Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Observational Constraints on a Spinor Field Generalized Chaplygin Gas Model in a Spherically Symmetric FLRW Spacetime

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single nonlinear spinor field can unify dark matter and dark energy and fit late-time cosmological data as well as ΛCDM while predicting a lower Hubble constant.

desk verdict A workmanlike spinor-GCG fit to background data, undercut by hand-fixed constants, absurdly small errors, and a dubious Hubble-tension claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09733 v1 pith:ZO5FLTRO submitted 2025-09-10 gr-qc

Mahendra Goray , Bijan Saha This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords darkenergyunifiedsectorgeneralizedChaplygingasspinorfieldFLRWcosmologyHubbletensionMCMCparameterestimationobservational
topics The Hubble TensionDark Energy
open problems The Hubble Tension
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that a single nonlinear spinor field in an open FLRW spacetime can act as a unified dark matter–dark energy fluid with the effective behavior of a generalized Chaplygin gas (GCG). Fitting this model to binned Pantheon supernovae, cosmic-chronometer and SDSS Hubble measurements, and two low-redshift BAO points yields best-fit parameters A ≈ 1.052, α ≈ 0.220, and H0 ≈ 66.8 km/s/Mpc. The authors argue the model is statistically competitive with ΛCDM and that its lower H0 could soften the Hubble tension. If correct, the model provides a field-theoretic route to dark-sector unification with a dynamical equation of state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nonlinear spinor Lagrangian with self-interaction term λF(K) and zero spinor mass, embedded in an open (k = −1) FLRW metric. The off-diagonal stress-energy components vanish only under constraints on the spinor bilinears (A0 = A3 = 0, A1 = (3/2)√(1−kr²) tanθ A2), and the diagonal components reduce to ε = m_sp S + λF and p = −λ(2K F_K − F). Choosing F(K) so that p = −A/ε^α converts the Einstein equations into GCG dynamics, and the resulting H(z) expression carries the model's fit to the observational data.

What would settle it

Re-run the MCMC with λ and λ1 treated as free parameters (or with wide priors) and check whether A ≈ 1.052, α ≈ 0.220, and H0 ≈ 66.8 km/s/Mpc survive; alternatively, add Planck CMB distance priors or a full CMB likelihood and see whether the model still fits the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a spherically symmetric open FLRW spacetime, the authors couple a nonlinear spinor field minimally to gravity and show that its energy density and pressure obey the generalized Chaplygin gas equation of state, p = −A/ε^α, with ε = λ[A + λ1(1+z)^{3(1+α)}]^{1/(1+α)}. The off-diagonal components of the energy–momentum tensor vanish, imposing consistency conditions on the spinor bilinears. Constraining the three parameters (A, α, H0) with late-time datasets, the paper's central claim is that this spinor-GCG model is a competitive, observationally viable unified alternative to ΛCDM for the late universe, with a lower inferred H0 that may ease the Hubble tension.

Load-bearing premise

The spinor coupling constant λ = 1.75 and the integration constant λ1 = 0.332 are fixed by hand rather than marginalised over, and the quoted 68% uncertainties are small enough that changing these fixed values would likely shift the best fit and broaden the error bars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The best-fit model reproduces the binned Pantheon distance moduli and the combined Hubble+BAO data with reduced χ² about 1.061, statistically comparable to ΛCDM.
  • Inference gives H0 ≈ 66.8 km/s/Mpc, below the local distance-ladder value, so the model would reduce the Hubble tension if it survives further scrutiny.
  • The effective equation of state evolves from matter-like behavior (w ≈ −0.016 at z ≈ 2.5) to w ≈ −0.384 today, with the deceleration–acceleration transition at z ≈ 0.67.
  • The statefinder pair (r0 = 1.322, s0 = −0.102) lies away from ΛCDM's fixed point (1, 0), giving a distinguishing dynamical signature.
  • The model interpolates between a matter-dominated phase and a dark-energy-dominated phase within one fluid, supporting the unified dark-sector picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The spinor coupling constant λ = 1.75 and integration constant λ1 = 0.332 are fixed by hand rather than sampled; treating them as free parameters would likely broaden the quoted uncertainties and could shift A, α, and H0.
  • Because CMB data were excluded from the analysis, the model's high-redshift behavior is untested; adding Planck distance priors or a full CMB likelihood is a direct next check of the claimed viability.
  • The paper does not analyze perturbative behavior or structure formation, a known weak point for unified GCG-type fluids; testing perturbations in this spinor realization would determine whether the unification survives.
  • The nearly identical H0 value across all three dataset combinations suggests the posterior is tightly controlled by the fixed constants or priors; a prior-sensitivity run would show how robust the central value is.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a cosmological model in which a massless, self-interacting nonlinear spinor field in an open FLRW spacetime reproduces the Generalized Chaplygin Gas (GCG) equation of state. The function F(K) is chosen so that the effective energy density becomes ε=λ[A+λ1(1+z)^{3(1+α)}]^{1/(1+α)}. Using binned Pantheon SNe, cosmic-chronometer and SDSS H(z) data, and two BAO points, the authors run MCMC to fit three parameters {A, α, H0} while fixing λ=1.75 and λ1=0.332 by hand. They report best fits A≈1.052, α≈0.220, H0≈66.8 km/s/Mpc with extremely small 68% uncertainties, compare the model to ΛCDM via AIC/BIC and statefinder diagnostics, and conclude that the model is a competitive alternative to ΛCDM that may alleviate the Hubble tension.

Significance. The paper offers a field-theoretic realization of the GCG unified dark-sector model, and the use of MCMC with multiple late-time datasets is appropriate. If the statistical analysis were sound, the model would be a useful phenomenological template. However, the quantitative claims are not currently supported: the hand-fixed constants λ and λ1 control the background evolution but are not marginalized, the expression for q(z) is dimensionally inconsistent, the actual H(z) used in the likelihood is never written down, and the Hubble-tension claim is misleading. The model-selection and parameter-constraint conclusions therefore require substantial revision before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III, MCMC setup; Table 1] The spinor coupling λ=1.75 and integration constant λ1=0.332 are fixed by hand. Since ε=λ[A+λ1(1+z)^{3(1+α)}]^{1/(1+α)} (Eq. 17a), these constants set the overall amplitude and the matter-to-DE transition redshift. The quoted 68% uncertainties of ±0.001 on A, α, and H0 are therefore conditional on two unconstrained parameters; varying λ and λ1 would shift the best fit and broaden the posteriors. Table 2 also counts only 3 free parameters for the GCG model. Adding λ and λ1 as free parameters would incur a BIC penalty of roughly 2 ln(130)≈9.7, which can flip the reported model-selection result. A marginalization over λ and λ1, or at least a systematic sensitivity analysis, is required.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (18); Figure 7] The deceleration parameter in Eq. (18), q(z)=[(ε+3p)/3]/[ε/3+(1+z)^2], is dimensionally inconsistent: it adds an energy density ε to the dimensionless quantity (1+z)^2. From Eq. (12c) with k=-1, the correct Friedmann expression is H^2=(8πG/3)ε+(1+z)^2, so q=[(4πG/3)(ε+3p)]/[(8πG/3)ε+(1+z)^2]. The omitted factor 8πG/3 changes the denominator and therefore all q(z) values in Figure 7 and the q(0) comparisons in Figure 8, which are central to the model's phenomenological claims.
  3. [Section III, likelihood; Eqs. (19)-(25)] The paper never gives an explicit formula for the Hubble parameter H(z; A, α, H0, λ, λ1) used in the χ² computation. Eq. (13b) is a differential equation, but the initial conditions, the unit conventions, and how the open-geometry term (1+z)^2 is included in H(z) are not stated. Without the explicit H(z) or a code/data release, the χ² values in Table 2 and the posterior widths in Table 1 cannot be reproduced or checked. This is a load-bearing omission for an observational-constraints paper.
  4. [Section III, parameter space; Eq. (12c)] H0 is treated as an independent parameter in {A, α, H0}, but the Friedmann constraint Eq. (12c) with k=-1 and Eq. (17a) determines H0^2=(8πG/3)λ(A+λ1)^{1/(1+α)}+1 once λ and λ1 are fixed. The paper does not explain whether this constraint is imposed or whether H0 is initialized independently in the numerical integration of Eq. (13b). If the latter, the solution does not satisfy the Friedmann equation; if the former, H0 is not a free parameter and the reported 0.001-level H0 uncertainty is not meaningful. This issue also affects the interpretation of the posterior widths.
  5. [Abstract and Section IV] The claim that the model 'predicts a lower present-day Hubble constant, offering a potential resolution to the Hubble tension' is not supported. The best fit H0≈66.8 km/s/Mpc is within 1σ of the Planck value 67.4±0.5 and is opposite to the SH0ES local-ladder value 73.0±1.0; a late-time fit preferring ~67 does not reduce the >5σ SH0ES-Planck tension. Moreover, H0 is a free parameter in the fit, so the result is a best-fit value, not a prediction. This statement should be removed or substantially reframed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Reference [34] is identical to [33] (Lewis & Bridle 2002), and [22]/[31] as well as [23]/[32] are duplicated. The bibliography should be deduplicated and the in-text citations corrected.
  2. [Section IV, statefinder values; Figure 12] The quoted statefinder values r0=1.322 and s0=-0.102 are given without uncertainties, although Figure 12(b) shows a wide 68% confidence band for s(z). Reporting point values without errors overstates the discrimination from the ΛCDM fixed point.
  3. [Section IV, Table 1 and Figures 5-7] The reported parameters and derived quantities are quoted to four or more decimals (e.g., w(0)=-0.3840, H0=66.7999±0.0010). Given the data uncertainties and the fixed-constant issue, this precision is not justified; two or three significant digits would be more appropriate.
  4. [Figure 7] The comparison curve for wCDM is labeled 'wCDM(w=-1.1)' but no reference or uncertainty is given for this curve. Also the label 'CDM' is likely meant to be 'ΛCDM'; please clarify.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (22)] The intrinsic scatter σ_int=0.13 mag is introduced in Eq. (22), but it is unclear whether this term is included in the reported χ² values in Table 2. This should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The spinor-GCG model is constructed to reproduce the GCG equation of state, and the headline H0 'prediction' is a fitted parameter; model-selection claims are conditional on hand-fixed constants.

  1. self definitional [Section II, Eq. (16) (paragraph before Eq. (15))]
    "Because a nonlinear spinor field can effectively mimic a wide range of cosmological fluids—including perfect fluids and various dark energy candidates such as quintessence, Chaplygin gas, and modified Chaplygin gas- we concentrate on the generalized Chaplygin gas (GCG) equation of state as a specific realization within this framework. p=− A/εα , with positive constant A > 0, and 0≤α≤1. Setting ε=T00 and p=−T11 from Eqs. (6) in Eq. (15) yields F(K) = [A+λ1 K(1+α)/2]1/(1+α)."

    The spinor-field Lagrangian contains an arbitrary function F(K). The paper selects F(K) so that the resulting ε and p obey the GCG equation of state p = −A/ε^α by construction. The subsequent energy density (17a), ε = λ[A + λ1(1+z)^{3(1+α)}]^{1/(1+α)}, is mathematically the standard GCG density with redefined constants. Thus the 'spinor field GCG model' does not derive the GCG equation of state from spinor dynamics; it is defined to reproduce it. The claim in the Introduction that a spinor field 'naturally yields an effective GCG-type equation of state' is therefore an input, not a result.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section IV, Table 1]
    "Furthermore, the model predicts a lower present-day Hubble constant, offering a potential resolution to the Hubble tension. ... H0 = 66.7999+0.0010−0.0009 [Table 1, binned Pantheon SN]"

    H0 is one of the three free parameters scanned in the MCMC, with prior 50 < H0 < 90. The 'prediction' of H0 ≈ 66.8 is the best-fit value of that parameter to the same late-time datasets, not an independent consequence of the model. Calling it a prediction is a fitted parameter renamed as a result. Moreover, the quoted errors are conditional on the hand-fixed λ and λ1, so the claimed support for resolving the Hubble tension is not robust.

2 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section III, methodology paragraph before Table 1]
    "Throughout all MCMC runs, we fix the spinor field coupling constant to λ=1.75 and the integration constant to λ1=0.332, ensuring both numerical stability and physical consistency of the model evolution."

    These two constants enter the energy density (17a) and therefore control the overall amplitude and the matter-to-DE transition redshift in H(z) and distance-modulus predictions. Fixing them by hand rather than marginalizing over them means the quoted 68% errors on A, α, and H0 (e.g. ±0.001) exclude a dominant source of model uncertainty. The AIC/BIC comparison in Table 2 counts only 3 free parameters; if λ and λ1 were allowed to vary, the posterior widths would broaden and the model-selection verdict could flip. The 'competitive and viable' claim is thus conditional on arbitrary constants.

  2. renaming known result [Section V (Conclusion)]
    "Compared to other formulations of the Generalized Chaplygin Gas (GCG) model, typically introduced through phenomenological fluid descriptions, our spinor field GCG model introduces a deeper theoretical framework by embedding the GCG dynamics within a spinor field under a spherically symmetric FLRW spacetime."

    The background dynamics of the spinor-field model are algebraically identical to the standard GCG model: ε = [λ^{1+α}A + λ^{1+α}λ1 (1+z)^{3(1+α)}]^{1/(1+α)}, which is exactly the GCG density with A' = λ^{1+α}A and B' = λ^{1+α}λ1. The spinor field merely relabels the known Chaplygin fluid. Presenting this as a 'deeper theoretical framework' is a renaming of a known result, not a derivation of new dynamics.

full rationale

The paper is transparent in constructing F(K) to satisfy the GCG equation of state, so the background model is by definition the GCG model; the spinor field adds vocabulary but no new dynamics. The central headline claim that the model 'predicts a lower present-day Hubble constant' is a fitted-parameter result: H0 is a free parameter in the MCMC, and its best-fit value is called a prediction. The robustness of the constraints is further undermined by fixing λ=1.75 and λ1=0.332, which enter the energy density and hence all predictions; the reported 0.001-level errors and the AIC/BIC comparison are conditional on these arbitrary constants and undercount the model complexity. The model-selection comparison and the Hubble-tension resolution thus reduce, in part, to the fitted values and hand-fixed inputs rather than independent predictions. The overall circularity is partial: the model is a renamed, parameterized GCG model with a fitted H0 presented as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the choice of F(K) that makes the model identical to GCG, the arbitrary fixed values of λ and λ1, and the assumption of an open, massless-spinor universe. These are choices, not predictions.

free parameters (6)
  • A = 1.052
    GCG constant in the equation of state; fitted via MCMC.
  • α = 0.220
    GCG index; fitted via MCMC.
  • H0 = 66.8 km/s/Mpc
    Present-day Hubble constant; fitted via MCMC.
  • λ (spinor self-coupling) = 1.75 (fixed)
    Fixed by hand for numerical stability; no uncertainty propagated.
  • λ1 (integration constant) = 0.332 (fixed)
    Fixed by hand; no uncertainty propagated.
  • σ_int (intrinsic scatter) = 0.13 mag (assumed)
    Adopted from literature; affects the likelihood.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The universe is open (k=-1).
    Motivated by observation, but not fitted; affects the Friedmann equation and q(z).
  • domain assumption The spinor field is massless (m_sp=0).
    Assumed for the dark-energy sector; affects the energy density expression.
  • ad hoc to paper The nonlinear function F(K) is chosen to reproduce the GCG equation of state.
    Eq. (16) is engineered to yield p = -A/ε^α, making the model equivalent to a phenomenological GCG fluid.
  • standard math The spinor field is minimally coupled to gravity.
    Action in Eq. (2) assumes minimal coupling.
  • standard math Einstein's field equations and FLRW metric are valid.
    Standard background cosmology.
invented entities (1)
  • Nonlinear spinor field with self-interaction
    purpose: To produce an effective GCG equation of state for unified dark matter/dark energy
    The spinor field is taken from prior work (refs [16,17,26]) and the specific form of F(K) is chosen to reproduce the desired EoS; no new observational handle is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational Constraints on a Spinor Field Generalized Chaplygin Gas Model in a Spherically Symmetric FLRW Spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZO5FLTRO

@misc{pith2026250909733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational Constraints on a Spinor Field Generalized Chaplygin Gas Model in a Spherically Symmetric FLRW Spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZO5FLTRO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09733}
}
read the original abstract

Despite the remarkable success of the standard LambdaCDM model in describing the evolution of the universe, several unresolved issues remain, such as the true nature of dark energy, fine-tuning problems, and the persistent Hubble tension. Motivated by these shortcomings, we construct a spinor field-based Generalized Chaplygin Gas (GCG) model that unifies dark matter and dark energy within a spherically symmetric Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) spacetime. This framework incorporates a nonlinear spinor field and considers an open universe geometry. We constrain the model parameters using the latest observational datasets, including Type Ia supernovae from the binned Pantheon compilation, Hubble parameter measurements from cosmic chronometers (CC) and SDSS, including baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data. Employing Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling techniques, we obtain best-fit values that indicate the spinor GCG model provides a competitive and viable alternative to the LambdaCDM, particularly in the late-time universe. Furthermore, the model predicts a lower present-day Hubble constant, offering a potential resolution to the Hubble tension. The results highlight the rich phenomenology of spinor fields and their possible role in the dynamics of dark energy through spacetime interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Marginalized posterior distributions of the model parameters for the binned Pantheon data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Marginalized posterior distributions of the Spinor-GCG model parameters for Hubble data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Marginalized posterior distributions of the model parameters for the combined data sets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Marginal posterior distributions of the model parameters using different datasets. Panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Redshift evolution of the energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the equation of state w(z) for the spinor field GCG model. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Redshift evolution of the deceleration parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Present deceleration q(0) for various models [1, 14, 34–36]. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 Redshift (z) 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Dista n c e M o d ulus (¹) Spinor GCG (Best-fit) ¤CDM (Best-fit) GCG at SN z ¤CDM at SNz Pantheon Binned SN (SNb) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the best-fit theoretical distance modulus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Residuals between observed and modeled distance modulus values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of best-fit H(z) of the spinor field GCG model to the Hubble data sets (OHD + SDSS) along with ΛCDM model. H0 = 67.00 km s−1 Mpc−1 . A summary of the model comparison is presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Statefinder diagnostics for the best-fit Generalized Chaplygin Gas (GCG) model using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration) , Astron. Astrophys. 641 , A6 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS Collaboration) , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470 , 2617 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    D. M. Scolnic et al. , The Astrophysical Journal, 859 , 101 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

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

    2003

  5. [5]

    J. A. Frieman, M. S. Turner, and D. Huterer , Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46 , 385 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    D. J. Schwarz, C. J. Copi, D. Huterer, and G. D. Starkman , Class. Quantum Grav. 33 , 184001 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    A. G. Riess et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 908 , L6 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Di Valentino et al

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

    2021

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 , 1582 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, and P. J. Steinhardt , Phys. Rev. D 63 , 103510 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Clifton, P

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

    2012

  4. [12]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk , Phys. Rep. 405 , 279 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    A. Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier , Phys. Lett. B 511 , 265 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

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

    2002

  7. [15]

    H. B. Sandvik, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga, and I. Waga , Phys. Rev. D 69 , 123524 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    M. O. Ribas, F. P. Devecchi, and G. M. Kremer , Phys. Rev. D 72 , 123502 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    Saha , Phys

    B. Saha , Phys. Rev. D 74 , 124030 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Armendariz-Picon and P

    C. Armendariz-Picon and P. B. Greene , Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 35 , 1637 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    G. M. Kremer , Phys. Rev. D 68 , 123507 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    Moresco et al

    M. Moresco et al. , JCAP 08 , 006 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Sahni, A

    V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky , Astrophys. J. 793 , L40 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Beutler et al

    F. Beutler et al. , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 416 , 3017 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    A. J. Ross et al. , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 449 , 835 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman , Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125 , 306 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Introduction to Relativity

    Narlikar J.V. Introduction to Relativity. (Cambridge University Press, NY, 2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Saha B. Phys. Rev. D 64 , 123501 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    Zurnal eksperimentalnoj i teoreticeskoj fiziki 167 (1) 49-58 (2025)

    Saha B. Zurnal eksperimentalnoj i teoreticeskoj fiziki 167 (1) 49-58 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Moresco et al

    M. Moresco et al. , JCAP 05 , 014 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. , Phys. Rev. D 103 , 083533 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    J. E. Bautista et al. , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 500 , 736 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle , Phys. Rev. D, 66 , 103511 (2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66 , 103511 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    Vargas dos Santos, R

    M. Vargas dos Santos, R. R. R. Reis, and I. Waga, JCAP 05 , 014 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Santos, J

    B. Santos, J. C. Carvalho, and J. S. Alcaniz , Astropart. Phys. 79 , 40 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.