Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Three-parameter dark-energy equation of state claims to fix the Barboza-Alcaniz future behavior and is favored by current cosmological data over both BA and ΛCDM.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 08:33 UTC pith:WZADYL57

load-bearing objection The advertised fix for the BA future-duplication fails in the model actually fitted: the |z| form makes w(z→−1)=w0, so the central claim is unsupported even though the z>0 extension and the data analysis are competently done. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21064 v1 pith:WZADYL57 submitted 2026-07-23 gr-qc

New generalization of the Barboza-Alcaniz parametrization of Dark energy

Shahab Shahidi This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords dark energyequation of state parametrizationBarboza-Alcanizphantom crossingcosmological dataBayesian model comparisoncosmographylate-time acceleration
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.

The paper proposes a three-parameter generalization of the Barboza-Alcaniz (BA) dark-energy equation of state, replacing the denominator power 2 with a free index n. The stated aim is to remove what the author sees as an artificial duplication: in the BA model the equation of state returns to its present value in the far future, regardless of its past dynamics. The paper argues that the new BAn model stays finite at all redshifts, delays or shifts the phantom-quintessence crossing, and that combined Cosmic Chronometer, Pantheon+, DESI BAO, and CMB data favor it over both BA and ΛCDM, with a best-fit n≈1.87. It also derives a Lagrangian realization from a non-standard matter coupling, though only at the background level.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that freeing the exponent in the BA kernel yields a three-parameter dark-energy equation of state, w_de(z) = w0 + (n/2) wa (1+z)|z|^(n−1)/(1+|z|^n), whose derived density takes the closed form X(z) = (1+z)^(3(1+w0)) (1+|z|^n)^(3wa/2). The paper claims this form removes the BA duplication for odd integer n, makes the location of the dark-energy transition depend on n instead of being fixed at z≈2.41, and that an MCMC analysis of CC+Pantheon++DESI+CMB gives n≈1.87 with BAn weakly preferred over BA and strongly preferred over ΛCDM by Bayesian evidence. The paper also reports that BAn predicts slightly less acceleration than BA, with deceleratio

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized kernel w0 + (n/2) wa (1+z)|z|^(n−1)/(1+|z|^n), which reduces to the BA model when n=2. The free index n is designed to control the shape of the equation of state: for odd integer n the far-future limit z→−1 gives w0 + wa/2 rather than w0, breaking the present-future degeneracy, and the transition redshift becomes n-dependent. The companion density integral X(z) is what carries the model into the Hubble parameter h^2 = Ωm0(1+z)^3 + Ωr0(1+z)^4 + (1−Ωm0−Ωr0)X, enabling the likelihood analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the new parameter n removes the duplication of present and far-future behavior rests on n being an odd integer; the model fitted to data is Eq. (12), for which n≈1.87 and w_de(z=−1) equals w0, so the far-future behavior is the same as today.

What would settle it

Evaluate the z→−1 limit of Eq. (12): the factor (1+z) tends to zero while |z|^(n−1)/(1+|z|^n) stays finite, so w_de→w0. This equals the z=0 value, contradicting the paper's assertion that Eq. (12) resolves the BA duplication. If the author instead means Eq. (10) with odd integer n, then the fitted non-integer n is not the model whose properties are claimed.

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

If this is right

  • If the BAn model is correct, the equation of state of dark energy crosses from phantom to quintessence near z≈0.42, with the acceleration epoch beginning around z≈0.76—earlier than in ΛCDM.
  • The model predicts a lower present-day acceleration than ΛCDM, with BAn differing from BA most at late times: a relative deviation of up to about 0.4% in the Hubble function.
  • The best-fit n≈1.87 is close to 2, which the author reads as a consistency check that the original BA parametrization is observationally reliable while still benefiting from the extra freedom.
  • Bayesian evidence from the combined datasets strongly favors BAn over ΛCDM (lnB≈5.3) and weakly over BA (lnB≈1.5); the χ² improvement over BA is not statistically significant.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the model fitted to data uses the absolute-value kernel |z|^n, the claimed future/present distinction only holds for odd integer n; a direct limit of Eq. (12) shows w_de(z=−1)=w0. If the absolute-value form is the operative model, the headline motivation—removing the duplication—is not realized by the actual fits.
  • The correlation between n and the pair (w0, wa) suggests the data may be trading n against the slope wa; a survey with better coverage around z≈1–2 could break this degeneracy and decide whether n genuinely departs from 2.
  • One could extend the same kernel to alternate distance definitions or test the BAn density against perturbation growth; the paper itself restricts its Lagrangian realization to the background, so perturbative predictions remain an open testable extension.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-parameter generalization of the Barboza–Alcaniz (BA) dark-energy equation of state, called BAn, in which the redshift kernel (1+z)z^{n-1}/(1+z^n) is modified to (1+z)|z|^{n-1}/(1+|z|^n) in Eq. (12) so that n can be non-integer. The advertised motivation is that this removes the BA model's degeneracy between the present and far-future behavior of w_de. The author then solves the conservation equation to obtain the DE density X(z) in Eq. (14), writes the dimensionless Hubble equation (16), fits the model to CC+Pantheon++DESI BAO+CMB distance priors, and performs a Bayesian model comparison. The paper reports n ≈ 1.87, a weak Bayesian preference over BA (ln B = 1.485), and claims that BAn is favored over both BA and ΛCDM. Cosmographic quantities are also analyzed. The principal assertions are that Eq. (12) resolves the future-duplication problem and that the data favor BAn.

Significance. If the central claim were valid, BAn would be a useful, bounded, three-parameter dark-energy parametrization that avoids the BA degeneracy and is testable with current data. The paper has some strengths: it uses a full MCMC/nested-sampling analysis with several modern datasets, reports credible intervals, and provides a quantitative model comparison. However, the load-bearing property—removing the future duplication—holds only for Eq. (10) with odd integer n, and it fails for the model actually fitted, Eq. (12), because for z<0 the |z|^n factor makes the w_a term vanish as z→−1, giving w_de→w_0 again. The integration leading to X(z) in Eq. (14) also has a sign error for z<0. These are not presentation issues; they undermine the headline motivation and the future-time predictions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (10)–(12)] The paper's central claim is that the new parametrization resolves the BA duplication of present and future behavior. The proof in Eq. (11) is given only for Eq. (10) with odd integer n, where z^n is single-valued and negative for z<0. The model actually used in all fits and figures is Eq. (12), with |z|^{n-1} and 1+|z|^n, introduced precisely to allow non-integer n. For Eq. (12), for any real n>0, |z|→1 as z→−1, so the w_a term vanishes and lim_{z→−1} w_de = w_0, identical to the z=0 limit. Thus the fitted model (n≈1.865, Table II) does not remove the BA future-duplication; the advertised property is not realized by the model confronted with data. The manuscript never states that Eq. (12) negates Eq. (11) for non-integer n, and Fig. 13 extends z to −1 using the inconsistent density of Eq. (14).
  2. [§II, Eq. (14) and Eq. (16)] The expression for X(z) is incorrect for z<0. Integrating the conservation equation (13) with the EoS (12) yields (1+|z|^n)^{+3w_a/2} only for z>0, where d|z|^n/dz = n z^{n-1} > 0. For z<0, d|z|^n/dz = −n |z|^{n-1} < 0, so the sign of the exponent in the integral reverses, giving X(z) ∝ (1+|z|^n)^{−3w_a/2}. Therefore Eq. (16), and all future-time predictions including the w_tot panel of Fig. 13 and the cosmographic discussion in §V, are based on an energy density that is not the solution of Eq. (13) with the stated w_de. This is an internal inconsistency in the central model, not a mere typo.
  3. [§III, Eqs. (27)–(31)] The Lagrangian derivation is definitional. After writing f(ρ,P)=P−B(ρ), the author sets B(r) equal to the BAn energy density, Eq. (31), which is just a rewriting of the parametrization. The 'derivation from an action' does not provide independent theoretical support or predict the new parameter n; n remains a free parameter to be fitted. Moreover, the text acknowledges that at perturbative level the DE sector is not conserved and the model differs from the original DE parametrization. This should be presented as a realization rather than a derivation, and the claim in the abstract that the model is obtained from a modified-gravity theory is overstated.
  4. [§IV.B, Table III] The abstract states that cosmological data favor BAn over both BA and ΛCDM. The evidence for BAn over BA is ln B = 1.485 ± 0.348, which the paper itself classifies as 'weak evidence' on the Jeffreys scale, and the χ² difference has p = 0.215, i.e., not statistically significant. The support comes mostly from the evidence ratio, not from fit quality, and is at the boundary of 'inconclusive'. While Bayesian model comparison can legitimately incorporate prior volume penalties, the cautious wording in §IV.B is more honest than the abstract. The conclusion that BAn is 'the most favorable by cosmological observations' is not supported by the numbers in Table III.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General notation] The symbol ω_0/ω_a is used in Table I and II instead of w_0/w_a, causing confusion with density parameters; unify notation.
  2. [Figures 6–13] The legend labels 'GBA' appear to be a typo for 'BAn' in several figures (6,7,10,11); fix labels.
  3. [§V.B, Eq. (45)] The shape-function section defines S_0,S_1,S_2 but the text and Fig. 12 refer to S_3; either rename or define S_3 consistently.
  4. [§II, Eq. (14) and Fig. 2] The text says X(z) 'reaches a maximum and then decreases to its present day value' but from Eq. (14) for z>0 X(z) grows monotonically; this may be a plotting artifact or an error in the description.
  5. [References] Ref. [18] is to an arXiv preprint (2601.18825) with no journal reference; ensure it is published or identifiable if cited for a central method.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Advertised Lagrangian derivation is definitional (B is set equal to the model's energy density), and the fitted |z|^n form Eq. (12) does not realize the claimed future-resolution property.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section III, Eqs. (27)-(31)]
    "The BA and BAn parameterizations of DE can then be realized by identifying the function B to be equal to the energy density of the BA and BAn models. This can be done by denoting ρ = ρ0(1+z)^3 ... The result is B(r) = r^{1+w0}(1+(r^{1/3}−1)^n)^{3wa/2}, (31), for the BAn model."

    The action with f(ρ,P)=P−B(ρ) gives Friedmann equations in which B acts as the effective dark-energy density (Eq. 28). Defining B(r) to be exactly the BAn energy density (Eq. 14 rewritten in r) makes the 'Lagrangian derivation' an identity: the parametrization is inserted into the action by hand, not obtained from a first principle. The free constants w0, wa, n are not determined by any new dynamics; they are copied from the phenomenological equation of state. Thus the claimed derivation reduces to renaming ρ_de as B and does not provide independent support for the model.

  2. other [Section II, Eqs. (10)-(12)]
    "For odd and integer values of parameter n, one can easily prove that lim_{z→−1} wde = w0 + 1/2 wa, (11)... As the inferred value of n parameter is not necessarily an integer, in order to prevent unwanted imaginary values, we will assume that the eos parameter is written in the form wde = w0 + n/2 wa (1+z)|z|^{n−1}/(1+|z|^n), (12)."

    The advertised advantage—removing the BA duplication at z→−1—is proved only for Eq. (10) with odd integer n. The model actually fitted and plotted is Eq. (12), containing |z|^n. For every real n>0, at z→−1, |z|^{n−1}/(1+|z|^n) = 1/2 while (1+z)→0, so the wa term vanishes and lim_{z→−1} wde = w0, identical to the BA limit (9). Thus the headline property is not a consequence of the analyzed model; it is an artifact of the definition (10) that is abandoned when (12) is adopted to avoid imaginary values. The switch is unacknowledged, so the central motivation is not realized by the fitted model.

full rationale

The statistical analysis in Sections IV-V is self-contained and not circular: the parameters, including n≈1.865, are fitted to CC, Pantheon+, DESI BAO, and CMB distance priors, and the model comparison via Bayes factors and Δχ² is a legitimate empirical ranking. However, two load-bearing steps do reduce to definitions. First, the 'possible Lagrangian description' of Section III constructs f(ρ,P)=P−B(ρ) and then simply sets B equal to the BAn energy density; the resulting field equations reproduce the input equation of state by construction, so this is a renaming rather than a derivation. Second, the paper's central claim that the model resolves the BA future duplication is proved for Eq. (10) with odd integer n, but the model actually confronted with data is Eq. (12) with absolute values. For Eq. (12) the z→−1 limit is w0 for all real n>0, including the fitted value, so the claimed improvement over BA is not realized by the analyzed model. There is also a related internal inconsistency: Eq. (14) gives the future energy density with a positive exponent in 1+|z|^n, but direct integration of Eq. (12) for z<0 yields a negative exponent because d|z|^n/dz<0 there; this further undermines the future-behavior predictions. These are correctness/consistency failures as well as definitional reductions, but the model-selection step itself is not circular. The overall circularity is partial, not total, hence a score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central model relies on the FRW background, conservation equations, and the new |z| kernel; the kernel's form is chosen ad hoc to allow non-integer n. The Lagrangian section adds a reverse-engineered B(ρ). The fit uses public data products and standard MCMC; the parameters w0, wa, n, H0, Ωm0 and nuisance parameters are all fitted to the same data, so there is no independent prediction.

free parameters (8)
  • w0 = -0.736 (CPBC best fit)
    DE EoS constant term; fitted to CC+Pantheon++BAO+CMB.
  • wa = -0.500 (CPBC best fit)
    DE EoS amplitude of the n-kernel; fitted.
  • n = 1.865 (CPBC best fit)
    New shape parameter; fitted, not predicted; prior U(1,3).
  • H0 = 69.3 (CPBC BAn)
    Present Hubble constant; fitted nuisance/cosmological parameter.
  • Ωm0 = 0.324 (CPBC BAn)
    Matter density parameter; fitted.
  • M = -19.35 (CPBC BAn)
    Supernova absolute magnitude; fitted nuisance (Pantheon+ no SH0ES).
  • r_d = 141.8 (CPBC BAn)
    Sound horizon at drag epoch; fitted with BAO.
  • Ωb h^2 = 0.022 (CPBC)
    Baryon density from CMB prior; fitted.
axioms (6)
  • standard math FRW metric and Friedmann equations (2)-(3) describe the background cosmology
    Standard cosmology framework used throughout.
  • domain assumption Separate conservation of ρm, ρr, ρde (Eq. 4)
    Assumed; the Lagrangian section admits conservation holds only for background FRW, not at perturbative level.
  • domain assumption DE is a perfect fluid with EoS p_de = w_de ρ_de
    Phenomenological assumption underlying the parametrization.
  • domain assumption Variation formulas Eqs. (24)-(25) from the first law of thermodynamics (Brown; Haghani/Harko/Shahidi)
    Basis of the f(ρ,P) formalism; cited to [25,26], not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Data likelihoods (CC, Pantheon+, DESI DR2 BAO, CMB priors) are correct and independent as combined
    External data products are taken at face value; no validation provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The |z|^(n-1) modification is a valid continuation for non-integer n
    Introduced to avoid imaginary values, but it changes the z<0 behavior and invalidates the stated future-resolution and BA-limit properties.
invented entities (1)
  • B(ρ) in f(ρ,P)=P−B(ρ) no independent evidence
    purpose: To claim a Lagrangian origin for the BAn parametrization
    B(r) is set equal to the BAn DE density (Eq. 31 = Eq. 14), so it is reverse-engineered; no independent evidence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16693 in / 19014 out tokens · 175445 ms · 2026-08-01T08:33:04.781575+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A generalization of the Barboza-Alcaniz parametrization of dark energy is proposed. This is a three-parameter model which can resolve the shortcomings of the Barboza-Alcaniz behavior at future times. We show that cosmological data favor the new parametrization over both the Barboza-Alcaniz model and $\Lambda$CDM. We also consider the cosmological implications of the model and show that the qualitative behavior mimics to the original Barboza-Alcaniz model, with a slightly smaller acceleration rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21064 by Shahab Shahidi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Evolution of the DE eos parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution of the rescaled DE energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Evolution of the rescaled Hubble function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The corner plot of the values of parameters with their 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The Pearson correlation matrix between the param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Evolution of the deceleration parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Evolution of the jerk parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Evolution of the DE pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The behavior of the shape functions as a function of redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Evolution of the total eos parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.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

39 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cosmic Chronometers The cosmic Chronometers (CC) is a direct and model- independent method for determining the Hubble param- eterH(z) by measuring the differential age evolution of passively evolving, massive early-type galaxies. Writing the Hubble parameter as H(z) =− 1 1 +z dz dt ,(32) the value of Hubble parameterH(z), can be inferred from the measurem...

  2. [2]

    Pantheon + improves the Pantheon dataset by enhancing the photometric calibra- tion and refining light-curve fitting

    Pantheon + The Pantheon + compilation [28] represents the most updated and homogeneous collection of Type Ia super- nova (SN Ia) distance measurements, consists of about 1500 spectroscopically confirmed SNe Ia spanning the redshift range 0.001< z <2.26, combining observa- tions from 18 different surveys. Pantheon + improves the Pantheon dataset by enhanci...

  3. [3]

    DESI(DR2) BAO We use the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) mea- surements from the second data release of the Dark En- ergy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI DR2) [30]. The dataset includes BAO observables extracted from sev- eral tracers of large-scale structure, namely the Bright Galaxy, the Luminous Red Galaxy and the Emission Line Galaxy samples and also...

  4. [4]

    CMB Distance Priors To add an information from Cosmic Microwave Back- ground (CMB) without performing a full likelihood anal- ysis, we adopt the CMB distance priors extracted from 6 the Planck observations [31]. These priors encode the geometric information of the CMB in a compressed form through three quantities, the shift parameterR, the an- gular scale...

    2061

  5. [5]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu and A. G. Riess, Nat. Astron.3, 891 (2019) [arXiv:1907.10625]; W. L. Freedman, As- trophys. J.919, 16 (2021) [arXiv:2106.15656]; E. Di Valentino,et. alClass. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021) [arXiv:2103.01183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    DESI Collaboration, JCAP2025, 021 (2025) [arXiv:2404.03002]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    DES Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D105, 023520 (2022) [arXiv:2105.13549]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    D. M. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J.859, 101 (2018) [arXiv:1710.00845]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [arXiv:1807.06209]

    Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [arXiv:1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padhi and C. Skordis, Phys. Rep.513, 1 (2012) [arXiv:1106.2476]; G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys.10, 363 (1974); J. W. Moffat, JCAP 2006, 004 (2006) [arXiv:gr-qc/0506021]; T. Kobayashi, 13 Rep. Prog. Phys.82, 086901 (2019) [arXiv:1901.07183]; A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D79, 064036 (2009) [arXiv:...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Heymans et al

    C. Heymans et al. [KiDS Collaboration], Astron. Astro- phys.646, A140 (2021) [arXiv:2007.15632]; E. Abdalla et al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022) [arXiv:2203.06142]; V. Poulin, J. L. Bernal, E. Kovetz, M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D107, 123538 (2023) [arXiv:2209.06217]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Hildebrandt et al

    H. Hildebrandt et al. [KiDS Collaboration], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.465, 1454 (2017) [arXiv:1606.05338]; K. Kuijken et al. [KiDS Collaboration], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.454, 3500 (2015) [arXiv:1507.00738]; M. As- gari et al. [KiDS Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys.645, A104 (2021) [arXiv:2007.15633]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Hinshaw et al

    G. Hinshaw et al. [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 19 (2013) [arXiv:1212.5226]; P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016) [arXiv:1502.01589]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989); S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel.4, 1 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0004075]; J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique13, 566 (2012) [arXiv:1205.3365]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1989

  15. [15]

    Y.-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and E. N. Saridakis, Rep. Prog. Phys.79, 106901 (2016) [arXiv:1511.07586]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Beltran Jimenez and A

    J. Beltran Jimenez and A. L. Maroto, Phys. Rev. D78, 063005 (2008) [arXiv:0801.1486]; L. Heisenberg, JCAP 05, 015 (2014) [arXiv:1402.7026]; G. Tasinato, JHEP 04, 067 (2014) [arXiv:1402.6450]; E. Allys, P. Peter and Y. Rodriguez, JCAP02, 004 (2016) [arXiv:1511.03101]; E. Elizalde and A. J. Lopez-Revelles, Phys. Rev. D82, 063504 (2010) [arXiv:1004.5021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  17. [17]

    S. A. Hosseini Mansoori, A. Talebian, Z. Molaee and H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D105, 023529 (2022) [arXiv:2108.11666]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010) [arXiv:0805.1726]; A. De Felice and S. Tsu- jikawa, Living Rev. Rel.13, 3 (2010) [arXiv:1002.4928]; S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept.505, 59 (2011) [arXiv:1011.0544]; S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509, 167 (2011) [arXiv:1108.6266]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    P. D. Mannheim and D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J.342, 635 (1989); P. D. Mannheim, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.56, 340 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0505266]; F. W. Hehl, J. D. Mc- Crea, E. W. Mielke and Y. Ne’eman, Phys. Rept.258, 1 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9402012]; I. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rept. 357, 113 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0103093]; M. Blagojevi´ c and F. W. Hehl, arXiv:1210.3...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1989

  20. [20]

    E. M. Barboza Jr. and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Lett. B666, 415 (2008) [arXiv:0805.1713]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    de Rham, Living Rev

    C. de Rham, Living Rev. Rel.17, 7 (2014) [arXiv:1401.4173]; K. Hinterbichler, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 671 (2012) [arXiv:1105.3735]; C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze and A. J. Tolley, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 231101 (2011) [arXiv:1011.1232]; M. Fierz, W. Pauli, Proc. R. Soc. A173, 211 (1939); S. F. Hassan, R. A. Rosen, A. Schmidt-May, JHEP2012, 026 (2012) [arXiv:1109.3230]...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D84, 024020 (2011) [arXiv:1104.2669]; T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C70, 373 (2010) [arXiv:1008.4193]; M. Roshan and F. Shojai, Phys. Rev. D94, 044002 (2016) [arXiv:1607.06049]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  23. [23]

    Shahidi and S

    S. Shahidi and S. Farahzad, arXiv:2601.18825 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0009008]; E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003) [arXiv:astro-ph/0208512]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  25. [25]

    J. D. Brown, Class. Quant. Grav.10, 1579 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9304026]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  26. [26]

    Huterer and M

    D. Huterer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D64, 123527 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0012510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  27. [27]

    Wang, Phys

    Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D77, 123525 (2008) [arXiv:0803.4295]; H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D72, 103503 (2005) [arXiv:astro-ph/0506748]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1582 (1998) [arXiv:astro-ph/9708069]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  29. [29]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 214003 (2013) [arXiv:1304.1961]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    DESI Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025) [arXiv:2503.14738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Haghani, T

    Z. Haghani, T. Harko and S. Shahidi, Phys. Dark Univ. 44, 101448 (2024) [arXiv:2301.12133]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Moresco et al., Living Rev

    M. Moresco et al., Living Rev. Rel.25, 6 (2022) [arXiv:2201.07241]; M. Moresco et al., JCAP08, 006 (2012) [arXiv:1201.3609]; R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, As- trophys. J.573, 37 (2002) [arXiv:astro-ph/0106145]; M. Moresco, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450, L16 (2015) [arXiv:1503.01116]; D. Stern et al., JCAP02, 008 (2010) [arXiv:0907.3149]; M. Moresco et al., JCA...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    With the above definition, larger positive Jefrreys scale indicate stronger evidence for modelB

    in which|lnB AB|<1 indicate inconclusive ev- idence, 1<|lnB AB|<2.5 indicate weak evidence, 2.5<|lnB AB|<5 corresponds to moderate evidence and|lnB AB|>5 indicates strong evidence in favor of the model with higher evidence. With the above definition, larger positive Jefrreys scale indicate stronger evidence for modelB. In table III we have presented the m...

  34. [34]

    Brout et al., Astrophys

    D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022) [arXiv:2202.04077]; A. G. Riess et al., Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998) [arXiv:astro-ph/9805201]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022) [arXiv:2112.04510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Chen, J.-Q

    L. Chen, J.-Q. Gong and Y. Wang, JCAP02, 028 (2019) [arXiv:1808.05724]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Handley, M.P

    W.J. Handley, M.P. Hobson and A.N. Lasenby, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 453,11(2015)

    2015

  38. [38]

    Jeffreys,Theory of Probability, 3rd ed., Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford (1961)

    H. Jeffreys,Theory of Probability, 3rd ed., Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford (1961)

    1961

  39. [39]

    Gu et al., Nat

    G. Gu et al., Nat. Astron.9, 1879 (2025) [arXiv:2504.06118]

    arXiv 2025