Geometric Cosmology Models: Statistical Analysis with Observational Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Geometric Cosmology Models: Statistical Analysis with Observational Data

 

The manuscript titled “Geometric Cosmology Models: Statistical Analysis with Observational Data” compares several modified gravity models (primarily studied in its Reference [9]) with background cosmological data, including supernovae Ia and cosmic chronometers. Due to the complexity of the geometric models, it is natural to explore them initially using background cosmological data. As the authors concluded, the work motivates further studies using the perturbation approach.

 

The manuscript is well-structured, but several parts require attention. I provide the following comments:

 

1. It is unclear in the manuscript how globular clusters were utilized. Were they implemented as constraints during the MCMC procedure or after analyzing the region of the space parameter that satisfies the condition age_gc > 12.2 + 0.5 Gyrs? Additionally, the extra 0.5 Gyrs considered what percentage of the confidence level (90%, 95%, or 3 standard deviations?) it represents.
2. Please include details of the MCMC approach, including how convergence was monitored, the size of the generated chains, and the burn-in steps.
3. I did not find the definition of GC-MCMC. Could you please briefly explain the difference between GC-MCMC and traditional MCMC (e.g., emcee, montepython)?
4. Explain or motivate why the energy scale L = 90 was fixed.
5. As a suggestion, it would be beneficial to include BAO measurements as a first approximation to constrain using data related to the early universe.
6. In the methodology, it is unclear what the rationale behind constructing a grid of size 20x20x20 is. Please provide a brief explanation of the methodology. 
7. In Section 5.1 of the GILA model, there appears to be a typographical error. (r.s) = (3,4), there is a point instead of a comma.
8. Figure 2, the prior on H0 was from 60 to 80, so there must be points for H0<60.
9. How the condition from the globular cluster affects constraint
10. I do not understand how to conclude that these models are disfavored if I did not see a hypothesis test, such as AIC, BIC, or Bayes factor.
11. Why not leave free the parameter “s”  in the models GR-deformation and Geometric models without GR contribution to find which values satisfy the condition of the globular cluster age. It could be reported the age of the universe obtained, how below of the condition it is.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

...

Comments for author File: Comments.txt

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The observations regarding authors have been addressed adequately.