Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Comparison of $f(R,T)$ Gravity with Multiple Datasets

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining four cosmological datasets pins the f(R,T) gravity exponent to ε=0.010^{+0.013}_{-0.021}, consistent with the standard model value ε=0.

desk verdict A solid null result for f(R,T), but the wCDM-calibrated CMB priors are applied without validation and the BAO exclusions are under-documented; refereeing should focus there. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16158 v1 pith:BAAFQOSW submitted 2026-07-17 gr-qc

Vincent R. Siggia , Eric D. Carlson This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords f(RT)gravitymodifiedcosmologicalparametersbaryonacousticoscillationscosmicchronometersTypeIasupernovaeΛCDMdarkenergy
topics Dark Energy
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

The paper asks whether a specific family of modified-gravity theories, f(R,T)=R+λT^ε, can be distinguished from the standard cosmological model using current measurements. Combining CMB distance priors, baryon acoustic oscillations, cosmic chronometers, and the Pantheon+SH0ES supernova sample, it finds the best-fit modification exponent is ε=0.010 with a 68% interval of +0.013/−0.021. Because ε=0 (which recovers ΛCDM) lies inside this range, the analysis concludes that the data show no preference for this modification of gravity. The result matters because it turns a previously flexible model—supernova-only fits allowed almost any negative ε—into a tightly constrained one that behaves effectively like a cosmological constant.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the one-parameter action f(R,T)=R+λT^ε, where T is the trace of the stress-energy tensor. Varying the action gives nonconserved stress-energy; the paper shows that an effective current J'^μ∝(ρ_m²/T)u^μ replaces the ordinary matter current, leading to a modified conservation law and an altered Hubble expansion. The dimensionless coupling ξ≡λ/(κ^{2ε}H_0^{2(1−ε)}) is the practical fit parameter, and its upper bound ξ_lim (which exists for ε>0) is what suppresses the probability density at larger ε, effectively cutting off the posterior near ε≈0.03.

What would settle it

Run the same five-parameter fit with the full Planck 2018 likelihood (or a likelihood emulator) in place of the Chen-Huang-Wang distance priors; if the resulting ε posterior shifts by more than the quoted error bars, the near-zero result was an artifact of the prior transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the f(R,T)=R+λT^ε gravity model in a flat FLRW universe with radiation, the paper constructs the expansion history and a full χ² likelihood from CMB, BAO, cosmic chronometers, and Type Ia supernova data, including correlations. Marginalizing over nuisance parameters (ξ, ω_b, H_0, and M), it obtains the relative probability distribution for ε, centered at ε=0.010 with 68% bounds of +0.013 and −0.021. The standard value ε=0 is comfortably inside this range. The authors interpret this as no preference for the modified term, with the tight constraint driven mainly by the Pantheon+SH0ES supernovae and DESI DR2 BAO data.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis relies on CMB distance priors that were calibrated under a different dark-energy model (wCDM) and applies them to f(R,T) expansion histories without a full CMB likelihood; if those priors are biased for ε≠0, the reported ε posterior would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A joint analysis of four independent cosmological datasets confines ε to |ε|≲0.03 at 68% confidence, ruling out the large-negative-ε region that supernova-only fits previously permitted.
  • The model's expansion history at the best fit is effectively indistinguishable from ΛCDM, so existing cosmological observations do not demand an f(R,T) modification.
  • If ε is truly zero, future BAO and supernova datasets should drive the ε posterior's central value toward zero and shrink its width.
  • The same formalism, including radiation, provides a reusable pipeline for testing other ε values or related modified-gravity forms against the same datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the CMB distance priors were calibrated under wCDM, a full Planck-likelihood analysis could shift the central ε; readers should treat the quoted interval as conditional on that transfer being unbiased.
  • The derived H0 values (roughly 68–69 km/s/Mpc) fall on the Planck side of the Hubble tension, implying this model does not resolve the tension and could sharpen it if local measurements are used in the same fit.
  • The ξ_lim cutoff acts as an informative prior; using a different prior (e.g., allowing the theory breakdown at finite past redshift) would change the shape of the high-ε tail and could widen the error bar.
  • If future DESI BAO data continue to prefer small ε, the f(R,T)=R+λT^ε family becomes a candidate for a cosmological-constant-like limit rather than a dynamical dark-energy alternative.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies f(R,T)=R+λT^ε gravity in a flat FLRW universe, now including radiation and a wider set of cosmological datasets. The authors fit five parameters (ε, ξ, ω_b, H_0, M) to CMB distance priors, BAO measurements (DESI DR2 plus a compilation), cosmic chronometers, and Pantheon+SH0ES supernovae. They report a marginalized 68% constraint ε = 0.010^{+0.013}_{-0.021}, concluding that the model is consistent with the ΛCDM value ε=0. The analysis is supported by a table of best-fit parameters at representative ε values, a marginalized probability plot, and publicly available code and data links.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a useful and nontrivial constraint: the previously almost unconstrained power-law f(R,T) model is shown to be tightly restricted to near-ΛCDM behavior by current data, resolving a degeneracy found in the authors' earlier SNe-only analyses. The paper is commendably transparent in making code and data available, and the inclusion of radiation and correlated data is a clear improvement over prior work. The main risk is that the CMB likelihood is compressed to distance priors calibrated under wCDM and then applied to a modified-gravity model without validation; this directly affects the quoted ε posterior. The paper is otherwise clearly written and the statistical framework is standard.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV.A, Eqs. (31)–(33)] The CMB term uses the distance priors (R, ℓ_A, ω_b) of Chen et al. [6], which were calibrated assuming wCDM. For ε≠0 the f(R,T) model has a different expansion history, and the compressed R and ℓ_A may be biased when compared against a likelihood derived under a different physical model. This issue is load-bearing because the CMB term is one of the new datasets that tightens the ε constraint. The authors should validate the use of these priors, e.g., by reproducing a full CMB likelihood for representative ε values (including Planck) or by demonstrating that the compressed constraints are insensitive to the calibration model within the prior range. Without this, the quoted 68% interval is not fully trustworthy.
  2. [§IV.B] The BAO section states that 'certain data were excluded' following the suggestion of [11], but it does not specify which points, how many, or the precise criterion. This makes the analysis non-reproducible and could affect the fit. The exact excluded data points, the full BAO dataset, and the covariance matrices used should be tabulated in an appendix or provided in the repository.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (20)–(23)] The symbol λ is used both for the action coupling and for the dimensionless function in Eq. (21). This is confusing; please rename one of them (e.g., use a barred or lowercase variant).
  2. [§V, Table I] The table reports χ²_min but not the number of data points or degrees of freedom. Please include reduced χ² or the total number of data points so the reader can assess goodness of fit.
  3. [§IV.B] The DESI DR2 data are only cited to [7]; the specific 9 BAO points and their correlations should be listed or made available in a machine-readable file.
  4. [§V, Fig. 1] The figure shows ρ(ε) but does not mark the quoted 68% interval. Adding the interval boundaries or describing how the interval was extracted from the normalized curve would improve clarity.
  5. [§VI] Typo: 'baryon accoustic oscillations' should be 'baryon acoustic oscillations'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ε constraint is an independent fit to external datasets; the self-citations are normal model-algebra references and do not force the result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—a posterior for ε peaked at 0.010 with 68% bounds containing 0—is obtained by minimizing χ² against external datasets: CMB distance priors [6], DESI DR2 and earlier BAO [7-21], cosmic chronometers [22-31], and Pantheon+SH0ES [3,4]. The f(R,T) framework is largely re-derived in the paper (Eqs. 10-27); references to the authors' earlier work [37-39] supply algebraic steps, not a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that predetermines ε. The ξ_lim cutoff is also re-derived from Eq. (15) via Eq. (43), and only shapes the ε>0.027 tail. The CMB distance priors from Chen et al. are calibrated under wCDM, which is a potential bias for nonzero ε, but that is a model-validity/calibration concern rather than circularity: the paper computes R, ℓ_A, and r_s from its own expansion history and compares them with external published priors. No equation defines ε in terms of the output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The result is therefore not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on the f(R,T) field equations, the non-conservation and on-shell matter construction from prior work, several physical simplifications (flat geometry, p_m=0, radiation with zero trace), and a model-dependent use of CMB distance priors plus a hard theoretical cut on ξ. These are not independently established in this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • ε = 0.010^{+0.013}_{-0.021}
    Central modified-gravity exponent; fitted to all datasets.
  • ξ = 4.210-4.244 across Table I
    Dimensionless coupling replacing λ; nuisance parameter with theoretical upper bound ξ_lim.
  • ω_b = 2.258e-2 to 2.269e-2
    Baryon density parameter; nuisance parameter in the fit.
  • H0 = 68.24-69.48 km/s/Mpc
    Hubble constant; nuisance parameter in the fit.
  • M = integrated out; prior -19.253±0.027
    Absolute magnitude of SNe Ia; nuisance parameter integrated analytically.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The Universe is described by a flat FLRW metric.
    Eq. (9): spatial curvature is set to zero for all datasets; a non-flat universe would change distance measures.
  • domain assumption Matter is non-relativistic with p_m=0 and ρ_m ∝ n throughout the redshifts considered.
    Sec. III: this reduces the trace relation to Eq. (11) and drives the Hubble parameter; if f(R,T) changes the effective pressure/continuity, this is inconsistent.
  • domain assumption Radiation has zero trace and satisfies ρ_r=3p_r, decoupling from the T^ε terms.
    Sec. II: used to split matter and radiation contributions in Eqs. (10)-(25).
  • domain assumption The on-shell matter Lagrangian and effective current J'^μ construction from prior work is correct.
    Sec. II Eqs. (4)-(8): this nonstandard matter coupling is imported from [37-39] and not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper CMB distance priors R, ℓ_A, ω_b calibrated under wCDM remain valid for f(R,T) models.
    Sec. IV A: uses distance priors from [6] without testing their model-dependence for the T^ε background.
  • ad hoc to paper The posterior is truncated by a hard prior ξ ≤ ξ_lim.
    Sec. V Eq. (43)-(44): the sharp fall of ρ(ε) above ε≈0.027 comes from this theoretical boundary, not from the data.
  • domain assumption χ² is quadratic in the nuisance parameters for each ε.
    Sec. V Eq. (41): used to integrate out ω_b, H0, ξ; not validated globally.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of $f(R,T)$ Gravity with Multiple Datasets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BAAFQOSW

@misc{pith2026260716158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of $f(R,T)$ Gravity with Multiple Datasets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BAAFQOSW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16158}
}
abstract

We examine $f(R,T)=R+\lambda T^\epsilon$ gravity models by finding the best fit parameters for various values of $\epsilon$. This is accomplished by analyzing data from the cosmic microwave background, baryon acoustic oscillation observations, cosmic chronometer, and Type Ia supernovae introducing correlations and radiation effects to our previous work. We find the probability distribution for the best fit model around the value of $\epsilon=0.010^{+0.013}_{-0.021}$, consistent with the standard cosmological model value of $\epsilon = 0$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16158 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Probability neighborhood for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Kazin, Florian Beutler, Tamara M

    Chris Blake, Eyal A. Kazin, Florian Beutler, Tamara M. Davis, David Parkinson, Sarah Brough, Matthew Col- less, Carlos Contreras, Warrick Couch, Scott Croom, Darren Croton, Michael J. Drinkwater, Karl Forster, 7 David Gilbank, Mike Gladders, Karl Glazebrook, Ben Jelliffe, Russell J. Jurek, I-hui Li, Barry Madore, D. Christopher Martin, Kevin Pimbblet, Gre...

    arXiv 2011

  2. [6]

    Distance priors from Planck final release.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019(02):028, feb 2019

    Lu Chen, Qing-Guo Huang, and Ke Wang. Distance priors from Planck final release.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019(02):028, feb 2019. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/028. URLhttps://doi. org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/028

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/028 2019

  3. [1]

    Riesset al.Observational Evidence from Su- pernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmolog- ical Constant.The Astronomical Journal, 116(3):1009, sep 1998

    Adam G. Riesset al.Observational Evidence from Su- pernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmolog- ical Constant.The Astronomical Journal, 116(3):1009, sep 1998. doi:10.1086/300499. URLhttps://dx.doi. org/10.1086/300499

    doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  4. [2]

    Perlmutteret al

    S. Perlmutteret al. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the Universe.Nature, 391(6662):51–54, January 1998. ISSN 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/34124. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/34124. 6

    doi:10.1038/34124 1998

  5. [3]

    Riess, Anthony Carr, Joe Zuntz, Rick Kessler, Tamara M

    Dillon Brout, Dan Scolnic, Brodie Popovic, Adam G. Riess, Anthony Carr, Joe Zuntz, Rick Kessler, Tamara M. Davis, Samuel Hinton, David Jones, W. D’Arcy Kenworthy, Erik R. Peterson, Khaled Said, Georgie Taylor, Noor Ali, Patrick Armstrong, Pranav Charvu, Arianna Dwomoh, Cole Meldorf, Antonella Palmese, Helen Qu, Benjamin M. Rose, Bruno Sanchez, Christopher...

    2022

  6. [4]

    Riess, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M

    Adam G. Riess, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M. Macri, Dan Scolnic, Dillon Brout, Stefano Casertano, David O. Jones, Yukei Murakami, Gagandeep S. Anand, Louise Breuval, Thomas G. Brink, Alexei V. Filippenko, Samantha Hoffmann, Saurabh W. Jha, W. D’arcy Ken- worthy, John Mackenty, Benjamin E. Stahl, and WeiKang Zheng. A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value o...

    2022

  7. [5]

    Aghanimet al.Planck 2018 results: VI

    N. Aghanimet al.Planck 2018 results: VI. Cosmolog- ical parameters.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641:A6, September 2020. ISSN 1432-0746. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201833910. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004- 2018

  8. [7]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. Allende Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, A. Aviles, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, P. Bansal, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. Ben- Zvi, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, S. Brieden, A. Brodzeller, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, E. Burtin, R. Calderon, R. Canning, A. Carnero Rosell, P. Carrilho, L. Casas, F....

    2025

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Percival, Beth A

    Will J. Percival, Beth A. Reid, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Neta A. Bahcall, Tamas Budavari, Joshua A. Frie- man, Masataka Fukugita, James E. Gunn, ˇZeljko Ivezi´ c, Gillian R. Knapp, Richard G. Kron, Jon Loveday, Robert H. Lupton, Timothy A. McKay, Avery Meiksin, Robert C. Nichol, ...

    2010

  2. [9]

    Kazin, Michael R

    Eyal A. Kazin, Michael R. Blanton, Rom´ an Scoccimarro, Cameron K. McBride, Andreas A. Berlind, Neta A. Bahcall, Jon Brinkmann, Paul Czarapata, Joshua A. Frieman, Stephen M. Kent, Donald P. Schneider, and Alexander S. Szalay. The baryonic acoustic feature and large-scale clust...

    2010 doi

  3. [12]

    Cuesta, Daniel J

    Chia-Hsun Chuang, Francisco Prada, Antonio J. Cuesta, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Eyal Kazin, Nikhil Padmanab- han, Ariel G. S´ anchez, Xiaoying Xu, Florian Beutler, Marc Manera, David J Schlegel, Donald P. Schneider, David H. Weinberg, Jon Brinkmann, Joel R. Brown- stein, and Danie...

  4. [13]

    Bolton, J

    Lauren Anderson, ´Eric Aubourg, Stephen Bailey, Flo- rian Beutler, Vaishali Bhardwaj, Michael Blanton, Adam S. Bolton, J. Brinkmann, Joel R. Brownstein, Angela Burden, Chia-Hsun Chuang, Antonio J. Cuesta, Kyle S. Dawson, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Stephanie Es- coffier, James E. Gu...

    2014

  5. [14]

    Ross, Lado Samushia, Cullan Howlett, Will J

    Ashley J. Ross, Lado Samushia, Cullan Howlett, Will J. Percival, Angela Burden, and Marc Manera. The clus- tering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample – I. A 4 per cent distance measure at z = 0.15.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449(1):835–847, 05

  6. [15]

    Ross, Patrick McDonald, Shun Saito, Adam S

    Florian Beutler, Hee-Jong Seo, Ashley J. Ross, Patrick McDonald, Shun Saito, Adam S. Bolton, Joel R. Brownstein, Chia-Hsun Chuang, Antonio J. Cuesta, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Andreu Font-Ribera, Jan Niklas Grieb, Nick Hand, Francisco-Shu Kitaura, Chirag Modi, Robert C. Nichol, Wi...

    2017

  7. [16]

    Ross, Gong-bo Zhao, Yuting Wang, Antonio J

    Chia-Hsun Chuang, Marcos Pellejero-Ibanez, Sergio Rodr ´ ıguez-Torres, Ashley J. Ross, Gong-bo Zhao, Yuting Wang, Antonio J. Cuesta, J. A. Rubi˜ no- Mart ´ ın, Francisco Prada, Shadab Alam, Florian Beut- ler, Daniel J. Eisenstein, H´ ector Gil-Mar ´ ın, Jan Niklas Grieb, Shirl...

    2017

  8. [17]

    Baryon acoustic oscillations from the complete SDSS-III Lyα- quasar cross-correlation function at z = 2.4.A&A, 608: A130, 2017

    du Mas des Bourboux, H´ elion, Le Goff, Jean-Marc, Blomqvist, Michael, Busca, Nicol´ as G., Guy, Julien, Rich, James, Y` eche, Christophe, Bautista, Julian E., Burtin, ´Etienne, Dawson, Kyle S., Eisenstein, Daniel J., Font-Ribera, Andreu, Kirkby, David, Miralda-Escud´ e, Jordi...

    2017

  9. [18]

    Fangzhou Zhu, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Ashley J Ross, Martin White, Will J Percival, Rossana Ruggeri, Gong- bo Zhao, Dandan Wang, Eva-Maria Mueller, Etienne Burtin, H´ ector Gil-Mar ´ ın, Julian Bautista, Florian Beut- ler, Jonathan Brinkmann, Joel R Brownstein, Kyle Dawson, Axel d...

    2018

  10. [19]

    Baryon acoustic oscillations from the cross-correlation of Lyαabsorption and quasars in eBOSS DR14.A&A, 629:A86, 2019

    Blomqvist, Michael, du Mas des Bourboux, H´ elion, Busca, Nicol´ as G., de Sainte Agathe, Victoria, Rich, James, Balland, Christophe, Bautista, Julian E., Daw- son, Kyle, Font-Ribera, Andreu, Guy, Julien, Le Goff, Jean-Marc, Palanque-Delabrouille, Nathalie, Percival, Will J., ...

    2019

  11. [20]

    Jiamin Hou, Ariel G S´ anchez, Ashley J Ross, Alex Smith, Richard Neveux, Julian Bautista, Etienne Burtin, Cheng Zhao, Rom´ an Scoccimarro, Kyle S Daw- son, Arnaud de Mattia, Axel de la Macorra, H´ elion du Mas des Bourboux, Daniel J Eisenstein, H´ ector Gil-Mar ´ ın, Brad W L...

    2021

  12. [21]

    Am´ elie Tamone, Anand Raichoor, Cheng Zhao, Ar- naud de Mattia, Claudio Gorgoni, Etienne Burtin, Van- ina Ruhlmann-Kleider, Ashley J Ross, Shadab Alam, Will J Percival, Santiago Avila, Michael J Chapman, Chia-Hsun Chuang, Johan Comparat, Kyle S Daw- son, Sylvain de la Torre, ...

    2020

  13. [22]

    Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Dig- ital Sky Survey data release seven.Research in As- tronomy and Astrophysics, 14(10):1221, oct 2014

    Cong Zhang, Zhang Han, Yuan Shuo, Liu Siqi, Zhang Tong-Jie, and Sun Yan-Chun. Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Dig- ital Sky Survey data release seven.Research in As- tronomy and Astrophysics, 14(10):1221, oct 2014. doi: 10.1088/1674-452...

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    Constraints on the Equation of State of Dark Energy and the Hubble Constant from Stellar Ages and the Cosmic Microwave Background*.The Astrophysical Journal, 593(2):622, aug 2003

    Raul Jimenez, Licia Verde, Tommaso Treu, and Daniel Stern. Constraints on the Equation of State of Dark Energy and the Hubble Constant from Stellar Ages and the Cosmic Microwave Background*.The Astrophysical Journal, 593(2):622, aug 2003. doi:10.1086/376595. URL https://doi.or...

    2003 doi

  15. [24]

    Con- straints on the redshift dependence of the dark en- ergy potential.Phys

    Joan Simon, Licia Verde, and Raul Jimenez. Con- straints on the redshift dependence of the dark en- ergy potential.Phys. Rev. D, 71:123001, Jun 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123001. URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123001

    2005 doi

  16. [25]

    Moresco, A

    M. Moresco, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, L. Pozzetti, G. Zamorani, M. Bolzonella, J. Dunlop, F. Lamareille, M. Mignoli, H. Pearce, P. Rosati, D. Stern, L. Verde, E. Zucca, C.M. Carollo, T. Contini, J.-P. Kneib, O. Le F` evre, S.J. Lilly, V. Mainieri, A. Renzini, M. Scodeg- gio, I. ...

    2012

  17. [26]

    Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼2.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety: Letters, 450(1):L16–L20, 06 2015

    Michele Moresco. Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼2.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety: Letters, 450(1):L16–L20, 06 2015. ISSN 1745-3925. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv037. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1093/mnrasl/slv037

    2015 doi

  18. [28]

    A. L. Ratsimbazafy, S. I. Loubser, S. M. Crawford, C. M. Cress, B. A. Bassett, R. C. Nichol, and P. V¨ ais¨ anen. Age- dating luminous red galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467(3):3239–3254, 06 2017. ...

    2017 doi

  19. [29]

    Adam Stanford

    Daniel Stern, Raul Jimenez, Licia Verde, Marc Kamionkowski, and S. Adam Stanford. Cosmic chronometers: constraining the equation of state of dark energy. I: H(z) measurements.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2010(02):008, feb 2010. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/02...

    2010 doi

  20. [30]

    Toward a Better Understanding of Cosmic Chronome- ters: A New Measurement of H(z) atz∼0.7.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 928(1):L4, mar 2022

    Nicola Borghi, Michele Moresco, and Andrea Cimatti. Toward a Better Understanding of Cosmic Chronome- ters: A New Measurement of H(z) atz∼0.7.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 928(1):L4, mar 2022. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3fb2. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/ac3fb2

    2022 doi

  21. [31]

    Cosmic chronometers to calibrate the ladders and measure the curvature of the Universe

    Arianna Favale, Adri` a G´ omez-Valent, and Marina Migli- accio. Cosmic chronometers to calibrate the ladders and measure the curvature of the Universe. A model- independent study.Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 523(3):3406–3422, 08 2023. ISSN 0035-8711. d...

    2023 doi

  22. [32]

    H. A. Buchdahl. Non-Linear Lagrangians and Cosmo- logical Theory.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 150(1):1–8, 09 1970. ISSN 0035-8711. doi:10.1093/mnras/150.1.1. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1093/mnras/150.1.1

    1970 doi

  23. [33]

    Odintsov, V.K

    Sergei D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, and German S. Sharov. Early dark energy with power-law F(R) gravity. Physics Letters B, 843:137988, 2023. ISSN 0370-2693. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137988. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269323003222. 9

    2023

  24. [34]

    Modified gravity/dynamical dark energy vs ΛCDM: is the game over?Eur

    Odintsov, Sergei D., S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, Diego, and Sharov, German S. Modified gravity/dynamical dark energy vs ΛCDM: is the game over?Eur. Phys. J. C, 85(3):298, 2025. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-14013-3. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-025-14013-3

    2025 doi

  25. [35]

    Tiberiu Harko, Francisco S. N. Lobo, Shin’ichi No- jiri, and Sergei D. Odintsov.f(R,T) gravity.Physi- cal Review D, 84(2), July 2011. ISSN 1550-2368. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.84.024020. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024020

    2011 doi

  26. [36]

    f(R, T) gravity

    Jos´ e Barrientos O. and Guillermo F. Rubilar. Comment on “f(R, T) gravity”.Phys. Rev. D, 90:028501, Jul 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.028501. URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.028501

    2014 doi

  27. [37]

    Fisher and Eric D

    Sarah B. Fisher and Eric D. Carlson. Reex- aminingf(R,T) gravity.Physical Review D, 100 (6), September 2019. ISSN 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.100.064059. URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.064059

    2019 doi

  28. [38]

    Siggia and Eric D

    Vincent R. Siggia and Eric D. Carlson. Com- parison off(R, T) gravity with type Ia supernovae data.Phys. Rev. D, 111:024074, Jan 2025. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.024074. URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.024074

    2025 doi

  29. [39]

    Exploration of parameters in f(R,T) gravity and com- parison with type Ia supernovae data.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 43(3):035012, feb 2026

    Vincent R Siggia, Eric D Carlson, and P Lee Pryor. Exploration of parameters in f(R,T) gravity and com- parison with type Ia supernovae data.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 43(3):035012, feb 2026. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ae3b93. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/1361-6382/ae3b93

    2026 doi

  30. [40]

    Neutrino decoupling including flavour oscillations and primordial nucleosynthesis.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020(12):015, dec 2020

    Julien Froustey, Cyril Pitrou, and Maria Cristina Volpe. Neutrino decoupling including flavour oscillations and primordial nucleosynthesis.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020(12):015, dec 2020. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/015. URLhttps://doi. org/10.1088/14...

    2020 doi

  31. [41]

    Bennett, Gilles Buldgen, Pablo F

    Jack J. Bennett, Gilles Buldgen, Pablo F. de Salas, Marco Drewes, Stefano Gariazzo, Sergio Pastor, and Yvonne Y.Y. Wong. Towards a precision calculation of the effective number of neutrinos Neff in the Standard Model. Part II. Neutrino decoupling in the presence of flavour osc...

    2021 doi

  32. [42]

    A preci- sion calculation of relic neutrino decoupling.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020(08):012, aug 2020

    Kensuke Akita and Masahide Yamaguchi. A preci- sion calculation of relic neutrino decoupling.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020(08):012, aug 2020. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/012. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/012

    2020 doi

  33. [43]

    Tobias Binder, Marco Drewes, Yannis Georis, Michael Klasen, Giovanni Pierobon, and Yvonne Y.Y. Wong. Towards a precision calculation ofN eff in the Stan- dard Model IV: Estimating the impact of positron- ium formation.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics, 2025(10):...

    2025 doi

  34. [44]

    URL https://pantheonplussh0es.github.io/

    D Broutet al.and Pantheon+SH0ES Survey, 2022. URL https://pantheonplussh0es.github.io/

    2022

  35. [2013]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt988

    ISSN 0035-8711. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt988. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt988

    doi

  36. [2015]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv154

    ISSN 0035-8711. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv154. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv154

    doi

  37. [8711]

    URLhttps://doi

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1955. URLhttps://doi. org/10.1093/mnras/sty1955

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.