The generalized second law as a thermodynamic selection criterion for dynamical dark energy

Emmanuel N. Saridakis; Joel Saavedra; Marcos H. Cruz; Miguel Cruz

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 111 references

The generalized second law as a thermodynamic selection criterion for dynamical dark energy

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The generalized second law selects a unique entropy-area scaling for smooth phantom crossings.

desk verdict A plausible selection rule for generalized entropies, but the phantom bound that makes it interesting collapses if you replace the isentropic fluid temperature with the horizon temperature. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10495 v1 pith:VE6C23PA submitted 2026-08-11 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Marcos H. Cruz , Miguel Cruz , Joel Saavedra , Emmanuel N. Saridakis This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO

keywords generalizedsecondlawapparenthorizonmodifiedFriedmannequationsentropyentropy-areascalingphantomdividedarkenergynon-equilibriumthermodynamics

open problems 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 claims that the generalized second law of thermodynamics is enough to decide which proposed horizon entropy-area relations are thermodynamically admissible in cosmology. Working with a general modified Friedmann framework governed by an arbitrary function $f(H)$, and allowing the apparent horizon and the cosmic fluid to be out of thermal equilibrium, the authors show that requiring non-decreasing total entropy reduces to complementary bounds on the exponent $k$ in $S_A\propto A^k$. Phantom evolution demands $k\ge(3\omega-1)/(2\omega)$, while accelerating quintessence demands $k\le(3\omega-1)/(2\omega)$. Since both bounds converge to $k=2$ as $\omega\to-1$, a smooth crossing of the phantom divide forces the horizon entropy to approach $A^2$ scaling and the modified Friedmann function to degenerate into $f(H)=\gamma\ln H+c_0$. If correct, the second law becomes a model-independent sieve that excludes several popular generalized entropies and constrains the free parameters of the survivors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized second law written as a differential constraint on the modified Friedmann function: $\pi f'(H)(1+q)+ K q f(H)^{1/(1+\omega)}/H^2 \ge 0$, with $K$ built from $\omega$ and the fluid temperature normalization. The argument works by converting the first law on the apparent horizon into the entropy differential $dS_A=\pi f'(H)R_A^2\,dR_A$, assuming the fluid entropy obeys the Gibbs relation with $T_{\rm eff}=T_0 a^{-3\omega}$, and then substituting a power-law entropy $S_A\propto A^k$ to turn the inequality into an asymptotic comparison of area exponents. The decisive step is that the exponent bounds from the two accelerating regimes approach each other as $\omega\to-1$, forcing $k=2$ and, through the area mapping, a logarithmic $f(H)=\gamma\ln H+c_0$.

What would settle it

Take a phantom cosmology driven by $f(H)=H^2$ (Bekenstein-Hawking, $k=1$) and compute the fluid temperature from a kinetic model or an effective field theory instead of $T_{\rm eff}\propto a^{-3\omega}$; if the total entropy rate $\dot S_A+\dot S_{\rm eff}$ remains non-negative through the phantom phase, the claimed bound $k\ge(3\omega-1)/(2\omega)$ is false. Equivalently, any explicit generalized entropy with fixed $k$ below the phantom threshold that satisfies the full non-equilibrium generalized second law would disprove the criterion's necessity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the generalized second law, applied to a general $f(H)$ modified Friedmann cosmology, is not merely a consistency check but a selection criterion for horizon entropy. The non-equilibrium GSL is rewritten in terms of the Hubble parameter, the deceleration parameter, and the total equation-of-state parameter $\omega$, and then mapped to the apparent-horizon area $A$. Assuming a power-law entropy relation $S_A\propto A^k$ and an isentropic barotropic fluid with temperature $T_{\rm eff}=T_0 a^{-3\omega}$, the asymptotic analysis yields the phantom lower bound $k\ge(3\omega-1)/(2\omega)$ and the quintessence upper bound $k\le(3\omega-1)/(2\omega)$. The two bounds coincide at $k=2$ at the phantom divide, which corresponds to $f(H)=\gamma\ln H+c_0$. In the exact thermal-equilibrium limit the same constraint emerges as a strict cap $k\le 2$, and the analysis extends to $f(H,\dot H)$ cosmologies, where the entropy acquires kinematic dependence but the same thermodynamic restrictions and the requirement of a momentarily stationary geometric sector at the crossing remain valid.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the cosmic fluid inside the apparent horizon is an isentropic barotropic fluid with conserved particle number, so its temperature evolves as $T_{\rm eff}=T_0 a^{-3\omega}$; if the actual dark-energy fluid does not obey this adiabatic temperature law, the derived bounds on $k$ do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Bekenstein-Hawking entropy ($k=1$) and Barrow entropy (maximum $k=3/2$) fail the phantom bound, so they cannot accompany finite phantom evolution in this framework.
Tsallis entropy remains viable only for $\delta\ge(3\omega-1)/(2\omega)$, turning the non-extensivity parameter into a function of the dark-energy equation of state.
A smooth phantom-divide crossing selects $S_A\propto A^2$ and forces the effective gravity to degenerate into the logarithmic model $f(H)=\gamma\ln H+c_0$.
The exact thermal-equilibrium analysis recovers the same quintessence upper bound $k\le 2$, so the selection criterion is not an artifact of allowing the horizon and fluid to be out of equilibrium.
In $f(H,\dot H)$ cosmologies the horizon entropy depends on the cosmic jerk, yet the generalized second law still imposes the same restrictions, requiring the geometric sector to become momentarily stationary at a smooth crossing.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: If current surveys confirm an evolving dark-energy equation of state that crosses $\omega=-1$, the criterion would indirectly disfavour fixed low-exponent entropies such as Barrow's and support models whose effective exponent can reach 2 near the crossing.
Editorial inference: The bounds turn free parameters of entropy functionals into predicted functions of $\omega$; for Tsallis entropy the required $\delta(\omega)$ could be compared with independent constraints from black-hole thermodynamics or holographic entanglement.
Editorial inference: Because the non-equilibrium and equilibrium limits converge on the same quintessence cap, the $k=2$ selection is likely robust against changing the equilibrium assumption, but it does depend on the adiabatic temperature law; a non-barotropic or particle-creating fluid would be the natural next test.
Editorial inference: Through the Noether-charge correspondence, the $f(H,\dot H)$ extension suggests that any diffeomorphism-invariant gravitational theory has its own entropy scaling constrained by the same generalized second law, so the criterion could be formulated directly as a condition on the Lagrangian.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's core idea—use the generalized second law to constrain the area-scaling exponent k of horizon entropy in a general f(H) cosmology—is well motivated and mostly cleanly executed. The mapping from GSL to complementary bounds on k is explicit and reproducible, and the equilibrium limit k≤2 in Sec. IV B is a solid, simple result that will survive. The classification of Barrow, Kaniadakis, Tsallis, logarithmic, and multiparameter entropies in Sec. IV A is a useful table, and the self-citations are not circular: the author's own models appear as test cases, not as fitted inputs.

The soft spots are real. First, Eq. (2.16) has a sign error: the bracket is the negative of T_A π f'(H)R_A^2, so the stated first-law form dE = WdV_A + T_A dS_A is wrong as written. The entropy differential dS_A = π f' R^2 dR still gives the right Bekenstein-Hawking limit, so this is fixable, but it is a consistency issue.

The bigger problem is the load-bearing fluid temperature. The phantom lower bound k≥(3ω−1)/(2ω) comes entirely from inserting T_eff = T_0 a^{−3ω} into the Gibbs relation. That temperature law assumes an isentropic barotropic fluid with conserved particle number in a comoving volume. Here the volume is the apparent-horizon volume, which is not comoving, and the “total cosmic fluid” is a mixture without a single conserved particle number or a well-defined temperature, especially for ω<−1. If you instead take the more standard equilibrium choice T_eff = T_A, the GSL reduces to Eq. (4.18) and gives only n≥0, i.e., k≤2. The phantom lower bound disappears, and with it the argument that a smooth phantom crossing forces k=2. So the central result is, as the stress-test says, an artifact of the isentropic ansatz, not a robust thermodynamic necessity.

The constant-ω treatment of a multi-component fluid is another limitation; ω evolves in any realistic model, so the asymptotic bounds apply only in single-component-dominated regimes.

Who is this for? People working on generalized horizon entropies and gravity-thermodynamics will read it, and the equilibrium part is worth keeping. But the headline phantom-divide conclusion needs much stronger thermodynamic justification. I would send it to peer review—a serious referee can separate the fixable sign error from the deeper modeling issue—but the authors should be pushed to either defend the open-system temperature law or weaken the claims. If they cannot, the paper still has the k≤2 result and the model classification.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the generalized second law (GSL) of thermodynamics can act as a model-independent selection criterion for generalized horizon entropy proposals in cosmology. Working in a flat FLRW universe with modified Friedmann equations encoded by an arbitrary function f(H), the authors derive asymptotic constraints on the entropy−area exponent k in S_A∝A^k: for phantom evolution (ω<−1) they obtain k≥(3ω−1)/(2ω), while for accelerating quintessence they obtain the complementary upper bound k≤(3ω−1)/(2ω). They further argue that a smooth phantom−divide crossing forces k=2, corresponding to a logarithmic gravity model f(H)=γ ln H+c0. The criterion is then applied to several generalized entropy models (Barrow, Kaniadakis, Tsallis, etc.), and the analysis is extended to derivative−dependent frameworks f(H,Ḣ). The central claim is that the GSL provides a thermodynamic sieve that discriminates among entropy functionals.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide an appealing and simple physical principle for restricting the proliferating set of generalized entropy proposals: a single inequality on the asymptotic entropy−area exponent that depends only on the equation−of−state parameter. The derivation is analytic, contains no fitted parameters, and the applications to concrete entropy models are explicit and falsifiable. The paper also demonstrates a useful technical machinery for translating modified Friedmann dynamics into horizon−entropy constraints. However, the significance is heavily contingent on the physical validity of the fluid−temperature model used to derive the phantom bound; if that model is not justified, the main advertised conclusion (the k→2 selection at the phantom divide) does not follow.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III.A, Eqs. (3.10)–(3.14), (3.27), (3.31)] The phantom lower bound k≥(3ω−1)/(2ω) is derived from the isentropic single−fluid temperature law T_eff=T0 a^{−3ω}. This law is valid for a closed, comoving, single−component barotropic fluid with conserved particle number. Here the system is the cosmic fluid inside the apparent horizon, whose volume V_A=4π/(3H^3) is not comoving; the moving horizon surface implies particle and enthalpy fluxes across the boundary, so the Gibbs relation (3.1) omits the μ dN term. The model−dependence can be seen explicitly: replacing T_eff by the equilibrium horizon temperature T_A (the assumption adopted in Sec. IV.B) reduces Eq. (3.7) to Eq. (4.18), and the dynamical coupling (4.20) gives only n≥0, i.e., k≤2, with no phantom lower bound. Thus Eq. (3.27) is not a model−independent consequence of the GSL, and the convergence k→2 at the phantom divide in Eq. (3.31) is contingent on this specific temperature ansatz. This is the load−bearing step for the paper's central claim.
[Sec. II.B, Eq. (2.16)] Equation (2.16) contains a sign error. Using T_A=(1−q)/(4πR_A) and Ḣ/H^2=−(1+q), the bracket (−1+Ṙ_A/(2H R_A)) equals −(1−q)/2, which is the negative of T_A π f′(H) R_A^2. The correct expression is dE = W dV_A − T_A π f′(H) R_A^2 dR_A, and consequently dS_A = −π f′(H) R_A^2 dR_A as written in Eq. (2.17) does not follow from Eq. (2.16). The later analysis uses the sign in Eq. (2.17), which correctly reproduces S_A=A/4 for f(H)=H^2, but the derivation is internally inconsistent and must be corrected.
[Sec. IV.B and Sec. III.C] The equilibrium analysis in Sec. IV.B yields only the upper bound k≤2 (from n≥0), not a lower bound. The paper's assertion that a smooth phantom crossing 'traps' the exponent at k=2 relies on combining this upper bound with the non−equilibrium phantom lower bound. Since the phantom lower bound is not robust (see the first major comment), the conclusion that k=2 is thermodynamically selected at the crossing is unsupported by the GSL alone. The classification of entropy models in Table I (for example, marking Barrow entropy as incompatible with phantom evolution) depends on this unestablished lower bound.
[Sec. III.A–III.C] The derivation treats the 'total cosmic fluid' as a single barotropic fluid with constant equation of state ω. A mixture of baryons, radiation, and dark energy has no unique temperature and no conserved particle number; moreover, ω is time−dependent during a dynamical phantom crossing. The constant−ω assumption underlying Eqs. (3.10)–(3.14) is therefore not self−consistent with the crossing scenario analyzed in Sec. III.C. The bounds (3.27) and (3.29) may be formally correct within the constant−ω approximation, but their application to a time−dependent ω requires further justification.

minor comments (4)

[Appendix A, Eq. (A9)] Equation (A9) appears to have a sign error: substituting the definition of Ṙ_A into Eq. (A7) gives Ṡ_A = π R_A^4 ḟ, not −π R_A^4 ḟ. This should be checked carefully.
[Sec. III.A, Eq. (3.11)] The sentence in Sec. III.C stating that the temperature relation contains the factor 1+ω in its exponent is imprecise; the exponent is ω/(1+ω) in Eq. (3.12)–(3.13).
[References] References [5] and [6] appear to be the same Padmanabhan paper; one should be removed or replaced with a different citation.
[Figure 1] The figure caption describes a highlighted point at (ω,k)=(−1,2), but the plot appears to show only the critical curve; either the point should be drawn explicitly or the caption adjusted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the GSL bounds on k are derived algebraically from explicitly stated thermodynamic assumptions, with self-citations used only as model test cases.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the modified Friedmann equations (2.13)-(2.14) and the unified first law, it obtains dS_A = π f'(H) R_A^2 dR_A (2.17); with the Gibbs relation (3.1), the conservation equation (3.2), and the explicit isentropic temperature law T_eff = T0 a^{-3ω} (3.11), the GSL becomes inequality (3.17). Under the power-law ansatz S_A ∝ A^k, the area mapping gives F(A) = β A^{k-2} (3.23), and substitution into (3.20) yields the algebraic inequality (3.24), whose asymptotic limits produce the phantom and quintessence bounds (3.27) and (3.29). The k→2 phantom-divide result (3.31) is the common limit of these two derived bounds, not an input. The equilibrium analysis in Sec. IV.B similarly follows from Eq. (3.7) with T_m = T_A and the dynamical coupling n(1+q) = 3(1+ω) (4.20), giving n ≥ 0 and hence k ≤ 2; no fitted constants enter and no prediction reduces to a fitted value. Citations to the authors' own entropy proposals (e.g., Luciano-Saridakis entropy, refs. [57,58]) appear as test cases in Sec. IV.A, not as premises of the derivation; the selection criterion does not depend on those cited models. The derivation is conditional on the stated single-fluid isentropic assumption and on the k<2 branch in the phantom analysis; these are physical or mathematical caveats that affect robustness, but they are not circularity.

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

No new particles or forces are introduced. The derivation introduces no fitted constants; the bounds depend only on ω and k. The main burden is thermodynamic assumptions (isentropic fluid, generalized second law, power-law entropy) rather than free parameters.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The apparent horizon of a flat FLRW universe has temperature T_A=(1-q)/(4πR_A).
Used in Eq. (2.8) and throughout; relies on the sign convention from Refs. [35-37].
domain assumption The unified first law dE=W dV+T_A dS_A applies to the apparent horizon.
Invoked in Eq. (2.16) to identify dS_A; as written the equality is sign-inconsistent with the preceding line.
domain assumption The cosmic fluid is a barotropic perfect fluid with constant ω, isentropic, with conserved particle number, giving T_eff=T0 a^{-3ω}.
Eqs. (3.10)-(3.13); this is the main input that turns the generalized second law into Eq. (3.17).
domain assumption The generalized second law, dot S_A + dot S_eff ≥ 0, is assumed to hold.
Eq. (3.6); not derived, and it is the selection principle under test.
domain assumption The horizon entropy is asymptotically a pure power law S_A∝A^k.
Eq. (3.21); used to map F(A) to A^{k-2} and derive the k bounds. Later extended to effective k for specific entropies.
domain assumption Modified Friedmann equations 3f(H)=8πρ and -(dot H/H)f'(H)=8π(ρ+p) encode the gravitational dynamics.
Eqs. (2.13)-(2.14); the framework for all subsequent inequalities.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The generalized second law as a thermodynamic selection criterion for dynamical dark energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VE6C23PA

@misc{pith2026260810495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The generalized second law as a thermodynamic selection criterion for dynamical dark energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VE6C23PA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10495}
}

abstract

The growing number of generalized horizon entropy proposals has led to a wide variety of modified cosmological models, yet there is currently no general physical principle capable of discriminating among them. We show that the generalized second law (GSL) of thermodynamics provides such a criterion. Considering a general modified Friedmann framework described by an arbitrary function $f(H)$ of the Hubble parameter, and allowing the apparent horizon and the cosmic fluid to evolve out of thermal equilibrium, we derive model-independent constraints on the asymptotic scaling of the horizon entropy, $S_A\propto A^k$. We find that phantom evolution requires $k\ge(3\omega-1)/(2\omega)$, with $\omega$ the total fluid equation of state, whereas quintessence imposes the complementary upper bound. Additionally, in the exact thermal equilibrium limit, the dynamical coupling strictly enforces $k \le 2$, recovering the non-equilibrium quintessence bound. The two bounds converge to the unique value $k=2$ as the phantom divide is approached, indicating that a smooth crossing of the phantom divide is thermodynamically associated with a quadratic entropy-area scaling, where the effective theory degenerates into a logarithmic gravity framework. Applying this criterion to representative generalized entropy models shows that many commonly used proposals are constrained by the generalized second law, whereas multiparameter constructions are naturally compatible with the required asymptotic behavior. Finally, we demonstrate that the same thermodynamic selection principle extends to derivative-dependent cosmologies described by $f(H,\dot H)$, highlighting its robustness beyond entropy functionals that depend only on the horizon area.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10495 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Even at maximal deformation, ∆ = 1, one obtains only kmax = 3/2

Barrow entropy Barrow entropy is motivated by a quantum- gravitational fractal deformation of the horizon and takes the form [45] SB∝A 1+∆/2,0≤∆≤1.(4.1) Its effective exponent is therefore k = 1 + ∆/2. Even at maximal deformation, ∆ = 1, one obtains only kmax = 3/2. Hence, Barrow entropy cannot satisfy the strict phantom bound and is thermodynamically inc...
[2]

Applied to the apparent horizon, the entropy takes the form SK∝sinh(KA),(4.2) whereK is the deformation parameter

Kaniadakis entropy Kaniadakis statistics provide a relativistically moti- vated extension of Boltzmann-Gibbs thermodynamics [46– 48]. Applied to the apparent horizon, the entropy takes the form SK∝sinh(KA),(4.2) whereK is the deformation parameter. The corresponding effective scaling exponent is keff = ∂lnS K ∂lnA =KAcoth(KA).(4.3) Unlike the entropy mode...
[3]

Tsallis entropy Tsallis non-extensive thermodynamics assumes [ 43, 44] ST∝A δ,(4.4) so that the effective entropy exponent is simply k = δ. Unlike the previous examples, Tsallis entropy can satisfy the phantom constraint, provided that δ≥ 3ω−1 2ω .(4.5) 8 Thus, the generalized second law converts the non- extensivity index from a free parameter into a dyn...
[4]

[ 55, 56], SLQG∝e βA−1.(4.6) Unlike Kaniadakis entropy, this model exhibits well- defined asymptotic power-law behavior

Logarithmic quantum gravity entropy A logarithmic quantum-gravity entropy based on an exponential deformation has been proposed in Refs. [ 55, 56], SLQG∝e βA−1.(4.6) Unlike Kaniadakis entropy, this model exhibits well- defined asymptotic power-law behavior. Assuming β <0, the entropy approaches a constant in the large-area limit (A→∞ ), corresponding to a...
[5]

[97], S= A 4 +αln A 4 + NX j=0 σj A 4 1+j 2 ,(4.7) whereαandσ j are free parameters

Extended entropic cosmology A generalized entropy containing logarithmic and power-law corrections was proposed in Ref. [97], S= A 4 +αln A 4 + NX j=0 σj A 4 1+j 2 ,(4.7) whereαandσ j are free parameters. Its differential is dS=  1 4 + α A + NX j=0 eσj A 4 j−1 2  dA,(4.8) whereeσj absorbs the numerical factors arising from dif- ferentiation. In the sm...
[6]

For positive coef- ficients and distinct exponents, the small-area limit is governed by kmin = min(δ,ϵ),(4.12) which should satisfy the lower bound in Eq

Luciano-Saridakis entropy The generalized entropy proposed by Luciano and Sari- dakis relaxes the usual separability assumption and takes the two-power form [57, 58] SLS =γ 1Aδ +γ 2Aϵ,(4.11) where γ1, γ2, δ, and ϵ are constants. For positive coef- ficients and distinct exponents, the small-area limit is governed by kmin = min(δ,ϵ),(4.12) which should sati...
[7]

Conditional

Five-parameter generalized entropy Finally, we consider the multiparameter generalized entropy proposed as a universal and singularity-free con- struction in Refs. [ 50–54]. This class incorporates hyper- bolic functions, schematically of the form tanh αSβ ,(4.14) and possess sufficient parametric freedom for its effective scaling exponent to vary across ...
[8]

In such theories the horizon entropy is no longer expected to depend only on the apparent-horizon area

Horizon entropy in derivative-dependent cosmologies We consider the generalized cosmological framework in which the effective gravitational sector depends on both the Hubble parameter and its first derivative, namely f(H, ˙H). In such theories the horizon entropy is no longer expected to depend only on the apparent-horizon area. Indeed, according to Wald’...

Show all 111 references

[9]

Differentiating Eq

Generalized second law and thermodynamic implications The entropy differential derived above allows the gen- eralized second law to be constructed following the same procedure as in the main text. Differentiating Eq. (A7) with respect to cosmic time, the horizon entropy produc...
[10]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973)

1973
[11]

S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975)

1975
[12]

Jacobson, Phys

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

1995
[13]

Padmanabhan, Phys

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

2005
[15]

Padmanabhan, Rept

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

2010 arXiv
[16]

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

2011 arXiv
[17]

Cai and S

R.-G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP2005, 050–050 (2005), hep-th/0501055

2005 arXiv
[18]

S.-F. Wu, B. Wang, and G.-H. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B799, 330 (2008), 0711.1209

2008 arXiv
[19]

Mohseni Sadjadi, Phys

H. Mohseni Sadjadi, Phys. Rev. D76, 104024 (2007), 0709.2435

2007 arXiv
[20]

Cai, Prog

R.-G. Cai, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.172, 100 (2008), 0712.2142

2008 arXiv
[21]

Akbar, Int

M. Akbar, Int. J. Theor. Phys.48, 2665 (2009), 0808.3308

2009 arXiv
[23]

Bamba and C.-Q

K. Bamba and C.-Q. Geng, Phys. Lett. B679, 282 (2009), 0901.1509

2009 arXiv
[24]

Jamil, E

M. Jamil, E. N. Saridakis, and M. R. Setare, Phys. Rev. D81, 023007 (2010), 0910.0822

2010 arXiv
[25]

M. Wang, J. Jing, C. Ding, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 81, 083006 (2010), 0912.4832

2010 arXiv
[26]

Cai, L.-M

R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, Y.-P. Hu, and N. Ohta, Phys. Rev. D80, 104016 (2009), 0910.2387

2009 arXiv
[27]

Bamba and C.-Q

K. Bamba and C.-Q. Geng, JCAP06, 014 (2010), 1005.5234

2010 arXiv
[28]

H. M. Sadjadi, EPL92, 50014 (2010), 1009.2941

2010 arXiv
[29]

S. H. Hendi and A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D83, 084012 (2011), 1012.0381

2011 arXiv
[30]

Karami and A

K. Karami and A. Abdolmaleki, JCAP04, 007 (2012), 1201.2511

2012 arXiv
[31]

I. G. Salako, M. E. Rodrigues, A. V. Kpadonou, M. J. S. Houndjo, and J. Tossa, JCAP11, 060 (2013), 1307.0730

2013 arXiv
[32]

L.-M. Cao, J. Xu, and Z. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D87, 064005 (2013), 1301.0895

2013 arXiv
[33]

Momeni, P

D. Momeni, P. H. R. S. Moraes, and R. Myrzakulov, Astrophys. Space Sci.361, 228 (2016), 1512.04755

2016 arXiv
[34]

Chakraborty, JHEP08, 029 (2015), 1505.07272

S. Chakraborty, JHEP08, 029 (2015), 1505.07272

2015 arXiv
[35]

Bahamonde, M

S. Bahamonde, M. Zubair, and G. Abbas, Phys. Dark Univ.19, 78 (2018), 1609.08373

2018 arXiv
[36]

Zubair, F

M. Zubair, F. Kousar, and S. Bahamonde, Phys. Dark Univ.14, 116 (2016), 1604.07213

2016 arXiv
[37]

Rudra and B

P. Rudra and B. Pourhassan, Phys. Dark Univ.33, 100849 (2021), 2008.11034

2021 arXiv
[38]

Pourhassan and P

B. Pourhassan and P. Rudra, Phys. Rev. D101, 084057 (2020), 2001.06299

2020 arXiv
[39]

Jawad, Z

A. Jawad, Z. Khan, and S. Rani, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 71 (2020)

2020
[40]

S. A. Tsilioukas, M. Petronikolou, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, JHEAp54, 100668 (2026), 2501.15927

2026 arXiv
[41]

Lymperis, G

A. Lymperis, G. Nugmanova, and A. Sergazina (2025), 2502.04462

2025 arXiv
[42]

S. A. Hayward, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 3147–3162 (1998), gr-qc/9710089

1998 arXiv
[43]

S. A. Hayward, S. Mukohyama, and M. Ashworth, Phys. Lett. A256, 347–350 (1999), gr-qc/9810006

1999 arXiv
[44]

Helou (2015), 1502.04235

A. Helou (2015), 1502.04235

2015 arXiv
[45]

Helou,Dynamics of the four kinds of Trapping Horizons and Existence of Hawking Radiation(2015), 1505.07371

A. Helou,Dynamics of the four kinds of Trapping Horizons and Existence of Hawking Radiation(2015), 1505.07371

2015 arXiv
[46]

D. W. Tian and I. Booth, Phys. Rev. D92, 024001 (2015), 1411.6547

2015 arXiv
[47]

Faraoni,Cosmological and Black Hole Apparent Hori- zons, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2015), ISBN 9783319192390

V. Faraoni,Cosmological and Black Hole Apparent Hori- zons, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2015), ISBN 9783319192390. 13

2015
[48]

Sebastiani, Phys

L. Sebastiani, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101296 (2023), 2307.04509

2023 arXiv
[49]

M. Cruz, S. Lepe, and J. Saavedra, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101580 (2024), 2312.14257

2024 arXiv
[50]

Cai, L.-M

R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, and Y.-P. Hu, JHEP2008, 090–090 (2008), 0807.1232

2008 arXiv
[51]

Salehi and M

A. Salehi and M. Mahmoudi-Fard, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018), 1709.04055

2018 arXiv
[52]

Tsallis, J

C. Tsallis, J. Statist. Phys.52, 479 (1988)

1988
[53]

Tsallis,Introduction to nonextensive statistical me- chanics: approaching a complex world, vol

C. Tsallis,Introduction to nonextensive statistical me- chanics: approaching a complex world, vol. 1 (Springer, 2009)

2009
[54]

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

2020 arXiv
[55]

Kaniadakis, Phys

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

2002
[56]

Kaniadakis, Phys

G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E72, 036108 (2005), cond- mat/0507311

2005
[57]

E. M. C. Abreu and J. Ananias Neto, EPL133, 49001 (2021)

2021
[58]

M. Cruz, S. Lepe, and J. Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. B1021, 117190 (2025), 2502.16668

2025
[59]

S. D. Odintsov, T. Paul, and S. SenGupta, Phys. Rev. D109, 103515 (2024), 2404.05312

2024 arXiv
[61]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and T. Paul, Phys. Lett. B 831, 137189 (2022), 2205.08876

2022 arXiv
[62]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044042 (2022), 2201.02424

2022 arXiv
[64]

Majhi, Phys

A. Majhi, Phys. Lett. B775, 32–36 (2017), 1703.09355

2017 arXiv
[65]

Liu, EPL138, 39001 (2022), 2112.15077

Y. Liu, EPL138, 39001 (2022), 2112.15077

2022 arXiv
[66]

Leizerovich, S

M. Leizerovich, S. J. Landau, G. G. Luciano, A. Papa- triantafyllou, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102333 (2026), 2603.03568

2026 arXiv
[67]

G. G. Luciano and E. N. Saridakis,Holographic dark energy from a new two-parameter entropic functional (2026), 2603.10964

2026
[68]

Lymperis and E

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

2018 arXiv
[69]

Moradpour, Int

H. Moradpour, Int. J. Theor. Phys.55, 4176 (2016), 1601.05014

2016 arXiv
[70]

Moradpour, A

H. Moradpour, A. Bonilla, E. M. C. Abreu, and J. A. Neto, Phys. Rev. D96, 123504 (2017), 1711.08338

2017 arXiv
[71]

Moradpour, S

H. Moradpour, S. A. Moosavi, I. P. Lobo, J. P. Morais Gra¸ ca, A. Jawad, and I. G. Salako, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 829 (2018), 1803.02195

2018 arXiv
[72]

Mohseni Sadjadi and M

H. Mohseni Sadjadi and M. Jamil, EPL92, 69001 (2010), 1002.3588

2010 arXiv
[73]

Bamba, A

K. Bamba, A. Jawad, S. Rafique, and H. Moradpour, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 986 (2018), 1812.00753

2018 arXiv
[74]

Nojiri, S

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

2019 arXiv
[75]

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
[76]

Asghari and A

M. Asghari and A. Sheykhi, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 388 (2022), 2110.00059

2022 arXiv
[77]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and T. Paul, Phys. Lett. B 825, 136844 (2022), 2112.10159

2022 arXiv
[78]

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

2020 arXiv
[79]

Giardino and V

S. Giardino and V. Salzano, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 110 (2021), 2006.01580

2021 arXiv
[80]

J. D. Barrow, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B815, 136134 (2021), 2010.00986

2021 arXiv
[81]

G. Leon, J. Maga˜ na, A. Hern´ andez-Almada, M. A. Garc´ ıa-Aspeitia, T. Verdugo, and V. Motta, JCAP12, 032 (2021), 2108.10998

2021 arXiv
[82]

Lymperis, S

A. Lymperis, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1037 (2021), 2108.12366

2021 arXiv
[83]

Ghoshal and G

A. Ghoshal and G. Lambiase (2021), 2104.11296

2021 arXiv
[84]

Jusufi, M

K. Jusufi, M. Azreg-A¨ ınou, M. Jamil, and E. N. Saridakis, Universe8, 102 (2022), 2110.07258

2022 arXiv
[85]

Jizba and G

P. Jizba and G. Lambiase, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1123 (2022), 2206.12910

2022 arXiv
[86]

A. I. Keskin, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.19, 2250005 (2022)

2022
[87]

S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Phys. Dark Univ.39, 101159 (2023), 2212.05531

2023 arXiv
[88]

G. G. Luciano and J. Gine, Phys. Lett. B833, 137352 (2022), 2204.02723

2022 arXiv
[89]

Dheepika, H

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

2024 arXiv
[90]

G. G. Luciano, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 314 (2022)

2022
[91]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and T. Paul, Phys. Lett. B 835, 137553 (2022), 2211.02822

2022 arXiv
[92]

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

2022 arXiv
[93]

Basilakos, A

S. Basilakos, A. Lymperis, M. Petronikolou, and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 297 (2024), 2308.01200

2024 arXiv
[94]

Lambiase, G

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

2023 arXiv
[95]

Mohammadi and A

H. Mohammadi and A. Salehi, Phys. Lett. B839, 137794 (2023)

2023
[96]

Salehi, Eur

A. Salehi, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1027 (2023), 2309.15279

2023 arXiv
[97]

Anand, K

A. Anand, K. Jusufi, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 126 (2026), 2512.13769

2026
[98]

Jizba and G

P. Jizba and G. Lambiase, Entropy25, 1495 (2023), 2310.19045

2023 arXiv
[99]

G. G. Luciano, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 329 (2023), 2301.12509

2023 arXiv
[100]

Jizba, G

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

2024 arXiv
[101]

Petronikolou, S

M. Petronikolou, S. Basilakos, A. Lymperis, and E. Sari- dakis, PoSCORFU2023, 174 (2024)

2024
[102]

Mondal and A

S. Mondal and A. Choudhuri, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1174 (2024)

2024
[103]

Asghari, A

M. Asghari, A. Allahyari, and D. F. Mota, JCAP06, 044 (2024), 2404.13025

2024 arXiv
[104]

M. F. Karabat, Mod. Phys. Lett. A39, 2450109 (2024)

2024
[105]

Anand, S

A. Anand, S. Devdutt, K. Jusufi, and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 534 (2026), 2511.04613

2026 arXiv
[106]

Chagoya, I

J. Chagoya, I. D´ ıaz-Salda˜ na, M. H. Amante, J. L´ opez- Dom´ ınguez, and M. Sabido, Phys. Lett. B864, 139415 (2025), 2412.11260

2025 arXiv
[107]

Arciniega, P

G. Arciniega, P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, J. D. Edelstein, R. A. Hennigar, and L. G. Jaime, Phys. Lett. B802, 135242 (2020), 1812.11187

2020 arXiv
[108]

Arciniega, J

G. Arciniega, J. D. Edelstein, and L. G. Jaime, Phys. Lett. B802, 135272 (2020), 1810.08166

2020 arXiv
[109]

Erices, E

C. Erices, E. Papantonopoulos, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D99(2019), 1903.11128

2019 arXiv
[110]

Cisterna, N

A. Cisterna, N. Grandi, and J. Oliva, Phys. Lett. B805, 135435 (2020), 1811.06523

2020 arXiv
[111]

C. E. Romero-Figueroa and H. Quevedo, Nucl. Phys. B 14 1029, 117529 (2026), 2601.04639

2026
[112]

J. P. Mimoso and D. Pav´ on, Phys. Rev. D94(2016), 1610.07788

2016 arXiv
[113]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and V. Oikonomou, Fortsch. Phys. 74, e70137 (2026), 2601.21356

2026 arXiv
[114]

R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D48, R3427–R3431 (1993), gr-qc/9307038

1993 arXiv
[115]

Iyer and R

V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D50, 846–864 (1994), gr-qc/9403028

1994 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Even at maximal deformation, ∆ = 1, one obtains only kmax = 3/2

Barrow entropy Barrow entropy is motivated by a quantum- gravitational fractal deformation of the horizon and takes the form [45] SB∝A 1+∆/2,0≤∆≤1.(4.1) Its effective exponent is therefore k = 1 + ∆/2. Even at maximal deformation, ∆ = 1, one obtains only kmax = 3/2. Hence, Barrow entropy cannot satisfy the strict phantom bound and is thermodynamically inc...

[2] [2]

Applied to the apparent horizon, the entropy takes the form SK∝sinh(KA),(4.2) whereK is the deformation parameter

Kaniadakis entropy Kaniadakis statistics provide a relativistically moti- vated extension of Boltzmann-Gibbs thermodynamics [46– 48]. Applied to the apparent horizon, the entropy takes the form SK∝sinh(KA),(4.2) whereK is the deformation parameter. The corresponding effective scaling exponent is keff = ∂lnS K ∂lnA =KAcoth(KA).(4.3) Unlike the entropy mode...

[3] [3]

Tsallis entropy Tsallis non-extensive thermodynamics assumes [ 43, 44] ST∝A δ,(4.4) so that the effective entropy exponent is simply k = δ. Unlike the previous examples, Tsallis entropy can satisfy the phantom constraint, provided that δ≥ 3ω−1 2ω .(4.5) 8 Thus, the generalized second law converts the non- extensivity index from a free parameter into a dyn...

[4] [4]

[ 55, 56], SLQG∝e βA−1.(4.6) Unlike Kaniadakis entropy, this model exhibits well- defined asymptotic power-law behavior

Logarithmic quantum gravity entropy A logarithmic quantum-gravity entropy based on an exponential deformation has been proposed in Refs. [ 55, 56], SLQG∝e βA−1.(4.6) Unlike Kaniadakis entropy, this model exhibits well- defined asymptotic power-law behavior. Assuming β <0, the entropy approaches a constant in the large-area limit (A→∞ ), corresponding to a...

[5] [5]

[97], S= A 4 +αln A 4 + NX j=0 σj A 4 1+j 2 ,(4.7) whereαandσ j are free parameters

Extended entropic cosmology A generalized entropy containing logarithmic and power-law corrections was proposed in Ref. [97], S= A 4 +αln A 4 + NX j=0 σj A 4 1+j 2 ,(4.7) whereαandσ j are free parameters. Its differential is dS=  1 4 + α A + NX j=0 eσj A 4 j−1 2  dA,(4.8) whereeσj absorbs the numerical factors arising from dif- ferentiation. In the sm...

[6] [6]

For positive coef- ficients and distinct exponents, the small-area limit is governed by kmin = min(δ,ϵ),(4.12) which should satisfy the lower bound in Eq

Luciano-Saridakis entropy The generalized entropy proposed by Luciano and Sari- dakis relaxes the usual separability assumption and takes the two-power form [57, 58] SLS =γ 1Aδ +γ 2Aϵ,(4.11) where γ1, γ2, δ, and ϵ are constants. For positive coef- ficients and distinct exponents, the small-area limit is governed by kmin = min(δ,ϵ),(4.12) which should sati...

[7] [7]

Conditional

Five-parameter generalized entropy Finally, we consider the multiparameter generalized entropy proposed as a universal and singularity-free con- struction in Refs. [ 50–54]. This class incorporates hyper- bolic functions, schematically of the form tanh αSβ ,(4.14) and possess sufficient parametric freedom for its effective scaling exponent to vary across ...

[8] [8]

In such theories the horizon entropy is no longer expected to depend only on the apparent-horizon area

Horizon entropy in derivative-dependent cosmologies We consider the generalized cosmological framework in which the effective gravitational sector depends on both the Hubble parameter and its first derivative, namely f(H, ˙H). In such theories the horizon entropy is no longer expected to depend only on the apparent-horizon area. Indeed, according to Wald’...