Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Observational constraints on the modified cosmology inspired by string T-duality

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A string-theory-inspired correction to gravity is constrained to be tiny by late-time cosmological data.

desk verdict A competent constraint paper whose headline β bound is probably right, but the GRB fits have a model-domain ambiguity that needs fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.16228 v1 pith:FLORXTXD submitted 2025-10-17 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

G.G.Luciano , A. Paliathanasis , A. Sheykhi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th MSC 83F0583C4585A40 PACS 98.80.-k04.60.-m95.36.+x
keywords stringT-dualityzero-pointlengthmodifiedFriedmannequationscosmologicalconstraintsdarkenergyHubbleparameterbaryonacousticoscillationsgamma-raybursts
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

This paper works out the observable consequences of a cosmological model motivated by string T-duality, where a zero-point length l0 modifies the gravitational potential and hence the Friedmann equations of an expanding universe. The modification shows up as a single dimensionless parameter β, proportional to l0²H0², which measures how much the expansion history departs from the standard ΛCDM model. Combining supernova distances, cosmic chronometer Hubble measurements, baryon acoustic oscillations, and calibrated gamma-ray bursts, the authors find β is no larger than about 10⁻³ at 68% confidence. At that level, the T-duality model fits the data essentially as well as ΛCDM, with only a marginal statistical preference for the standard model. The paper establishes that any quantum-gravity-induced departure from ΛCDM in the late-time expansion is currently very small, and that future high-precision surveys will be needed to detect it.

What carries the argument

The key ingredient is the modified horizon entropy dS_h = 2πR(1 + l0²/R²)^(−3/2) dR, which follows from a T-duality-inspired zero-point length in the gravitational potential. Applying the first law of thermodynamics at the apparent horizon of a flat FRW universe produces the modified Friedmann equation H² − αH⁴ ≈ (8π/3)ρ + Λ/3, with α = 3l0²/4. The dimensionless parameter β = αH0² = (3/4)l0²H0² carries the deviation from ΛCDM, entering the Hubble function as H²/H0² = D(z)[1 + β D(z)] to first order, where D(z) = Ωm0(1+z)³ + Ωr0(1+z)⁴ + ΩΛ0. This β is the parameter the paper constrains with data.

What would settle it

Recompute the distance modulus of the highest-redshift GRB (z ≈ 8.1) using the exact solution (13) versus the first-order expansion (14) at β = 0.003; if the two predictions differ by more than the reported measurement uncertainty, the upper bound on β depends on which expression was used in the likelihood, and the constraint is not purely data-driven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the string T-duality modified cosmology, with its zero-point length parameter β, is observationally viable but tightly bounded: a joint Bayesian analysis of late-time datasets gives β ≲ 10⁻³ (68% C.L.) when baryon acoustic oscillations are included, and the AIC model comparison shows the T-duality model and ΛCDM are statistically equivalent, with at most weak evidence favoring ΛCDM. This is the first quantitative observational constraint on this T-duality-inspired framework.

Load-bearing premise

The exact Hubble solution (13) is assumed to be valid over the entire redshift range of the data, including gamma-ray bursts at z ≈ 8.1, but for β near the reported upper bound the square root in that solution becomes imaginary at high redshift, so the analysis must either rely on the first-order expansion (14) or impose a hard existence cutoff—and the paper does not state which.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If β is truly below ~10⁻³, the late-time expansion history of the universe is indistinguishable from ΛCDM with the current generation of distance and Hubble measurements.
  • The same zero-point length correction, which shows up as a subdominant late-time effect, could be far more visible in early-universe observables such as the CMB or primordial gravitational waves, providing a complementary test.
  • The bound on β translates directly into a bound on the zero-point length l0 ≈ (4β/3)^(1/2)/H0, connecting a cosmological measurement to the scale of spacetime discreteness.
  • The statistical equivalence of the two models means that adding more data of the same type will not by itself sharpen the constraint much; qualitatively new probes are needed to detect the correction.
  • The model can serve as a template for testing other minimal-length or quantum-gravity-inspired cosmologies against late-time data using the same Bayesian pipeline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the likelihood uses the exact Hubble solution (13) or the first-order expansion (14); for β near the reported upper bound, the square root in (13) becomes imaginary at the highest GRB redshifts, so the choice could bias the bound—this is an editorial concern, not a claim of the paper.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same observational framework to early-time data (CMB anisotropies, primordial gravitational waves), where the zero-point length is expected to leave stronger imprints than in late-time expansion.
  • The reported bound could be sharpened by replacing the GRB sample with a better-calibrated high-redshift distance indicator, since the current GRB data do not improve the constraint despite reaching z ≈ 8.
  • If future surveys push the β bound below ~10⁻⁴, the T-duality model would be effectively ruled out as a late-time modification, leaving only early-universe probes as viable tests.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives a modified Friedmann equation from a T-duality-inspired correction to horizon entropy, introducing a dimensionless parameter β ∼ l0^2 H0^2. Using Cobaya with MCMC sampling, the authors constrain β with six combinations of late-time datasets: PantheonPlus or Union3 supernovae, cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 BAO, and Amati-calibrated GRBs. The main result is an upper bound β ≲ O(10^-3) (68% C.L.) for combinations including BAO, with AIC showing statistical equivalence to ΛCDM. The paper does not state whether the likelihood uses the exact Hubble solution (13) or the first-order expansion (14).

Significance. If the reported constraints are correct, this constitutes the first quantitative late-time observational bound on string T-duality inspired cosmology, complementing earlier early-universe analyses in Ref. [37]. The use of multiple recent datasets, a standard Bayesian pipeline, and AIC model comparison are strengths. However, the central quantitative result is currently not well defined because the high-redshift behavior of the model depends on which of the two expressions (13)/(14) is implemented; for the GRB-containing datasets, the exact solution becomes imaginary for β near the reported upper bound. This issue must be resolved before the significance of the constraints can be assessed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (9) and Eq. (15)] The paper never states whether the MCMC likelihood uses the exact Hubble solution (13) or the first-order expansion (14). This ambiguity is load-bearing for the central claim. For the GRB-containing combinations D3 and D6, the highest-redshift data point is z=8.1. Using the reported best-fit Ωm0≈0.30, ΩΛ0≈0.70 and a standard Ωr0≈9×10^-5, D(z)≡Ωm0(1+z)^3+Ωr0(1+z)^4+ΩΛ0 is ≈227 at z=8.1, so 4βD≈2.7 for β=0.003, making the square root in Eq. (13) imaginary. If Eq. (13) is used with a hard existence cutoff, the likelihood excludes β≳1/(4D_max)≈1.1×10^-3, which is inconsistent with the quoted <3.4×10^-3 in Table II. If Eq. (14) is used instead, it is evaluated at βD≈0.7, far outside the O(β) validity of the expansion. Either way, the reported upper bounds from the GRB datasets are not well defined. The authors must specify the likelihood implementation and, if Eq. (13) is used, the prior/cuto
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (9) and Eq. (15)] The derivation of Eq. (9) is summarized as 'straightforward algebra' without presenting intermediate steps. Since Eq. (9) is the foundation of all constraints, the reader cannot verify the approximations, e.g., the dropping of O(α^2) terms. In addition, the flatness condition is imposed differently in the exact and expanded formulations: imposing H(0)/H0=1 on Eq. (13) gives ΩΛ0=1−Ωm0−Ωr0−β exactly, whereas Eq. (15) contains O(β^2). The text should state which expression is used in the likelihood and whether this choice affects the reported parameter bounds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 / Table I] The priors do not include the SNIa absolute magnitude or any GRB calibration nuisance parameter. Please clarify how the distance-modulus likelihood is normalized (e.g., analytic marginalization over M), especially since PantheonPlus and Union3 are used without SH0ES calibration.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The text introduces Ω_r0 but does not specify how it is fixed or sampled. Please state the value or prior used for the radiation density parameter.
  3. [Table II] In the rows for D1 and D4, the '−' for r_drag is ambiguous; use 'N/A' or a dash to indicate that BAO data are not included.
  4. [Abstract] The claim of 'first quantitative observational constraints' should be qualified as 'first late-time' since Ref. [37] already provides early-universe constraints on the same framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the T-duality parameter β is a genuinely fitted free parameter; the reported upper bound is a direct observational constraint, and the self-cited model derivation is not equivalent to the data products.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative result is a 68% upper limit on β from an MCMC fit to external cosmological datasets. β is introduced via Eq. (11) as a free dimensionless parameter and is constrained by the likelihood, not derived from the data as a prediction. The H(z) predictions (Eqs. (13)-(14)) follow algebraically from the modified Friedmann equation (Eq. (9)) and are not redefinitions of the inputs. The flatness normalization (Eq. (15)) is a consistency condition, not a fit. The theoretical framework is imported from the authors' prior Ref. [37] (Eqs. (2) and (9)); although this is a self-citation, it is not circular in the sense of the rubric: the prior derivation does not contain the present bound on β, and the observational constraints are external to it. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported to force the model. A separate validity concern—the paper does not state whether the likelihood uses the exact solution (13) or the first-order expansion (14), and at high z with β near the quoted bound the discriminant in (13) becomes negative—is a correctness/robustness issue, not an instance of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's only genuinely new free parameter is β; the remaining parameters are standard cosmology. The theory rests on the prior entropy formula (2) and the thermodynamic derivation of gravity, and on the unstated assumption that the exact solution is real across the data's redshift range.

free parameters (4)
  • β = <0.0030–0.0122 (68% C.L., depending on dataset)
    The T-duality coupling, αH0², constrained by MCMC; central parameter of the model.
  • H0 = 66.8–69.4 km/s/Mpc
    Present-day Hubble constant, fitted jointly.
  • Ω_m0 = 0.29–0.34
    Present-day matter density parameter, fitted jointly.
  • r_drag = 146.9–147.3 Mpc
    Sound horizon at drag epoch, free parameter for BAO.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Horizon entropy differential dS_h = 2πR (1 + l0²/R²)^(-3/2) dR (Eq. 2) correctly encodes T-duality zero-point length corrections.
    Taken verbatim from the authors' prior paper [37]; not re-derived here, but central to the Friedmann equation (9).
  • domain assumption The first law of thermodynamics at the apparent horizon, dE = T_h dS_h + W dV, yields the modified Friedmann equations.
    Standard in entropic-gravity cosmology [1–10]; applied without proof.
  • domain assumption Spatial flatness k=0 is assumed.
    Motivated by Planck observations [72]; restricts the model to flat FRW.
  • ad hoc to paper The exact solution (13) (or its expansion (14)) is valid over the full redshift range of the data, including z≈8.1 GRBs.
    For β≈3×10^-3, 4βD(z)>1 at high z, making the square root in (13) imaginary; the paper does not state how the likelihood treats this or which form is used.
  • ad hoc to paper Flatness condition (15): Ω_Λ0 = 1 - Ω_m0 - Ω_r0 - β, forcing H(0)=H0 exactly.
    Sets the cosmological constant by the other densities and β; a normalization that constrains the model at z=0 by construction.
  • domain assumption Higher-order terms O(α²) in (9) are negligible.
    α = 3l0²/4 is assumed small; the paper keeps only the H^4 correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational constraints on the modified cosmology inspired by string T-duality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLORXTXD

@misc{pith2026251016228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational constraints on the modified cosmology inspired by string T-duality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLORXTXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.16228}
}
abstract

We explore the cosmological consequences of a modified cosmology inspired by string T-duality. We incorporate the zero-point length correction, $l_0$, into the gravitational potential and derive the modified Friedmann equations via thermodynamic approach at the apparent horizon of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe. The resulting framework introduces a dimensionless coupling parameter $\beta\sim l_0^2H_0^2$ quantifying deviations from the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. Using Bayesian inference with \textsc{Cobaya} and MCMC sampling, we constrain the model parameter against late-time observations, including PantheonPlus and Union3 Type~Ia supernovae, cosmic chronometers, DESI~DR2 BAO measurements, and Amati-calibrated GRBs. The joint analysis yields an upper bound $\beta \lesssim \mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$ (68\% C.L.), implying that departures from $\Lambda$CDM are extremely small within current precision. Model comparison through the Akaike Information Criterion shows that the $\Lambda$CDM and T-duality models provide statistically equivalent fits to the data, exhibiting only a marginal preference for $\Lambda$CDM. These results provide the first quantitative observational constraints on string T-duality inspired modified cosmology and underscore the potential of future high-precision surveys to test quantum-gravity induced corrections in a late-time universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.16228 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Confidence regions for the free parameters of the string T-duality cosmology, derived from the joint likelihood of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Confidence regions for the free parameters of the string T-duality cosmology, derived from the joint likelihood of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 74 linked inside Pith

  1. [37]

    Basilakos, A

    S. Basilakos, A. Lymperis, M. Petronikolou, and E. N. Saridakis (2025), 2503.24355. 10

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    INTRODUCTION In the past few decades, it has become widely accepted that the laws of gravity may be viewed as a macroscopic manifestation of the laws of thermodynamics in large-scale spacetime systems. This idea has been thoroughly explored, and many studies have shown that gravitational field equations can be derived from the first law of thermodynamics ...

    arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    Within the entropic gravity framework, this deformation translates into a correction to the entropy associated with the cosmological horizon

    COSMOLOGY FROM STRING T-DUALITY According to the T-duality principle, the existence of a zero-point lengthl 0 induces a modification in the gravi- tational potential, effectively regularizing the interaction at short distances. Within the entropic gravity framework, this deformation translates into a correction to the entropy associated with the cosmologi...

  4. [3]

    We also describe the cosmological datasets employed in the analysis and outline the statistical methods used for parameter estimation and model comparison

    OBSER V A TIONAL DA T A ANAL YSIS In this section, we present the observational constraints obtained for our string T-duality cosmological model and compare the resulting physical parameters with those of the standard ΛCDM model. We also describe the cosmological datasets employed in the analysis and outline the statistical methods used for parameter esti...

  5. [4]

    DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have investigated the phenomenological implications of the string T-duality framework in late-time cosmology. By incorporating the zero-point length corrections motivated by T-duality into the Friedmann equations, we have derived a modified cosmological model characterized by the dimensionless coupling parameter...

    2022

  6. [5]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1260 (1995), gr-qc/9504004

    arXiv 1995

  7. [6]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept.406, 49 (2005), gr-qc/0311036

    arXiv 2005

  8. [7]

    Padmanabhan, Rept

    T. Padmanabhan, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 046901 (2010), 0911.5004

    arXiv 2010

Show all 89 references
  1. [8]

    Paranjape, S

    A. Paranjape, S. Sarkar, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D74, 104015 (2006), hep-th/0607240

    2006 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A. V. Frolov and L. Kofman, JCAP05, 009 (2003), hep-th/0212327

    2003 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Cai and S

    R.-G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP02, 050 (2005), hep-th/0501055

    2005 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Akbar and R.-G

    M. Akbar and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D75, 084003 (2007), hep-th/0609128

    2007 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Cai and L.-M

    R.-G. Cai and L.-M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D75, 064008 (2007), gr-qc/0611071

    2007 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Sheykhi, B

    A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, and R.-G. Cai, Nucl. Phys. B779, 1 (2007), hep-th/0701198

    2007 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Sheykhi, B

    A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D76, 023515 (2007), hep-th/0701261. 9 65 70 75 H0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 m0 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 m0 0.01 0.02 U3+OHD U3+BAO U3+OHD+BAO FIG. 2: Confidence regions for the free parameters of the string T-du...

    2007 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5056 (1998), gr-qc/9911046

    1998 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Nicolini, A

    P. Nicolini, A. Smailagic, and E. Spallucci, Phys. Lett. B632, 547 (2006), gr-qc/0510112

    2006 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Nicolini, Int

    P. Nicolini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 1229 (2009), 0807.1939

    2009 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Nicolini, E

    P. Nicolini, E. Spallucci, and M. F. Wondrak, Phys. Lett. B797, 134888 (2019), 1902.11242

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1854 (1997), hep-th/9608182

    1997 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Fontanini, E

    M. Fontanini, E. Spallucci, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Lett. B633, 627 (2006), hep-th/0509090

    2006 arXiv

  14. [21]

    E. P. Verlinde, JHEP04, 029 (2011), 1001.0785

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Jusufi and A

    K. Jusufi and A. Sheykhi, Phys. Lett. B836, 137621 (2023), 2210.01584

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Tsallis and L

    C. Tsallis and L. J. L. Cirto, Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013)

    2013

  17. [24]

    J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B808, 135643 (2020), 2004.09444

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 242 (2019), 1903.03098

    2019 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Lymperis and E

    A. Lymperis and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 993 (2018), 1806.04614

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    E. N. Saridakis, JCAP07, 031 (2020), 2006.01105

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Hern´ andez-Almada, G

    A. Hern´ andez-Almada, G. Leon, J. Maga˜ na, M. A. Garc ´ ıa-Aspeitia, V. Motta, E. N. Saridakis, K. Yesmakhanova, and A. D. Millano, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 5122 (2022), 2112.04615

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Dheepika, H

    M. Dheepika, H. B. V. T., and T. K. Mathew, Phys. Scripta99, 015014 (2024), 2211.14039

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Jizba, G

    P. Jizba, G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and L. Petruzziello, Phys. Rev. D105, L121501 (2022), 2201.07919

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Lambiase, G

    G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and A. Sheykhi, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 936 (2023), 2307.04027

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Jizba, G

    P. Jizba, G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and L. Mastrototaro, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1076 (2024), 2403.09797

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Ebrahimi and A

    E. Ebrahimi and A. Sheykhi, Phys. Dark Univ.45, 101518 (2024), 2405.13096

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, T. Paul, and S. SenGupta (2025), 2503.19056

    2025 arXiv

  28. [35]

    G. G. Luciano and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 558 (2022), 2203.12010

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Ghaffari, G

    S. Ghaffari, G. G. Luciano, and S. Capozziello, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, 82 (2023), 2209.00903

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kaniadakis, Phys

    G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E66, 056125 (2002), cond-mat/0210467

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. I. Kapusta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E30, 2130006 (2021), 2106.06824

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    G. G. Luciano and M. Blasone, Phys. Rev. D104, 045004 (2021), 2104.00395

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    G. G. Luciano and A. Sheykhi, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 682 (2024), 2404.12707

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083514 (2025), 2503.14739

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), 2503.14738

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), 2503.14743

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby (2025), 2503.17342

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C. You, D. Wang, and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D112, 043503 (2025), 2504.00985

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gu et al

    G. Gu et al. (DESI) (2025), 2504.06118

    2025

  40. [48]

    F. B. M. d. Santos, J. Morais, S. Pan, W. Yang, and E. Di Valentino (2025), 2504.04646

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C. Li, J. Wang, D. Zhang, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.-F. Cai (2025), 2504.07791

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D111, 023512 (2025), 2404.12068

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    G. G. Luciano, A. Paliathanasis, and E. N. Saridakis, JHEAp49, 100427 (2026), 2506.03019

    2026 arXiv

  44. [52]

    G. G. Luciano, A. Paliathanasis, and E. N. Saridakis, JCAP09, 013 (2025), 2504.12205

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Chaussidon et al., Phys

    E. Chaussidon et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 063548 (2025), 2503.24343

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Phys. Lett. B868, 139632 (2025), 2503.19428

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ye and Y

    G. Ye and Y. Cai (2025), 2503.22515

    2025

  48. [56]

    Paliathanasis (2025), 2506.16223

    A. Paliathanasis (2025), 2506.16223

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Arora, A

    S. Arora, A. De Felice, and S. Mukohyama (2025), 2508.03784

    2025

  50. [58]

    Paliathanasis, JCAP09, 067 (2025), 2503.20896

    A. Paliathanasis, JCAP09, 067 (2025), 2503.20896

    2025

  51. [59]

    R. Shah, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, 2936 (2025), 2503.21652

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Silva, M

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), 2503.23225

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    van der Westhuizen, D

    M. van der Westhuizen, D. Figueruelo, R. Thubisi, S. Sahlu, A. Abebe, and A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102107 (2025), 2505.23306

    2025

  54. [62]

    S. L. Guedezounme, B. R. Dinda, and R. Maartens (2025), 2507.18274

    2025

  55. [63]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), 2407.14934

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. C. Alfano, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, JCAP12, 055 (2024), 2408.02536

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Astron. Astrophys.690, A40 (2024), 2404.07070

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Y. Yang, Q. Wang, X. Ren, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.-F. Cai, Astrophys. J.988, 123 (2025), 2504.06784

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101993 (2025), 2504.11132

    2025

  60. [68]

    U. K. Tyagi, S. Haridasu, and S. Basak (2025), 2504.11308

    2025

  61. [69]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Yao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102068 (2025), 2507.07798

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    H¨ og ˚ as and E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as and E. M¨ ortsell (2025), 2507.03743

    2025

  63. [75]

    Amati, R

    L. Amati, R. D’Agostino, O. Luongo, M. Muccino, and M. Tantalo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, L46 (2019), 1811.08934

    2019 arXiv

  64. [76]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  65. [77]

    S. A. Hayward, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 3147 (1998), gr-qc/9710089

    1998 arXiv

  66. [78]

    Scolnic et al., Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), 2112.03863

    2022 arXiv

  67. [79]

    Rubin et al

    D. Rubin et al. (2023), 2311.12098

    2023 arXiv

  68. [80]

    J.-J. Wei, F. Melia, and X.-F. Wu, Astrophys. J.835, 270 (2017), 1612.08491

    2017 arXiv

  69. [81]

    Vagnozzi, A

    S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb, and M. Moresco, Astrophys. J.908, 84 (2021), 2011.11645

    2021 arXiv

  70. [82]

    Amati et al., Astron

    L. Amati et al., Astron. Astrophys.390, 81 (2002), astro-ph/0205230

    2002 arXiv

  71. [83]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, (2019), ascl:1910.019

    2019

  72. [84]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057 (2021), 2005.05290

    2021 arXiv

  73. [85]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D66, 103511 (2002), astro-ph/0205436

    2002 arXiv

  74. [86]

    Lewis, Phys

    A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D87, 103529 (2013), 1304.4473

    2013 arXiv

  75. [87]

    Lewis, JCAP08, 025 (2025), 1910.13970

    A. Lewis, JCAP08, 025 (2025), 1910.13970

    2025 arXiv

  76. [88]

    Akaike, IEEE Trans

    H. Akaike, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  77. [89]

    Kothawala, Phys

    D. Kothawala, Phys. Rev. D88, 104029 (2013), 1307.5618

    2013 arXiv

  78. [90]

    Kothawala and T

    D. Kothawala and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D90, 124060 (2014), 1405.4967

    2014 arXiv

  79. [91]

    Pesci, Class

    A. Pesci, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 075009 (2019), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 36, 229501 (2019)], 1812.01275

    2019 arXiv

  80. [92]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D52, 1108 (1995), hep-th/9412167

    1995 arXiv

  81. [93]

    Bosso, G

    P. Bosso, G. G. Luciano, L. Petruzziello, and F. Wagner, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 195014 (2023), 2305.16193

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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