Scalar Field Reconstructions of Holographic Dark Energy Models with Applications to Chaplygin Gas, DBI, Yang-Mills, and NLED Frameworks

Antonio Pasqua

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Scalar Field Reconstructions of Holographic Dark Energy Models with Applications to Chaplygin Gas, DBI, Yang-Mills, and NLED Frameworks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two holographic dark energy densities can each be rewritten as seven different scalar-field dark energy models, with explicit reconstructed potentials and parameters.

desk verdict A long catalogue of standard substitutions rather than a result; the flat dark-dominated pieces are mostly consistent, but the non-flat sector has a sign error and the NHDE reconstruction is imaginary at the paper's own benchmark, so I would not send it to referees. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08029 v2 pith:6HD5IFXQ submitted 2025-09-09 gr-qc

Antonio Pasqua This is my paper

classification gr-qc MSC 83F05 PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k

keywords holographicdarkenergyscalarfieldreconstructionChaplygingasDirac-Born-InfeldYang-Millscondensatenonlinearelectrodynamicsinteractingsectorsequationofstate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that two families of holographic dark energy—a higher-derivative density proportional to αḦ/H+βḢ+γH² and the New Holographic Dark Energy density proportional to μH²+λḢ—can each be re-expressed, in a flat dark-energy-dominated limit, as the same background cosmology as seven familiar scalar-field dark energy models: Generalized, Modified, Modified Variable, and Viscous Generalized Chaplygin gases, Dirac-Born-Infeld fields, Yang-Mills condensates, and nonlinear electrodynamics. The derivation solves the Friedmann and continuity equations for the expansion history, equation of state, pressure, and deceleration parameter in both interacting and non-interacting dark sectors, then matches density and EoS with each scalar model to read off potentials and parameters. A sympathetic reader would care because the result is a translation dictionary: apparently different dark-energy proposals become mutually related, and observational constraints on one can be transported to another. The paper also flags parameter regions where the dictionary fails to produce a real scalar field, notably for the observationally fitted NHDE benchmark used in its numerical examples.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a reconstruction dictionary that equates a fluid to a scalar field through density and EoS. For canonical scalars the dictionary is φ̇²=(1+ω_D)ρ_D, V(φ)=½(1−ω_D)ρ_D (so 1+ω_D must be non-negative); for DBI it is F=ρ_Dγ(1+ω_D)/(γ²−1), φ̇=√(ρ_D(1+ω_D)/γ), V=ρ_D(1−γω_D)/(γ+1); for Yang-Mills and NLED it is y=−3(ω_D+1)/(3ω_D−1) and B²=(1−3ω_D)/(8μω(5−3ω_D)). It is applied in the dark-dominated limit, where the higher-derivative model gives ω_D=−1+β/(6α) and a∝t^{4α/β}, while NHDE gives ω_D=2(μ−1)/(3λ)−1 and a∝t^{λ/(μ−1)}, converting matching formulas into explicit fields and potentials.

What would settle it

Evaluate the reconstructed kinetic term φ̇²=(1+ω_D)ρ_D in the dark-dominated limit for any claimed parameter set. For NHDE with the observationally fitted values μ=0.8502, λ=0.4817 used in the paper, 1+ω_D≈−0.207<0, so no real canonical scalar exists; for the higher-derivative model the condition is β/(6α)≥0. This single check settles whether a real-field correspondence holds for a given parameter choice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in a non-flat FLRW universe with pressureless dark matter, the paper solves the Friedmann equations for two holographic densities, ρ_D=3(αḦ/H+βḢ+γH²) and ρ_D=3(μH²+λḢ), deriving h², ω_D, p_D and q in non-interacting, interacting, and dark-dominated cases. The central move is a reconstruction dictionary: set the holographic density and EoS equal to a scalar model's density and EoS, then read off φ̇²=(1+ω_D)ρ_D, V(φ)=½(1−ω_D)ρ_D for canonical fields, with analogous DBI relations F=ρ_Dγ(1+ω_D)/(γ²−1), φ̇=√(ρ_D(1+ω_D)/γ), V=ρ_D(1−γω_D)/(γ+1). This yields explicit parameter formulas: for GCG, D=−ω_Dρ_D^{θ+1} and B=(a³ρ_D)^{θ+1}(1+ω_D); and similar dictionaries for MCG, MVCG, VGCG, DBI, Ya

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes each dark-energy fluid can be written as a real scalar field with kinetic term (1+ω_D)ρ_D; for the NHDE model with the observationally fitted parameters used in the paper, that quantity is negative, producing a complex field the paper notes without resolving.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the paper is right, the two holographic densities are background-equivalent to each scalar-field model in the regimes considered, so expansion-history data cannot by itself distinguish the families; the distinguishing power must come from perturbation-level observables.
The dictionary covers the interacting dark-sector cases (Q=3d²Hρ_m), so energy exchange between dark matter and dark energy does not break the correspondence.
Because the higher-derivative model reduces to the Ricci dark energy and the New Holographic Dark Energy models in special parameter limits, those older holographic models are included in the same scalar-field dictionary.
The closed-form dark-dominated results give concrete targets: for example, the reconstructed GCG parameters D and B, the DBI brane tension, the Yang-Mills logarithmic variable y, and the NLED magnetic field strength are all explicit functions of the holographic parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

I read the correspondence as background-level only: matching ρ_D and ω_D fixes the homogeneous expansion, not the perturbed fluid properties, so two twin models can still differ in structure growth; a perturbative check is the natural next test.
A testable extension is to feed the reconstructed potentials into a numerical Einstein-Boltzmann solver and compare CMB, supernova, and BAO predictions with the original holographic fluids at identical parameters; agreement would upgrade the dictionary to a full equivalence.
The same matching scheme should transfer to other holographic cut-offs in the generalized class that includes these two models, since the paper's formalism only uses the density's dependence on H and its derivatives; the presented formulas provide the template.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. This is a catalogue, not a result. The two starting holographic densities are known; the expressions for h^2, omega_D, p_D, and q are standard second-order ODE outputs with limits; and the scalar-field "correspondences" are direct substitutions into phi_dot^2 = (1+omega_D) rho_D and V = (1-omega_D) rho_D/2. Any fluid can be represented that way when 1+omega_D >= 0, so the correspondences are automatic. The paper's own inequality checks are legitimate but minor.

The flat dark-dominated parts are mostly self-consistent, and I'll credit the author for being explicit when phi becomes complex. But there are load-bearing problems. First, the non-flat Friedmann normalization is inconsistent: dividing Eq. (6) by H^2 with Eq. (10) gives Omega_m + Omega_D - Omega_k = 1, not Eq. (12). That sign error propagates into the curvature terms, and Sections 2 and 3 use opposite signs for Omega_k0. The non-flat h^2 and omega_D formulas are therefore unreliable. Second, the NHDE correspondence fails at the Wang-Xu benchmark the author quotes: omega_D is about -1.207, so 1+omega_D < 0 and phi_Dark,NHDE is imaginary. The author notes this, then sets it aside, but the Conclusions still say the correspondences are established. Since that benchmark is the only observational anchor in the paper, the central claim is unsupported. The corresponding reality condition for the Chen-Jing model, beta/(6 alpha) >= 0, is also never imposed as a validity condition.

There are repeated typos and mislabelled equations, and several of the scalar-field sections are copy-paste with the same formulas relabelled. No data, code, or independent test is provided.

Who is this for? Someone wanting a compendium of explicit reconstruction formulas for these two models might find some pieces useful if they redo the algebra. As a paper claiming to establish correspondences, it does not hold up. I would desk reject, not send to referees. If the author fixes the curvature sign and restricts the claimed correspondences to parameter regions where a real scalar field exists, the flat part might become a technical note worth another look.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies two holographic dark energy models: the Chen-Jing higher-derivative model (with terms proportional to H^2, H-dot, and H-ddot) and the Granda-Oliveros New Holographic Dark Energy (NHDE) model. For each model it derives, in a non-flat FLRW background and for both non-interacting and interacting dark sectors, the reduced Hubble parameter h^2, the DE equation-of-state parameter omega_D, the DE pressure p_D, and the deceleration parameter q. In the flat, dark-energy-dominated limit it then attempts to reconstruct canonical scalar-field representations and claims correspondences with seven frameworks: GCG, MCG, MVCG, VGCG, DBI, Yang-Mills, and NLED. The central claimed result is that the two HDE models are mutually related to these scalar-field/fluid models through explicit reconstructed parameters.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a broad dictionary connecting two holographic dark energy constructions to several popular scalar-field and Chaplygin-type models. The manuscript is transparent in its setup and contains many explicit closed-form expressions, and the dark-dominated limiting results (for example the reconstructed phi and V from Eqs. (243)-(244)) are easy to follow. However, the substantive new content is limited. The scalar-field reconstruction is essentially an identity once Eqs. (243)-(244) are adopted, so the correspondences are automatic for any fluid with given rho_D and omega_D. More seriously, the paper's own observationally anchored NHDE benchmark, the Wang-Xu fit, makes the reconstructed scalar field imaginary, as the paper itself states; the same benchmark also violates the positivity conditions in the YM and NLED sections. In addition, the non-flat derivation contains curvature-sign inconsistencies between Eq. (31) and Eq. (136), and Eq. (12) is inconsistent with the definition of Omega_k in Eq. (10). These issues affect the central claim and the non-flat results, not just presentation.

major comments (4)

[Section 4A, Eqs. (243)-(244), (276), and Section 5] The NHDE scalar-field reconstruction fails at the paper's own observationally anchored benchmark. A real canonical scalar field requires phi_dot^2 = (1+omega_D) rho_D >= 0. In the flat dark-dominated NHDE limit, Eq. (169) gives omega_D = 2(mu-1)/(3 lambda) - 1, hence 1+omega_D = 2(mu-1)/(3 lambda). Substituting the Wang-Xu values mu=0.8502, lambda=0.4817 gives 1+omega_D ≈ -0.207 < 0. Consequently phi_Dark,NHDE(t) = sqrt(2 lambda/(mu-1)) ln(t+C) is imaginary. The paper acknowledges this ('We find that phi_Dark,NHDE is not a real function', near Eq. (284)) and repeats it in each scalar-field section, yet the Conclusions still assert that the correspondences are established and important. Because the one observationally anchored NHDE parameter set considered is exactly the one for which the reconstruction is non-real, the central NHDE correspondence claim is unsupported. A similar reality c
[Section 2A, Eqs. (10), (12), (31), (34); Section 3A, Eq. (136)] The curvature sign is internally inconsistent. Eq. (10) defines Omega_k = k/(a^2 H^2). Dividing the Friedmann equation (6) by H^2 then gives Omega_m + Omega_D = 1 + Omega_k, not Eq. (12)'s Omega_m + Omega_D + Omega_k = 1. More importantly, Eq. (31) contains +Omega_k0 e^{-2x}, whereas substituting Eq. (30) into Eq. (6) with the same Omega_k convention yields -Omega_k0 e^{-2x}. Indeed, the solution Eq. (34) has total Omega_k coefficient 1/(1-2 alpha + beta - gamma), which is the particular solution for the forcing -Omega_k0 e^{-2x}, not +Omega_k0 e^{-2x}. By contrast, the NHDE equation Eq. (136) contains -2 Omega_k0/lambda e^{-2x}, consistent with Eq. (10). Thus the two models use opposite curvature conventions within the same paper, and all non-flat expressions in Section 2 inherit this inconsistency.
[Section 4, Eqs. (210)-(212), (298)-(301), (402)-(404), (486)-(488)] Most reconstructed parameters are algebraic rearrangements of the fluid equation of state, so the claimed correspondence is automatic rather than a nontrivial equivalence. Given rho_D and omega_D, Eqs. (243)-(244) define a canonical scalar field with exactly the chosen background dynamics. The subsequent expressions for D, B, chi, F, and V simply invert the EoS: for example D = -omega_D rho_D^{theta+1}, B = (a^3 rho_D)^{theta+1}(1+omega_D), and analogous formulas for MCG, MVCG, and VGCG. Matching omega_D is therefore guaranteed by construction for any fluid. The non-tautological content is limited to inequalities such as y>1 in the YM case and B^2>0 in the NLED case. The paper does not treat these as validity conditions of the correspondence; for the Wang-Xu benchmark they fail.
[Section 4F, Eqs. (703)-(705); Section 4G, Eq. (727)-(729)] The observationally anchored NHDE benchmark also violates the internal positivity conditions for two of the claimed correspondences. In the YM section, Eq. (703) gives y_Dark,NHDE = (mu-1)/(2 lambda - mu + 1). With the Wang-Xu values mu=0.8502, lambda=0.4817 this is approximately -0.135, which violates the paper's own condition y > 1 stated above Eq. (685). The paper notes the numerical value but does not conclude that the YM correspondence fails. Similarly, Eq. (729) gives B^2_Dark,NHDE,WX ≈ -0.238/(mu omega), which is negative and therefore cannot be a magnetic field strength. The paper describes this only as 'lower than what is expected to produce DE', without treating it as a failure of the NLED reconstruction. These are not mere numerical caveats; they are instances where the claimed correspondence is not realized at the benchmark adopted elsewhere in the paper.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2, Eq. (8)] 'Using the results of Eqs. (8) and (151)' should reference Eq. (9) in the same section; Eq. (151) appears later in the NHDE section.
[Section 2A, Eq. (38)] The text says 'Substituting in Eq. (59)' before Eq. (59) is introduced; the intended reference appears to be Eq. (36).
[Section 2A, Eq. (76)] In the expression for dh^2_higher,3/dx, the coefficient of Omega_m0 e^{-3x} is written as -2 instead of -3 (compare Eq. (42)). This propagates into the following expression for q_higher,3.
[Section 4C, Eqs. (387)-(388)] The inequalities and the minimum scale factor use 'alpha' in place of the model parameter 'theta' (e.g., '3(alpha+1)(A+1)-delta_1'). This is confusing because alpha is already a Chen-Jing model parameter.
[Section 4A, Eqs. (269), (358), (461), (545)] Several NHDE potential formulas use rho_D,NHDE,1 instead of rho_D,NHDE; the same typo appears in repeated blocks in Sections 4B-4D.
[Throughout] There are numerous typos and mislabels: 'omteracting', 'Moroever', 'HNDE' for NHDE, 'ain' for 'aim', and repeated identical equations across Sections 4A-4D. A careful editorial pass is needed.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Section 4 'correspondences' reduce by construction: each reconstructed scalar-field quantity is obtained by equating its EoS to the HDE EoS, so the claimed equivalence is an algebraic identity, not an independent result.

self definitional [Section 4A, Eqs. (203), (207), (243)-(244); repeated in Sections 4B-4G (e.g. Eqs. (332)-(333), (435)-(436), (519)-(520))]
"Moreover, using the general definition of EoS parameter ω_D, we can rewrite Eqs. (203) and (207) in the following way: φ 2 = (1 + ω_D)ρ_D, V(φ) = 1/2 (1 − ω_D)ρ_D."

For a canonical scalar field, Eqs. (200)-(201) define ρ_D = φdot^2/2 + V and p_D = φdot^2/2 − V. Adding and subtracting gives φdot^2 = ρ_D + p_D = (1+ω_D)ρ_D and V = (ρ_D − p_D)/2 = (1−ω_D)ρ_D/2. These are identities for every fluid, independent of dynamics. Substituting the HDE ρ_D and ω_D into these identities manufactures a scalar field that reproduces the HDE background exactly by construction. The 'reconstructed' quantities D, B, φdot^2, V are therefore re-arrangements of the same input equation of state, not predictions that could confirm or falsify the correspondence.
self definitional [Section 4E, Eqs. (566)-(571)]
"Adding Eqs. (562) and (563) and using the general definition of ω_D, we derive that: F = ρ_D (γ/(γ^2 − 1)) (ω_D + 1). ... V = − (ρ_D/(γ + 1)) (γω_D − 1)."

The DBI model defines p_dbi and ρ_dbi in terms of F, γ, V and φdot; inverting those definitions expresses F, φdot and V as functions of ρ_D and ω_D with an arbitrary γ. Substituting the HDE values is a change of variables. The same ω_D appears on both sides of the correspondence, so the DBI 'reconstruction' is an identity transformation of the HDE EoS, not an independent scalar-field derivation.

2 more flagged steps

self definitional [Section 4F, Eq. (692) and Eqs. (699)-(705)]
"Equating the EoS of the YM ω_y with the EoS parameters of the model we are studying, we can write y as follows. y = − 3(ω_D + 1)/(3ω_D − 1)."

The YM EoS is ω_y = (y−3)/(3(y+1)). Solving this equation for y gives exactly y = −3(ω_D+1)/(3ω_D−1) once one sets ω_y = ω_D. Thus the 'correspondence' is the definitional inversion of the YM EoS. The condition y > 1 subsequently restates an inequality on the HDE ω_D; it does not add independent scalar-field content.
self definitional [Section 4G, Eq. (717) (and analogously Eqs. (718)-(729))]
"By making a correspondence between the EoS parameter of the NLED model and the EoS of the dark energy model under study, we get B^2 = (1 − 3ω_D)/(8µω(5 − 3ω_D))."

The NLED EoS is ω_NLED = (1 − 40µωB^2)/(3(1 − 8µωB^2)). Equating ω_NLED = ω_D and solving for B^2 yields precisely the displayed formula. Hence B^2 is obtained by algebraic inversion of the same equality that defines the correspondence. No NLED dynamics or independent equations are used, so the reconstructed B^2 is equivalent to the input HDE EoS by construction.

full rationale

The paper's Sections 2 and 3 derive h^2, ρ_D, ω_D, p_D and q from the Chen-Jing and Granda-Oliveros density ansatze; those steps are algebraically self-contained and not circular. The circularity is concentrated in Section 4, whose central claim is to 'establish a correspondence' between those HDE models and seven scalar-field/Chaplygin/DBI/YM/NLED frameworks. In every case the 'reconstruction' is obtained by taking the scalar-field (or Chaplygin/DBI/YM/NLED) EoS, equating it to the HDE ω_D, and solving for the scalar-field parameters. That is an identity transformation: any fluid with a given ρ_D and ω_D can be represented in these forms. The paper itself states a striking limitation: for the observationally anchored Wang-Xu NHDE parameters (μ=0.8502, λ=0.4817) the reconstructed scalar field is not real ('We find that φ_Dark,NHDE is not a real function', after Eq. (284), repeated in each Section 4 subsection). This is a correctness/validity failure rather than a circularity, but it reinforces that the correspondences carry no independent predictive force. Because the claimed correspondences are forced by definition rather than by independent derivation, the circularity score is high; the non-circular Sections 2-3 prevent the score from reaching the maximum.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything in the central derivation rests on the two assumed HDE densities, the standard Friedmann equations, and a scalar-field identification that is an algebraic identity. No new entities are introduced. The only genuinely non-tautological content is the set of inequalities enforcing real positive reconstructed quantities, and those are mostly left as observations.

free parameters (4)

alpha, beta, gamma
Dimensionless coefficients of the Chen-Jing density in Eq. (30); not fitted here, they control every higher-model result.
mu, lambda = mu=0.8502, lambda=0.4817 (Wang & Xu best fit) used in Sec. 3C; otherwise free
Dimensionless coefficients of the NHDE density in Eq. (135). The paper adopts external best-fit values for one limiting case.
d_2
Interaction strength in Q=3 d_2 H rho_m, Eq. (26); a phenomenological parameter, cited range 0<d_2<0.025, not fitted.
integration constants f0/f1, C1/C2, C, B
Set by h^2(0)=1 leaving one free constant; the paper examines f1=0, f0=0, f0=f1 and analogous interacting cases.

assumptions (5)

standard math FLRW line element and Friedmann equations with pressureless dark matter
Used from Section 2 Eqs. (5)-(7); standard background cosmology.
domain assumption Chen-Jing density ansatz rho=3[alpha Hddot/H + beta Hdot + gamma H^2] and Granda-Oliveros density rho=3(mu H^2 + lambda Hdot)
The two dark energy models are taken as given from Refs. [90,91]; no microphysical derivation is provided.
domain assumption Interaction ansatz Q=3 d_2 H rho_m
Chosen phenomenological interaction in Eq. (26); standard in the cited literature but not derived.
standard math Canonical scalar field reconstruction phi_dot^2 = rho+p and V=(rho-p)/2
Used throughout Section 4; it is an identity for any perfect fluid, so the correspondences are tautological.
domain assumption For each scalar model, the EoS and density formulas from prior literature (GCG, MCG, MVCG, VGCG, DBI, YM, NLED)
The paper adopts these model forms without independent derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalar Field Reconstructions of Holographic Dark Energy Models with Applications to Chaplygin Gas, DBI, Yang-Mills, and NLED Frameworks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HD5IFXQ

@misc{pith2026250908029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalar Field Reconstructions of Holographic Dark Energy Models with Applications to Chaplygin Gas, DBI, Yang-Mills, and NLED Frameworks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HD5IFXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08029}
}

abstract

In this study, we investigate the cosmological implications of two DE models, introduced by Chen \& Jing \cite{modelhigher} and by Granda \& Oliveros \cite{gohnde}. The first model comprises three principal components: one term proportional to the Hubble parameter $ H$ squared, and two additional terms proportional to the first and second time derivatives of $ H $, respectively. The second model, known as New Holographic Dark Energy (NHDE) model, can be considered a generalization of the Ricci DE model and it contains a term proportional to the Hubble parameter $H$ squared and one to the first time derivative of $H$. We derive the analytical expressions for the reduced Hubble parameter squared $h^2$, the Equation of State (EoS) parameter of Dark Energy (DE) $\omega_D $, the pressure of DE $p_D$ and of the deceleration parameter $q $ considering both non-interacting and later on interacting DM and DE. We also consider some limiting cases for the integration constants obtained. Furthermore, we explore the limiting scenario of a flat, dark energy-dominated Universe and establish a correspondence between the proposed DE models and various scalar field frameworks. Specifically, we examine their connection with the Generalized Chaplygin Gas, the Modified Chaplygin Gas, the Modified Variable Chaplygin Gas, the Viscous Generalized Chaplygin Gas, as well as scalar field models based on Dirac-Born-Infeld theory, Yang-Mills theory and Nonlinear Electrodynamics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Scalar Field Reconstructions of Standard, Power Law and Logarithmic Holographic Dark Energy with a Gauss-Bonnet IR cut-off
gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

Reconstructs standard, power-law, and logarithmic holographic dark energy with Gauss-Bonnet IR cutoff and establishes correspondences to tachyon, k-essence, quintessence, and other scalar field models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

185 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

C. L. Bennett, et al., Astrophys. J.148, 1 (2003)

2003
[2]

Spergel, et al., Astrophys

D.N. Spergel, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.148, 175 (2003)

2003
[3]

Perlmutter et al., Astrophys

S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999). 89

1999
[4]

de Bernardis et al, Nature404, 955 (2000)

P. de Bernardis et al, Nature404, 955 (2000)

2000
[5]

CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we have explored the cosmological implications of two different DE models. The first model considered is a Generalized Holographic Dark Energy (GHDE) model proposed by Chen & Jing [90], which is a function of the Hubble parameterHand its first and second derivatives with respect to the cosmic timetasρ higher = 3 α ¨HH −1 +β ˙H+γ...
[6]

Tegmark et al., Phys

M. Tegmark et al., Phys. Rev. D69, 103501 (2004)

2004
[7]

Abazajian et al., Astron

K. Abazajian et al., Astron. J.129, 1755 (2005)

2005
[8]

Adelman-McCarthy, et al., Astrophys

J.K. Adelman-McCarthy, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.175, 297 (2008)

2008

Show all 185 references

[9]

Ade et al

Planck Collaboration, P.A.R. Ade et al. 2013, arXiv:1303.5076

2013 arXiv
[10]

Allen et al., Mon

S.W. Allen et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.353, 457 (2004)

2004
[11]

Copeland, M

E.J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006)

2006
[12]

Sahni, A

V. Sahni, A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phy. D9, 373 (2000)

2000
[13]

Peebles, B

P.J.E. Peebles, B. Ratra, Reviews of Modern Physics,75, 559 (2003)

2003
[14]

Padmanabhan, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep.380, 235 (2003)

2003
[15]

S. D. Odintsov, D. Saez-Chillon Gomez, G. S. Sharov, Eur. Phys. J. C77862 (2017)

2017
[16]

Peiris, et al., Astrophys

H.V. Peiris, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.148, 213 (2003)

2003
[17]

Ratra, B., Peebles, P.J.E., Phys

B. Ratra, B., Peebles, P.J.E., Phys. Rev. D,37, 3406 (1988)

1988
[18]

Peebles, B

P.J.E. Peebles, B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett.,325, L17 (1988)

1988
[19]

Wetterich, Nucl

C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B302, 668 (1988)

1988
[20]

Caldwell, R

R.R. Caldwell, R. Dave, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1582 (1998)

1998
[21]

Pasqua, Astrophys

A. Pasqua, Astrophys. Space Sci.346, 531 (2013). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-013-1464-8

2013 doi
[22]

Armendariz-Picon, V

C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4438 (2000)

2000
[23]

Chiba, T

T. Chiba, T. Okabe, M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D62, 023511 (2000)

2000
[24]

Picon, T

C.A. Picon, T. Damour, V. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B458, 209 (1999)

1999
[25]

Pasqua, A

A. Pasqua, A. Khodam-Mohammadi, M. Jamil, R. Myrzakulov, Astrophys Space Sci340, 199-208 (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-012-1031-8

2012 doi
[26]

Sen, Journal of High Energy Physics4, 48 (2002)

A. Sen, Journal of High Energy Physics4, 48 (2002)

2002
[27]

Padmanabhan, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D66, 021301 (2002)

2002
[28]

Pasqua, M

A. Pasqua, M. Jamil, R. Myrzakulov B. Majeed, Physica Scripta86, 045004 (2012). DOI: 10.1088/0031-8949/86/04/045004

2012 doi
[29]

Nojiri, S.D

S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B565, 1 (2003)

2003
[30]

Chimento, R

L.P. Chimento, R. Lazkoz, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 211301 (2003)

2003
[31]

Boisseau, G

B. Boisseau, G. Esposito-Farese, D. Polarski, Alexei A. Starobinsky,Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2236 (2000)

2000
[32]

Arkani-Hamed, P

N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Creminelli, S. Mukohyama, M. Zaldarriaga, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.4, 1 (2004)

2004
[33]

Gasperini, F

M. Gasperini, F. Piazza, G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. D65, 023508 (2002)

2002
[34]

Piazza, S

F. Piazza, S. Tsujikawa, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.7, 4 (2004)

2004
[35]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D70, 043539 (2004)

2004
[36]

Nojiri, S.D

S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D71, 063004 (2005)

2005
[37]

W. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D73, 123509 (2006)

2006
[38]

Setare, E.N

M.R. Setare, E.N. Saridakis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.0809, 026 (2008). 90

2008
[39]

Bento, O

M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A.A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D66, 043507 (2002)

2002
[40]

Setare, European Physical Journal C52, 689 (2007)

M.R. Setare, European Physical Journal C52, 689 (2007)

2007
[41]

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

2008
[42]

Cai, Phys

R.G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B657, 228 (2007)

2007
[43]

Fischler, L

W. Fischler, L. Susskind, (arXiv:hep-th/9806039)

arXiv
[44]

Susskind, J

L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys.36, 6377 (1995)

1995
[45]

Huang, M

Q.G. Huang, M. Li, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.8, 13 (2004)

2004
[46]

Li, Phys

M. Li, Phys. Lett. B603, 1 (2004)

2004
[47]

M. Li, X.D. Li, S. Wang, Y. Wang, X. Zhang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.12, 014 (2009)

2009
[48]

Myung, arXiv:1005.2240

Y.S. Myung, arXiv:1005.2240

arXiv
[49]

Khurshudyan, Astrophys

M. Khurshudyan, Astrophys. Space Sci.361, 7 (2016)

2016
[50]

Nojiri, S.D

S.I. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, T. Paul, Phys. Rev. D102, 023540 (2020)

2020
[51]

Nojiri, S.D

S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, T. Paul, Symmetry13, 928 (2021)

2021
[52]

Cohen, D

A. Cohen, D. Kaplan, A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4971 (1999)

1999
[53]

C. Gao, F. Wu, X. Chen, Y. G. Shen, Phys. Rev. D79, 043511 (2009)

2009
[54]

Granda, International Journal of Modern Physics D18, 1749 (2009)

L.N. Granda, International Journal of Modern Physics D18, 1749 (2009)

2009
[55]

Granda, A

L.N. Granda, A. Oliveros, Physics Letters B671, 199 (2009)

2009
[56]

Enqvist, S

K. Enqvist, S. Hannestad, M. S. Sloth, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2, 4 (2005)

2005
[57]

Zhang, F.Q

X. Zhang, F.Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D76, 023502 (2007)

2007
[58]

Zhang, F.Q

X. Zhang, F.Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D72, 043524 (2005)

2005
[59]

Zhang, Phys

X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D79, 103509 (2009)

2009
[60]

Micheletti, J

S.M.R. Micheletti, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.4, 9 (2010)

2010
[61]

Kao, W.L

H.C. Kao, W.L. Lee, F.L. Lin, Phys. Rev. D71, 123518 (2005)

2005
[62]

B. Feng, X. Wang, X. Zhang, Physics Letters B607, 35 (2005)

2005
[63]

J. Shen, B. Wang, E. Abdalla, R. K. Su, Physics Letters B609, 200 (2005)

2005
[64]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, E. N. Saridakis, R. Myrzakulov, Nuclear Physics B950114850 (2020)

2020
[65]

Setare, Physics Letters B642, 421 (2006)

M.R. Setare, Physics Letters B642, 421 (2006)

2006
[66]

Setare, European Physical Journal C50, 991 (2007)

M.R. Setare, European Physical Journal C50, 991 (2007)

2007
[67]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, E. N. Saridakis, Nuclear Physics B949, 114790 (2019)

2019
[68]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Eur. Phys. J. C77528 (2017)

2017
[69]

Gong, Phys

Y. Gong, Phys. Rev. D70, 064029 (2004)

2004
[70]

Jamil, E.N

M. Jamil, E.N. Saridakis, M.R. Setare, Physics Letters B679, 172 (2009)

2009
[71]

Jamil, M.U

M. Jamil, M.U. Farooq, M. A. Rashid, European Physical Journal C61, 471 (2009)

2009
[72]

Sadjadi, M

H.M. Sadjadi, M. Jamil, General Relativity and Gravitation43, 1759 (2011)

2011
[73]

Setare, M

M.R. Setare, M. Jamil, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2, 10 (2010)

2010
[74]

Setare, M

M.R. Setare, M. Jamil, General Relativity and Gravitation43, 293 (2011)

2011
[75]

Sheykhi, Physics Letters B681, 205 (2009)

A. Sheykhi, Physics Letters B681, 205 (2009). 91

2009
[76]

Setare, S

M.R. Setare, S. Shafei, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.9, 11 (2006)

2006
[77]

Setare, M

M.R. Setare, M. Jamil, Physics Letters B690,1 (2010)

2010
[78]

Pasqua, arXiv:2508.21110v2

A. Pasqua, arXiv:2508.21110v2

arXiv
[79]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D71, 103504 (2005)

2005
[80]

Farooq, M

M.U. Farooq, M. Jamil, M. A. Rashid, Int. J. Theor. Phys.49, 2334 (2010)

2010
[81]

Zhang, Phys

X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D74, 103505 (2006)

2006
[82]

Setare, E.N

M.R. Setare, E.N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B671, 331 (2009)

2009
[83]

J. Lu, E.N. Saridakis, M.R. Setare, L. Xu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.03, 031 (2010)

2010
[84]

Wang, C.Y

B. Wang, C.Y. Lin, D. Pav´ on, E. Abdalla, Physics Letters B,662, 1 (2008)

2008
[85]

Karami, J

K. Karami, J. Fehri, Physics Letters B684, 61 (2010)

2010
[86]

Sheykhi, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 025007 (2010)

A. Sheykhi, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 025007 (2010)

2010
[87]

Sadjadi, J

H.M. Sadjadi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.02, 026 (2007)

2007
[88]

Karami, J

K. Karami, J. Fehri, Int. J. Theor. Phys.49, 1118 (2010)

2010
[89]

Pasqua, S

A. Pasqua, S. Chattopadhyay, & Khomenko, I. Int J Theor Phys52, 2496–2507 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-013-1537-z

2013 doi
[90]

Saridakis, J

E.N. Saridakis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.0804, 020 (2008)

2008
[91]

S. Chen, J. Jing, Physics Letters B679, 144 (2009)

2009
[92]

Granda, A

L.N. Granda, A. Oliveros, Phys. Lett. B669, 275 (2008)

2008
[93]

Sharif, A

M. Sharif, A. Jawad, J. C72, 2097 (2012)
[94]

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

2017
[95]

Bolotin, A

Y.L. Bolotin, A. Kostenko, O.A. Lemets, D.A. Yerokhin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1530007 (2015)

2015
[96]

Pasqua, S

A. Pasqua, S. Chattopadhyay, R. Myrzakulov, Eur. Phys. J. Plus131, 408 (2016). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2016-16408-8

2016 doi
[97]

Pasqua, S

A. Pasqua, S. Chattopadhyay, Astrophys Space Sci348, 541-551 (2013). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-013-1570-7

2013 doi
[98]

Khodam-Mohammadi, A

A. Khodam-Mohammadi, A. Pasqua, M. Malekjani, I. Khomenko, M. Monshizadeh, Astrophys Space Sci345, 415-420 (2013). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-013-1400-y

2013 doi
[99]

Nojiri, S.D

S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Gen. Rel. Grav.38, 1285 (2006)

2006
[100]

Y. Wang, L. Xu, Phys. Rev. D,81, 083523 (2010)

2010
[101]

S. D. H. Hsu, Phys. Lett. B669, 275 (2008)

2008
[102]

Sheykhi, M

A. Sheykhi, M. Jamil, Phys. Lett. B694, 284 (2011)

2011
[103]

Amendola, D

L. Amendola, D. Tocchini-Valentini, Phys. Rev. D64, 043509 (2001)

2001
[104]

Zimdahl, D

W. Zimdahl, D. Pavon, Gen. Rel. Grav.35, 413 (2003)

2003
[105]

Feng, et al., Phys

C. Feng, et al., Phys. Lett. B665, 111 (2008)

2008
[106]

Ichiki, et al., J

K. Ichiki, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.06, 005 (2008)

2008
[107]

D. Jain, A. Dev, Phys. Lett. B633, 436 (2006)

2006
[108]

Nojiri, S.D

S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D72, 023003 (2005). 92

2005
[109]

Capozziello, V

S. Capozziello, V. Cardone, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D73, 043512 (2006)

2006
[110]

Kamenshchik, U

A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett.511265 (2001)

2001
[111]

Li, M., Li, X., & Zhang, X., Science in China G: Physics and Astronomy,53, 1631 (2010)

2010
[112]

Bento, O

M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A.A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D70, 083519 (2004)

2004
[113]

Gorini, A

V. Gorini, A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, Phys. Rev. D67, 063509 (2003)

2003
[114]

U. Alam, V. Sahni, T.D. Saini, A.A. Starobinsky, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.344, 1057 (2003)

2003
[115]

Bilic, G.B

N. Bilic, G.B. Tupper, R.D. Viollier, Phys. Lett. B535, 17 (2002)

2002
[116]

Fabris, S.B.V

J.C. Fabris, S.B.V. Goncalves, P.E. de Souza, Gen. Rel. Grav.34, 53 (2002)

2002
[117]

Gorini, A.Y

V. Gorini, A.Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, O.F. Piattella, A.A. Starobinsky, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.02, 016 (2008)

2008
[118]

Zhang, J

X. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Cui, L. Zhang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A24, 1763 (2009)

2009
[119]

Jamil, Y

M. Jamil, Y. Myrzakulov, O. Razina, R. Myrzakulov, Astrophys. Space Sci.336, 315 (2011)

2011
[120]

Jamil, U

M. Jamil, U. Debnath, Astrophys. Space Sci.333, 3 (2011)

2011
[121]

Debnath, M

U. Debnath, M. Jamil, Astrophys. Space Sci.335, 545 (2011)

2011
[122]

Farooq, M

M.U. Farooq, M. Jamil, U. Debnath, Astrophys. Space Sci.334, 243 (2011)

2011
[123]

Debnath, A

U. Debnath, A. Banerjee, S. Chakraborty, Class. Quantum Grav.21, 5609 (2004)

2004
[124]

Guo, Y.Z

Z.K. Guo, Y.Z. Zhang, arXiv:astro-ph/0506091

arXiv
[125]

Bento, O

M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A.A. Sen, Phys. Lett. B575, 172 (2003)

2003
[126]

Sethi, S.K

G. Sethi, S.K. Singh, P. Kumar, D. Jain, A. Dev, arXiv:astro-ph/0508491 (2005)

2005 arXiv
[127]

Guo, Y.Z

Z.K. Guo, Y.Z. Zhang, arXiv:astro-ph/0509790 (2005)

2005 arXiv
[128]

Debnath, Astrophys

U. Debnath, Astrophys. Space Sci.312, 295 (2007)

2007
[129]

Bertolami et al., Mon

O. Bertolami et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.353, 329 (2004)

2004
[130]

Tekola, arXiv:0706.0804 [gr-qc]

A.G. Tekola, arXiv:0706.0804 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[131]

Z.K. Guo, N. Ohta, Y.Z. Zhang, arXiv:astro-ph/0505253

arXiv
[132]

Tawfik, C

A. Tawfik, C. Greiner, Entropy23295 (2021)

2021
[133]

Tawfik, T

A. Tawfik, T. Harko, H. Mansour, M. Wahba, Annalen Phys.523194 (2011)

2011
[134]

Li and J

B. Li and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D79, 103521 (2009)

2009
[135]

J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B180, 335 (1987)

1987
[136]

Brevik, S

I. Brevik, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D65, 067302 (2002)

2002
[137]

D. J. Liu and X. Z. Li, Phys. Lett. B611, 8 (2005)

2005
[138]

Nightingale, Astroph

J.D. Nightingale, Astroph. J.185(1973) 105

1973
[139]

Waga et al, Phys

I. Waga et al, Phys. Rev. D33(1986) 1839

1986
[140]

Singh et al, Class

C.P. Singh et al, Class. Quantum Gravit.24(2007) 455

2007
[141]

Colistete et al, Phys

R. Colistete et al, Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 103516

2007
[142]

M-Guang Hu and X-He Meng, Phys. Lett. B635(2006) 186

2006
[143]

Cruz et al, Phys

N. Cruz et al, Phys. Lett. B646(2007) 177

2007
[144]

Eckart, Phys

C. Eckart, Phys. Rev.58, 919 (1940). 93

1940
[145]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics (Butterworth Heinemann,1987)

1987
[146]

Israel and J

W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, Phys. Lett. A58, 213 (1976)

1976
[147]

Harko and M

T. Harko and M. K. Mak, Class. Quantum Grav.20, 407 (2003)

2003
[148]

I. H. Brevik and O. Gorbunova, Gen. Rel. Grav.37, 2039 (2005)
[149]

X. H. Zhai, Y. D. Xu and X. Z. Li, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1151 (2006)

2006
[150]

X. H. Meng, J. Ren and M. G. Hu, Commun. Theor. Phys.47, 379 (2007)

2007
[151]

D. F. Mota, J. R. Kristiansen, T. Koivisto and N. E. Groeneboom, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.382, 793 (2007)

2007
[152]

Koivisto and D

T. Koivisto and D. F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D73, 083502 (2006)

2006
[153]

Chitre, Phys

T.Padmanabhan and S.M. Chitre, Phys. Letts. A ,120, 433 (1987)

1987
[154]

Brevik, & O

I. Brevik, & O. Gorbunova, European Physical Journal C,56, 425 (2008)

2008
[155]

Brevik, O

I. Brevik, O. Gorbunova, Y. A. & Shaido, International Journal of Modern Physics D,14, 1899 (2005)

2005
[156]

Ren, & X

J. Ren, & X. H. Meng, Physics Letters B,633, 1 (2006)

2006
[157]

Ren, & X

J. Ren, & X. H. Meng, Physics Letters B,636, 5 (2006)

2006
[158]

Zimdahl and D

W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Phys. Rev. D61, 108301 (2000)

2000
[159]

Gron, Astrophys

O. Gron, Astrophys. Space Sci.173, 191 (1990)

1990
[160]

Jamil, M

M. Jamil, M. A. Rashid, Eur. Phys. J. C56(2008) 429

2008
[161]

Y. F. Cai, J. B. Dent, D. A. Easson, Phys. Rev. D.83, 101301 (2011)

2011
[162]

Chattopadhyay, U

S. Chattopadhyay, U. Debnath, Int. J. Theor. Phys.49, 1465 (2010)

2010
[163]

J. E. Lidsey and I. Huston, JCAP0707002 (2007)

2007
[164]

W. H. Kinney and K. Tzirakis, Phys. Rev. D77103517 (2008)

2008
[165]

Martin and M

J. Martin and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D77123508 (2008)

2008
[166]

Spalinski, JCAP 017 05 (2007) Phys

M. Spalinski, JCAP 017 05 (2007) Phys. Lett. B650313 (2007)

2007
[167]

X. Chen, M. X. Huang, S. Kachru and G. Shiu, JCAP0701002 (2007)

2007
[168]

Kecskemeti, J

S. Kecskemeti, J. Maiden, G. Shiu and B. Underwood, JHEP0609076 (2006)

2006
[169]

M. X. Huang, G. Shiu and B. Underwood, Phys. Rev. D77023511 (2008)

2008
[170]

Seery and J

D. Seery and J. E. Lidsey, Phys. Rev. D75043505 (2007)

2007
[171]

Y.Zhang, Phys.Lett.B340(1994) 18

1994
[172]

M. Tong, Y. Zhang and T. Xia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18797 (2009)

2009
[173]

Zhao, Astron

W. Zhao, Astron. Astrophys.9874 (2009)

2009
[174]

Zhang, T

Y. Zhang, T. Y. Xia , and W. Zhao, Class. Quant. Grav.243309 (2007)

2007
[175]

H.Politzer, Phys.Rev.Lett.30(1973) 1346

1973
[176]

D.J.Gross and F.Wilzcek, Phys.Rev.Lett.30(1973) 1343

1973
[177]

S. L. Adler, Phys.Rev.D23, 2905 (1981)

1981
[178]

S. L. Adler, Nucl.Phys.B217, 3881 (1983)

1983
[179]

H.Pagels & E.Tomboulis, Nucl.Phys.B143485 (1978)

1978
[180]

S.Coleman and E.Weinberg, Phys.Rev.D71888 (1973). 94

1973
[181]

L.Parker and A.Raval, Phys.Rev.D60063512 (1999)

1999
[182]

E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D57, 4686 (1989)

1989
[183]

Barreiro, E.J

T. Barreiro, E.J. Copeland, and N.J. Nunes, Phys.Rev.D61, 127301 (2002)

2002
[184]

Breton, R

N. Breton, R. Garcia-Salcedo, arXiv:hep-th/0702008 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep- th/0702008

doi arXiv
[185]

V. A. De Lorenci et al, Phys. Rev. D65063501 (2002)

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C. L. Bennett, et al., Astrophys. J.148, 1 (2003)

2003

[2] [2]

Spergel, et al., Astrophys

D.N. Spergel, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.148, 175 (2003)

2003

[3] [3]

Perlmutter et al., Astrophys

S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999). 89

1999

[4] [4]

de Bernardis et al, Nature404, 955 (2000)

P. de Bernardis et al, Nature404, 955 (2000)

2000

[5] [5]

CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we have explored the cosmological implications of two different DE models. The first model considered is a Generalized Holographic Dark Energy (GHDE) model proposed by Chen & Jing [90], which is a function of the Hubble parameterHand its first and second derivatives with respect to the cosmic timetasρ higher = 3 α ¨HH −1 +β ˙H+γ...

[6] [6]

Tegmark et al., Phys

M. Tegmark et al., Phys. Rev. D69, 103501 (2004)

2004

[7] [7]

Abazajian et al., Astron

K. Abazajian et al., Astron. J.129, 1755 (2005)

2005

[8] [8]

Adelman-McCarthy, et al., Astrophys

J.K. Adelman-McCarthy, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.175, 297 (2008)

2008