Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A single dark fluid with a Lambert W equation of state can match DESI BAO, Pantheon+ supernovae, and cosmic-chronometer data, yielding a Hubble constant consistent with Planck and preserving the Hubble tension.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:07 UTC pith:5SC4O7PD

load-bearing objection A straightforward re-fit of a known Lambert W dark-fluid EoS to DESI BAO + Pantheon+ + CC; the analysis has a load-bearing omission (no baryons) and a few overclaims, so the paper is not convincing as is. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.20972 v2 pith:5SC4O7PD submitted 2026-01-28 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

The Lambert W equation of state in light of DESI BAO

Vipin Chandra Dubey , Subhajit Saha , Abdulla Al Mamon This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc MSC 83F05 PACS 98.80.Es95.36.+x
keywords Lambert W functiondark fluidunified dark matter and dark energyequation of statebaryon acoustic oscillationsDESIPantheon+ supernovaecosmic chronometers
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 asks whether one unified 'dark fluid' can replace both dark matter and dark energy. It takes a two-parameter equation of state built from the Lambert W function (ω_eff = θ1 ln W(a) + θ2 W(a)^3), fits it to DESI BAO plus Pantheon+ supernovae and cosmic-chronometer Hubble data, and finds θ1=0.087, θ2=-3.36, H0=67.4 km/s/Mpc, rd=146 Mpc. The model transitions from matter-like behavior at high redshift to accelerated expansion at z_t≈0.56, and its Hubble constant matches Planck rather than local distance-ladder measurements. By the Akaike Information Criterion the model is statistically similar to ΛCDM; by the Bayesian Information Criterion it is strongly disfavored, a gap the paper acknowledges and cautions against overinterpreting.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Lambert W equation of state is a viable candidate for a unified dark matter–dark energy fluid. With the fitted parameters, the effective equation of state approaches zero at high redshift (dust-like behavior), crosses into the quintessence regime, and has a present value around -0.75. The model produces a deceleration-to-acceleration transition at z_t≈0.56, consistent with independent estimates. It reproduces the combined BAO, supernova, and Hubble data with a chi-square comparable to ΛCDM, gives H0=67.4±1.2 km/s/Mpc (matching Planck and thus leaving the Hubble tension intact), and yields rd=146±2.5 Mpc. On model selection, ΔAIC=1.41 (statistically simil

What carries the argument

The Lambert W function, defined as the solution of x e^x = k, supplies the two terms of the equation of state: θ1 ln W(a) plus θ2 W(a)^3, with the scale factor a as the argument. This functional form lets the effective pressure-to-density ratio ω_eff evolve from near zero at early times (matter-like) to negative values at late times (accelerating), enabling a single fluid to play both dark matter and dark energy roles. The EoS is inserted into the Friedmann and conservation equations, producing a numerically integrated Hubble parameter H(z) that is fit to the data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the expansion history can be computed from the Lambert W fluid alone, with baryons and radiation absorbed into the unified fluid; if baryons are a separate component, the H(z) used against the data is incomplete at the few-percent level and the fitted parameters may shift.

What would settle it

Recompute the model's H(z) with the reported best-fit parameters but add a standard baryon term (Ω_b h²≈0.022) and radiation, then re-fit the combined dataset; if the best-fit parameters move outside the quoted 1σ intervals, the omitted-component assumption fails. A simpler check: compare the model's predicted H(z) at z<0.2 against cosmic-chronometer measurements — a residual exceeding roughly 5% relative to ΛCDM would falsify the unified-fluid background used here.

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

If this is right

  • The model offers a parameter-efficient unified-dark-fluid alternative to ΛCDM; if it is correct, the Hubble tension is not resolved by this class of models, since the fitted H0 aligns with Planck rather than local measurements.
  • The transition redshift z_t≈0.56 is in line with independent estimates, supporting the idea that a single fluid can drive both early matter-like expansion and late-time acceleration.
  • Because ω_eff evolves and the jerk parameter deviates from unity, the model predicts measurable differences from ΛCDM in the distance–redshift relation at z≳0.5, testable with upcoming Baryon Acoustic Oscillation surveys.
  • The split between AIC (similar) and BIC (disfavored) shows that model-selection conclusions depend heavily on the chosen information criterion, even with a large combined dataset.
  • If the fluid interpretation is taken literally, structure formation would also be governed by the same EoS, so growth-rate data could either support or rule out the model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The background expansion history is computed using the dark fluid's density alone, with no separate baryonic (or radiation) component. Adding baryons at roughly 5% of the low-redshift energy budget would shift H(z) and likely move the fitted θ1, θ2, H0, and rd beyond the quoted 1σ errors.
  • The near-tie in AIC but decisive BIC loss implies that with DESI DR2 data the model will likely be either confirmed or eliminated; the discrimination is data-driven and imminent.
  • The same Lambert W structure arises in adiabatic particle-creation scenarios, so the fitted parameters could be translated into a microphysical production rate, which would make the parametrization less phenomenological.
  • Testing the model against cosmic-growth measurements (e.g., fσ8) would be a sharp probe, since unified dark-fluid models in the Chaplygin spirit have historically suffered from perturbative instabilities.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constrains a two-parameter dark-fluid model whose effective equation of state is ωeff = θ1 ln W(a) + θ2 W(a)^3 (Eq. 7), using a combined likelihood of DESI DR1/SDSS/6dF BAO, Pantheon+ SNe Ia, and 32 cosmic-chronometer H(z) measurements. The authors derive H(z) from a single-fluid Friedmann equation (Eq. 15), run an MCMC fit to obtain θ1 = 0.087 ± 0.011, θ2 = −3.36 ± 0.13, H0 = 67.4 ± 1.2 km/s/Mpc, and rd = 146.0 ± 2.5 Mpc, and then study q(z), j(z), ωeff(z), and Om(z). They compare the model to ΛCDM with AIC and BIC, reporting ΔAIC = 1.41 and ΔBIC = 6.88, and conclude that the Lambert W EoS is observationally consistent and physically viable.

Significance. If the results held, the model would offer a simple unified dark-matter/dark-energy alternative with parameter values close to theoretical expectations, and the use of DESI DR1 BAO data would be timely. The paper has genuine strengths: the derivation from Eq. (7) to Eq. (15) is explicit; the model is falsifiable; the data combination is modern; and the MCMC implementation with emcee is standard. However, the central claim of observational viability is not established because of several load-bearing problems in the background equations, the likelihood, and the model-comparison interpretation. These issues require reanalysis rather than minor editing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eq. (15)] The H(z) prediction is derived from a single perfect-fluid Friedmann equation (Eqs. 4–5) with no baryonic component. The model is presented as a unified DM+DE fluid; if baryons are a separate component, the correct background is H² = H0²[Ω_b(1+z)³ + Ω_dark(z)], not Eq. (15). As written, the dark fluid is forced to have density fraction 1, so H(z), d_L(z), and BAO distances are systematically wrong at the ~Ω_b level, biasing θ1, θ2, H0, rd, and the AIC/BIC comparison. All likelihoods in §IV use Eq. (15), so this is a load-bearing issue.
  2. [§II, Eq. (7)] With θ1 = 0.087 > 0 and W(a) → 0 as a → 0, ln W(a) → −∞, so ωeff → −∞ at high z, not 0. The statements in §IV and §V that ωeff approaches zero at high redshift and mimics pressureless dark matter are therefore contradicted by the paper's own best-fit parameters. This undermines the 'unified DM+DE' interpretation and the q(z)/Om(z) discussion. Please clarify which branch of W is used and correct the asymptotic analysis or the interpretation.
  3. [§III, Eq. (17)] The likelihood is a diagonal χ² with no covariance matrices for Pantheon+ or the BAO measurements. Pantheon+ and DESI BAO data are published with non-trivial covariance matrices; ignoring them changes the parameter uncertainties and can shift best-fit values. Since the quoted errors and the ΔAIC/ΔBIC values in Table III depend on χ²_min, the statistical assessment is unreliable without the full covariance treatment.
  4. [§IV, Table III; §V] The paper's own BIC criterion gives ΔBIC = 6.88, which by the scale stated in §III is 'strong evidence against' the Lambert W model, yet the conclusion says the model is observationally consistent and that 'it may be an overstatement that the Lambert W model is inferior.' This is internally inconsistent. Either the criterion is appropriate and the conclusion must be more cautious, or the use of BIC in Table III requires justification. As presented, the model-comparison claim is not supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§V] Best-fit values are mislabeled: 'θ1 = 0.087 and θ1 = −3.36' should read 'θ2 = −3.36'.
  2. [§V] The present value of the effective EoS is described as 'approximately 0.75'; the minus sign is missing. It should be ωeff,0 ≈ −0.75.
  3. [§II heading] Typo: 'Lamber T' should be 'Lambert W'. There is also a typo in the corresponding author footnote ('Correspondiong').
  4. [§II] The text alternates between 'Thomson' and 'Thompson' for the same author (Refs. [47–49]); please standardize.
  5. [§IV] MCMC details are sparse: no burn-in length, no convergence diagnostics, and no thinning. Please report these so the posterior estimates are reproducible.
  6. [§V] Typo: 'DESY5' should be 'DESY5' or 'DESI DR2' as appropriate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Parameter estimation is fit to external data; only minor circularity in using post-fit diagnostics as validation.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Figs. 5–8 (text after Table III)]
    "Finally, to examine the evolutionary behavior of our model, we plotted the deceleration parameter q(z), the jerk parameter j(z), the effective EoS ωeff(z), and the Om(z) diagnostic against the redshift z, and presented them in Figs. 5, 6, 7, and 8, in this order. ... Fig. 5 reveals a clear transition from a decelerated universe to an accelerated one."

    These diagnostics are not independent predictions: q(z) is fixed by Eq. (9) from the same θ1, θ2 that define the fitted EoS; H(z) in Eq. (15) is obtained by integrating that same EoS, with H0 fitted to the same combined likelihood; Om(z) is defined from this fitted E2(z). Therefore the plotted curves restate the best-fit model rather than provide new evidence for its viability.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive the Lambert W EoS from first principles; it imports the functional form (Eq. 7) from the authors' earlier work and fits θ1, θ2, H0, Mb, and rd to external Pantheon+, BAO, and OHD data. The central parameter estimates are therefore genuine fits to independent measurements, not outputs that are equal to inputs by construction. The H0 and rd values are fitted parameters, and comparing them to Planck/BAO values is an external cross-check, not a circular prediction. The main mild circularity is that the qualitative diagnostics — q(z), j(z), Om(z), and the effective EoS evolution — are all computed from the same best-fit H(z) and same θ1, θ2, so they cannot independently confirm the model; they are restatements of the fit. The paper also relies on prior parameter estimates from the same group ([37], [38]) as a consistency check, but this is not load-bearing for the central fit. The missing baryonic component in the one-fluid Friedmann equation (Eq. 15) is a physical completeness/correctness concern, not a circularity of the input=output kind. Overall the derivation chain is not circular in the strong sense; the score reflects only the minor self-referential use of post-fit diagnostics as supporting evidence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central fit depends on five fitted parameters (θ1, θ2, H0, Mb, rd) and on a phenomenological EoS ansatz imported from the authors' earlier work. The most consequential hidden assumption is the absence of baryons in the background expansion, which is not flagged in the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • θ1 = 0.087 ± 0.011
    Coefficient of the logarithmic Lambert W term in Eq. (7); fitted to SN+BAO+OHD.
  • θ2 = -3.36 ± 0.13 (abstract: -3.35 ± 0.13)
    Coefficient of the cubic Lambert W term in Eq. (7); fitted to the combined data.
  • H0 = 67.4 ± 1.2 km/s/Mpc
    Integration constant in Eq. (15); fitted, then compared with Planck, not independently predicted.
  • Mb = -19.415 ± 0.039
    Absolute magnitude of Type Ia supernovae in Eq. (19); fitted nuisance parameter.
  • rd = 146.0 ± 2.5 Mpc
    Sound horizon at drag epoch; fitted via BAO ratios with prior (140,160).
axioms (6)
  • standard math Spatially flat FLRW metric and Friedmann equations (Eqs. 2, 4, 5)
    Background geometry and dynamics assumed as the standard cosmological framework.
  • standard math Perfect-fluid energy-momentum tensor and conservation equation (Eqs. 3, 6)
    The cosmic fluid is modeled as a perfect fluid with standard conservation.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective EoS ansatz ωeff = θ1 ln W(a) + θ2 W(a)^3 (Eq. 7)
    Phenomenological postulate from Saha & Bamba (2019); no derivation from microphysics, and all constraints are conditional on this form.
  • domain assumption A single dark fluid with no separate baryonic or radiation component in H(z) (Eq. 15)
    Eq. (15) uses only the dark-fluid density, omitting Ω_b, even though the model is called a unified dark-sector fluid; this is an unstated modeling choice.
  • standard math Lambert W function has a unique real branch for the argument 1/(1+z) > 0
    Needed for numerical evaluation of H(z); true because the argument is positive for all z > -1.
  • domain assumption BAO ratios from Ref. [71] are sufficient and their correlations are negligible
    The analysis uses a diagonal chi-square and does not incorporate the covariance of DESI or BOSS BAO measurements, which are known to be correlated.
invented entities (1)
  • Lambert W dark fluid no independent evidence
    purpose: A single fluid intended to unify dark matter and dark energy, with pressure/density ratio given by Eq. (7).
    The fluid is a phenomenological construct with no independent handle; its two parameters are fit to the same data used to claim viability, and no predicted mass, coupling, or other external signature is offered.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14098 in / 15544 out tokens · 159805 ms · 2026-08-03T07:07:56.009587+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate a unified dark-fluid model whose effective equation of state (EoS) is described by logarithmic and power-law terms involving the Lambert $W$ function. The model parameters are constrained using BAO data, including DESI measurements, together with Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova observations and direct Hubble parameter measurements. The analysis yields $\theta_{1}=0.087\pm 0.011$, $\theta_{2}=-3.35\pm 0.13$, $r_d = 146\pm 2.5$~Mpc, and $H_0 = 67.4 \pm 1.2~\text{km\,s}^{-1}\text{Mpc}^{-1}$. The inferred Hubble constant, $H_{0}$, is consistent with the Planck 2018 measurement and remains in tension with local determinations, thereby reflecting the Hubble tension. We further examine the evolution of deceleration, effective EoS, and jerk parameters, complemented by the $Om(z)$ diagnostic. Our analysis reveals that the model provides a consistent description of late-time cosmic acceleration. Finally, the observational viability of the model is assessed using Akaike and Bayesian information criteria and compared with that of the standard $\Lambda$CDM model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20972 by Abdulla Al Mamon, Subhajit Saha, Vipin Chandra Dubey.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Triangle plot showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Triangle plot showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The best-fit evolution of the Hubble parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The best-fit evolution of the distance modulus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The best-fit curve of the deceleration parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The best-fit curve of the effective EoS parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The best-fit curve of the jerk parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The best-fit curve of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Unifying the Dark Sector with the New Generalized Chaplygin Gas: Observational Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A generalized Chaplygin gas with redshift-dependent exponent unifies the dark sector but is statistically equivalent to ΛCDM after penalizing for extra parameters in Bayesian fits to late-time data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,

    A. G. Riesset al.[Supernova Search Team], “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,” Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    1 We consider relativistic unitsG= 1 =c

    considered only the Hubble parameter data to constrain these parameters. 1 We consider relativistic unitsG= 1 =c. 4 As is well known, the deceleration parameterqis a kinematical quantity that characterizes the rate at which the expansion of the universe changes. It is dimensionless and provides insight into whether the cosmic expansion is accelerating or ...

    2019

  3. [3]

    A Flat universe from high resolution maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation,

    P. de Bernardiset al.[Boomerang], “A Flat universe from high resolution maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation,” Nature404, 955-959 (2000)

    2000

  4. [4]

    Measurements ofwandΛfrom 42 High Redshift Supernovae,

    S. Perlmutteret al.[Supernova Cosmology Project], “Measurements ofwandΛfrom 42 High Redshift Supernovae,” Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999)

    1999

  5. [5]

    Planck 2018 results- VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdownet al.[Planck], “Planck 2018 results- VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astro- phys.641, A6 (2020) [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)]

    2018

  6. [6]

    The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: The Power spectrum and the matter content of the Universe,

    W. J. Percivalet al.[2dFGRS], “The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: The Power spectrum and the matter content of the Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.327, 1297 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Cosmological tracking solutions,

    P. J. Steinhardt, L. Wang, and I. Zlatev, “Cosmological tracking solutions,” Phys. Rev. D59, 123504 (1999)

    1999

  8. [8]

    The cosmological constant problem,

    S. Weinberg, “The cosmological constant problem,” Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  9. [9]

    The Expansion of the Universe is Faster than Expected,

    A. G. Riess, “The Expansion of the Universe is Faster than Expected,” Nature Rev. Phys.2, 10 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    Cosmology Intertwined III:f σ8 andS 8,

    E. Di Valentino et al., “Cosmology Intertwined III:f σ8 andS 8,” Astropart. Phys.131, 102604 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, “Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,” Nature Astron.3, 891 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,

    A. G. Riess, W. -L. Yuan, L. M. Macri et al., “A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,” Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    The Structure of Structure Formation Theories,

    W. Hu and D. J. Eisenstein, “The Structure of Structure Formation Theories,” Phys. Rev. D59, 083509 (1999)

    1999

  14. [14]

    Lambda-CDM model and small-scale-cosmology “crisis

    N. E. Mavromatos, “Lambda-CDM model and small-scale-cosmology “crisis”: from astrophysical explanations to new fundamental physics models,” The Fifteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, 1114 (2022), and references therein

    2022

  15. [15]

    Can the Chaplygin gas be a plausible model for dark energy?,

    V. Gorini, A. Kamenshchik, and U. Moschella, “Can the Chaplygin gas be a plausible model for dark energy?,” Phys. Rev. D67, 063509 (2003)

    2003

  16. [16]

    An alternative to quintessence,

    A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, “An alternative to quintessence,” Phys. Lett. B511, 265 (2001)

    2001

  17. [17]

    Generalizing the generalized Chaplygin gas,

    A. A. Sen and R. J. Scherrer, “Generalizing the generalized Chaplygin gas,” Phys. Rev. D72, 063511 (2005)

    2005

  18. [18]

    Generalized Chaplygin gas, accelerated expansion and dark energy matter unification,

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, and A. A. Sen, “Generalized Chaplygin gas, accelerated expansion and dark energy matter unification,” Phys. Rev. D66, 043507 (2002)

    2002

  19. [19]

    Statefinder andOm Diagnostics for New Generalized Chaplygin Gas Model,

    A. Al Mamon, V. C. Dubey, and K. Bamba, “Statefinder andOm Diagnostics for New Generalized Chaplygin Gas Model,” Universe7, 362 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    New generalized Chaplygin gas as a scheme for unification of dark energy and dark matter,

    X. Zhang, F. Q. Wu, and J. Zhang, “New generalized Chaplygin gas as a scheme for unification of dark energy and dark matter,” JCAP0601, 003 (2006)

    2006

  21. [21]

    Matter power spectrum for the generalized Chaplygin gas model: The Newtonian approach,

    J. C. Fabris, S. V. B. Gonçalves, H. E. S. Velten, and W. Zimdahl, “Matter power spectrum for the generalized Chaplygin gas model: The Newtonian approach,” Phys. Rev. D.78, 103523, (2008)

    2008

  22. [22]

    An extended analysis for a generalized Chaplygin gas model,

    A.Al Mamon, A. Paliathanasis, and S. Saha, “An extended analysis for a generalized Chaplygin gas model,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, 232 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Are Chaplygin gases serious contenders for the dark energy?,

    R. Bean and O. Dore, “Are Chaplygin gases serious contenders for the dark energy?,” Phys. Rev. D68, 023515 (2003)

    2003

  24. [24]

    The end of unified dark matter?,

    H. B. Sandvik, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga, and I. Waga, “The end of unified dark matter?,” Phys. Rev. D69, 123524 (2004)

    2004

  25. [25]

    The Logotropic Dark Fluid as a unification of dark matter and dark energy,

    P. H. Chavanis, “The Logotropic Dark Fluid as a unification of dark matter and dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B758, 59 (2016)

    2016

  26. [26]

    Is the Universe logotropic?,

    P. H. Chavanis, “Is the Universe logotropic?,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus130, 130 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    Comparison between the Logotropic andΛCDM models at the cosmological scale,

    P. H. Chavanis and S. Kumar, “Comparison between the Logotropic andΛCDM models at the cosmological scale,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.05, 018 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    New limit on logotropic unified dark energy models,

    V. M. C. Ferreira and P. P. Avelino, “New limit on logotropic unified dark energy models,” Phys. Lett. B770, 213 (2016)

    2016

  29. [29]

    Extended logotropic fluids as unified dark energy models,

    K. Boshkayev, R. D’Agostino, and O. Luongo, “Extended logotropic fluids as unified dark energy models,” Eur. Phys. J. C79, 332 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    New predictions from the logotropic model,

    P. H. Chavanis, “New predictions from the logotropic model,” Phys. Dark Univ.24, 100271 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    Generalized Logotropic Models and Their Cosmological Constraints,

    H. B. Benaoum, P. H. Chavanis, and H. Quevedo, “Generalized Logotropic Models and Their Cosmological Constraints,” Universe8, 468 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    The Logotropic Dark Fluid: Observational and Thermodynamic Constraints,

    A. Al Mamon and S. Saha, “The Logotropic Dark Fluid: Observational and Thermodynamic Constraints,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 2050097 (2020)

    2020

  33. [33]

    Cosmic acceleration from a single fluid description,

    S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino, and O. Luongo, “Cosmic acceleration from a single fluid description,” Phys. Dark Univ.20, 1 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    Ideal Gas with a Varying (Negative Absolute) Temperature: an Alternative to Dark Energy?,

    S. Saha, A. Mondal, and C. Corda, “Ideal Gas with a Varying (Negative Absolute) Temperature: an Alternative to Dark Energy?,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.57, 1417 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Testing generalized logotropic models with cosmic growth,

    K. Boshkayev, T. Konysbayev, O. Luongo, M. Muccino, and F. Pace, “Testing generalized logotropic models with cosmic growth,” Phys. Rev. D104, 023520 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Effective field description of the Anton-Schmidt cosmic fluid,

    S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino, R. Gaimbô, and O. Luongo, “Effective field description of the Anton-Schmidt cosmic fluid,” 15 Phys. Rev. D99, 023532 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    The LambertWfunction: A newcomer in the cosmology class?,

    S. Saha and K. Bamba, “The LambertWfunction: A newcomer in the cosmology class?,” Z. Naturforsch. A75, 23 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    These values show modest deviations from the theoretically estimated values in [37]

    obtained the best-fit valuesθ1 =−0.166 +0.104 −0.104 andθ 2 =−4.746 +0.479 −0.479 at the1σlevel. These values show modest deviations from the theoretically estimated values in [37]. This is most certainly due to the fact that the authors in

  39. [39]

    Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?,

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, “Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?,” Phys. Rev. D111, 023512 (2025)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Testing LambertWequation of state with observational hubble parameter data,

    A. Al Mamon and S. Saha, “Testing LambertWequation of state with observational hubble parameter data,” New Astron. 86, 101567 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    Growth of perturbations using LambertWequation of state,

    M. Banerjee, S. Das, A. Al Mamon, S. Saha, and K. Bamba, “Growth of perturbations using LambertWequation of state,” Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.18, 2150139 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Lambert W Function for Applications in Physics,

    D. Veberić, “Lambert W Function for Applications in Physics,” Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 2622 (2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    De serie Lambertina plurimisque eius insignibus proprietatibus,

    L. Euler, “De serie Lambertina plurimisque eius insignibus proprietatibus,” Acta Acad. Scient. Petropol.2, 29 (1783)

  44. [44]

    Observationes variae in mathesin puram,

    J. H. Lambert, “Observationes variae in mathesin puram,” Acta Helvetica3, 128 (1758)

  45. [45]

    Having fun with LambertW(x)function,

    D. Veberić, “Having fun with LambertW(x)function,” arXiv: 1003.1628 [cs.MS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    Unwinding the branches of the LambertWfunction,

    D. J. Jeffrey, D. E. G. Hare, and R. M. Corless, “Unwinding the branches of the LambertWfunction,” Math. Sci.21, 1 (1996)

    1996

  47. [47]

    On the LambertWfunction,

    R. M. Corless et al., “On the LambertWfunction,” Adv. Comput. Math.5, 329 (1996)

    1996

  48. [48]

    The LambertWfunction — Its Generalizations and Applications,

    I. Mezõ, “The LambertWfunction — Its Generalizations and Applications,” (Chapman and Hall, 2002)

    2002

  49. [49]

    Dynamical templates for comparison toΛCDM: Static or dynamical dark energy?,

    R. I. Thompson, “Dynamical templates for comparison toΛCDM: Static or dynamical dark energy?,” arXiv: 2204.01863 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Evolution of Cosmological Parameters and Fundamental Constants in a Flat Quintessence Cosmology: A Dynamical Alternative toΛCDM,

    R. I. Thompson, “Evolution of Cosmological Parameters and Fundamental Constants in a Flat Quintessence Cosmology: A Dynamical Alternative toΛCDM,” Universe9, 172 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Non-Canonical Dark Energy Parameter Evolution in a Canonical Quintessence Cosmology,

    R. I. Thompson, “Non-Canonical Dark Energy Parameter Evolution in a Canonical Quintessence Cosmology,” Universe 10, 356 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    A complete cosmic scenario from inflation to late time acceleration: Non-equilibrium ther- modynamics in the context of particle creation,

    S. Chakraborty and S. Saha, “A complete cosmic scenario from inflation to late time acceleration: Non-equilibrium ther- modynamics in the context of particle creation,” Phys. Rev. D90, 123505 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    Jerk and the cosmological equation of state,

    M. Visser, “Jerk and the cosmological equation of state,” Class. Quant. Grav.21, 2603 (2004)

    2004

  54. [54]

    A kinematical approach to dark energy studies,

    D. Rapetti, S. W. Allen, M. A. Amin, and R. D. Blandford, “A kinematical approach to dark energy studies,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.375, 1510 (2007)

    2007

  55. [55]

    Cosmokinetics,

    R. D. Blandford, M. A. Amin, E. A. Baltz, K. Mandel, and P. J. Marshall, “Cosmokinetics,” ASP Conf. Ser.339, 27 (2005)

    2005

  56. [56]

    Observational constraints on the jerk parameter with the data of the Hubble parameter,

    A. Al Mamon and K. Bamba, “Observational constraints on the jerk parameter with the data of the Hubble parameter,” Eur. Phys. J. C78, 862 (2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    Two new diagnostics of dark energy,

    V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Two new diagnostics of dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D78, 103502 (2008)

    2008

  58. [58]

    Consistency Tests for the Cosmological Constant,

    C. Zunckel, and C. Clarkson, “Consistency Tests for the Cosmological Constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 181301 (2008)

    2008

  59. [59]

    Statefinder diagnostic for holographic dark energy model,

    X. Zhang, “Statefinder diagnostic for holographic dark energy model,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D14, 1597 (2005)

    2005

  60. [60]

    Statefinder diagnosis for the interacting model of holographic dark energy,

    J. Zhang, X. Zhang, and H. Liu, “Statefinder diagnosis for the interacting model of holographic dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B659, 26 (2008)

    2008

  61. [61]

    Exploring the Expanding Universe and Dark Energy using the Statefinder Diagnostic,

    U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Exploring the Expanding Universe and Dark Energy using the Statefinder Diagnostic,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.344, 1057 (2003)

    2003

  62. [62]

    Study of a novel equation of state with statefinder hierarchy and growth rate of structure,

    V. C. Dubey and A. A. Mamon, “Study of a novel equation of state with statefinder hierarchy and growth rate of structure,” Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. (2025)https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887826500234

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219887826500234 2025

  63. [63]

    Cosmological Parameter Inference with Bayesian Statistics,

    L. E. Padilla, L. O. Tellez, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, “Cosmological Parameter Inference with Bayesian Statistics,” Universe7, 213 (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    emcee: The MCMC Hammer,

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, “emcee: The MCMC Hammer,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013). [63]https://github.com/dfm/emcee [64]https://github.com/PantheonPlusSH0ES/DataRelease

    2013

  65. [65]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,

    D. Scolnicet al.“The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,” Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, A. Carr, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton and D. Jones,et al. “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,” Astrophys. J.938(2022) no.2, 110

    2022

  67. [67]

    Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,

    S. Alamet al.[eBOSS], “Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,” Phys. Rev. D103, 083533 (2021)

    2021

  68. [68]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Constant,

    F. Beutler,et al., “The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Constant,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.416, 3017 (2011)

    2011

  69. [69]

    DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,

    A. G. Adameet al.[DESI], “DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,” JCAP02, 021 (2025)

    2024

  70. [70]

    Cosmic chronometers to calibrate the ladders and measure the curvature of the Universe. A model-independent study,

    A. Favale, A. Gómez-Valent, and M. Migliaccio, “Cosmic chronometers to calibrate the ladders and measure the curvature of the Universe. A model-independent study,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523, 3406 (2023)

    2023

  71. [71]

    Dark energy reconstructions combining baryonic acoustic oscillation data with galaxy clusters and intermediate-redshift catalogs,

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, “Dark energy reconstructions combining baryonic acoustic oscillation data with galaxy clusters and intermediate-redshift catalogs,” Astron. Astrophys.693, A187 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    A new look at the statistical model identification,

    H. Akaike, “A new look at the statistical model identification,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  73. [73]

    Estimating the Dimension of a Model,

    G. Schwarz, “Estimating the Dimension of a Model,” Annals Statist.6, 461 (1978)

    1978

  74. [74]

    The theory of probability,

    H. Jeffreys, “The theory of probability,” (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998). 16

    1998

  75. [75]

    Bayes Factors,

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, “Bayes Factors,” J. Am. Statist. Assoc.90, 773 (1995)

    1995

  76. [76]

    Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach,

    K. P. Burnham and D. R. Anderson, “Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach," (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002)

    2002

  77. [77]

    Information criteria for astrophysical model selection,

    A. R. Liddle, “Information criteria for astrophysical model selection,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.377, L74 (2007)

    2007

  78. [78]

    Bayesian analysis off(T)gravity usingf σ8 data,

    F. Anagnostopoulos, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, “Bayesian analysis off(T)gravity usingf σ8 data,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 083517 (2019)

    2019

  79. [79]

    Bayesian analysis off(T)gravity usingf σ8 data,

    S. Bhattacharjee, S. Halder, J. de Haro, S. Pan, and E. N. Saridakis, “Bayesian analysis off(T)gravity usingf σ8 data,” arXiv: 2507.15575 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    Kaniadakis holographic dark energy: observational constraints and global dynamics,

    A. Hernández-Almadaet al.,“Kaniadakis holographic dark energy: observational constraints and global dynamics,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.511, 4147 (2022)

    2022

Showing first 80 references.