Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A string-theory-inspired correction to gravity is constrained to be tiny by late-time cosmological data.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 09:15 UTC pith:FLORXTXD

load-bearing objection A competent constraint paper whose headline β bound is probably right, but the GRB fits have a model-domain ambiguity that needs fixing before publication. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.16228 v1 pith:FLORXTXD submitted 2025-10-17 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Observational constraints on the modified cosmology inspired by string T-duality

G.G.Luciano , A. Paliathanasis , A. Sheykhi This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th MSC 83F0583C4585A40 PACS 98.80.-k04.60.-m95.36.+x
keywords string T-dualityzero-point lengthmodified Friedmann equationscosmological constraintsdark energyHubble parameterbaryon acoustic oscillationsgamma-ray bursts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper works out the observable consequences of a cosmological model motivated by string T-duality, where a zero-point length l0 modifies the gravitational potential and hence the Friedmann equations of an expanding universe. The modification shows up as a single dimensionless parameter β, proportional to l0²H0², which measures how much the expansion history departs from the standard ΛCDM model. Combining supernova distances, cosmic chronometer Hubble measurements, baryon acoustic oscillations, and calibrated gamma-ray bursts, the authors find β is no larger than about 10⁻³ at 68% confidence. At that level, the T-duality model fits the data essentially as well as ΛCDM, with only a marginal statistical preference for the standard model. The paper establishes that any quantum-gravity-induced departure from ΛCDM in the late-time expansion is currently very small, and that future high-precision surveys will be needed to detect it.

Core claim

The central claim is that the string T-duality modified cosmology, with its zero-point length parameter β, is observationally viable but tightly bounded: a joint Bayesian analysis of late-time datasets gives β ≲ 10⁻³ (68% C.L.) when baryon acoustic oscillations are included, and the AIC model comparison shows the T-duality model and ΛCDM are statistically equivalent, with at most weak evidence favoring ΛCDM. This is the first quantitative observational constraint on this T-duality-inspired framework.

What carries the argument

The key ingredient is the modified horizon entropy dS_h = 2πR(1 + l0²/R²)^(−3/2) dR, which follows from a T-duality-inspired zero-point length in the gravitational potential. Applying the first law of thermodynamics at the apparent horizon of a flat FRW universe produces the modified Friedmann equation H² − αH⁴ ≈ (8π/3)ρ + Λ/3, with α = 3l0²/4. The dimensionless parameter β = αH0² = (3/4)l0²H0² carries the deviation from ΛCDM, entering the Hubble function as H²/H0² = D(z)[1 + β D(z)] to first order, where D(z) = Ωm0(1+z)³ + Ωr0(1+z)⁴ + ΩΛ0. This β is the parameter the paper constrains with data.

Load-bearing premise

The exact Hubble solution (13) is assumed to be valid over the entire redshift range of the data, including gamma-ray bursts at z ≈ 8.1, but for β near the reported upper bound the square root in that solution becomes imaginary at high redshift, so the analysis must either rely on the first-order expansion (14) or impose a hard existence cutoff—and the paper does not state which.

What would settle it

Recompute the distance modulus of the highest-redshift GRB (z ≈ 8.1) using the exact solution (13) versus the first-order expansion (14) at β = 0.003; if the two predictions differ by more than the reported measurement uncertainty, the upper bound on β depends on which expression was used in the likelihood, and the constraint is not purely data-driven.

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

If this is right

  • If β is truly below ~10⁻³, the late-time expansion history of the universe is indistinguishable from ΛCDM with the current generation of distance and Hubble measurements.
  • The same zero-point length correction, which shows up as a subdominant late-time effect, could be far more visible in early-universe observables such as the CMB or primordial gravitational waves, providing a complementary test.
  • The bound on β translates directly into a bound on the zero-point length l0 ≈ (4β/3)^(1/2)/H0, connecting a cosmological measurement to the scale of spacetime discreteness.
  • The statistical equivalence of the two models means that adding more data of the same type will not by itself sharpen the constraint much; qualitatively new probes are needed to detect the correction.
  • The model can serve as a template for testing other minimal-length or quantum-gravity-inspired cosmologies against late-time data using the same Bayesian pipeline.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the likelihood uses the exact Hubble solution (13) or the first-order expansion (14); for β near the reported upper bound, the square root in (13) becomes imaginary at the highest GRB redshifts, so the choice could bias the bound—this is an editorial concern, not a claim of the paper.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same observational framework to early-time data (CMB anisotropies, primordial gravitational waves), where the zero-point length is expected to leave stronger imprints than in late-time expansion.
  • The reported bound could be sharpened by replacing the GRB sample with a better-calibrated high-redshift distance indicator, since the current GRB data do not improve the constraint despite reaching z ≈ 8.
  • If future surveys push the β bound below ~10⁻⁴, the T-duality model would be effectively ruled out as a late-time modification, leaving only early-universe probes as viable tests.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives a modified Friedmann equation from a T-duality-inspired correction to horizon entropy, introducing a dimensionless parameter β ∼ l0^2 H0^2. Using Cobaya with MCMC sampling, the authors constrain β with six combinations of late-time datasets: PantheonPlus or Union3 supernovae, cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 BAO, and Amati-calibrated GRBs. The main result is an upper bound β ≲ O(10^-3) (68% C.L.) for combinations including BAO, with AIC showing statistical equivalence to ΛCDM. The paper does not state whether the likelihood uses the exact Hubble solution (13) or the first-order expansion (14).

Significance. If the reported constraints are correct, this constitutes the first quantitative late-time observational bound on string T-duality inspired cosmology, complementing earlier early-universe analyses in Ref. [37]. The use of multiple recent datasets, a standard Bayesian pipeline, and AIC model comparison are strengths. However, the central quantitative result is currently not well defined because the high-redshift behavior of the model depends on which of the two expressions (13)/(14) is implemented; for the GRB-containing datasets, the exact solution becomes imaginary for β near the reported upper bound. This issue must be resolved before the significance of the constraints can be assessed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (9) and Eq. (15)] The paper never states whether the MCMC likelihood uses the exact Hubble solution (13) or the first-order expansion (14). This ambiguity is load-bearing for the central claim. For the GRB-containing combinations D3 and D6, the highest-redshift data point is z=8.1. Using the reported best-fit Ωm0≈0.30, ΩΛ0≈0.70 and a standard Ωr0≈9×10^-5, D(z)≡Ωm0(1+z)^3+Ωr0(1+z)^4+ΩΛ0 is ≈227 at z=8.1, so 4βD≈2.7 for β=0.003, making the square root in Eq. (13) imaginary. If Eq. (13) is used with a hard existence cutoff, the likelihood excludes β≳1/(4D_max)≈1.1×10^-3, which is inconsistent with the quoted <3.4×10^-3 in Table II. If Eq. (14) is used instead, it is evaluated at βD≈0.7, far outside the O(β) validity of the expansion. Either way, the reported upper bounds from the GRB datasets are not well defined. The authors must specify the likelihood implementation and, if Eq. (13) is used, the prior/cuto
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (9) and Eq. (15)] The derivation of Eq. (9) is summarized as 'straightforward algebra' without presenting intermediate steps. Since Eq. (9) is the foundation of all constraints, the reader cannot verify the approximations, e.g., the dropping of O(α^2) terms. In addition, the flatness condition is imposed differently in the exact and expanded formulations: imposing H(0)/H0=1 on Eq. (13) gives ΩΛ0=1−Ωm0−Ωr0−β exactly, whereas Eq. (15) contains O(β^2). The text should state which expression is used in the likelihood and whether this choice affects the reported parameter bounds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 / Table I] The priors do not include the SNIa absolute magnitude or any GRB calibration nuisance parameter. Please clarify how the distance-modulus likelihood is normalized (e.g., analytic marginalization over M), especially since PantheonPlus and Union3 are used without SH0ES calibration.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The text introduces Ω_r0 but does not specify how it is fixed or sampled. Please state the value or prior used for the radiation density parameter.
  3. [Table II] In the rows for D1 and D4, the '−' for r_drag is ambiguous; use 'N/A' or a dash to indicate that BAO data are not included.
  4. [Abstract] The claim of 'first quantitative observational constraints' should be qualified as 'first late-time' since Ref. [37] already provides early-universe constraints on the same framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the T-duality parameter β is a genuinely fitted free parameter; the reported upper bound is a direct observational constraint, and the self-cited model derivation is not equivalent to the data products.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative result is a 68% upper limit on β from an MCMC fit to external cosmological datasets. β is introduced via Eq. (11) as a free dimensionless parameter and is constrained by the likelihood, not derived from the data as a prediction. The H(z) predictions (Eqs. (13)-(14)) follow algebraically from the modified Friedmann equation (Eq. (9)) and are not redefinitions of the inputs. The flatness normalization (Eq. (15)) is a consistency condition, not a fit. The theoretical framework is imported from the authors' prior Ref. [37] (Eqs. (2) and (9)); although this is a self-citation, it is not circular in the sense of the rubric: the prior derivation does not contain the present bound on β, and the observational constraints are external to it. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported to force the model. A separate validity concern—the paper does not state whether the likelihood uses the exact solution (13) or the first-order expansion (14), and at high z with β near the quoted bound the discriminant in (13) becomes negative—is a correctness/robustness issue, not an instance of circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model's only genuinely new free parameter is β; the remaining parameters are standard cosmology. The theory rests on the prior entropy formula (2) and the thermodynamic derivation of gravity, and on the unstated assumption that the exact solution is real across the data's redshift range.

free parameters (4)
  • β = <0.0030–0.0122 (68% C.L., depending on dataset)
    The T-duality coupling, αH0², constrained by MCMC; central parameter of the model.
  • H0 = 66.8–69.4 km/s/Mpc
    Present-day Hubble constant, fitted jointly.
  • Ω_m0 = 0.29–0.34
    Present-day matter density parameter, fitted jointly.
  • r_drag = 146.9–147.3 Mpc
    Sound horizon at drag epoch, free parameter for BAO.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Horizon entropy differential dS_h = 2πR (1 + l0²/R²)^(-3/2) dR (Eq. 2) correctly encodes T-duality zero-point length corrections.
    Taken verbatim from the authors' prior paper [37]; not re-derived here, but central to the Friedmann equation (9).
  • domain assumption The first law of thermodynamics at the apparent horizon, dE = T_h dS_h + W dV, yields the modified Friedmann equations.
    Standard in entropic-gravity cosmology [1–10]; applied without proof.
  • domain assumption Spatial flatness k=0 is assumed.
    Motivated by Planck observations [72]; restricts the model to flat FRW.
  • ad hoc to paper The exact solution (13) (or its expansion (14)) is valid over the full redshift range of the data, including z≈8.1 GRBs.
    For β≈3×10^-3, 4βD(z)>1 at high z, making the square root in (13) imaginary; the paper does not state how the likelihood treats this or which form is used.
  • ad hoc to paper Flatness condition (15): Ω_Λ0 = 1 - Ω_m0 - Ω_r0 - β, forcing H(0)=H0 exactly.
    Sets the cosmological constant by the other densities and β; a normalization that constrains the model at z=0 by construction.
  • domain assumption Higher-order terms O(α²) in (9) are negligible.
    α = 3l0²/4 is assumed small; the paper keeps only the H^4 correction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11447 in / 16346 out tokens · 123726 ms · 2026-08-04T09:15:55.357833+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We explore the cosmological consequences of a modified cosmology inspired by string T-duality. We incorporate the zero-point length correction, $l_0$, into the gravitational potential and derive the modified Friedmann equations via thermodynamic approach at the apparent horizon of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe. The resulting framework introduces a dimensionless coupling parameter $\beta\sim l_0^2H_0^2$ quantifying deviations from the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. Using Bayesian inference with \textsc{Cobaya} and MCMC sampling, we constrain the model parameter against late-time observations, including PantheonPlus and Union3 Type~Ia supernovae, cosmic chronometers, DESI~DR2 BAO measurements, and Amati-calibrated GRBs. The joint analysis yields an upper bound $\beta \lesssim \mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$ (68\% C.L.), implying that departures from $\Lambda$CDM are extremely small within current precision. Model comparison through the Akaike Information Criterion shows that the $\Lambda$CDM and T-duality models provide statistically equivalent fits to the data, exhibiting only a marginal preference for $\Lambda$CDM. These results provide the first quantitative observational constraints on string T-duality inspired modified cosmology and underscore the potential of future high-precision surveys to test quantum-gravity induced corrections in a late-time universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.16228 by A. Paliathanasis, A. Sheykhi, G.G.Luciano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Confidence regions for the free parameters of the string T-duality cosmology, derived from the joint likelihood of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Confidence regions for the free parameters of the string T-duality cosmology, derived from the joint likelihood of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Evidence for deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity at cosmological scales with KiDS-Legacy and CMB lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    KiDS-Legacy weak lensing plus CMB data yields a 3 sigma deviation in light deflection from GR in a Lambda CDM background, with the signal driven by large-scale CMB lensing amplitudes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 74 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    INTRODUCTION In the past few decades, it has become widely accepted that the laws of gravity may be viewed as a macroscopic manifestation of the laws of thermodynamics in large-scale spacetime systems. This idea has been thoroughly explored, and many studies have shown that gravitational field equations can be derived from the first law of thermodynamics ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Within the entropic gravity framework, this deformation translates into a correction to the entropy associated with the cosmological horizon

    COSMOLOGY FROM STRING T-DUALITY According to the T-duality principle, the existence of a zero-point lengthl 0 induces a modification in the gravi- tational potential, effectively regularizing the interaction at short distances. Within the entropic gravity framework, this deformation translates into a correction to the entropy associated with the cosmologi...

  3. [3]

    We also describe the cosmological datasets employed in the analysis and outline the statistical methods used for parameter estimation and model comparison

    OBSER V A TIONAL DA T A ANAL YSIS In this section, we present the observational constraints obtained for our string T-duality cosmological model and compare the resulting physical parameters with those of the standard ΛCDM model. We also describe the cosmological datasets employed in the analysis and outline the statistical methods used for parameter esti...

    2087

  4. [4]

    DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have investigated the phenomenological implications of the string T-duality framework in late-time cosmology. By incorporating the zero-point length corrections motivated by T-duality into the Friedmann equations, we have derived a modified cosmological model characterized by the dimensionless coupling parameter...

    2022

  5. [5]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1260 (1995), gr-qc/9504004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  6. [6]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept.406, 49 (2005), gr-qc/0311036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Padmanabhan, Rept

    T. Padmanabhan, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 046901 (2010), 0911.5004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Paranjape, S

    A. Paranjape, S. Sarkar, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D74, 104015 (2006), hep-th/0607240

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    A. V. Frolov and L. Kofman, JCAP05, 009 (2003), hep-th/0212327

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  10. [10]

    Cai and S

    R.-G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP02, 050 (2005), hep-th/0501055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  11. [11]

    Akbar and R.-G

    M. Akbar and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D75, 084003 (2007), hep-th/0609128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  12. [12]

    Cai and L.-M

    R.-G. Cai and L.-M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D75, 064008 (2007), gr-qc/0611071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Sheykhi, B

    A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, and R.-G. Cai, Nucl. Phys. B779, 1 (2007), hep-th/0701198

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  14. [14]

    Sheykhi, B

    A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D76, 023515 (2007), hep-th/0701261. 9 65 70 75 H0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 m0 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 m0 0.01 0.02 U3+OHD U3+BAO U3+OHD+BAO FIG. 2: Confidence regions for the free parameters of the string T-duality cosmology, derived from the joint likelihood of the combined datasets incl...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  15. [15]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5056 (1998), gr-qc/9911046

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  16. [16]

    Nicolini, A

    P. Nicolini, A. Smailagic, and E. Spallucci, Phys. Lett. B632, 547 (2006), gr-qc/0510112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  17. [17]

    Nicolini, Int

    P. Nicolini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 1229 (2009), 0807.1939

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  18. [18]

    Nicolini, E

    P. Nicolini, E. Spallucci, and M. F. Wondrak, Phys. Lett. B797, 134888 (2019), 1902.11242

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1854 (1997), hep-th/9608182

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  20. [20]

    Fontanini, E

    M. Fontanini, E. Spallucci, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Lett. B633, 627 (2006), hep-th/0509090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  21. [21]

    E. P. Verlinde, JHEP04, 029 (2011), 1001.0785

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Jusufi and A

    K. Jusufi and A. Sheykhi, Phys. Lett. B836, 137621 (2023), 2210.01584

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Tsallis and L

    C. Tsallis and L. J. L. Cirto, Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013)

    2013

  24. [24]

    J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B808, 135643 (2020), 2004.09444

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 242 (2019), 1903.03098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Lymperis and E

    A. Lymperis and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 993 (2018), 1806.04614

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    E. N. Saridakis, JCAP07, 031 (2020), 2006.01105

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Hern´ andez-Almada, G

    A. Hern´ andez-Almada, G. Leon, J. Maga˜ na, M. A. Garc ´ ıa-Aspeitia, V. Motta, E. N. Saridakis, K. Yesmakhanova, and A. D. Millano, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 5122 (2022), 2112.04615

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Dheepika, H

    M. Dheepika, H. B. V. T., and T. K. Mathew, Phys. Scripta99, 015014 (2024), 2211.14039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Jizba, G

    P. Jizba, G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and L. Petruzziello, Phys. Rev. D105, L121501 (2022), 2201.07919

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Lambiase, G

    G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and A. Sheykhi, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 936 (2023), 2307.04027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Jizba, G

    P. Jizba, G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and L. Mastrototaro, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1076 (2024), 2403.09797

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Ebrahimi and A

    E. Ebrahimi and A. Sheykhi, Phys. Dark Univ.45, 101518 (2024), 2405.13096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, T. Paul, and S. SenGupta (2025), 2503.19056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    G. G. Luciano and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 558 (2022), 2203.12010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Ghaffari, G

    S. Ghaffari, G. G. Luciano, and S. Capozziello, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, 82 (2023), 2209.00903

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Basilakos, A

    S. Basilakos, A. Lymperis, M. Petronikolou, and E. N. Saridakis (2025), 2503.24355. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Kaniadakis, Phys

    G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E66, 056125 (2002), cond-mat/0210467

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  39. [39]

    J. I. Kapusta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E30, 2130006 (2021), 2106.06824

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    G. G. Luciano and M. Blasone, Phys. Rev. D104, 045004 (2021), 2104.00395

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    G. G. Luciano and A. Sheykhi, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 682 (2024), 2404.12707

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083514 (2025), 2503.14739

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), 2503.14738

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), 2503.14743

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby (2025), 2503.17342

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    C. You, D. Wang, and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D112, 043503 (2025), 2504.00985

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Gu et al

    G. Gu et al. (DESI) (2025), 2504.06118

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    F. B. M. d. Santos, J. Morais, S. Pan, W. Yang, and E. Di Valentino (2025), 2504.04646

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    C. Li, J. Wang, D. Zhang, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.-F. Cai (2025), 2504.07791

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D111, 023512 (2025), 2404.12068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    G. G. Luciano, A. Paliathanasis, and E. N. Saridakis, JHEAp49, 100427 (2026), 2506.03019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    G. G. Luciano, A. Paliathanasis, and E. N. Saridakis, JCAP09, 013 (2025), 2504.12205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Chaussidon et al., Phys

    E. Chaussidon et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 063548 (2025), 2503.24343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Phys. Lett. B868, 139632 (2025), 2503.19428

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Ye and Y

    G. Ye and Y. Cai (2025), 2503.22515

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Paliathanasis (2025), 2506.16223

    A. Paliathanasis (2025), 2506.16223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Arora, A

    S. Arora, A. De Felice, and S. Mukohyama (2025), 2508.03784

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Paliathanasis, JCAP09, 067 (2025), 2503.20896

    A. Paliathanasis, JCAP09, 067 (2025), 2503.20896

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    R. Shah, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, 2936 (2025), 2503.21652

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Silva, M

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), 2503.23225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    van der Westhuizen, D

    M. van der Westhuizen, D. Figueruelo, R. Thubisi, S. Sahlu, A. Abebe, and A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102107 (2025), 2505.23306

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    S. L. Guedezounme, B. R. Dinda, and R. Maartens (2025), 2507.18274

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), 2407.14934

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    A. C. Alfano, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, JCAP12, 055 (2024), 2408.02536

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Astron. Astrophys.690, A40 (2024), 2404.07070

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Y. Yang, Q. Wang, X. Ren, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.-F. Cai, Astrophys. J.988, 123 (2025), 2504.06784

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101993 (2025), 2504.11132

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    U. K. Tyagi, S. Haridasu, and S. Basak (2025), 2504.11308

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Yao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102068 (2025), 2507.07798

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    H¨ og ˚ as and E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as and E. M¨ ortsell (2025), 2507.03743

    arXiv 2025

  71. [75]

    Amati, R

    L. Amati, R. D’Agostino, O. Luongo, M. Muccino, and M. Tantalo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, L46 (2019), 1811.08934

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  72. [76]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [77]

    S. A. Hayward, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 3147 (1998), gr-qc/9710089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  74. [78]

    Scolnic et al., Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), 2112.03863

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [79]

    Rubin et al

    D. Rubin et al. (2023), 2311.12098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [80]

    J.-J. Wei, F. Melia, and X.-F. Wu, Astrophys. J.835, 270 (2017), 1612.08491

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  77. [81]

    Vagnozzi, A

    S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb, and M. Moresco, Astrophys. J.908, 84 (2021), 2011.11645

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [82]

    Amati et al., Astron

    L. Amati et al., Astron. Astrophys.390, 81 (2002), astro-ph/0205230

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  79. [83]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, (2019), ascl:1910.019

    2019

  80. [84]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057 (2021), 2005.05290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.