Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Late time behavior in $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m})$ gravity through Gaussian reconstruction and dynamical stability

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reconstructs the matter part of f(R, matter-Lagrangian) gravity from Hubble data and reports that the two resulting models both end in a stable, accelerating de Sitter phase without a cosmological constant.

desk verdict A clean reconstruction pipeline undermined by a division by zero and by models that violate the Friedmann equation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09568 v1 pith:NZJXTL3W submitted 2025-06-11 gr-qc

Y. Kalpana Devi , S.A. Narawade , B. Mishra This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords f(RL_m)gravityGaussianprocessreconstructionlate-timecosmicaccelerationdynamicalsystemanalysismatterLagrangianHubbleparameterdatapower-lawmodelsquare-rootexponential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the function $f(\mathcal{L}_m)$ in $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m)$ gravity can be reconstructed directly from Hubble-expansion data, without fixing its functional form in advance, and that the reconstructed forms lead to viable cosmic evolution. The authors apply a non-parametric Gaussian-process reconstruction to cosmic-chronometer, supernova, and BAO data, producing two models compatible with the 1-$\sigma$ region: a power law $f_1(\mathcal{L}_m)=\alpha\mathcal{L}_m^{b_1}$ with $b_1\in[0.018,0.025]$, and a square-root-exponential form $f_2(\mathcal{L}_m)=\alpha\mathcal{L}_{m0}(1-e^{-b_2\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_m/\mathcal{L}_{m0}}})$ with $b_2\in[2.3,3.0]$. A dynamical-system analysis of the reconstructed models finds a stable late-time critical point in both cases, with deceleration parameter $q=-1$ and effective equation of state $w_{\rm eff}=-1$. If correct, this gives a path to late-time cosmic acceleration that does not require introducing a cosmological constant by hand.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through a two-stage pipeline. In the reconstruction stage, the Friedmann equation is turned into an iterative finite-difference recurrence for $f(z)$ in terms of the Gaussian-process-reconstructed $H(z)$ and $H'(z)$ using a squared-exponential covariance kernel, so $f(\mathcal{L}_m)$ is read off from the data rather than chosen from an ansatz. In the stability stage, the cosmological equations are written as an autonomous system in the dimensionless variables $x=\dot{f}_R/(H f_R)$, $y=f/(6H^2 f_R)$, $z=R/(6H^2)$, and $u=f_{\mathcal{L}_m}\rho/(3H^2 f_R)$, and the critical points are classified by the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix. The central object is the de Sitter point $(z,u)=(2,0)$: it appears for both reconstructed models with all negative eigenvalues, giving $q=-1$ and $w_{\rm eff}=-1$.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to derive the autonomous equations directly from the exact Friedmann equations for $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m)=R/2+\alpha\mathcal{L}_m^{b_1}$ and for the square-root-exponential form, without using the $b=d\ln f_R/d\ln R$ step, and then compute the eigenvalues of the late-time critical point; if that point is not $(z,u)=(2,0)$ with all eigenvalues negative, the paper's stability claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a separable action $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m)=R/2+f(\mathcal{L}_m)$ with $\mathcal{L}_m=\rho$ in a pressureless universe, Gaussian-process reconstruction of $H(z)$ and $H'(z)$ from cosmic-chronometer, supernova, and BAO data fixes $f(\mathcal{L}_m)$ up to a narrow parameter band, and two members of that band are late-time attractors. The paper reports that the $\Lambda$CDM line lies inside the $1\sigma$ reconstructed region, while the mean reconstructed curve is better described by the quadratic $f(\mathcal{L}_m)=-2\Lambda+\alpha\mathcal{L}_m+\zeta\mathcal{L}_m^2$ with $\alpha\approx -0.08582\pm0.00345$ and $\zeta\approx(-1.512584\pm0.563717)\times10^{-6}$. Both the power-law model with $b_1\in[0.018,0.025]$ and the square-root-exponential model with $b_2\in[2.3,3.0]$ reach the critical point $(z,u)=(2,0)$, where $q=-1$ and $w_{\rm eff}=-1$; the authors read this as a stable de Sitter attractor that explains late-time acceleration without a cosmological constant.

Load-bearing premise

The stability analysis depends on treating the curvature part of the action as a variable function of $R$ so that the ratio $b=d\ln f_R/d\ln R$ is defined and nonzero, but in the two reconstructed models the geometric part is exactly $R/2$, making $f_R=1/2$ and $b=0$, so the key equation used to close the autonomous system is undefined for those models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both reconstructed models have a stable late-time attractor with $q=-1$ and $w_{\rm eff}=-1$, so they reproduce cosmic acceleration without a cosmological constant.
  • The reconstructed ranges $b_1\in[0.018,0.025]$ and $b_2\in[2.3,3.0]$ become concrete observational predictions that future Hubble measurements at higher redshift will support or exclude.
  • The mean reconstructed curve favors a nonzero quadratic correction to $\Lambda$CDM, with $\alpha\approx -0.08582$ and $\zeta\approx -1.51\times10^{-6}$, giving a specific target for alternative models.
  • The Gaussian-process pipeline replaces arbitrary parametrizations of modified gravity with a data-driven selection of $f(\mathcal{L}_m)$, which can be applied as new $H(z)$ data accumulate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to redo the stability analysis for the exact $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m)=R/2+f(\mathcal{L}_m)$ equations without the intermediate variable $b=d\ln f_R/d\ln R$; since both reconstructed models have $f_R=1/2$, that intermediate variable vanishes, so the derivation needs a separate route to reach the same conclusion.
  • If the matter Lagrangian is instead identified with $-\rho$ rather than $\rho$, the reconstructed $f(\mathcal{L}_m)$ and its stability points would likely shift; comparing the two conventions would test how much of the result is convention-dependent.
  • The same reconstruction could be applied to the first-order perturbation equations to predict growth-rate observables, connecting the background attractor result to large-scale structure.
  • As future Hubble data extend beyond the current redshift reach, the $1\sigma$ band that defined $b_1$ and $b_2$ should narrow, making the paper's intervals the falsifiable output of the pipeline.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims to reconstruct the matter-Lagrangian function f(L_m) in f(R,L_m) gravity using Gaussian-process regression applied to Hubble data, assuming the separable form f(R,L_m)=R/2+f(L_m). From the reconstructed 1-sigma band the authors select a power-law model f1(L_m)=α L_m^{b1} with b1 in [0.018,0.025] and a square-root-exponential model f2(L_m)=α L_{m0}(1-e^{-b2√(L_m/L_{m0})}) with b2 in [2.3,3.0]. They then perform a dynamical-system analysis with variables x,y,z,u and report stable late-time attractors for both models, concluding that the models can explain cosmic acceleration without a cosmological constant.

Significance. The observational reconstruction pipeline is a strength: the authors use public cosmic-chronometer, supernova, and BAO data, propagate errors through Monte Carlo draws, and explicitly state their assumed action and parameter ranges. If the dynamical-system analysis were correct, the paper would provide a data-driven route to viable f(R,L_m) models. However, the central mathematical step is invalid for the models under study: the quantity b=d ln f_R/d ln R vanishes identically because f_R=1/2, so the autonomous equations and all reported critical points do not follow. In addition, the Friedmann constraint makes the reconstructed models inconsistent as real cosmological solutions. These are load-bearing failures, not presentation issues, and they invalidate the paper's principal claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (26)] The paper closes the dynamical system using ∂R/(6H^3)=xz/b with b=d ln f_R/d ln R=f_RR R/f_R. For both models f(R,L_m)=R/2+α f(L_m), so f_R=1/2 and f_RR=0, hence b=0 and Eq. (26) is undefined. Consequently the autonomous systems in Eqs. (29) and (31), and the critical points B and P2 derived from them, are not consequences of the stated actions. This is the load-bearing step on which the claimed late-time attractors rest.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (11) and Section IV] With f_R=1/2 and f(R,L_m)=R/2+f(L_m), the first Friedmann equation reduces to 3H^2=2 f_{L_m} ρ - f(L_m) when L_m=ρ. For the power-law model f=α L^{b1}, this gives 3H^2=(2b1-1)α L^{b1}. With the paper's positive α=(1-Ω_{m0})/[(1+2b1)(6H_0^2)^{1-b1}] and b1 in [0.018,0.025], the right-hand side is negative for positive L_m, so no real Friedmann solution exists. The exponential model has the same structural inconsistency: at L_m=L_{m0}, 3H^2=α ρ_0 [e^{-b2}(b2+1)-1], which is negative for b2 in [2.3,3.0]. The reconstructed models are therefore not solutions of the field equations they are claimed to describe.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (17) and Fig. 2] The reconstruction anchors f(z=0) by imposing ΛCDM with f_{L_m}=0 at z=0, and the two functional forms with their parameter ranges are selected after inspecting the reconstructed 1σ band. This makes the subsequent 'viability' claim partly circular: the models are post-hoc fits to a band that already contains ΛCDM, rather than independent predictions. The abstract's statement that the models explain acceleration 'without explicitly invoking a cosmological constant' is therefore overstated, since a ΛCDM-like initial condition is built into the reconstruction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (4)] The term (g_{\mu\nu}\nabla^\mu\nabla^\mu - \nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu)f_R appears to contain a typo: the second operator should be the d'Alembertian, not a covariant derivative with a repeated index.
  2. [Throughout] The exponential-model exponent is denoted b2 in Section IV and in the abstract but sometimes as β in the text and in Section V; the notation should be unified.
  3. [Table I] The table caption mixes Cosmic Chronometer and BAO data but does not clearly separate the two subsets; labeling each block would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section V, Eqs. (29) and (31)] The evolution equation for z is model-independent and identical in both systems, so the late-time critical point z=2 reflects only the kinematic identity R=6(\dot H+2H^2); it does not test the reconstructed f(L_m) forms.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The late-time attractor is a generic property of the auxiliary variable z (z'=-2z(z-2)) and does not depend on the reconstructed f(L_m); the model forms and parameter ranges are selected after seeing the GP reconstruction, so the stability result is not an independent confirmation of the models.

  1. self definitional [Sec. V, Eqs. (20), (25), (29), (31); Tables III and IV; Sec. VI]
    "For the power-law model f(R,L_m)=R/2+\alpha L^{b_1}_m the variable x=0 and y=z+ u/b_1 so the autonomous close independent system of equations becomes z'=-2z(z-2) ... Now for the square-root-exponential model ... the final autonomous system of equations becomes z'=-2z(z-2), s'=-3/2 s, u'=-3u(1+\lambda)-2u(z-2). ... Both the models exhibit stable attractor solution at late time, reinforcing their viability in explaining the late time cosmic acceleration without explicitly invoking a cosmological constant."

    The ODE z'=-2z(z-2) is obtained solely from the definitions z=R/(6H^2), Hdot/H^2=z-2, and the ansatz x=0; it contains no dependence on alpha, b1, b2, or on the reconstructed f(L_m). The stable late-time solution z=2, with q=-1 and w_eff=-1, is therefore a kinematic property of the variable z rather than a consequence of the power-law or square-root-exponential model. Attributing the same attractor to both models and presenting it as 'reinforcing their viability' reduces the claimed confirmation to the construction of z. In addition, for the stated actions f(R,L_m)=R/2+f(L_m), f_R=1/2 and f_RR=0, so b=d ln f_R/d ln R=0 and Eq. (26), which is used to reach Eq. (29), is undefined for these exact models.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, Fig. 2; Sec. VI]
    "any model that lies within the 1 sigma shaded regions are cosmologically viable so we have considered two f(L_m) models [29]. One is the power-law model f_1CDM = \alpha(L_m)^{b_1} ... for b_1 in the range 0.018<=b_1<=0.025 ... We have plotted for 2.3<=b_2<=3.0 which corresponds to the green shaded region in Fig. 2b that lies in the 1 sigma reconstructed region."

    The functional forms and parameter intervals are chosen after inspecting the GP-reconstructed f(L_m), specifically because they fall inside the 1-sigma band of that reconstruction. The abstract then presents these same selected forms as 'two viable models' obtained from the reconstruction, and the paper treats them as fixed inputs for the stability analysis. Since the stability result is generic to the z-variable and does not use the fitted parameters as independent evidence, the agreement with the 1-sigma band is a post-hoc selection criterion rather than an independent prediction; the models are validated by the same reconstruction used to define them.

full rationale

The paper does not rely on self-citation or on an imported uniqueness theorem, and the GP-based reconstruction of f(L_m) from Hubble data is, by itself, a legitimate data-analysis procedure. The circularity is structural and concerns the central interpretive claim. First, the two model forms f1 and f2 are selected because they fit the 1-sigma region of the reconstructed f(L_m), so calling them 'data-driven viable models' is post-hoc fitting rather than independent prediction. Second, and more decisively, the late-time attractor is obtained from the identical equation z'=-2z(z-2) for both models; this equation contains no information about alpha, b1, b2, or the shape of f(L_m). The stable de Sitter-like point z=2 therefore is built into the definition of the auxiliary variable z and the kinematic identity Hdot/H^2=z-2, not derived from the reconstructed matter-sector modification. The conclusion that both models 'exhibit stable attractor solution at late time, reinforcing their viability' is thus equivalent to the construction of z. This is compounded by an internal consistency problem: for f(R,L_m)=R/2+f(L_m) the quantity b=d ln f_R/d ln R is zero, so Eq. (26) used in the derivation is undefined; that is a correctness issue beyond circularity, but it reinforces that the stability analysis is not a valid model-specific confirmation. Overall, the central 'prediction' of a stable late-time attractor reduces by construction, while the model selection is post-hoc, yielding a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several externally supplied or hand-chosen inputs: Omega_m0 from Planck, H0 and GP hyperparameters from the reconstruction, and amplitude/exponent parameters for the two proposed models that are selected to sit inside the one-sigma band. The axioms include standard FLRW assumptions plus several ad hoc choices specific to this paper, most importantly the separation f = R/2 + f(L_m), the LambdaCDM initial condition at z=0, and the nonzero denominator b in the dynamical-system closure. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Omega_m0 = 0.315 (Planck 2018, [35])
    Input matter density parameter used to set L_m(z) = 3 H0^2 Omega_m0 (1+z)^3 and f(z=0) = 6 H0^2 (Omega_m0 - 1); the reconstructed curve and ranges are sensitive to this external value.
  • H0 = not reported explicitly
    Gaussian-process reconstruction of H(z) and H'(z) depends on the Hubble constant; the paper says it iterates until H0 converges to roughly 1e-4 but does not state the resulting value, hampering reproduction.
  • GP kernel hyperparameters sigma_f, ell = not reported
    Squared-exponential kernel length scale and signal variance are optimized by GaPP and determine H'(z), hence the reconstructed f(L_m); no values are given.
  • b1 (power-law exponent) = range 0.018-0.025
    Chosen so that f1 = alpha L_m^b1 lies inside the one-sigma reconstructed band; no statistical fit or uncertainty is provided.
  • alpha1 (power-law amplitude) = (1 - Omega_m0) / [(1 + 2 b1) (6 H0^2)^(1 - b1)]
    Normalization chosen so the power-law curve sits in the reconstructed region; its derivation is not shown.
  • b2 (exponential exponent) = range 2.3-3.0
    Chosen so that f2 lies inside the one-sigma reconstructed band; no likelihood or error bar.
  • alpha2 (exponential amplitude) = 1 / [(1 - (1 + b2) e^{-b2}) Omega_m0]
    Normalization chosen to place the square-root-exponential curve in the reconstructed region; not fitted to data.
  • alpha_q (quadratic coefficient) = -0.08582 +/- 0.00345
    Best-fit coefficient of the quadratic f(L_m) fit to the Gaussian-process mean curve; this model is not used in the stability analysis.
  • zeta_q (quadratic coefficient) = (-1.512584 +/- 0.563717) x 10^-6
    Second coefficient of the quadratic best fit; reported with errors but no fitting details.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric and perfect-fluid energy-momentum tensor
    Assumed in Sec. II to reduce field equations to the Friedmann equations (11); if the Universe is not flat FLRW, the reconstruction changes.
  • domain assumption Matter Lagrangian equals energy density, L_m = rho, for pressureless matter
    Assumed in Sec. IV; in f(R,L_m) gravity the Lagrangian is defined up to a total derivative and different choices (for example, L_m = -rho or L_m = p) change the equations, so this is nontrivial.
  • domain assumption Matter energy-momentum tensor is conserved, giving delta^mu ln f_Lm = 0
    Eqs. (8)-(9) in Sec. II state conservation, but for L_m = rho in a nonminimal theory the right-hand side of Eq. (8) is not generally zero; this is not checked.
  • ad hoc to paper The action separates as f(R,L_m) = R/2 + f(L_m), eliminating any f(R) modification
    Adopted in Sec. IV to allow reconstruction of f(L_m) alone; restricts the theory space and is not forced by data.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial condition f(z=0) = 6 H0^2 (Omega_m0 - 1) with f_Lm = 0 at present
    Eq. (17) imposes a LambdaCDM anchor at z=0, but the proposed power-law and exponential models have f_Lm not equal to zero at z=0, an inconsistency.
  • ad hoc to paper The closure identities in Eqs. (26)-(27) require b = d ln f_R / d ln R to be well-defined and nonzero
    For both models f_R = 1/2, so b = 0; the denominators xz/b are undefined. This is a load-bearing mathematical premise that fails for the models under study.
  • ad hoc to paper Functional forms f1 and f2 with the quoted ranges are viable if they lie within the one-sigma reconstruction band
    The paper equates lying inside the one-sigma reconstructed band with cosmological viability; no goodness-of-fit or model comparison is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Late time behavior in $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m})$ gravity through Gaussian reconstruction and dynamical stability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZJXTL3W

@misc{pith2026250609568,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Late time behavior in $f(R,\mathcalL_m)$ gravity through Gaussian reconstruction and dynamical stability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZJXTL3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09568}
}
abstract

In this paper, we explore modified gravity in the framework of $f(R, \mathcal{L}_m)$ theories by reconstructing the function $f(\mathcal{L}_m)$, where $\mathcal{L}_m = \rho$ is the matter Lagrangian, under the assumption of a pressureless, matter-dominated Universe. Using a non-parametric Gaussian process reconstruction technique applied to Hubble data, we obtain two viable models of $f(\mathcal{L}_m)$ : (i) a power-law model $f_1(\mathcal{L}_m) = \alpha \mathcal{L}_m^{b_1}$ with $b_1 \in [0.018, 0.025]$ and (ii) an exponential model $f_2(\mathcal{L}_m) = \alpha \mathcal{L}_{m0} \left(1 - e^{-b_2 \sqrt{\mathcal{L}_m/\mathcal{L}_{m0}}} \right)$ with $b_2 \in [2.3, 3.0]$. We then fix the parameter values within these reconstructed ranges and analyze the corresponding dynamical systems within the matter-dominated epoch by constructing autonomous equations. Phase-space analysis reveals the presence of stable critical points in both models, suggesting viable cosmic evolution within their domains of validity. Both the models exhibit stable attractor solution at late time, reinforcing their viability in explaining the late time cosmic acceleration without explicitly invoking a cosmological constant. Our results indicate that $f(R, \mathcal{L}_m)$ gravity with data-driven matter-sector modifications can offer a compelling alternative description of cosmic dynamics during the matter-dominated era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09568 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Reconstruction of the Hubble parameter and its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The reconstruction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Phase space portrait for the power-law model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Phase space portrait for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Riess, A.V

    A.G. Riess, A.V . Filippenko, P . Challis, A. Clocchiatti et al.,Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,The Astronomical Journal116(1998) 1009

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop et al.,Measurements ofωandλfrom 42 high-redshift supernovae,The Astrophysical Journal517(1999) 565. 9

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Spergel, R

    D.N. Spergel, R. Bean, O. Doré, M.R. Nolta et al., Three-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Implications for cosmology,Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series170(2007) 377

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Komatsu, K.M

    E. Komatsu, K.M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C.L. Bennett et al., Seven-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Cosmological interpretation,Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series192(2011) 18

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Eisenstein, I

    D.J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D.W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro et al.,Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of sdss luminous red galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal633(2005) 560

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Percival, B.A

    W.J. Percival, B.A. Reid, D.J. Eisenstein, N.A. Bahcall et al.,Baryon acoustic oscillations in the sloan digital sky survey data release 7 galaxy sample,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society401(2010) 2148

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, M.J

    D.H. Weinberg, M.J. Mortonson, D.J. Eisenstein, C. Hirata et al.,Observational probes of cosmic acceleration, Physics Reports530(2013) 87

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem,Reviews of Modern Physics61(1989) 1

    S. Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem,Reviews of Modern Physics61(1989) 1

    work page 1989

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Wilson, G

    K.M. Wilson, G. Chen and B. Ratra,Supernova ia and galaxy cluster gas mass fraction constraints on dark energy, Modern Physics Letters A21(2006) 2197

    2006

  2. [10]

    Davis, E

    T.M. Davis, E. Mörtsell, J. Sollerman, A.C. Becker et al., Scrutinizing exotic cosmological models using essence supernova data combined with other cosmological probes,The Astrophysical Journal666(2007) 716

    2007

  3. [11]

    Steinhardt, L

    P .J. Steinhardt, L. Wang and I. Zlatev,Cosmological tracking solutions,Physical Review D59(1999) 123504

    1999

  4. [12]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy,International Journal of Modern Physics D15 (2006) 1753

    2006

  5. [13]

    Padmanabhan,Cosmological constant—the weight of the vacuum,Physics Reports380(2003) 235

    T. Padmanabhan,Cosmological constant—the weight of the vacuum,Physics Reports380(2003) 235

    2003

  6. [14]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis,Extended theories of gravity,Physics Reports509(2011) 167

    2011

  7. [15]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov,Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: From f(r) theory to lorentz non-invariant models,Physics Reports505(2011) 59

    2011

  8. [16]

    Sotiriou and V

    T.P . Sotiriou and V . Faraoni,f(R)theories of gravity, Reviews of Modern Physics82(2010) 451

    2010

  9. [17]

    Harko, F.S.N

    T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, f(R,L m)gravity,Physical Review D81(2010) 084050

    2010

  10. [18]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2001) 213

    2001

  11. [19]

    Linden and J.-M

    S. Linden and J.-M. Virey,Test of the chevallier-polarski-linder parametrization for rapid dark energy equation of state transitions,Physical Review D78 (2008) 023526

    2008

  12. [20]

    Visser,Jerk, snap and the cosmological equation of state, Classical and Quantum Gravity21(2004) 2603

    M. Visser,Jerk, snap and the cosmological equation of state, Classical and Quantum Gravity21(2004) 2603

    2004

  13. [21]

    Rasmussen and C.K.I

    C.E. Rasmussen and C.K.I. Williams,Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning, The MIT Press (2005), 10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    Seikel and C

    M. Seikel and C. Clarkson,Optimising gaussian processes for reconstructing dark energy dynamics from supernovae, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Seikel, C

    M. Seikel, C. Clarkson and M. Smith,Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using Gaussian processes,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2012(2012) 036

    2012

  16. [24]

    Shafieloo,Falsifying cosmological constant,Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements246–247(2014) 171

    A. Shafieloo,Falsifying cosmological constant,Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements246–247(2014) 171

    2014

  17. [25]

    Kim, R.C

    A.G. Kim, R.C. Thomas, G. Aldering, P . Antilogus et al., Standardizing type ia supernova absolute magnitudes using gaussian process data regression,The Astrophysical Journal 766(2013) 84

    2013

  18. [26]

    R. Nair, S. Jhingan and D. Jain,Reconstruction of dark energy interaction from observational data,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(2014) 005

    2014

  19. [27]

    Yang, Z.-K

    T. Yang, Z.-K. Guo and R.-G. Cai,Reconstructing the interaction between dark energy and dark matter using gaussian processes,Physical Review D91(2015) 123533

    2015

  20. [28]

    Gómez-Valent and L

    A. Gómez-Valent and L. Amendola,H 0 from cosmic chronometers and type ia supernovae, with gaussian processes and the novel weighted polynomial regression method,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018(2018) 051

    2018

  21. [29]

    Y.-F. Cai, M. Khurshudyan and E.N. Saridakis, Model-independent reconstruction of f(t) gravity from gaussian processes,The Astrophysical Journal888(2020) 62

    2020

  22. [30]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez et al.,A 6% measurement of the hubble parameter at z∼0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2016(2016) 014

    2016

  23. [31]

    Riess, S.A

    A.G. Riess, S.A. Rodney, D.M. Scolnic and D.L. Shafer, Type ia supernova distances at redshift>1.5 from the hubble space telescope multi-cycle treasury programs: The early expansion rate,Astrophys. J.853(2018) 126

    2018

  24. [32]

    Gómez-Valent and L

    A. Gómez-Valent and L. Amendola,H 0 from cosmic chronometers and Type Ia supernovae, with Gaussian Processes and the novel Weighted Polynomial Regression method,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2018(2018) 051

    2018

  25. [33]

    Zhang and J.-Q

    M.-J. Zhang and J.-Q. Xia,Test of the cosmic evolution using Gaussian processes,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2016 (2016) 005

    2016

  26. [34]

    Harko, F.S.N

    T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, J.P . Mimoso and D. Pavón, Gravitational induced particle production through a nonminimal curvature–matter coupling,Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 1

    2015

  27. [35]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown and J. Aumont, Planck 2018 results: Vi. cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6

    2020

  28. [36]

    Bahamonde, C.G

    S. Bahamonde, C.G. Böhmer, S. Carloni, E.J. Copeland et al.,Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: Dark energy and modified gravity,Physics Reports775-777(2018) 1

    2018

  29. [37]

    Mirza and F

    B. Mirza and F. Oboudiat,Constraining f(T)gravity by dynamical system analysis,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017(2017) 011

    2017

  30. [38]

    Wainwright and G.F.R

    J. Wainwright and G.F.R. Ellis,Dynamical Systems in Cosmology, Cambridge University Press (1997)

    1997

  31. [39]

    Coley,Dynamical systems in cosmology,arXiv preprint gr-qc/9910074(1999) [gr-qc/9910074]

    A.A. Coley,Dynamical systems in cosmology,arXiv preprint gr-qc/9910074(1999) [gr-qc/9910074]

    1999 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.