Entropy Bounds and Dark Energy

Stephen D.H. Hsu

REVIEW

Entropy Bounds and Dark Energy

Stephen D.H. Hsu

High Energy Physics - Theory · Submitted 3 Mar 2004 · 12 references

Pith's verdict: A short, correct negative result: entropy-bound dark energy with a past horizon gives w = 0 and WMAP kills it, though the exclusion is narrower than the paper's wording suggests.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-th/0403052 (version 2)

Pith IDR67N4QXP, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationStephen D.H. Hsu. "Entropy Bounds and Dark Energy." arXiv:hep-th/0403052 (2004). https://pith.science/paper/R67N4QXP

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time, but read it as a negative result rather than a solution. The real content is one clean observation: in the Cohen-Kaplan-Nelson and Thomas scenarios, where Lambda ~ L^-2 with L the causal horizon, the horizon grows as R^{3/2} during matter domination, so Lambda redshifts like matter and w = 0. WMAP's w < -0.78 then excludes those scenarios as dark energy. The arithmetic checks out, including the generalized n > 2.7 bound. That is a genuine service: it closes off the most direct holographic route to the dark energy density, and people cite it for exactly that. The paper is also honest about its own status, saying plainly in the abstract [abstract:s2] that the equation of state is disfavored by the data, and hedging with 'this does not rule out holography per se.' I like that it does not oversell the survival route either; the dark-matter alternative is floated as an open question, not asserted as a fix. The one thing I would push back on is scope. The w = 0 conclusion depends entirely on identifying L with the past horizon, justified by a single causality sentence. The future event horizon grows more slowly and gives acceleration, which is how later holographic dark energy models got back on their feet. So 'does rule out a simple connection between dark energy and holography' is broader than what was shown; it rules out one cutoff choice. The stress-test's second point is fair too: the n > 2.7 generalization leans on the Lambda ~ s^{4/3} relation, and the Thomas s/L relation with an area law does not satisfy it, so the bound is not universal across the cited scenarios. Both are scope refinements, not errors. The solar-system k bound is a rough order-of-magnitude remark, not a calculation, and it is not load-bearing. The abstract's 'resolving the cosmological constant problem' framing [abstract:s1] is a bit generous for a paper whose main result is that the resolution does not survive the data, though the body is clear about this. Who should read it: anyone working on holographic dark energy or infrared cutoffs, and anyone who wants a compact statement of why the naive entropy-bound vacuum energy fails. It deserves a referee, and it has held up.

Referee report

Significance

The letter makes a genuine, checkable contribution: it takes the entropy-bound proposals at face value, extracts a sharp and falsifiable prediction (w = 0, equivalently Λ tracking the horizon and hence the matter density), and confronts it with the WMAP constraint. The scaling arithmetic is transparent and correct, and the compact bound n > 2.7 on entropy bounds of the form S < c L^n is a useful, quotable constraint for later work. The observation that Λ ∝ R^-3 is self-consistent with a matter-like expansion history also gives real support to the diffuse-dark-matter reinterpretation, since a component redshifting as R^-3 leaves R ~ t^{2/3} intact. The paper is candid about its assumptions, flagging the A^{3/4}-versus-area-law choice and the treatment of black hole states in the parenthetical after Eq. (3). Its value lies in closing off a plausible route rather than opening one, and it does so with a prediction that data can adjudicate.

Major objections (3)

[Paragraph following Eq. (5), and the sentence 'does rule out a simple connection between dark energy and holography'] The w = 0 conclusion rests entirely on identifying L with the past/causal horizon, which grows as R^{3/2} during matter domination. The justification given is causal ('gravitational influences have not had time to propagate between regions separated by more than L'), but no alternative infrared cutoff is examined. A future event-horizon cutoff grows more slowly and yields w < -1/3, evading the WMAP bound while remaining within the same entropy-bound logic. Because the paper's exclusion is stated as ruling out 'a simple connection between dark energy and holography' rather than 'these two scenarios with a past-horizon cutoff', the conclusion is broader than what is demonstrated. The author's own hedge ('This does not rule out holography per se') is appropriate; the following clause should be narrowed to match it, or the event-horizon variant should be analyzed and shown to fail for an independent reason.
[Abstract, sentence [abstract:s1]] The abstract's headline claim that the natural value of Λ 'thereby resolv[es] the cosmological constant problem' is not the paper's result. The body of the paper shows that the same scenarios predict w = 0 and are excluded as dark energy, and the abstract itself concedes this in the next sentence. As ordered, the abstract advertises a resolution and then withdraws it, which will mislead readers who stop at the first sentence. The claim should be recast conditionally, for example that entropy bounds would bring Λ into the observed range but that the resulting equation of state is excluded, with the dark matter reinterpretation offered as the surviving option.
[Paragraph following Eq. (5), the n > 2.7 bound] The generalization 'if we take the entropy bound S < c L^n and assume that the dark energy Λ(L) ~ s^{4/3}, the data requires that n > 2.7' is correct as stated but is specific to the Cohen-Kaplan-Nelson relation. Under the Thomas relation Λ ~ s/L, the same area-law bound (n = 2) already gives Λ ~ L^-2 and w = 0, and the corresponding constraint on n is different (approximately n > 3.5 rather than n > 2.7). The paper does name the s^{4/3} assumption, so this is not an error, but the sentence reads as a general statement about entropy bounds. It should say explicitly that the numerical bound depends on which Λ(s, L) relation is assumed, and ideally quote the value for both relations used in the paper.

Minor objections (6)

[Eq. (3) and Eq. (4)] The intermediate factors in the displayed chains do not reproduce the final scaling as printed: Eq. (3) shows (L^{3/2} L^3)^{4/3} where the entropy density requires L^{3/2}/L^3, and Eq. (4) shows a product of L factors where the Thomas relation requires s/L. The final L^-2 results are correct, but the intermediate expressions should be corrected so the reader can follow the arithmetic.
[Solar-system bound, paragraph following Eq. (6)] The statement that k = 2 is 'ruled out by more than 10 orders of magnitude' appears to overstate the estimate by about one order: using Λ(L_today) ~ 10^-10 eV^4, L_today ~ 10 Gly and L_solar ~ 50 AU, the ratio F/(M_sun/L^2) is of order 10^9. The qualitative conclusion is unaffected, but the quoted figure should be checked and the inputs (in particular the assumed L_today) stated.
[Paragraph following Eq. (5), structure formation sentence] The claim that Λ(L) is 'at all times comparable to the radiation + matter energy density, which would be problematic for structure formation [9]' is arguably a stronger and cleaner exclusion than the w bound, but it is disposed of in a single sentence supported by four Turner references. It would strengthen the paper to state the argument in one or two lines, and to identify which of the four references contains the relevant constraint.
[Dark matter alternative, paragraph following Eq. (5)] The suggestion that Λ(L) accounts for the diffuse dark matter is left as an open question regarding whether it clusters. It is worth noting explicitly that a smooth component redshifting as R^-3 is kinematically consistent with a matter-dominated expansion, so the scenario is not internally inconsistent; the real question is the growth of perturbations and the CMB, which the paper does not address. A sentence distinguishing these two issues would sharpen the proposal.
[Eq. (1) and the accompanying text] The relation Λ = Λ_0 + O(s^{4/3}) is quoted from [6, 7] without a coefficient or sign. Since the entire numerical estimate Λ ~ 10^-10 eV^4 depends on the order-unity coefficient being near one, a brief remark on its expected size and sign would help the reader judge how seriously to take the numerical coincidence.
[Reference [8] and the quoted constraint] The constraint w < -0.78 (95% CL) is attributed to Spergel et al. [8]; it would be clearer to state whether this is the WMAP-only or the combined WMAP plus supernova constraint, since the paper's exclusion depends on the numerical value.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Entropy bounds make the vacuum energy finite and land near the observed dark energy density, but the same mechanism forces that energy to redshift like matter, which the data exclude.

The reading

The paper asks whether holographic entropy bounds — the idea that gravity caps how many quantum states a region can hold — can explain why the vacuum energy of the universe is tiny rather than enormous. If the ultraviolet cutoff of field theory is tied to an infrared length $L$ by such a bound, the quantum correction to the cosmological constant becomes $O(L^{-2})$ rather than divergent, and plugging in today's horizon size gives about $10^{-10}$ eV$^4$: numerically the observed dark energy density. That would be a resolution of the cosmological constant problem, and the paper states the case for it sympathetically. The author then shows that the same construction has a fatal observational signature: because the horizon grows as the scale factor to the three-halves power during matter domination, the induced vacuum energy redshifts as $R^{-3}$, i.e. it has equation of state $w = 0$ rather than $w = -1$, and cosmic microwave background data require $w < -0.78$ at 95% confidence. The paper closes by offering a fallback — the same $L^{-2}$ energy could be the diffuse dark matter — and by bounding how strongly such an energy could vary with length scale from solar-system dynamics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing relation is $Lambda_{qm} sim s^{4/3} sim L^{-2}$, obtained by tying the ultraviolet cutoff to the infrared size of the region through an entropy bound. In the Cohen-Kaplan-Nelson version, one demands that no state in the effective field theory have a Schwarzschild radius exceeding $L$, which caps the entropy at $A^{3/4} sim L^{3/2}$ and yields $Lambda_{qm} sim (L^{3/2}/L^3)^{4/3} sim L^{-2}$. Thomas's version assumes the usual area law $S < A$ but assigns delocalized states a typical energy $sim 1/L$, giving $Lambda_{qm} sim sL sim L^{-2}$ by a different route. Both routes produce the same scaling, which is why the author treats the $L^{-2}$ behaviour as the robust feature and the equation-of-state problem as generic rather than an artifact of one construction. A secondary piece of machinery is a power-law ansatz $Lambda(L) sim 10^{-10} {rm eV}^4 (L_{today}/L)^k$, bounded by requiring the resulting repulsive force $F(L) sim Lambda(L) L$ to stay well below the Sun's pull on solar-system bodies at $L sim 50$ AU.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a tension internal to holographic ideas about the cosmological constant. Entropy bounds tie the ultraviolet cutoff $M$ of a region of size $L$ to that size, so the vacuum energy correction scales as $s^{4/3} sim L^{-2}$ (following the earlier proposals of Cohen, Kaplan and Nelson, and of Thomas), and evaluating at the current horizon reproduces $sim 10^{-10}$ eV$^4$. But the value of $Lambda$ that enters Einstein's equations at any earlier time is the one set by the horizon size then, and during matter domination the horizon grows as $R(t)^{3/2}$, giving $Lambda(L) sim R(t)^{-3}$. An energy density that redshifts as $R^{-3}$ is matter, not a cosmological constant: $w equiv p/rho = 0$. The author notes that WMAP and supernova data, sensitive to $Lambda$ over a redshift range of about $10^3$, require $w < -0.78$ at 95% confidence, so the data demand a cosmological constant far more constant than these scenarios supply. The exclusion is stated in a generalized form: an entropy bound $S < c L^n$ with $Lambda(L) sim s^{4/3}$ is compatible with the data only if $n > 2.7$. The author is explicit that this does not rule out holography itself, only a simple identification of dark energy with a holographically bounded vacuum energy.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the relevant length $L$ is the causal horizon, which grows as the scale factor to the three-halves power during matter domination; that choice is what forces the induced vacuum energy to redshift like matter and produces $w = 0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the holographic vacuum energy is $sim L^{-2}$ with $L$ the causal horizon, then dark energy is indistinguishable from a matter component in its redshift behaviour, so any detection of $w$ significantly below zero over cosmological distances falsifies the scenario.
An entropy bound of the form $S < c L^n$ must have $n > 2.7$ (95% confidence) for the induced vacuum energy to be consistent with the measured equation of state.
The same $L^{-2}$ energy density, about $10^{-10}$ eV$^4$, is within a factor of two of the observed dark matter density, so it could be re-interpreted as the diffuse dark matter while dark energy comes from elsewhere.
For a power-law dependence $Lambda(L) propto L^{-k}$, solar-system planetary motion rules out $k = 2$ by more than ten orders of magnitude and only just permits $k = 1$.
Holography can still improve the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant without supplying the dark energy itself; the author separates the fine-tuning problem from the identity of the dark component.

Reading between the lines

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

The $w = 0$ conclusion depends on choosing the causal (particle) horizon, which grows as $R^{3/2}$ during matter domination; an infrared cutoff set instead by a future event horizon grows more slowly and would give $w < -1/3$, which is the route later holographic dark energy models took to recover acceleration.
If the holographic energy is really the dark matter, it should participate in gravitational clustering, so a smooth horizon-scale component of the mass budget versus a clumpy one is a discriminating signature for structure formation.
The solar-system force bound translates into a constraint on any scenario in which vacuum energy responds to the size of a subsystem, and planetary ephemeris data could tighten $k = 1$ considerably.
The generalized $n > 2.7$ bound is a template: any proposal that ties the ultraviolet cutoff to a horizon scale can be converted into a constraint on the entropy-area exponent, independent of the details of the bound.

Original abstract

Entropy bounds render quantum corrections to the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ finite. Under certain assumptions, the natural value of $\Lambda$ is of order the observed dark energy density $\sim 10^{-10} {\rm eV}^4$, thereby resolving the cosmological constant problem. We note that the dark energy equation of state in these scenarios is $w \equiv p / \rho = 0$ over cosmological distances, and is strongly disfavored by observational data. Alternatively, $\Lambda$ in these scenarios might account for the diffuse dark matter component of the cosmological energy density.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,602 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.89 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.92 · compares with prior results 0.20 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Entropy bounds render quantum corrections to the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ finite. Under certain assumptions, the natural value of $\Lambda$ is of order the observed dark energy density $\sim 10^{-10} {\rm eV}^4$, thereby resolving the cosmological constant problem. We note that the dark energy equation of state in these scenarios is $w \equiv p / \rho = 0$ over cosmological distances, and is strongly disfavored by observational data. Alternatively, $\Lambda$ in these scenarios might account for the diffuse dark matter component of the cosmological energy density.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Entropy bounds render quantum corrections to the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ finite.	result 0.85	0.21	0.34	asserted 1.00
s1	Under certain assumptions, the natural value of $\Lambda$ is of order the observed dark energy density $\sim 10^{-10} {\rm eV}^4$, thereby resolving the cosmological constant problem.	result 0.72	0.33	0.57	asserted 0.64
s2	We note that the dark energy equation of state in these scenarios is $w \equiv p / \rho = 0$ over cosmological distances, and is strongly disfavored by observational data.	limitation 0.76	0.41	0.20	asserted 1.00
s3	Alternatively, $\Lambda$ in these scenarios might account for the diffuse dark matter component of the cosmological energy density.	interpretation 0.91	0.16	0.08	speculative 0.93

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.86 · evidence from argument 0.67.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (12)

[6]

A. Cohen, D. Kaplan and A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 4971

View on Pith 1999
[7]

S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 081301

View on Pith 2002
[1]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2333; Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 3292; 23 (1981) 287

View on Pith 1973
[2]

G. ’t Hooft, “Dimensional Reduction In Quantum Gravity, ” edited by A. Ali, J. El- lis, and S. Randjbar-Daemi, Salamfestschrift: A Collectio n of Talks (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore,1993), [arXiv:gr-qc/9310026]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[3]

L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377, [arXiv:hep-th/9409089]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[4]

W. Fischler and L. Susskind, [arXiv:hep-th/9806039]; R . Bousso, JHEP 9907 (1999) 004 [arXiv:hep-th/9905177]; Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 121302 [arXiv:hep-th/0210295]; Rev. Mod Phys. 74 (2002) 825 [arXiv:hep-th/0203101]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[5]

S. Weinberg, Rev.Mod.Phys. 61:1-23,1989

View on Pith 1989
[8]

D.N. Spergel, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003), [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[9]

M. S. Turner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17S1, 180 (2002) [arXiv:astro-ph/0202008]; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17, 3446 (2002) [arXiv:astro-ph/0202007]; [arXiv:astro-ph /0202005]; [arXiv:astro-ph/0108103]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[10]

P. Horava and D. Minic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 1611. 5

View on Pith 2000
[11]

T. Banks, [arXiv:hep-th/0007146], [arXiv:hep-th/03 06074]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

W. Fischler, Taking de Sitter Seriously , talk given at Role of Scaling Laws in Physics and Biology (Geoﬀ West festschrift), Santa Fe, Dec. 2000. 6

View on Pith 2000

Forward citations

Cited by 16 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Extended Local Infrared Cutoff for the Holographic Density
hep-th 2026-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

An extended local infrared cutoff for holographic dark energy yields exact analytical solutions and allows H0 values between 70.5 and 72.4 km/s/Mpc under BAO constraints.
A Model of Holographic Dark Energy
hep-th 2004-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Using the future event horizon as the holographic infrared cutoff yields a dark energy equation of state w = -0.90 given the observed cosmic dark energy fraction of 0.73.
A comprehensive numerical study on four categories of holographic dark energy models
astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Seven holographic dark energy models are constrained with DESI BAO, Planck CMB, and PantheonPlus supernovae; LambdaCDM stays preferred, Ricci dark energy is ruled out, and event-horizon models show large data-set-depe...
A Holographic Dark Energy Model from Ricci Scalar Curvature
astro-ph 2007-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A dark energy component proportional to the Ricci scalar curvature reproduces the observed cosmic expansion, avoids the causality problem of holographic dark energy, and leaves matter power spectra and CMB anisotropie...
A Dark Energy Model Characterized by the Age of the Universe
hep-th 2007-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Modeling dark energy as quantum space-time fluctuation energy scaled by the age of the universe reproduces the observed density and drives eternal power-law acceleration, but the single parameter cannot satisfy both t...

Show 11 more citing papers

Cosmological evolution with a logarithmic correction in the dark energy entropy
astro-ph 2006-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A logarithmic entropy correction for the cosmological horizon leads to a variable Λ(t) that the authors claim fits observations and resolves the coincidence and age problems.
Phantom-Divide Crossing in Barrow-Tsallis Holographic Dark Energy with a Scale-Dependent Barrow Exponent
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For generalized-entropy holographic dark energy with a future-event-horizon cutoff, the phantom-divide crossing on the kinematic branch is unique, quintessence-to-phantom, and fixes the local entropy-scaling dimension...
Hubble Tension as an Effect of Horizon Entanglement Nonequilibrium
astro-ph.CO 2026-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

A phenomenological 'horizon entanglement deficit' with the form ρ ∝ H² is fit to low-z data under a forced H0=73 prior; the nonzero amplitude is a restatement of that prior.
Kaniadakis holographic dark energy and cosmology
gr-qc 2021-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A one-parameter extension of holographic dark energy based on Kaniadakis entropy reproduces the standard cosmic thermal history and yields an equation of state that can be quintessence-like or phantom-like depending o...
A New Model of Agegraphic Dark Energy
astro-ph 2007-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Choosing conformal time instead of cosmic age in the Károlyházy energy density gives a dark energy model with w = -1/3 in radiation domination, -2/3 in matter domination, and -1 today.
Reconstructing holographic quintessence
astro-ph 2006-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For c>=1, the holographic dark energy model is mapped to a canonical quintessence field, and its potential and dynamics are reconstructed explicitly.
Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity
gr-qc 2017-12 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A comprehensive review that catalogues fixed points and stability conditions for roughly a hundred dark-energy and modified-gravity cosmologies, ruling some out on purely theoretical grounds and flagging others for ob...
Viscous Cosmology for Early- and Late-Time Universe
gr-qc 2017-06 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Bulk viscosity, treated as a free function of density or Hubble rate, can reproduce inflation, late-time acceleration, phantom crossing, and bounces, but the review offers no microphysical derivation of the viscosity itself.
Cosmological Evolution With Interaction Between Dark Energy And Dark Matter
astro-ph.CO 2013-09 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Interacting dark sector models span a wide space of couplings, and several of them produce expansion histories, deceleration behaviour, and transient acceleration that differ qualitatively from the standard cosmologic...
Dark energy cosmology: the equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests
gr-qc 2012-05 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

The paper reviews how many dark energy and modified-gravity models can be recast as equivalent fluid or scalar-field descriptions and can be tuned to fit current cosmological data.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy
astro-ph 2004-03 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Observations support a universe with roughly one-third non-baryonic dark matter and two-thirds negative-pressure dark energy, and the review surveys the models and diagnostics used to test that picture.

How the literature uses it

90 arXiv papers cite this in 146 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 82 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 6 papers

In [ref] , when the Hubble horizon is taken as the IR cut-off, the holographic dark energy is written as [equation] Unfortunately, it can not give a current accelerated expansion universe [ref] in this case.

Generalized Holographic and Ricci Dark Energy Models · Generalized holographic and Ricci dark energy · contest 0.81
Hence, in the case of Barrow holographic dark energy this recipe should be followed too (note that in [ref] it was tried to apply Barrow holographic dark energy in a non-flat universe but with $L$ being the Hubble horizon, a choice that is known to be not correct [ref] since it cannot lead to acceleration).

Barrow Holographic Dark Energy in non-flat Universe · Barrow holographic dark energy in non-flat geometry · contest 0.74
The initial work did not lead to the correct equation of state $ω=p/ρ$ for the dark energy [ref] .

Holographic Principle, Cosmological Constant and Cyclic Cosmology · Introduction · contest 0.80

Compares with it 4 papers

This is tremendous different from holographic dark energy model where non-accelerated expansion universe can be achieved when the Hubble horizon taken as the IR cut-off [ref] .

Time Variable Cosmological Constants from Cosmological Horizons · Hubble horizon as cosmological length scale · 0.95
The RHDE behaves similarly to the scaling solution as found in the standard model of the holographic dark energy [ref] when $H^-1≪L_$.

R\'enyi Holographic Dark Energy · Conclusion · 0.93
This is tremendous different from holographic dark energy model where non-accelerated expansion universe can be achieved when the Hubble horizon taken as the role of an IR cut-off [ref] .

Holographic Dark Energy Model with Hubble Horizon as an IR Cut-off · Fixed constant $c$ · 0.88

Cites it as support 3 papers

Indeed, it is shown that EoS in non-interacting model with Hubble horizon as IR cutoff cannot be able to define cosmic acceleration [ref] .

A new holographic dark energy model in Brans-Dicke theory with logarithmic scalar field · Interacting model · 0.99
Actually, it has been pointed out in [ref] that the model with $L=H^-1$ does not work.

Weak Gravity Conjecture and Holographic/Agegraphic Dark Energy · New Criterions of WGC in HDE and NADE Models · 0.97
For $F=1$ the Hubble scale $L=H^-1$ does not lead to accelerated expansion [ref] , whereas the event horizon yields realistic late-time dynamics [ref] .

Phantom-Divide Crossing in Barrow-Tsallis Holographic Dark Energy with a Scale-Dependent Barrow Exponent · Holographic Dark Energy with Generalized Entropy · 0.96

Cites it as background 37 papers

A possible approach to explain the current acceleration of the universe is based on the holographic dark energy [ref] .

The holographic Ricci dark energy and its possible doomsdays · Introduction · 0.96
Currently, an interesting attempt in this direction is the so-called “holographic dark energy” proposal [ref] .

Correspondence between Holographic and Gauss-Bonnet dark energy models · Introduction · 0.91
The UV cut-off is related to the vacuum energy, and IR cut-off is related to the large scale of the universe, for example Hubble horizon, event horizon or particle horizon as discussed by [ref] .

Holographic Dark Energy in Brans-Dicke Theory · Introduction · 0.93

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [6]

A. Cohen, D. Kaplan and A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 4971

View on Pith 1999

[2] [7]

S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 081301

View on Pith 2002

[3] [1]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2333; Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 3292; 23 (1981) 287

View on Pith 1973

[4] [2]

G. ’t Hooft, “Dimensional Reduction In Quantum Gravity, ” edited by A. Ali, J. El- lis, and S. Randjbar-Daemi, Salamfestschrift: A Collectio n of Talks (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore,1993), [arXiv:gr-qc/9310026]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[5] [3]

L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377, [arXiv:hep-th/9409089]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[6] [4]

W. Fischler and L. Susskind, [arXiv:hep-th/9806039]; R . Bousso, JHEP 9907 (1999) 004 [arXiv:hep-th/9905177]; Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 121302 [arXiv:hep-th/0210295]; Rev. Mod Phys. 74 (2002) 825 [arXiv:hep-th/0203101]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[7] [5]

S. Weinberg, Rev.Mod.Phys. 61:1-23,1989

View on Pith 1989

[8] [8]

D.N. Spergel, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003), [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[9] [9]

M. S. Turner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17S1, 180 (2002) [arXiv:astro-ph/0202008]; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17, 3446 (2002) [arXiv:astro-ph/0202007]; [arXiv:astro-ph /0202005]; [arXiv:astro-ph/0108103]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[10] [10]

P. Horava and D. Minic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 1611. 5

View on Pith 2000

[11] [11]

T. Banks, [arXiv:hep-th/0007146], [arXiv:hep-th/03 06074]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[12] [12]

W. Fischler, Taking de Sitter Seriously , talk given at Role of Scaling Laws in Physics and Biology (Geoﬀ West festschrift), Santa Fe, Dec. 2000. 6

View on Pith 2000