Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 111 references

A unified dark fluid that mimics ΛCDM expansion can bend the late-time distance–redshift relation enough to partly relax the Hubble tension while leaving S8 essentially untouched — evidence the two tensions may come from different physical

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 04:53 UTC pith:EAYSLJMF

load-bearing objection An honest, preliminary constraint exercise whose central 'distinct sectors' conclusion is not actually tested—the S8 robustness rests on an unvalidated effective-growth ansatz. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22802 v1 pith:EAYSLJMF submitted 2026-07-24 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Entropic Chaplygin-Gas cosmology and late-universe tension diagnostics

Kelvis A. Kulhkampa , Carlos H. Coimbra-Ara\'ujob , Abra\~ao J. S.Capistrano , Luiz A. Cabral , Jos\'e A. P. F. Mar\~ao This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO
keywords dark energydark matterChaplygin gasunified dark sectorHubble tensionS8 tensioncosmological perturbationslate universe
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 tries to establish that a unified dark-sector model — an entropic generalized Chaplygin gas, whose single fluid acts like cold matter at early times and dark energy at late times — can reproduce the ΛCDM expansion history while imposing a controlled deformation of the late-time distance-redshift relation. Fitted to supernova, BAO, RSD, CMB distance-prior, and CMB lensing data, the model shifts the preferred (H0, Ωm, S8) region mainly along background-sensitive directions, partially relaxing the Hubble tension while leaving the S8 growth tension comparatively intact. The paper shows that the displacement between the model and ΛCDM is concentrated in the expansion sector, not the growth sector, and concludes that the H0 and S8 tensions may therefore have distinct physical origins. It also finds that the statistical preference for the model depends strongly on which supernova compilation is used, and explicitly cautions that the perturbation sector has not been validated with a full Einstein–Boltzmann treatment.

Core claim

The central claim is that the entropic generalized Chaplygin gas — a unified dark fluid with equation of state p = -A/ρ^α, plus an entropy perturbation that drives the effective rest-frame sound speed to zero — is consistent at the background level with the full set of late-Universe distance and growth data, and that its only significant effect is a late-time bending of the distance-redshift relation. The paper argues this deformation moves the joint posterior in (H0, Ωm, S8) almost exclusively along directions controlled by the expansion history: with one supernova calibration it substantially shifts H0 and improves the fit over ΛCDM; with another calibration the two models nearly coincide.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the unified dark-sector equation of state p_gCg = -A/ρ^α, integrated through the Friedmann equations to yield ρ(a) = (A + B a^{-3(1+α)})^{1/(1+α)}, which behaves as pressureless matter as a→0 and as a constant-density dark-energy phase as a→∞. To avoid the well-known Chaplygin-gas problem of large adiabatic sound speed suppressing structure growth, the model adds an entropy perturbation chosen so that the effective rest-frame sound speed satisfies c_eff^2 ≈ 0, cancelling the pressure-gradient term; the numerical growth is then computed from a reduced sub-horizon equation (Eq. 4.31) with clustering matter Ω_cl = Ω_b + Ω_gcg,m, which explicitly includes only the m

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reduced effective-growth equation (4.31) with clustering source Ω_cl = Ω_b + Ω_gcg,m correctly represents the entropic unified fluid — i.e., that imposing c_eff^2 ≈ 0 via the entropy perturbation (3.17) genuinely cancels the pressure-gradient terms. The paper does not integrate the full perturbation system of Section 3, so if this growth prescription is inaccurate, the claimed robustness of S8 and the 'distinct sectors' conclusion fail.

What would settle it

Integrate the full scalar perturbation equations from Section 3 — including the non-adiabatic entropy perturbation of Eqs. (3.16)–(3.17) and the scale-dependent pressure-gradient term c_s^2 k^2 δ/a^2 — into an Einstein–Boltzmann solver with the same background parameters, then recompute fσ8(z) and the S8 posterior. If these deviate substantially from the reduced prescription of Eqs. (4.31)–(4.33) on the same data, the paper's distinct-origin conclusion collapses; agreement would confirm it.

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

If this is right

  • If the entropic gCg model is right, the H0 tension can be partially relaxed by late-time expansion modifications alone, without early-Universe physics.
  • The S8 tension would remain nearly unaffected by such a model, meaning the two tensions need different kinds of new physics to be solved.
  • A unified dark fluid with zero effective sound speed can serve as a computationally simple proxy for ΛCDM in background analyses, matching the expansion history while differing only through late-time distance shifts.
  • Model comparison in this framework depends critically on the supernova compilation: an apparent large preference over ΛCDM with one dataset disappears (and mildly reverses) with the other, so reported evidence values are not robust.
  • Diagnostics that decompose parameter shifts into background-sensitive and growth-sensitive components are needed before claiming that a specific cosmological tension is being addressed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the reduced effective-growth prescription (Eq. 4.31–4.33) is faithful, a full Einstein–Boltzmann implementation would likely confirm the background–growth separation; but the paper's own caution shows the opposite could also happen, with late-time sound-speed effects coupling back into the growth sector and changing S8.
  • The model's late-time distance deformation gives a concrete testable signature: slightly different predictions for H(z) and distance measures at z ≲ 1 than ΛCDM, which cosmic-chronometer and BAO observations could discriminate.
  • The extreme model-evidence difference reported with one supernova compilation is a warning that compressed-likelihood analyses can produce large evidence shifts even for physically marginal models; the dataset-by-dataset audit the paper recommends but does not perform should be done before any evidence claim is trusted.
  • If the H0 shift seen with one compilation is real, the implied change in the late-time distance scale should show up as a corresponding shift in the effective dark-energy equation of state parameters, a cross-check not performed in this paper.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies an entropic generalized Chaplygin gas (gCg) as a unified dark-sector model and constrains it with PantheonPlus+SH0ES or DES–Dovekie supernovae, DESI BAO, RSD, compressed Planck 2018 distance priors, and a Planck lensing-amplitude prior. Using MultiNest and Tensiometer, the authors compare the gCg and ΛCDM posteriors in the derived space (H0, Ωm, S8). They find that with PantheonPlus+SH0ES the two models are widely separated, with a formally enormous Bayesian preference for gCg, while with DES–Dovekie the posteriors largely overlap and ΛCDM is mildly preferred after complexity penalties. The paper interprets the results as showing that the gCg modifies the late-time expansion sector more effectively than the growth sector, and suggests that H0 and S8 tensions may originate from distinct physical sectors. The authors are explicitly cautious about the compressed CMB likelihood, the phenomenological growth prescription, and the absence of a full Einstein–Boltzmann implementation.

Significance. If the growth-sector results were validated, the conclusion that H0 and S8 tensions respond differently to late-time background modifications would be an interesting and nontrivial diagnostic of the two tensions. The paper is also valuable for its honest reporting: it clearly states that the likelihood does not integrate the full perturbative system, that the Planck information is compressed, and that the Tensiometer measure is a cross-model posterior displacement rather than an early-versus-late tension probability. The code-level detail on likelihood construction and the explicit caveats are commendable. However, the central claim about S8 robustness and distinct physical sectors rests on an unvalidated effective-growth ansatz, and the abstract's wording that the model 'partially reduces' the H0 tension is not supported by a direct tension measurement. The significance is therefore conditional on the perturbation-sector validation being completed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.6] The growth-sector conclusions—including the statement that residual S8 discrepancies are 'comparatively robust'—are derived from the reduced sub-horizon equation (4.31) with the clustering source split as Ωcl = Ωb + Ωgcg,m in (4.32)–(4.33). This is an ansatz, not the solution of the entropic perturbation system of Sec. 3. For a unified fluid with c_eff²≈0, the pressure perturbation is cancelled, but the velocity-divergence and (1+w) terms from the background EoS remain; they are not equivalent to a split matter component. The posteriors permit α≠0 (Fig. 7), and the paper explicitly states (Sec. 4.6) that Eq. (4.31) is not a full Einstein–Boltzmann evolution. Without validating this reduced growth equation against the full entropic system, the claimed S8 robustness and the 'distinct sectors' conclusion are unsupported. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Abstract / §6] The abstract states that the model 'partially reduces background-driven discrepancies, especially those involving H0.' Yet the Tensiometer analysis compares gCg and ΛCDM posteriors from the same datasets; it is not an early-versus-late tension measurement. The concluding section explicitly concedes that 'a quantitative statement that the model reduces either the H0 or S8 tension requires separate early- and late-dataset posteriors within each cosmological model' and 'cannot be inferred solely from the gCg-minus-ΛCDM comparison.' The abstract and the title-level framing should be reconciled with this caveat; as written, the abstract overstates the diagnostic content.
  3. [§4.5] The CMB information is a compressed distance-prior vector (R, ℓ_A, Ωb h²) plus a lensing-amplitude Gaussian on σ8 Ωm^{1/4}. These compressed summaries were constructed within ΛCDM and may not faithfully represent the CMB constraints for a model with a modified late-time expansion and a non-standard perturbation sector. The authors acknowledge this limitation, but it directly affects the central background-shift claim: the H0 and Ωm posteriors could be biased by using ΛCDM-calibrated compressed priors. A check with the full Planck likelihood, or at least a demonstration that the compressed prior is robust for the gCg expansion history, is needed before the background-sector conclusions can be taken as quantitative.
  4. [§5, Table 5] The PPS configuration yields Δln Z = 146.033 ± 0.019, a Bayes factor of order 10^63 favoring gCg. The authors correctly caution that this is far beyond the conventional decisive-evidence regime and requires a dataset-by-dataset decomposition and likelihood calibration checks. Given this extreme value, the reported model-comparison results cannot be used as a meaningful statistical preference until those checks are performed. At minimum, the paper should identify which likelihood component drives the enormous evidence difference and whether the PPS covariance and the analytic marginalization are consistently applied to both models.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2] The notation '◦' and '◦◦' for derivatives is nonstandard and likely a typesetting artifact; it should be replaced with dots or primes. Also, the master equation (3.11) contains the term −(k c_s/a)² δ on the right-hand side, which is inconsistent in sign with the pressure-gradient contribution in the text; please check the derivation and signs.
  2. [§4.6] The RSD dataset contains only six fσ8 points at low redshift (z ≤ 0.7), with no off-diagonal covariance. This is a very limited growth dataset; the conclusion that S8 is 'robust' should be tempered accordingly. At minimum, the choice of RSD data and the omission of eBOSS/BOSS full-shape information should be justified.
  3. [§2] Fig. 1's lower panel compares residuals for the gCg model only, not for ΛCDM, although the caption and text suggest a comparison of both models. Please clarify. Also, Table 1's caption says 'partially based on [96]' but many entries lack the original reference in the table itself; adding explicit per-row references would improve reproducibility.
  4. [References] Reference [41] contains the DOI '10.1103/pszr-cyy4', which appears to be a placeholder and is not resolvable. Please verify. Several other references (e.g., [105] and [106]) are listed as arXiv e-prints without full bibliographic details; these should be completed for a journal submission.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

H0 shift is a fit to the same SH0ES-calibrated SN data; the S8/growth robustness is substantially imposed by the CDM-like clustering-source prescription in Eqs. (4.31)-(4.33).

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. 4.3 and Eq. (4.3)]
    "We start with the entropic UDM Chaplygin-gas model which is sampled with θgCg = (H0, Ωb, Ã, α, σ8,0) ... This shifts the preferred (H0,Ωm,S8) parameter region and partially relaxes background-driven discrepancies, particularly those associated with the Hubble constant."

    H0 is not a derived prediction: it is a sampled parameter in θgCg=(H0,Ωb,Ã,α,σ8,0) (Eq. 4.3), and the same supernova likelihoods that encode the late-universe H0 calibration (PantheonPlus+SH0ES and DES-Dovekie, Sec. 4.3) are used to fit it. The quoted 'partial relaxation' of the H0 discrepancy is therefore the posterior shift of a fitted variable, statistically forced by including SH0ES-calibrated distance moduli in χ²_tot, not an independent test of the model. The paper itself later notes that the inferred performance is 'highly sensitive to the adopted supernova likelihood,' confirming the effect is calibration-driven rather than a model prediction.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 4.6 (Eqs. 4.31-4.33); Sec. 3.3 (Eq. 3.17); Eq. (4.7)]
    "Thus, only the effective matter-like contribution of the unified gCg sector enters the source term. This construction guarantees that the α = 0 limit reproduces the standard flat-ΛCDM clustering equation. For α ≠ 0, Eq. (4.31) is used as a phenomenological effective-growth approximation associated with the cold-clustering condition c2_eff ≃ 0; it is not a full Einstein-Boltzmann evolution of the unified fluid."

    By Eq. (4.7), Ωm ≡ Ωb + Ωg,0(Ã/(1+Ã))^{1/(1+α)} = Ωb + Ωgcg,m,0, so Ωcl(a) in Eq. (4.32) is exactly the ΛCDM matter-density parameter scaled by E^-2. Eq. (4.31) is thus the standard pressureless growth equation, differing from ΛCDM only through the background E(a) in the damping term. The paper's central conclusion that the model 'modifies the late-time expansion sector more effectively than the growth sector' and leaves S8 'comparatively robust' is therefore built into the chosen prescription (only the matter-like component clusters, c_eff^2≈0), not derived from the full entropic perturbation system of Sec. 3. The manuscript admits this: Eq. (4.31) 'is not a full Einstein-Boltzmann evolution of the unified fluid.'

full rationale

The background derivation is self-contained: Eqs. (2.7)-(2.12) follow from the gCg EoS and the Friedmann equation, and the α=0 limit is an explicit identity. The likelihood evaluation itself is not circular, and the paper is unusually candid, stating that the full perturbation system is not integrated and that cross-model posterior shifts are not early-versus-late tension probabilities. However, two load-bearing interpretive claims reduce to their inputs. (1) The H0-tension relaxation is the posterior shift of a fitted H0 parameter constrained by the same SN compilations used to define the late-universe H0 scale, so it is a fit outcome, not a model prediction. (2) The S8/growth robustness is substantially imposed by defining the clustering source as the matter-like part of the unified fluid, which reproduces the ΛCDM growth equation; the paper explicitly labels this a phenomenological approximation. These are partial and acknowledged circularities, not a self-citation chain, and independent constraints (DESI BAO, Planck compressed priors, RSD data) contribute real information. Score 5 reflects partial construction of two central claims rather than a fully self-referential derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the gCg EoS, flatness, and an imposed cold-clustering effective sound speed. The most fragile load-bearing input is the effective-growth prescription used for S8, which is not derived from the entropic perturbation equations.

free parameters (5)
  • H0 = prior 50–90 km/s/Mpc; posterior not quoted in text
    Hubble constant, fitted to SN+BAO+CMB distance data.
  • Omega_b = prior 0.03–0.08; posterior not quoted in text
    Baryon density parameter, fitted jointly.
  • sigma_8,0 = prior 0.45–1.20; posterior not quoted in text
    Amplitude of matter fluctuations, fitted via RSD and lensing prior.
  • A_tilde = B/A = prior 0.05–5.0; posterior not quoted in text
    Controls the matter-like fraction of the unified fluid through Eqs. (4.4)–(4.7).
  • alpha = prior 0–1; posterior not quoted in text
    Chaplygin exponent; sets the transition sharpness and adiabatic sound speed via Eq. (4.6).
axioms (6)
  • standard math FLRW background and Friedmann equations
    Used to derive the background expansion E^2(a) in Eqs. (2.12) and (4.8).
  • domain assumption Generalized Chaplygin gas EoS p = -A/rho^alpha as a unified dark sector
    Eq. (2.2); assumes a single fluid interpolates between matter and dark energy.
  • domain assumption Spatial flatness Omega_k = 0
    Assumed in Eqs. (2.9)–(2.12) and in the distance/likelihood computations of Sec. 4.
  • ad hoc to paper Entropic cold-clustering prescription c_eff^2 ≈ 0
    Eq. (3.17) imposes S = delta/[3(1+w)] to cancel adiabatic pressure perturbations; this is a phenomenological requirement, not derived from microphysics.
  • ad hoc to paper Reduced effective-growth equation (4.31) with Omega_cl = Omega_b + Omega_gcg,m
    The likelihood integrates this sub-horizon growth equation instead of the full perturbation system from Sec. 3; the text concedes it is not a full Einstein-Boltzmann evolution.
  • domain assumption Eisenstein-Hu and Hu-Sugiyama fitting forms for drag/decoupling redshifts
    Used in Secs. 4.2 and 4.5 to compute rd and z* entering BAO and Planck distance priors.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26775 in / 13493 out tokens · 147669 ms · 2026-08-01T04:53:50.260138+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Persistent discrepancies between early- and late-Universe measurements have made cosmological tensions a major test of the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. We investigate whether an entropic generalized Chaplygin-gas cosmology, describing a unified dark sector, can modify the parameter degeneracies associated with these tensions. The model is constrained using Type Ia supernova data from PantheonPlus+SH0ES and DES--Dovekie, DESI BAO measurements, RSD growth data, compressed Planck 2018 distance priors, and a Planck lensing-amplitude prior. We find that the entropic gCg model closely reproduces the $\Lambda$CDM background expansion while introducing a controlled late-time deformation of the distance--redshift relation. This shifts the preferred $(H_0,\Omega_m,S_8)$ region and partially reduces background-driven discrepancies, especially those involving $H_0$. Using \texttt{Tensiometer} to quantify posterior shifts in the common derived parameter space $(H_0,\Omega_m,S_8)$, we show that the displacement relative to $\Lambda$CDM occurs mainly along background-sensitive directions. The model therefore modifies the late-time expansion sector more effectively than the growth sector, leaving residual $S_8$ discrepancies comparatively robust. These results support the possibility that the $H_0$ and $S_8$ tensions arise from distinct physical sectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22802 by Abra\~ao J. S.Capistrano, Carlos H. Coimbra-Ara\'ujob, Jos\'e A. P. F. Mar\~ao, Kelvis A. Kulhkampa, Luiz A. Cabral.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In the Top panel, we show the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of the density parameters Ωi(a) = ρi(a)/ρcrit,0 as a function of the scale factor a in loga￾rithmic scale. The plot compares the gCg UDM model with the standard ΛCDM scenario. The blue solid line represents baryons Ωb (UDM), the orange solid line cor￾responds to the unified dark sector Ωde+dm (gCg UDM), the green dotted line shows radiation Ωr, the red dashed line represents matter Ωm in the ΛCDM… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the physical density fractions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the gCg EoS parameter wgCg(z) in the redshift interval 0 ≤ z ≤ 3. The gray band shows the viable gCg parameter region selected from the transition￾redshift condition 0.48 ≤ zt ≤ 0.80, the gray dashed curve gives the median of this band, and the blue solid curve denotes the fiducial model A˜ = 0.38, α = 0.12. The black dotted line corresponds to the ΛCDM limit, w = −1. The gCg fluid evolves fro… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the adiabatic sound speed cs/c for the gCg model. The gray band represents the same transition-redshift-selected parameter region used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior constraints on the intrinsic entropic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between the UDM gCg model and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior-difference distributions between the UDM gCg and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Absolute model-comparison diagnostics for the UDM gCg model and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.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

111 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Perlmutter, et al., Astrophysical Journal517, 565 (1999)

    S. Perlmutter, et al., Astrophysical Journal517, 565 (1999). DOI 10.1086/307221. URL https://doi.org/10.1086/ 307221

    doi:10.1086/307221 1999

  2. [2]

    Riess, et al., Astronomical Journal116, 1009 (1998)

    A.G. Riess, et al., Astronomical Journal116, 1009 (1998). DOI 10.1086/300499. URL https://doi.org/10.1086/ 300499

    doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  3. [3]

    Riess, et al., Astrophysical Journal607, 665 (2004)

    A.G. Riess, et al., Astrophysical Journal607, 665 (2004). DOI 10.1086/383612. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ astro-ph/0402512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    Tonry, et al., Astrophysical Journal594, 1 (2003)

    J.L. Tonry, et al., Astrophysical Journal594, 1 (2003). DOI 10.1086/376865. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ astro-ph/0305008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    Melchiorri, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters536, L63 (2000)

    A. Melchiorri, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters536, L63 (2000). DOI 10.1086/312744. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1086/312744

    work page doi:10.1086/312744 2000

  6. [6]

    Lange, et al., Physical Review D63, 042001 (2001)

    A.E. Lange, et al., Physical Review D63, 042001 (2001). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.042001. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/astro-ph/0005004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Jaffe, et al., Physical Review Letters86, 3475 (2001)

    A.H. Jaffe, et al., Physical Review Letters86, 3475 (2001). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3475. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/astro-ph/0007333

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

    Halverson, et al., Astrophysical Journal568, 38 (2002)

    N.W. Halverson, et al., Astrophysical Journal568, 38 (2002). DOI 10.1086/338879. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/astro-ph/0104489

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  9. [9]

    Netterfield, et al., Astrophysical Journal571, 604 (2002)

    C.B. Netterfield, et al., Astrophysical Journal571, 604 (2002). DOI 10.1086/340118. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/astro-ph/0104460

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    Sahni, A

    V. Sahni, A. Starobinsky, International Journal of Modern Physics D15, 2105 (2006). DOI 10.1142/ S0218271806009704. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ astro-ph/0610026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  11. [13]

    Kowalski, et al., Astrophysical Journal686, 749 (2008)

    M. Kowalski, et al., Astrophysical Journal686, 749 (2008). DOI10.1086/589937. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0804. 4142 18 Kelvis A. Kulhkamp et al

    2008

  12. [14]

    L. Izzo, M. Muccino, E. Zaninoni, L. Amati, M.D. Valle, Astronomy and Astrophysics582, A115 (2015). DOI 10.1051/0004-6361/201526461. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1508.05898

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [15]

    Efstathiou, P

    G. Efstathiou, P. Lemos, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society476, 151 (2017). DOI https://doi. org/10.1093/mnras/sty099

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty099 2017

  14. [16]

    Allen, D.A

    S.W. Allen, D.A. Rapetti, R.W. Schmidt, H. Ebeling, R.G. Morris, A.C. Fabian, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society383, 879 (2008). DOI 10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2007.12610.x. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2966.2007.12610.x

    arXiv 2008

  15. [17]

    Baxter, J

    E.J. Baxter, J. Clampitt, T. Giannantonio, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society461, 4099 (2016). DOI 10.1093/mnras/stw1584. URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/1602.07384

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [18]

    Chávez, M

    R. Chávez, M. Plionis, S. Basilakos, R. Terlevich, E. Ter- levich, J. Melnick, F. Bresolin, A.L. González-Morán, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society462, 2431 (2016). DOI 10.1093/mnras/stw1813. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1813

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1813 2016

  17. [19]

    Aghanim, et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics641, A5 (2020)

    N. Aghanim, et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics641, A5 (2020). DOI 10.1051/0004-6361/201936386. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.12875

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [20]

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

    S. Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics61(1), 1 (1989). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

  19. [21]

    Nemiroff, R

    R.J. Nemiroff, R. Joshi, B.R. Patla, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015(06), 006 (2015). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/06/006. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1402.4522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [22]

    Santos, A.A

    B. Santos, A.A. Coley, N.C. Devi, J.S. Alcaniz, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017(02), 047 (2017). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/02/047. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1611.01885

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [23]

    Kumar, C.P

    P. Kumar, C.P. Singh, Astrophysics and Space Science 362(3), 52 (2017). DOI 10.1007/s10509-017-3032-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-017-3032-0 2017

  22. [24]

    Velten, R.F

    H.E.S. Velten, R.F. vom Marttens, W. Zimdahl, European Physical Journal C74, 3160 (2014). DOI 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-014-3160-4. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1410. 2509

    doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2014

  23. [25]

    Sultana, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society457, 212 (2016)

    J. Sultana, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society457, 212 (2016). DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stv297

    2016

  24. [26]

    Sivanandam, Physical Review D87, 083514 (2013)

    N. Sivanandam, Physical Review D87, 083514 (2013). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.083514. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1203.4197

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [27]

    Nozari, N

    K. Nozari, N. Behrouz, N. Rashidi, Advances in High Energy Physics2014, 569702 (2014). DOI 10.1155/2014/ 569702. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1155/2014/569702

    doi:10.1155/2014/ 2014

  26. [28]

    Carroll, W.H

    S.M. Carroll, W.H. Press, E.L. Turner, Astronomy and Astrophysics30, 499 (1992). DOI 10.1146/annurev.aa.30. 090192.002435. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/ 9204004

    arXiv 1992

  27. [29]

    Caldwell, R

    R.R. Caldwell, R. Dave, P.J. Steinhardt, Physical Review Letters80, 1582 (1998). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80 1998

  28. [30]

    Saini, et al., Physical Review Letters85, 1162 (2000)

    T.D. Saini, et al., Physical Review Letters85, 1162 (2000). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1162. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/astro-ph/9910231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  29. [31]

    Peebles, B

    P.J.E. Peebles, B. Ratra, Reviews of Modern Physics75, 559 (2003). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  30. [32]

    Sahni, Y

    V. Sahni, Y. Shtanov, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2003, 11 (2003). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/ 2003/11/014. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/ 0202346

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2003

  31. [33]

    Capistrano, Physical Review D103(4), 043527 (2021)

    A.J.S. Capistrano, Physical Review D103(4), 043527 (2021). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043527. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043527

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.043527 2021

  32. [34]

    Capistrano, P.T.Z

    A.J.S. Capistrano, P.T.Z. Seidel, H.R. Duarte, Physics of the Dark Universe31, 100760 (2021). DOI 10.1016/ j.dark.2020.100760. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dark.2020.100760

    arXiv 2021

  33. [35]

    Capistrano, Physics of the Dark Universe33, 100872 (2021)

    A.J.S. Capistrano, Physics of the Dark Universe33, 100872 (2021). DOI 10.1016/j.dark.2021.100872. URL https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2021.100872

    arXiv 2021

  34. [36]

    Capistrano, Classical and Quantum Gravity38(4), 045008 (2021)

    A.J.S. Capistrano, Classical and Quantum Gravity38(4), 045008 (2021). DOI 10.1088/1361-6382/abd2ff. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/abd2ff

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abd2ff 2021

  35. [37]

    Capistrano, L.A

    A.J.S. Capistrano, L.A. Cabral, C.H. Coimbra-Araújo, J.A.P.F. Marão, Galaxies10(6), 118 (2022). DOI 10.3390/galaxies10060118. URL https://doi.org/10. 3390/galaxies10060118

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10060118 2022

  36. [38]

    Capistrano, L.A

    A.J.S. Capistrano, L.A. Cabral, Universe9(12), 497 (2023). DOI 10.3390/universe9120497. URL https://doi.org/ 10.3390/universe9120497

    work page doi:10.3390/universe9120497 2023

  37. [39]

    Andrade, A.J.S

    U. Andrade, A.J.S. Capistrano, E. Di Valentino, R.C. Nunes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety529(2), 831 (2024). DOI 10.1093/mnras/stae402. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae402

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae402 2024

  38. [40]

    Capistrano, R.C

    A.J.S. Capistrano, R.C. Nunes, L.A. Cabral, Physical Re- view D109(12), 123517 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD. 109.123517. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 109.123517

    doi:10.1103/physrevd 2024

  39. [41]

    Capistrano, E

    A.J.S. Capistrano, E. Silva, R.C. Nunes, O. Luongo, Phys- ical Review D113(2), 023516 (2026). DOI 10.1103/ pszr-cyy4. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/pszr-cyy4

    work page doi:10.1103/pszr-cyy4 2026

  40. [42]

    Karman, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences8, 9 (1941)

    T. Karman, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences8, 9 (1941). DOI 10.2514/8.10730. URL https://doi.org/10. 2514/8.10730

    work page doi:10.2514/8.10730 1941

  41. [43]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, V. Pasquier, Physics Letters B511(2), 265 (2001). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00571-8. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0370269301005718

    doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(01)00571-8 2001

  42. [46]

    Bento, O

    M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A.A. Sen, Physics Letters B 575, 172 (2003). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.08.017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  43. [47]

    Aurich, S

    R. Aurich, S. Lustig, Astroparticle Physics97, 118 (2018). DOI 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.11.004. URL https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.11.004 2018

  44. [48]

    H. Li, W. Yang, Y. Wu, Physics of the Dark Universe 22, 60 (2018). DOI 10.1016/j.dark.2018.09.002. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2018.09.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.09.002 2018

  45. [49]

    Bertolami, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 177002 (2023)

    O. Bertolami, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 177002 (2023). DOI 10.1088/1361-6382/ace8e4. URL https:// doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ace8e4

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ace8e4 2023

  46. [50]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, S. Vagnozzi, E.D. Valentino, D.F. Mota, S. Capozziello, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019, 044 (2019). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/ 11/044. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2019/11/044

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/ 2019

  47. [51]

    Bertolami, R

    O. Bertolami, R. Potting, P. Sá, Universe10, 271 (2024). DOI 10.3390/universe10070271. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.3390/universe10070271

    work page doi:10.3390/universe10070271 2024

  48. [52]

    L. Reis, M. Baldiotti, O. Bertolami, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity43, 015901 (2026). DOI 10.1088/1361-6382/ Entropic Chaplygin-Gas cosmology and late-universe tension diagnostics 19 ae5b18. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ ae5b18

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ 2026

  49. [53]

    Bertolami, V

    O. Bertolami, V. Duvvuri, Physics Letters B640, 121 (2006). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.07.043. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0607117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  50. [54]

    Sandvik, M

    H.B. Sandvik, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga, I. Waga, Physical Review D69(12), 123524 (2004). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevD.69.123524. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.69.123524

    2004

  51. [55]

    R. Bean, O. Doré, Physical Review D68(2), 023515 (2003). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.023515. URL https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.023515

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.023515 2003

  52. [56]

    Amendola, F

    L. Amendola, F. Finelli, C. Burigana, D. Carturan, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2003(07), 005 (2003). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2003/07/005. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2003/07/005

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2003/07/005 2003

  53. [57]

    Kumar, R

    S. Kumar, R. Nunes, Physical Review D96, 103511 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103511. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1702.02143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [58]

    Valentino, A

    E.D. Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, Physical Review D96, 043503 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043503. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00762

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [59]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, D. Mota, Physical Review D96, 123508 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123508. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1705.09278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [60]

    S. Pan, A. Mukherjee, N. Banerjee, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society477, 1189 (2018). DOI 10. 1093/mnras/sty755. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1710. 03725

    2018

  57. [61]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E.D. Valentino, R.C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, D.F. Mota, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics09, 019 (2018). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/ 09/019. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1804.06110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [62]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, L. Xu, D. Mota, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society482, 1858 (2019). DOI 10.1093/mnras/sty2786. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1807.04255

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [63]

    S. Pan, W. Yang, C. Singha, E. Saridakis, Physical Review D100, 083539 (2019). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083539. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1909.10969

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [64]

    Bilic, G.B

    N. Bilic, G.B. Tupper, R.D. Viollier, Physics Letters B 535, 17 (2002). DOI 10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01716-1. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111325

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  61. [65]

    Bento, O

    M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A.A. Sen, Physical Review D 66, 043507 (2002). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.043507. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0202064

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  62. [66]

    Mamon, et al., European Physical Journal C82(4), 371 (2022)

    A. Mamon, et al., European Physical Journal C82(4), 371 (2022). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10185-4. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10185-4

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10185-4 2022

  63. [67]

    Goray, et al., European Physical Journal C85(3), 295 (2025)

    M. Goray, et al., European Physical Journal C85(3), 295 (2025). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14895-3. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14895-3

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14895-3 2025

  64. [68]

    Kumar, V.C

    M. Kumar, V.C. Dubey, U.K. Sharma, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics1, 8 (2021). DOI 10.1142/S0219887821501953. URL https: //doi.org/10.1142/S0219887821501953

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219887821501953 2021

  65. [69]

    Paul, Physical Review D111, 083540 (2025)

    T. Paul, Physical Review D111, 083540 (2025). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083540. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083540

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.083540 2025

  66. [70]

    DOI 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration, Astronomy and Astrophysics641, A6 (2020). DOI 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  67. [71]

    DESI Collaboration, arXiv e-prints (2024)

    2024

  68. [72]

    DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533

    eBOSS Collaboration, Physical Review D103(8), 083533 (2021). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083533 2021

  69. [73]

    Riess, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters934(1), L7 (2022)

    A.G. Riess, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters934(1), L7 (2022). DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2112.04510

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [74]

    Popovic, W.D

    B. Popovic, W.D. Kenworthy, M. Ginolin, A. Goobar, et al., arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:2506.05471 (2025). DOI 10. 48550/arXiv.2506.05471. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2506.05471

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.05471 2025

  71. [75]

    Beutler, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society423, 3430 (2012)

    F. Beutler, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society423, 3430 (2012). DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966. 2012.21136.x. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4725

    arXiv 2012

  72. [76]

    Howlett, A.J

    C. Howlett, A.J. Ross, L. Samushia, W.J. Percival, M. Man- era, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 449, 848 (2015). DOI 10.1093/mnras/stu2693. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3238

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  73. [77]

    Chen, Q.G

    L. Chen, Q.G. Huang, K. Wang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019, 028 (2019). DOI 10.1088/ 1475-7516/2019/02/028. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1808.05724

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [81]

    Raveri, C

    M. Raveri, C. Doux, Physical Review D104(4), 043504 (2021). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.043504

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.043504 2021

  75. [82]

    Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19(6), 716 (1974)

    H. Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19(6), 716 (1974). DOI 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    arXiv 1974

  76. [83]

    Schwarz, The Annals of Statistics6(2), 461 (1978)

    G. Schwarz, The Annals of Statistics6(2), 461 (1978). DOI 10.1214/aos/1176344136

    arXiv 1978

  77. [84]

    Spiegelhalter, N.G

    D.J. Spiegelhalter, N.G. Best, B.P. Carlin, A. Van Der Linde, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Se- ries B64(4), 583 (2002). DOI 10.1111/1467-9868.00353

    arXiv 2002

  78. [85]

    Zhang, H

    C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.J. Zhang, Y.C. Sun, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics14, 1221 (2014). DOI 10.1088/1674-4527/14/10/002. URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/14/10/002

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/10/002 2014

  79. [86]

    Stern, R

    D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, S.A. Stanford, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2010, 008 (2010)

    2010

  80. [87]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde, R. Jimenez, Physical Review D71, 123001 (2005). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123001. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412269

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

Showing first 80 references.