CPL-parametrized cosmic expansion in Galileon gravity: Constraints from recent data

Amit Samaddar; S. Surendra Singh

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 70 references

CPL-parametrized cosmic expansion in Galileon gravity: Constraints from recent data

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Galileon model with a CPL dark-energy equation of state fits late-time expansion data as well as Lambda-CDM, with H0 near 67.7 and a deceleration-to-acceleration transition at z about 0.79.

desk verdict Routine CPL fit dressed as Galileon analysis, with unsupported derivation and internally inconsistent diagnostics; desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14392 v1 pith:MWAZOT7A submitted 2025-08-20 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Amit Samaddar , S. Surendra Singh This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COgr-qc

keywords GalileongravityCPLparametrizationdarkenergyequationofstateHubbleparameterMCMCconstraintsDESIDR2BAOPantheon+supernovaelate-timecosmology

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

Galileon gravity adds derivative self-interactions of a scalar field while keeping second-order field equations. Rather than solving the highly nonlinear Galileon Friedmann equations exactly, the paper postulates a Hubble expansion history H(z) built from the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) dark-energy equation of state and asks whether that flexible background fits the latest expansion data. Fitting H0, Omega_m0, omega_0 and omega_a to 46 H(z) measurements, DESI DR2 BAO data and 1701 Pantheon+ supernovae gives H0 about 67.7, Omega_m0 about 0.267, omega_0 about -0.88 and omega_a about 0.001, with Delta AIC = 1.46 relative to Lambda-CDM. The authors take this as evidence that Galileon gravity remains a viable alternative to Lambda-CDM for late-time acceleration, while noting the BIC penalty (Delta BIC = 11.5) favors Lambda-CDM. Derived deceleration, energy conditions, statefinder and Om diagnostics all indicate late-time acceleration with mild dynamics in the dark-energy sector.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CPL-parametrized Hubble function, equation (27), built by inserting the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder equation of state omega_DE(z) = omega_0 + omega_a z/(1+z) into the dark-energy density evolution formula. This single formula carries the argument: it converts the Galileon background into a four-parameter expansion history that can be fit directly to data, and all later cosmological quantities—the deceleration parameter, energy density and pressure, energy conditions, statefinder pair and Om diagnostic—are computed from it. The paper's stated consistency with Galileon dynamics rests on the claim that this H(z) is compatible with the modified Friedmann equations (14)-(

What would settle it

Integrate the Galileon scalar-field equation (16) with the best-fit H(z) from equation (27) and the assumed forms phi(z) = phi0(1+z)^-m, V(phi) = V0 phi^n and F(phi) = F0 exp(-lambda l phi); if no finite parameter set makes the residual of that equation and the definitions (19)-(20) consistent within observational errors over z in [0, 2.5], the claim that this expansion history is a Galileon solution fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a CPL-parametrized Hubble rate can serve as a working ansatz for a Galileon background. Equation (27), H(z) = H0 [Omega_m0(1+z)^3 + (1-Omega_m0)(1+z)^(3(1+omega_0+omega_a)) exp(-3 omega_a z/(1+z))]^(1/2), reproduces the observed expansion when fitted to current data, and the resulting parameter values are physically plausible: matter density in the expected range, omega_0 near -1, omega_a consistent with zero, positive dark-energy density, negative pressure, NEC and DEC satisfied, SEC violated. The AIC is statistically indistinguishable from Lambda-CDM, while the BIC is worse by 11.5. The paper therefore frames Galileon gravity not as a disfavo

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the standard CPL Hubble formula (27) is a valid solution of the Galileon field equations; if the scalar-field terms in the modified Friedmann equations do not reduce to exactly that form, the fitted model is not actually a Galileon cosmology.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If equation (27) is accepted as the Galileon background, the model is statistically equivalent to Lambda-CDM under AIC, so the two extra dark-energy parameters do not degrade the fit; under BIC, Lambda-CDM is still preferred.
The best-fit parameters place H0 around 67.7 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m0 around 0.267, consistent with CMB-based values, with omega_a close to zero leaving little room for redshift evolution in the dark-energy equation of state.
The expansion history transitions from deceleration to acceleration at z about 0.79 with q0 about -0.60, reproducing standard late-time acceleration.
The dark-energy sector has positive energy density and negative pressure at all redshifts, satisfies NEC and DEC, violates SEC, and evolves from matter-like early behavior toward a cosmological-constant-like future.
Statefinder and Om diagnostics place the present model in the quintessence region with a transient phantom-like excursion, implying that future surveys would see mild rather than large deviations from Lambda-CDM if this model is correct.

Reading between the lines

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

Because equation (27) is exactly the standard CPL wCDM Hubble rate used in non-Galileon analyses, these constraints measure the CPL parametrization more than they test Galileon dynamics; a decisive test would be to reconstruct F(phi) and V(phi) from the best-fit H(z) and check that the Galileon field equations (14)-(16) are actually satisfied.
The near-zero best-fit omega_a means current data do not demand time-varying dark energy; if future surveys confirm a significantly nonzero omega_a, the model would be distinguishable from Lambda-CDM, but that distinction would not single out Galileon gravity over any other CPL dark-energy model.
The BIC gap of 11.5 suggests that under a stronger complexity penalty the parametrized model is overfitting relative to Lambda-CDM; a testable extension is to repeat the analysis with a prior forcing omega_a toward zero and see whether the AIC advantage survives.

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

Dear X,

Quick take: this is a standard CPL fit to H(z)+BAO+Pantheon+, presented as a Galileon analysis. The fit itself is unremarkable but not sloppy; the Galileon framing is the problem, and it is not just cosmetic. The paper never derives eq. (27) from the Galileon field equations (14)–(16). Section 3 openly says H(z) is “postulated” and taken from He et al. [46], and the CPL EoS and separate conservation laws are imported without checking that they solve the scalar field dynamics. So the abstract’s claim that the expansion is “consistent with the non-linear Galileon field equations” is unsupported.

What is worth acknowledging: the data combination is sensible (46 H(z), DESI DR2 BAO, 1701 Pantheon+), and the best-fit values (H0=67.70, Om=0.267, w0=-0.883, wa=0.001) are consistent with LCDM. If the paper had presented this as a CPL fit, it would be an incremental but honest result. The MCMC setup is standard.

The soft spots are serious. First, the AIC/BIC numbers do not cohere: for k=4 and chi2_min=158.7, AIC=166.7, not 163.24; BIC with N=1768 is not 185.15. The deltas 1.46 and 11.5 do not follow. Second, the present-day EoS from the scalar field computation is -0.2915, while the fitted CPL w0 is -0.8827; the paper calls both “omega0” without noting the contradiction. With Om=0.267 and q0=-0.598, the implied DE EoS is near -1, not -0.29. Third, the Om diagnostic is impossible as reported: eq. (52) with these parameters gives Om(z) around 0.35 at z=0 and tending to 0.267 at high z, not a peak of -0.45 at z=0.377 and convergence to -1. These are not typos; they indicate the diagnostics were computed incorrectly or with different assumptions than the stated model.

These issues mean the paper’s central claim—that Galileon gravity is a viable alternative—is not established. The model is just CPL, and the paper’s own BIC prefers LCDM. A serious referee would spend time on arithmetic and framing rather than substance. Not worth referee time unless the authors reframe as a CPL fit and fix the numerics.

Recommendation: desk reject. It could become a reasonable short paper if heavily revised and stripped of the Galileon claims, but that is a different paper.

Best, [You]

Referee Report

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims to constrain a Galileon-gravity cosmological model by fitting a CPL-parametrized Hubble function, Eq. (27), to 46 Hubble-parameter measurements, DESI DR2 BAO data, and 1701 Pantheon+ supernovae. It reports best-fit values H0 = 67.7043, Ωm0 = 0.2668, ω0 = -0.8827, ωa = 0.0011, model-comparison statistics ΔAIC = 1.46 and ΔBIC = 11.5, and a series of derived diagnostics (q0 = -0.598, present EoS = -0.2915, statefinder r0,s0, Om peak -0.45 at z = 0.377). The abstract concludes that Galileon gravity remains a viable alternative to ΛCDM. However, the fitted H(z) is not derived from the Galileon field equations; it is the standard CPL formula imported from the dark-energy literature, and several reported diagnostics are internally inconsistent with the fitted parameters and with the paper's own analytic expressions.

Significance. If the paper had shown that Eq. (27) actually solves the Galileon background equations (14)-(16), then the resulting parameter constraints would be a useful test of a modified-gravity model against current cosmological data. The dataset combination is up to date and the MCMC treatment is standard. But the central load-bearing premise is missing: the CPL Hubble function is an input assumption, not a Galileon prediction. In addition, the quoted EoS, q0, and Om values contradict the fitted parameters and the paper's formulas. As it stands, the paper does not establish its claimed constraints on Galileon gravity, and no reproducible derivation or code is provided to support the numerical outputs.

major comments (5)

[§3, Eq. (27)] The central Hubble formula is not derived from the Galileon equations. It follows solely from the flat-universe conservation relation Eq. (25) and the CPL ansatz Eq. (26). The text itself says H(z) is 'postulated' and is taken from the 'Hubble parameter formulation presented in [46]'. No step shows that Eq. (27) satisfies the modified Friedmann equations (14)-(15) or the Klein-Gordon equation (16). Consequently, the abstract's claim that this H(z) is 'consistent with the non-linear Galileon field equations' is unsupported. This is the paper's load-bearing premise.
[§4.2, Eqs. (44)-(46)] The assumed forms φ(z)=φ0(1+z)^{-m}, V(φ)=V0 φ^n, F(φ)=F0 e^{-λl φ} are inserted into the definitions (19)-(20), but the authors never substitute them into the full field equations (14)-(16). In particular, the Klein-Gordon equation (16) imposes a nontrivial differential relation among H, φ, V, and F; no verification is provided that Eq. (27) and Eq. (44) satisfy it. Thus ρde(z), pde(z), ωde(z), and the energy conditions are not established as predictions of a Galileon model.
[§3.1.5, Eqs. (39)-(41)] The model-selection numbers are arithmetically inconsistent. With χ2min = 158.7 and k = 4, Eq. (39) gives AIC = 166.7, not 163.24. With N = 1768, Eq. (41) gives BIC = 158.7 + 4 ln(1768) ≈ 188.6, not 185.15. The quoted AIC and BIC are instead mutually consistent with χ2min ≈ 155.24. The claimed ΔAIC = 1.46 and ΔBIC = 11.5 cannot be taken at face value.
[§4.3 / Abstract, Eq. (26)] The paper reports a best-fit CPL parameter ω0 = -0.8827, which by Eq. (26) is the present-day dark-energy EoS, yet Section 4.3 and the abstract quote a present-day EoS of -0.2915. These are mutually exclusive. Moreover, using the fitted values in Eq. (43) at z = 0 gives q0 = 0.5 + 1.5(1-Ωm0)ω0 ≈ -0.471 (with ω0 = -0.8827) or ≈ 0.179 (with ω0 = -0.2915), neither of which equals the quoted q0 = -0.598. The quoted diagnostics therefore do not follow from the fitted H(z).
[§6, Eq. (52) / Abstract] The reported Om diagnostic contradicts Eq. (52). With the best-fit parameters at z = 0.377, H²/H0² ≈ 1.517, so Om(z) ≈ 0.32, not -0.45. As z → ∞, both numerator and denominator of Eq. (52) are dominated by Ωm0(1+z)³, giving Om(z) → Ωm0 ≈ 0.267, not -1. The abstract's claims of a peak value -0.45 at z = 0.377 and convergence to -1 are not supported by the paper's own formula and parameters.

minor comments (3)

[General] There are numerous typographical and presentation errors: 'DECare' in the abstract, inconsistent use of Ω0/Ωm0 (e.g., Eq. (35)), and unlabeled axes/quantities in Figures 4-6 (e.g., Figure 5 has no y-axis label units). These should be corrected in any revision.
[§4.2] The functional form F(φ)=F0 e^{-λl φ(t)} contains a redundant product λl; λ and l are never separately defined or used. Also, Eq. (44) is written partly in terms of φ(z) and partly in terms of φ(t), which is confusing.
[§4.3] Section 4.3 says 'Using Equation (21) along with the expressions for ρde(z) and pde(z) given by Equations (27) and (44)', but Eq. (27) is H(z), not an expression for ρde or pde. The intended reference should be to Eqs. (45)-(46).

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The central 'Galileon' model is the standard CPL Hubble law by construction; the reported diagnostics and EoS are functions of that fitted input, not independent Galileon predictions.

renaming known result [Section 3, eqs (24)-(27)]
"Rather than solving the system analytically, it is typical to proceed by postulating a particular behavior for the Hubble parameter H(z)... To proceed with our investigation, we make use of the Hubble parameter formulation presented in [46]: H^2(z)=H0^2[Ωm0(1+z)^3+Ωde(z)] ... Substituting this form into the equation (26) and integrate, we obtain the Hubble parameter evolution as: H(z)=H0[Ωm0(1+z)^3+(1−Ωm0)(1+z)^{3(1+ω0+ωa)} exp(−3ωaz/(1+z))]."

Equation (27) is the standard CPL-parametrized Hubble law obtained by integrating the assumed CPL equation of state (26); the Galileon field equations (14)-(16) are not used to derive it. The paper explicitly says H(z) is 'postulated.' Thus the 'Galileon model' is the CPL H(z) by construction, renamed as a Galileon prediction. The abstract's claim that this parametrization is 'consistent with the non-linear Galileon field equations' is asserted, never demonstrated.
fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, eq (43), and Abstract]
"Based on the Hubble parameter obtained from our model, using equation (27) the deceleration parameter can be explicitly expressed as: q(z)=... From the plot, it is evident that ... it transitions from deceleration to acceleration at the redshift ztr=0.7873 ... The present-day value of the deceleration parameter is q0=−0.598."

q(z), ztr, and q0 are obtained by differentiating the fitted H(z) of eq (27). They are therefore deterministic functions of the fitted parameters (Ωm0, ω0, ωa) and contain no independent information about Galileon gravity. Calling these outputs 'results' or 'predictions' restates the MCMC fit rather than testing the theory.

1 more flagged steps

self definitional [Section 4.2, eqs (44)-(46), and Section 4.3]
"Since these functions are not uniquely fixed by theory, we must assume plausible forms motivated by prior studies in the literature. In this analysis, we adopt the following functional forms: φ(z)=φ0(1+z)^{-m}, V(φ)=V0φ^n, F(φ)=F0e^{-λlφ(t)} ... The present-day value of the EoS parameter is ω0=−0.2915."

The dark-energy density and pressure are constructed by substituting the assumed H(z) and the hand-set forms for φ, V, F into definitions (19)-(20), with constants φ0=1, V0=0.05, F0=0.01, λ=-0.001 (Fig. 4 caption). The derived present-day EoS (-0.2915) is therefore fixed by these arbitrary inputs, not by the MCMC fit, and is even labeled with the same symbol ω0 as the fitted CPL parameter (-0.8827). The 'result' is an input assumption, not a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing inference is that eq (27) represents a Galileon background. That inference reduces by construction: the paper postulates the standard CPL H(z), fits its four parameters to data, and then reports derived quantities (q0, ztr, r0, s0, Om peak, present-day EoS) that are functions of the same fitted H(z). No step substitutes the full Galileon field equations (14)-(16) to verify consistency; the Galileon sector is connected only by renaming the CPL dark energy as a scalar-field contribution and by adopting arbitrary φ, V, F forms. The fitted H(z) is the input, and the 'model outcomes' are mathematical transformations of that input. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem; the circularity is definitional rather than citation-based. Because the central claimed result—that the data support a flexible Galileon alternative—is an assertion about a model that is the CPL parametrization itself, the score is high.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The fit is entirely contained in four CPL parameters; the 'Galileon' enters only through arbitrary functions used for diagnostics. The paper thus contributes a standard parametrized fit, not a modified-gravity derivation.

free parameters (12)

H0 = 67.7043^{+1.4354}_{-1.4102} km/s/Mpc
Hubble constant, fit to combined data.
Omega_m0 = 0.2668^{+0.0212}_{-0.0217}
Present matter density parameter, fit to combined data.
w0 = -0.8827^{+0.1076}_{-0.0967}
Present CPL equation-of-state parameter, fit to data.
wa = 0.0011^{+0.0660}_{-0.0622}
CPL evolution parameter, fit to data.
rd
Sound horizon at drag epoch; declared free in Section 3.1.2 ('relaxes the fixed value of rd'), but not listed among the four free parameters and no best-fit value is reported.
phi0 = 1 (chosen)
Used in reconstructed rho_de and p_de; quoted in Fig. 4 caption, not derived from data.
V0 = 0.05 (chosen)
Potential normalization in V(phi)=V0 phi^n, chosen by hand for diagnostics.
F0 = 0.01 (chosen)
Galileon coupling normalization, chosen by hand for diagnostics.
lambda = -0.001 (chosen)
Exponent parameter in F(phi)=F0 e^{-lambda l phi}, chosen by hand.
l
Enter the exponent in F(phi); value not quoted in the text.
m
Enter phi(z)=phi0 (1+z)^{-m}; value not quoted in the text.
n
Enter V(phi)=V0 phi^n; value not quoted in the text.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Spatial flatness and Omega_DE0 = 1 - Omega_m0
Used in eqs (24)-(25); assumed, not derived.
domain assumption Matter and dark energy are separately conserved (no interaction)
Eqs (22)-(23); the paper explicitly omits scalar-matter coupling in Section 2.
ad hoc to paper CPL EoS w_DE(z)=w0+wa z/(1+z) applies to the Galileon dark energy
This is the load-bearing assumption that turns the Galileon background into standard CPL; no derivation from the field equations.
ad hoc to paper The H(z) expression from ref [46] is valid for this Galileon model
Section 3 says it 'postulates' H(z) rather than solving eqs (14)-(16).
domain assumption Radiation energy density is negligible at the redshifts considered
Stated after eq. (24).
ad hoc to paper Functional forms phi(z)=phi0(1+z)^{-m}, V(phi)=V0 phi^n, F(phi)=F0 e^{-lambda l phi}
Adopted in eq. (44) to generate diagnostic plots; not derived or fitted.
domain assumption The specific Galileon functions G2=X-V, G3=-F(phi)X, G4=1/(2 kappa^2), G5=0 define the theory
Eq. (13); a subclass chosen from the literature, but the paper labels it 'torsion Galileon' without using torsion in the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CPL-parametrized cosmic expansion in Galileon gravity: Constraints from recent data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWAZOT7A

@misc{pith2026250814392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CPL-parametrized cosmic expansion in Galileon gravity: Constraints from recent data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWAZOT7A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14392}
}

abstract

We explore the cosmic expansion history within the framework of Galileon gravity by employing a redshift-based expression for the Hubble rate, $H(z)$, derived from the CPL parametrization $\omega_{DE}(z)=\omega_{0}+\omega_{a}\frac{z}{1+z}$. This parametrization allows for a time-dependent expansion history consistent with the non-linear Galileon field equations. To constrain the model parameters, we perform a MCMC analysis using $46$ Hubble parameter measurements, DESI DR2 BAO data and $1701$ Pantheon+ datasets. The best fit values obtained are $H_0 = 67.7043^{+1.4354}_{-1.4102}$ km/s/Mpc, $\Omega_{m0} = 0.2668^{+0.0212}_{-0.0217}$, $\omega_0 = -0.8827^{+0.1076}_{-0.0967}$ and $\omega_a = 0.0011^{+0.0660}_{-0.0622}$. Model comparison using information criteria yields $\Delta AIC=1.46$ and $\Delta BIC = 11.5$ indicating that the Galileon model is a strong contender to the $\Lambda$CDM model. The deceleration parameter shows a transition at $z_{tr} = 0.7873$, with $q_0 = -0.598$. Energy density and pressure remain physically viable with $\rho_{de}(z)>0$ and $p_{de}(z)<0$ with the present day equation of state $\omega(z)$ value of $-0.2915$, which suggests mild dynamical dark energy. NEC and DECare satisfied, while SEC is violated. The model yields $r_{0}=0.657$, $s_{0}=0.1173$ and Om diagnostic shows a peak value of $-0.45$ at $z = 0.377$, converging to $-1$ at late times.These results demonstrate that Galileon gravity remains a viable and flexible alternative to $\Lambda$CDM in describing late-time cosmic acceleration.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

[46]

Tong-Yu He et al JCAP, 09, 028 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

Riess et al., Astron

A.G. Riess et al., Astron. J., 116, 1009 (1998)

work page 1998
[2]

Planck Collaboration, A&A, 594, A13 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

Cole et al., MNRAS, 362, 505 (2005)

S. Cole et al., MNRAS, 362, 505 (2005)

work page 2005
[4]

Delubac et al., A&A, 574, A59 (2015)

T. Delubac et al., A&A, 574, A59 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 1 (1989)

work page 1989
[6]

Padmanabhan, Phys

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

work page 2003
[7]

Sahni and A

V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, IJMPD, 15, 2105 (2006)

work page 2006

Show all 70 references

[8]

Horndeski, Int

G.W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10 (1974) 363

1974
[9]

Nicolis, R

A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064036 (2009)

2009
[10]

Deﬀayet, S

C. Deﬀayet, S. Deser, G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064015 (2009)

2009
[11]

Deﬀayet, X

C. Deﬀayet, X. Gao, D. Steer and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064039 (2011)

2011
[12]

Dvali, G

G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B 485, 208 (2000). 15

2000
[13]

Vainshtein, Phys

A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B 39, 393 (1972)

1972
[14]

Hinterbichler, M

K. Hinterbichler, M. Trodden and D. Wesley, Phys. Rev. D 82, 124018 (2010)

2010
[15]

De Felice, S

A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 111301 (2010)

2010
[16]

Kobayashi et al., Prog

T. Kobayashi et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. 126, 511 (2011)

2011
[17]

A. Ali, R. Gannouji, M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D 82, 103015 (2010)

2010
[18]

Qiu et al., Phys

T. Qiu et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 043527 (2010)

2010
[19]

Burrage, D

C. Burrage, D. Seery, JCAP 1008, 011 (2010)

2010
[20]

Langlois, K

D. Langlois, K. Noui, JCAP 1602, 034 (2016)

2016
[21]

Gannouji and M

R. Gannouji and M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024011 (2010)

2010
[22]

D.F. Mota, M. Sandstad and T. Zlosnik, JHEP 1012, 051 (2010)

2010
[23]

Tretyakov, Grav

P. Tretyakov, Grav. Cosmol. 18, 93 (2012)

2012
[24]

Germani, Phys

C. Germani, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104032 (2012)

2012
[25]

Zabat and K

S. Zabat and K. Nouicer, AIP Conf. Proc. 1444, 291 (2011)

2011
[26]

Gleyzes et al., Phys

J. Gleyzes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 211101 (2015)

2015
[27]

Nesseris et al., Phys

S. Nesseris et al., Phys. Rev. D 94, 023525 (2016)

2016
[28]

Y. Gong, M. Ishak, Phys. Rev. D 91, 123505 (2015)

2015
[29]

Raveri et al., Phys

M. Raveri et al., Phys. Rev. D 93, 123527 (2016)

2016
[30]

Di Valentino et al., Class

E. Di Valentino et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 38, 153001 (2021)

2021
[31]

Saridakis JCAP 03, (2013) 025

Genly Leon and Emmanuel N. Saridakis JCAP 03, (2013) 025

2013
[32]

Quantum Grav

L K Duchaniya et al Class. Quantum Grav. 41, 235016 (2024)

2024
[33]

Surendra Singh, Journal of High Energy Ast rophysics, 48, 100404 (2025)

Amit Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, Journal of High Energy Ast rophysics, 48, 100404 (2025)

2025
[34]

Samaddar, S

A. Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, Physics of the Dark Universe , 47, 101792 (2025)

2025
[35]

Deﬀayet, X

C. Deﬀayet, X. Gao, D. Steer and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 064039 (2011)

2011
[36]

De Felice and S

A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP 02, 007, (2012)

2012
[37]

Ostrogradsky, M´emoires sur les ´equations diﬀ´erentielles relatives au probl´eme des isop´erim´etres, Mem

M. Ostrogradsky, M´emoires sur les ´equations diﬀ´erentielles relatives au probl´eme des isop´erim´etres, Mem. Acad. St. Petersbourg, VI 4 (1850) 385
[38]

Horndeski, Int

G.W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

1974
[39]

Silva and K

F.P. Silva and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D 80, 121301 (2009)

2009
[40]

De Felice and S

A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 111301 (2010)

2010
[41]

Shirai, K

N. Shirai, K. Bamba, S. Kumekawa, J. Matsumoto and S. Nojiri, P hys. Rev. D 86, 043006 (2012)

2012
[42]

Sen, JCAP 12, 019 (2012)

Sampurnanand and A.A. Sen, JCAP 12, 019 (2012)

2012
[43]

Kobayashi, Phys

T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D 81, 103533 (2010)

2010
[44]

Deﬀayet, G

C. Deﬀayet, G. Esposito-Farese and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084003 (2009)

2009
[45]

Deﬀayet, O

C. Deﬀayet, O. Pujol` as, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman, JCAP 10, 026 (2010). 16

2010
[47]

Chevallier and D

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001)

2001
[48]

E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003)

2003
[49]

D. F. Mackey et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 125, 306 (2013)

2013
[50]

Stern et al., J

D. Stern et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 008 (2010)

2010
[51]

Moresco et al., J

M. Moresco et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08, 006(2012)

2012
[52]

Samaddar, S

A. Samaddar, S. S. Singh, Fortschritte der Physik, 72 (6), 2400006 (2024)

2024
[53]

Abdul Karim, et al., arXiv:2503.14738

M. Abdul Karim, et al., arXiv:2503.14738

arXiv
[54]

Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., et al., Astronomy & Astrophys ics, 641, A6 (2020)

2020
[55]

DESI collaboration, arXiv:2404.03000, 2024

2024 arXiv
[56]

Adame, et al., J

A.G. Adame, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01, 124 (2025)

2025
[57]

Adame, et al., J

A.G. Adame, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 021 (2025)

2025
[58]

Pogosian, G.-B

L. Pogosian, G.-B. Zhao, K. Jedamzik, Astrophys. J. Lett. 904, (2) (2020) L17

2020
[59]

Vagnozzi, Universe 9 (9) (2023) 393

S. Vagnozzi, Universe 9 (9) (2023) 393

2023
[60]

Riess et al., Astrophys

A.G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, (2022) L7

2022
[61]

Samaddar, S

A. Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, Physics of the Dark Universe , 49, 102030 (2025)

2025
[62]

T. M. C. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. D, 107, 083504 (2023)

2023
[63]

Dan Scolnic et al 2022 ApJ 938, 113

2022
[64]

A. R. Liddle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 351, L49–L53 (2004)

2004
[65]

Nesseris, J

S. Nesseris, J. Garc ´ia-Bellido, JCAP 08, 036 (2013)

2013
[66]

H Akaike, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control. 19, 716-723 (1974)

1974
[67]

Schwarz, Ann

G. Schwarz, Ann. Statist. 6, 461-464 (1978)

1978
[68]

Samaddar, S

A. Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, High Energy Density Physics 56, 101216 (2025)

2025
[69]

De Felice and S

A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 124029 (2011)

2011
[70]

Gannouji, M

R. Gannouji, M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024011 (2010). 17

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [46]

Tong-Yu He et al JCAP, 09, 028 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Riess et al., Astron

A.G. Riess et al., Astron. J., 116, 1009 (1998)

work page 1998

[3] [2]

Planck Collaboration, A&A, 594, A13 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [3]

Cole et al., MNRAS, 362, 505 (2005)

S. Cole et al., MNRAS, 362, 505 (2005)

work page 2005

[5] [4]

Delubac et al., A&A, 574, A59 (2015)

T. Delubac et al., A&A, 574, A59 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [5]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 1 (1989)

work page 1989

[7] [6]

Padmanabhan, Phys

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

work page 2003

[8] [7]

Sahni and A

V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, IJMPD, 15, 2105 (2006)

work page 2006