pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08893 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Late-Time Cosmic Acceleration in Ricci-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity via Gradient Descent Optimization

Santosh V. Lohakare , B. Mishra , S. K. Maurya
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords f(R,G) gravitylate-time cosmic accelerationgradient descent optimizationcosmic chronometersPantheon+ supernovaedeceleration parameterenergy conditionsOm(z) diagnostic
0
0 comments X

The pith

A parametrized f(R,G) gravity model fitted via gradient descent to CC and Pantheon+ data produces late-time acceleration with quintessence behavior.

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

The paper sets out to establish that f(R,G) gravity can account for the observed shift from past deceleration to present-day cosmic acceleration in a manner consistent with current data. By introducing a parametrization of the function and optimizing its parameters through gradient descent against cosmic chronometer and Pantheon+ supernova observations, the authors obtain a cosmology where the deceleration parameter changes sign appropriately. The equation-of-state parameter stays above the phantom divide, the strong energy condition is violated while the weak and null conditions hold, and the Om(z) diagnostic separates the model from a cosmological constant while favoring quintessence evolution. The derived age of the universe also matches independent estimates, supporting the framework as a viable description of late-time acceleration.

Core claim

Within the f(R,G) gravity framework a proposed parametrization scheme reduces the model to a form that gradient descent can constrain using the combined Cosmic Chronometer and Pantheon+ datasets. The resulting best-fit cosmology shows the deceleration parameter transitioning from positive to negative values, the equation-of-state parameter remaining greater than -1, violation of the strong energy condition together with satisfaction of the weak and null conditions, and an Om(z) diagnostic that distinguishes the model from LambdaCDM while indicating quintessence-dominated future evolution, with the estimated age of the universe in agreement with astrophysical measurements.

What carries the argument

The parametrization scheme for f(R,G) that renders the field equations tractable for gradient descent optimization against CC and Pantheon+ constraints.

If this is right

  • The best-fit model predicts quintessence-like behavior rather than phantom or constant dark energy for the future expansion.
  • The Om(z) diagnostic can be used to observationally separate this gravity framework from the standard cosmological constant scenario.
  • Energy conditions remain physically acceptable while permitting the observed acceleration.
  • The derived age of the universe aligns with independent astrophysical determinations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar parametrization-plus-optimization methods could be applied to other modified gravity theories when fitting to expanded observational catalogs.
  • More precise future measurements of w(z) and Om(z) from upcoming surveys would provide direct tests of the quintessence prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The specific parametrization of f(R,G) is assumed to be general enough to capture the relevant physics solely on the basis of its ability to fit the data.

What would settle it

Future high-precision measurements that find the equation-of-state parameter crossing below -1 at low redshift or that show the Om(z) diagnostic evolving identically to LambdaCDM would falsify the claimed distinction and consistency of the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08893 by B. Mishra, Santosh V. Lohakare, S. K. Maurya.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the deceleration parameter q(z) from past deceleration to current acceleration, with transition at zt = 0.763 based on combined CC+Pantheon+ datasets. ωeff ωDE -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 z EoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of the effective and dark energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: , showing that the transition in SEC behavior aligns closely with the change in cosmic accelera￾tion. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Graphical representation of cosmic time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the late-time evolution of the Universe within the f(R,G) gravity framework, where R is the Ricci scalar and G is the Gauss-Bonnet term. To make the model tractable, we propose a parametrization scheme and determine its parameters using Gradient Descent, with constraints coming from the latest Cosmic Chronometer (CC) and Pantheon+ supernova data. Key cosmological indicators, namely the deceleration parameter q and the equation-of-state parameter w, show a clear transition from past deceleration to the present accelerated expansion. Interestingly, the equation-of-state parameter w remains above the phantom divide, indicating quintessence-like behavior consistent with current observations. Energy-condition analysis further supports this framework: the strong energy condition is violated, consistent with models allowing cosmic acceleration, whereas both the weak and null energy conditions remain satisfied. To test consistency, we also apply the Om(z) diagnostic, which distinguishes this model from the standard cosmological constant scenario and indicates a quintessence-dominated future evolution. Using the best-fit values, we estimate the age of the Universe, obtaining good agreement with independent astrophysical measurements. Overall, the results suggest that f(R,G) gravity provides a viable and self-consistent explanation for late-time cosmic acceleration when constrained using the combined CC and Pantheon+ datasets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies late-time cosmic acceleration in f(R,G) gravity by introducing a parametrization for f(R,G) to render the model tractable. Parameters are optimized via gradient descent using combined Cosmic Chronometer (CC) and Pantheon+ supernova data. Derived quantities include the deceleration parameter q(z), equation-of-state w(z), Om(z) diagnostic, energy conditions (SEC violated, WEC/NEC satisfied), and Universe age, all indicating a transition to acceleration with quintessence-like behavior (w > -1) and consistency with observations, leading to the claim that f(R,G) gravity provides a viable explanation.

Significance. If the parametrization were derived from the general action or shown to be representative of the broader f(R,G) class, and if the gradient-descent fit included full uncertainty propagation and independent validation, the work would supply a concrete, data-constrained modified-gravity example satisfying standard cosmological diagnostics. The explicit use of latest CC+Pantheon+ datasets and multiple cross-checks (q, w, Om, energy conditions, age) is a positive feature. In its current form, however, the ad-hoc parametrization limits the result to a phenomenological illustration rather than a general demonstration of f(R,G) viability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section introducing the parametrization scheme (likely §2–3)] The parametrization scheme (introduced to make the model tractable) is presented without derivation from the general f(R,G) field equations, without comparison to other functional forms in the literature, and without checks against theoretical requirements such as stability or absence of ghosts. All subsequent results—q(z), w(z), Om(z), energy conditions, and age—follow directly from the gradient-descent best-fit of this single choice, rendering the central claim of viability dependent on an unmotivated ansatz.
  2. [Results and diagnostics sections (likely §4–5)] The diagnostics (q(z), w(z) > −1, Om(z) indicating quintessence, energy-condition satisfaction, and age consistency) are computed from the same best-fit parameters obtained by fitting to CC+Pantheon+ data. This makes the reported consistency checks restatements of the fit rather than independent tests, weakening the claim that the model explains acceleration beyond the data used to constrain it.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Fitting procedure subsection] Clarify whether the gradient-descent procedure includes regularization, learning-rate scheduling, or multiple random initializations to guard against local minima; report the final loss value and parameter uncertainties explicitly.
  2. [Figures showing q(z), w(z), Om(z)] Add error bands (from the fit covariance or bootstrap) to all plotted quantities (q(z), w(z), Om(z)) so readers can assess whether the reported behaviors remain significant within uncertainties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the insightful comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section introducing the parametrization scheme (likely §2–3)] The parametrization scheme (introduced to make the model tractable) is presented without derivation from the general f(R,G) field equations, without comparison to other functional forms in the literature, and without checks against theoretical requirements such as stability or absence of ghosts. All subsequent results—q(z), w(z), Om(z), energy conditions, and age—follow directly from the gradient-descent best-fit of this single choice, rendering the central claim of viability dependent on an unmotivated ansatz.

    Authors: We agree that the parametrization is chosen for tractability, as solving the general f(R,G) equations is challenging. This is a standard practice in exploring modified gravity models phenomenologically. In the revised version, we will provide additional motivation for the specific form, including why it captures the essential dynamics for late-time acceleration, and add comparisons to other f(R,G) parametrizations in the literature. We will also include a discussion on the stability of the model and absence of ghosts based on the best-fit parameters. However, a complete derivation from the general action is not feasible as it would require specifying the full functional form a priori, which defeats the purpose of the data-driven approach. Thus, we will revise the manuscript to explicitly state the phenomenological nature of the study. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results and diagnostics sections (likely §4–5)] The diagnostics (q(z), w(z) > −1, Om(z) indicating quintessence, energy-condition satisfaction, and age consistency) are computed from the same best-fit parameters obtained by fitting to CC+Pantheon+ data. This makes the reported consistency checks restatements of the fit rather than independent tests, weakening the claim that the model explains acceleration beyond the data used to constrain it.

    Authors: While the parameters are indeed determined from the CC and Pantheon+ datasets, the diagnostics provide valuable physical insights and cross-validations. The equation of state w(z) > -1 confirms quintessence behavior consistent with observations, the Om(z) diagnostic is a model-independent test that shows deviation from ΛCDM, and the age of the Universe is compared against independent measurements from astrophysics. The energy conditions are theoretical requirements that the model must satisfy for physical viability. In the revised manuscript, we will better distinguish between the data-constrained parameters and the derived quantities, emphasizing how these diagnostics test the model's consistency with broader cosmological principles beyond the fitting data alone. We will also discuss potential future validations with additional datasets. revision: yes

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Fitted parametrization yields derived cosmological indicators by construction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "To make the model tractable, we propose a parametrization scheme and determine its parameters using Gradient Descent, with constraints coming from the latest Cosmic Chronometer (CC) and Pantheon+ supernova data. Key cosmological indicators, namely the deceleration parameter q and the equation-of-state parameter w, show a clear transition from past deceleration to the present accelerated expansion."

    Parameters are optimized directly to the same datasets that encode the observed acceleration; q and w are then obtained by substituting the best-fit values into the model's Friedmann equations, so the reported transition is a restatement of the fit success rather than a prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "To test consistency, we also apply the Om(z) diagnostic, which distinguishes this model from the standard cosmological constant scenario and indicates a quintessence-dominated future evolution. Using the best-fit values, we estimate the age of the Universe, obtaining good agreement with independent astrophysical measurements."

    Om(z) and the age are evaluated on the identical best-fit parameter set obtained from CC+Pantheon+; any distinction from ΛCDM or age agreement is therefore a direct output of the data-constrained model, not an independent test.

full rationale

The paper proposes an ad-hoc parametrization of f(R,G) 'to make the model tractable,' fits its free parameters to CC+Pantheon+ data via gradient descent, and then computes q(z), w(z), Om(z), energy conditions, and age from the best-fit solution. These quantities are direct algebraic consequences of the fitted Hubble evolution, so the reported transition to acceleration, quintessence behavior, and consistency checks are statistically forced by the data fit rather than independent first-principles results. The age comparison offers limited external anchoring, preventing a higher score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the ad hoc parametrization chosen to make the model tractable and on the data fitting procedure; no independent evidence for the specific form is given beyond the fit to CC and Pantheon+ data.

free parameters (1)
  • parametrization parameters
    Determined via gradient descent optimization constrained by CC and Pantheon+ data
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption FLRW metric and standard cosmological assumptions for late-time evolution
    Invoked implicitly for studying the universe's expansion history
  • ad hoc to paper Validity and generality of the chosen parametrization for f(R,G)
    Proposed specifically to make the model tractable

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5532 in / 1487 out tokens · 74078 ms · 2026-05-12T01:16:30.372285+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,

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

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Testing f(R)-gravity models with DESI DR2 2025-BAO and other cosmological data,

    F. Plaza and L. Kraiselburd, “Testing f(R)-gravity models with DESI DR2 2025-BAO and other cosmological data,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 023554

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Expansion-history preferences of DESI DR2 and external data,

    P. Bansal and D. Huterer, “Expansion-history preferences of DESI DR2 and external data,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 023528

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Is the ΛCDM model in crisis?,

    H. Chaudhary, S. Capozziello, S. Praharaj, “Is the ΛCDM model in crisis?,”J. High Energy Astrophys.50(2026) 100507

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    Late-time acceleration and structure formation in interactingα-attractor dark energy models,

    L.K. Duchaniya, B. Mishra, G. Otalora and M. Gonzalez-Espinoza, “Late-time acceleration and structure formation in interactingα-attractor dark energy models,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.12(2025) 010

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    First year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters,

    D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, H. V. Peiriset al., “First year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters,”Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser.148(2003) 175

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Nine-year Wilkison Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results,

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu,et al., “Nine-year Wilkison Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results,”Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser. 208(2013) 19

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed 10 SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,

    S. Alam, M. Ata, S. Bailey,et al., “The clustering of galaxies in the completed 10 SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470(2017) 2617

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies,

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

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    Introduction to Modified Gravity and Gravitational Alternative for Dark Energy,

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

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    f(R) Theories Of Gravity,

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, “f(R) Theories Of Gravity,”Rev. Mod. Phys.82 (2010) 451

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without inflaton,

    R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, “Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without inflaton,”Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 084031

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    Coincident general relativity,

    J. B. Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, “Coincident general relativity,” Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 044048

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Review onf(Q) Gravity,

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

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Dark matter detection,

    L. Baudis, “Dark matter detection,”J. Phys. G43(2016) 044001

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Phenomenology of dark energy: general features of large-scale perturbations,

    L. P´ erenon, F. Piazza, C. Marinoniet al., “Phenomenology of dark energy: general features of large-scale perturbations,”J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2015(2015) 029

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    The Cosmological Constant,

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

    work page 2001

  18. [18]

    Cosmology,

    S. Weinberg, “Cosmology,”OUP Oxford, (2008)

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    Is cosmic speed-up due to new gravitational physics?,

    S. M. Carroll, V. Duvvuri, M. Troddenet al., “Is cosmic speed-up due to new gravitational physics?,”Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 043528

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: fromF(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models,

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, “Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: fromF(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models,” Phys. Rep.505(2011) 59

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Modified Gauss-Bonnet theory as gravitational alternative for dark energy,

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, “Modified Gauss-Bonnet theory as gravitational alternative for dark energy,”Phys. Lett. B 631(2005) 1

    work page 2005

  22. [22]

    Dark energy in modified Gauss-Bonnet gravity: Late-time acceleration and the hierarchy problem,

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiriet al., “Dark energy in modified Gauss-Bonnet gravity: Late-time acceleration and the hierarchy problem,”Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 084007

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Cosmology in modifiedf(G) gravity: a late-time cosmic phenomena,

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

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    The Fate of the Universe Evolution in the Quadratic Form of Ricci–Gauss–Bonnet Cosmology,

    S. V. Lohakare, F. Tello-Ortiz, B. Mishraet al., “The Fate of the Universe Evolution in the Quadratic Form of Ricci–Gauss–Bonnet Cosmology,”Gravit. Cosmol.29(2023) 443

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,

    A. Starobinsky, “A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,” Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99

    work page 1980

  26. [26]

    Observational constraints on Gauss-Bonnet cosmology,

    M. Benetti, S. S. da Costa, S. Capozzielloet al., “Observational constraints on Gauss-Bonnet cosmology,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D27(2018) 1850084

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Tracing the cosmic history by Gauss-Bonnet gravity,

    I. de Martino, M. De Laurentis, and S. Capozziello, “Tracing the cosmic history by Gauss-Bonnet gravity,”Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 063508

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Noether symmetry approach in Gauss-Bonnet Cosmology,

    S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, and S. D. Odintsov, “Noether symmetry approach in Gauss-Bonnet Cosmology,”Mod. Phys. Lett. A29(2014) 1450164

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    New insights from GW170817 in the dynamical system analysis of Einstein Gauss–Bonnet gravity,

    K. F. Dialektopoulos, J. L. Said, and Z. Oikonomopoulou, “New insights from GW170817 in the dynamical system analysis of Einstein Gauss–Bonnet gravity,”Phys. Dark Univ.42(2023) 101350

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Stability analysis for cosmological models inf(R) gravity using dynamical system analysis,

    P. Shah and G. C. Samanta, “Stability analysis for cosmological models inf(R) gravity using dynamical system analysis,” Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 414

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Observational constraints on Starobinsky f(R) cosmology from cosmic expansion and 11 structure growth data,

    P. Bessa, M. Campista, and A. Bernui, “Observational constraints on Starobinsky f(R) cosmology from cosmic expansion and 11 structure growth data,”Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) 506

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Dynamical analysis in regularized 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with non-minimak coupling,

    B. Bayarsaikhan, S. Khimphun, P. Rithyet al., “Dynamical analysis in regularized 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with non-minimak coupling,”Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 238

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Cosmological model with time varying deceleration parameter inF(R,G) gravity,

    S. V. Lohakare, S. K. Tripathy, and B. Mishra, “Cosmological model with time varying deceleration parameter inF(R,G) gravity,”Phys. Scr.96(2021) 125039

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,

    M. Moresco, L. Amati, L. Amendolaet al., “Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,”Living Rev. Relativ.25 (2022) 6

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    The Pantheon+ analysis: cosmological constraints,

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovicet al., “The Pantheon+ analysis: cosmological constraints,”Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Cosmological inflation in F(R,G) gravity,

    M. De Laurentis, M. Paolella, and S. Capozziello, “Cosmological inflation in F(R,G) gravity,”Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 083531

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Spherically symmetric solution ofF(R,G) gravity at low energy,

    B. Wu and B.-Q. Ma, “Spherically symmetric solution ofF(R,G) gravity at low energy,” Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 044012

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Dynamical analysis onF(R,G) cosmology,

    S. S. da Costa, F. V. Roig, J. S. Alcanizet al., “Dynamical analysis onF(R,G) cosmology,”Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018) 075013

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Dynamics of inflation and dark energy from F(R,G) gravity,

    S. Odintsov, V. Oikonomou, and S. Banerjee, “Dynamics of inflation and dark energy from F(R,G) gravity,”Nuclear Phys. B938 (2019) 935

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    The role of cosmological constant inF(R,G) gravity,

    A. K. Sanyal and C. Sarkar, “The role of cosmological constant inF(R,G) gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.37(2020) 055010

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Observational constrainedF(R,G) gravity cosmological model and the dynamical system analysis,

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

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Analyzing the geometrical and dynamical parameters of modified Teleparallel-Gauss–Bonnet model,

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

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    A duality connecting neural network and cosmological dynamics,

    S. Krippendorf and M. Spannowsky, “A duality connecting neural network and cosmological dynamics,”Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.3(2022) 035011

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Observational Cosmology with Artificial Neural Networks,

    J. de Dios Rojas Olvera, I. G´ omez-Vargas, J.A. V´ azquez, “Observational Cosmology with Artificial Neural Networks,”Universe8 (2022) 120

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Gradient descent algorithm to search for periodicN-body orbits,

    A. Anandam, “Gradient descent algorithm to search for periodicN-body orbits,”New Astron.100(2023) 101991

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Cosmographic analysis of the equation of state of the universe through pad´ e approximations,

    C. Gruber, O. Luongo, “Cosmographic analysis of the equation of state of the universe through pad´ e approximations,” Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 103506

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,

    S. W. Hawking and G. Ellis, “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,”Cambridge University Press(1973)

    work page 1973

  48. [48]

    A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black Hole Mechanics,

    E. Poisson, “A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black Hole Mechanics,” Cambridge University Press(2004)

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    Energy conditions inf(R) gravity,

    J. Santos, J. S. Alcaniz, M. J. Rebou¸ caset al., “Energy conditions inf(R) gravity,” Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 083513

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    The Raychaudhuri equations: A brief review,

    S. Kar and S. Sengupta, “The Raychaudhuri equations: A brief review,”Pramana69 (2007) 49

    work page 2007

  51. [51]

    Twilight for the energy conditions?,

    C. Barcel´ o and M. Visser, “Twilight for the energy conditions?,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11 (2002) 1553

    work page 2002

  52. [52]

    General relativistic energy conditions: The Hubble expansion in the epoch of galaxy formation,

    M. Visser, “General relativistic energy conditions: The Hubble expansion in the epoch of galaxy formation,”Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 7578

    work page 1997

  53. [53]

    The Chemical Composition and Age of the Metal-poor Halo Star BD +17o3248,

    J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, S. Burles, et. al., “The Chemical Composition and Age of the Metal-poor Halo Star BD +17o3248,” Astrophy. J.572(2002) 861. 12

    work page 2002

  54. [54]

    Planck 2018 results: Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck,

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, et. al., “Planck 2018 results: Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck,”Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A1

    work page 2018