Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

A new parametric observational study of $f(Q,B)$ gravity with modified chaplygin gas

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 This paper claims that a modified Chaplygin gas in f(Q,B) gravity can unify matter and dark energy while matching current cosmic expansion data without a cosmological constant.

desk verdict A f(Q,B)+MCG paper whose central deceleration-to-acceleration transition is an artifact of a wrong denominator; the model is eternally accelerating. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14251 v1 pith:VHQDLNSU submitted 2025-07-18 gr-qc hep-th

Amit Samaddar , S. Surendra Singh This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords f(QB)gravitymodifiedChaplygingasnonmetricityscalarlate-timecosmicaccelerationdecelerationparameterMCMCcosmologicalconstraintsHubbleconstantdarkenergyunification
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 sets out to show that a modified gravity theory built from the nonmetricity scalar $Q$ and its boundary term $B$, with $f(Q,B)=\delta Q^2+\beta B$, can explain the universe's accelerated expansion without a separate cosmological constant. The matter is a modified Chaplygin gas, a single fluid whose equation of state can behave like dust at early times and like dark energy at late times. The authors derive an analytic Hubble parameter $H(z)$, fit it to 46 Hubble-parameter measurements, BAO data including DESI DR2, and the Pantheon+ supernova compilation, and obtain best-fit parameters implying an accelerating present epoch, a transition to acceleration near $z\approx 0.95$, and a cosmic age near $13.5$ Gyr. A reader should care because, if the picture holds, one fluid plus a geometric $Q^2$ term would unify the dark-matter and dark-energy sectors in a way that is directly testable with the same datasets.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the pair consisting of the quadratic-plus-boundary Lagrangian $f(Q,B)=\delta Q^2+\beta B$ and the modified Chaplygin gas equation of state $p=A\rho-B/\rho^{\alpha}$. In a flat FLRW background the nonmetricity scalar is $Q=-6H^2$ and the boundary term is $B=6(3H^2+\dot H)$, so the modified Friedmann equation reduces to the algebraic relation $\rho=-54\delta H^4$ once the MCG continuity solution is substituted. This relation produces the compact Hubble law of Eq. (25), and every derived diagnostic—deceleration parameter, equation-of-state parameter, energy conditions, $\omega$–$\omega'$ trajectory, and cosmic age—is computed from that single expression, so Eq. (25) carries the entire argument.

What would settle it

Compute $q(z)=-1+(1+z)H'(z)/H(z)$ directly from the paper's Eq. (25) with its best-fit parameters, instead of using Eq. (36); if $q(z)$ is negative at every redshift, as the high-redshift limit $q\to -1+3(1+A)/4$ suggests for the reported $A\approx 0.004$, then the claimed decelerating matter era and $z_{tr}\approx 0.946$ do not exist. Adding baryons and radiation to the Friedmann equation and re-fitting the data would also test whether the single-fluid assumption can survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the modified Chaplygin gas, placed in the symmetric-teleparallel gravity model $f(Q,B)=\delta Q^2+\beta B$, gives a single-fluid description of both the matter-dominated and the late-time accelerating universe. Its continuity equation yields $\rho(z)=\rho_0[A_s+(1-A_s)(1+z)^{3(1+A)(1+\alpha)}]^{1/(1+\alpha)}$, and inserting this into the modified Friedmann equation gives the Hubble law $H(z)=H_0[A_s+(1-A_s)(1+z)^{3(1+A)(1+\alpha)}]^{1/[4(1+\alpha)]}$, with $\delta<0$ fixed by $H_0^4=-\rho_0/(54\delta)$. Fitting this to 46 $H(z)$ measurements, 15 BAO points, DESI DR2, and Pantheon+ supernovae yields $H_0=72.22^{+3.64}_{-4.46}$ km/s/Mpc, $A_s=0.6965^{+0.0817}_{-0.1291}$, $\alpha=0.0029^{+0.0225}_{-0.0212}$, and $A=0.0038^{+0.0714}_{-0.0475}$. From these values the paper derives a deceleration-to-acceleration transition at $z_{tr}\approx 0.946$, present-day values $q_0=-0.789$ and $\omega_0\approx -0.691$, and a universe age of $13.53$ Gyr, and concludes that the model is observationally viable and unifies dark matter and dark energy without a cosmological constant.

Load-bearing premise

The central argument assumes a flat universe containing only one modified Chaplygin gas fluid and turns the fluid's continuity solution into an $H(z)$ through the relation $\rho=-54\delta H^4$; if that single-fluid setup or the derived $H(z)$ is not the whole story, the claimed matter-to-dark-energy transition is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same single fluid would account for both the matter and dark-energy epochs, so no separate dark energy component or cosmological constant is needed in the fit.
  • The fitted $H_0\approx 72.2$ km/s/Mpc sits between the Planck and SH0ES values, so the model is presented as a way to relax the Hubble tension through modified geometry.
  • The small best-fit values of $A$ and $\alpha$ make the model nearly $\Lambda$CDM-like, so its distance and age predictions are close enough to standard cosmology that high-precision supernova and BAO surveys can distinguish them.
  • The predicted transition redshift $z_{tr}\approx 0.946$ and cosmic age $t_0\approx 13.53$ Gyr are concrete targets that future surveys can confirm or contradict.
  • The energy-condition analysis predicts SEC violation during the accelerated phase while NEC and DEC hold, a geometric-fluid signature that can be compared with other dark-energy reconstructions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the best-fit $A$ and $\alpha$ are both very close to zero, a natural next step would be to run a model-selection comparison against $\Lambda$CDM on the same likelihood; the paper does not report such a statistic.
  • An immediate extension is to compute the growth rate $f\sigma_8$ and weak-lensing predictions from the fitted $H(z)$, since background-distance data alone do not test the unified-fluid picture against structure formation.
  • Since the paper uses only late-universe probes, adding CMB distance priors or a radiation component would test whether the single-fluid model remains consistent at recombination and early times.
  • Reparameterizing the model with $A_s$ as a derived dark-energy fraction and marginalizing over $\delta$ would show how much of the fit comes from the geometry versus the Chaplygin fluid itself.
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 spatially flat FLRW cosmology in f(Q,B) gravity with the specific form f(Q,B)=δQ^2+βB and a Modified Chaplygin Gas (MCG) matter sector described by p=Aρ−B/ρ^α. It derives a closed-form Hubble parameter H(z)=H0[As+(1−As)(1+z)^{3(1+A)(1+α)}]^{1/[4(1+α)]}, fits the four parameters H0, As, A, and α to a joint dataset of 46 Hubble-parameter measurements, 15 BAO points, DESI DR2 BAO data, and the Pantheon+ supernova compilation using MCMC, and then uses the best-fit values to construct the deceleration parameter q(z), pressure p(z), equation-of-state parameter ω(z), energy conditions, the ω−ω′ trajectory, and the age of the Universe. The central claim is that the model provides an observationally viable unified description of a matter-dominated era and late-time acceleration, with a deceleration-to-acceleration transition at ztr≈0.946, q0=−0.789, ω0≈−0.691, and t0≈13.53 Gyr.

Significance. The paper has some genuine strengths: it works with a nontrivial f(Q,B) model, provides an analytic H(z) expression, and confronts the model with a modern combination of CC, BAO, DESI DR2, and Pantheon+ data. The best-fit parameters are reported with asymmetric uncertainties, and the derived diagnostics (q0, ztr, ω0, age) are stated explicitly, which makes the model falsifiable. However, the central diagnostics are undermined by algebraic errors. The corrected deceleration parameter derived from the paper's own H(z) is negative at all redshifts for the best-fit parameters, so the claimed matter-dominated phase and transition redshift are artifacts. A second, independent inconsistency appears in the equation-of-state formula, and the geometric identities in Eq. (15) are internally inconsistent. These are not minor presentation issues: the paper's main conclusion depends directly on the erroneous formulas.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Eq. (36)] Equation (36) is algebraically wrong. From Eq. (25), H(z)=H0 X^{1/[4(1+α)]} with X=As+(1−As)(1+z)^m and m=3(1+A)(1+α). The definition q=−1−\dot H/H^2 gives q(z)=−1+3(1+A)(1−As)(1+z)^m/[4X]. The denominator in Eq. (36) is X^{1/[4(1+α)]}, not X. With the best-fit values As=0.6965, A=0.0038, α=0.0029, the corrected formula gives q(0)≈−0.771 and q(z)→−(1−3A)/4≈−0.247 as z→∞. Thus q(z) is negative at every redshift and has no zero. The claimed transition at ztr≈0.946, the high-redshift matter-dominated phase, and the reported q0=−0.789 are artifacts of this mis-derived formula.
  2. [§5.2 and §5.3, Eqs. (38)–(39)] The pressure and equation-of-state formulas contain the same denominator error. The correct Friedmann expression gives p=18δH0^4 X^{1/(1+α)}[3−3(1+A)(1−As)(1+z)^m/X], so ω(z)=−1+(1+A)(1−As)(1+z)^m/X. At z=0 this gives ω0≈−0.695, close to the value −0.691 quoted in the abstract. But Eq. (39) itself at z=0 gives −1+(1−As)(1+A)/3≈−0.898, so the printed formula contradicts the paper's own reported ω0 and the correct derivation. The figures and conclusions built on Eqs. (38)–(39) therefore need to be redone.
  3. [§2, Eq. (15)] The geometric identities in Eq. (15) are internally inconsistent with Eq. (6). As printed, Q=−6H^2, B=6(3H^2+\dot H), and R=6(2H^2+\dot H); substituting into R=−Q+B gives R=6(4H^2+\dot H), not the stated R. Because Eq. (16) and the resulting relation ρ=−54δH^4 rely on the explicit form of B and on the cancellation of the β terms, the derivation of the central H(z) formula depends on this identity. The authors should correct the sign/definition of Q or B and re-derive Eq. (16). If the standard relation R=−Q+B is enforced with Q=−6H^2, then B=6(H^2+\dot H), and the β terms no longer cancel, changing the Hubble parameter.
  4. [§6, Eqs. (40)–(42)] The energy-condition expressions inherit the denominator errors from the pressure formula. For example, the correct NEC combination is ρ+p=−18δH0^4 C X^{−α/(1+α)} with C=3(1+A)(1−As)(1+z)^m, whereas Eq. (40) has X^{3/[4(1+α)]} in the denominator. These are numerically very different for the best-fit α≈0.003. The statements about NEC, DEC, and SEC in §6 therefore need to be re-evaluated with corrected expressions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1] The text says 'standard rule r' where it should say 'standard ruler'.
  2. [§7] Near the end of §7 the text says the trajectory approaches (ω,ω′)=(1,0); the intended point is (−1,0), the ΛCDM fixed point.
  3. [§4.4] The value δ=−6.8×10^{−11} is obtained by setting ρ0=1; this is an arbitrary normalization choice and should be stated as such, since the magnitudes of ρ(z), p(z), and the energy conditions inherit that normalization.
  4. [§4] The MCMC description reports 100 walkers and 1500 iterations but does not provide Gelman-Rubin statistics or effective sample sizes; the claim of convergence rests only on the autocorrelation time and should be supported by additional diagnostics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the H(z) derivation is self-contained, and the flagged ztr/q0 problems are algebraic-correctness defects, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not exhibit circularity. The Hubble parameter H(z) (Eq. 25) follows from two independent inputs: (i) the MCG conservation equation (Eqs. 21-23) fixing rho(z) = rho0[As+(1-As)(1+z)^{3(1+A)(1+alpha)}]^{1/(1+alpha)}, and (ii) the f(Q,B) = delta Q^2 + beta B modified Friedmann relation rho = -54 delta H^4 (Eq. 16). The normalization H0^4 = -rho0/(54 delta) only sets delta from the arbitrary rho0 = 1 choice and the fitted H0; it does not re-inject the target results. The free parameters H0, As, A, alpha are fitted to external, independently published datasets (46 H(z) points, 15 BAO, DESI DR2, Pantheon+), after which q(z), omega(z), t0, and the energy conditions are computed algebraically from the fitted H(z); presenting these as model outputs is standard parameter propagation, not 'fitting then predicting the same quantity.' The self-citations present (refs. 16, 22, 24, 40, 41, 54, 55) are contextual (background on f(Q), f(Q,B) extensions and prior cosmology) and none carries a load-bearing premise such as a uniqueness theorem or a fitted input; the central H(z) derivation does not depend on them. The reviewer-flagged issues (Eq. 36's denominator exponent, which yields the q(z) and ztr ~ 0.946 claimed transition, and the inconsistency of Eq. 39 with omega0 ~ -0.691) are algebraic-correctness defects, not circular reductions: a wrong formula producing an artifact is a correctness risk, not a derivation equivalent to its input by construction. Accordingly the score is 1 (minor non-load-bearing self-citations) rather than 0, but no circular step is identified.

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

The central H(z) rests on the single-fluid MCG assumption, the δQ^2-dominated Friedmann equation, and the arbitrary ρ0=1 normalization. The β coupling cancels, leaving δQ^2 gravity as the effective theory. No new particles, fields, or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • H0 = 72.2160 km/s/Mpc
    Fitted to the combined CC+BAO+DESI DR2+Pantheon+ likelihood in Section 4.4.
  • As = 0.6965
    Fitted; controls the late-time MCG energy-density fraction (Section 4.4).
  • A = 0.0038
    Fitted; MCG barotropic coefficient (Section 4.4).
  • alpha = 0.0029
    Fitted; MCG Chaplygin exponent (Section 4.4).
  • delta = -6.8e-11
    Action coupling fixed by the arbitrary normalization ρ0=1 and best-fit H0; not constrained by the MCMC, though it scales the full action (Section 4.4).
  • beta = unconstrained (cancels in Friedmann equations)
    Boundary-term coupling in f(Q,B)=δQ^2+βB; terms proportional to β cancel identically in Eqs. (16)-(17), so it is not observable in the background and is not fitted or reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The universe is described by a spatially flat FLRW metric with a globally vanishing affine connection (coincident gauge, Γ=0).
    Invoked in Sections 2-3, Eq. (1) and Eq. (13).
  • domain assumption The matter sector is a single perfect fluid satisfying the MCG equation of state p=Aρ-B/ρ^α, with no separate radiation, baryonic, or neutrino components.
    Introduced in Section 3, Eq. (21); this single-fluid assumption is load-bearing because the resulting H(z) has no standard matter-dominated era.
  • ad hoc to paper The gravitational action is truncated to f(Q,B)=δQ^2+βB with constant δ and β; the βB term does not contribute to the isotropic background equations.
    Chosen in Eq. (18); the cancellation of β is shown by substituting into Eqs. (16)-(17), making the background dynamics identically that of f(Q)=δQ^2.
  • domain assumption The normalization ρ0=1 is used to fix δ through H0^4=-ρ0/(54δ).
    Stated after Eq. (25); the numerical value of δ is not independently measured.
  • domain assumption The BAO sound horizon rd is a free parameter, though the MCMC is described as 4-dimensional with no rd marginalization.
    Stated in Section 4.2; contradicted by the parameter list in Section 4.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new parametric observational study of $f(Q,B)$ gravity with modified chaplygin gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VHQDLNSU

@misc{pith2026250714251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new parametric observational study of $f(Q,B)$ gravity with modified chaplygin gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VHQDLNSU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14251}
}
abstract

In this work, we explore the cosmological dynamics of a modified gravity framework based on the function $f(Q,B)=\delta Q^{2}+\beta B$, where $Q$ denotes the nonmetricity scalar and $B$ is the boundary term that relates $Q$ to the Ricci scalar. The matter sector is modeled using the Modified Chaplygin Gas (MCG) with the equation of state $p=A\rho-\frac{B}{\rho^{\alpha}}$, allowing the model to interpolate between early-time matter behavior and late-time cosmic acceleration. By deriving an analytical expression for the Hubble parameter $H(z)$, we perform a parameter estimation using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques in conjunction with the latest cosmological observations: $46$ Hubble parameter measurements, $15$ BAO data points, DESI DR2 BAO data and the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernovae compilation. The best-fit values are obtained as $H_0 = 72.22^{+3.64}_{-4.46}$, $A_s = 0.696^{+0.082}_{-0.129}$, $\alpha = 0.0029^{+0.022}_{-0.021}$, and $A = 0.0038^{+0.071}_{-0.047}$. The deceleration parameter transitions at redshift $z_{tr} \approx 0.946$, while the present-day value is $q_0 = -0.789$. The model yields an age of the Universe $t_0 \approx 13.53$ Gyr and a present EoS parameter $\omega_0 \approx -0.691$, which reflects the late-time acceleration consistent with observational bounds. These results demonstrate that the MCG scenario within $f(Q,B)$ gravity provides a viable and observationally consistent framework for explaining the late-time accelerated expansion of the Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Error bar analysis depicting variations in parameter estima [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Joint confidence contours for (H0, As, A, α) showing 1σ, 2σ and 3σ regions from combined datasets. From the MCMC analysis using the joint observational dataset (Hubble, BAO, and Pantheon+), the best-fit values for the model parameters are obtained as follows: H0 = 72.2160+3.6425 −4.4619 km/s/Mpc, As = 0.6965+0.0817 −0.1291, α = 0.0029+0.0225 −0.0212, A = 0.0038+0.0714 −0.0475. From the expression H4 0 = − ρ0 54δ , b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of the deceleration parameter q(z) versus redshift in the f(Q, B) gravity model with Modified Chaplygin Gas. supernovae datasets. This value confirms that the current Universe is undergoing a period of accelerated expansion, closely resembling the late-time behavior of the ΛCDM model but emerging naturally from the geometry-induced dynamics of f(Q, B) gravity [54, 55]. This continuous and observationally consis… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of energy density and pressure as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolutionary trend of ω(z) in the framework of f(Q, B) gravity with MCG for δ = −0.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Redshift evolution of the energy conditions for the MCG in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trajectory in the ω − ω ′ plane for the MCG in f(Q, B) gravity. ω ′ sharply decreases, which reaches a minimum at (ω, ω′ ) ≈ (−0.5107, −0.7594), which signifies a strong evolution of the dark energy component. After this turning point, the system enters a freezing phas…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the H0(t0 − t) as a function of redshift z. Using the best-fit model parameters derived from the combined observational datasets (Pantheon+, Hubble 46, BAO 15 and DESI DR2), we numerically evaluate this integral and draw the plot which is given in [PITH_F…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Riess et al., Astron

    A.G. Riess et al., Astron. J., 116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Planck Collaboration, A&A, 594, A13 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Cole et al., MNRAS, 362, 505 (2005)

    S. Cole et al., MNRAS, 362, 505 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    Delubac et al., A&A, 574, A59 (2015)

    T. Delubac et al., A&A, 574, A59 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  6. [6]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept., 380, 235 (2003)

    2003

  7. [7]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, IJMPD, 15, 2105 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Di Valentino et al., Class

    E. Di Valentino et al., Class. Quantum Grav., 38, 153001 (2021). 15

    work page 2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Sotiriou and V

    T.P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82, 451 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Nojiri and S.D

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

    2011

  3. [11]

    Capozziello and M

    M. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept., 509, 167 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    J. B. Jim´enez et al., Phys. Rev. D, 98, 044048 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Y. Xu, G. Li, T. Harko, S. Liang, Eur. Phys. J. C, 79, 708 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Hohmann et al., Phys

    M. Hohmann et al., Phys. Rev. D, 100, 084003 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Mandal, P.K

    S. Mandal, P.K. Sahoo, J.R.L. Santos, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 024057 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    Capone, G

    M. Capone, G. Lambiase, Eur. Phys. J. C, 81, 132 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Harko et al., Phys

    T. Harko et al., Phys. Rev. D, 98, 084043 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Harko et al., Phys

    T. Harko et al., Phys. Rev. D, 84, 024020 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Lazkoz et al., Phys

    R. Lazkoz et al., Phys. Rev. D, 95, 124018 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Ranjit, B.C

    A. Ranjit, B.C. Paul, JCAP, 10, 051 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Surendra Singh, Eur

    Amit Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, Eur. Phys. J. C, 83, 283 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Atazadeh and F

    M. Atazadeh and F. Darabi, Eur. Phys. J. C, 72, 2016 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Samaddar and S.S

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

    2025

  17. [25]

    Bhattacharjee et al., Ann

    S. Bhattacharjee et al., Ann. Phys., 438, 168761 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Solanki et al., Phys

    R. Solanki et al., Phys. Dark Univ., 36, 100996 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    J. B. Jim´enez et al., JCAP, 07, 007 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Chaplygin, Sci

    S. Chaplygin, Sci. Mem. Moscow Univ. Math. 21, 1 (1904)

    1904

  21. [29]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 043507 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Benaoum, Universe 8, (2022) 340

    H.B. Benaoum, Universe 8, (2022) 340

    2022

  23. [31]

    Jamil, et al., Astrophys

    M. Jamil, et al., Astrophys. Space Sci. 333, 3–8 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Debnath, et al., Astrophys

    U. Debnath, et al., Astrophys. Space Sci. 335, 545–552 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Debnath, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 36, 33, 2150245 (2021)

    U. Debnath, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 36, 33, 2150245 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Paul and P

    B.C. Paul and P. Thakur, JCAP 11, 052 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    J. Lu, L. Xu, and M. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 662, 87–91 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    B C PAUL, P THAKUR and A SAHA, Pramana - J Phys 89, 29 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Obukhov and D

    Y.N. Obukhov and D. Puetzfeld, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044031, (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. De Falco and C. Ferrara, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 101388 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Starobinsky, Physics Letters B, 91 (1), 99-102 (1980)

    A. Starobinsky, Physics Letters B, 91 (1), 99-102 (1980)

    1980

  32. [40]

    Surendra Singh, S

    Amit Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, S. Kiranmala Chanu, Physics Letters A, 549, 130575 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    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). 16

    2025

  34. [42]

    D. F. Mackey et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    DESI collaboration, arXiv:2404.03000, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Adame, et al., J

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

    2025

  37. [45]

    Adame, et al., J

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

    2025

  38. [46]

    Abdul Karim, et al., arXiv:2503.14738

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

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Kowalski, et al., Astrophys

    M. Kowalski, et al., Astrophys. J. 686, (2), 749 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Amanullah, et al., Astrophys

    R. Amanullah, et al., Astrophys. J. 716, (1), 712 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Suzuki, et al., Astrophys

    N. Suzuki, et al., Astrophys. J. 746, (1), 85 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Betoule, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 568, A22 (2014)

    M. Betoule, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 568, A22 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Scolnic, et al., Astrophys

    D.M. Scolnic, et al., Astrophys. J. 859, (2), 101 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    A. G. Riess, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett., 934, L7, (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., et al., Astronomy & Astrophys ics, 641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Samaddar, S

    A. Samaddar, S. S. Singh, Found Phys 55, 41 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Samaddar, S

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

    2025

  48. [56]

    R. R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 141301 (2005). 17

    2005

Pith tools

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