Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

A teleparallel Gauss-Bonnet gravity model with no cosmological constant can mimic dark energy and shifts the fitted Hubble constant to 69–71.5 km/s/Mpc, partially easing the Hubble tension.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 10:25 UTC pith:LKHD3KNV

load-bearing objection A competent fit of a known f(T,T_G) model to DESI DR2/CC/Pantheon+ data, but the H0-alleviation and model-preference claims rest on a missing ΛCDM benchmark and an internally inconsistent Table 2. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.10127 v2 pith:LKHD3KNV submitted 2026-01-15 gr-qc

Hubble Tension and Dark Energy in Teleparallel Gauss-Bonnet Gravity: New Constraints from DESI BAO, Pantheon^+ and Hubble Data

Santosh V. Lohakare , S. K. Maurya , Aaisha Al Qassabi , B. Mishra This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords teleparallel gravityGauss-Bonnet invariantdark energyHubble tensioncosmological constantMCMC parameter estimationDESI BAOPantheon+ supernovae
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that a specific teleparallel Gauss-Bonnet gravity model, with Lagrangian f(T,T_G) = -T + α√(T² + βT_G), can reproduce late-time cosmic acceleration and an effective dark-energy behavior without introducing a cosmological constant. Fitting the expansion history against cosmic-chronometer H(z) data, Pantheon+ supernovae (without the SH0ES calibration), and DESI BAO releases, the authors find H0 in the range 69.14–71.41 km/s/Mpc, an effective equation of state near -0.664 to -0.693, and smooth deceleration-to-acceleration transition at z≈0.83–0.85. They also analyze linear scalar perturbations and report that the best-fit solutions are stable, with both Hubble and matter perturbations decaying at late times. The paper is careful to note that the Hubble tension is only partially relieved, not fully resolved, and that the extra boundary condition H'(0)=γ carries substantial weight in producing the dark-energy mimicry.

Core claim

The central claim is that the second-order modified Friedmann equation for the f(T,T_G) = -T + α√(T² + βT_G) model, with H(0)=H0 and H'(0)=γ treated as free boundary conditions, yields a numerically solved H(z) that fits the combined late-time datasets as well as or better than ΛCDM in terms of χ², while giving H0 from 69.144 to 71.411 km/s/Mpc. This is achieved without a cosmological constant, with the effective dark energy emerging from the torsion-Gauss-Bonnet geometry. The paper further claims that the posterior-supported cosmological branch is stable under linear scalar perturbations, in the sense that δ(t) and δ_m(t) decay or approach constants, although the rapid decay implies suppres

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the model Lagrangian f(T,T_G) = -T + α√(T² + βT_G), where T = 6H² is the torsion scalar and T_G = 24H²(Ḣ+H²) is the teleparallel Gauss-Bonnet invariant for a flat FLRW universe. Substituting this into the first modified Friedmann equation gives a nonlinear second-order ordinary differential equation for H(z) (Eq. 2.24). The second-order nature introduces an extra boundary condition H'(0)=γ, fitted to data, which effectively encodes the dark-energy mimickry; numerical integration of this ODE then feeds the likelihood for the MCMC analysis. The perturbation analysis reduces to a coupled linear system for δ(t) and δ_m(t) with coefficients derived from the same Lagrang

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the second-order Friedmann ODE (Eq. 2.24) is the correct dynamical equation for this f(T,T_G) model and that its second boundary condition H'(0)=γ is a free parameter that the data can legitimately fix; if γ is actually fixed by the theory or arises from a numerical branch-selection artifact, the dark-energy mimicry and the H0 shift would be fitting artifacts rather than genuine predictions.

What would settle it

A direct consistency check: take the best-fit parameters from Table 1 and, without re-fitting γ, impose the second Friedmann equation (Eq. 2.20) with p_m=0 at all redshifts; if the resulting H(z) does not also satisfy that equation, the model does not admit a strictly pressureless matter solution and the background is inconsistent. A second, observational falsifier would be to measure H(z) and the angular diameter distance at z > 1.5 with DESI DR2 anisotropic BAO: if the model's predicted H(z) deviates beyond the DESI uncertainties there while ΛCDM fits, the dark-energy mimicry breaks down in

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, it provides a viable dark-energy alternative that needs no cosmological constant and fits the CC, Pantheon+, and DESI BAO data with negative ΔAIC compared with ΛCDM across all four dataset combinations, indicating a better goodness-of-fit per the paper's statistics.
  • The inferred H0 (69–71.5 km/s/Mpc) lies between the Planck value (~67.4) and SH0ES (~73.0), easing the Hubble tension by roughly 2–4 km/s/Mpc, although the paper finds a residual 3.2σ–4.1σ discrepancy persists.
  • The claimed perturbative stability makes the model a candidate for structure-formation predictions, but the rapid decay of perturbations implies suppressed late-time clustering, which the paper flags as a possible inconsistency with galaxy-survey and weak-lensing data.
  • The near-zero ΔBIC for the BAO1 and DESI DR1 combinations means the extra model parameters are not strongly justified on Bayesian grounds, so the comparative advantage over ΛCDM rests mainly on AIC and χ², not BIC.
  • The model predicts a smooth transition redshift z_t ≈ 0.834–0.846, consistent with independent observational estimates, providing a specific testable signature.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The freely fitted derivative boundary condition γ is doing much of the phenomenological work; a stronger test would be to derive γ from the theory's full field equations (e.g., by imposing the second Friedmann equation at all redshifts) and see whether the dark-energy mimicry survives without tuning.
  • The stability analysis only covers linear, isotropic scalar perturbations; extending it to vector and tensor perturbations and to the matter power spectrum (S8) would give a sharper falsifier than H(z) alone, because the paper's own perturbation results suggest suppressed growth.
  • The model's parameter space (α, β, γ) likely contains directions degenerate with ΛCDM; checking the best-fit effective equation of state against the CPL parameterization (w0, wa) would clarify whether the model is genuinely a different physical explanation or simply a flexible phenomenological fit.
  • If the H0 shift is genuinely geometric, the model predicts a specific positive correlation between H0 and the effective dark-energy density at intermediate redshifts; a future independent H0 measurement from gravitational-wave standard sirens at z ~ 0.5–1 could discriminate this from other late-time dark-energy solutions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a specific f(T,T_G) gravity model, f = -T + α√(T² + βT_G), in flat FLRW cosmology. It derives a second-order modified Friedmann equation for H(z) (Eq. 2.24), solves it numerically with boundary conditions H(0)=H0 and H'(0)=γ, and fits the parameters (H0, Ωm0, α, β, γ, M) to CC, Pantheon+ (PPS), and BAO1/DESI DR1/DR2 data using MCMC. Table 1 reports H0 values between about 69.1 and 71.4 km/s/Mpc; the paper claims the model mimics dark energy without a cosmological constant, yields ω_eff(0)≈-0.66 to -0.69, partially alleviates the Hubble tension, and is stable under the perturbation analysis of Section 4.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, this would be a useful late-time constraint on a non-trivial teleparallel Gauss-Bonnet gravity model and an interesting test of whether such models can reproduce the accelerated expansion and affect H0. The paper has real strengths: it uses public datasets, a standard MCMC pipeline, and it actually solves the higher-order Friedmann equation rather than postulating a convenient H(z). The reported Ωm0 and H0 posteriors are plausible. However, the central evidential claims are not yet established: the H0 'shift' is not benchmarked against ΛCDM on the same datasets, the information-criterion table is internally inconsistent, and the perturbation section does not recover the GR limit. These issues are load-bearing, so the paper needs major revision rather than minor polishing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1, Fig. 4] The headline claim of a 'partial alleviation' of the Hubble tension is based on comparing the fitted H0 of the f(T,T_G) model with Planck and SH0ES literature values. Since H0 is a free parameter in Table 1, this does not demonstrate that the modified gravity shifts H0 relative to ΛCDM. Table 2 shows that a ΛCDM fit was performed on the same data, but its H0 values are not reported. Please report the same-data ΛCDM H0 posterior (and the difference H0_model - H0_ΛCDM) for each dataset. Without this control, the 'shift toward 69-71.5' cannot be attributed to the model rather than to the datasets themselves.
  2. [§3.2, Table 2] The reported ΔAIC and ΔBIC are inconsistent with the stated parameter counts. For CC+PPS, N=32+1701=1733, Δχ²=-21.070, and ln N≈7.457. The reported ΔBIC=-6.155 equals Δχ² + 2 ln N, i.e. Δn=2. The text states that f(T,T_G) has 6 free parameters and ΛCDM has 3, which would give Δn=3 and ΔBIC≈+1.3 (and ΔAIC≈-15.1 rather than -17.070). The same counting problem affects the other rows. Please specify exactly which parameters are counted in each model (including M) and recompute the information criteria; as printed, the claimed statistical preference over ΛCDM is overstated.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (4.13)-(4.14), Appendix A] The GR limit of the perturbation analysis is incorrect. With f=-T and c_m=κ²ρbar=3Hbar², Eq. (4.13) gives δ=-δ_m/6 and hence δ_m∝a^{1/2}. Direct linearization of the GR Friedmann equation 3H²=κ²ρ gives 6Hbar²δ=3Hbar²δ_m, i.e. δ=δ_m/2. The sign/factor discrepancy indicates an error in Eq. (4.13) or in the perturbation coefficients. Moreover, the two-function ansatz H=Hbar(1+δ), ρ_m=ρbar(1+δ_m) omits metric potentials and velocity perturbations, so calling this 'linear scalar perturbation equations' overstates the analysis. The stability conclusions of Fig. 5 and the connection to structure growth in Section 5 are therefore not supported in the current form.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs §3.1.2] The abstract states 'Pantheon+ without SH0ES' while §3.1.2 says PPS data are 'calibrated by SH0ES Cepheid observations'. Since M is fitted as a free parameter, the 'without SH0ES' wording is appropriate; please make the text consistent.
  2. [Eq. (2.25)] The ΛCDM Hubble function as printed, HΛCDM = H0√(1−Ωm0+ΩDE0), is dimensionally inconsistent and has no redshift dependence. It should presumably be H(z)=H0√(Ωm0(1+z)³+1−Ωm0).
  3. [Table 2] The table formatting is garbled (e.g., AIC values appear concatenated with χ² values), making it hard to verify the numbers. Please reformat and also list the number of parameters used for each model in the table.
  4. [Fig. 4] The figure caption/text says H0 values for both ΛCDM and f(T,T_G) are from joint analyses, but Table 1 only reports the f(T,T_G) values. Specify whether the ΛCDM points come from the same fits or from literature, and provide the numerical ΛCDM H0 values.
  5. [§3.2] No MCMC convergence diagnostics (e.g., Gelman-Rubin R-hat, effective sample sizes) are reported. Please include them, as they are needed to assess the posteriors in Table 1.
  6. [Appendix A] The coefficient c0 contains notation such as 'H_0^6' that looks like a typo for Hbar^6. Please check the dimensions and notation of the perturbation coefficients.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Derived dark-energy diagnostics and the H0 'shift' are re-expressions of MCMC-fitted boundary conditions; no same-data ΛCDM benchmark is provided.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1, Eq. (2.24); Section 3, effective EoS definition after Fig. 3]
    "The second-order nonlinear differential equation (2.24) for H(z) requires two boundary conditions: (i) the present-day value H(0) = H0, and (ii) the derivative constraint H′(0) = γ, where γ is optimized via MCMC analysis."

    The paper defines ωeff = −1 + 2(1+z)HH′/(3H^2), so at z=0, ωeff(0) = −1 + 2γ/(3H0). Both H0 and γ are MCMC-fitted boundary conditions (priors [50,100] and [0,50]). The reported ωeff(0) ≈ −0.664 to −0.693, the deceleration parameter q0, and the transition redshift zt are therefore one-to-one functions of the fitted ratio γ/H0, not independent outputs of the theory. The same late-time data used to fit γ/H0 are then invoked to claim consistency, so the agreement is partly by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Table 1]
    "and shifts the inferred value of H0 toward 69–71.5 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, suggesting a partial alleviation, though not a complete resolution, of the Hubble tension."

    Table 1 lists H0 as an MCMC-constrained parameter (69.144–71.411) with a prior [50.0,100.0], and Figure 1 shows H0 as a fitted posterior. The 'shift' is thus the fitted value of a free parameter, not a theory prediction. No ΛCDM fit to the identical datasets is reported, so 'partial alleviation' is not benchmarked against a same-data standard model; the headline result is the input boundary condition relabeled as an output.

full rationale

The field equations are genuinely derived from the f(T,T_G) action, and the perturbation analysis is a self-contained check of the particular fitted solutions; those parts are not circular. However, the paper's central claims—that the model 'mimics dark energy' and 'shifts H0 toward 69–71.5'—reduce to the MCMC-fitted boundary conditions H(0)=H0 and H′(0)=γ. The effective EoS at z=0 is algebraically fixed by the fitted ratio γ/H0, so reporting ωeff(0) ≈ −0.66 to −0.69 as a model outcome is a restatement of the fit. Similarly, the H0 'partial alleviation' is the posterior of a fitted parameter compared against external early-universe values, without a same-data ΛCDM benchmark. The Table 2 ΔAIC/ΔBIC values are internally inconsistent (e.g., ΔAIC = Δχ² + 2Δn implies Δn = 2 for CC+PPS, contradicting the stated six versus three parameters), but that is a statistical correctness issue, not a circularity. The self-citations [57,58] for the model ansatz are not load-bearing because the ansatz is stated explicitly and the ODE is derived here. Overall the central dark-energy and H0-alleviation conclusions are partly by construction, so a score of 6 is warranted: partial circularity, with an independent derivation framework remaining.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on six fitted parameters (α, β, γ, H0, Ωm0, M) plus imported field equations and an ad hoc model ansatz. The effective dark-energy sector is generated by the combination of the fitted boundary condition γ and the couplings (α, β), so the 'prediction' content is limited. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are invented; the 'effective dark-energy component' is a diagnostic of the fitted expansion history, not a new entity.

free parameters (6)
  • α = 1.189–1.301
    Dimensionless coupling in f = -T + α√(T² + βT_G); fitted by MCMC (Table 1).
  • β = -2.184 to -2.507
    Dimensionless coupling controlling the T_G contribution; fitted by MCMC (Table 1).
  • γ = H'(0) = 31.17–33.89
    Boundary condition for the second-order Friedmann ODE (Eq. 2.24); fitted with flat prior [0,50]; effectively sets the present-day deceleration and contributes the dark-energy mimicry.
  • H0 = 69.14–71.41 km/s/Mpc
    Present-day Hubble constant; standard fitted parameter (Table 1); the headline 'alleviation' is this fitted value.
  • Ωm0 = 0.291–0.322
    Current matter density parameter; fitted (Table 1).
  • M (SNe absolute magnitude) = -19.22 to -19.38 mag
    Supernova absolute magnitude; fitted nuisance parameter (Table 1).
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Field equations (2.13), (2.19)–(2.20) of f(T,T_G) gravity as derived in Kofinas & Saridakis [47,48].
    The paper imports the f(T,T_G) action and field equations from prior work without re-deriving them; if these equations are wrong, the central fit falls.
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric with the diagonal tetrad (2.15)–(2.16).
    Background ansatz; the diagonal tetrad is standard for FLRW in f(T) gravity but its consistency for general f(T,T_G) is assumed, not demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper Model ansatz f(T,T_G) = -T + α√(T² + βT_G) (Eq. 2.22).
    Chosen as a 'minimal yet non-trivial' model based on symmetry/dimensional considerations; no derivation from a deeper principle. The entire analysis is conditional on this choice.
  • standard math Pressureless matter (p_m = 0) with standard conservation ρ_m ∝ (1+z)³ (Eq. 2.23).
    Standard background assumption; neglects radiation, curvature, and possible matter-geometry couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear perturbation expansion (4.6)–(4.7) with homogeneous δ(t), δ_m(t), no gauge fixing, and coefficients c0–c2, cm from Appendix A.
    The 'scalar perturbation' treatment is homogeneous and k-independent; the GR limit yields δ_m ∝ a^{1/2}, not the physical growing mode ∝ a, so the analysis does not probe standard structure growth.
  • domain assumption Square-root regularity: T² + βT_G > 0 and H³((2β+3)H − 2β(1+z)H') > 0 along the fitted branch.
    Never checked in the paper; the fitted parameters keep the argument positive at z = 0, but the domain of validity across the full redshift range is unverified.
  • domain assumption Flat priors H0 ∈ [50,100], Ωm0 ∈ [0.01,1], α,β ∈ [-5,5], γ ∈ [0,50], M ∈ [-20,-18] and the dataset covariance treatments are adequate.
    Statistical assumptions of the MCMC; likelihood details and covariance usage are only partially stated.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22157 in / 31802 out tokens · 288039 ms · 2026-08-03T10:25:19.319680+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We explore the cosmological dynamics of a teleparallel Gauss-Bonnet gravity model defined by the torsion scalar $T$ and the torsion-based Gauss-Bonnet invariant $T_{\mathcal{G}}$, deriving modified Friedmann equations for a flat FLRW Universe and corresponding linear scalar perturbation equations. Using a numerical approach, we solve these equations for pressureless matter, predicting the redshift evolution of the Hubble parameter $H(z)$. Using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis based on late-time observations from Cosmic Chronometers, Pantheon$^+$ without SH0ES, and DESI BAO Data Release 1 and Data Release 2, we constrain the model parameters and show that this class of $f(T,T_\mathcal{G})$ cosmologies can mimic an effective dark-energy component without introducing an explicit cosmological constant. We further examine the scalar perturbation sector of the posterior-supported cosmological branch and find that the solutions considered in this work remain well-behaved within the adopted perturbative treatment. The model yields a present-day effective equation-of-state parameter in the range $\omega_{\rm eff}(z=0)\approx -0.664$ to $-0.693$, consistent with late-time observations, and shifts the inferred value of $H_0$ toward $69$--$71.5\ {\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, suggesting a partial alleviation, though not a complete resolution, of the Hubble tension.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Modifying $\Lambda$CDM dynamics via out-of-equilibrium axions: reconciling SH0ES and DESI $H_0$ values

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Out-of-equilibrium axion dark matter modifies late-time expansion to reconcile SH0ES H0 ≈ 73 km/s/Mpc with DESI BAO data while recovering standard behavior at higher redshifts.

  2. Modifying $\Lambda$CDM dynamics via out-of-equilibrium axions: reconciling SH0ES and DESI $H_0$ values

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.0

    A two-parameter model in which axion dark matter is driven out of equilibrium at late times fits SH0ES and DESI data with H0 ≈ 73 km/s/Mpc, but only when the SH0ES prior is included.

  3. Hubble tension: a short review of theoretical explanations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0

    A comprehensive review finds no theoretical Hubble-tension solution yet passes all consistency tests; new early-dark-energy chains reach high H0 only when the SH0ES calibration is added.

  4. QCD CP-violation scenario for a revised cosmological dynamics: analysis of the binned Pantheon Sample of Super Novae Ia

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 reject novelty 3.0

    The paper fits a dark-matter–dark-energy interaction model from a complex scalar field to binned Pantheon SNeIa data and claims to explain the redshift-running H0, but the derivation's equations are internally inconsistent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Kowalski, D

    M. Kowalski, D. Rubin, G. Aldering et al.,Improved Cosmological Constraints from New, Old, and Combined Supernova Data Sets,Astrophys. J.686(2008) 749. – 21 – Tracer zeff DM /rd DH /rd rorD V /rd BGS 0.295 - - 7.942±0.075 LRG1 0.510 13.588±0.167 21.863±0.425 12.720±0.099 LRG2 0.706 17.351±0.177 19.455±0.330 16.050±0.110 LRG3+ELG1 0.934 21.576±0.152 17.641...

    2008

  2. [4]

    P.A.R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud et al.,Planck 2015 results,Astron. Astrophys.594 (2016) A13

    2015

  3. [5]

    Jarosik, C.L

    N. Jarosik, C.L. Bennett, J. Dunkley et al.,SEVEN-YEAR WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE (WMAP*) OBSERVATIONS: SKY MAPS, SYSTEMATIC ERRORS, AND BASIC RESULTS,Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser.192(2011) 14

    2011

  4. [6]

    Komatsu, J

    E. Komatsu, J. Dunkley, M.R. Nolta et al.,FIVE-YEAR WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE* OBSERVATIONS: COSMOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION, Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser.180(2009) 330

    2009

  5. [7]

    Benjamin, C

    J. Benjamin, C. Heymans, E. Semboloni et al.,Cosmological constraints from the 100-deg2 weak-lensing survey,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.381(2007) 702

    2007

  6. [8]

    L. Fu, E. Semboloni, H. Hoekstra et al.,Very weak lensing in the CFHTLS wide: cosmology from cosmic shear in the linear regime,Astron. Astrophys.479(2008) 9

    2008

  7. [9]

    Amendola, M

    L. Amendola, M. Kunz and D. Sapone,Measuring the dark side (with weak lensing),J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2008(2008) 013

    2008

  8. [10]

    Tegmark, M.A

    M. Tegmark, M.A. Strauss, M.R. Blanton et al.,Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 103501

    2004

  9. [11]

    Cole, W.J

    S. Cole, W.J. Percival, J.A. Peacock et al.,The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: power-spectrum analysis of the final data set and cosmological implications,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.362 (2005) 505

    2005

  10. [12]

    Eisenstein, I

    D.J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D.W. Hogg et al.,Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies,Astrophys. J.633(2005) 560

    2005

  11. [13]

    Percival, B.A

    W.J. Percival, B.A. Reid, D.J. Eisenstein et al.,Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sample,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.401(2010) 2148

    2010

  12. [14]

    Blake, S

    C. Blake, S. Brough, M. Colless et al.,The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: joint measurements of the expansion and growth history atz <1,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.425(2012) 405

    2012

  13. [15]

    Bunker, S

    A.J. Bunker, S. Wilkins, R.S. Ellis et al.,The contribution of high-redshift galaxies to cosmic reionization: new results from deep WFC3 imaging of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.409(2010) 855. – 22 –

    2010

  14. [16]

    Peebles and B

    P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra,The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy,Rev. Mod. Phys. 75(2003) 559

    2003

  15. [17]

    Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev

    S. Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989) 1

    1989

  16. [18]

    Carroll,The Cosmological Constant,Living Rev

    S.M. Carroll,The Cosmological Constant,Living Rev. Rel.4(2001) 1

    2001

  17. [19]

    Wright et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological Constraints from the Final Dataset,arXiv e-prints(2025) [2503.19441]

    A.H. Wright et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological Constraints from the Final Dataset,arXiv e-prints(2025) [2503.19441]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [20]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara,Challenges forΛCDM: an update,New Astron. Rev.95 (2022) 101659

    2022

  19. [21]

    Di Valentino, J.L

    E. Di Valentino, J.L. Said, A. Riess et al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,arXiv: 2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO](2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [22]

    Tsujikawa,Lectures on Cosmology,Lect

    S. Tsujikawa,Lectures on Cosmology,Lect. Notes Phys.800(2010) 99

    2010

  21. [23]

    Caldwell, R

    R.R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P.J. Steinhardt,Cosmological Imprint of an Energy Component with General Equation of State,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 1582

    1998

  22. [24]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15 (2006) 1753

    2006

  23. [25]

    Padmanabhan,Accelerated expansion of the universe driven by tachyonic matter,Phys

    T. Padmanabhan,Accelerated expansion of the universe driven by tachyonic matter,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 021301

    2002

  24. [26]

    Frieman, M.S

    J.A. Frieman, M.S. Turner and D. Huterer,Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys46(2008) 385

    2008

  25. [27]

    Weinberg, M.J

    D.H. Weinberg, M.J. Mortonson, D.J. Eisenstein et al.,Observational probes of cosmic acceleration,Phys. Rep.530(2013) 87

    2013

  26. [28]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen et al.,DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 021

    2024

  27. [29]

    Lue,The phenomenology of dvali–gabadadze–porrati cosmologies,Phys

    A. Lue,The phenomenology of dvali–gabadadze–porrati cosmologies,Phys. Rep.423(2006) 1

    2006

  28. [30]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov,Introduction to Modified Gravity and Gravitational Alternative for Dark Energy,Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.04(2007) 115

    2007

  29. [31]

    Starobinsky,A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,Phys

    A. Starobinsky,A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,Phys. Lett. B 91(1980) 99

    1980

  30. [32]

    Felice and S

    A.D. Felice and S. Tsujikawa,f(R)Theories,Living Rev. Rel.13(2010) 3

    2010

  31. [33]

    Fernandes, P

    P.G.S. Fernandes, P. Carrilho, T. Clifton et al.,The 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet theory of gravity: a review,Class. Quant. Grav.39(2022) 063001

    2022

  32. [34]

    Lovelock,The Einstein Tensor and Its Generalizations,J

    D. Lovelock,The Einstein Tensor and Its Generalizations,J. Math. Phys.12(1971) 498

    1971

  33. [35]

    Y.-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M.D. Laurentis et al.,f(T)teleparallel gravity and cosmology,Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) 106901

    2016

  34. [36]

    Heisenberg,Review onf(Q)Gravity,Phys

    L. Heisenberg,Review onf(Q)Gravity,Phys. Rep.1066(2023) 1

    2023

  35. [37]

    Vagnozzi, F

    S. Vagnozzi, F. Pacucci and A. Loeb,Implications for the hubble tension from the ages of the oldest astrophysical objects,J. High Energy Astrophys.36(2022) 27

    2022

  36. [38]

    Vagnozzi,New physics in light of theH0 tension: An alternative view,Phys

    S. Vagnozzi,New physics in light of theH0 tension: An alternative view,Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 023518

    2020

  37. [39]

    Ilyas, M

    A. Ilyas, M. Zhu, Y. Zheng et al.,DHOST bounce,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.09(2020) 002

    2020

  38. [40]

    Lohakare, S

    S.V. Lohakare, S. Niyogi and B. Mishra,Cosmology in modifiedf(G)gravity: a late-time cosmic phenomena,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.535(2024) 1136. – 23 –

    2024

  39. [41]

    Lohakare and B

    S.V. Lohakare and B. Mishra,Stability off(Q, B)Gravity via Dynamical System Approach: A Comprehensive Bayesian Statistical Analysis,Astrophys. J.978(2024) 26

    2024

  40. [42]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri et al.,Dark energy cosmology: the equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests,Astrophys. Space Sci.342(2012) 155

    2012

  41. [43]

    Boulware and S

    D.G. Boulware and S. Deser,String-generated gravity models,Phys. Rev. Lett.55(1985) 2656

    1985

  42. [44]

    Wheeler,Symmetric solutions to the gauss-bonnet extended einstein equations,Nuclear Phys

    J.T. Wheeler,Symmetric solutions to the gauss-bonnet extended einstein equations,Nuclear Phys. B268(1986) 737

    1986

  43. [45]

    Antoniadis, J

    I. Antoniadis, J. Rizos and K. Tamvakis,Singularity-free cosmological solutions of the superstring effective action,Nuclear Phys. B415(1994) 497

    1994

  44. [46]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and M. Sasaki,Gauss-Bonnet dark energy,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 123509

    2005

  45. [47]

    Kofinas and E.N

    G. Kofinas and E.N. Saridakis,Teleparallel equivalent of Gauss-Bonnet gravity and its modifications,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 084044

    2014

  46. [48]

    Kofinas and E

    G. Kofinas and E. N. Saridakis,Cosmological applications ofF(T, TG)gravity,Phys. Rev. D 90(2014) 084045

    2014

  47. [49]

    Harko, F.S

    T. Harko, F.S. Lobo, G. Otalora et al.,f(T,T)gravity and cosmology,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2014(2014) 021

    2014

  48. [50]

    Duchaniya and B

    L.K. Duchaniya and B. Mishra,Late time phenomena inf(T,T)gravity framework: role of H0 priors,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 488

    2025

  49. [51]

    Harko, F.S

    T. Harko, F.S. Lobo, G. Otalora et al.,Nonminimal torsion-matter coupling extension off(T) gravity,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 124036

    2014

  50. [52]

    Chattopadhyay, D

    S. Chattopadhyay, D. Momeni and R. Myrzakulov,Pilgrim dark energy inf(T, TG) cosmology,Astrophys. Space Sci.2014(2014) 279

    2014

  51. [53]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and K.F. Dialektopoulos,Noether symmetries in Gauss–Bonnet-teleparallel cosmology,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 629

    2016

  52. [54]

    Aldrovandi and J.G

    R. Aldrovandi and J.G. Pereira,Teleparallel Gravity: An Introduction, Springer (2013), 10.1007/978-94-007-5143-9

    doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5143-9 2013

  53. [55]

    Maluf,Hamiltonian formulation of the teleparallel description of general relativity,J

    J.W. Maluf,Hamiltonian formulation of the teleparallel description of general relativity,J. Math. Phys.35(1994) 335

    1994

  54. [56]

    Arcos and J.G

    H.I. Arcos and J.G. Pereira,Torsion gravity: A Reappraisal,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13(2004) 2193

    2004

  55. [57]

    Kofinas, G

    G. Kofinas, G. Leon and E.N. Saridakis,Dynamical behavior inf(T, TG)cosmology,Class. Quant. Grav.31(2014) 175011

    2014

  56. [58]

    Lohakare et al.,Analyzing the geometrical and dynamical parameters of modified Teleparallel-Gauss–Bonnet model,Phys

    S.V. Lohakare et al.,Analyzing the geometrical and dynamical parameters of modified Teleparallel-Gauss–Bonnet model,Phys. Dark Univ.39(2023) 101164

    2023

  57. [59]

    Copeland,Exponential potentials and cosmological scaling solutions,Phys

    E.J. Copeland,Exponential potentials and cosmological scaling solutions,Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 4686

    1998

  58. [60]

    Ferreira and M

    P.G. Ferreira and M. Joyce,Structure formation with a self-tuning scalar field,Phys. Rev. Lett.79(1997) 4740

    1997

  59. [61]

    X.-M. Chen, Y. Gong and E.N. Saridakis,Phase-space analysis of interacting phantom cosmology,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2009(2009) 001

    2009

  60. [62]

    Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,arXiv: 1910.13970 (2019) [1910.13970]

    A. Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,arXiv: 1910.13970 (2019) [1910.13970]. – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  61. [63]

    Foreman-Mackey et al.,emcee: The mcmc hammer,Publ

    D. Foreman-Mackey et al.,emcee: The mcmc hammer,Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125(2013) 306

    2013

  62. [64]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Amati, L. Amendola et al.,Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,Living Rev. Rel.25(2022) 6

    2022

  63. [65]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110

    2022

  64. [66]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 113. [67]DESI DR2 Results IIcollaboration,DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,arXiv: 2503.14738(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [68]

    D’Agostino and O

    R. D’Agostino and O. Luongo,Growth of matter perturbations in nonminimal teleparallel dark energy,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 124013

    2018

  66. [69]

    D’Agostino,Holographic dark energy from nonadditive entropy: Cosmological perturbations and observational constraints,Phys

    R. D’Agostino,Holographic dark energy from nonadditive entropy: Cosmological perturbations and observational constraints,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 103524

    2019

  67. [70]

    Lohakare, K

    S.V. Lohakare, K. Rathore and B. Mishra,Observational constrainedF(R,G)gravity cosmological model and the dynamical system analysis,Class. Quant. Grav.40(2023) 215009

    2023

  68. [71]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining Cosmological Parameters Based on Relative Galaxy Ages,Astrophys. J.573(2002) 37

    2002

  69. [72]

    Moresco, A

    M. Moresco, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez et al.,Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up toz∼1.1from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2012(2012) 006

    2012

  70. [73]

    Moresco,Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼2,Mon

    M. Moresco,Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼2,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.: Lett.450(2015) L16

    2015

  71. [74]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti et al.,A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z∼0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2016(2016) 014

    2016

  72. [75]

    Riess, W

    A.G. Riess, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7

    2022

  73. [76]

    Chantada, S.J

    A.T. Chantada, S.J. Landau, P. Protopapas et al.,Cosmology-informed neural networks to solve the background dynamics of the Universe,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 063523

    2023

  74. [77]

    Camarena and V

    D. Camarena and V. Marra,Local determination of the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter,Phys. Rev. Res.2(2020) 013028

    2020

  75. [78]

    Conley, J

    A. Conley, J. Guy, M. Sullivan et al.,Supernova Constraints and Systematic Uncertainties From the First Three Years of the Supernova Legacy Survey,Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser.192 (2011) 1

    2011

  76. [79]

    Perivolaropoulos,Hubble tension or distance ladder crisis?,Phys

    L. Perivolaropoulos,Hubble tension or distance ladder crisis?,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 123518

    2024

  77. [80]

    Freedman, B.F

    W.L. Freedman, B.F. Madore, I.S. Jang et al.,Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes,arXiv: 2408.06153 [astro-ph.CO](2025) . [81]DES Collaborationcollaboration,Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [82]

    Asgari, C.-A

    M. Asgari, C.-A. Lin, B. Joachimi et al.,KiDS-1000 cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics,Astron. Astrophys.645(2021) A104. – 25 –

    2021

  79. [83]

    A.J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett et al.,The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample – I. A 4 per cent distance measure at z=0.15,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.449(2015) 835

    2015

  80. [84]

    Bautista, N.G

    J.E. Bautista, N.G. Busca, J. Guy et al.,Measurement of baryon acoustic oscillation correlations atz= 2.3with SDSS DR12 Lyα−Forests,Astron. Astrophys.603(2017) A12

    2017

Showing first 80 references.