Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Rastall gravity with a mildly closed universe lowers the Hubble-constant discrepancy with SH0ES from about 4σ to about 2σ.

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

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

An MCMC fit of Rastall-LambdaCDM models finds that closed geometry reduces the Planck-SH0ES H0 discrepancy to about 2 sigma, though model-selection penalties still favor LambdaCDM.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A strong MCMC effort undermined by a fatal algebraic error: the R-LambdaCDM model actually fitted is not Rastall gravity as defined by Eq. (10). the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20129 v2 pith:WAPGXAG3 submitted 2025-08-26 gr-qc

Alleviating the $H_0$ tension in Rastall gravity

R. Mohebi , Kh. Saaidi T. Golanbari , K. Karami This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 98.80.Es04.50.Kd
keywords Hubble tensionRastall gravityΛCDMspatial curvatureH0MCMC parameter estimationfσ8 growth datacosmological model selection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to show that extending ΛCDM to Rastall gravity—a modified gravity in which the energy-momentum tensor is not conserved and a single new parameter ε measures the matter–geometry coupling—can soften the long-standing Hubble-constant tension. Fitting the model to three dataset combinations that mix supernovae, H(z), BAO, BBN, fσ8 growth data, and (in two cases) CMB distance priors, the authors find that the closed-geometry version returns H0 ≈ 68.7–69.7 km s−1 Mpc−1. That places the disagreement with the SH0ES local value at 1.97σ–2.18σ, roughly half the 4.17σ tension of flat ΛCDM, while remaining within about 1.8σ of Planck. The paper also reports that the σ8 clustering tension is not resolved, and model-selection criteria give mixed support: AIC mildly favors the closed Rastall model in some datasets, while BIC still prefers the simpler ΛCDM.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a minimally modified gravity theory can absorb part of the Hubble tension through the combination of a non-conserved energy-momentum tensor and negative spatial curvature. In the Rastall ΛCDM model, the parameter ε rescales the effective densities of matter, radiation, and the cosmological constant and changes how matter density scales with redshift. The MCMC fits yield a small negative ε (≈ −0.008) and a mildly closed geometry (Ω_k0 ≈ −0.024) for the datasets that include CMB priors, with best-fit H0 around 69 km s−1 Mpc−1. The paper argues that this is the most balanced compromise among the geometries tested: it reduces the SH0ES discrepancy to about 2σ wh

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rastall-modified Friedmann equation (Eq. 20), built from a field equation in which the covariant divergence of the energy-momentum tensor is proportional to the gradient of the Ricci scalar. Its work is to change the background expansion: each density parameter is rescaled by ε-dependent factors (Eqs. 21–23), and matter density scales as (1+z)^{3/[1−ε(1+6ε)]} rather than (1+z)^3. When combined with curvature Ω_k0 and fit via MCMC to the late-time and CMB-distance-prior datasets, this modified expansion history is what shifts H0 upward relative to the flat ΛCDM value and produces the reported 2σ tension reduction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the paper's derivation of the Rastall gravitational coupling is correct; if the algebraic relation between the coupling and the Rastall parameter is wrong, the fitted model is not actually Rastall gravity.

What would settle it

Check the algebra: substituting 8πG=1 into Eq. (10) gives 6ε κ² − (4ε+1)κ + 1 = 0, whereas the paper's Eq. (11) is 12ε²κ² + (2ε−1)κ + 1 = 0. Re-running the MCMC with the correct quadratic—or, equivalently, fitting the closed R-ΛCDM with the full Planck CMB likelihood instead of distance priors—would show whether the ~2σ H0 reduction survives.

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

If this is right

  • If the closed R-ΛCDM result is correct, a mildly curved universe with a small matter–geometry coupling can reconcile CMB-based and distance-ladder H0 estimates without invoking early dark energy or extra relativistic species.
  • The model places H0 in the narrow band 68.7–69.7 km s−1 Mpc−1 across dataset choices that include or omit CMB distance priors, implying the reduction is not driven only by the late-time dataset.
  • The σ8 tension remains at roughly the same level, so the same mechanism that eases H0 does not solve the structure-growth discrepancy; future growth measurements would need to detect a genuinely lower σ8.
  • Model selection is split: AIC supports the closed R-ΛCDM over closed ΛCDM for datasets with CMB priors, while BIC still penalizes the extra Rastall parameter, so the model is a viable but not decisively favored alternative.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper treats ε and Ω_k0 as independent, but its D2 fit (no CMB) drives both ε and Ω_k0 to larger negative values simultaneously; a natural next step is to check whether ε is partly absorbing curvature information, using independent curvature measurements such as BAO angular-diameter distances at z≈1.
  • Because Eq. (11) does not follow algebraically from Eq. (10) when 8πG=1, the numerical constraints are conditional on that relation; re-deriving the modified Friedmann equation from the corrected coupling could change the inferred H0.
  • The closed R-ΛCDM model predicts a definite spatial curvature Ω_k0 ≈ −0.02; a future measurement that bounds curvature closer to zero at high precision would directly test the geometry that carries the tension reduction.
  • If the model is right, it suggests that phenomenological matter–geometry couplings are a viable alternative to changing the early Universe; this could be tested by looking for small deviations from geodesic motion or non-conservation in high-precision solar-system or binary-pulsar experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constrains ΛCDM and Rastall-ΛCDM (R-ΛCDM) in flat, open, and closed spatial geometries using MCMC over combined datasets D1–D4 (BBN, H(z), Pantheon SNe, BAO, Planck CMB distance priors, and fσ8). For flat ΛCDM it reproduces the known Planck–SH0ES tension; for closed R-ΛCDM it reports H0 ≈ 68.7–69.7 km/s/Mpc and a reduced SH0ES tension of about 1.97–2.29σ across datasets, with σ8 tension unresolved. The central theoretical input is a modified Friedmann equation for Rastall gravity derived from a κ(ε) relation, and this derivation is algebraically flawed.

Significance. If valid, a modified-gravity model in which spatial curvature and a small Rastall parameter reduce the H0 tension to ~2σ would be of interest to the cosmology community. The paper's strengths include a broad compilation of cosmological datasets, transparent parameter tables, and explicit AIC/BIC model comparison. However, the central claim is not supported by the derivation as written: Eq. (11) does not follow from Eq. (10), and all R-ΛCDM constraints inherit this error. In addition, the fσ8 analysis uses unmodified ΛCDM perturbation equations, so the growth-rate constraints are not self-consistent. These are load-bearing problems, not presentation issues, and they affect all of the reported R-ΛCDM results.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.A, Eqs. (10)-(11)] Eq. (11) is not the algebraic consequence of Eq. (10). With 8πG=1, cross-multiplying (10) gives κ(1−6εκ)=1−4εκ, i.e. 6εκ²−(1+4ε)κ+1=0, not 12ε²κ²+(2ε−1)κ+1=0. The two disagree already at O(ε²); for ε=0.1, the quadratic from Eq. (10) has discriminant 1−16ε+16ε²<0 while Eq. (11) admits real κ. Therefore the interval (12), the expansion κ≃1+2ϵ, and Eqs. (13)-(15) are not consequences of Eq. (10). Since Eq. (20) and all R-ΛCDM constraints in Tables VIII-XII depend on this κ(ε), the headline H0-tension reduction is unsupported. The model being constrained is not the model defined by Eq. (10), unless Eq. (11) is taken as an independent definition, in which case the connection to Rastall gravity is unsubstantiated.
  2. [III.F and V.B (Tables VIII-XII)] The fσ8 likelihood (52) is evaluated using the coupled perturbation equations (55)-(56), whose coefficients A_m, A_Λ, B_Λ are the standard ΛCDM expressions; no Rastall ϵ corrections appear. Since R-ΛCDM modifies the background expansion, the matter conservation equation (17), and the gravitational coupling, the linear growth equations must be re-derived from the modified field equations (9)/(13). Using unmodified ΛCDM perturbation theory makes the σ8 and fσ8 constraints, and hence the D1 and D2 H0 posteriors that include fσ8, not self-consistent. A derivation or explicit justification that Rastall perturbations reduce to ΛCDM at the relevant order is required.
  3. [III.D and D3 (Eqs. (42)-(44), Table XII)] The CMB distance priors (R, la, Ωb h²) and the covariance (44) are adopted from Planck 2018 as ΛCDM-derived values. In R-ΛCDM the sound horizon, recombination redshift, and expansion history differ, so using these fixed priors in the χ²_CMB term for R-ΛCDM is not justified without recomputation or marginalization over the model's early-universe parameters. The D3 result in Table XII, which contributes to the claimed 2.18σ SH0ES tension, therefore inherits a ΛCDM assumption. This should be discussed and, if possible, the priors recomputed in R-ΛCDM.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section VI] The abstract and conclusions state the closed R-ΛCDM SH0ES tension is 1.97σ–2.18σ, but Section V.B.3 and Table XII report 2.29σ for D1. Please reconcile the headline numbers throughout the paper.
  2. [II.A, Eq. (16)] The step from Eq. (15) to Eq. (16) is not shown; the origin of the 8ϵ²(1−3ω_i) term and the rescaling (19) should be made explicit.
  3. [Section VI] The conclusions mention "CMB data from Planck 2018 and ACT 2025" as used in the analysis, but the dataset definitions in Section IV use only Planck distance priors and the D4 Planck table; ACT data are not part of D1-D3. Please correct this statement.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous formatting and typographical issues (e.g., 'RΛCDM' vs 'R-ΛCDM', missing parentheses around the exponent in Eq. (20), inconsistent use of H0 symbols) that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the H0 constraints and SH0ES tension are fitted results against external data, not predictions that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from Section II.A through Section V. The paper constructs R-LambdaCDM from Rastall's field equations, then fits the model parameters to external datasets (BBN, H(z), SNe Ia, BAO, CMB distance priors, f sigma8) via MCMC, and finally compares the inferred H0 posterior to the external SH0ES value. No step in this chain equates an input with an output by construction: H0 is a free parameter, not a derived prediction, and the SH0ES value 73.2 ± 1.3 is not included in any of the likelihoods. The CMB distance priors in Eq. (43) are external Planck 2018 compressed values, and the model is fit to them; this makes the quoted agreement with Planck in D3 non-independent, but the headline SH0ES tension, especially for D2 (which has no CMB data), remains a comparison with an external reference. The Rastall field equations are attributed to the literature and are not justified by a uniqueness theorem from the present authors; one shared-author reference in the citation list is not load-bearing. There is therefore no reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs. I note separately, as a correctness matter rather than a circularity, that Eq. (11) does not obviously follow algebraically from Eq. (10): with 8piG = 1, cross-multiplication of Eq. (10) gives 6*epsilon*kappa^2 - (1 + 4*epsilon)*kappa + 1 = 0, not the quadratic displayed in Eq. (11). This is a derivation/consistency concern that affects the model's validity, but it is not a circularity because the paper's results are not built by renaming an input as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model depends on the Rastall coupling epsilon and curvature as free parameters, on an algebraically unsupported derivation step, and on transferring LambdaCDM-derived CMB priors and growth equations into the modified theory.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon (Rastall parameter) = -0.00202 to -0.115 (flat), 0.0038 to -0.125 (open), -0.0076 to -0.102 (closed)
    Controls the matter-geometry coupling in Rastall gravity; fit values depend strongly on dataset and drive the H0 shift.
  • Omega_k0 (curvature density) = open: 0.0048 to 0.066; closed: -0.0018 to -0.083
    Spatial curvature is fit per dataset and geometry; the closed-universe preference is central to the main claim.
  • H0 = about 68.3 to 69.7 km/s/Mpc for R-LambdaCDM depending on dataset
    The Hubble constant is a free parameter in the fit; the paper's central claim is about its value relative to external measurements.
  • sigma8 = about 0.63 to 0.69
    Amplitude of matter fluctuations, fitted but modeled with unmodified LambdaCDM growth equations.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Rastall field equations with non-conserved energy-momentum tensor (Eq. 9)
    The whole model rests on accepting Rastall's modification of GR; this is not derived within the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Coupling relation Eq. (10) and its solution Eq. (11)
    The paper presents Eq. (11) as following from Eq. (10), but algebraically it does not; the modified Friedmann equation depends on this.
  • domain assumption Standard LambdaCDM perturbation equations (55)-(56) apply to R-LambdaCDM growth
    The f sigma8 predictions for R-LambdaCDM use equations without epsilon, with no justification.
  • domain assumption Planck CMB distance priors (R, l_a, Omega_b h^2) from Eqs. (43)-(44) are valid constraints in R-LambdaCDM
    These priors were calibrated within LambdaCDM; using them to constrain a modified expansion model is an unverified transfer.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alleviating the $H_0$ tension in Rastall gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAPGXAG3

@misc{pith2026250820129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alleviating the $H_0$ tension in Rastall gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAPGXAG3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20129}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The persistent discrepancy between local determinations of the Hubble constant $H_0$ and the Planck 2018 value ($67.4 \pm 0.5~{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$) within $\Lambda$CDM remains a central challenge in precision cosmology. We investigate the Hubble tension in $\Lambda$CDM and its Rastall extension (R-$\Lambda$CDM) for flat, open, and closed geometries. We analyze three primary dataset combinations: D$_1$ (late-time probes: SN + $H(z)$ + $f\sigma_8$), D$_2$ (late-time probes combined with DESI DR2 BAO and BBN), and D$_3$ (late-time probes combined with BAO and Planck 2018 CMB distance priors). Parameters are constrained via Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling, and tensions with SH0ES ($73.2 \pm 1.3~{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$) and Planck are expressed in units of the combined uncertainty. In addition, we include a Planck-only configuration (D$_4$) as a reference baseline to isolate early-Universe constraints on $H_0$. Within $\Lambda$CDM, D$_1$ and D$_2$ yield $H_0 \simeq 70.75$-$71.43~{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, reducing the SH0ES discrepancy to $1.11\sigma$--$1.63\sigma$ while maintaining a $3.62\sigma$-$4.23\sigma$ tension with Planck. Including CMB distance priors (D$_3$) shifts the result to $H_0 \simeq 67.18$--$67.55~{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, consistent with Planck at $0.09\sigma$-$0.38\sigma$ but increasing the SH0ES discrepancy to $4.25\sigma$-$4.51\sigma$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20129 by Kh. Saaidi T. Golanbari, K. Karami, R. Mohebi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Observational Constraints on Emergent Fractional Fractal Cosmology

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    Joint SN+H(z)+fσ8+BAO+CMB analysis constrains the EFF fractal dimension to d=2.0004^{+0.0006}_{-0.0003}, with BIC favoring plain ΛCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The constraints on the cosmological parameters of the six-parameter flat ΛCDM model derived from these datasets are summarized in Table IV and illustrated in Figure 1

    Flat ΛCDM model We perform a comprehensive comparison of the datasets D 1, D 2, D 3, and D 4 within the framework of the flat ΛCDM model. The constraints on the cosmological parameters of the six-parameter flat ΛCDM model derived from these datasets are summarized in Table IV and illustrated in Figure 1. This table reports the 68% confidence intervals for...

    2018

  2. [2]

    The corresponding results are presented in Tables V and VII, and illustrated in Figure 2

    Open ΛCDM model The open ΛCDM model involves eight free parameters, constrained using different datasets. The corresponding results are presented in Tables V and VII, and illustrated in Figure 2. The results indicate that the Hubble constant H0 in the open ΛCDM model, for datasets D1, D2, and D3, lies within the range of approximately 68 .37 to 68 .7 km s...

    2018

  3. [3]

    The Hubble parameter H0 lies in the range of approximately 67 to 69.3 km s −1 Mpc−1

    Closed ΛCDM model Cosmological parameter constraints for the seven parameter of closed ΛCDM model, derived from various datasets, are summarized in Tables VI and VII, and are shown in Figure 3. The Hubble parameter H0 lies in the range of approximately 67 to 69.3 km s −1 Mpc−1. These values exhibit small deviations from the Planck 2018 result (67.4 ± 0.5)...

    2018

  4. [4]

    The differences are expressed in terms of the statistical deviation ( σ) between dataset D 1 and the other combinations

    Assessment of geometrical models based on parameter consistency: The ΛCDM model A comparative examination of the cosmological parameter differences between datasets D1, D2, and D3 in Table VII allows us to evaluate the relative internal consistency of the flat, open, and closed ΛCDM scenarios. The differences are expressed in terms of the statistical devi...

  5. [5]

    R- ΛCDM model in a flat universe In the flat R-ΛCDM framework, the deviation parameter ϵ, commonly referred to as the Rastall parameter, in- troduces a modification to the standard ΛCDM dynamics. This modification originates from the non-conservation of the matter energy-momentum tensor due to a non-minimal coupling between matter and geometry (for furthe...

  6. [6]

    The Hubble constant H0 is estimated to be 68 .92 ± 0.38, 68.8+1.2 −0.86, and 68 .3 ± 1.2 km s −1 Mpc−1 for datasets D 1, D2, and D3, respectively

    R- ΛCDM model in an open universe The cosmological parameter estimates for the eight-parameter open R-ΛCDM model, obtained using datasets D 1, D2, and D 3, are summarized in Table X and illustrated in Figure 5. The Hubble constant H0 is estimated to be 68 .92 ± 0.38, 68.8+1.2 −0.86, and 68 .3 ± 1.2 km s −1 Mpc−1 for datasets D 1, D2, and D3, respectively....

    2018

  7. [7]

    These results are derived from three independent observational datasets (D1, D2, and D 3) and are also illustrated in Figure 6

    R- ΛCDM model in a closed universe Table XII summarizes the cosmological parameter estimates of the eight parameter R-ΛCDM model assuming a closed universe geometry (negative curvature). These results are derived from three independent observational datasets (D1, D2, and D 3) and are also illustrated in Figure 6. The estimated values of the Hubble constan...

    2018

  8. [8]

    The differences are expressed in terms of statistical deviations ( σ) between data set D 1 and other combinations

    Assessment of geometrical models based on parameter consistency: The R- ΛCDM case A comparative assessment of the differences in cosmological parameters among the data sets D 1, D 2, and D 3 in Table XIV allows us to evaluate the relative consistency of different geometric scenarios within the R-ΛCDM model. The differences are expressed in terms of statis...

    2018

  9. [9]

    Adam G et al. Riess. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. Astron. J., 116(3):1009, 1998

    1998

  10. [10]

    Perlmutter

    Saul et al. Perlmutter. Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae. Astrophys. J., 517(2):565, 1999

    1999

  11. [11]

    David N et al. Spergel. First-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap)* observations: determination of cosmo- logical parameters. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. , 148(1):175, 2003

    2003

  12. [12]

    P. James E. Peebles and Bharat Ratra. The cosmological constant and dark energy. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 75(2):559, 2003

    2003

  13. [13]

    Nonflat time-variable dark energy cosmology

    Anatoly Pavlov, Shawn Westmoreland, Khaled Saaidi, and Bharat Ratra. Nonflat time-variable dark energy cosmology. Phys. Rev. D , 88(12):123513, 2013

    2013

  14. [14]

    Adil, Upala Mukhopadhyay, Anjan A

    Shahnawaz A. Adil, Upala Mukhopadhyay, Anjan A. Sen, and Sunny Vagnozzi. Dark energy in light of the early jwst observations: case for a negative cosmological constant? Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2023(10):072, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Escamilla, William Giar` e, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C

    Luis A. Escamilla, William Giar` e, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C. Nunes, and Sunny Vagnozzi. The state of the dark energy equation of state circa 2023. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2024(05):091, 2024

    2023

  16. [16]

    Vincenzi and et al

    M. Vincenzi and et al. The dark energy survey supernova program: Cosmological analysis and systematic uncertainties. The Astrophysical Journal , 975(1):86, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Starobinsky

    Alexei A. Starobinsky. A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity. Phys. Lett. B , 91:99–102, 1980

    1980

  18. [18]

    Alan H. Guth. The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems. Phys. Rev. , D23:347–356, 1981

    1981

  19. [19]

    Steinhardt

    Andreas Albrecht and Paul J. Steinhardt. Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 48, 1982

    1982

  20. [20]

    Andrei D. Linde. A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems. Phys. Lett. B , 108:389–393, 1982

    1982

  21. [21]

    Andrei D. Linde. Chaotic Inflation. Phys. Lett. B , 129:177–181, 1983

    1983

  22. [22]

    On Power law inflation in DBI models

    Michal Spalinski. On Power law inflation in DBI models. JCAP, 0705:017, 2007

    2007

  23. [23]

    Kinney, and Konstantinos Tzirakis

    Dennis Bessada, William H. Kinney, and Konstantinos Tzirakis. Inflationary potentials in DBI models. JCAP, 0909:031, 2009

    2009

  24. [24]

    Nazavari, A

    N. Nazavari, A. Mohammadi, Z. Ossoulian, and Kh. Saaidi. Intermediate inflation driven by DBI scalar field. Phys. Rev., D93(12):123504, 2016

    2016

  25. [25]

    Resurrecting the Power-law, Interme- diate, and Logamediate Inflations in the DBI Scenario with Constant Sound Speed

    Roonak Amani, Kazem Rezazadeh, Asrin Abdolmaleki, and Kayoomars Karami. Resurrecting the Power-law, Interme- diate, and Logamediate Inflations in the DBI Scenario with Constant Sound Speed. Astrophys. J., 853(2):188, 2018

    2018

  26. [26]

    Observational constraints on DBI constant-roll inflation

    Tayeb Golanbari, Abolhassan Mohammadi, and Khaled Saaidi. Observational constraints on DBI constant-roll inflation. Phys. Dark Univ. , 27:100456, 2020

    2020

  27. [27]

    Warm inflation

    Arjun Berera. Warm inflation. Physical Review Letters, 75(18):3218, 1995

    1995

  28. [28]

    Warm inflation in the adiabatic regime—a model, an existence proof for inflationary dynamics in quantum field theory

    Arjun Berera. Warm inflation in the adiabatic regime—a model, an existence proof for inflationary dynamics in quantum field theory. Nuclear Physics B , 585(3):666–714, 2000

    2000

  29. [29]

    Determining the regimes of cold and warm inflation in the SUSY hybrid model

    Mar Bastero-Gil and Arjun Berera. Determining the regimes of cold and warm inflation in the SUSY hybrid model. Phys. Rev., D71:063515, 2005

    2005

  30. [30]

    Rosa and Lu ´ ıs B

    Jo˜ ao G. Rosa and Lu ´ ıs B. Ventura. Warm Little Inflaton becomes Cold Dark Matter.Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122(16):161301, 2019

    2019

  31. [31]

    Ramos, and Jo˜ ao G

    Mar Bastero-Gil, Arjun Berera, Rudnei O. Ramos, and Jo˜ ao G. Rosa. Towards a reliable effective field theory of inflation. 7 2019

    2019

  32. [32]

    Sayar, A

    K. Sayar, A. Mohammadi, L. Akhtari, and Kh. Saaidi. Hamilton-Jacobi formalism to warm inflationary scenario. Phys. Rev., D95(2):023501, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    Akhtari, A

    L. Akhtari, A. Mohammadi, K. Sayar, and Kh. Saaidi. Viscous warm inflation: Hamilton–Jacobi formalism. Astropart. Phys., 90:28–36, 2017

    2017

  34. [34]

    Constraining chameleon field driven warm inflation with Planck 2018 data

    Haidar Sheikhahmadi, Abolhassan Mohammadi, Ali Aghamohammadi, Tiberiu Harko, Ram´ on Herrera, Christian Corda, Amare Abebe, and Khaled Saaidi. Constraining chameleon field driven warm inflation with Planck 2018 data. Eur. Phys. J., C79(12):1038, 2019

    2018

  35. [35]

    Constraining Warm Inflation with CMB data

    Mar Bastero-Gil, Sukannya Bhattacharya, Koushik Dutta, and Mayukh Raj Gangopadhyay. Constraining Warm Inflation with CMB data. JCAP, 02:054, 2018

    2018

  36. [36]

    Starobinsky, and Jun’ichi Yokoyama

    Hayato Motohashi, Alexei A. Starobinsky, and Jun’ichi Yokoyama. Inflation with a constant rate of roll. JCAP, 1509:018, 2015

    2015

  37. [37]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and L. Sebastiani. Unification of Constant-roll Inflation and Dark Energy with Logarithmic R2-corrected and Exponential F (R) Gravity. Nucl. Phys. , B923:608–632, 2017

    2017

  38. [38]

    V. K. Oikonomou. Reheating in Constant-roll F (R) Gravity. Mod. Phys. Lett. , A32(33):1750172, 2017

    2017

  39. [39]

    Beta-function formalism for k-essence constant-roll infla- tion

    Abolhassan Mohammadi, Tayeb Golanbari, and Khaled Saaidi. Beta-function formalism for k-essence constant-roll infla- tion. Phys. Dark Univ. , 28:100505, 2020

    2020

  40. [40]

    Constant-roll brane inflation

    Abolhassan Mohammadi, Tayeb Golanbari, Salah Nasri, and Khaled Saaidi. Constant-roll brane inflation. Phys. Rev. D , 101:123537, 2020

    2020

  41. [41]

    Constant-roll inflation driven by holographic dark energy

    Abolhassan Mohammadi. Constant-roll inflation driven by holographic dark energy. Phys. Dark Univ. , 36:101055, 2022. 27

    2022

  42. [42]

    Starobinsky like inflation and EGB Gravity in the light of ACT

    Yogesh, Abolhassan Mohammadi, Qiang Wu, and Tao Zhu. Starobinsky like inflation and EGB Gravity in the light of ACT. 5 2025

    2025

  43. [43]

    Power Law Plateau Inflation and Primary Gravitational Waves in the light of ACT

    Abolhassan Mohammadi, Yogesh, and Anzhong Wang. Power Law Plateau Inflation and Primary Gravitational Waves in the light of ACT. 7 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    f(R) theories

    Antonio De Felice and Shinji Tsujikawa. f(R) theories. Living Rev. Rel. , 13:3, 2010

    2010

  45. [45]

    Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni

    Thomas P. Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni. f(R) Theories Of Gravity. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 82:451–497, 2010

    2010

  46. [46]

    Odintsov

    Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from f (r) theory to lorentz non- invariant models. Phys. Rep., 505(2-4):59–144, 2011

    2011

  47. [47]

    Bengochea and Rafael Ferraro

    Gabriel R. Bengochea and Rafael Ferraro. Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up. Phys. Rev. D , 79:124019, 2009

    2009

  48. [48]

    Observational constraints on f (T ) theory

    Puxun Wu and Hong Wei Yu. Observational constraints on f (T ) theory. Phys. Lett. B , 693:415–420, 2010

    2010

  49. [49]

    Accelerating universe from F(T) gravity

    Ratbay Myrzakulov. Accelerating universe from F(T) gravity. Eur. Phys. J. C , 71:1752, 2011

    2011

  50. [50]

    Tiberiu Harko, Francisco S. N. Lobo, Shin’ichi Nojiri, and Sergei D. Odintsov. f (r, t) gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 84(2):024020, 2011

    2011

  51. [51]

    G. A. Carvalho, R. V. Lobato, P. H. R. S. Moraes, Jos´ e D. V. Arba˜ nil, R. M. Marinho, E. Otoniel, and M. Malheiro. Stellar equilibrium configurations of white dwarfs in the f(R, T) gravity. Eur. Phys. J. C , 77(12):871, 2017

    2017

  52. [52]

    Exploring new subclass of k-inflation: Tachyon inflation in R+ ηT gravity model

    Abolhassan Mohammadi and Fardin Kheirandish. Exploring new subclass of k-inflation: Tachyon inflation in R+ ηT gravity model. Phys. Dark Univ. , 42:101362, 2023

    2023

  53. [53]

    Ossoulian, Kh

    Z. Ossoulian, Kh. Saaidi, S. Taghavi, and T. Golanbari. Inflation in f (R, T) gravity with observational constraints. 1 2023

    2023

  54. [54]

    Taghavi, Kh

    S. Taghavi, Kh. Saaidi, Z. Ossoulian, and T. Golanbari. Holographic inflation in f (R, T) gravity and observational constraints. 1 2023

    2023

  55. [55]

    Barrow, and David F

    Baojiu Li, John D. Barrow, and David F. Mota. The Cosmology of Modified Gauss-Bonnet Gravity. Phys. Rev. D , 76:044027, 2007

    2007

  56. [56]

    Stephen C. Davis. Solar system constraints on f(G) dark energy. 9 2007

    2007

  57. [57]

    Nonstandard Thermal History and Formation of Primordial Black Holes and SIGWs in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet Gravity

    Yogesh and Abolhassan Mohammadi. Nonstandard Thermal History and Formation of Primordial Black Holes and SIGWs in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet Gravity. Astrophys. J., 986(1):35, 2025

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke. Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation. Phys. Rev., 124:925–935, 1961

    1961

  59. [59]

    Carloni, S

    S. Carloni, S. Capozziello, J. A. Leach, and P. K. S. Dunsby. Cosmological dynamics of scalar-tensor gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 25:035008, 2008

    work page 2008

  60. [60]

    Swamp- land criteria and reheating predictions in scalar–tensor inflation

    Abolhassan Mohammadi, Tayeb Golanbari, Jamil Enayati, Shahram Jalalzadeh, Salah Nasri, and Khaled Saaidi. Swamp- land criteria and reheating predictions in scalar–tensor inflation. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D , 31(10):2250079, 2022

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    Brane-World Gravity

    Roy Maartens and Kazuya Koyama. Brane-World Gravity. Living Rev. Rel. , 13:5, 2010

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    Brane f(R) gravity

    Ahmad Borzou, Hamid Reza Sepangi, Shahab Shahidi, and Razieh Yousefi. Brane f(R) gravity. EPL, 88(2):29001, 2009

    work page 2009

  63. [63]

    Brane inflation: Swampland criteria, TCC, and reheating predictions

    Abolhassan Mohammadi, Tayeb Golanbari, Salah Nasri, and Khaled Saaidi. Brane inflation: Swampland criteria, TCC, and reheating predictions. Astropart. Phys., 142:102734, 2022

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Afshar, H

    B. Afshar, H. Moradpour, and H. Shabani. Slow-roll inflation and reheating in rastall theory. Physics of the Dark Universe, 42:101357, 2023

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Propagation of axial gravitational waves in rastall gravity

    Mustafa Salti. Propagation of axial gravitational waves in rastall gravity. Physics of the Dark Universe , 30:100630, 2020

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Cosmological evolution via interacting/non-interacting holographic dark energy model for curved flrw space–time in rastall gravity

    Rabia Saleem and Shahnila. Cosmological evolution via interacting/non-interacting holographic dark energy model for curved flrw space–time in rastall gravity. Physics of the Dark Universe , 32:100808, 2021

    work page 2021

  67. [67]

    Nazavari, Kh

    N. Nazavari, Kh. Saaidi, and Abolhassan Mohammadi. Wormhole solution in modified teleparallel-Rastall gravity and energy conditions. Gen. Rel. Grav. , 55(3):45, 2023

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Nabila et al. Aghanim. Planck 2018 results-vi. cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020

    work page 2018

  69. [69]

    P. A. R. et al. Ade. Planck 2013 results. xvi. cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 571:A16, 2014

    work page 2013

  70. [70]

    P. A. R. et al. Ade. Planck 2015 results. xiii. cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 594:A13, 2016

    work page 2015

  71. [71]

    Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M

    Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M. Macri, and Dan 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(1):85, 2019

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, J

    Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, J. Bradley Bowers, Lucas Macri, Joel C. Zinn, and Dan Scolnic. Cosmic distances calibrated to 1% precision with gaia edr3 parallaxes and hubble space telescope photometry of 75 milky way cepheids confirm tension with Λcdm. Astrophys. J. Lett. , 908(1):L6, 2021

    work page 2021

  73. [73]

    Spallicci

    Salvatore Capozziello, Giuseppe Sarracino, and Alessandro D.A.M. Spallicci. Questioning the h0 tension via the look-back time. Physics of the Dark Universe , 40:101201, 2023

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    Licia Verde, Tommaso Treu, and Adam G. Riess. Tensions between the early and late universe.Nature Astron., 3(10):891– 895, 2019

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    Di Valentino

    et al. Di Valentino. Snowmass2021-letter of interest cosmology intertwined ii: The hubble constant tension. Astropart. Phys., 131:102605, 2021

    work page 2021

  76. [76]

    Kenneth C. et al. Wong. H0licow–xiii. a 2.4 per cent measurement of h 0 from lensed quasars: 5.3 σ tension between early-and late-universe probes. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 498(1):1420–1439, 2020

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    Coles, Prasenjit Saha, and Liliya L

    Philipp Denzel, Jonathan P. Coles, Prasenjit Saha, and Liliya L. R. Williams. The hubble constant from eight time-delay galaxy lenses. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 501(1):784–801, 2021

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    Wendy L. et al. Freedman. The carnegie-chicago hubble program. viii. an independent determination of the hubble constant based on the tip of the red giant branch. Astrophys. J., 882(1):34, 2019

    work page 2019

  79. [79]

    Wendy L. et al. Freedman. Calibration of the tip of the red giant branch. Astrophys. J., 891(1):57, 2020. 28

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Baxter and Blake D

    Eric J. Baxter and Blake D. Sherwin. Determining the hubble constant without the sound horizon scale: measurements from cmb lensing. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 501(2):1823–1835, 2021

    work page 2021

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.