Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 192 references

Varying Gravity from a Modified Fractional Model: Observational Constraints and Slow-Fast Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A fractional gravity model with varying G and a scalar field can match late-time data when the quartic potential term is switched off, producing an overdamped relaxation of about 9 Gyr and cosmographic signatures that may ease the H0 and S8

desk verdict Solid dynamical-systems and multi-probe MCMC work on a fractional varying-G model, but the preferred age is ~40 Gyr and the H(z) pipeline rests on a convenience ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09722 v1 pith:ZVBQIVDP submitted 2026-06-27 physics.gen-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

Rami Ahmad El-Nabulsi , Genly Leon , Esteban González , Kevin Marroquín This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-phastro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords fractionalactioncosmologyvaryinggravitationalconstantslow-fastdynamicsH0tensionS8cosmographicparametersBayesianmodelcomparisonoverdampedscalarfield
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 builds a fractional-action cosmology in which both the Hubble rate and Newton’s constant G evolve because of renormalization-group and nonlocal fractional corrections, driven by a scalar field. After reducing the field equations to a regularized autonomous system, the authors integrate H(z) and confront it with supernovae, cosmic chronometers, BAO, strong lensing and black-hole shadows. Bayesian model comparison shows that only the truncated model with vanishing quartic coupling (μ=0) is statistically viable: it returns a stable h≈0.72, tightly constrained fractional parameters α≈1.20 and ζ≈0.43, and an overdamped scalar decay with relaxation time ≈9 Gyr. The same model reproduces late-time acceleration and tracks ΛCDM cosmography while leaving distinctive imprints in the jerk and snap parameters. The dynamical-systems analysis further reveals a slow–fast structure controlled by the relative variation of G, which the authors argue can modulate structure growth and the local expansion rate, thereby offering a geometric pathway toward relieving the H0 and S8 tensions.

What carries the argument

The closed evolution equation for the diagnostic R ≡ (Ġ/G)/H, together with the slow–fast decomposition of the regularized autonomous system in the variables (u,v1,v2,v3,R). R organizes both the modified continuity equation and the growth of density perturbations, converting the nonlocal fractional corrections into observable shifts of H(z) and fσ8.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the present-day logarithmic growth rate fσ8 (or of the cosmographic jerk and snap at z≲1) that is incompatible with the μ=0 posterior predictions at more than 3σ would rule out the claim that the fractional model is observationally viable and dynamically preferred.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When the scalar potential is purely quadratic (μ=0), the fractional model with dynamically evolving G and H becomes the only variant that is both statistically competitive with ΛCDM and dynamically consistent: it yields an overdamped relaxation timescale τ_rel≈9 Gyr, well-constrained fractional exponents, and late-time cosmographic functions that closely track but do not coincide with those of ΛCDM, while the full quartic model is disfavored by BIC and by parameter degeneracies.

Load-bearing premise

The entire reconstruction rests on a specific three-term ansatz for the Hubble rate, H = H0 + ξφ + ε/t with ε fixed to (α−1)/3, that eliminates the time-dependent friction and forces the scalar equation into a solvable Levinson–Smith form; if that functional form is not a faithful description of the true expansion history, the fitted posteriors and cosmographic signatures lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Late-time acceleration can be reproduced without a pure cosmological constant once fractional nonlocal corrections and a slowly varying G are admitted.
  • The overdamped 9 Gyr relaxation timescale sets a concrete, observationally accessible damping scale for the scalar field that can be tested against future growth-rate surveys.
  • Distinctive departures of the jerk and snap from their ΛCDM values become diagnostic signatures that future cosmographic reconstructions can hunt for.
  • The sign and magnitude of R on the slow manifold simultaneously control the local expansion rate and the amplitude of structure growth, linking the H0 and S8 tensions inside a single geometric mechanism.
  • BBN abundance measurements can be used as a high-redshift filter on the allowed range of α and β because rapid early variations of G are tightly constrained by light-element yields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the slow-manifold value of R remains negative at late times, the same mechanism that lowers σ8 would also pull the local H0 toward the lower CMB-inferred value, potentially reconciling both tensions with a single sign choice.
  • The requirement that μ vanish for statistical viability suggests that the quartic self-interaction of the scalar is radiatively suppressed or irrelevant at late times, a prediction that could be checked in a UV completion of the fractional RG flow.
  • Because the model already produces cyclic and oscillatory early phases, a dedicated primordial-nucleosynthesis likelihood analysis could turn the present BBN consistency arguments into a quantitative prior on the fractional order α.
  • The geometric slow–fast structure implies that any future detection of a non-constant G on cosmological scales would automatically select a preferred region of the (α,ζ) plane already constrained by the MCMC chains.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a fractional-action cosmological model (FRGIC/FEG) with a scalar field and a time-varying gravitational constant G, motivated by renormalization-group ideas. After imposing a phenomenological Hubble ansatz H = H0 + ξφ + ε/t with the special choice ε = (α−1)/3, the authors reduce the dynamics to a regularized autonomous system, analyze its slow–fast structure and critical points, and reconstruct H(z). Bayesian MCMC fits to SNe Ia (Pantheon+), cosmic chronometers, DESI BAO, H0LiCOW lensing and black-hole shadows are presented for two variants (μ ≠ 0 and μ = 0) and compared with flat ΛCDM. The authors conclude that only the μ = 0 model is statistically competitive (slightly lower χ²_min, well-constrained α and ζ, overdamped relaxation τ_rel ≃ 9 Gyr), that it reproduces late-time acceleration while producing distinctive cosmographic signatures, and that fractional nonlocal corrections may help address the H0 and S8 tensions.

Significance. If the reduction and the observational pipeline were robust, the work would supply a concrete, observationally constrained fractional-gravity scenario with an explicit slow–fast geometric structure and a diagnostic R ≡ (Ġ/G)/H that links early-universe (BBN) and late-time (growth, H0) physics. The dynamical-systems analysis (regularization via u = H0/H, Puiseux expansions, critical-point classification, desingularization of u = 0) is carefully executed and of independent interest for fractional cosmologies. The MCMC implementation uses standard data sets and reports BIC comparisons honestly. These technical strengths are real; the central viability claim, however, rests on an ansatz whose status is not derived from the fractional field equations, which limits the present significance for the H0/S8 problem.

major comments (3)
  1. The entire H(z) reconstruction and the MCMC posteriors of Table 1 and Figs. 1–7 rest on the phenomenological ansatz H = H0 + ξφ + ε/t together with the special choice ε = (α−1)/3 (Eqs. 8, 12 and the paragraph after Remark 3). That choice is introduced explicitly “to simplify the analytical solution” and to cancel the time-dependent friction term in the scalar equation (10), converting it into a Levinson–Smith oscillator. It is not a consequence of the fractional Euler–Lagrange equations (3)–(6) nor of the RG-improved action. If a generic ε is retained, or if H is obtained by simultaneous integration of the full (G, φ, a) system, the first-order system (55)–(56) used for the emcee chains ceases to be valid. The statistical-viability claim for μ = 0 therefore inherits the status of an untested ansatz. The manuscript should either (i) derive the ansatz from the field equations under control
  2. Table 1 reports τ0 ≃ 2.94 and an inferred cosmic age t0 ≃ 40 Gyr (1σ lower bound still ≃ 24 Gyr) for both Fractional variants. This is grossly inconsistent with stellar ages, globular-cluster ages and the CMB-inferred age of the Universe (≃ 13.8 Gyr). The text attributes the result to a strong degeneracy between α and τ0 (Eqs. 45, 56) and notes that only a 1σ lower bound is obtained, yet still presents t0 ≃ 40 Gyr as a model outcome. A cosmologically viable model cannot leave an age of ∼40 Gyr as an acceptable posterior region. Either a prior that enforces a realistic age must be imposed and the chains re-run, or the degeneracy must be broken by additional data (e.g., high-z BAO or CMB distance priors) so that the age posterior is brought into agreement with independent constraints. Until this is done, the claim that the μ = 0 model is “statistically viable” is incomplete.
  3. The abstract and §12 assert that fractional nonlocal corrections “may offer new pathways toward addressing the H0 and S8 tensions.” The MCMC analysis, however, yields h ≃ 0.72 for all three models (ΛCDM and both Fractional variants) and does not include growth data (fσ8 or weak lensing) in the likelihood; the S8 discussion in §11 remains at the level of qualitative sign arguments for R. Moreover, BIC strongly favors ΛCDM (ΔBIC > 10). The tension-resolution language should be either supported by an explicit joint fit that includes growth observables and a quantitative ΔH0/ΔS8 assessment, or substantially softened to match what the present data actually constrain.
minor comments (5)
  1. Notation for the fractional parameter is occasionally overloaded: α appears both as the FALVA order and (via α = 1 + 3τ_rel) as a derived age-related quantity. A single consistent definition table would help.
  2. Figures 11–14 (G(t) variations) are repeated with the same caption block; panel labels and parameter values should be made unique and legible.
  3. The prior ranges (e.g., α ∈ [1,4], μ ∈ [−3,10]) are stated but not motivated by theoretical bounds; a short justification or sensitivity check would strengthen §4.2.
  4. Several long passages in §§7–10 restate the same slow–fast geometry in three different charts (λ, T, w). Condensing the comparative synthesis would improve readability without loss of content.
  5. Typographical issues: “CNAAR” in Funding, duplicated figure captions, and occasional missing spaces around equation references.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Central H(z) reconstruction, MCMC viability claims, and overdamped 'confirmation' rest on an undervived convenience ansatz H=H0+ξφ+ε/t with ε=(α-1)/3 plus algebraic relations among fitted parameters.

  1. other [Section 2, Eq. (8) and paragraph after Remark 3 (point 4)]
    "Motivated by various scalar field and quintessence cosmological models [73, 74, 75], we suggest the generalized ansatz H=H0 +ξφ+ε/t,(8) ... we have selectedε= (α−1)/3 for two main reasons: first, it considerably simplifies the analytical solution, and second, it eliminates the time-dependent friction term in the differential equation, so we will deal only with constant friction."

    The entire numerical pipeline (system (55)–(56), E(τ), H(z) reconstruction, MCMC posteriors in Table 1, cosmographic plots Figs. 4–7, and the claim that μ=0 is the only statistically viable variant) is derived under this special value of ε. The choice is not obtained from the fractional field equations (4)–(6) but imposed for analytic convenience; therefore the reported H(z) evolution and viability statements are those of the simplified ansatz model by construction, not predictions of the general FRGIC/FEG theory.

  2. self definitional [Section 5.1, Eqs. (153)–(157) and surrounding text]
    "Using the best-fit values in Table 1, m≃30.8 +28.0 −20.9 km s−1 Mpc−1, Γ≃108.3±1.1 km s−1 Mpc−1, ... Δ=... Since Δ>0, the system lies in the overdamped regime. ... τd=1/|λ+|≈...≈9.0 Gyr≃τ_rel=9.037+0.091−0.094 Gyr, in excellent agreement with the fitted value reported in Table 1."

    τ_rel is defined from the free parameters via α=1+3τ_rel and λ=1/τ_rel (Eqs. 36, 41); m=ζ H0 and Γ=3/2 H0 are likewise direct functions of the same fitted (ζ,h). The eigenvalues λ± and the derived τ_d are therefore algebraic rearrangements of the best-fit numbers under the overdamped approximation; the 'agreement' and 'confirmation of an overdamped regime' are identities, not independent dynamical results.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Section 4.3 / Table 1]
    "A Bayesian analysis shows that the Fractional model with μ=0 is the only statistically viable variant. The inferred Hubble parameter is stable across models (h≃0.72), while the fractional parameters are significantly better constrained in the μ=0 case (α=1.20+0.25−0.14, ζ=0.43+0.39−0.29). ... Although the μ=0 model attains a slightly lower χ2_min than ΛCDM, the BIC strongly favors ΛCDM ... Overall, the model reproduces late-time acceleration and mimics ΛCDM while introducing distinctive cosmographic signatures."

    The free parameters of the ansatz-reduced system (including α, ζ, τ0, q0 that fix the initial conditions (56) and the friction) are fitted by MCMC to the same SNe+CC+BAO+GL+BHS data that are then used to declare the model 'reproduces late-time acceleration' and yields 'distinctive cosmographic signatures'. The H(z), q(z), j(z), s(z) curves shown in Figs. 4–7 are therefore the best-fit realizations of the parametrized ansatz, not out-of-sample predictions.

full rationale

The paper's strongest statistical claim (μ=0 Fractional model is the only viable variant, with quoted posteriors on α, ζ, m, Γ, τ_rel and distinctive cosmographic signatures that may address H0/S8) is obtained by integrating the reduced first-order system (55)–(56) whose form is forced by the phenomenological Hubble ansatz (8) together with the special value ε=(α-1)/3. That choice is not a consequence of the fractional Euler–Lagrange equations (3)–(6) or the RG-improved action; it is imposed explicitly 'to simplify the analytical solution' and to cancel the time-dependent friction term, converting the scalar equation into a Levinson–Smith oscillator. All subsequent numerical H(z), cosmographic functions, emcee chains, Table 1 and Figs. 4–7 therefore describe this simplified ansatz model, not the general fractional theory. In addition, the 'excellent agreement' between the damping timescale τ_d computed from best-fit (m,Γ) and the reported τ_rel is algebraic consistency under the definitions α=1+3τ_rel, Γ=3/2 H0 and the overdamped approximation, not an independent dynamical prediction. These are partial circularities of the fitted-input and self-definitional kinds; the Bayesian comparison itself is otherwise standard and the dynamical-systems analysis of critical points is independent of the data fit. Score 5 reflects that the load-bearing observational claims reduce to the ansatz plus parameter fitting, while the pure phase-space geometry does not.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central observational claim rests on the fractional-action variational principle, a phenomenological Hubble ansatz with a tuned ε, a power-law relation Λ∝G^β, and a large set of free parameters fitted to late-time data. Early-universe viability further assumes that the rapid-G-variation regime can be kept inside BBN bounds by suitable choices of α, β, γ.

free parameters (7)
  • α (fractional order) = 1.20^{+0.25}_{-0.14}
    Controls nonlocal corrections and the 1/t friction; fitted, best-fit 1.20^{+0.25}_{-0.14} (μ=0).
  • ζ = m/H0 = 0.43^{+0.39}_{-0.29}
    Scalar mass in units of H0; fitted, best-fit 0.43^{+0.39}_{-0.29} (μ=0).
  • μ (quartic coupling) = 0 (preferred) or 4.0^{+2.8}_{-2.5}
    Strength of φ^4 term; set to 0 for the viable model or left free (poorly constrained).
  • τ0 = H0 t0 = 2.94^{+0.77}_{-1.18}
    Dimensionless age; strongly degenerate with α, posterior ~2.94 with large errors.
  • q0 (present deceleration) = −0.502^{+0.027}_{-0.023}
    Initial condition for the scalar system; fitted ~−0.50.
  • h, rd, M = h≃0.72, rd≃139 Mpc, M≃−19.29
    Standard cosmological nuisance parameters jointly fitted with the fractional sector.
  • β (in Λ=Λ0 G^β)
    Phenomenological exponent relating cosmological and gravitational constants; not tightly constrained by the late-time fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fractional action-like variational approach (FALVA) replaces the ordinary action integral by a fractional integral of order α.
    Foundational premise of the entire FRGIC construction (Introduction and §2).
  • ad hoc to paper Hubble ansatz H=H0+ξφ+ε/t with the specific choice ε=(α−1)/3.
    Introduced for analytic convenience (Eq. 8 and Remark 3); not derived from the fractional action.
  • ad hoc to paper Phenomenological law Λ=Λ0 G^β.
    Assumed after Eq. 12 to close the system for G(t).
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric and a single scalar field dominate the late universe.
    Standard cosmological setting adopted in §2.
  • domain assumption Pre-recombination sound horizon rd can be treated as a free parameter independent of early-universe microphysics.
    Used in the BAO likelihood (§4.1.3).
invented entities (2)
  • Fractional Renormalization-Group Improved Cosmology (FRGIC / FEG)
    purpose: Unifies fractional-action nonlocality with RG running of G and Λ.
    Named and motivated in the Introduction; no independent experimental handle beyond the cosmological fits themselves.
  • Diagnostic R ≡ (Ġ/G)/H
    purpose: Single quantity that controls modified continuity, growth, BBN bounds, and the H0/S8 interpretation.
    Defined in §7–8; its dynamics are derived from the model equations, so it is not an extra free field, but its cosmological interpretation is model-specific.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Varying Gravity from a Modified Fractional Model: Observational Constraints and Slow-Fast Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZVBQIVDP

@misc{pith2026260709722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Varying Gravity from a Modified Fractional Model: Observational Constraints and Slow-Fast Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZVBQIVDP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09722}
}
abstract

We investigate a fractional gravity model in which both the Hubble parameter and the gravitational constant evolve dynamically due to fractional renormalization-group effects. The model incorporates a scalar field coupled to a time-varying $G$, generating nonlocal corrections characteristic of fractional--action cosmology. Analytical and numerical solutions reveal oscillatory regimes, cyclic phases, and rapid variations with implications for BBN and early-universe evolution. A robust numerical framework is developed to integrate the regularized system and compare the resulting $H(z)$ evolution with observational data from the Hubble parameter, baryon acoustic oscillations, type Ia supernovae, gravitational lensing, and black hole shadows, thereby enabling a consistent reconstruction of cosmographic quantities. A Bayesian analysis shows that the Fractional model with $\mu=0$ is the only statistically viable variant. The inferred Hubble parameter is stable across models ($h\simeq 0.72$), while the fractional parameters are significantly better constrained in the $\mu=0$ case ($\alpha=1.20^{+0.25}_{-0.14}$, $\zeta=0.43^{+0.39}_{-0.29}$). The dynamical sector yields $m=30.8^{+28.0}_{-20.9}$ and $\Gamma=108.3\pm1.1$, leading to a positive discriminant and a well-determined relaxation timescale $\tau_{\rm rel}\simeq 9$ Gyr, confirming an overdamped regime. Although the $\mu=0$ model attains a slightly lower $\chi^2_{\min}$ than $\Lambda$CDM, the BIC strongly favors $\Lambda$CDM due to its smaller parameter space. Overall, the model reproduces late-time acceleration and mimics $\Lambda$CDM while introducing distinctive cosmographic signatures. The dynamical systems analysis clarifies the stability structure and parameter dependence, indicating that fractional nonlocal corrections may offer new pathways toward addressing the $H_0$ and $S_8$ tensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09722 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The posterior 1D distributions and joint marginalized regions for the free parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The posterior 1D distributions and joint marginalized regions for the free parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The posterior 1D distributions and joint marginalized regions for the free parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Hubble parameter (H) as a function of redshift (z) for the ΛCDM (red dashed line) and Fractional models with µ ̸= 0 (blue solid line) and µ = 0 (orange solid line). The shaded regions represent the confidence intervals of the Hubble parameter at the 1σ CL. The figu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The deceleration parameter (q) as a function of redshift (z) for the ΛCDM (red dashed line) and Fractional models with µ ̸= 0 (blue solid line) and µ = 0 (orange solid line). The shaded regions represent the confidence intervals of the deceleration parameter at the 1σ …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The jerk parameter (j) as a function of redshift (z) for the ΛCDM (red dashed line) and Fractional models with µ ̸= 0 (blue solid line) and µ = 0 (orange solid line). The shaded regions represent the confidence intervals of the jerk parameter at the 1σ CL. Note that, f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The snap parameter (s) as a function of redshift (z) for the ΛCDM (red dashed line) and Fractional models with µ ̸= 0 (blue solid line) and µ = 0 (orange solid line). The shaded regions represent the confidence intervals of the snap parameter at the 1σ CL. The figure w…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: One-dimensional flow of equation (273) for v1∗ ∈ {0, ±ζ/√µ} and different parameter values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Phase portraits of equation (374) for µ = 1, λ = 0.5 and µ = 1, λ = 10. Linearization and relaxation: we define f(R) = 3 µ + (λ − 3)R + 1 2R2 , with derivative f ′ (R∗) = (λ − 3) + R∗. The linearized dynamics are R ≈ − ˙ κ H R − R∗  , κ = − f ′ (R∗) = 3 − λ − R∗. (378…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the jerk parameter and the deceleration parameter as a function of redshift. 63 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p063_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Variation of the gravitational constant as a function of cosmic time (cont.). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_11.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Variation of the gravitational constant as a function of cosmic time (cont.). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p065_11.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Variation of the gravitational constant as a function of cosmic time (cont.). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p066_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Variations of the gravitational parameter as a function of cosmic time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Variations of the gravitational parameter as a function of cosmic time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Variations of the gravitational parameter as a function of cosmic time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p069_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

192 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Komatsu, K.M

    E. Komatsu, K.M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, M. Halpern, R.S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, N. Odegard, G.S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, E. L. Wright, Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological interpretation, Astro...

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 2011

  2. [2]

    Flender, D.J

    S.F. Flender, D.J. Schwarz, Newtonian versus relativistic cosmology, Phys. Rev. D86, (2012) 063527.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.063527

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.063527 2012

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, The Cosmological constant problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The Cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1.https://doi. org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

  4. [4]

    Steinhardt, Critical Problems in Physics

    P.J. Steinhardt, Critical Problems in Physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997

    1997

  5. [5]

    Zlatev, L.-M

    I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang, P.J. Steinhardt, Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, (1999) 896.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.896

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.82.896 1999

  6. [6]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D.N. Spergel, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, M.R. Nolta, M. Halpern, R.S. Hill, N. Odegard, L. Page, K.M. Smith, J.L. Weiland, B. Gold, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S.S. Meyer, G.S. Tucker, E. Wollack, E.L. Wright, Nine-year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological parameter results, Astrop...

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 2013

  7. [7]

    A. G. Riess, L. M. Macri, S. L. Hoffmann, D. Scolnic, S. Casertano, A. V. Filippenko, B. E. Tucker, M. J. Reid, D. O. Jones, J. M. Silverman and R. Chornock, A 2.4% determination of the local value of the Hubble constant, Astrophys. J. 826, (2016) 56.http://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/0004-637X/826/1/56

    2016

  8. [8]

    Thakur, S

    RK. Thakur, S. Gupta, R. Nigam, P.K. Thiruvikraman, Investigating the Hubble tension through Hubble parameter data, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23, (2023) 065017.https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1674-4527/acd0e8

    2023

Show all 192 references
  1. [9]

    Riess, S

    A.G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri and D. Scolnic, Large Magellanic cloud Cepheid Standards provide a 1% foundation for the determination of the Hubble constant and stronger evidence for physics beyond ΛCDM, Astrophys. J. 876, (2019) 85.https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Thakur, H, Kumar, S

    R.K. Thakur, H, Kumar, S. Gupta, D. Verma, R. Nigam, Investigating the Hubble tension: Effect of Cepheid calibration, Phys. Lett. B840, (2023) 137886.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. physletb.2023.137886

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Riess, L

    A.G. Riess, L. Macri, S. Casertano, H. Lampeitl, H.C. Ferguson, A.V. Filippenko, S.W. Jha, W. Li, R. Chornock, A 3% solution: determination of the Hubble constant with the Hubble space telescope and wide field camera, Astrophys. J. 730, (2011) 119.http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 00...

    2011

  4. [12]

    Nozari, S

    K. Nozari, S. Saghafi, M. Hajebrahimi, Extended uncertainty principle: a deeper insight into the Hubble tension? Phys. Dark Universe 46, (2024) 101571.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark. 2024.101571

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Cook, The Lambda-CDM-NG cosmological model: a possible resolution of the Hubble tension, Astrophys

    R.J. Cook, The Lambda-CDM-NG cosmological model: a possible resolution of the Hubble tension, Astrophys. J. 965, (2024) 127.https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad3207

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Anukool, R.A

    W. Anukool, R.A. El-Nabulsi, An oscillating Chern-Simons universe crossing the phantom divide line and alleviating the Hubble tension, Mod. Phys. Lett. A39, (2024) 2450086.https://doi. org/10.1142/S021773232450086X

    2024 doi

  7. [16]

    El-Nabulsi, Cosmology with a fractional action principle, Rom

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Cosmology with a fractional action principle, Rom. Rep. Phys. 59, (2007) 763. https://rrp.nipne.ro/2007_59_3/3-Nabulsi_El-Rami.pdf

    2007

  8. [17]

    El-Nabulsi, Non-minimal coupling in fractional action cosmology, Indian J

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Non-minimal coupling in fractional action cosmology, Indian J. Phys. 87, (2013) 835.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12648-013-0295-3

    2013 doi

  9. [18]

    El-Nabulsi, Fractional action oscillating phantom cosmology with conformal coupling, Eu- rop

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Fractional action oscillating phantom cosmology with conformal coupling, Eu- rop. Phys. J. P. 130, (2015) 102.https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2015-15102-9

    2015 doi

  10. [19]

    El-Nabulsi, Wormholes in fractional action cosmology, Can J

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Wormholes in fractional action cosmology, Can J. Phys. 95, (2017) 605-609. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2017-0109

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    El-Nabulsi, Some fractional geometrical aspects of weak field approximation and Schwarzschild spacetime, Rom

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Some fractional geometrical aspects of weak field approximation and Schwarzschild spacetime, Rom. J. Phys. 52, (2007) 655-662.https://rjp.nipne.ro/2007_52_ 5-6/0705_0716.pdf

    2007

  12. [21]

    El-Nabulsi, Fractional action cosmology with variable order parameter, Int

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Fractional action cosmology with variable order parameter, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 56, (2017) 1159-1182.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-016-3260-z

    2017 doi

  13. [22]

    Debnath, S

    U. Debnath, S. Chattopadhyay, M. Jamil, Fractional action cosmology: some dark energy models in emergent, logamediate, and intermediate scenarios of the universe, J. Theor. Appl. Phys. 7, (2013) 25.https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-7235-7-25

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    Jamil, A

    M. Jamil, A. M. Rashid, D. Momeni, O. Razina, K. Esmakhanova, Fractional action cosmology with power-law weight function, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 354, (2012) 012008.https://iopscience. iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/354/1/012008/pdf

    2012 doi

  15. [24]

    Debnath, M

    U. Debnath, M. Jamil, S. Chattopadhyay, Fractional action cosmology: emergent, logamediate, intermediate, power law scenarios of the universe and generalized second law of thermodynamics, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 51, (2012) 812.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-011-0961-1

    2012 doi

  16. [25]

    Shchigolev, Fractional Einstein-Hilbert action cosmology, Mod

    V K. Shchigolev, Fractional Einstein-Hilbert action cosmology, Mod. Phys. Lett. A28, 14, (2013) 1350056.https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732313500569

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    Shchigolev, Cosmic evolution in fractional action cosmology, Discontinuity, Nonlinearity and Complexity, 2, (2013) 115.https://doi.org/10.5890/DNC.2013.04.002

    V.K. Shchigolev, Cosmic evolution in fractional action cosmology, Discontinuity, Nonlinearity and Complexity, 2, (2013) 115.https://doi.org/10.5890/DNC.2013.04.002

    2013 doi

  18. [27]

    Shchigolev, Cosmological models with fractional derivatives and fractional action functional, Comm

    V.K. Shchigolev, Cosmological models with fractional derivatives and fractional action functional, Comm. Theor. Phys. 56, (2011) 389.https://doi.org/10.1088/0253-6102/56/2/34

    2011 doi

  19. [28]

    V. K. Shchigolev, Testing fractional action cosmology, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 131, 256 (2016).https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2016-16256-6

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    El-Nabulsi, Fractional Lagrangian formulation of general relativity and emergence of com- plex, spinorial and noncommutative gravity, Int

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Fractional Lagrangian formulation of general relativity and emergence of com- plex, spinorial and noncommutative gravity, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 6, (2009) 25-76. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021988780900345X

    2009 doi

  21. [30]

    S. M. M. Rasouli, E. W. de Oliveira Costa, P. Moniz, S. Jalalzadeh, Inflation and fractional quan- tum cosmology, Frac. Fract. 6, (2022) 655.https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6110655

    2022 doi

  22. [32]

    R. A. El-Nabulsi, Implications of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck-like fractional differential equation in cosmology, Rev. Mex. Fis. 62, (2016) 240-250.https://rmf.smf.mx/ojs/index.php/rmf/ article/view/4204

    2016

  23. [33]

    R. A. El-Nabulsi, String cosmology from fractional action with solitonic NS–NS matter and possibility of an accelerated expanding universe without dark energy, Can. J. Phys. 99, (2021) 691-695.https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2020-0575. 74

    2021 doi

  24. [34]

    Pasqua, S

    A. Pasqua, S. Chattopadhyay, Theoretical constraints on kinetic k-essence dark energy model in El-Nabulsi fractional action cosmology, Can. J. Phys. 91, (2013) 844-849.https: //cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjp-2013-0325

    2013 doi

  25. [35]

    de Oliveira Costa, R

    E.W. de Oliveira Costa, R. Jalalzadeh, P.F. da Silva J´ unior, S.M. Mousavi Rasouli, S. Jalalzadeh, Estimating age of the universe in fractional cosmology, Fractal Frac. 7, (2023) 854.https: //doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7120854

    2023 doi

  26. [36]

    Rasouli, S

    S.M.M. Rasouli, S. Cheraghchi, P.V. Moniz, Fractional scalar field cosmology, Fractal Frac. 8, (2024) 281.https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract8050281

    2024 doi

  27. [37]

    El-Nabulsi, C.F.L

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, C.F.L. Godinho, I.V. Vancea, Fractional mimetic dark matter: A fractional action-like variational approach, Mod. Phys. Lett. A39, (2024) 2450147.https://doi.org/10. 1142/S0217732324501475

    2024

  28. [38]

    Micolta-Riascos, A.D

    B. Micolta-Riascos, A.D. Millano, G. Leon, C. Erices, A. Paliathanasis, Revisiting fractional cosmology,Fractal Fract.7, (2023) 149.https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7020149

    2023 doi

  29. [39]

    R. A. El-Nabulsi, Increasing effective gravitational constant in fractional ADD brane cosmol- ogy, Electron. J. Theor. Phys. 5, (2008) 103–106

    2008

  30. [40]

    M. A. Garc´ ıa-Aspeitia, G. Fernandez-Anaya, A. Hern´ andez-Almada, G. Leon, J. Maga˜ na, Cos- mology under the fractional calculus approach, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 517, (2022) 4813- 4826.https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3006

    2022 doi

  31. [41]

    El-Nabulsi, A Cosmology governed by a fractional differential equation and the generalized Kilbas-Saigo-Mittag-Leffler function, Int

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, A Cosmology governed by a fractional differential equation and the generalized Kilbas-Saigo-Mittag-Leffler function, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 55, (2016) 625-635.https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10773-015-2700-5

    2016 doi

  32. [42]

    Calcagni, S

    G. Calcagni, S. Kuroyanagi, S Tsujikawa, Cosmic microwave background and inflation in multi- fractional spacetimes. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08, (2016) 039.http://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1475-7516/2016/08/039

    2016

  33. [43]

    Calcagni, Multifractional theories: An updated review, Mod

    G. Calcagni, Multifractional theories: An updated review, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36, (2021) 2140006.https://doi.org/10.1142/S021773232140006X

    2021 doi

  34. [44]

    Calcagni, Classical and quantum gravity with fractional operators, Class

    G. Calcagni, Classical and quantum gravity with fractional operators, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, (2021) 165005,https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac1081.,Erratum in Class. Quant. Grav. 38, (2021) 169601.https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac1bea

    2021 doi

  35. [45]

    Jalalzadeh, E.W.O

    S. Jalalzadeh, E.W.O. Costa, P.V. Moniz, de Sitter fractional quantum cosmology. Phys. Rev. D105, (2022) L121901.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L121901

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    El-Nabulsi, W

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, W. Anukool, The paradigm of quantum cosmology through Dunkl fractional Laplacian operators and fractal dimensions, Chaos Solitons + Fractals 167, (2023) 113097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.113097

    2023 doi

  37. [47]

    Leon Torres, M.A

    G. Leon Torres, M.A. Garc´ ıa-Aspeitia, G. Fernandez-Anaya, A. Hern´ andez- Almada, J. Maga˜ na, E. Gonz´ alez, Cosmology under the fractional calculus ap- proach: a possible H0 tension resolution? Proc. Sci. 2022, (2022) 248.https: //doi.org/10.22323/1.436.0248

    2022 doi

  38. [48]

    Reuter, C

    M. Reuter, C. Wetterich, Effective average action for gauge theories and exact evolution equa- tions, Nucl. Phys. B427, (1994) 291.https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(94)90543-6

    1994 doi

  39. [49]

    Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity, Phys

    M. Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D57, (1998) 971.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.971

    1998 doi

  40. [50]

    Lauscher, M

    O. Lauscher, M. Reuter, Ultraviolet fixed point and generalized flow equation of quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D65, (2002) 025013.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.025013

    2002 doi

  41. [51]

    Bonanno, M

    A. Bonanno, M. Reuter, Cosmology of the Planck era from a renormalization group for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D65, (2002) 043508.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.043508. 75

    2002 doi

  42. [52]

    Bonanno, M

    A. Bonanno, M. Reuter, Quantum gravity effects near the null black hole singularity, Phys. Rev. D60, (1999) 084011.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.60.084011

    1999 doi

  43. [53]

    Bonanno, M

    A. Bonanno, M. Reuter, Renormalization group improved black hole spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D62, (2000) 043008.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043008

    2000 doi

  44. [54]

    Piedipalumbo, P

    E. Piedipalumbo, P. Scudellaro, G. Esposito, C. Rubano, A matter-dominated cosmological model with variableGand Λ and its confrontation with observational data, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44, (2012) 2477-2501.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-012-1409-5

    2012 doi

  45. [55]

    Bonanno, G

    A. Bonanno, G. Esposito, C. Rubano, P. Scudellaro, Noether symmetry approach in pure gravity with variable G and Lambda, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, (2007) 1443-1455.https://doi.org/10. 1088/0264-9381/24/6/005

    2007

  46. [56]

    Bonanno, G

    A. Bonanno, G. Esposito, C. Rubano, P. Scudellaro, Noether symmetry approach to scalar- field-dominated cosmology with dynamically evolving G and Lambda, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 5, (2008) 329-337.https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887808002801

    2008 doi

  47. [57]

    El-Nabulsi, Dark energy and cyclic universe from Arnowitt-Deser-Misner renormal- izable group approach, Braz

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Dark energy and cyclic universe from Arnowitt-Deser-Misner renormal- izable group approach, Braz. J. Phys. 39, (2009) 107-111.https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0103-97332009000100018

    2009

  48. [58]

    Linde, A brief history of the multiverse, Rep

    A. Linde, A brief history of the multiverse, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, (2017) 022001.https://doi. org/10.1088/1361-6633/aa50e4

    2017 doi

  49. [59]

    Tsujikawa, Quintessence: a review, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Quintessence: a review, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, (2013) 214003.https://doi. org/10.1088/0264-9381/30/21/214003

    2013 doi

  50. [60]

    Arturo Urena-Lopez, Scalar fields in cosmology: dark matter and inflation, J

    L. Arturo Urena-Lopez, Scalar fields in cosmology: dark matter and inflation, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 761, (2016) 012076.https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/761/1/012076

    2016 doi

  51. [61]

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Maxwell brane cosmology with higher-order string curvature corrections, a nonminimally coupled scalar field, dark matter–dark energy interaction and a varying speed of light, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18, (2009) 289-318.https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271809014431

    2009 doi

  52. [62]

    El-Nabulsi, Modified braneworld cosmologies in the presence of stringy corrections coupled to a canonical scalar field, Int

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Modified braneworld cosmologies in the presence of stringy corrections coupled to a canonical scalar field, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18, (2009) 691-715.https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218271809014716

    2009

  53. [63]

    El-Nabulsi, Accelerated D-dimensional compactified universe in Gauss–Bonnet–dilatonic scalar gravity from D-brane/M-theory, Chin

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Accelerated D-dimensional compactified universe in Gauss–Bonnet–dilatonic scalar gravity from D-brane/M-theory, Chin. Phys. Lett. 25, (2008) 2785.https://iopscience. iop.org/article/10.1088/0256-307X/25/8/014/meta

    2008 doi

  54. [65]

    El-Nabulsi, Effective cosmological constant from supergravity arguments and non-minimal coupling, Phys

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Effective cosmological constant from supergravity arguments and non-minimal coupling, Phys. Lett. B619, (2005) 26-29.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2005.06. 002

    2005 doi

  55. [66]

    Tamanini, Dynamics of cosmological scalar fields, Phys

    M. Tamanini, Dynamics of cosmological scalar fields, Phys. Rev. D89, (2014) 083521.https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.083521

    2014 doi

  56. [67]

    Szydlowski, O

    M. Szydlowski, O. Hrycyna, A. Stachowski, Scalar field cosmology-geometry of dynamics, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 11, (2014) 1460012.https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887814600123

    2014 doi

  57. [68]

    Ghosh, R

    S. Ghosh, R. Solanki, P.K. Sahoo, Dynamical system analysis of scalar field cosmology in co- incident f(Q) gravity, Phys. Script. 99, (2024) 055021.https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ ad39b5. 76

    2024 doi

  58. [70]

    Berghaus, J.A

    K.V. Berghaus, J.A. Kable, V. Miranda, Quantifying scalar field dynamics with DESI 2024 Y1 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D110, (2024) 103524.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 110.103524

    2024 doi

  59. [71]

    El-Nabulsi, D.F.M

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, D.F.M. Torres, Fractional actionlike variational problems, J. Math. Phys. 49, (2008) 053521-053529.https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2929662

    2008 doi

  60. [72]

    El-Nabulsi, D.F.M

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, D.F.M. Torres, Necessary optimality condition for fractional action-like varia- tional approach with-Liouville derivatives of order (alfa,beta), Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 30, (2007) 1931-1939.https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.879

    2007 doi

  61. [73]

    Harko, F.S.L

    T. Harko, F.S.L. Lobo, M.K. Mak, Arbitrary scalar-field and quintessence cosmological models, Eur. Phys. J. C74, (2014) 2784.https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2784-8

    2014 doi

  62. [75]

    Saaidi, A

    Kh. Saaidi, A. Mohammadi, T. Golanbari, Light of Planck-2015 on non-canonical field, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, Article ID926807, (2015) 11 pages.https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/ 926807

    2015 doi

  63. [76]

    A. G. Muslimov, On the scalar field dynamics in a spatially flat Friedman universe, Class. Quant. Grav. 7, (1990) 231-237.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/ 7/2/015

    1990 doi

  64. [77]

    R. A. El-Nabulsi, Accelerated expansion from a modified quadratic gravity, Astrophys. Space Sci. 332, (2010) 491.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-010-0518-4

    2010 doi

  65. [78]

    R. A. El-Nabulsi, Dark energy from logarithmic modified gravity and deformed Coleman- Weinberg potential, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11, (2011) 759-766.https://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/11/7/002

    2011 doi

  66. [79]

    R. A. El-Nabulsi, Accelerated dilatonic Brans-Dicke cyclic and non-singular universe from string theory, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11, (2011) 1249-1256

    2011

  67. [80]

    R. A. El-Nabulsi, Dark energy in five-dimensional Brans-Dicke cosmology with dimensional re- duction, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11, (2011) 888-894.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/1674-4527/11/8/002

    2011 doi

  68. [81]

    R. A. El-Nabulsi, Exact solution of a tachyon oscillating cosmology with a supergravity tracking potential, Europ. Phys. J. Plus128, (2013) 55.https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/ i2013-13055-7

    2013 doi

  69. [82]

    Wang, Exact solution in the new inflation scenario with induced gravity

    W.-F. Wang, Exact solution in the new inflation scenario with induced gravity. Comm. Theor. Phys. 36, (2001) 509.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0253-6102/36/4/509

    2001 doi

  70. [83]

    Magana, T

    J. Magana, T. Matos, A brief review of the scalar field dark matter model, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 378, (2012) 012012.https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/378/1/012012

    2012 doi

  71. [84]

    Chandrasekar, M

    V.K. Chandrasekar, M. Senthilvelan, M. Lakshmanan, Unusual Li´ enard-type nonlinear oscillator, Phys. Rev. E. 72, (2005), 066203.https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.72.066203

    2005 doi

  72. [85]

    Jordan, P

    D.W. Jordan, P. Smith, Nonlinear ordinary Differential Equations, 4th ed, Oxford University Press, New York, 2007.https://www.amazon.com/ Nonlinear-Ordinary-Differential-Equations-Introduction/dp/0199208255. 77

    2007

  73. [87]

    Abedi, A

    H. Abedi, A. M. Abbassi, Hubble multi-scalar function, JCAP07, (2017) 049.https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/07/049

    2017 doi

  74. [88]

    El-Nabulsi, Scalar tensor cosmology with kinetic, Gauss-Bonnet and nonminimal derivative couplings and supersymmetric loop corrected potential, Comm

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Scalar tensor cosmology with kinetic, Gauss-Bonnet and nonminimal derivative couplings and supersymmetric loop corrected potential, Comm. Theor. Phys. 71, (2019) 831. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0253-6102/71/7/831

    2019 doi

  75. [89]

    Wolf, P.G

    W.J. Wolf, P.G. Ferreira, Underdetermination of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D108, (2023) 103519. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103519

    2023 doi

  76. [90]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, S. Prokushkin, M. Shmakova, Supergravity, dark energy and the fate of the universe, Phys. Rev. D66, (2022) 123503.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.123503

    2022 doi

  77. [91]

    Cheng, F

    G. Cheng, F. Wu, X. Chen, Cosmological test of an extended quintessence model, Phys. Rev. D103, (2021) 103527.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103527

    2021 doi

  78. [92]

    Jesus, S.H

    J.F. Jesus, S.H. Pereira, J.L.G. Malatrasi, F. Andrade-Oliveira, Can dark matter be a scalar field? J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys. 08, (2016) 046.https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/ 08/046

    2016 doi

  79. [93]

    Sen, S.A

    A.A. Sen, S.A. Adil, S. Sen, Do cosmological observations allow a negative Λ? Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 518, (2023) 1098.https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2796

    2023 doi

  80. [94]

    Sarkar, A.A

    C.B.V Dash, T.G. Sarkar, A.A. Sen, Post-reionization HI 21-cm signal: A probe of negative cosmological constant, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 527, (2024) 11694.https://doi.org/10. 1093/mnras/stad3946

    2024

  81. [95]

    Menci, S.A

    N. Menci, S.A. Adil, U. Mukhopadhyay, A.A. Sen, S. Vagnozzi, Negative cosmological constant in the dark energy sector: tests from JWST photometric and spectroscopic observations of high-redshift galaxies, J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys. 07, (2024) 072.http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1475...

    2024

  82. [96]

    Visinelli, S

    L. Visinelli, S. Vagnozzi, U. Danielsson, Revisiting a negative cosmological constant from low- redshift data, Symmetry 11, (2019) 1035.https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11081035

    2019 doi

  83. [97]

    El-Nabulsi, Phase transitions in the early universe with negatively induced supergravity cos- mological constant, Chin

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Phase transitions in the early universe with negatively induced supergravity cos- mological constant, Chin. Phys. Lett. 23, (2006) 51.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0256-307X/23/5/017/meta

    2006 doi

  84. [98]

    El-Nabulsi, Effective cosmological constant from supergravity arguments and non-minimal coupling, Phys

    R,A. El-Nabulsi, Effective cosmological constant from supergravity arguments and non-minimal coupling, Phys. Lett. B619, (2005) 26.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2005.06.002

    2005 doi

  85. [99]

    RA El-Nabulsi, Spontaneous symmetry breaking in the early universe with a negative tempera- ture and a broken Lorentz symmetry, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India, Sect. A: Phys. Sci. 85, (2015) 395.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40010-015-0212-6

    2015 doi

  86. [100]

    High Energy Astrophys

    RA El-Nabulsi and W Anukool, Estimating power-law exponents from observations in electro- magnetic non-minimal Maxwell-Gauss-Bonnet coupling cosmology, J. High Energy Astrophys. 42, (2024) 104.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.04.002

    2024 doi

  87. [101]

    El-Nabulsi, Logarithmic Lagrangian matter density, unimodular gravity-like and accelerated expansion with a negative cosmological constant, J

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, Logarithmic Lagrangian matter density, unimodular gravity-like and accelerated expansion with a negative cosmological constant, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 79, (2021) 345.https: //doi.org/10.1007/s40042-021-00233-9

    2021 doi

  88. [102]

    Maeda, N

    K. Maeda, N. Ohta, Cosmic acceleration with a negative cosmological constant in higher dimen- sions, J. High Energy Phys. (2014) 2014, 95.https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2014)095

    2014 doi

  89. [103]

    J. B. Hartle, S. W. Hawking, T. Hertog, Accelerated expansion from negative Λ, arXiv: 1205.3807.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1205.3807. 78

    doi arXiv

  90. [104]

    Calderon, R

    R. Calderon, R. Gannouji, B. L’Huillier, D. Polarski, Negative cosmological constant in the dark sector? Phys. Rev. D103, (2021) 023506.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.023526

    2021 doi

  91. [105]

    Chru´ sciel, E

    P.T. Chru´ sciel, E. Delay, P. Klinger, A. Kriegl, P.W. Michor, A. Rainer, Non-singular spacetimes with a negative cosmological constant: V. Boson stars, Lett. Math. Phys. 108, (2018) 2009-2030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11005-018-1062-3

    2018 doi

  92. [106]

    Mohammadi, T

    A. Mohammadi, T. Golanbari, H. Sheikhahmad, Warm tachyon inflation and swampland criteria, Chin. Phys. C44, (2022) 095101.https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/44/9/095101

    2022 doi

  93. [107]

    Golanbari, A

    T. Golanbari, A. Mohammadi, K. Saaidi, Observational constraints on DBI constant-roll infla- tion, Phys. Dark Universe 27, (2020) 100456.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2019.100456

    2020 doi

  94. [108]

    Chen, S.Z

    S.W. Chen, S.Z. Yang, X.Z. Hao, X.W. Liu, A kind of exact inflationary solution in the chaotic inflation model to non-minimally coupled scalar field, Chin. Phys. Lett. 25, (2008) 3162.https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0256-307X/25/9/019

    2008 doi

  95. [109]

    Banerjee, K

    N. Banerjee, K. Ganguly, Generalised scalar-tensor theory and the cosmic acceleration, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18, (2009) 445-451.https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271809014479

    2009 doi

  96. [110]

    G. U. Crevecoeur, Evolution of the distance scale factor and the Hubble parameter in the light of Plancks results,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1603.06834

    doi arXiv

  97. [111]

    Patil, J.L

    W. Patil, J.L. Pawde, R.V. Mapari, S.K. Waghmare, Energy conditions in f (R,T) gravity with an anisotropic background, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.00883

    doi arXiv

  98. [112]

    Kamada, Inflationary cosmology and the standard model Higgs with a small Hubble-induced mass, Phys

    K. Kamada, Inflationary cosmology and the standard model Higgs with a small Hubble-induced mass, Phys. Lett. B742, (2015) 126-135.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.01.024

    2015 doi

  99. [113]

    Iwashita, T

    Y. Iwashita, T. Shiromizu, K. Takahashi, S. Fujii, Gravity is controlled by cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. D71, (2005) 083518.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.083518

    2005 doi

  100. [114]

    Kawasaki, T

    M. Kawasaki, T. Takesako, Hubble induced mass in radiation dominated universe, Phys. Lett. B711, (2012) 173-177.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.069

    2012 doi

  101. [115]

    Kawasaki, F

    M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi, T. Takesako, Hubble-induced mass from MSSM plasma, J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys. 04, (2013) 008.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2013/04/008

    2013 doi

  102. [116]

    Chung, E.W

    D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb, A.J. Long, Gravitational production of super-Hubble-mass particles: an analytical approach, J. High Energy Phys. 2019, (2019) 189.https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP01(2019)189

    2019

  103. [117]

    Kamionkowski, A.G

    M. Kamionkowski, A.G. Riess, The Hubble tension and early dark energy, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, (2023) 153-180.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-111422-024107

    2023 doi

  104. [118]

    Riess, W

    A.G. Riess, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D.O. Jones, Y. Mu- rakami, G.S. Anand, L. Breuval, T.G. Brink, A. V. Filippenko, S. Hoffmann, S.W. Jha, W.D. Kenworthy, J. Mackenty, B.E. Stahl, W. Zheng, A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the...

    2022 doi

  105. [119]

    Jia, J.P

    X.D. Jia, J.P. Hu, F.Y. Wang, Evidence of a decreasing trend for the Hubble constant, Astron. Astrophys. 674, (2023) A45.https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346356

    2023 doi

  106. [120]

    Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, New York, Wiley, 1972.https://archive.org/details/gravitationcosmo00stev_ 0

    S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, New York, Wiley, 1972.https://archive.org/details/gravitationcosmo00stev_ 0

    1972

  107. [121]

    Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis,

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis,” Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1910.019, 2019. 79

    1910

  108. [122]

    Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology,

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology,” JCAP, vol. 2021, no. 05, p. 057, 2021. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021 doi

  109. [123]

    Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: a Monte Carlo approach,

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, “Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: a Monte Carlo approach,” Physical Review D, vol. 66, no. 10, p. 103511, 2002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511

    2002 doi

  110. [124]

    Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters,

    A. Lewis, “Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters,” Physical Review D, vol. 87, no. 10, p. 103529, 2013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.103529

    2013 doi

  111. [125]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,

    A. Lewis, “GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,” arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM], 2019

    1910 arXiv

  112. [126]

    Setting the Stage for Cosmic Chronometers. II. Impact of Stellar Population Synthesis Models Systematics and Full Covari- ance Matrix,

    M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, A. Cimatti, and L. Pozzetti, “Setting the Stage for Cosmic Chronometers. II. Impact of Stellar Population Synthesis Models Systematics and Full Covari- ance Matrix,”Astrophysical Journal, vol. 898, no. 2, p. 82, 2020. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9...

    2020 doi arXiv

  113. [127]

    Measuring the Expansion History of the Universe with DESI Cosmic Chronome- ters,

    S. I. Loubser, “Measuring the Expansion History of the Universe with DESI Cosmic Chronome- ters,”arXiv preprint, arXiv:2511.02730 [astro-ph.CO], 2025

    2025

  114. [128]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,

    D. Brout et al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 938, no. 2, p. 110, 2022. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    2022 doi

  115. [129]

    Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,

    D. Rubin et al., “Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,” arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO], 2023

    2023 arXiv

  116. [130]

    Consistency tests of the ΛCDM model with cosmic chronometers,

    S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb, and M. Moresco, “Consistency tests of the ΛCDM model with cosmic chronometers,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 908, no. 1, p. 84, 2021. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd4df

    2021 doi

  117. [131]

    DESI DR2 cosmological results I,

    DESI Collaboration: M. A. Karim et al., “DESI DR2 cosmological results I,” arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO], 2025

    2025 arXiv

  118. [132]

    DESI DR2 cosmological results II,

    DESI Collaboration: M. A. Karim et al., “DESI DR2 cosmological results II,” arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO], 2025

    2025 arXiv

  119. [133]

    DESI DR2 cosmological results III,

    DESI Collaboration: K. Lodha et al., “DESI DR2 cosmological results III,” arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO], 2025

    2025 arXiv

  120. [134]

    Cosmological constraints from observational Hubble data,

    W. Jun-Jie, M. Fulvio, and W. Xue-Feng, “Cosmological constraints from observational Hubble data,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 835, no. 2, p. 270, 2017. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/270

    2017 doi

  121. [135]

    A new look at the statistical model identification,

    H. Akaike, “A new look at the statistical model identification,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 716–723, 1974. doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    1974 doi

  122. [136]

    Labb´ e, P

    I. Labb´ e, P. van Dokkum, E. Nelson, R. Bezanson, K.A. Suess, J. Leja, G. Brammer, K. Whitaker, E. Mathews, M. Stefanon, B. Wang, A population of red candidate massive galaxies ˜600 Myr af- ter the Big Bang, Nat. 616, (2023) 266-269.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    2023 doi

  123. [137]

    M. Xiao, P. Oesch, D. Elbaz, L. Bing, E.Nelson, A. Weibel, G. Illingworth, P. van Dokkum, R. Naidu,E. Daddi, R. Bouwens, J. Matthee, S. Wuyts, J. Chisholm, G. Brammer, M. Dickin- son, B. Magnelli, L. Lero, D. Schaerer, T. Herard-Demanche, S. Lim, L. Barrufet, R. Endsley, Y. Fu...

    2024 doi

  124. [138]

    Riess, A.V

    A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M. Garnavich, R.L. Gilliland, C.J. Hogan, S. Jha, R.P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M.M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B.P. Schmidt, R.A. Schommer, R.C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. Stubbs, N.B. Suntzeff, J. Tonry, Ob- serva...

    1998 doi

  125. [139]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop, P. Nugent, P.G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D.E. Groom, I.M. Hook, A.G. Kim, M.Y. Kim, J.C. Lee, N.J. Nunes, R. Pain, C.R. Pennypacker, R. Quimby, C. Lidman, R.S. Ellis, M. Irwin, R.G. McMahon, P. Ruiz- Lapuent...

    1999 doi

  126. [140]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde, R. Jimenez, Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential, Phys. Rev. D71, (2005) 123001.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123001

    2005 doi

  127. [141]

    Stern, R

    D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, S. A. Stanford, Cosmic chronometers: con- straining the equation of state of dark energy. I: H(z) measurements, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2010) 008.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/02/008

    2010 doi

  128. [142]

    Percival, B.A

    W.J. Percival, B.A. Reid, D.J. Eisenstein, N.A. Bahcall, T. Budavari, J.A. Frieman, M. Fukugita, J.E. Gunn, ˇZ. Ivezi´ c, G.R. Knapp, R.G. Kron, J. Loveday, R.H. Lupton, T.A. McKay, A. Meiksin, R.C. Nichol, A.C. Pope, D.J. Schlegel, D.P. Schneider, D.N. Spergel, C. Stoughton, ...

    2010 doi

  129. [143]

    Feeney, D.J

    S.M. Feeney, D.J. Mortlock, N. Dalmasso, Clarifying the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierarchical model of the local distance ladder, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 476, (2018) 3861. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty418

    2018 doi

  130. [144]

    Shukla, R.K

    B.K. Shukla, R.K. Tiwari, D. Sofuogblu, A. Beesham, Quintessences universe in f(R, Lm) gravity with special form of deceleration parameter,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.09387

    doi arXiv

  131. [145]

    Y. Gong, A. Wang, Reconstruction of the deceleration parameter and the equation of state of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D75, (2007) 043520.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.043520

    2007 doi

  132. [146]

    Kumar, Observational constraints on Hubble constant and deceleration parameter in power- law cosmology, Month

    S. Kumar, Observational constraints on Hubble constant and deceleration parameter in power- law cosmology, Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 422, (2012) 2532-2538.https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20810.x

    2012

  133. [147]

    Mamon, K

    A.A. Mamon, K. Bamba, Observational constraints on the jerk parameter with the data of the Hubble parameter,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1805.02854

    doi arXiv

  134. [148]

    Anderson, G

    J.D. Anderson, G. Schubert, V. Trimble, M.R. Feldman, Measurements of Newton’s gravitational constant and the length of day, Europhys. Lett. 110, (2015) 10002.https://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/110/10002/meta

    2015 doi

  135. [149]

    Scholkmann, O.D

    F. Scholkmann, O.D. Sieber, Possible oscillations in high-precision measurements of New- ton’s gravitational constant —A reassessment based on the generalized Lomb-Scargle pe- riodogram, Europhys. Lett. 113, (2016) 20001.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1209/0295-5075/11...

    2016

  136. [150]

    T.-H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K.A. Olive, B.D. Fields, Probing physics beyond the standard model: limits from BBN and the CMB independently and combined, J. Cosm. Astropart. Part. 10, (2022) 046.https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/046

    2022 doi

  137. [152]

    Accetta, P.J

    F.S. Accetta, P.J. Steinhardt, Cosmological consequences of high-frequency oscillations of New- ton’s constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, (1991) 298.https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.67. 298. 81

    1991 doi

  138. [153]

    Giri, R.J

    A. Giri, R.J. Scherrer, Big Bang nucleosynthesis with rapidly varying G, Phys. Rev. D109, (2024) 103521.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103521

    2024 doi

  139. [154]

    D. Li, S. Pi, R.J. Scherrer, Oscillating scalar fields in extended quintessence, Phys. Rev. D97, (2018) 023530.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023530

    2018 doi

  140. [155]

    Alvey, N

    J. Alvey, N. Sabti, M. Escudero, M. Fairbairn, Improved BBN constraints on the variation of the gravitational constant, Eur. Phys. J. C80, (2020) 148.https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-7727-y

    2020 doi

  141. [156]

    Hofmann, J

    F. Hofmann, J. Muller, Relativistic tests with lunar laser ranging, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, (2018) 035015.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/aa8f7a/pdf

    2018 doi

  142. [157]

    Le, Constraints on the spatial and temporal variations of the gravitational constant from quasar spectra, Gen

    T.D. Le, Constraints on the spatial and temporal variations of the gravitational constant from quasar spectra, Gen. Rel. Grav. 53, (2021) 37.https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-546726/ v1

    2021 doi

  143. [158]

    Vijaykumar, S.J

    A. Vijaykumar, S.J. Kapadia, P. Ajith, Constraints on the time variation of the gravitational constant using gravitational-wave observations of binary neutron stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, (2021) 141104,https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141104

    2021 doi

  144. [159]

    Allen, R.W

    S.W. Allen, R.W. Schmidt, H. Ebeling, A.C. Fabian, L. Van Speybroeck, Constraints on dark energy from Chandra observations of the largest relaxed galaxy clusters, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 353, (2004) 457-467.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08080.x

    2004 doi

  145. [160]

    Copi, A.N

    C.J. Copi, A.N. Davis, L.M. Krauss, A New nucleosynthesis constraint on the variation of G. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, (2004) 171301.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.171301

    2004 doi

  146. [161]

    Clifton, J.D

    T. Clifton, J.D. Barrow, R.J. Scherrer, Constraints on the variation of G from primordial nucle- osynthesis. Phys. Rev. D71, (2005) 123526.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123526

    2005 doi

  147. [162]

    Uzan, The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations

    J.-P. Uzan, The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, (2003) 403.https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.403

    2003 doi

  148. [163]

    Yeh, K.A

    T.-H. Yeh, K.A. Olive, B.D. Fields, The impact of newd(p, γ)3 rates on Big Bang Nucleosyn- thesis, J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys. 03, (2021) 046.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1475-7516/2021/03/046

    2021

  149. [164]

    Tripathi, A

    A. Tripathi, A. Sangwan, H.K. Jassal, Dark energy equation of state parameter and its evo- lution at low redshift, J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys. 06, (2021) 012. .https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2017/06/012

    2021

  150. [165]

    Salgado, D

    M. Salgado, D. Sudarsky, H. Quevedo, Galactic periodicity and the oscillating G model, Phys. Rev. D53, (1996) 6771-6783.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.53.6771

    1996 doi

  151. [166]

    Garcia-Bellido, A

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A. Linde, D. Linde, Fluctuations of the gravitational constant in the infla- tionary Brans-Dicke cosmology, Phys. Rev. D50, (1994) 730-750.https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.50.730

    1994

  152. [167]

    de Cesare, F

    M. de Cesare, F. Lizzi, M. Sakellariadou, Effective cosmological constant induced by stochastic fluctuations of Newton’s constant, Phys. Lett. B760, (2016) 498-501.https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.physletb.2016.07.015

    2016

  153. [168]

    El-Nabulsi, W

    R.A. El-Nabulsi, W. Anukool, Oscillating gravity, non-singularity and mass quantization from Moffat stochastic gravity arguments, Comm. Theor. Phys. 74, (2022) 105405.https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1572-9494/ac841f

    2022 doi

  154. [169]

    Penarrubia, Fluctuations of the gravitational field generated by a random population of ex- tended substructures, Mon

    J. Penarrubia, Fluctuations of the gravitational field generated by a random population of ex- tended substructures, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, (2018) 1482-1498.https://doi.org/10. 1093/mnras/stx2773. 82

    2018

  155. [170]

    emcee: The MCMC Hammer

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., + Goodman, J. (2013). “emcee: The MCMC Hammer.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125(925), 306-312.https: //doi.org/10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  156. [171]

    Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers atz∼2

    Moresco, M. (2016). “Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers atz∼2.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466(4), 4749-4758. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw3051

    2016 doi

  157. [172]

    The Complete Light-Curve Sample of Pan-STARRS1 Medium Deep Survey Supernovae and the Cosmological Implications

    Scolnic, D. M., et al. (2018). “The Complete Light-Curve Sample of Pan-STARRS1 Medium Deep Survey Supernovae and the Cosmological Implications.” The Astrophysical Journal, 859(2), 101. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    2018 doi

  158. [173]

    Goodman and J

    J. Goodman and J. Weare,Ensemble samplers with affine invariance, Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci.5, 65–80 (2010)

    2010

  159. [174]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306–312 (2013)

    2013

  160. [175]

    Broutet al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys

    D. Broutet al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022)

    2022

  161. [176]

    Tripp,A Two-parameter luminosity correction for type Ia supernovae, Astron

    R. Tripp,A Two-parameter luminosity correction for type Ia supernovae, Astron. Astrophys. 331, 815–820 (1998)

    1998

  162. [177]

    I. Jee, S. H. Suyu, E. Komatsu, C. D. Fassnacht, S. Hilbert, and L. V. E. Koopmans,A measure- ment of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses, Science 365, 1134–1138 (2019)

    2019

  163. [178]

    G. C. F. Chenet al.,A SHARP view of H0LiCOW:H 0 from three time-delay gravitational lens systems with adaptive optics imaging, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.490, 1743–1773 (2019)

    2019

  164. [179]

    Birreret al.,H0LiCOW - IX

    S. Birreret al.,H0LiCOW - IX. Cosmographic analysis of the doubly imaged quasar SDSS 1206+4332 and a new measurement of the Hubble constant, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.484, 4726 (2019)

    2019

  165. [180]

    C. E. Rusuet al.,H0LiCOW XII. Lens mass model of WFI2033 - 4723 and blind measurement of its time-delay distance and H0, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 1440–1468 (2020)

    2020

  166. [181]

    Treu and P

    T. Treu and P. J. Marshall,Time Delay Cosmography, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.24, 11 (2016)

    2016

  167. [182]

    Escamilla-Rivera and R

    C. Escamilla-Rivera and R. Torres Castillejos,H0 Tension on the Light of Supermassive Black Hole Shadows Data, Universe9, 14 (2023)

    2023

  168. [183]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope),First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope),First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  169. [184]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope),First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Re- sults

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope),First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Re- sults. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  170. [185]

    A. G. Riesset al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022)

    2022

  171. [186]

    K. C. Wonget al.,H0LiCOW – XIII. A 2.4 per cent measurement of H0 from lensed quasars: 5.3σtension between early- and late-Universe probes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 1420– 1439 (2020)

    2020

  172. [187]

    Capozziello, R

    S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino, and O. Luongo,Cosmographic analysis with Chebyshev polyno- mials, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476, 3924–3938 (2018)

    2018

  173. [188]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages, Astrophys. J.573, 37–42 (2002). 83

    2002

  174. [189]

    Kessler and D

    R. Kessler and D. Scolnic,Correcting Type Ia Supernova Distances for Selection Biases and Contamination in Photometrically Identified Samples, Astrophys. J.836, 56 (2017)

    2017

  175. [190]

    Magana, M

    J. Magana, M. H. Amante, M. A. Garcia-Aspeitia, and V. Motta,The Cardassian expansion revisited: constraints from updated Hubble parameter measurements and type Ia supernova data, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476, 1036–1049 (2018)

    2018

  176. [191]

    Schwarz,Estimating the Dimension of a Model, Annals Statist.6, 461–464 (1978)

    G. Schwarz,Estimating the Dimension of a Model, Annals Statist.6, 461–464 (1978)

    1978

  177. [192]

    D. J. Eisenstein, W. Hu, and M. Tegmark,Cosmic complementarity: H(0) and Omega(m) from combining CMB experiments and redshift surveys, Astrophys. J. Lett.504, L57–L61 (1998)

    1998

  178. [193]

    Blake and K

    C. Blake and K. Glazebrook,Probing dark energy using baryonic oscillations in the galaxy power spectrum as a cosmological ruler, Astrophys. J.594, 665–673 (2003)

    2003

  179. [194]

    Seo and D

    H.-J. Seo and D. J. Eisenstein,Probing dark energy with baryonic acoustic oscillations from future large galaxy redshift surveys, Astrophys. J.598, 720–740 (2003)

    2003

  180. [195]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hirata, A. G. Riess, and E. Rozo, Observational Probes of Cosmic Acceleration, Phys. Rept.530, 87–255 (2013)

    2013

  181. [196]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration),Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration),Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020)

    2018

  182. [197]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar´ ın, and L. Verde,A tale of two (or more) h’s, JCAP04, 023 (2023)

    2023

  183. [198]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI Collaboration),DESI DR2 results

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI Collaboration),DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025)

    2025

  184. [199]

    Z.-W. Liu, F. K. Roepke, and Z. Han,Type Ia Supernova Explosions in Binary Systems: A Review, Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 082001 (2023). 84

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.