Emergent Dark Universe and the Swampland Criteria
Rong-Gen Cai Sunly Khimphun Bum-Hoon Lee Sichun Sun Gansukh Tumurtushaa Yun-Long Zhang

 
Age of Information in Multihop Multicast NetworksThis work was supported by NSF Grants CNS 15-26608, CCF 17-13977 and ECCS 18-07348. This paper was presented in part at the Annual Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, October 2018.
    [
    December 30, 2023
============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

fancy


 


We study a model of the emergent dark universe, which lives on the time-like hypersurface in a five-dimensional bulk spacetime.  The holographic fluid on the hypersurface is assumed to play the role of the dark sector, mainly including the dark energy and apparent dark matter. Based on the modified Friedmann equations, we present a Markov-Chain-Monte-Carlo analysis with the observational data, including type Ia Supernova and the direct measurement of the Hubble constant. We obtain a good fitting result and the matter component turns out to be small enough, which matches well with our theoretical assumption that only the normal matter is required. After considering the fitting parameters, an effective potential of the model with a dynamical scalar field is reconstructed. The parameters in the swampland criteria are extracted, and they satisfy the criteria at the present epoch but are in tension with the criteria if the potential is extended to the future direction. The method to reconstruct the potential is helpful to study the swampland criteria of other models without an explicit scalar field.  
 





  
 Emails:   cairg@itp.ac.cn;
 kpslourk@gmail.com;
 bhl@sogang.ac.kr; 
 sichunssun@gmail.com;
gansuhmgl@ibs.re.kr;
yun-long.zhang@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp;




plain




 


§ INTRODUCTION



The origin of dark energy and dark matter is one of the most mysterious issues in the current cosmological observations. In the Lambda-Cold-Dark-Matter (LCDM) model of the universe, roughly 95% of the energy component of the current universe is invisible to us. The LCDM model is successful at the CMB and large scales, but at the galactic scale, some discrepancies were proposed <cit.>. Moreover, the particle dark matter is still elusive from the direct detection <cit.>.  One of the alternatives to the particle dark matter is the modified gravity <cit.>, which can be applied to both the inflationary era and late time acceleration of the universe. Inspired by Verlinde's recent derivation on the emergent gravity <cit.>, a holographic model of the Emergent Dark Universe (hEDU) has been proposed in <cit.>, where the shortened name “hFRW” was also used. It assumes that the stress-energy tensor of the total dark components, including dark energy and apparent dark matter, is provided by the holographic fluid on the 3+1 dimensional Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) hypersurface, which is embedded in a 4+1 dimensional Minkowski bulk. The Einstein field equations on the hypersurface are modified as 

    R_μν - 1/2R g_μν 
    -1/L ( _μν -  g_μν )
      =κ_4  T_μν .

The Einstein's constant κ_4=8π G/c^4=ħ/^2 c^3 is related to the Newton constant G and the reduced Planck mass  in 3+1 dimensions.  T_μν is the stress-energy tensor of the normal matter within the standard model, R_μν and _μν are the intrinsic Ricci curvature and the extrinsic curvature of the hypersurface, respectively.
The length scale L is assumed to be at the same order as c/H_0  <cit.>, where c is the speed of light and H_0 is the Hubble constant today.  Thus, the Einstein gravity gets modified in the weak gravity region.

 

The modified Friedmann equation in this hEDU model can be derived from (<ref>), once taking g_μν as the FRW metric and considering the consistent embedding into the flat bulk.  Based on this,  we present the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis with the Type Ia Supernova (SNIa) data and obtain a good fitting result. It turns out that, only  3% of the component in the current universe is required to be the normal matter in this hEDU model, instead of the 30% in the LCDM model where the dark matter has to be included.   It matches well with our theoretical assumption that only normal matter is required on the right-hand side of the modified Einstein field equations in (<ref>). 


The emergent dark universe model will be asymptotical de Sitter (dS) in the future infinity. However, it seems difficult to construct a meta-stable dS vacuum in string theory. A group of authors <cit.> proposed the conjecture that the scalar potential in low energy effective theory satisfies,  

    Criterion 1:      |Δϕ|/≤ d_0, 
    Criterion 2:      |∇ V|≥ c_1  V  or  ^2 min[∇_i ∇_j V]≤ - c_2V,

over a certain range of the scalar fields and the positive constants d_0, c_1, c_2 are of order one ∼𝒪(1), if the theory has an ultraviolet (UV) completion consistent with quantum gravity. Otherwise, the scalar potential is too flat and the theory lies in the swampland.
These conjectures constrain the possible forms of the effective scalar potentials from the top-down models, which have been studied in the inflationary era <cit.>, present dark energy dominated universe <cit.> and the effective potentials in phenomenology <cit.>. 
The swampland conjectures have been used to discuss the possible de Sitter vacua from the compactifications of string theories <cit.>,
related to the Kachru-Kallosh-Linde-Trivedi (KKLT) approach <cit.>, see also <cit.> and <cit.>.

 
In our dark universe model, the dark sector arises from the holographic stress-energy tensor, which drives the expanding universe. The same stress-energy tensor can also be reconstructed from the Lagrange density of a scalar field with an effective potential. From the Friedman equation with the fitting parameters in our model, we derive the effective scalar potential numerically, such that the derivative of the potential can also be calculated.
We check the conditions in our model and comment on the swampland criteria. 
We find that the Criterion 1 in (<ref>) in the hEDU model. However, near the bottom of the effective potential of hEDU model, we only have

    ^2|∇_i ∇_j V|≥  c_3  V ,     c_3∼𝒪(1),

instead of Criterion 2 in (<ref>). Especially now this condition (<ref>) can include some braneworld models which are asymptotic de Sitter in the future infinity and avoid some complications at the bottom of the potential that ∇ V=0.

In the following section <ref>,  this dark universe model in a flat bulk is reviewed and the modified Friedmann equation in the present universe is derived. In section <ref>, the parameters in the modified Friedmann equation of hEDU model are fitted with the SNIa and H_0 data. Based on these results, in section <ref>, the effective potential of a dynamical scalar field is reconstructed to recover the same evolution equation numerically, then the parameters in the swampland criteria can be calculated. The conclusion and discussion are summarised in section <ref>.

 


§ EMERGENT DARK UNIVERSE ON A HYPERSURFACE
 



We consider a 3+1 dimensional time like hypersurface $̋ with the induced metricg_μνand Ricci scalarR, which is embedded into a4+1dimensional bulk spacetimewith metric_ABand Ricci scalar. After including the Lagrangian densityL_of the standard model matter on the hypersurface, we can write down the total action

    _tot   
    = ∫_^4x √(-g) (  1/2 κ_4  R +  L_ ) +_5  ,
    _5   ≡∫_^5 x √(-g̃) (  1/2 κ_5) 
    +  ∫_^4x √(-g) 1/κ_5  ,

whereis the trace of extrinsic curvature of the hypersurface. The Einstein field equations on the hypersurface become <cit.>,

    1/κ_4 G_μν   =T_μν^ + _μν^ð,

where the Brown-York stress-energy tensor <cit.> onis given by

    _μν^ð   ≡ -2/√(-g)δ(_5)/δ g^μν= 1/κ_5_μν - g_μν.

After settingκ_5= L κ_4, we can reach the modified Einstein field equations in (<ref>).
Notice that in the cutoff holography on fluid/gravity duality, there is no dynamics of the induced metric on the hypersurface <cit.>.
Although the modified Einstein field equations are related to the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) braneworld models <cit.>, we will give a physical interpretation from holographic scenario together with new parameters.

 

Considering that our universe is uniform and isotropic at large scale, we take the spatially flat FRW metric in3+1dimensions, 

    s^2_4 =    g_μνx^μx^ν = -c^2  t^2 +a(t)^2
        r^2 + r^2 Ø_2
    .

The consistent embedding of this  FRW metric in4+1dimensional flat spacetime has been studied in <cit.>, where the bulk metric in Gaussian normal coordinates is

    s^2_5  
    =  ^2  - (,t)^2   c^2  t^2 +(,t)^2
        r^2 + r^2 Ø_2
     .

The consistent embedding functions are solved as  <cit.>,

    (,t)^2    =a(t)^2 +  ^2  ȧ(t)^2/c^2± 2 √(a(t)^2ȧ(t)^2/c^2+I/L^2) ,
    (,t)     =_t(,t)/ȧ(t)  .

The integration constantIis dimensionless after putting a scale factorL^2in (<ref>). In the coordinates of this metric (<ref>), the hypersurfaceis located at=0, which is the shared boundary of the half bulk_+for the region>0and the half bulk_-for the region<0.

 

In the spirit of the membrane paradigm <cit.>, we remove half part of the bulk spacetime, which can be effectively replaced by the holographic stress tensor^ð_μνin (<ref>). The dynamics of a FRW hypersurface which is embedded into the higher dimensional flat spacetime has been studied in <cit.>. With the bulk metric (<ref>), the energy density and pressure in^ð_μνare calculated to be

    ρ_ð(t)      =ρ_c √(Ω_Ł)√(H(t)^2/H_0^2 + Ω_/a(t)^4) , 
    
    p_ð(t)    =- ρ̇_ð/3 H(t) -ρ_ð  ,

where the critical density and other parameters are given by 

    ρ_c    =  3 H_0^2 M_P^2 /ħ c,  Ø_Ł =c^2/L^2 H_0^2,   Ø_I≡  c^2/L^2 H_0^2.

The effective cosmological constant in the future infinity turns out to beΛ= 3/L^2<cit.>.
The modified Friedmann equation becomes 

    H(t)^2    = κ_4 c^4 /3
        ρ_ (t) + ρ_ð(t)
    .





Plugging (<ref>) into (<ref>) and considering the relation between the redshiftzand the scale factor viaa(t)/a(t_0)=1/(1+z), we arrive at the normalized Hubble parameters H(z)/H_0in terms of the redshiftz, which is the modified Friedmann equation in the hEDU
    H(z)^2 /H_0^2     = Ø_Ł/2+ (1+z)^3 
    +  Ø_Ł/2√( 1 +  4/Ø_Ł[   (1+z)^3 +   Ø_I (1+z)^4  ]) .

Taking (<ref>) atz=0withH_0≡H(z)|_z=0, we have the relation between different components

    1   =+√(Ø_Ł(1 +Ø_I)) ⇒ Ø_Ł=(1-)^2/(1 +Ø_I) .

Notice here that by settingØ_I=0, we can recover the usual Friedmann equation of the self-accelerating branch of the DGP braneworld model (sDGP). WhenØ_I≪1, the behavior of this term is more like the dark radiation <cit.>. In this holographic model of the emergent dark universe (hEDU),Ø_Iturns out not to be so small, such that the whole dark sector, including the dark energy and apparent dark matter, is expected to be included in the holographic dark fluid <cit.>.  

 



§ FITTING PARAMETERS WITH THE SNIA AND H_0 DATA


In this section, we give constraints on model parameters in the modified Friedmann equation (<ref>) in light of observational data. We will also compare the result with the flat LCDM model, where the standard Friedmann equation is

    LCDM:
      H(z)^2 /H_0^2     = Ø_Ł + (1+z)^3,    Ø_Ł= 1- .

We employ the Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) together with the observational data and the statistical methods. In particular, in our analysis, we use Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) observational data and the direct measurement of Hubble constantH_0. There are different types of SNIa datasets compiled by different groups. Thus, in this work, we consider Joint Light-curve Analysis (JLA) dataset <cit.>, which consists of 740 supernovae. JLA data includes 118 supernovae at0<z<0.1from several low-redshift samples, 374 supernovae at0.03<z<0.4from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) SN search, 239 supernovae at0.1<z<1.1from the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) observation, and 9 supernovae at0.8<z<1.3from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) measurements. In addition, we also useH_0data derived from a reanalysis of Cepheid data <cit.> to constrain our model. 





We use theχ^2statistics to fit the cosmological models to observational data. Theχ^2function is given by 

    χ_θ^2=(θ_th-θ_obs)^2/σ_θ^2 ,

whereθ_obsis the measured value by observations, whereasθ_this the predicted value by theory, andσ_θis the standard deviation. The totalχ^2is the sum of allχ^2_θ,

    χ^2=∑_θχ^2_θ .
  



As we mentioned above, the observational data we use in this work include the JLA sample of SNIa observation and the direct measurements of the Hubble constantH_0from HST. The totalχ^2is written asχ^2=χ^2_SNIa+χ^2_H_0. Therefore, in the following, we will include both the SNIa andH_0data into theχ^2statistics.

We use the JLA compilation of SNIa. The JLA compilation includes 740 Ia supernovae in range ofz ∈[0.01, 1.3].  According to the observational point of view, we need the distance modulusμ, which is often used to construct theχ^2function of SNIa, and the redshiftzto the SNIa to fit the data. the theoretical value of distance modulus can be computed as 

    μ_th=5log_10[d_L(z)/Mpc]+25 ,

whered_Lis the luminosity distance predicted from theory. The luminosity distanced_Lis given by

    d_L(z)= (1+z) r(z) ,

where

    r(z)= H_0^-1|Ω_K|^-1/2sinh[|Ω_K|^1/2∫^z_0dz'/E(z')] .

Here,H_0=100 h  km  s^-1  Mpc^-1is the Hubble constant,E(z)is the reduced Hubble parameter and is defined asE(z)≡H(z)/H_0, andsinh(x)=sin(x), x, sinh(x)forΩ_K<0,Ω_K=0, andΩ_K>0, respectively. 

The observed value of the distance modulus is given as 

    μ_obs = m_B^*-M_B+α  X_1 +β 𝒞 ,

wherem_B^*is the observed peak magnitude in the rest-frame ofBband,X_1describes the time stretching of light-curve, and𝒞describes the SN color at maximum brightness. As we mentioned above, the JLA data includes 740 SNIa; for each SNIa, the observed values ofm_B^*,X_1, and𝒞are given in reference <cit.>. Theχ^2function for JLA observation can be written as 

    χ^2_SNIa = (μ_obs-μ_th)^†Cov_SNIa^-1 (μ_obs-μ_th) ,

whereCov_SNIais the covariance matrix of the JLA observation. 




For theH_0measurement, we use the result of direct measurement of Hubble constant, given by Riess et al. <cit.>,H_0=73.24±1.74 km  s^-1 Mpc^-1, which is derived from a re-analysis of Cepheid data. However, this measurement is in tension with Planck data <cit.>. Theχ^2function for theH_0measurement is

    χ^2_H_0 = ( h-0.7324/0.0174)^2 .
 


If we compare our model with the LCDM model,χ^2cannot  make fair comparison, for them having different numbers of free parameters, because a model with more parameters has more tendency to have a lower value ofχ^2. Thus, to make a fair comparison, we apply the Akaike information criterion (AIC) <cit.> and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) <cit.> to do analysis. The AIC and BIC are defined as AIC ≡-2 lnℒ_max + 2kandBIC ≡-2lnℒ_max + k lnN, respectively, whereℒ_maxis the maximum likelihood,kis the number of parameters, andNis number of data points used in the model-data fit. For Gaussian errors, one can useχ^2_min=-2lnℒ_max.
 
 
 

 
We introduce AIC and BIC statistics for the sake of comparing different models due to the different free parameters. Obviously, a model with a smaller AIC value means a better model in terms of data fitting, while a smaller BIC value implies that such a model is economically favorable if further data points are implemented. In our analysis, we use LCDM as a reference model, for such model is currently the best data-fitting model among all existing ones; hence, for our analysis, we need to pay more attention to the relative values of AIC and BIC asΔAIC=AIC_hEDU-ΔAIC_LCDMandΔBIC=BIC_HPU-ΔBIC_LCDM, respectively. Therefore, we need to calculateΔAIC=Δχ^2_min-2ΔkandΔBIC=Δχ^2_min-Δk lnN. It is worth noticing that, in terms of data fitting, the model with0<ΔAIC<2have a substantial support; the models with4<ΔAIC<7have considerably less support, and the models withΔAIC>10have essentially no support, with respect to the reference model. Concerning the BIC, the relative valueΔBIC=BIC_hEDU-BIC_ΛCDMprovides the following situations. The model withΔBIC≤2indicates that the comparison model is consistent with the reference model. The models with2≤ΔBIC≤6indicates the positive evidence against the comparison model, whereas forΔBIC≥10such evidence  becomes strong. As the result shown, according toΔAIC=1.258, our model fits well with the observational data.
However,ΔBIC=5.866indicates that if more data will be used,ΔAIC between the two models might be, in some extent, increasing, so only the future data can tell us more about how well theses models relatively fit the observational data. 


 
An overall presentation of constraints is listed in Table <ref> for our model. The table contains the fitting parameters, including the intrinsic values (α, β) of JLA, and goodness of fit statistics (χ_min^2) for our model. For comparison we additionally provide the results of the usual LCDM model of cosmology. From the Table <ref>, one can see thatH_0 = 73.49±1.7998 km  s^-1 Mpc^-1is the value closer to that obtained from the local measurement <cit.>. 
Significantly, the matter componentØ_min hEDU model turns out to be very small, compared with theØ_min LCDM. It matches well with our theoretical assumption in section <ref>, that only the normal matter is required in the hEDU model.  In the next section, based on these parameters from Table <ref>, we will recover an effective potential with the dynamical scalar field.
 




§ CHECKING ON THE SWAMPLAND CRITERIA




We can write the effective field theory of one dynamical scalar field for the late-time accelerating universe in the following action,

    _tot   = ∫^4x √(-g)[1/2 κ_4 R + L_ -1/2 (∂ϕ)^2 - V(ϕ)]  .

 The swampland criteria (<ref>) and (<ref>) on an effective field theory which is supposed to be consistent with a theory of quantum gravity were reviewed in the introduction. 
 




In the hEDU model, the holographic dark fluid in (<ref>) is assumed to be the pure gravitational effects, which can be considered as the dynamics of an effective vacuum.
So is there an effective potential of the dynamical scalar field in (<ref>), which can recover the same effects?  From the holographic energy density (<ref>) and pressure (<ref>), comparing with the energy densityρ_ϕ=ϕ̇^2/2+V(ϕ)and pressurep_ϕ=ϕ̇^2/2-V(ϕ)of the scalar field in (<ref>), we can reconstruct the effective potential and the scalar field of the holographic dark fluid, which satisfies

    V[ϕ(t)]   = 1/2
        ρ_ð(t) - p_ð(t)
     , 
    ϕ̇(t)   = - √(ρ_ð(t)+ p_ð(t))  .

For convenience, we have chosen the negative sign in (<ref>).
Taking the parameters  from Table <ref>, we can numerically plot theϕ(z)andV(ϕ)in Figure <ref>,
by using the relationṭ /ẓ=-1/(1+z)H(z). 
From the modified Friedmann equation (<ref>), we have seen that sDGP is a special case of hEDU whenΩ_I=0.
Thus, in this section, we will choose the sDGP as a reference model of hEDU, along with the following parameters.





The values in the sDGP model are taken from the reference <cit.>, and those values in the hEDU model are taken from Table <ref>.



 
In the figure ofϕ(z)/in terms of the redshift parameterz, the zero ofϕ(z)is chosen to be at the future infinity thatϕ(z)|_z→-1=0. It is clear to see that|Δϕ| ∼|ϕ(1)|is of order 1 in both models, at the dark energy dominated region fromz≃1toz≃-1.
Thus, the first swampland conjecture in (<ref>) is satisfied in the present universe for both models.



Notice that in the region0 ≲ϕ/  ≲1,  the effective potentials in Figure <ref> can be fitted well with the polynomial formula,

    V(ϕ)/H_0^2 ^2 =Λ_0/H_0^2   + h_2 /2ϕ^2/^2 + h_3/3!ϕ^3/^3  + h_4/4!ϕ^4/^4   +⋯ .

WhereΛ_0= 3Ω_ΛH_0^2/c^2is the effective cosmological constant at the future infinity <cit.> and it can be calculated fromΩ_Λin Table <ref>.
The linear termh_1 ϕ/is dropped because we haveV'(ϕ)|_ϕ→0=0. 
The fitting parametersh_2, h_3, h_4are listed in Table <ref>, whereh_2>0implies that the effective mass of the scalar fieldϕis positive. 




Intriguingly, the potentials can also be fitted quite well with two parametersλ_^+andλ_^-in the exponential formula,

    V(ϕ)/^2=Λ_0/λ_^+ +λ_^-(  λ_^+ e^- λ_^-ϕ/+ λ_^- e^λ_^+ϕ/) .
 
The ansatz satisfiesV(ϕ)|_ϕ→0=Λ_0 ^2andV'(ϕ)|_ϕ→0=0automatically, and the fitting parameters are listed in Table <ref>. It is reasonable as there are only two free parametersΩ_mandΩ_Iin the hEDU model (<ref>), with the relation in (<ref>). It is also interesting to relate the effective potential to some top down models in <cit.>.


With the effective potentials, now we can check on the second Swampland Criterion in (<ref>),
or say, the refined de Sitter conjecture. We define the following parameters

    λ_1    ≡ M_P V'/V,     
    V'   ≡ V(ϕ)/ϕ  =V̇(t)/ϕ̇(t) ,   
    
    λ_2    ≡  M_P^2  V”/V,    
    V”≡/ϕ  V(ϕ)/ϕ  =1/ϕ̇(t)/ṭ[ V̇(t)/ϕ̇(t)].

It is straightforward to plot the numerical result ofλ_1(z)andλ_2(z)in Figure <ref>.
Thus, we can see that at the presentz=0,λ_1(0), λ_2(0)∼O(1), which is the minimum value betweenz=0andz=1.  In the future infinity, both of the metric solutions in the sDGP and hEDU models will approach the de Sitter spacetime. We can see thatλ_1(z)|_z→-1→0from Figure <ref>.  It is because we only consider the late time universe, and our effective potential only has the minimum in Figure <ref>. Thus, the first condition in the second swampland criterion in (<ref>) is satisfied at present, but in tension with the model in the future.






It is interesting to notice thatλ_2(z)is still non-vanishing at the future infinityλ_2(z)|_z→-1∼𝒪(1),
which can be tested with the potential in either (<ref>) or (<ref>) . Thus, we can see that in both of the sDGP and hEDU models, we still haveλ_2(z) ≥c_3∼𝒪(1). Or say, near the minimum of the effective potential, we have the condition 

    ^2  |∇_i ∇_j V|≥  c_3 V ,     c_3 ∼𝒪(1).

Thus, we can suggest that if the condition (<ref>) can be included in the refined de Sitter conjecture, then some braneworld models <cit.> with an asymptotic dS spacetime at the future infinity might be included.
Similarly, one can see for example, an interesting embedding of the generalized models of the Randall-Sundrum <cit.> braneworld scenarios within string theory has been discussed in <cit.>.







§ CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

 
We study a modified gravity model of the late time accelerating universe, especially the behavior of the universe evolution including the dark sector. We treat the whole dark sector as the holographic dark fluid on the FRW hypersurface in a flat bulk <cit.>. After using the SNIa andH_0data, we fit a new set of the parameters comparing to the LCDM model. The matter componentΩ_min Table <ref> is very small andΩ_Ieffectively contributes to the dark sector, including apparent dark matter component. The data fitting matches well with the observations and our theoretical assumption.

 
 This hEDU model: emergent dark universe model from the holographic viewpoint, can be implemented into the improved sDGP braneworld scenario. We also check the recently proposed swampland criteria on the model and the result is interesting. Especially notice that the potentialV(ϕ)is asymptotically flat in the far futurez→-1. The metric solution is asymptotic de Sitter, which seems to end up in the swampland. 
One can also see that the swampland criterion parametersλ_1andλ_2are of𝒪(1)at presentz=0, butλ_1approaches zero andλ_2approaches a positive constant in the future infinity. 

Despite this result, we do not think this completely means that the hEDU model is in the swampland. One should notice that we do not have an explicit scalar field and potential. The stress-energy tensor of the holographic fluid which the potential can be derived from is effective at the low energy. The sDGP braneworld model shares similar behavior as the hEDU model in the far future, where the universe is asymptotic de-Sitter, although the current universe satisfies the criteria. One can hope to bring both models back to the string landscape by evoking a phase change of the universe, which is beyond the discussion of the effective low energy behavior presented here. 
 

Another comment we would like to add here is the possible extension of the refined de Sitter conjecture as proposed in (<ref>). The refined conjecture in <cit.> is motivated by the distance swampland conjecture,  Bousso's covariant entropy bound and phenomenological counter-examples including Higgs vacuum and pion potentials. We discuss the possible condition (<ref>) here for a phenomenological reason, as it can include certain top-down based brane-world scenarios. An alternative refined de Sitter conjecture conjecture can also be found in <cit.>

§  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Y. S. An, C. C. Han, W. Li, S. Mukohyama, S. Pi, M. Sasaki,  T. Tanaka, S. J. Wang,  H. Wei,  J. Q. Xia, Y. Zhang for helpful conversations.
R.  -G.  Cai was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.11690022, No.11435006, No.11647601,No. 11851302, and No. 11821505), Strategic Priority Research Program of CAS (No.XDB23030100), Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS; 
S. Khimphun was supported by the research fund HEIP(6221-KH), under this Graduate School of Science in Royal University of Phnom Penh; 
B. -H. Lee was supported by the Basic Science Research Program (No.NRF2018R1D1A1B07048657) through the National Research Foundation(NRF) of Korea funded by the Ministry of education; 
S.  Sun was supported by MOST and NCTS in Taiwan, MIUR in Italy under Contract(No. PRIN 2015P5SBHT) and ERC Ideas Advanced
Grant (No. 267985) “ DaMeSyFla";  G. Tumurtushaa was supported by the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) under the project code(IBS-R018-D1); 
Y.  -L.  Zhang was supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS international research fellow(18F18315).


99

Clifton:2011jh
  T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis,
   “Modified Gravity and Cosmology,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001Phys. Rept.  513, 1 (2012)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2476arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]].
  
  
Famaey:2011kh
  B. Famaey and S. McGaugh,
   “Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions,”http://dx.doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2012-10Living Rev. Rel.  15, 10 (2012)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3960arXiv:1112.3960 [astro-ph.CO]]. 
  

Milgrom:1983ca
  M. Milgrom,
  “A Modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/161130Astrophys. J.  270, 365 (1983).
  
  
Undagoitia:2015gya
  T. MarrodÃ¡n Undagoitia and L. Rauch,
   “Dark matter direct-detection experiments,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/43/1/013001J. Phys. G  43, no. 1, 013001 (2016)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.08767arXiv:1509.08767 [physics.ins-det]].
  
  
Verlinde:2016toy
  E. P. Verlinde,
   “Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe,”http://dx.doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.2.3.016SciPost Phys.  2, 016 (2017)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269arXiv:1611.02269 [hep-th]].
  
  
Cai:2017asf 
  R. G. Cai, S. Sun and Y. L. Zhang,
   “Emergent Dark Matter in Late Time Universe on Holographic Screen,”https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2018)009JHEP  1810, 009 (2018)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.09326arXiv:1712.09326 [hep-th]].
  
  
Brown:1992br
  J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Jr.,
  “Quasilocal energy and conserved charges derived from the gravitational action,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.47.1407Phys. Rev. D  47, 1407 (1993)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9209012gr-qc/9209012].
  
  
  
Ooguri:2006in 
  H. Ooguri and C. Vafa,
   “On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland,”http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.10.033Nucl. Phys. B  766, 21 (2007)
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0605264hep-th/0605264].
  
  
  
  
Obied:2018sgi 
  G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko and C. Vafa,
   “De Sitter Space and the Swampland,”https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08362arXiv:1806.08362 [hep-th].
  
  
  
Agrawal:2018own  
  P. Agrawal, G. Obied, P. J. Steinhardt and C. Vafa,
  “On the Cosmological Implications of the String Swampland,”http://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.040Phys. Lett. B  784, 271 (2018)
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.09718arXiv:1806.09718 [hep-th]].
  
  
  
Ooguri:2018wrx 
  H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu and C. Vafa,
   “Distance and de Sitter Conjectures on the Swampland,”http://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.018Phys. Lett. B  788, 180 (2019)
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05506arXiv:1810.05506 [hep-th]].
  
  
  
  





 







SCIF

  G. Dvali and C. Gomez,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10877arXiv:1806.10877 [hep-th].
  
  

  A. Achúcarro and G. A. Palma,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.04390arXiv:1807.04390 [hep-th].
  
  


  S. K. Garg and C. Krishnan,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05193arXiv:1807.05193 [hep-th].
  
  


  J. L. Lehners,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/001JCAP  1811,  001 (2018)
  
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05240arXiv:1807.05240 [hep-th]].
  
  


  A. Kehagias and A. Riotto,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201800052 Fortsch. Phys. 66, 1800052 (2018)
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05445arXiv:1807.05445 [hep-th]].
  
  


  M. Dias, J. Frazer, A. Retolaza and A. Westphal,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06579arXiv:1807.06579 [hep-th].
  
  


  H. Matsui and F. Takahashi,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.11938arXiv:1807.11938 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  C. Damian and O. Loaiza-Brito,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.03397arXiv:1808.03397 [hep-th].
  
  


  B. M. Gu and R. Brandenberger,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.03393arXiv:1808.03393 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  W. H. Kinney, S. Vagnozzi and L. Visinelli,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.06424arXiv:1808.06424 [astro-ph.CO].
  
  


  S. Brahma and M. Wali Hossain,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01277arXiv:1809.01277 [hep-th].
  
  


  S. Das,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.03962arXiv:1809.03962 [hep-th].
  
  
   

  D. Wang,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.04854arXiv:1809.04854 [astro-ph.CO].
  
  


  R. H. Brandenberger,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.04926arXiv:1809.04926 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  L. Anguelova, E. M. Babalic and C. I. Lazaroiu,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.10563arXiv:1809.10563 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  C. M. Lin, K. W. Ng and K. Cheung,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01644arXiv:1810.01644 [hep-ph].
  
  
  

  M. Kawasaki and V. Takhistov,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.02547arXiv:1810.02547 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  K. Dimopoulos,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123516Phys. Rev. D  98, 123516 (2018)
   https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03438arXiv:1810.03438 [gr-qc].
  
  
  

  A. Ashoorioon,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04001arXiv:1810.04001 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  S. Das,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05038arXiv:1810.05038 [hep-th].
  
  


  S. J. Wang,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06445arXiv:1810.06445 [hep-th].
  
  


  S. K. Garg, C. Krishnan and M. Zaid,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.09406arXiv:1810.09406 [hep-th].
  
  
    

  C. M. Lin,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11992arXiv:1810.11992 [astro-ph.CO].
  
  
    

  S. C. Park,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11279arXiv:1810.11279 [hep-ph].
  
  


  Z. Yi and Y. Gong,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.01625arXiv:1811.01625 [gr-qc].
  
  


  D. Y. Cheong, S. M. Lee and S. C. Park,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03622arXiv:1811.03622 [hep-ph].
  
  
  

  R. Holman and B. Richard,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.06021arXiv:1811.06021 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  W. H. Kinney,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11698arXiv:1811.11698 [astro-ph.CO].
  SCDE

  E. O. Colgain, M. H. P. M. Van Putten and H. Yavartanoo,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.07451arXiv:1807.07451 [hep-th].
  
  
  


  L. Heisenberg, M. Bartelmann, R. Brandenberger and A. Refregier,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.02877arXiv:1808.02877 [astro-ph.CO].
  
  


  L. Heisenberg, M. Bartelmann, R. Brandenberger and A. Refregier,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00154arXiv:1809.00154 [astro-ph.CO].
  
  
  

  M. C. D. Marsh,
  
  
   http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00726arXiv:1809.00726 [hep-th].
  
  


  U. Danielsson,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.04512arXiv:1809.04512 [hep-th].
  
  


  R. Brandenberger, R. R. Cuzinatto, J. Fröhlich and R. Namba,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.07409arXiv:1809.07409 [gr-qc].
  
  


  S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03575arXiv:1810.03575 [gr-qc].
  
  


  A. Hebecker and T. Wrase,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201800097Fortsch. Phys.  2018, 1800097
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08182arXiv:1810.08182 [hep-th]].
  
  


  Y. Olguin-Trejo, S. L. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08634arXiv:1810.08634 [hep-th].
  
  


  G. Dvali, C. Gomez and S. Zell,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11002arXiv:1810.11002 [hep-th].
  
  


  C. I. Chiang, J. M. Leedom and H. Murayama,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.01987arXiv:1811.01987 [hep-th].
  
  


  R. I. Thompson,
  
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03164arXiv:1811.03164 [astro-ph.CO].
  


  E. Elizalde and M. Khurshudyan,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03861arXiv:1811.03861 [astro-ph.CO].
  
  


  F. Tosone, B. S. Haridasu, V. V. Luković and N. Vittorio,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.05434arXiv:1811.05434 [astro-ph.CO].
  SCPH

  V. Branchina, F. Contino and A. Pilaftsis,
  
   https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.075001Phys. Rev. D  98, no. 7, 075001 (2018)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.11059arXiv:1806.11059 [hep-ph]].
  
  


  F. Denef, A. Hebecker and T. Wrase,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.086004Phys. Rev. D  98, no. 8, 086004 (2018)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06581arXiv:1807.06581 [hep-th]].
  
  


  J. K. Ghosh, E. Kiritsis, F. Nitti and L. T. Witkowski,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2018)128JHEP  1811, 128 (2018)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09794arXiv:1807.09794 [hep-th]].
  
  
  

  I. Ben-Dayan,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01615arXiv:1808.01615 [hep-th].
  
  


  H. Murayama, M. Yamazaki and T. T. Yanagida,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00478arXiv:1809.00478 [hep-th].
  
  


  K. Choi, D. Chway and C. S. Shin,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2018)142JHEP  1811, 142 (2018)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01475arXiv:1809.01475 [hep-th]].
  
  
 

  C. Han, S. Pi and M. Sasaki,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.05507arXiv:1809.05507 [hep-ph].
  
  
  

  K. Hamaguchi, M. Ibe and T. Moroi,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.02095arXiv:1810.02095 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  M. Motaharfar, V. Kamali and R. O. Ramos,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.02816arXiv:1810.02816 [astro-ph.CO].
  
  
  

  H. Fukuda, R. Saito, S. Shirai and M. Yamazaki,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06532arXiv:1810.06532 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  P. Agrawal and G. Obied,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00554arXiv:1811.00554 [hep-ph].
  
  


  M. Ibe, M. Yamazaki and T. T. Yanagida,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.04664arXiv:1811.04664 [hep-th].
  
  


  D. Klaewer, D. Lüst and E. Palti,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07908arXiv:1811.07908 [hep-th].
  
  
 

  C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu and K. Uzawa,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.10844arXiv:1811.10844 [hep-th].
  


  Y. Neiman,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11034arXiv:1811.11034 [hep-th].
  

KKLT

  D. Andriot,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.022Phys. Lett. B  785, 570 (2018)
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10999arXiv:1806.10999 [hep-th]].
  
  


  C. Roupec and T. Wrase,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201800082Fortsch. Phys.  2018, 1800082
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09538arXiv:1807.09538 [hep-th]].
  
  


  D. Andriot,
  
   https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09698arXiv:1807.09698 [hep-th].
  
  


  J. P. Conlon,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X18501786Int. J. Mod. Phys. A  33, no. 29, 1850178 (2018)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05040arXiv:1808.05040 [hep-th]].
  
  


  K. Dasgupta, M. Emelin, E. McDonough and R. Tatar,
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07498arXiv:1808.07498 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  M. Cicoli, S. De Alwis, A. Maharana, F. Muia and F. Quevedo,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201800079Fortsch. Phys.  2018, 1800079
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08967arXiv:1808.08967 [hep-th]].
  
  
    

  S. Kachru and S. P. Trivedi,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08971arXiv:1808.08971 [hep-th].
  
  


  Y. Akrami, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and V. Vardanyan,
  
   https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201800075Fortsch. Phys.  2018, 1800075
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.09440arXiv:1808.09440 [hep-th]].
  
  


  J. Ellis, B. Nagaraj, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive,
  
  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2018)110JHEP  1811, 110 (2018)
  [ http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.10114arXiv:1809.10114 [hep-th]].
  
  
    

  G. Buratti, E. García-Valdecasas and A. M. Uranga,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.07673arXiv:1810.07673 [hep-th].
  
  


  J. Blåbäck, U. Danielsson and G. Dibitetto,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11365arXiv:1810.11365 [hep-th].
  
  


  J. J. Blanco-Pillado, M. A. Urkiola and J. M. Wachter,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.05463arXiv:1811.05463 [hep-th].
  
  
    

  D. Junghans,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.06990arXiv:1811.06990 [hep-th].
  
  
  

  M. Emelin and R. Tatar,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07378arXiv:1811.07378 [hep-th].
  
  


  A. Banlaki, A. Chowdhury, C. Roupec and T. Wrase,
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07880arXiv:1811.07880 [hep-th].
  
  
Kachru:2003aw 
  S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde and S. P. Trivedi,
   “De Sitter vacua in string theory,”http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.046005Phys. Rev. D  68, 046005 (2003)
   [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0301240hep-th/0301240].
  
  
  

Danielsson:2018ztv 
  U. H. Danielsson and T. Van Riet,
   “What if string theory has no de Sitter vacua?,”http://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271818300070Int. J. Mod. Phys. D  27, no. 12, 1830007 (2018)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01120arXiv:1804.01120 [hep-th]].
  
  
Kallosh:2019axr 
  R. Kallosh, A. Linde, E. McDonough and M. Scalisi,
  “dS Vacua and the Swampland,”http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.02022arXiv:1901.02022 [hep-th].
  


Bredberg:2010ky
  I. Bredberg, C. Keeler, V. Lysov and A. Strominger,
   “Wilsonian Approach to Fluid/Gravity Duality,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2011)141JHEP  1103, 141 (2011)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1902arXiv:1006.1902 [hep-th]];
  
  

Bredberg:2011jq
   I. Bredberg, C. Keeler, V. Lysov and A. Strominger,
  “From Navier-Stokes To Einstein,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2012)146JHEP  1207, 146 (2012)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2451arXiv:1101.2451 [hep-th]]. 
  
Compere:2011dx 
  G. Compere, P. McFadden, K. Skenderis and M. Taylor,
   “The Holographic fluid dual to vacuum Einstein gravity,”http://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2011)050JHEP  1107, 050 (2011)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.3022arXiv:1103.3022 [hep-th]].
  
  
Cai:2011xv 
  R. G. Cai, L. Li and Y. L. Zhang,
   “Non-Relativistic Fluid Dual to Asymptotically AdS Gravity at Finite Cutoff Surface,”http://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2011)027JHEP  1107, 027 (2011)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3281arXiv:1104.3281 [hep-th]].
  
  
Cai:2014ywa 
  R. G. Cai, Q. Yang and Y. L. Zhang,
   “Petrov type I Spacetime and Dual Relativistic Fluids,”http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.041901Phys. Rev. D  90, 041901(R) (2014)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7792arXiv:1401.7792 [hep-th]].
  
  

Dvali:2000hr
  G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati,
 “4-D gravity on a brane in 5-D Minkowski space,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00669-9Phys. Lett. B  485, 208 (2000)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0005016hep-th/0005016]. 
  

Deffayet:2000uy
  C. Deffayet,
   “Cosmology on a brane in Minkowski bulk,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00160-5Phys. Lett. B  502, 199 (2001)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0010186hep-th/0010186]. 
  

Deffayet:2001pu
  C. Deffayet, G. R. Dvali and G. Gabadadze,
   “Accelerated universe from gravity leaking to extra dimensions,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.044023Phys. Rev. D  65, 044023 (2002)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0105068astro-ph/0105068].
  
  
Binetruy:1999ut
  P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet and D. Langlois,
  “Nonconventional cosmology from a brane universe,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00696-3Nucl. Phys. B  565, 269 (2000)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9905012hep-th/9905012].
  
  


Dick:2001sc
  R. Dick,
  “Brane worlds,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/18/17/201Class. Quant. Grav.  18, no. 17, R1 (2001)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0105320hep-th/0105320]. 
  

 Dick:2001np
  R. Dick,
   “Standard cosmology in the DGP brane model,”https://inspirehep.net/record/570726Acta Phys. Polon. B  32, 3669 (2001)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0110162hep-th/0110162]. 
  

Lue:2002fe
  A. Lue,
   “Global structure of Deffayet (Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati) cosmologies,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.064004Phys. Rev. D  67, 064004 (2003)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208169hep-th/0208169].
  
  
Price:1986yy 
  R. H. Price and K. S. Thorne,
  “Membrane Viewpoint on Black Holes: Properties and Evolution of the Stretched Horizon,”http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.33.915Phys. Rev. D  33, 915 (1986).
  
  
Parikh:1997ma
  M. Parikh and F. Wilczek,
   “An action for black hole membranes,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.064011Phys. Rev. D  58, 064011 (1998)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712077gr-qc/9712077].
  
  
  

Mukohyama:1999qx 
  S. Mukohyama,
 “Brane world solutions, standard cosmology, and dark radiation,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01505-1Phys. Lett. B  473, 241 (2000)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9911165hep-th/9911165].
  
  
 


Betoule:2014frx 
  M. Betoule  et al. [SDSS Collaboration],
  “Improved cosmological constraints from a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS supernova samples,”http://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201423413Astron. Astrophys.  568, A22 (2014).
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4064arXiv:1401.4064 [astro-ph.CO]].


Riess:2011abc 
  A. G. Riess  et al.,
 “A 3% Solution: Determination of the Hubble Constant with the Hubble Space Telescope and Wide Field Camera 3,”http://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/119Astrophys. J.  730, 119 (2011).
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2976arXiv:1103.2976 [astro-ph.CO]]
  
  
 
 
Riess:2016jrr 
  A. G. Riess  et al.,
  “A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant,”http://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/56Astrophys. J.  826, no. 1, 56 (2016)
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.01424arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]].
  
  
 
  
Adam:2015rua 
  R. Adam  et al. [Planck Collaboration],
  “Planck 2015 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results,”http://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527101Astron. Astrophys.  594, A1 (2016)
  [https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01582arXiv:1502.01582 [astro-ph.CO]].
  
  
  
 AIC
H. Akaike, 
“A new look at the statistical model identification," 
http://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.  19 (1974) 716.
 
BIC
G. Schwarz, 
“Estimating the Dimension of a Model", 
http://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136Ann. Statist.  6 (1978) 461. 
  






Lue:2005ya
  A. Lue,
  “The phenomenology of Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati cosmologies,”http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.007Phys. Rept.  423, 1 (2006)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510068astro-ph/0510068]. 
  
  



 
Maartens:2010ar
  R. Maartens and K. Koyama,
  “Brane-World Gravity,”http://dx.doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2010-5Living Rev. Rel.  13, 5 (2010)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3962arXiv:1004.3962 [hep-th]].
  
  

Randall:1999ee 
  L. Randall and R. Sundrum,
   “A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,”https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370Phys. Rev. Lett.  83, 3370 (1999)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9905221hep-ph/9905221].
  
  
  

Randall:1999vf 
  L. Randall and R. Sundrum,
   “An Alternative to compactification,”https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690Phys. Rev. Lett.  83, 4690 (1999)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9906064hep-th/9906064].
  
  
Banerjee:2018qey 
  S. Banerjee, U. Danielsson, G. Dibitetto, S. Giri and M. Schillo,
  “Emergent de Sitter cosmology from decaying AdS,”https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301Phys. Rev. Lett.  121, 261301 (2018)
  [http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.01570arXiv:1807.01570 [hep-th]].
  
  
Andriot:2018mav 
  D. Andriot and C. Roupec,
   “Further refining the de Sitter swampland conjecture,”http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08889arXiv:1811.08889 [hep-th].
  
  
 

§ APPENDIX


^1CAS Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, 

Chinese Academy of Sciences(CAS), Beijing 100190, China
^2School of Physical Sciences,University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

^3Department of Physics, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
^4Department of Physics, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Korea
^5Center for Quantum Spacetime(CQUeST), Sogang University, Seoul 121-742, Korea

^6Department of Physics, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome I-00185, Italy
^7Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan
^8IBS Center for Theoretical Physics of the Universe, Institute for Basic Science(IBS), Daejeon 34051, Korea
^9Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics(YITP), Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
^10Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics,  APCTP Headquarters, Pohang 790-784, Korea