Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper argues that any thermodynamically consistent generalization of horizon entropy must sit within about a tenth of a percent of the Bekenstein–Hawking area law, or it violates early-universe bounds and fails to produce the standard

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 09:14 UTC pith:2WYBMSDX

load-bearing objection Plausible and useful negative result, but Eqs. (3.7)/(3.9) have inverted ℓ_p powers and must be corrected before the bounds are reproducible. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.00133 v2 pith:2WYBMSDX submitted 2026-06-30 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Modified Cosmology from Mass-to-Horizon Relation: Background Evolution

Pranav Prasanthan , Hussain Gohar , Vincenzo Salzano , University of Szczecin , Szczecin , Poland) This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO MSC 83F05 PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Es
keywords mass-to-horizon relationgeneralized entropymodified Friedmann equationsdark energyBekenstein-Hawking entropyearly dark energyCai-Kim temperaturecosmological background
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 paper tries to establish that background cosmology alone—just the expansion history from a=10^-10 to today, weighed against BBN and CMB bounds—can decide which generalized horizon entropies are viable, and that the answer is almost none. Working from a four-parameter mass-to-horizon entropy that is constructed to satisfy the Clausius relation with the Cai–Kim temperature, it derives modified Friedmann equations and reads the corrections as an effective dark-energy component. It finds that the entropy exponent m is confined to 0.99986 ≤ m ≤ 1 (at γ=1), the coupling γ to 0.981 ≤ γ ≤ 1 (at m=1), entanglement corrections survive only near α≈2.04, and quantum-gravity corrections are suppressed by a factor of 10^−122. All phenomenologically acceptable models therefore have a present-day equation of state ωde ≈ −1 and a deceleration parameter indistinguishable from ΛCDM. A sympathetic reader cares because the result turns a large family of proposed 'dark energy from entropy' models into a tightly constrained corner of parameter space.

Core claim

Within the Cai–Kim formulation of the first law on the apparent horizon, the authors replace the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy by the generalized mass-to-horizon entropy S_G = 2πγ k_B [ (m/(m+1)) (ra/ℓp)^(m+1) ∓ m β (σ−1)/σ (ra/ℓp)^σ ], with σ = m+3−α, and derive the modified Friedmann equation (3.7). Recasting the corrections as an effective dark-energy density and imposing the bounds Ωde < 0.045 at BBN and matter–radiation equality and Ωde < 0.02 at a ≈ 0.02, they find that the background evolution is extremely sensitive to departures from the area law: for γ=1, only 0.99986 ≤ m ≤ 1 is viable; for m=1, only 0.981 ≤ γ ≤ 1; entanglement corrections with β=1 are viable only near α = 2.04; and th

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mass-to-horizon relation M = γ (c²/G) ℓp [ra/ℓp ∓ β (ra/ℓp)^(3−α)]^m and the entropy functional it generates via the Clausius relation with the Cai–Kim temperature. The mechanism that carries the argument is the modified Friedmann equation (3.7), whose dimensionless form (3.11)–(3.13) contains coefficients A ∝ (ℓp H0/c)^(1−m) and B ∝ (ℓp H0/c)^(2−σ). Because ℓp H0/c ≈ 10^−61, even a one-part-in-10^4 deviation of m from unity changes A by order one, which is what makes the background brutally sensitive to the entropy parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The entire constraint transfer rests on the premise that horizon thermodynamics is correctly described by the generalized mass-to-horizon relation (3.2) with the Cai–Kim temperature (2.8); if a different temperature or mass assignment is the physically right one, the bounds derived here do not apply to the real Universe.

What would settle it

A single observation would settle it: detect a non-negligible dark-energy component at matter–radiation equality (Ωde ≳ 0.02 at a ≈ 0.02) that persists and evolves—for example a well-measured early dark energy needed to resolve the H0 tension—while the background otherwise looks like ΛCDM. That would violate the paper's central bound. Conversely, a clean measurement of Ωde at a ≈ 0.02 below 0.02 confirms the window. A more direct internal test is to recompute the Friedmann equations using the Kodama–Hayward temperature; if the viable window widens to |m−1| ≳ 10^−2, the paper's conclusion is an

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

If this is right

  • Tsallis–Cirto and Barrow-type non-extensive entropies are forced to δ ≈ 1 and Δ ≈ 0; deviations of order 10^−2 in m are excluded regardless of γ.
  • Power-law entanglement corrections can act as a mild early dark energy, but only for α ≈ 2.04; α below ~2.01 violates BBN and α above ~2.95 is indistinguishable from ΛCDM.
  • Quantum-gravity corrections to the entropy are unobservable in the background: their coefficient carries the Planck-scale suppression and cannot generate detectable dark energy.
  • Every viable model has a present-day dark-energy equation of state within ~0.2% of ω = −1 and a deceleration parameter within ~0.01 of the ΛCDM value, so background data alone cannot tell them apart.
  • The derived bounds (3.11)–(3.14) provide a fast viability test for any future generalized-entropy cosmology in this class.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Planck-scale amplification implies that background constraints act as a strong prior: any generalized-entropy model aiming to address the H0 tension via early dark energy must tune α to a narrow window around 2.04 and γ below 1, a conjunction that this paper shows is already nearly saturated.
  • Because the MHR is tied to a scale-dependent effective gravitational coupling via the Jacobson-type argument, the narrow bounds on (m,γ) suggest Geff is constant to better than ~1% over the whole expansion history—a claim that structure-formation or gravitational-wave observations could test independently.
  • A natural extension would be to repeat the analysis with the Kodama–Hayward temperature instead of Cai–Kim; since the paper's constraints rest on the temperature choice, a widened window there would indicate the bounds are temperature-dependent rather than intrinsic to the entropy functional.
  • The framework also gives a concrete prediction for the companion statistical analysis: full likelihood fits should return posteriors peaked at m=1, γ≈0.99, and α≈2.04 with widths set by the BBN and CMB priors.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives modified Friedmann equations from the generalized mass-to-horizon entropy (3.3) using the Cai–Kim first law on the apparent horizon. The modified equations are recast as standard Friedmann equations plus an effective dark-energy component, and the background evolution is solved numerically for three physical cases: standard area-law extensions, power-law entanglement corrections, and quantum-gravity corrections. Using early-universe bounds on the dark-energy density, the authors conclude that viability is confined to a narrow neighborhood of the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy, with entanglement corrections allowed only near α≈2.04 and quantum-gravity corrections negligible. The paper's central claim is that background cosmology alone sharply restricts this class of generalized entropy models.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful negative result for the generalized entropy cosmology program: many phenomenological entropy functionals motivated by nonextensive statistics or quantum gravity are strongly constrained by the requirement that the standard radiation–matter–dark-energy sequence be preserved. The derivation from the MHR/Clausius relation is transparent, and the numerical exploration spans the full scale-factor range with arbitrary-precision methods, which is a strength. The paper also correctly identifies the extreme sensitivity of the modified Friedmann equations to Planck-scale prefactors. However, the quantitative conclusions are conditional on the MHR ansatz being the correct thermodynamically consistent generalization, and the bounds are threshold-based rather than statistical; the central qualitative claim is plausible but the precise ranges should be read as indicative.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3.7)] The printed Eq. (3.7) contains ℓ_p^{m-1} and ℓ_p^{σ-2} in the two bracket terms. Integrating Eq. (3.6) with r_a=c y^{-1/2}, y=H^2+kc^2/a^2, gives coefficients (c/ℓ_p)^{m-1}/(3-m) y^{(3-m)/2} and (c/ℓ_p)^{σ-2}/(4-σ) y^{(4-σ)/2}, i.e. ℓ_p^{1-m} and ℓ_p^{2-σ}. The printed powers make the first term dimensionful (L^{2m-2}T^{-2}) except at m=1, and the equation cannot reproduce Eq. (3.9) or the dimensionless coefficients in Eq. (3.13), which use the reciprocal powers. Please correct Eq. (3.7) and confirm that the numerical code implements the corrected form.
  2. [Sec. IVA1] The text first states that (m,γ)=(0.9998,1.01) 'becomes viable', but later states 'The branch m<1 admits no viable value of γ'. These statements are mutually inconsistent unless the second claim is restricted to a different range of m (e.g., |m−1|∼10^{-3}). Because this determines the admissible parameter space for m<1, please clarify which case is intended and reconcile the text.
  3. [Sec. IV, constraints] The viability ranges quoted in the abstract and conclusions—0.99986≤m≤1 at γ=1, 0.981≤γ≤1, α≈2.04—are derived from imposed one-sided cutoffs Ω_de<0.045 and Ω_de<0.02, not from a likelihood or confidence interval. The exact numbers are therefore threshold dependent. The paper should present these as indicative bounds under the adopted criterion and discuss the sensitivity to the chosen thresholds, especially given the extremely steep dependence of A and B on m and α.
  4. [Sec. III, Eqs. (3.2)-(3.3)] The generalized MHR and entropy functional are imported from the authors' previous work and asserted to be 'physically mandated' by holographic consistency. The constraints obtained here are conditional on this specific construction and on the Cai–Kim temperature; a different thermodynamically consistent extension could yield different Friedmann equations. The abstract's phrase 'cosmological viability sharply restricts admissible deviations...' should be qualified to indicate that this applies within the MHR class. This is a scope issue rather than an internal error, but it is important for interpreting the strength of the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3.7)] The integration step from Eq. (3.6) to Eq. (3.7) would benefit from showing the substitution r_a=c y^{-1/2} and ẏ=2H(Ḣ−kc^2/a^2); this would also make the correct ℓ_p powers evident.
  2. [Throughout] Typos and formatting: 'ΛCDM Value' should be lowercase; ref. [69] 'Conderence' → 'Conference'; mpmath reference is not formatted consistently.
  3. [Fig. 2] The legends in Fig. 2 are garbled and missing parameter labels. For example, 'm=1.004' appears where the text implies γ=1.004. The curves are hard to identify without fixed legends.
  4. [Sec. IV, constraints] The paper should explicitly state the provenance of the numerical thresholds Ω_de<0.045 and Ω_de<0.02 and indicate whether they correspond to a particular confidence level, since the quoted parameter ranges depend on them.
  5. [Sec. III, sign conventions] The upper/lower branch notation and the ∓/± correspondence between Eqs. (3.2), (3.3), (3.7), and (3.9) are confusing. A table summarizing the sign mapping for the two branches would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the derivation is a model application with external observational constraints.

full rationale

The paper takes the mass-to-horizon entropy (3.3) from the authors' prior work [64-67], but that is a model premise rather than a result derived from the target conclusion. The modified Friedmann equations follow algebraically from the Cai-Kim first law applied to this entropy, and the parameter constraints (0.99986≤m≤1, 0.981≤γ≤1, α≈2.04) come from solving Eqs. (3.11)-(3.12) and comparing with external BBN/CMB bounds (Ωde<0.045, Ωde<0.02), not from fitting the same quantities that are then reported as predictions. The ΛCDM-like present-epoch behavior is a consequence, not an input: it is obtained only after the early-universe bounds force the parameters into a neighborhood of the Bekenstein-Hawking limit. Thus no step reduces, by construction, to its own input. The self-citations establishing the MHR are prior published work and are externally falsifiable in principle; they do not by themselves create circularity. (A dimensional inconsistency in the printed powers of ℓ_p in Eqs. (3.7)/(3.9) versus (3.13) is a correctness/typo concern, not a circularity.)

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the authors' own MHR ansatz as input, standard Cai–Kim thermodynamics, and the assumed decoupling of the effective dark-energy sector. No new entities are introduced. The free parameters m, γ, β, α are scanned and constrained, not derived.

free parameters (4)
  • m (entropy exponent) = 0.99986–1 (γ=1); ~1.001 with γ compensation
    Controls the leading power of horizon radius in the entropy (3.3); the paper scans it and finds a viable range extremely close to 1.
  • γ (MHR coupling) = 0.981–1 (m=1); 0.864–0.871 for m=1.001
    Rescales the overall entropy amplitude; constrained by early-universe bounds.
  • β (correction amplitude) = set to 1 (entanglement), 0.1 (QG)
    Sets the strength of the subleading correction; the QG branch has negligible cosmological impact because the coefficient B is suppressed by (ℓ_p H0/c)^2.
  • α (correction exponent) = viable α≈2.04 (entanglement); fixed α=4 (QG)
    Controls the scaling of the subleading term; only a narrow window near the lower bound 2 is phenomenologically interesting.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Cai–Kim first law δQ = -dE = T_h dS_h applies to the apparent horizon
    Standard in entropic cosmology (Ref [18]); adopted in Sec. II.C as the starting point of the derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized mass-to-horizon relation (3.2) and entropy (3.3) are the correct thermodynamically consistent extension
    Introduced in the authors' prior papers [64-67]; assumed here as the model under test, asserted as 'physically mandated' in Sec. III without independent test.
  • domain assumption Matter and radiation obey the standard continuity equation with no coupling to the effective dark energy
    Used to integrate (3.6) into (3.7) and to define ω_de via (3.10); no interaction between sectors is assumed.
  • domain assumption Entropy parameters m, γ, β, α are constant over cosmic history
    Standard in this literature; the paper does not motivate time dependence.
  • standard math Spatial flatness at the present epoch fixes Λ via Eq. (3.14)
    Derived from the flatness condition; a standard normalization condition.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19762 in / 19497 out tokens · 161536 ms · 2026-08-02T09:14:24.753313+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the cosmological implications of the mass-to-horizon relation, which provides a unified framework for thermodynamically consistent generalized horizon-entropy functionals. Using the Cai-Kim formulation of the first law of thermodynamics, we derive the corresponding modified Friedmann equations and examine the resulting background evolution. We find that cosmological viability sharply restricts admissible deviations from the Bekenstein-Hawking area law: phenomenologically acceptable scenarios are confined to a narrow neighborhood of the standard entropy, while more pronounced deviations generically spoil the standard radiation-matter-dark-energy sequence. Power-law entanglement corrections can give rise to a moderate early-dark-energy component, but only within a tightly constrained region of parameter space, whereas quantum-gravity corrections are suppressed by the Planck scale and remain observationally irrelevant. Consequently, all viable models predict a $\Lambda$CDM-like cosmological background at the present epoch. These findings demonstrate that background cosmology alone imposes stringent constraints on thermodynamically consistent generalized entropy constructions of this class.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Modified Cosmology from Mass-to-Horizon Relation: Observational Bounds

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Observational constraints pin the MHR entropy exponent to |m−1|≲10⁻⁴ when γ is fixed, and Bayesian evidence disfavors all tested horizon-entropy extensions relative to ΛCDM.

  2. Neutrino mass constraints in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black-hole dark energy model with ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5

    SdSDE dark energy yields a ~0.16–0.21 eV positive neutrino-mass preference with DESI+ACT data, but χ² strongly favors extended ΛCDM and the shift is likely compensation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 68 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    In standard thermodynamics, asT→0, Planck’s formulation of the third law requires the entropy to ap- proach a constant, conventionally taken to be zero. Israel showed that black-hole dynamics has no analogue of this formulation; instead, the third law is expressed through the unattainability of zero surface gravity in finite ad- vanced time [84]. Thus, th...

  2. [2]

    This encompasses the Tsallis–Cirto (m= 2δ−1)and Barrow(m= 1 + ∆)entropies

    Barrow and Tsallis-Cirto type entropy functions (m,γ) We first fixγ= 1and varym, allowing the entropy to scale asS G ∝r m+1 a . This encompasses the Tsallis–Cirto (m= 2δ−1)and Barrow(m= 1 + ∆)entropies. In con- trast to previous approaches, the generalized MHR (3.2) ensures that the horizon energy scales consistently with the modified entropy,M∝L m. The c...

  3. [3]

    In this set- ting, the allowed parameter space is restricted to2< α < 3, and the background evolution is entirely determined by the entanglement exponentα

    Entanglement corrections with (m= 1) We first focus on the casem=γ= 1, which corre- sponds to entanglement-induced corrections to the stan- dard Bekenstein–Hawking entropy [59, 88]. In this set- ting, the allowed parameter space is restricted to2< α < 3, and the background evolution is entirely determined by the entanglement exponentα. In the vicinity of ...

  4. [4]

    Entanglement corrections with (m̸= 1) We now extend the analysis beyond the standard area law by activating the viable non-extensive solution(m= 1.001)identified in Sec. IVA1. For(m, γ, α) = (1.001,0.874,2.04), we find a mild vi- olation of the BBN constraint, withΩBBN de = 0.051. In- creasing the entanglement exponent toα= 2.05restores compatibility with...

  5. [5]

    Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Hinshawet al.(WMAP), Astrophys

    G. Hinshawet al.(WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Alamet al.(eBOSS), Phys

    S. Alamet al.(eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Broutet al., Astrophys

    D. Broutet al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D107, 083504 (2023), arXiv:2207.05766 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa,Dark Energy: Theory and Observations(Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  15. [15]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D9, 373 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904398. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  16. [16]

    S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel.4, 1 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0004075

    arXiv 2001

  17. [17]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept.380, 235 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0212290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  18. [18]

    Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    An Update by the CANTATA Network(Springer,

    Y.Akramiet al.(CANTATA),Modified Gravity and Cos- mology. An Update by the CANTATA Network(Springer,

  20. [20]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  21. [21]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, and Y. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys.56, 525 (2011), arXiv:1103.5870 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  23. [23]

    Cai and S

    R.-G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP02, 050 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0501055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  25. [25]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuovo Cim.4, 737 (1972)

    1972

  26. [26]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  27. [27]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1260 (1995), arXiv:gr- qc/9504004

    arXiv 1995

  28. [28]

    Lymperis and E

    A. Lymperis and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 993 (2018), arXiv:1806.04614 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 1344 (1971)

    1971

  30. [30]

    Sharma, D

    B. Sharma, D. Mittal,et al., Journal of Combinatorics Information & System Sciences2, 122 (1977)

    1977

  31. [31]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D15, 2738 (1977)

    1977

  32. [32]

    Tsallis, J

    C. Tsallis, J. Statist. Phys.52, 479 (1988)

    1988

  33. [33]

    Rényi, Acta Math.10, 193 (1959)

    A. Rényi, Acta Math.10, 193 (1959)

    1959

  34. [34]

    B. D. Sharma and D. P. Mittal, J. Math. Sci10, 28 (1975)

    1975

  35. [35]

    J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B808, 135643 (2020), arXiv:2004.09444 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Kaniadakis, Phys

    G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E66, 056125 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0210467

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  37. [37]

    Kaniadakis, Phys

    G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E72, 036108 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0507311

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  38. [38]

    Tsallis and L

    C. Tsallis and L. J. L. Cirto, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2487 (2013), arXiv:1202.2154 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    D. J. Zamora and C. Tsallis, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 689 (2022), arXiv:2201.03385 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Tannukij, P

    L. Tannukij, P. Wongjun, E. Hirunsirisawat, T. Deesuwan, and C. Promsiri, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 500 (2020), arXiv:2002.00377 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044042 (2022), arXiv:2201.02424 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.19, 2250210 (2022), arXiv:2207.07905 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Promsiri, E

    C. Promsiri, E. Hirunsirisawat, and W. Liewrian, Phys. Rev. D102, 064014 (2020), arXiv:2003.12986 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Promsiri, E

    C. Promsiri, E. Hirunsirisawat, and W. Liewrian, Phys. Rev. D104, 064004 (2021), arXiv:2106.02406 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D102, 123525 (2020), arXiv:2005.04115 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Çimidiker, M

    I. Çimidiker, M. P. Dąbrowski, and H. Gohar, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 145001 (2023), arXiv:2301.00609 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Nakarachinda, E

    R. Nakarachinda, E. Hirunsirisawat, L. Tannukij, and P. Wongjun, Phys. Rev. D104, 064003 (2021), arXiv:2106.02838 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    V. G. Czinner and H. Iguchi, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 443 (2025), arXiv:2504.16705 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Nakarachinda, C

    R. Nakarachinda, C. Promsiri, L. Tannukij, and P. Wongjun, Nucl. Phys. B1011, 116796 (2025), arXiv:2211.05989 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    A.Majhi,Phys.Lett.B775,32(2017),arXiv:1703.09355 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    M. P. Dąbrowski and V. Salzano, Phys. Rev. D102, 064047 (2020), arXiv:2009.08306 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Komatsu and S

    N. Komatsu and S. Kimura, Phys. Rev. D93, 043530 (2016), arXiv:1511.04364 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Komatsu, Eur

    N. Komatsu, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 229 (2017), arXiv:1611.04084 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Liu, Eur

    Y. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 762 (2022), arXiv:2203.01814 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    E.M.C.AbreuandJ.A.Neto,Phys.Lett.B835,137565 (2022), arXiv:2207.13652 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    G. G. Luciano and M. Blasone, Phys. Rev. D104, 045004 (2021), arXiv:2104.00395 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Di Gennaro and Y

    S. Di Gennaro and Y. C. Ong, Universe8, 541 (2022), arXiv:2205.09311 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Di Gennaro, H

    S. Di Gennaro, H. Xu, and Y. C. Ong, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1066 (2022), arXiv:2207.09271 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Asghari and A

    M. Asghari and A. Sheykhi, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 388 (2022), arXiv:2110.00059 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Alonso-Serrano, M

    A. Alonso-Serrano, M. P. Dąbrowski, and H. Gohar, Phys. Rev. D97, 044029 (2018), arXiv:1801.09660 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Rovelli, Phys

    C. Rovelli, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3288 (1996), arXiv:gr- qc/9603063

    arXiv 1996

  62. [62]

    A. J. M. Medved and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. D70, 124021 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0411022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  63. [63]

    A. J. M. Medved, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 133 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0406044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [64]

    S. Das, S. Shankaranarayanan, and S. Sur, Phys. Rev. D77, 064013 (2008), arXiv:0705.2070 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [65]

    Gohar and V

    H. Gohar and V. Salzano, Phys. Rev. D109, 084075 (2024), arXiv:2307.06239 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Alonso-Serrano, M

    A. Alonso-Serrano, M. P. Dabrowski, and H. Gohar, Phys. Rev. D103, 026021 (2021), arXiv:2009.02129 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084030 (2021), arXiv:2109.05315 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    Çimdiker, M

    I. Çimdiker, M. P. Dąbrowski, and H. Gohar, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 169 (2023), arXiv:2208.04473 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    Gohar and V

    H. Gohar and V. Salzano, Phys. Lett. B855, 138781 (2024), arXiv:2307.01768 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    S. A. Hayward, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 3147 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9710089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  71. [71]

    Gohar, Phys

    H. Gohar, Phys. Lett. B873, 140148 (2026), arXiv:2510.07587 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Gohar, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18551 (2026), arXiv:2605.18551 [gr-qc]

    H. Gohar, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18551 (2026), arXiv:2605.18551 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    Bak and S.-J

    D. Bak and S.-J. Rey, Class. Quant. Grav.17, L83 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9902173

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  74. [74]

    Steiner, Conderence in Evolution Equations-the State of the Art, Reisensburg, Germany (2007)

    F. Steiner, Conderence in Evolution Equations-the State of the Art, Reisensburg, Germany (2007)

    2007

  75. [75]

    B. Wang, Y. Gong, and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D74, 083520 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  76. [76]

    Cai and L.-M

    R.-G. Cai and L.-M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D75, 064008 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0611071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  77. [77]

    D. W. Tian and I. Booth, Phys. Rev. D92, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1411.6547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  78. [78]

    Faraoni,Cosmological and Black Hole Apparent Hori- zons, Vol

    V. Faraoni,Cosmological and Black Hole Apparent Hori- zons, Vol. 907 (Springer Cham, 2015). 14

    2015

  79. [79]

    S. A. Hayward, S. Mukohyama, and M. C. Ashworth, Phys. Lett. A256, 347 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9810006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  80. [80]

    Mondal and A

    S. Mondal and A. Choudhuri, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.24495 (2026), arXiv:2606.24495 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.