Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Observational signatures of scalar field dynamics in modified $f(Q, L_m)$ gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tanh-parametrized scalar field in linear $f(Q,L_m)$ gravity fits CC+BAO+DESI+Pantheon+ data, but $B$ is statistically zero, so the model collapses to $\Lambda$CDM.

desk verdict A technically clean phenomenological fit whose central scalar-field-dynamics claim is undercut by its own best-fit parameter being statistically indistinguishable from zero. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08897 v1 pith:CB6VZXRF submitted 2025-07-11 gr-qc hep-th

Amit Samaddar , S. Surendra Singh This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83F0583D0585A40 PACS 98.80.-k04.50.Kd
keywords f(QLm)gravitytanhscalarfieldparametrizationdarkenergyobservationalcosmologyMCMCparameterestimationHubbletensionstatefinderdiagnosticblackholeaccretion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a scalar field whose energy density follows a hyperbolic tangent in redshift, $\rho_\varphi=\rho_{c0}\tanh(A+Bz)$, can be embedded in the modified gravity $f(Q,L_m)=\beta Q+\delta L_m$ and still fit the combined cosmic chronometer, BAO, DESI, and Pantheon+ data. The resulting three-parameter Hubble law $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^3+\tanh[\tanh^{-1}(1-\Omega_{m0})+Bz]}$ gives best-fit values $H_0=74.284^{+4.155}_{-4.275}$, $\Omega_{m0}=0.326^{+0.093}_{-0.072}$, and $B=-0.001^{+0.030}_{-0.030}$, with a transition redshift $z_{tr}=0.5914$ and current deceleration $q_0=-0.5167$. The paper reads these diagnostics as showing that tanh scalar-field forms are compatible with $f(Q,L_m)$ gravity in describing late-time acceleration, statefinder behavior, cosmic age, and black hole accretion. A sympathetic reader should also notice that the fitted $B$ is consistent with zero, so the model's dynamical content currently coincides with $\Lambda$CDM.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tanh parametrization of the scalar-field energy density together with the flatness closure condition. The ansatz $\rho_\varphi=\rho_{c0}\tanh(A+Bz)$ is imposed directly as a function of redshift, and requiring $\Omega_{m0}+\Omega_{\varphi0}=1$ fixes $A=\tanh^{-1}(1-\Omega_{m0})$ and thereby pins the coupling ratio to $\delta/(2\beta)=-1$. That reduction produces the compact Hubble law $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^3+\tanh[\tanh^{-1}(1-\Omega_{m0})+Bz]}$, with $B$ as the only parameter carrying scalar-field dynamics; the same Hubble law is then fed into the deceleration parameter, the equation of state, the reconstructed scalar potential, the statefinder diagnostic, and the black hole mass accretion relation.

What would settle it

Compare the best-fit $H(z)$ from equation (36) with $B$ free against the same model with $B=0$ on identical CC+BAO+DESI+Pantheon+ data; if the $\Delta\chi^2$ is negligible and $|B|/\sigma_B<1$, the claimed scalar-field dynamics are not detected. A future dataset that drives $B$ away from zero at more than $3\sigma$ would be the concrete observation that the tanh dynamics are real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a scalar dark-energy component with energy density $\rho_\varphi=\rho_{c0}\tanh(A+Bz)$ is a viable phenomenological completion of linear $f(Q,L_m)=\beta Q+\delta L_m$ gravity. Fixing $A$ through the closure condition $\Omega_{m0}+\Omega_{\varphi0}=1$ forces $\delta/(2\beta)=-1$ and leaves a three-parameter Hubble law $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^3+\tanh[\tanh^{-1}(1-\Omega_{m0})+Bz]}$. A joint MCMC fit to 31 cosmic chronometer points, 15 BAO points, DESI DR2 BAO data, and 1701 Pantheon+ supernovae returns $H_0=74.284^{+4.155}_{-4.275}$, $\Omega_{m0}=0.326^{+0.093}_{-0.072}$, and $B=-0.001^{+0.030}_{-0.030}$. The paper interprets these parameters as producing a deceleration-to-acceleration transition at $z_{tr}=0.5914$, a present deceleration $q_0=-0.5167$, a nearly constant equation of state near $-1$, statefinder convergence to $\{1,0\}$, a cosmic age $t_0\approx13.51$ Gyr, and black hole mass growth through scalar-field accretion.

Load-bearing premise

The scalar field's energy density is imposed as a tanh function of redshift rather than derived from a scalar potential or field equation, and the closure condition $\Omega_{m0}+\Omega_{\varphi0}=1$ then fixes $A$ and forces $\delta/(2\beta)=-1$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The best-fit expansion history transitions from deceleration to acceleration at $z_{tr}=0.5914$ and has $q_0=-0.5167$, inside the range inferred from supernovae and BAO.
  • The scalar equation-of-state parameter runs from $\omega_\varphi(z\gg1)=-0.9948$ to $\omega_0=-0.99973$ and asymptotes to $-1$, so the model never crosses the phantom divide.
  • Statefinder trajectories begin in the Chaplygin-like region $r>1$, $s<0$ and converge to the $\Lambda$CDM fixed point $(r,s)=(1,0)$ in the future.
  • The model gives $H_0 t_0=1.00382$, corresponding to a cosmic age $t_0\approx13.51$ Gyr, consistent with Planck-era age estimates.
  • In the generalized accretion formalism, black hole mass grows from roughly $M\approx0.12$ to $0.29$ at high redshift up to $M=1$ today for accretion constants $A=0.002$ to $0.009$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: with $B$ compatible with zero, the fitted model is indistinguishable from $\Lambda$CDM with $\Omega_{m0}\approx0.326$, so the derived $z_{tr}$, $q_0$, $\omega_\varphi$, and $V(\varphi)$ are properties of the tanh ansatz rather than evidence of scalar-field physics in $f(Q,L_m)$.
  • Editorial inference: because closure forces $\delta/(2\beta)=-1$, the model retains no free coupling freedom; its only testable departure from $\Lambda$CDM is a nonzero $B$, and the paper's own error bars already show that departure is absent.
  • Editorial inference: comparing this tanh reconstruction with other sigmoid parametrizations (exponential, logarithmic, or Padé) on identical datasets would show whether any current data prefer a particular scalar-field form; the present analysis does not perform that model-selection comparison.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a cosmological model in f(Q,L_m) gravity with the linear Lagrangian f(Q,L_m)=βQ+δL_m and a scalar-field energy density parameterized as ρ_φ=ρ_c0 tanh(A+Bz). From the modified Friedmann equations the authors obtain H(z)=H0 sqrt[Ω_m0(1+z)^3 + tanh(tanh^{-1}(1-Ω_m0)+Bz)], fit the three parameters (H0, Ω_m0, B) to cosmic chronometer, BAO, DESI DR2, and Pantheon+ data, and report H0=74.284^{+4.155}_{-4.275}, Ω_m0=0.326^{+0.093}_{-0.072}, B=-0.001^{+0.030}_{-0.030}. They then compute the deceleration parameter, equation-of-state parameter, scalar-field potential, statefinder diagnostics, cosmic age, and black-hole mass accretion, and conclude that the model is compatible with cosmic acceleration and shows signatures of scalar-field dynamics.

Significance. If supported by the data, a constrained tanh-scalar-field model in f(Q,L_m) gravity with a full likelihood analysis could be a useful phenomenological addition to the modified-gravity literature. The paper is also transparent in reporting that B is statistically consistent with zero and that the tanh form is imposed rather than derived. However, the central claim of observational signatures of scalar-field dynamics is not supported: the fitted B is consistent with zero at 1σ, in which limit Eq. (36) reduces exactly to ΛCDM, and most of the dynamical plots are generated with B=1, more than 30σ away from the best-fit value. The Pantheon+ likelihood additionally omits the full covariance matrix. The scientific value of the paper as it stands is therefore mainly a demonstration that a tanh parametrization can fit the data no better than ΛCDM, rather than evidence for new scalar-field physics.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.4, §6.1–6.4, Eq. (36)] The fitted value B=-0.001±0.030 is statistically indistinguishable from zero, and for B=0 Eq. (36) becomes exactly the ΛCDM Hubble rate H(z)=H0[Ω_m0(1+z)^3+1-Ω_m0]^{1/2}. All claimed dynamical signatures—z_tr=0.5914, q0=-0.5167, ω_φ(z), V(φ), and the statefinder trajectory—are then either ΛCDM predictions computed at B≈0 or, as in Figures 4–7, plots generated with B=1, which is far outside the posterior credible interval. The title and abstract therefore overstate the evidence for scalar-field dynamics; the data do not detect any deviation from ΛCDM.
  2. [§5.3, Eq. (44)] The Pantheon+ likelihood in Eq. (44) uses only the diagonal uncertainties σ^2(z_i). The Pantheon+ catalogue is accompanied by a full covariance matrix that includes systematic and calibration correlations, and omitting these off-diagonal terms can bias the inferred parameter uncertainties and shift the best fit. This is especially relevant here because the central conclusion that B is consistent with zero depends on the reported error bars.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (32)–(36) and §6.4, Eqs. (51)–(53)] The scalar-field energy density is prescribed as ρ_φ=ρ_c0 tanh(A+Bz) rather than derived from the scalar-field action or the Klein–Gordon equation, which the paper itself acknowledges. Consequently, the reconstructed ω_φ, φ̇^2, and V(φ) are deterministic functions of the assumed H(z) ansatz, not independent dynamical predictions. The paper's language of 'observational signatures of scalar field dynamics' is therefore not supported by the analysis; the model is a kinematic parametrization of dark energy, not a test of scalar-field physics.
  4. [§6.2, Eq. (50)] Equation (50) contains a sign error. From Eq. (21), 2Ḣ+3H^2=δp_φ/(2β), and with H(z) given by Eq. (36) one obtains p_φ=(2βH0^2/δ)[3tanh(...)-B(1+z)sech^2(...)]. Equation (50) has a plus sign before the B sech^2 term. This also contradicts Eq. (51): combining ω_φ from Eq. (51) with ρ_φ from Eq. (49) gives a +B sech^2 term in p_φ, not a −B term. The sign error propagates into Eqs. (52)–(53) and into the corresponding figures.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.2–6.3, Figure captions] The text in §6.2 and §6.3 states that Figures 4 and 5 are plotted using the best-fit parameter values, but the figure captions explicitly state that B=1, β=0.6, and δ=-1.2 are used; this inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [§6.2, Eqs. (48)–(53)] Equation (49) writes ρ_φ=tanh(...) without the factor ρ_c0=3H0^2 that appears in Eq. (32), and Eqs. (48)–(53) mix normalized and dimensionful quantities. The units and normalization conventions should be made explicit and consistent throughout.
  3. [§6.4, Figure 6] The caption of Figure 6 does not state which parameter values were used; if the plotted curves use B=1, this should be disclosed as in Figures 4, 5, and 7.
  4. [References] References [38] and [63] are identical, and reference [28] duplicates reference [26]; the bibliography needs to be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tanh scalar-field energy density is an explicitly stated input, the Hubble parametrization is fit to external data, and the derived diagnostics are ordinary model consequences rather than disguised inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and transparent about its inputs. Section 4 declares the scalar-field energy density to be a phenomenological choice, stating: 'This functional form is not derived from a specific scalar potential but is chosen based on its ability to effectively capture a smooth transition in the cosmic energy budget across time.' Thus the tanh profile is an input assumption, not a result claimed to follow from f(Q,Lm) first principles. Equation (36) is obtained algebraically from the linear field equations f(Q,Lm)=βQ+δLm, the z=0 normalization condition, and the closure Ωm0+Ωφ0=1; no equation is defined in terms of the quantities it is later used to 'predict.' The parameters H0, Ωm0, and B are constrained by external CC, BAO, DESI DR2, and Pantheon+ data, and the diagnostic quantities (ztr, q0, ωφ, V(φ), statefinder pair, cosmic age) are computed by substituting the resulting H(z) into standard definitions. This is normal parametric model analysis, not a statistically forced re-prediction of a fitted subset. The self-citations [16, 38, 47, 63] appear as background context or data references and are not load-bearing for the tanh ansatz or for any uniqueness step. The legitimate concerns highlighted by a skeptical reader—that B is consistent with zero at 1σ and that Figures 4–7 use B=1 rather than the best-fit value—are issues of statistical significance and presentation, not definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on an ad hoc tanh parametrization, a linear f(Q,Lm) coupling, and a closure condition that fixes A. The three fitted parameters are H0, Ωm0, and B. Because B is consistent with zero, the model contains no actual scalar field dynamics beyond a constant dark energy term. The β, δ values, accretion constant, and I1 are illustrative and not constrained by data.

free parameters (7)
  • H0 = 74.284 +4.155/-4.275 km/s/Mpc
    Present Hubble constant, fitted to CC+BAO+DESI+Pantheon+ data in the MCMC analysis.
  • Ωm0 = 0.326 +0.093/-0.072
    Present matter density parameter, fitted in the MCMC analysis.
  • B = -0.001 ± 0.030
    Slope parameter in tanh(A+Bz); the best fit is consistent with zero, making the scalar field term effectively constant.
  • A = tanh^{-1}(1-Ωm0), about 0.79 for Ωm0=0.326
    Fixed by imposing Ωm0+Ωφ0=1 at z=0 rather than fitted independently.
  • β and δ = β=0.6, δ=-1.2 with δ/2β=-1
    Representative coupling constants chosen for numerical plots; the normalized H(z) does not depend on their individual values.
  • Accretion constant A = 0.001, 0.002, 0.003, 0.009
    Illustrative values used in the black hole accretion equation, Eq. (60); not constrained by data.
  • Integration constant I1 = not specified
    Arbitrary constant in the black hole mass integral, Eq. (61).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric and perfect fluid matter
    Used to reduce the f(Q,Lm) field equations to Eqs. (20) and (21).
  • ad hoc to paper Linear form f(Q,Lm)=βQ+δLm
    Phenomenological choice motivated by analogous modified gravity models; not derived from a deeper principle.
  • domain assumption Matter Lagrangian Lm=-ρ
    Common perfect-fluid choice in the comoving frame, stated in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Matter and scalar field conserve separately
    Assumes no interaction between matter and the scalar field, splitting the conservation equation into Eqs. (28) and (29).
  • ad hoc to paper Closure Ωm0+Ωφ0=1 with H(z=0)=H0
    Yields A=tanh^{-1}(1-Ωm0) and δ/2β=-1, removing one degree of freedom from the model.
  • ad hoc to paper tanh ansatz ρφ=ρc0 tanh(A+Bz)
    Phenomenological parametrization chosen to give a smooth transition; not derived from a scalar potential or field equation.
  • ad hoc to paper Pantheon+ likelihood uses only diagonal uncertainties
    Equation (44) omits the Pantheon+ covariance matrix, which is required for a full likelihood treatment.
invented entities (1)
  • Phenomenological scalar field φ with energy density ρφ=ρc0 tanh(A+Bz)
    purpose: Acts as dark energy driving late-time acceleration and provides derived EoS, potential, and accretion effects.
    No field equation or Lagrangian uniquely determines the tanh form; it is an effective fluid parametrization with no independent detection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational signatures of scalar field dynamics in modified $f(Q, L_m)$ gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CB6VZXRF

@misc{pith2026250708897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational signatures of scalar field dynamics in modified $f(Q, L_m)$ gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CB6VZXRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08897}
}
abstract

We investigate the cosmological implications of a tanh-parametrized scalar field model in the framework of modified $f(Q, L_{m})$ gravity by adopting the form $f(Q, L_{m})=\beta Q+\delta L_{m}$ along with a scalar field energy density $\rho_\phi = \rho_{c0} \tanh(A + Bz)$. Using MCMC methods and combining $31$ cosmic chronometer data points, $15$ BAO, DESI DR2 BAO and $1701$ Pantheon+ samples, we constrain the model parameters and obtain $H_{0}=74.284^{+4.155}_{-4.275}$, $\Omega_{m0}=0.326^{+0.093}_{-0.072}$ and $B=-0.001^{+0.030}_{-0.030}$. The model predicts a transition redshift $z_{tr}=0.5914$ and a present deceleration parameter $q_0=-0.5167$, consistent with a Universe transitioning from deceleration to acceleration. We further analyze the evolution of the EoS parameter, density components and statefinder diagnostics in which all parameters show asymptotic convergence to a de Sitter phase. Additionally, we study black hole mass accretion, showing its dependence on the scalar field dynamics. This work highlights the compatibility of tanh-scalar field forms with $f(Q, L_m)$ gravity in describing cosmic acceleration and gravitational phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Joint estimation of (H0, Ωm0, B) with confidence level visualization. The shaded regions denote the 1σ (68.27%), 2σ (95.45%) and 3σ (99.73%) confidence levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Error bar comparison illustrating the variability in paramete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. q(z) vs. redshift for the best-fit parameters. The q(z) evolution is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy densities and scalar field pressure as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The changing profile of the scalar field EoS parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Variation of the φ˙2 and V (φ) as functions of redshift. 6.5 Evolution of density parameters The density parameters Ωm and Ωφ describe the fractional contributions of matter and scalar field energy densities to the total energy budget of the Universe. These parameters …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tracking the redshift evolution of Ωm and Ωφ for B = 1. We depict in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Computation of the age parameter H0t0 using the best-fit model parameters. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the statefinder parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The variation of black hole mass M(z) with redshift is explored for varying accretion constants A. and for A = 0.009, it can rise as high as M ≈ 0.29 in the distant past. As redshift approaches zero, the increasing trend in black hole mass indicates that black holes a…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Riess, et al., Astron.J

    Adam G. Riess, et al., Astron.J. 116:1009-1038, 1998

    1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter et al., The Astrophys

    S. Perlmutter et al., The Astrophys. Journ. 517, 565 (1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    WMAP Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    Steven Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1, 1989

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rep. 513, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Harko and F.S.N

    T. Harko and F.S.N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C 70 373–379 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Wang and K

    J. Wang and K. Liao, Class. Quantum Gravity 29, 215016 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. 505, 59, 144 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Jimenez, L

    J.B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044048 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Khyllep et al., Phys

    W. Khyllep et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 103521 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Hazarika et al

    A. Hazarika et al. arXiv:2407.00989 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Myrzakulov et al., J

    K. Myrzakulov et al., J. High Energy Astrophys. 44, 164-171 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Myrzakulov et al., Phys

    Y. Myrzakulov et al., Phys. Dark Universe 46, 101614 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Myrzakulov et al., Phys

    Y. Myrzakulov et al., Phys. Dark Universe 48, 101829 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Samaddar and S.S

    A. Samaddar and S.S. Singh, Nucl. Phys. B 1012, 116834 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Carroll, Phys

    S.M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3067 (1998)

    1998

  10. [18]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753–1936 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Martin, Mod

    J. Martin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23, 1252–1265 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Surendra Singh, Md Khurshid Alam, Int

    Amit Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, Md Khurshid Alam, Int. J. Mo d. Phys. D, Vol. 32, No. 09, 2350062 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063004 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Caldwell, M

    R.R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, N.N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 071301 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Chiba et al., Phys

    T. Chiba et al., Phys. Rev. D 62, 023511 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Armendariz-Picon et al., Phys

    C. Armendariz-Picon et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4438 (2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    Kamenshchik et al., Phys

    A.Y. Kamenshchik et al., Phys. Lett. B 511, 265 (2001). 18

    2001

  19. [27]

    Bento et al., Phys

    M.C. Bento et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 043507 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Kamenshchik et al., Phys

    A.Y. Kamenshchik et al., Phys. Lett. B 511, 265 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    Bagla et al., Phys

    J.S. Bagla et al., Phys. Rev. D 67, 063504 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Myrzakulov, et

    N. Myrzakulov, et. al., J. Phys: Conf. Ser. 1391 (1), 012165 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Yerzhanov, et al., Astrophys

    K. Yerzhanov, et al., Astrophys. Space Sci. 341, 681–688 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Singh, R

    J.K. Singh, R. Nagpal, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 4 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Pacif, S

    S.K.J. Pacif, S. Arora, P.K. Sahoo, Phys. Dark Universe 32, 100804 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    A. Kar, S. Sadhukhan, U. Debnath, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 37, 2250183 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Sharma, M

    U.K. Sharma, M. Kumar, G. Varshney, Universe 8, 12 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Koussour, Adnan Malik, N

    Dan Wang, M. Koussour, Adnan Malik, N. Myrzakulov, G. Mustaf a, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 670 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Physical Rev iew D, 84, (2), 024020 (2011)

    2011

  30. [39]

    Xu et al., Eur

    Y. Xu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 449 (2020)

    2020

  31. [40]

    Bertolami, F

    O. Bertolami, F. S. N. Lobo, and J. Paramos, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 064036, (2008)

    2008

  32. [41]

    N. S. Kavya, V. Venkatesha, Sanjay Mandal, P.K. Sahoo, Phys ics of the Dark Universe 38, 101126 (2022)

    2022

  33. [42]

    Yue-Yue Zhao et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 72:1924 (2012)

    2012

  34. [43]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 310, 842 (1999)

    1999

  35. [44]

    L. Feng, T. Lu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11, 034 (2011)

    2011

  36. [45]

    Antoniadis, Y

    I. Antoniadis, Y. Chen, G.K. Leontaris, J. High Energy Phys. 2020, 1–20 (2020)

    2020

  37. [46]

    Moresco, J

    M. Moresco, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 014 (2016)

    2016

  38. [47]

    Samaddar, S

    A. Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, Physics of the Dark Universe , 47, 101792 (2025)

    2025

  39. [48]

    Myrzakulov, M

    N. Myrzakulov, M. Koussour, D.J. Gogoi, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 594 (2023)

    2023

  40. [49]

    DESI collaboration, arXiv:2404.03000, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Adame, et al., J

    A.G. Adame, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01, 124 (2025)

    2025

  42. [51]

    Adame, et al., J

    A.G. Adame, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 021 (2025)

    2025

  43. [52]

    Abdul Karim, et al., arXiv:2503.14738

    M. Abdul Karim, et al., arXiv:2503.14738

    arXiv

  44. [53]

    Riess et al 2021 ApJL 908, L6

    Adam G. Riess et al 2021 ApJL 908, L6

    2021

  45. [54]

    Astrophys

    Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6

    2020

  46. [55]

    ´Eric Aubourg et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 123516 (2015)

    2015

  47. [56]

    G. Chen, B. Ratra, PASP 123, 1127 (2011)

    2011

  48. [57]

    Capozziello, R

    S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino, O. Luongo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astro n. Soc. 494, 2576–2590 (2020)

    2020

  49. [58]

    M. Cruz, S. Lepe, Nuclear Physics B, 956, 115017 (2020)

    2020

  50. [59]

    Brevik, A

    I. Brevik, A. V. Timoshkin, International Journal of Geometr ic Methods in Modern Physics, 17, 06, 2050087 (2020). 19

    2020

  51. [60]

    Sahni, Varun, et al., Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 77.5 (2003): 201

    2003

  52. [61]

    Feng, Phys

    C.J. Feng, Phys. Lett. B, 670, 231–234 (2008)

    2008

  53. [62]

    Y.B. Wu, S. Li, M.H. Fu, J.A. He, Gen. Rel. Grav., 39, 653–662 (2007)

    2007

  54. [63]

    Surendra Singh, Journal of High Energy Ast rophysics, 48, 100404 (2025)

    Amit Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, Journal of High Energy Ast rophysics, 48, 100404 (2025)

    2025

  55. [64]

    Babichev et al., Phys

    E.O. Babichev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 021102 (2014)

    2014

  56. [65]

    Lima, D.C

    J..A.S. Lima, D.C. Guariento, J.E. Horvath, Phys. Lett. B 693, 218 (2010)

    2010

  57. [66]

    Barrow, Nucl

    J.D. Barrow, Nucl. Phys. B 310, 743 (1988). 20

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.