Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Dynamical and Observational Analysis of Generalized Nash's Theory of Gravity

T0 review · 3 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 A generalized Nash-type gravity with a quadratic Ricci-tensor correction is constrained by cosmological data to sit tightly around the ΛCDM limit, with the deviation parameter β consistent with zero at the 1σ level.

desk verdict A solid phase-space study wrapped around an observational claim that rests on an unjustified first-order reduction—the β bound doesn't actually test Nash gravity as it stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22126 v1 pith:STEACAK3 submitted 2026-07-24 gr-qc

Amin Rezaei Akbarieh , Mohammad Amin Bolouri , Yaghoub Heydarzade This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords f(Rχ)gravityNashquadraticRicciinvariantdynamicalsystemsdarkenergycosmologicalconstraintsΛCDMbackground
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

Generalized Nash gravity extends Einstein's theory by adding the quadratic Ricci-tensor invariant $ \chi = R_{\mu\nu} R^{\mu\nu} $ to the action. The paper examines two branches: a power-law family $R^\alpha + \beta \chi$, studied as a dynamical system, and an observational branch $R - 2\Lambda + \beta \chi$ that reduces exactly to flat ΛCDM when $\beta \to 0$. Using supernova, BAO, and CMB distance data, the authors constrain $\beta$ to $(-6.6^{+6.0}_{-8.1})\times 10^{-5}$ at 68% confidence, with $\beta=0$ consistent at 1$\sigma$ and the expansion history within sub-percent of ΛCDM. The paper stresses that this is a background-level constraint on a reduced prescription, not a perturbation-level test of the full higher-derivative theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the reduced background equation, Eq. (57): a quadratic algebraic equation for $\frac{dE}{dz}$ (where $E(z)=H(z)/H_0$) with coefficients $A = -6\beta(1+z)^2 E^2$, $B = -48\beta(1+z) E^3$, and $C = 3E^2 - \lambda - 3\Omega_m (1+z)^3 + 72\beta E^4$, choosing the root continuously connected to ΛCDM as $\beta \to 0$. This effective first-order ODE replaces the full higher-derivative Friedmann system for the observational branch, with $\lambda$ fixed by shooting until $E(0)=1$; the paper integrates it on a precomputed grid over $0 \le z \le 10$ and matches to a standard radiation+matter+Λ background above that. For the separate power-law branch, an autonomous-system reduction with variables $\{\Omega_m, \Omega_r, x_2, x_5\}$ maps the critical points, but this chart is singular

What would settle it

Numerically solve the full, unreduced Friedmann equations for $f_{\mathrm{obs}}=R - 2\Lambda + \beta\chi$—including the $H\cdot \ddot{H}$, $\ddot{H}$, and $\dddot{H}$ terms in Eqs. (7)–(8)—and compare the resulting $E(z)$ with Eq. (57); if the two differ by more than the observational precision across $0 \le z \le 10$, the quoted $\beta$ bound does not constrain the theory. A perturbation-level Boltzmann analysis that finds ghost or gradient instabilities in the allowed $\beta$ range would also overturn the background-level interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a Ricci-tensor-squared correction to the Einstein–Hilbert action with a cosmological constant has very little observational room at the background level. For $f_{\mathrm{obs}}(R,\chi)=R - 2\Lambda + \beta\chi$, a joint fit to Type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, and compressed CMB distance priors yields $\beta = (-6.6^{+6.0}_{-8.1})\times 10^{-5}$ (68% C.L.), with the profile likelihood showing $\beta=0$ within $\Delta \chi^2 < 1$. The reconstructed expansion rate, matter density parameter, deceleration parameter, and effective dark-energy equation of state all stay within about a percent of ΛCDM, and both AIC and BIC favor the nested ΛCDM limit. The paper interprets the result as a tight background-level upper bound on

Load-bearing premise

The bound on $\beta$ rests on the assumption that the reduced background equation (Eq. 57) correctly follows from the full $f(R,\chi)$ field equations after discarding higher-derivative terms; if that reduction is invalid, the constraint applies to an ad hoc prescription rather than to generalized Nash gravity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the constraint is correct, any cosmological signature of the Ricci-tensor-squared invariant is confined to sub-percent shifts in the expansion history, requiring substantially more precise distance surveys to detect.
  • The model-selection statistics (ΔAIC≈+1.5, ΔBIC≈+6.8) favor the nested ΛCDM limit, so the extra parameter β is not justified by current background data.
  • The bound is explicitly background-level; full perturbation theory, gravitational-wave propagation, and large-scale-structure growth must be analyzed before the theory's viability can be assessed.
  • For the power-law branch R^α+βχ, the phase-space analysis shows a stable de Sitter endpoint for α≠2 and a non-hyperbolic one at α=2, but the absence of a complete radiation-matter-de Sitter sequence means this branch is not a complete cosmological model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to verify whether Eq. (57) can be derived from Eqs. (7)–(8) in the limit where higher-derivative terms are consistently projected out; without that derivation, the bound is best read as constraining the effective parameterization.
  • The same observational pipeline could be applied to other quadratic curvature combinations (e.g., R^2 or Gauss-Bonnet) under the same reduced prescription, yielding comparable bounds and allowing a direct comparison of the constraining power of the data.
  • If the small negative best-fit β persists in future surveys, it may signal a residual systematic in the supernova or BAO data rather than a genuine geometric effect, given that β=0 already sits within Δχ²<1.
  • One could test the reduced-prescription reliability by computing the full background numerically for a few representative β values and checking the difference against the reported sub-percent shift.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies generalized Nash-type gravity with an f(R,χ) Lagrangian, χ=RμνRμν. The theoretical part performs a dynamical-systems analysis of the power-law family f(R,χ)=Rα+βχ in a flat FLRW background, using variables that become singular at α=1 and taking α=2 as a representative benchmark. It finds radiation-like boundary fixed points, scaling saddles with restricted admissibility windows, and an accelerating de Sitter-like branch, but no complete regular radiation-to-matter-to-de Sitter sequence. The observational part instead considers the Einstein–Hilbert branch f_obs(R,χ)=R−2Λ+βχ, which reduces to flat ΛCDM as β→0, and analyzes it through a first-order 'reduced background equation' for the dimensionless Hubble rate E(z), integrated for 0≤z≤10 and matched to a standard radiation+matter+Λ background at higher redshift. Using Pantheon+ SNe Ia, BOSS/eBOSS BAO, and Planck 2018 compressed CMB distance priors, the authors report β=(−6.6 +6.0/−8.1)×10⁻⁵ at 68% C.L., with β=0 consistent at the 1σ level according to the profile likelihood. The expansion history remains within sub-percent of ΛCDM, and AIC/BIC favor ΛCDM once the extra parameter is penalized. The paper explicitly frames the result as a background-level constraint within the reduced prescription.

Significance. The numerical work is careful in several respects: the precomputed grid is validated against direct integrations, interpolation errors are quoted, and convergence diagnostics are reported. The authors are also unusually transparent about the limitations of their analysis, repeatedly stating that the observational branch is a 'reduced prescription' and not a full treatment of the higher-derivative theory. If Eq. (57) were derived from the field equations, the resulting 68% upper bound on the quadratic Ricci correction would be a useful addition to the modified-gravity literature. However, the central advertised result does not currently constrain generalized Nash gravity in a well-defined sense: the fitted β characterizes an unexplained first-order reduction, not the action (1) whose field equations are derived in Section 2. The dynamical-systems analysis is self-contained and may be of some interest, but it is disconnected from the observational branch and, at the benchmark α=2, its de Sitter attractor lies on the β=0 subspace. The paper therefore does not currently deliver the connection between theory and data promised by its title and abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (57)] The central observational result rests on Eq. (57), a first-order equation for dE/dz, but the full 00-component (7) evaluated for f_obs=R−2Λ+βχ is a second-order differential equation in H, containing χ, χ̇, Ḣ², and H Ḧ. The coefficients A,B,C in Eqs. (58)–(60) are asserted to follow from 'the 00 component of the reduced field equations', yet no truncation, ordering scheme, projection, or other derivation is supplied. The text itself says the equation is 'an effective background-level prescription rather than a complete treatment of all higher-derivative modes.' Consequently, the bound (82) is a property of the prescription, not of the theory defined by Eq. (1). This is load-bearing because the abstract's main quantitative claim is the constraint on β in generalized Nash gravity. The authors must either derive Eq. (57) from Eqs. (7)–(8) with explicit and justified approximations, or re
  2. [§3 and §4 (Tables 1–2)] The dynamical-system analysis is restricted to α≠1 and is explicitly separated from the observational branch α=1. Thus the phase-space study cannot validate or even motivate the reduction used for f_obs. Moreover, at the representative benchmark α=2, the late-time points P4 and P7 both have x5=0, i.e. β=0, so the stable accelerated endpoint carries no information about a nonzero quadratic correction. The paper acknowledges this separation, but the 'complementary branches' framing still invites the reader to view the two parts as supporting the same theory; in fact, the dynamical analysis provides no evidence that the reduced background equation (57) is a physical branch of the action (1).
  3. [§2, Eq. (6) and §4.1, Eqs. (58)–(60)] The reference curvature scale R⋆ is introduced to make the action dimensionally consistent, but the likelihood samples a dimensionless β with the prior (69) without ever fixing R⋆. In the dimensionful form (56), the correction is βχ/R⋆², so a shift in R⋆ changes the physical coefficient being constrained. If R⋆ is meant to be fixed to H0², this must be stated explicitly and used consistently in Eqs. (57)–(60); if it is a free scale, it is degenerate with β and should be sampled or marginalized. As written, the numerical interval (82) does not specify which physical quantity is bounded.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §5.1] The claim that β=0 is consistent at 'the 1σ level' is based on the profile likelihood (Fig. 6, Δχ²<1), while the marginalized 68% interval reported after Eq. (82) excludes zero. This is not necessarily contradictory, but the two statements should be reconciled explicitly in the abstract and Section 5 to avoid confusion.
  2. [Figure 5] The axis label 'bh2' should read 'Ω_b h²' for consistency with the text.
  3. [§4.1] The shooting procedure is described as 'starting from the matching value at zmatch=10', but the value of E(zmatch) is not explicitly stated. It should be stated that E(zmatch) is taken from Eq. (62) and that only E is matched, while dE/dz is not; the resulting kink should be quantified.
  4. [§4.5] The BAO covariance is approximated as diagonal. This is acknowledged, but for a quantitative constraint the impact of the off-diagonal terms should be estimated, especially because the five redshifts share systematic uncertainties from the sound-horizon calibration.
  5. [General] There are several small typographical issues, including a malformed expression around Eq. (25) and inconsistent notation for Ω_r in Eq. (62). These should be cleaned up in revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the β-bound is a parameter fit to external data within an explicitly stated reduced branch; the missing derivation of Eq. (57) is a completeness/validity risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a measured constraint on β, obtained by fitting the reduced branch f_obs = R − 2Λ + βχ to external Pantheon+ SNe, BAO, and Planck compressed CMB data. The model is designed so β→0 recovers flat ΛCDM, and the data are used to fit β; this is a standard nested-model parameter estimation, not a circular prediction. The paper repeatedly and explicitly labels the observational branch as a reduced prescription: in §4.1 it states, "In the present likelihood analysis we constrain the reduced background branch selected by continuity with ΛCDM as β→0. This should be understood as an effective background-level prescription rather than a complete treatment of all higher-derivative modes." It also states the root is chosen as "the one that remains continuously connected to the standard ΛCDM slope... as β→0." These admissions mean the near-ΛCDM result is partly baked into the construction, but the tightness of the bound on β is still data-driven and externally falsifiable: the data could have preferred large β, which would have contradicted the prior and the ΛCDM-connected prescription. The skeptical concern that Eq. (57) is not derived from the full field equations (7)–(8) is a derivation/completeness risk, not a circularity: the paper does not claim Eq. (57) is a deductive consequence of (7)–(8) without further assumptions; it explicitly presents it as a reduced background-level prescription. The phase-space analysis in §3 is deliberately separated from the observational branch, and the paper does not use it to justify Eq. (57). There are no load-bearing self-citations by the present authors: the references to Nash theory [13,14] are to Channuie et al., not to the authors' own prior work, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives. The model-selection comparison with β=0 is based on the same likelihood and correctly penalizes the extra parameter. Overall, the paper's central result is a fit with acknowledged limitations, not a claim that the data are predicted from first principles. Therefore, no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard of this review is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on β as a fitted parameter and on the unproven validity of the reduced background equation. No new particles or forces are introduced; the higher-derivative degrees of freedom are already present in the known f(R,χ) action. The main unstated assumption is that the first-order reduction in Eq. (57) faithfully represents the full theory's background dynamics.

free parameters (3)
  • β = -6.6e-5 (+6.0/-8.1) ×10^-5
    Quadratic Ricci-correction strength in f_obs(R,χ)=R−2Λ+βχ; the central fitted parameter in the MCMC analysis (§5).
  • α = 2 (benchmark choice)
    Power-law exponent in the dynamical-system branch; not fitted to data, but chosen as a representative quadratic benchmark (§3.2).
  • R⋆ (reference curvature scale) = not specified; order H0²
    Introduced in Eq. (6) for dimensional consistency; β is dimensionless only relative to this scale, so the physical meaning of the bound depends on its value.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric and standard dust+radiation+Λ matter content
    Used throughout Sections 2–5 to derive the Friedmann equations and likelihoods.
  • ad hoc to paper The reduced background equation (57) is the correct cosmological branch of the full higher-derivative f(R,χ) theory
    Eq. (57) is stated as following from the 00-component of the field equations, but no derivation is shown and the full equations contain higher derivatives.
  • ad hoc to paper High-redshift matching at z=10 to a standard radiation+matter+Λ background and compressed Planck CMB distance priors adequately capture CMB geometry
    This matching prescription and the compressed CMB likelihood are used in §4.1–4.6; they are approximations explicitly acknowledged by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical and Observational Analysis of Generalized Nash's Theory of Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/STEACAK3

@misc{pith2026260722126,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical and Observational Analysis of Generalized Nash's Theory of Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/STEACAK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22126}
}
abstract

We investigate cosmic evolution in generalized Nash's theory of gravity involving the quadratic Ricci invariant $\chi=R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}$. The analysis is divided into two complementary branches. First, we study the power-law family $f(R,\chi)=R^{\alpha}+\beta\chi$ as a reduced autonomous system in a flat FLRW background. Because the adopted variables become singular at the Einstein--Hilbert limit $\alpha=1$, the phase-space analysis is restricted to $\alpha\neq1$, with $\alpha=2$ used as a representative quadratic benchmark. This benchmark contains radiation-like boundary configurations, restricted scaling saddles, and de Sitter-like accelerating endpoints (a stable node away from $\alpha=2$ and non-hyperbolic at the benchmark itself), but not a complete regular radiation-to-matter-to-de Sitter sequence. Second, we constrain the regular observational branch $f_{\rm obs}(R,\chi)=R-2\Lambda+\beta\chi$, which reduces exactly to flat $\Lambda$CDM when $\beta\to0$. The Hubble rate is obtained from the reduced $\Lambda$CDM-connected background branch, integrated over $0\le z\le10$ and matched at higher redshift to a standard radiation+matter+$\Lambda$ background. Using SNe~Ia, BAO, and Planck~2018 compressed CMB distance priors, we find an expansion history very close to $\Lambda$CDM, with the quadratic correction tightly constrained around the nested standard-model limit. The resulting bound on $\beta$ should be interpreted as a background-level constraint within this reduced prescription, not as a perturbation-level viability test of the full higher-derivative theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22126 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projected phase portraits in the (x2, x5) plane for the early-time sector P1, P2, P3, and P8. The markers indicate the fixed points, dashed curves denote the projected nullclines, and streamlines show the local flow. Since these points lie at x2 = 0 (R = 0), where fR vanishes for the benchmark α = 2, the plots show the limiting flow geometry near the singular boundary of the chart. Early-time boundary sector. The po… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Projected phase portraits in the (x2, x5) plane for the intermediate scaling sector P5 and P6. The trajectories pass through the neighbourhood of these equilibria without converging to them, illustrating their role as local transition states in the projected flow. Intermediate scaling sector. The points P5 and P6 represent scaling configurations that can organize intermediate transitions only within restricted admis… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Projected phase portraits in the (x2, x5) plane for the accelerating sector P4 and P7. At α = 2, the two branches share the same de Sitter kinematics x2 = 2 and become degenerate in the projected phase space. Late-time accelerating sector. The late-time sector is governed by P4 and P7. The point P4 has x2 = 2, and therefore q = −1, weff = −1. (47) It describes an exact de Sitter configuration. Since x2 = 2 implies R… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of the deceleration parameter q on the model parameter α for the branches P5, P6, and P7. The shaded region marks the accelerating regime q < 0, while the dotted guides indicate q = 0 and the de Sitter value q = −1. The branch P7 reaches q = −1 at α = 2, whe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginalized one- and two-dimensional posterior distributions with 1σ and 2σ contours for the parameters {H0, Ωm, ωbh 2 , β} of the observational branch R − 2Λ + βχ, obtained from the joint SNe+BAO+CMB chain. The posteriors are well localized once the three background …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Profile ∆χ 2 (β) reconstructed from the MCMC chain by minimizing χ 2 within bins of β for the observational branch R − 2Λ + βχ. The dashed vertical line marks the best-fit value, the dot-dashed line indicates the nested ΛCDM limit β = 0, and the dotted horizontal lines…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: reconstructed dimensionless Hubble rate E(z) = H(z)/H0 for the best-fit observational branch R −2Λ +βχ (solid), with the shaded band denoting the 68% credible region, compared to the ΛCDM reference (dashed). Bottom: fractional difference relative to ΛCDM. The devi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the matter density parameter Ωm(z) for the best-fit observational branch R − 2Λ + βχ (solid) with its 68% credible band, compared to the ΛCDM reference (dashed). The two predictions track each other closely and approach the matter-dominated behaviour at hi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: deceleration parameter q(z) for the best-fit observational branch R − 2Λ + βχ (solid) and the ΛCDM reference (dashed), with the 68% credible band. Bottom: effective equation of state, showing the total fluid wtot(z) and the reconstructed effective dark-sector wDE(…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Pantheon+ apparent magnitudes and the best-fit prediction of the observational branch R − 2Λ + βχ (solid) with its 68% credible band, shown on a logarithmic redshift axis. Bottom: magnitude residuals ∆mB about the best-fit model. In summary, the joint SNe+BAO+CMB…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ferreira, Antonio Padilla, and Constantinos Skordis

    Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, Antonio Padilla, and Constantinos Skordis. Modified Gravity and Cosmology.Phys. Rept., 513:1–189, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001 2012

  2. [2]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou. Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution.Phys. Rept., 692:1–104, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001. 22 A. REZAEI AKBARIEH ET AL

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001 2017

  3. [3]

    Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni

    Thomas P. Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni. f(R) Theories Of Gravity.Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:451–497,

  4. [4]

    Starobinsky

    Alexei A. Starobinsky. A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity.Phys. Lett. B, 91:99–102, 1980. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-x 1980

  5. [5]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke. Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation.Phys. Rev., 124: 925–935, 1961. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.124.925

    doi:10.1103/physrev.124.925 1961

  6. [6]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae.Astrophys. J., 517: 565–586, 1999. doi: 10.1086/307221

    doi:10.1086/307221 1999

  7. [7]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant.Astron. J., 116:1009–1038, 1998. doi: 10.1086/300499

    doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  8. [8]

    D. M. Scolnic et al. The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample.Astrophys. J., 859(2):101, 2018. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb 2018

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Eisenstein et al

    Daniel J. Eisenstein et al. Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies.Astrophys. J., 633:560–574, 2005. doi: 10.1086/466512

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    Percival et al

    Will J. Percival et al. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 Galaxy Sample.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 401:2148–2168, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009. 15812.x

    2010

  3. [11]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6,

    2018

  4. [12]

    Caldwell and Michael Doran

    Robert R. Caldwell and Michael Doran. Cosmic microwave background and supernova constraints on quintessence: Concordance regions and target models.Phys. Rev. D, 69:103517, 2004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.103517

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    On gravitational wave modes in Nash theory of gravity

    Phongpichit Channuie, Davood Momeni, and Mudhahir Al Ajmi. On gravitational wave modes in Nash theory of gravity. 12 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    On Nash theory of gravity with matter contents.Int

    Phongpichit Channuie, Davood Momeni, and Mudhahir Al Ajmi. On Nash theory of gravity with matter contents.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 36(02):2150006, 2021. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X21500068

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Copeland, M

    Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa. Dynamics of dark energy.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15:1753–1936, 2006. doi: 10.1142/S021827180600942X

    1936 doi

  8. [16]

    B¨ ohmer, Sante Carloni, Edmund J

    Sebastian Bahamonde, Christian G. B¨ ohmer, Sante Carloni, Edmund J. Copeland, Wei Fang, and Nicola Tamanini. Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity.Phys. Rept., 775-777:1–122, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.09.001

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Boehmer and Nyein Chan.Dynamical systems in cosmology, chapter 4, pages 121–156

    Christian G. Boehmer and Nyein Chan.Dynamical systems in cosmology, chapter 4, pages 121–156. World Scientific, London, UK, 2017. doi: 10.1142/9781786341044 0004

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Dynamical analysis of nonminimal coupled theories.Phys

    Rafael Ribeiro and Jorge P´ aramos. Dynamical analysis of nonminimal coupled theories.Phys. Rev. D, 90(12):124065, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.124065

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

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

    Dan Scolnic et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release.Astrophys. J., 938(2):113, 2022. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints.Astrophys

    Dillon Brout et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints.Astrophys. J., 938(2):110,

  13. [21]

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

    Shadab Alam et al. Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cos- mological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory. Phys. Rev. D, 103(8):083533, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Horizon thermodynamics in f (R, RµνRµν) theory.Chin

    Haiyuan Feng and Rong-Jia Yang. Horizon thermodynamics in f (R, RµνRµν) theory.Chin. Phys. C, 44(11):11, 2020. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abadef

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    K. S. Stelle. Classical Gravity with Higher Derivatives.Gen. Rel. Grav., 9:353–371, 1978. doi: 10.1007/BF00760427

    1978 doi

  16. [24]

    Odintsov

    Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models.Phys. Rept., 505:59–144, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Kolb and Michael S

    Edward W. Kolb and Michael S. Turner.The Early Universe, volume 69. Taylor and Francis, 5 2019. ISBN 978-0-429-49286-0, 978-0-201-62674-2. doi: 10.1201/9780429492860

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run.Phys. Rev. X, 13(4):041039, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX. 13.041039

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Inflation

    Daniel Baumann. Inflation. InTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small, pages 523–686, 2011. doi: 10.1142/97898143271830010

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski

    Robert R. Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski. The Physics of Cosmic Acceleration.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 59:397–429, 2009. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-010709-151330. GENERALIZED NASH GRA VITY 23

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    W. K. Hastings. Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications.Biometrika, 57(1):97–109, 04 1970. ISSN 0006-3444. doi: 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97. URL https://doi.org/10. 1093/biomet/57.1.97

    1970 doi

  22. [30]

    Rosenbluth, Marshall N

    Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W. Rosenbluth, Marshall N. Rosenbluth, Augusta H. Teller, and Edward Teller. Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines.J. Chem. Phys., 21(6): 1087–1092, June 1953. doi: 10.1063/1.1699114

    1953 doi

  23. [31]

    Cobaya: code for bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models

    Jes´ us Torrado and Antony Lewis. Cobaya: code for bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021(05):057, May 2021. ISSN 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Andrew Gelman and Donald B. Rubin. Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences. Statistical Science, 7:457–472, January 1992. doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    1992

  25. [33]

    Brooks and Andrew Gelman

    Stephen P. Brooks and Andrew Gelman. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7(4):434–455, 1998. doi: 10.1080/ 10618600.1998.10474787. URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10618600.1998. 10474787

    1998

  26. [34]

    The 16th Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: First Release from the APOGEE-2 Southern Survey and Full Release of eBOSS Spectra.Astrophys

    Romina Ahumada et al. The 16th Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: First Release from the APOGEE-2 Southern Survey and Full Release of eBOSS Spectra.Astrophys. J. Suppl., 249(1):3,

  27. [35]

    Distance Priors from Planck Final Release.JCAP, 02: 028, 2019

    Lu Chen, Qing-Guo Huang, and Ke Wang. Distance Priors from Planck Final Release.JCAP, 02: 028, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/028

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples, 2019

    Antony Lewis. Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples, 2019. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1910.13970

    2019 arXiv

  29. [38]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi

  30. [2010]

    doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451

    doi

  31. [2020]

    [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2021 doi

  32. [2022]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    doi

Pith tools

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