys.10(1974) 363

    1974

  12. [20]

    Deffayet, G

    C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farèse and A. Vikman,Covariant galileon,Physical Review D79 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Deffayet, S

    C. Deffayet, S. Deser and G. Esposito-Farèse,Generalized galileons: All scalar models whose curved background extensions maintain second-order field equations and stress tensors,Physical Review D80(2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Dicke,Mach’s principle and invariance under transformation of units,Phys

    R.H. Dicke,Mach’s principle and invariance under transformation of units,Phys. Rev.125 (1962) 2163

    1962

  15. [23]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon cosmology,Physical Review D69(2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space, Physical Review Letters93(2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Vainshtein,To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass,Phys

    A.I. Vainshtein,To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass,Phys. Lett. B39(1972) 393

    1972

  18. [26]

    Babichev and C

    E. Babichev and C. Deffayet,An introduction to the vainshtein mechanism,Classical and Quantum Gravity30(2013) 184001

    2013

  19. [27]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury,Screening long-range forces through local symmetry restoration, Physical Review Letters104(2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Babichev, C

    E. Babichev, C. Deffayet and R. Ziour,k-mouflage gravity,International Journal of Modern Physics D18(2009) 2147–2154

    2009

  21. [29]

    Abbott et al.,Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,Phys

    B.P. Abbott et al.,Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 061102

    2016

  22. [30]

    Barreira, B

    A. Barreira, B. Li, C.M. Baugh and S. Pascoli,The observational status of galileon gravity after planck,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(2014) 059–059

    2014

  23. [31]

    P.A.R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown and others.,Planck2015 results: Xxi. the integrated sachs-wolfe effect,Astronomy and Astrophysics594(2016) A21. – 32 –

    2016

  24. [32]

    Ferraro, B.D

    S. Ferraro, B.D. Sherwin and D.N. Spergel,Wise measurement of the integrated sachs-wolfe effect,Physical Review D91(2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    S. Ho, C. Hirata, N. Padmanabhan, U. Seljak and N. Bahcall,Correlation of cmb with large-scale structure. i. integrated sachs-wolfe tomography and cosmological implications, Physical Review D78(2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2001) 213–223

    2001

  27. [35]

    W.J. Wolf, C. García-García, T. Anton and P.G. Ferreira,Assessing cosmological evidence for nonminimal coupling,Physical Review Letters135(2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Avilez-Lopez, A

    A. Avilez-Lopez, A. Padilla, P.M. Saffin and C. Skordis,The Parametrized Post-Newtonian-Vainshteinian Formalism,JCAP06(2015) 044 [1501.01985]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Pujolàs, I

    O. Pujolàs, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman,The imperfect fluid behind kinetic gravity braiding, Journal of High Energy Physics2011(2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Deffayet, O

    C. Deffayet, O. Pujolàs, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman,Imperfect dark energy from kinetic gravity braiding,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2010(2010) 026–026

    2010

  31. [39]

    Gómez-Valent and L

    A. Gómez-Valent and L. Amendola,H0 from cosmic chronometers and type ia supernovae, with gaussian processes and the novel weighted polynomial regression method,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018(2018) 051

    2018

  32. [40]

    Vagnozzi, A

    S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb and M. Moresco,Eppur è piatto? the cosmic chronometers take on spatial curvature and cosmic concordance,The Astrophysical Journal908(2021) 84

    2021

  33. [41]

    Velázquez, L.A

    J.d.J. Velázquez, L.A. Escamilla, P. Mukherjee and J.A. Vázquez,Non-parametric reconstruction of cosmological observables using gaussian processes regression,Universe10 (2024) 464

    2024

  34. [42]

    Gadbail, S

    G.N. Gadbail, S. Mandal and P.K. Sahoo,Gaussian process approach for model-independent reconstruction of f(q) gravity with direct hubble measurements,The Astrophysical Journal972 (2024) 174

    2024

  35. [43]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam et al.,Desi 2024 vi: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025(2025) 021

    2024

  36. [44]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown et al.,Planck2018 results: Vi. cosmological parameters, Astronomy and Astrophysics641(2020) A6

    2020

  37. [45]

    Drovandi and D

    C. Drovandi and D. Frazier,A comparison of likelihood-free methods with and without summary statistics,Stat Comput32(2022) 42

    2022

  38. [46]

    T. Liu, X. Zhong, M. Biesiada and J. Wang,Model-independent calibration for sound horizon: Combining observations of supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements,The Astrophysical Journal976(2024) 208

    2024

  39. [47]

    Rasmussen and C.K.I

    C.E. Rasmussen and C.K.I. Williams,Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, The MIT Press (11, 2005), 10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001, [https://direct.mit.edu/book-pdf/2514321/book_9780262256834.pdf]

    2005

  40. [48]

    Speagle,A conceptual introduction to markov chain monte carlo methods, 2020

    J.S. Speagle,A conceptual introduction to markov chain monte carlo methods, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Buchner,Nested sampling methods,Statistics Surveys17(2023)

    J. Buchner,Nested sampling methods,Statistics Surveys17(2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    J. Liu, L. Qiao, B. Chang and L. Xu,Revisiting cosmography via Gaussian process,European Physical Journal C83(2023) 374

    2023

  43. [51]

    Ren, T.H.T

    X. Ren, T.H.T. Wong, Y.-F. Cai and E.N. Saridakis,Data-driven reconstruction of the late-time cosmic acceleration with f(t) gravity,Physics of the Dark Universe32(2021) 100812. – 33 –

    2021

  44. [52]

    Ren, S.-F

    X. Ren, S.-F. Yan, Y. Zhao, Y.-F. Cai and E.N. Saridakis,Gaussian processes and effective field theory of f(t) gravity under the h0 tension,The Astrophysical Journal932(2022) 131

    2022

  45. [53]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel et al.,Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,Journal of Machine Learning Research12(2011) 2825

    2011

  46. [54]

    Ballardini, F

    M. Ballardini, F. Finelli and D. Sapone,Cosmological constraints on the gravitational constant, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(2022) 004. – 34 –

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.