Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Interacting Barrow Holographic Dark Energy in Non-flat Universe

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Barrow holographic dark energy with both dark-sector interaction and spatial curvature fits the CC+Pantheon data, with $\Gamma$ and $\Omega_{k0}$ best-fit to nonzero values.

desk verdict The derivation of interacting Barrow HDE in curved space is solid, but the abstract's observational-preference claim contradicts the paper's own Table 3 and the sign handling in the model comparison is backwards. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05577 v2 pith:NXQS2MJZ submitted 2024-12-07 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Priyanka Adhikary , Sudipta Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords Barrowholographicdarkenergyinteractingsectorsnon-flatuniversefutureeventhorizonequationofstatecosmicchronometersPantheonsupernovaephantomcrossing
topics Dark Energy
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

This paper tries to establish that Barrow holographic dark energy—dark energy whose density follows from a quantum-gravitational modification of the entropy-area relation—is preferred by cosmic chronometer and Pantheon data when the dark sectors interact and the spatial geometry is non-flat. It derives coupled evolution equations for the dark-energy and matter density parameters in closed and open FRW universes, for three interaction terms $Q = -\Gamma H\rho_{\mathrm{DE}}$, $Q = -\Gamma H\rho_m$, and $Q = -\Gamma H(\rho_m + \rho_{\mathrm{DE}})$, along with analytic expressions for the equation-of-state parameter $w_{\mathrm{DE}}$. The reported best-fit values of the interaction strength $\Gamma$ and curvature density $\Omega_{k0}$ are small but nonzero, which the authors read as evidence for a non-flat interacting scenario. The paper also reports that the model is statistically compatible with ΛCDM on chronometer data and mildly tensioned on the combined CC+Pantheon data.

What carries the argument

Barrow entropy $S_B \propto (A/A_0)^{1+\Delta/2}$, with $0 \le \Delta \le 1$, changes the holographic dark-energy density to $\rho_{\mathrm{DE}} = C L^{\Delta-2}$, where $L$ is the horizon length. For curved space the paper takes the future event horizon with $L = a\sin y$ (closed) and $L = a\sinh y$ (open), $y = R_h/a = \int_x^\infty dx/(aH)$; this integral ties the local density evolution to the whole future history of the scale factor. The coupled equations for $\Omega_{\mathrm{DE}}$ and $\Omega_m$ and the closed-form $w_{\mathrm{DE}}$ for each interaction term are derived from the continuity equations $\dot{\rho}_m + 3H\rho_m = Q$ and $\dot{\rho}_{\mathrm{DE}} + 3H(1+w_{\mathrm{DE}})\rho_{\mathrm{DE}} = -Q$, with the three phenomenological choices of $Q$. The model's observational signature is carried by three parameters: the Barrow exponent $\Delta$, the interaction strength $\Gamma$, and the curvature density $\Omega_{k0}$.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to repeat the MCMC fit with a different, equally motivated holographic cutoff—such as the Hubble horizon or a generalized entropy-based cutoff—and check whether the best-fit $\Gamma$ and $\Omega_{k0}$ remain nonzero; if they return to zero, the claimed preference for a non-flat interacting scenario is an artifact of the horizon choice. A second check is to compare the model's predicted CMB acoustic-peak positions with Planck data, since a nonzero $\Omega_{k0}$ of order 0.01 would shift those peaks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the future-event-horizon Barrow holographic dark energy model, extended to non-flat geometry and supplemented with a linear dark-sector interaction, remains observationally viable and can cross the phantom divide at late times. For each of the three interaction choices, the evolution of $\Omega_{\mathrm{DE}}$ and $\Omega_m$ is governed by a coupled pair of first-order equations whose curvature dependence enters through $y = \int_x^\infty dx/(aH)$ via $\sin y$ (closed) or $\sinh y$ (open) in the horizon length $L = a\sin y$ or $L = a\sinh y$. The MCMC fits to the CC and Pantheon data give best-fit $\Gamma$ and $\Omega_{k0}$ that are nonzero, and the authors interpret this as indicating that a non-flat interacting scenario is preferred. Their AIC/BIC/DIC comparison shows the model is statistically compatible with ΛCDM for the CC data, while the combined dataset produces mild tension for one of the three interaction forms.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the future event horizon is the correct holographic cutoff, in the curved-space form $L = a\sin y$ (closed) or $L = a\sinh y$ (open) with $y = \int_x^\infty dx/(aH)$, and that the resulting coupled integro-differential system has a unique numerical solution over the fitted redshift range; if this horizon choice is wrong or the integrals do not converge for the fitted parameters, the derived $w_{\mathrm{DE}}$ and constraints change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dark-energy equation of state $w_{\mathrm{DE}}$ can cross the phantom divide for nonzero $\Delta$, so an interaction can generate phantom-like behavior even though each component begins in the quintessence regime.
  • For fixed $\Delta$, increasing $\Gamma$ shifts the phantom crossing redshift and pushes $w_{\mathrm{DE}}$ deeper into the phantom region in both closed and open geometries.
  • Closed models enter the phantom regime earlier than open models at equal $\Delta$ and $\Gamma$, giving curvature a potentially observable effect on the timing of acceleration.
  • If the best-fit nonzero $\Gamma$ and $\Omega_{k0}$ are real, the universe's energy flow runs from matter to dark energy and the spatial geometry is slightly closed or open, both of which are absent in flat ΛCDM.
  • Relative to ΛCDM, the model is statistically compatible for CC data but mildly tensioned for CC+Pantheon in the interaction form proportional to total density, so the current H(z)+SNe data cannot decisively choose between them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 'preferred by data' statement is based on nonzero best-fit values rather than a decisive model-selection statistic; the same paper's AIC/BIC/DIC table shows ΛCDM preferred for Pantheon alone, so the evidential weight is dataset-dependent.
  • Because $\Omega_{m0}$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{DE}0}$ are fixed rather than marginalized, the inferred nonzero $\Gamma$ and $\Omega_{k0}$ are conditional on those priors; leaving matter density free could widen the contours and shift the best fit.
  • The curvature preference is of order $|\Omega_{k0}| \sim 0.01$, which future measurements of the CMB acoustic scale and BAO angular diameter distance should detect or exclude independently of this model.
  • The fact that all three interaction forms are simple $Q \propto H\rho$ choices means the nonzero $\Gamma$ could be a proxy for more complicated dark-energy physics; a field-theoretically derived $Q$ would clarify whether the interaction is physical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends Barrow holographic dark energy (BHDE) to an interacting, non-flat FRW background. For closed and open spatial geometries and three phenomenological interaction terms Q = -ΓHρ_DE, Q = -ΓHρ_m, and Q = -ΓH(ρ_m+ρ_DE), the authors derive coupled evolution equations for Ω_DE and Ω_m and analytic expressions for the dark-energy equation of state w_DE, using the future event horizon as the holographic cutoff. They then fit the parameters Γ, Ω_k0, and Δ to cosmic chronometer (CC) and Pantheon data via MCMC and compare the model with ΛCDM using AIC, BIC, and DIC. The abstract claims that nonzero interaction strength and curvature contribution imply that a non-flat interacting scenario is preferred by observational data, while Section 7 states statistical compatibility with ΛCDM for CC and mild tension for CC+Pantheon.

Significance. The analytic part of the paper is a useful extension of earlier BHDE studies: it generalizes the flat interacting BHDE model of Sheykhi et al. and the non-flat non-interacting model of Adhikary et al., and the reported limits Γ=0 and Δ=0 reduce to known equations. However, the observational significance is not as claimed. Read with the correct sign convention, the paper's own Table 3 shows that ΛCDM has lower or comparable AIC/BIC/DIC for most CC and CC+Pantheon comparisons, so the central preference claim is unsupported. The 'nonzero' best-fit values in Tables 1 and 2 are reported without confidence intervals, and several contours in Figures 5-7 include zero. The paper therefore does not currently establish its headline result; its value is primarily in the derivation and, at best, in a set of largely null observational constraints.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1, Table 3] The model-selection interpretation is based on a sign error. The paper defines ΔAIC = |AIC_model − AIC_ΛCDM| and states that ΔIC ≤ 2 means the model is strongly favored, but Table 3 lists signed differences and the text reads the signs in the wrong direction. For CC, Case I, k=+1, AIC_model = 51.74 and AIC_ΛCDM = 50.10, so the model is worse by 1.64, yet the text says the proposed model is strongly favored. For Pantheon, Case I, k=+1, AIC_model = 38.38 and AIC_ΛCDM = 39.77, so the model is better by 1.39, yet the text says negative Δ indicates ΛCDM is preferred. Correcting the signs shows that for the CC and CC+Pantheon rows ΛCDM is generally preferred or indistinguishable, directly contradicting the abstract's claim that a non-flat interacting scenario is preferred by the data.
  2. [Section 6, Tables 1-2 and Figures 5-7] The conclusion that Γ and Ω_k0 are 'nonzero' is not statistically established. Tables 1 and 2 list only best-fit values without confidence intervals, and the contours in Figures 5-7 include Γ = 0 for several cases (for example, CC Case I in Figure 5 has a Γ axis extending from -0.2 to 0.2). Additionally, the horizontal axes of Figure 5 are labeled with Ω_k0 ranging from about 0.0290 to 0.0310 for Cases I and II, whereas Table 1 lists best-fit values around 0.0098; this apparent inconsistency makes the displayed constraints unreliable as reported.
  3. [Sections 5.1 and 6] The numerical solution of the evolution equations is not sufficiently documented. Equations (3.16)-(3.17) and (4.14)-(4.15) are integro-differential because y is defined by the improper future-event-horizon integrals in equations (3.3) and (4.3). The text states only that the equations are 'solved numerically imposing initial conditions,' without specifying the integrator, step size, convergence criteria, or how the improper integrals are evaluated. Since every fitted parameter and all AIC/BIC/DIC values depend on these solutions, the lack of numerical details is a load-bearing reproducibility gap.
  4. [Section 6.1, Tables 1-3] The model-selection comparison is ambiguous about which parameter sets are being compared. Table 1 fixes Δ = 0.1 and fits (Γ, Ω_k0); Table 2 fixes Ω_k0 and fits (Γ, Δ); the text says the comparison uses the Γ-Δ case. The number of effective parameters used in the AIC/BIC/DIC calculation for the proposed model and for the ΛCDM baseline is not stated, and the absolute-value definition of ΔAIC is inconsistent with the signed entries in Table 3. This makes it difficult to verify the reported information criteria.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 7] The abstract's statement that a non-flat interacting scenario is preferred should be removed or rewritten to reflect the corrected reading of Table 3; Section 7's compatibility and tension statements should also be rephrased accordingly.
  2. [Section 5, Figure 1 discussion] The text says that for Δ = 0.1 the phantom divide is crossed at z ~ 0.5 and that for Δ = 0.2 it is crossed 'much earlier (at around z ~ 0.5)'; this is internally contradictory and should be replaced with the actual crossing redshifts read from the figures.
  3. [Figure 5] The x-axis values in Figure 5 appear to be inconsistent with the best-fit values in Table 1; either the axes are mislabeled or the table is incorrect, and this needs to be fixed.
  4. [Section 6] The MCMC analysis is described only by a reference; the priors, proposal scheme, burn-in length, and convergence diagnostics should be specified for reproducibility.
  5. [Various] There are several typographical and stylistic issues, including 'negative negative curvature' in the paragraph preceding Figure 11, 'T able 1' in the caption, and incomplete reference entries for [77] and [79]; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Nonzero interaction and curvature are fitted parameters, not predictions; the abstract's observational-preference claim reduces to the fit and is not supported by the paper's own model-comparison table.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 6 (Observational Constraints), Tables 1-2; Section 6.1, Table 3]
    "It has been found that the strength of interaction as well as the curvature contribution come out to be nonzero which indicates that a non-flat interacting scenario is preferred by observational data."

    Gamma (interaction strength) and Omega_k0 (curvature density) are free parameters of the model, introduced through the phenomenological interaction terms (2.7)-(2.9) and the FRW curvature term. Their best-fit values are obtained by MCMC fitting the model to the CC, Pantheon, and CC+Pantheon datasets (Tables 1-2). The abstract and Section 6 then treat the nonzero best-fit values as evidence that a non-flat interacting scenario is preferred by observational data. That is a fitted input renamed as a prediction: a point estimate of a free parameter cannot by itself establish model preference, and no confidence intervals are reported for Gamma or Omega_k0, so nonzero has no stated statistical significance.

full rationale

The core derivations in Sections 2-4 are self-contained algebra: starting from Barrow entropy and the holographic density rho_DE = C L^(Delta-2), the continuity equations (2.5)-(2.6), and the non-flat horizon ansatz L = a sin y or L = a sinh y, the paper derives coupled differential equations (3.16)-(3.17 etc.) and closed-form w_DE expressions (3.15, 3.22, 3.30, etc.). These are derived, not fitted, so that portion is not circular. The circularity is concentrated in the observational claim: the nonzero Gamma and Omega_k0 are best-fit values of free parameters, not predictions, and the statement that they indicate that a non-flat interacting scenario is preferred by observational data is a fitted-input-called-prediction step. In addition, the AIC/BIC/DIC comparison in Section 6.1/Table 3 is misread: positive signed DeltaAIC for CC means LCDM has the lower AIC, while the text claims the proposed model is strongly favored; negative signed DeltaAIC for Pantheon is inverted in the text as favoring LCDM when the sign convention already does so. This undermines rather than supports the preference claim. The paper also cites ref. [45] (Adhikary et al., with overlapping authors) for the non-flat BHDE framework, but that citation is used as a model assumption, not as a uniqueness theorem forbidding alternatives, so no separate self-citation circularity is scored. Overall, the derivation stands on its own, but the headline observational preference reduces by construction to the fitted parameters and conflicts with the paper's own model-selection numbers, yielding a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. All free parameters are standard in interacting HDE models; the main unverified input is Barrow's entropy correction and the future event horizon cutoff.

free parameters (5)
  • Γ (interaction strength) = ~0.02-0.04 (Table 1); ~0.05-0.08 with Δ in Table 2
    Free parameter in the phenomenological interaction terms (Eqs. 2.7-2.9), fitted to CC and Pantheon data.
  • Ω_k0 (curvature density today) = ~±0.01 (Tables 1 and 2)
    Free parameter for spatial curvature, fitted to data; for open (k=-1) negative.
  • Δ (Barrow exponent) = ~0.05-0.08 (Table 2)
    Exponent in Barrow entropy relation (Eq. 1.1), fitted in Γ-Δ analysis with Ω_k0 fixed.
  • Ω_m0, Ω_DE0 (initial density parameters) = Ω_m0≈0.27-0.29, Ω_DE0≈0.72
    Initial conditions for the numerical evolution, fixed (not marginalized) from 'recent observations' [68].
  • C (holographic parameter, c^2 scale) = set to 3 in plots; not constrained in MCMC
    Appears in ρ_DE = C L^{Δ-2} (Eq. 2.2); treated as fixed input, though it is a model parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Barrow entropy-area relation S_B = (A/A0)^{1+Δ/2} (Eq. 1.1)
    Borrowed from Barrow's quantum-gravity-motivated black hole entropy proposal; not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption Holographic dark energy density ρ_DE = C L^{Δ-2} (Eq. 2.2)
    Assumes the holographic principle applies to the cosmological horizon and that the cutoff L is the future event horizon.
  • domain assumption Non-flat horizon length L = a sin y (k=+1) or a sinh y (k=-1) (Eqs. 3.2, 4.2)
    Assumes the integral y = R_h/a = ∫_x^∞ dx/(aH) exists and determines the horizon; critical for the closed/open w_DE expressions.
  • ad hoc to paper Phenomenological interaction Q = -ΓHρ_DE, -ΓHρ_m, or -ΓH(ρ_m+ρ_DE) (Eqs. 2.7-2.9)
    The interaction is chosen for mathematical simplicity and not derived from an action principle, as the paper itself notes.
  • domain assumption Late-time universe contains only matter and dark energy (radiation neglected)
    Used in Friedmann equations (2.3)-(2.4) and in the density parameter relations; valid for z ≲ 2.4 in the fitted data.
  • standard math Standard GR Friedmann equations with curvature
    Background cosmology assumed throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interacting Barrow Holographic Dark Energy in Non-flat Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXQS2MJZ

@misc{pith2026241205577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interacting Barrow Holographic Dark Energy in Non-flat Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXQS2MJZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05577}
}
read the original abstract

Barrow holographic dark energy model is an extension of holographic dark energy that incorporates modifications to entropy due to quantum gravitational effects. In this work we study the cosmological properties of interacting Barrow holographic dark energy model in the case of non-zero curvature universe. We construct the differential equations governing the evolution of the Barrow holographic dark energy density parameter and the dark matter density parameter in coupled form for both closed and open spatial geometry. Considering three different forms of coupling, we obtain the corresponding analytical expressions for the equation of state parameter for the dark energy component. We confront the scenario using recent observational datasets like cosmic chronometer and Pantheon data. It has been found that the strength of interaction as well as the curvature contribution come out to be nonzero which indicates that a non-flat interacting scenario is preferred by observational data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Effective matter sectors from modified entropies

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Choosing a modified entropy S(r) fixes a metric f(r)=1-4πM/S'(r), and the Einstein tensor of that metric acts as an anisotropic effective fluid.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Riess et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, The Astronomical Journal 116 (1998) 1009

    A.G. Riess et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, The Astronomical Journal 116 (1998) 1009

    1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter et al., Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae , The Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999) 565

    S. Perlmutter et al., Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae , The Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999) 565. – 31 –

    1999

  3. [3]

    Arnaud et al., Planck intermediate results-xxxi

    M. Arnaud et al., Planck intermediate results-xxxi. microwave survey of galactic supernova remnants, Astronomy & Astrophysics 586 (2016) A134

    2016

  4. [4]

    C.P. Ahn et al., The ninth data release of the sloan digital sky survey: first spectroscopic data from the sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 203 (2012) 21

    2012

  5. [5]

    N. Jarosik et al., Seven-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap*) observations: sky maps, systematic errors, and basic results , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 192 (2011) 14

    2011

  6. [6]

    Padmanabhan, Dark energy: mystery of the millennium , in AIP Conference Proceedings, vol

    T. Padmanabhan, Dark energy: mystery of the millennium , in AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 861, pp. 179–196, American Institute of Physics, 2006

    2006

  7. [7]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark energy , International Journal of Modern Physics D 15 (2006) 1753–1935

    2006

  8. [8]

    Cai, E.N

    Y.-F. Cai, E.N. Saridakis, M.R. Setare and J.-Q. Xia, Quintom cosmology: Theoretical implications and observations , Physics Reports 493 (2010) 1–60

    2010

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, Reconstructing dark energy, International Journal of Modern Physics D 15 (2006) 2105

    2006

  2. [10]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, Dark energy cosmology: the equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests , Astrophysics and Space Science 342 (2012) 155

    2012

  3. [11]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov and P.J. Steinhardt, Essentials of k-essence , Physical Review D 63 (2001) 103510

    2001

  4. [12]

    Caldwell, A phantom menace? cosmological consequences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state , Physics Letters B 545 (2002) 23

    R.R. Caldwell, A phantom menace? cosmological consequences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state , Physics Letters B 545 (2002) 23

    2002

  5. [13]

    Carroll, M

    S.M. Carroll, M. Hoffman and M. Trodden, Can the dark energy equation-of-state parameter w be less than- 1? , Physical Review D 68 (2003) 023509

    2003

  6. [14]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier, An alternative to quintessence , Physics Letters B 511 (2001) 265

    2001

  7. [15]

    Sen, Tachyon matter, Journal of High Energy Physics 2002 (2002) 065

    A. Sen, Tachyon matter, Journal of High Energy Physics 2002 (2002) 065

    2002

  8. [16]

    Padmanabhan, Accelerated expansion of the universe driven by tachyonic matter , Physical Review D 66 (2002) 021301

    T. Padmanabhan, Accelerated expansion of the universe driven by tachyonic matter , Physical Review D 66 (2002) 021301

    2002

  9. [17]

    Copeland, M.R

    E.J. Copeland, M.R. Garousi, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, What is needed of a tachyon if it is to be the dark energy? , Physical Review D 71 (2005) 043003

    2005

  10. [18]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, Dark energy: theory and observations , Cambridge University Press (2010). – 32 –

    2010

  11. [19]

    Li, A Model of holographic dark energy , Phys

    M. Li, A Model of holographic dark energy , Phys. Lett. B 603 (2004) 1 [ hep-th/0403127]

    2004 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. Wang, Y. Wang and M. Li, Holographic Dark Energy, Phys. Rept. 696 (2017) 1 [1612.00345]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    ’t Hooft, Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity , 2009

    G. ’t Hooft, Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity , 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Susskind, The world as a hologram , Journal of Mathematical Physics 36 (1995) 6377–6396

    L. Susskind, The world as a hologram , Journal of Mathematical Physics 36 (1995) 6377–6396

    1995

  15. [23]

    Horvat, Holography and a variable cosmological constant , Phys

    R. Horvat, Holography and a variable cosmological constant , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 087301

    2004

  16. [24]

    Pav´ on and W

    D. Pav´ on and W. Zimdahl,Holographic dark energy and cosmic coincidence , Physics Letters B 628 (2005) 206–210

    2005

  17. [25]

    B. Wang, Y. Gong and E. Abdalla, Transition of the dark energy equation of state in an interacting holographic dark energy model , Physics Letters B 624 (2005) 141–146

    2005

  18. [26]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, Unifying phantom inflation with late-time acceleration: scalar phantom–non-phantom transition model and generalized holographic dark energy , General Relativity and Gravitation 38 (2006) 1285–1304

    2006

  19. [27]

    Setare and E

    M. Setare and E. Saridakis, Non-minimally coupled canonical, phantom and quintom models of holographic dark energy , Physics Letters B 671 (2009) 331

    2009

  20. [28]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang and X. Zhang, Holographic dark energy models: a comparison from the latest observational data , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2009 (2009) 036

    2009

  21. [29]

    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. D 99 (2019) 103524

    2019

  22. [30]

    Molavi and A

    Z. Molavi and A. Khodam-Mohammadi, Observational tests of gauss-bonnet like dark energy model, The European Physical Journal Plus 134 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Barrow, The area of a rough black hole , Physics Letters B 808 (2020) 135643

    J.D. Barrow, The area of a rough black hole , Physics Letters B 808 (2020) 135643

    2020

  24. [32]

    Saridakis, Barrow holographic dark energy , Phys

    E.N. Saridakis, Barrow holographic dark energy , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 123525

    2020

  25. [33]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, Covariant generalized holographic dark energy and accelerating universe, The European Physical Journal C 77 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Barrow entropic dark energy: A member of generalized holographic dark energy family , Physics Letters B 825 (2022) 136844

    2022

  27. [35]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Different Faces of Generalized Holographic Dark Energy, Symmetry 13 (2021) 928 [ 2105.08438]. – 33 –

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Anagnostopoulos, S

    F.K. Anagnostopoulos, S. Basilakos and E.N. Saridakis, Observational constraints on Barrow holographic dark energy , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 826 [ 2005.10302]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Saridakis, Modified cosmology through spacetime thermodynamics and Barrow horizon entropy, JCAP 07 (2020) 031 [ 2006.01105]

    E.N. Saridakis, Modified cosmology through spacetime thermodynamics and Barrow horizon entropy, JCAP 07 (2020) 031 [ 2006.01105]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Mamon, A

    A.A. Mamon, A. Paliathanasis and S. Saha, Dynamics of an Interacting Barrow Holographic Dark Energy Model and its Thermodynamic Implications , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136 (2021) 134 [ 2007.16020]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Barrow, S

    J.D. Barrow, S. Basilakos and E.N. Saridakis, Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on barrow entropy, Physics Letters B 815 (2021) 136134

    2021

  32. [40]

    Das and B

    B. Das and B. Pandey, A Study of Holographic Dark Energy Models with Configuration Entropy, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23 (2023) 065003 [ 2011.07337]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bhardwaj, A

    V.K. Bhardwaj, A. Dixit and A. Pradhan, Statefinder hierarchy model for the Barrow holographic dark energy, New Astron. 88 (2021) 101623 [ 2102.09946]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Chakraborty, S

    G. Chakraborty, S. Chattopadhyay, E. G¨ udekli and I. Radinschi,Thermodynamics of Barrow Holographic Dark Energy with Specific Cut-Off , Symmetry 13 (2021) 562

    2021

  35. [43]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Early and late universe holographic cosmology from a new generalized entropy, Physics Letters B 831 (2022) 137189

    2022

  36. [44]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and V. Faraoni, From nonextensive statistics and black hole entropy to the holographic dark universe , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 044042 [ 2201.02424]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Adhikary, S

    P. Adhikary, S. Das, S. Basilakos and E.N. Saridakis, Barrow holographic dark energy in a nonflat universe , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 123519

    2021

  38. [46]

    Luciano and E.N

    G.G. Luciano and E.N. Saridakis, Baryon asymmetry from barrow entropy: theoretical predictions and observational constraints , The European Physical Journal C 82 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Jusufi, M

    K. Jusufi, M. Azreg-A ¨ ınou, M. Jamil and E.N. Saridakis,Constraints on Barrow Entropy from M87* and S2 Star Observations , Universe 8 (2022) 102 [ 2110.07258]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sarkar and S

    A. Sarkar and S. Chattopadhyay, The barrow holographic dark energy-based reconstruction of f(r) gravity and cosmology with nojiri–odintsov cutoff , International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 18 (2021) 2150148

    2021

  41. [49]

    Myrzakulov, S.H

    N. Myrzakulov, S.H. Shekh, A. Pradhan and K. Ghaderi, Barrow Holographic Dark Energy in f (Q, T) gravity , 2408.03961

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Sobhanbabu et al., Anisotropic Barrow Holographic Dark Energy Models in Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravitation, East Eur

    Y. Sobhanbabu et al., Anisotropic Barrow Holographic Dark Energy Models in Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravitation, East Eur. J. Phys. 2024 (2024) 48

    2024

  43. [51]

    Bolotin, A

    Y.L. Bolotin, A. Kostenko, O.A. Lemets and D.A. Yerokhin, Cosmological evolution with interaction between dark energy and dark matter , International Journal of Modern Physics D 24 (2015) 1530007. – 34 –

    2015

  44. [52]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri and O. Mena, Can interacting dark energy solve the H0 tension?, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 043503 [ 1704.08342]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Kumar, R.C

    S. Kumar, R.C. Nunes and S.K. Yadav, Dark sector interaction: a remedy of the tensions between CMB and LSS data , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 576 [ 1903.04865]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Luciano and J

    G.G. Luciano and J. Gin´ e,Generalized interacting Barrow Holographic Dark Energy: Cosmological predictions and thermodynamic considerations, Phys. Dark Univ. 41 (2023) 101256 [2210.09755]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Sheykhi and M.S

    A. Sheykhi and M.S. Hamedan, Holographic Dark Energy in Modified Barrow Cosmology , Entropy 25 (2023) 569 [ 2211.00088]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri and J. Silk, Investigating Cosmic Discordance, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908 (2021) L9 [ 2003.04935]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Zimdahl, D

    W. Zimdahl, D. Pav´ on and L.P. Chimento,Interacting quintessence, Physics Letters B 521 (2001) 133

    2001

  50. [58]

    Billyard and A.A

    A.P. Billyard and A.A. Coley, Interactions in scalar field cosmology , Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 083503

    2000

  51. [59]

    Salvatelli, N

    V. Salvatelli, N. Said, M. Bruni, A. Melchiorri and D. Wands, Indications of a late-time interaction in the dark sector , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 181301

    2014

  52. [60]

    Mukherjee and N

    A. Mukherjee and N. Banerjee, In search of the dark matter dark energy interaction: a kinematic approach, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34 (2017) 035016

    2017

  53. [61]

    Das and A.A

    S. Das and A.A. Mamon, Cosmic acceleration in non-canonical scalar field model: an interacting scenario, Astrophysics and Space Science 355 (2014) 371

    2014

  54. [62]

    Sinha, Differentiating dark interactions with perturbation , Phys

    S. Sinha, Differentiating dark interactions with perturbation , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 123547

    2021

  55. [63]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pav´ on, Dark matter and dark energy interactions: theoretical challenges, cosmological implications and observational signatures , Reports on Progress in Physics 79 (2016) 096901

    2016

  56. [64]

    Costa, X.-D

    A.A. Costa, X.-D. Xu, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, Constraints on interacting dark energy models from planck 2015 and redshift-space distortion data , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017 (2017) 028

    2017

  57. [65]

    Pav´ on and B

    D. Pav´ on and B. Wang,Le chˆ atelier–braun principle in cosmological physics, General Relativity and Gravitation 41 (2008) 1–5

    2008

  58. [66]

    Huang and M

    Q.-G. Huang and M. Li, The holographic dark energy in a non-flat universe , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2004 (2004) 013. – 35 –

    2004

  59. [67]

    Setare, Interacting holographic dark energy model in non-flat universe , Physics Letters B 642 (2006) 1

    M. Setare, Interacting holographic dark energy model in non-flat universe , Physics Letters B 642 (2006) 1

    2006

  60. [68]

    Aghanim et al., Planck2018 results: I

    N. Aghanim et al., Planck2018 results: I. overview and the cosmological legacy ofplanck , Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 (2020) A1

    2020

  61. [69]

    Saridakis, Barrow holographic dark energy , Physical Review D 102 (2020)

    E.N. Saridakis, Barrow holographic dark energy , Physical Review D 102 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Cosmological parameters from cmb and other data: A monte carlo approach, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 103511

    2002

  63. [71]

    C.-H. Chuang and et al., The clustering of galaxies in the sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: single-probe measurements from cmass anisotropic galaxy clustering , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 461 (2016) 3781–3793

    2016

  64. [72]

    Bautista et al., Measurement of baryon acoustic oscillation correlations at z = 2.3 with sdss dr12 ly α-forests, Astronomy & Astrophysics 603 (2017) A12

    J.E. Bautista et al., Measurement of baryon acoustic oscillation correlations at z = 2.3 with sdss dr12 ly α-forests, Astronomy & Astrophysics 603 (2017) A12

    2017

  65. [73]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez, Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 123001

    2005

  66. [74]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages, The Astrophysical Journal 573 (2002) 37

    2002

  67. [75]

    Ratsimbazafy et al., Age-dating luminous red galaxies observed with the southern african large telescope, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 467 (2017) 3239–3254

    A.L. Ratsimbazafy et al., Age-dating luminous red galaxies observed with the southern african large telescope, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 467 (2017) 3239–3254

    2017

  68. [76]

    Zhang, H

    C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang and Y.-C. Sun, Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release seven , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 14 (2014) 1221 [ 1207.4541]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Mhamdi et al., Observational constraints on the growth index parameters in f (q) gravity, 2024

    D. Mhamdi et al., Observational constraints on the growth index parameters in f (q) gravity, 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    Scolnic, D

    D.M. Scolnic, D. Jones, A. Rest, Y. Pan, R. Chornock, R. Foley et al., The complete light-curve sample of spectroscopically confirmed sne ia from pan-starrs1 and cosmological constraints from the combined pantheon sample, The Astrophysical Journal 859 (2018) 101

    2018

  71. [79]

    Peng, The pantheon sample analysis of cosmological constraints under new models , arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10095 (2023)

    P. Peng, The pantheon sample analysis of cosmological constraints under new models , arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10095 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Riess, P.E

    A.G. Riess, P.E. Nugent, R.L. Gilliland, B.P. Schmidt, J. Tonry, M. Dickinson et al., The farthest known supernova: support for an accelerating universe and a glimpse of the epoch of deceleration, The Astrophysical Journal 560 (2001) 49

    2001

  73. [81]

    Muthukrishna and D

    D. Muthukrishna and D. Parkinson, A cosmographic analysis of the transition to acceleration using sn-ia and bao , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016 (2016) 052–052. – 36 –

    2016

  74. [82]

    Liddle, Information criteria for astrophysical model selection , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 377 (2007) L74–L78

    A.R. Liddle, Information criteria for astrophysical model selection , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 377 (2007) L74–L78

    2007

  75. [83]

    Spiegelhalter, N.G

    D.J. Spiegelhalter, N.G. Best, B.P. Carlin and A. Van Der Linde, Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 64 (2002) 583 [https://academic.oup.com/jrsssb/article-pdf/64/4/583/49723641/jrsssb 64 4 583.pdf]

    2002

  76. [84]

    Burnham and D.R

    K.P. Burnham and D.R. Anderson, Multimodel inference: Understanding aic and bic in model selection, Sociological Methods & Research 33 (2004) 261 [https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644]

    2004 doi

  77. [85]

    Goswami and S

    S. Goswami and S. Das, Study of pressure parametric dark energy model in the framework of f(Q) gravity , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 33 (2024) 2450031

    2024

  78. [86]

    Sol` a Peracaula, A

    J. Sol` a Peracaula, A. G´ omez-Valent, J. de Cruz P´ erez and C. Moreno-Pulido,Running vacuum in the universe: Phenomenological status in light of the latest observations, and its impact on the σ8 and h0 tensions, Universe 9 (2023) 262

    2023

  79. [87]

    Kass and A.E

    R.E. Kass and A.E. Raftery, Bayes factors , 1995, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:247708466

    1995

  80. [88]

    Kim, H.W

    H. Kim, H.W. Lee and Y.S. Myung, Equation of state for an interacting holographic dark energy model, Physics Letters B 632 (2006) 605–609. – 37 –

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.