Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Perturbations with bulk viscosity in modified chaplygin gas cosmology

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Matter density contrasts decay with redshift in a bulk-viscous modified Chaplygin gas, with amplitudes that exceed ΛCDM for nonzero viscosity or Chaplygin parameters, and the model reduces to ΛCDM when those parameters vanish.

desk verdict A systematic 1+3 covariant perturbation derivation for viscous modified Chaplygin gas, but the background is inconsistent: Eq. (8) is a single-fluid density used in a two-fluid universe, so the numerical results don't test the model. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11309 v1 pith:IAUPNR3J submitted 2024-11-18 gr-qc

Albert Munyeshyaka , Praveen Kumar Dhankar , Joseph Ntahompagaze This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83Dxx83Fxx PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k95.36.+x98.80.Cq
keywords bulkviscositymodifiedChaplygingas1+3covariantformalismcosmologicalperturbationsdarkenergylarge-scalestructuredensitycontrastredshiftevolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether a dark sector made of a modified Chaplygin gas with bulk viscosity leaves a measurable imprint on the growth of cosmic structure. Using the 1+3 covariant formalism, it derives a closed system of linear perturbation equations for the matter energy-density contrast, the expansion-gradient variable, and the Chaplygin-viscous density-gradient variable, converts them to redshift space, and solves them numerically in long- and short-wavelength limits for both dust and radiation eras. The central finding is that the matter overdensity contrast decays with redshift, as in ΛCDM, but its amplitude is larger when the viscosity parameter $\xi_0$ or the Chaplygin parameter $A$ is switched on, and the system reduces exactly to ΛCDM when the viscous Chaplygin component is turned off. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that linear growth of structure can in principle distinguish this unified dark-sector model from a pure cosmological constant.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 1+3 covariant set of gauge-invariant gradient variables: $D^m_a = a\tilde{\nabla}_a\rho_m/\rho_m$ for matter, $D^{cv}_a = a\tilde{\nabla}_a\rho_{cv}/\rho_{cv}$ for the viscous Chaplygin fluid, and $Z_a = a\tilde{\nabla}_a\theta$ for the expansion. Taking divergences gives scalar variables $\Delta_m$, $\Delta_{cv}$, and $Z$; Laplace-Beltrami harmonic decomposition with eigenvalue $-k^2/a^2$ converts the partial differential equations into a closed system of ordinary differential equations; and the redshift transformation $\dot{f}=-(1+z)H f'$ turns them into the numerically integrated system of Eqs. (40)-(42). The model-specific input is the background density $\rho_{cv}$ from Eq. (8) and pressure $p_{cv}$ from Eq. (9), whose coefficients enter every perturbation equation and carry the bulk viscosity through $\xi = \xi_0\rho^{1/2}$.

What would settle it

Evaluate the Friedmann constraint $3H^2 = \rho_m + \rho_{cv}$ and the two continuity equations (13)-(14) at several redshifts (say $z=0,1,4$) with the parameters used in the plots ($A=1/3$, $B=1$, $C=1$, $\xi_0=0.1$) and with $\rho_{cv}$ taken from Eq. (8); if the constraint fails at order-one level, the background used in Sections 5-6 is not a solution of the model, and the reported growth curves should be redone on a consistently integrated two-fluid background.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in a spatially flat universe filled with dust or radiation plus a viscous modified Chaplygin gas, the gauge-invariant matter density contrast evolves according to a three-variable coupled system, and that its numerical solutions decay with redshift for both long and short wavelengths. The amplitudes of the decay curves exceed the ΛCDM values for nonzero bulk-viscosity coefficient $\xi_0$ and Chaplygin parameter $A$, with the excess growing as these parameters grow, and the spread in amplitudes is larger in the dust era than in the radiation era. When $A=0$, $B=0$, and $\xi_0=0$, the system collapses to the standard ΛCDM perturbation equations. The paper therefore claims a concrete, parameter-dependent difference between viscous modified Chaplygin gas cosmology and ΛCDM at the level of linear scalar perturbations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single-fluid Chaplygin density expression (Eq. 8) remains valid inside a two-fluid background where the Hubble rate is set by matter plus Chaplygin gas, so that the coupled Friedmann and continuity equations are satisfied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The matter density contrast $\delta(z)$ keeps decaying into low redshift in both dust- and radiation-dominated eras, so the model is compatible with the qualitative picture of large-scale structure growth from small seeds.
  • Viscosity parameter $\xi_0$ and Chaplygin parameter $A$ change perturbation amplitudes, with larger values yielding higher overdensity contrast than ΛCDM at fixed redshift and initial conditions.
  • In the ΛCDM limit $A=B=\xi_0=0$, the perturbation system reduces to the standard two-equation system, confirming that the model is a genuine extension rather than a disjoint theory.
  • Short-wavelength results are scale-dependent, consistent with wavelength-dependent growth in this class of dark-sector models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if the amplitude excess survives a fully consistent two-fluid background, growth data such as $f\sigma_8(z)$ could constrain $\xi_0$ and $A$, since the model predicts systematically more clustering at low redshift than ΛCDM for the same initial seeds.
  • Beyond the paper, rerunning the derivation with a general viscosity exponent $v \neq 1/2$ or with a Chaplygin background integrated consistently with matter would reveal whether the reported deviation from ΛCDM is generic or tied to the $v=1/2$ choice.
  • Beyond the paper, because $\delta(z)$ is normalized at $z_{\rm in}=4$, the plots compare shape rather than absolute growth; a matter power-spectrum or $f\sigma_8$ comparison would sharpen whether the model is actually preferred over ΛCDM.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper applies the 1+3 covariant gauge-invariant perturbation formalism to a flat FRW universe containing pressureless matter and a viscous modified Chaplygin gas with bulk viscosity coefficient ξ = ξ0 ρ_cv^{1/2}. It defines matter, Chaplygin-gas, and expansion-gradient variables, derives a closed system of first-order evolution equations in redshift space, and solves them numerically in long and short wavelength limits for dust and radiation epochs. The central claims are that the matter overdensity contrast decays with redshift, that its amplitude is larger than in ΛCDM, and that the equations reduce to ΛCDM when the viscous Chaplygin component is absent.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a concrete way to distinguish the viscous modified Chaplygin gas model from a cosmological constant through the growth of large-scale structure. The paper's formalism is standard, the perturbation equations are presented explicitly, and the numerical setup uses parameter values from existing literature, which makes the analysis transparent and independently checkable. However, the numerical results are built on a background that is not a solution of the model, and the claimed ΛCDM limit is misidentified. These are not presentation issues; they invalidate the paper's main quantitative conclusions and its central comparison with ΛCDM.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (5), (8), (14)] The background is not a solution of the model. Eq. (8) is the single-fluid viscous modified Chaplygin gas solution from [34], derived under the condition that the Hubble rate is set by the Chaplygin fluid alone (3H^2 = ρ_cv). In this paper, however, Eq. (5) gives 3H^2 = ρ_m + ρ_cv. Differentiating Eq. (8) with respect to the scale factor yields dρ_cv/da = -3(ρ_cv/a)[A+1 - √3 ξ0 - B/ρ_cv^{α+1}], i.e. \dotρ_cv = -3H[(A+1)ρ_cv - Bρ_cv^{-α} - √3 ξ0 ρ_cv]. This agrees with the continuity equation (14), \dotρ_cv = -3H[(A+1)ρ_cv - Bρ_cv^{-α} - 3Hξ0 ρ_cv^{1/2}], only when 3H^2 = ρ_cv. Once matter is present, H is determined by the total density, so Eq. (8) does not satisfy Eq. (14), and the Friedmann equation (5) is incompatible with using Eq. (8) for the Chaplygin component. Consequently, all numerical integrations in Sections 5 and 6 (Figs. 1–14) evolve perturbations on a background that satisfies neither Eq. (5) nor Eq. (14). The claimed 'remarkable difference' from ΛCDM is therefore not a prediction of the model.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (43)–(45)] The claimed ΛCDM limit is incorrect. Setting A=B=ξ0=0 in the equation of state (3) gives p_cv=0, so the Chaplygin fluid becomes pressureless dust; Eq. (8) then gives ρ_cv = C^{1/(α+1)} a^{-3}, i.e. a second dust component. There is no cosmological constant in this limit. Furthermore, Eq. (45), Δ'_cv=0, does not follow from Eq. (42) under this substitution: with A=B=ξ0=0 the right-hand side of Eq. (42) retains -Z (for w_m=0) plus terms proportional to w_m ρ_m ρ_cv/(ρ_t+p_t) Δ_m, so Δ_cv is generally not constant. Hence the abstract's claim that the results reduce to those of ΛCDM in the absence of the viscous Chaplygin component is not supported by the equations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) has a sign error: with the stated signature and convention 8πG=1, the correct second Friedmann equation is 3H^2 + 2\dot H = -(p_m+p_cv), not 3H^2 - 2\dot H = p_m+p_cv. Although Eq. (6) is not used directly in the perturbation derivation, it is inconsistent with the Raychaudhuri equation (15) and should be corrected.
  2. [Figures 1–14] Several figure captions do not specify all parameter values used (e.g., Figs. 2, 5, 6, 10, 13), even though the text states that ξ0 or A is varied while B and C are fixed. The exact parameter choices should be listed in each caption to make the numerical results reproducible.
  3. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many typographical and notational inconsistencies, including 'Friedman'/'Friedmann', 'limints', 'authours', inconsistent use of \tilde\nabla versus \nabla, and the equation of state written as p_m = w ρ_m in Eq. (10) while w_m is used later.
  4. [References] Reference [49] is empty, and several references are formatted inconsistently (e.g., all-caps author names in [33]). The heavy reliance on [34] for one of the central background equations makes a precise citation and verification of that source especially important.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the perturbation equations are derived from the model equations and the ΛCDM limit is obtained by setting parameters to zero; the plotted density contrasts are numerical solutions, not fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The perturbation equations (40)–(42) are obtained from the covariant gauge-invariant variables (22)–(24) using linearized identities, harmonic decomposition, and the redshift transformation; the central plotted quantity δ(z)=Δ_k(z)/Δ_k(zin) in Eq. (46) is the solution of this closed ODE system, not a re-fit of the plotted curves. The ΛCDM comparison is obtained by the parameter limit A=0, B=0, ξ0=0 in Eqs. (40)–(42), yielding Eqs. (43)–(45), and no parameter is fitted to the target output. The background energy density (8) and pressure (9) are imported from Benaoum [34], an external reference, not from the authors' own prior work; the paper's self-citations are limited to the 1+3 covariant methodology and do not carry the central claim. The 'remarkable difference' from ΛCDM is a numerical comparison under hand-chosen parameters, not an equivalence forced by construction. A possible physical concern is that Eq. (8) is a single-fluid solution while Eq. (5) includes matter, so the coupled background equations may be inconsistent; however, that is a correctness or consistency issue, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation depends on the background solution Eq. (8) from reference [34], which assumes a single-fluid universe, plus several hand-chosen parameters. The most consequential assumption is that this solution remains valid when matter is added, which is not demonstrated and is inconsistent with the full Friedmann equation.

free parameters (6)
  • A = 1/3 in most figures
    Modified Chaplygin gas equation of state parameter in p=A*rho-B/rho^alpha; chosen by hand.
  • B = 1
    Equation of state parameter in p=A*rho-B/rho^alpha; chosen by hand.
  • alpha = not stated in figure captions
    Chaplygin exponent in Eq. (3); arbitrary positive constant, but no value is given for the numerical runs.
  • xi_0 = varied, e.g., 0.1
    Bulk viscosity coefficient in xi=xi_0*rho^(1/2); varied by hand to show amplitude changes.
  • C = 1
    Integration constant in the background energy density Eq. (8); chosen by hand.
  • Initial conditions at z_in=4 = 10^-5 for Delta_m, Z, Delta_cv
    Arbitrary initial amplitudes; the normalized ratio delta(z) is less sensitive, but absolute amplitudes depend on them.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat FRW background spacetime
    Used throughout, starting with the metric in Eq. (11).
  • domain assumption Fluids are irrotational and shear-free
    Assumed before Eq. (19), so shear and vorticity terms vanish.
  • domain assumption Matter and modified Chaplygin gas are non-interacting
    Stated in Section 3; separate continuity equations are used for each fluid.
  • domain assumption Bulk viscosity coefficient follows xi=xi_0*rho^(1/2)
    Eq. (4) with v=1/2, inherited from reference [34].
  • ad hoc to paper Single-fluid solution Eq. (8) applies in the two-fluid background
    The paper substitutes the pure Chaplygin gas solution while also including matter, without re-solving the coupled Friedmann and continuity equations.
  • ad hoc to paper Lambda CDM limit is A=B=xi_0=0
    Used in Eqs. (43)-(45); with these values the Chaplygin fluid has p=0 and behaves like dust, not a cosmological constant.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perturbations with bulk viscosity in modified chaplygin gas cosmology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IAUPNR3J

@misc{pith2026241111309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perturbations with bulk viscosity in modified chaplygin gas cosmology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IAUPNR3J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11309}
}
read the original abstract

In the present work, we investigate cosmological perturbations of viscous modified chaplygin gas model. Using 1 + 3 covariant formalism, we define covariant and gauge invariant gradient variables, which after the application of scalar decomposition and harmonic decomposition techniques together with redshift transformation method, provide the energy overdensity perturbation equations in redshift space, responsible for large scale structure formation. In order to analyse the effect of the viscous modified chaplygin gas model on matter overdensity contrast, we numerically solve the perturbation equations in both long and short wavelength limits. The numerical results show that the energy overdensity contrast decays with redshift. However, the perturbations which include amplitude effects due to the viscous modified chaplygin model do differ remarkably from those in the {\Lambda}CDM. In the absence of viscous modified chaplygin model, the results reduce to those of {\Lambda}CDM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11309 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Plot of energy density contrast vs redshift of equations eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Modified chaplygin gas cosmology with bulk viscosity

    HB Benaoum. Modified chaplygin gas cosmology with bulk viscosity. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23(10):1450082, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Adam G Riess, LG Strolger, J Tonry, S Casertano, HC Ferguson, et al. 2004apj. 607. 665r. vol. 607. Astrophys. J, page 665, 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [2]

    Overview of the supernova/acceleration probe (snap)

    Greg Aldering, Carl W Akerlof, R Amanullah, Pierre Astier, E Barrelet, Christopher Be- bek, Lars Bergstrom, John Bercovitz, Gary M Bernstein, Manfred Bester, et al. Overview of the supernova/acceleration probe (snap). In Future Research Direction and Visions for Astronomy, volume 4835, pages 146–157. SPIE, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    Measuring cosmology with supernovae

    Saul Perlmutter and Brian P Schmidt. Measuring cosmology with supernovae. Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, pages 195–217, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [4]

    Nobel lecture: Measuring the acceleration of the cosmic expansion using supernovae

    Saul Perlmutter. Nobel lecture: Measuring the acceleration of the cosmic expansion using supernovae. Reviews of Modern Physics, 84(3):1127, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [5]

    Evidence for dark energy from the cosmic microwave background alone using the atacama cosmology telescope lensing measurements

    Blake D Sherwin, Joanna Dunkley, Sudeep Das, John W Appel, J Richard Bond, C Sofia Carvalho, Mark J Devlin, Rolando D¨ unner, Thomas Essinger-Hileman, Joseph W Fowler, et al. Evidence for dark energy from the cosmic microwave background alone using the atacama cosmology telescope lensing measurements. Physical review letters, 107(2):021302, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    Detection of the power spectrum of cosmic microwave background lensing by the atacama cosmology telescope

    Sudeep Das, Blake D Sherwin, Paula Aguirre, John W Appel, J Richard Bond, C Sofia Carvalho, Mark J Devlin, Joanna Dunkley, Rolando D¨ unner, Thomas Essinger-Hileman, et al. Detection of the power spectrum of cosmic microwave background lensing by the atacama cosmology telescope. Physical Review Letters, 107(2):021301, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    De- tection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of sdss luminous red galaxies

    Daniel J Eisenstein, Idit Zehavi, David W Hogg, Roman Scoccimarro, Michael R Blanton, Robert C Nichol, Ryan Scranton, Hee-Jong Seo, Max Tegmark, Zheng Zheng, et al. De- tection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of sdss luminous red galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal, 633(2):560, 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    Observational probes of cosmic acceleration

    David H Weinberg, Michael J Mortonson, Daniel J Eisenstein, Christopher Hirata, Adam G Riess, and Eduardo Rozo. Observational probes of cosmic acceleration. Physics reports, 530(2):87–255, 2013

    2013

  2. [9]

    Approaches to understanding cosmic acceleration

    Alessandra Silvestri and Mark Trodden. Approaches to understanding cosmic acceleration. Reports on Progress in Physics, 72(9):096901, 2009

    2009

  3. [10]

    The physics of cosmic acceleration

    Robert R Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski. The physics of cosmic acceleration. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 59:397–429, 2009

    2009

  4. [11]

    Generalized chaplygin gas, accelerated expansion, and dark-energy-matter unification

    MC Bento, Orfeu Bertolami, and Anjan A Sen. Generalized chaplygin gas, accelerated expansion, and dark-energy-matter unification. Physical Review D, 66(4):043507, 2002

    2002

  5. [12]

    An alternative to quintessence

    Alexander Kamenshchik, Ugo Moschella, and Vincent Pasquier. An alternative to quintessence. Physics Letters B, 511(2-4):265–268, 2001

    2001

  6. [13]

    Tupper, and Raoul D

    Neven Bilic, Gary B. Tupper, and Raoul D. Viollier. Unification of dark matter and dark energy: The Inhomogeneous Chaplygin gas. Phys. Lett. B, 535:17–21, 2002. 23

    2002

  7. [14]

    Role of modified Chaplygin gas in accelerated universe

    Ujjal Debnath, Asit Banerjee, and Subenoy Chakraborty. Role of modified Chaplygin gas in accelerated universe. Class. Quant. Grav., 21:5609–5618, 2004

    2004

  8. [15]

    Cosmological consequences of a chaplygin gas dark energy

    Abha Dev, JS Alcaniz, and Deepak Jain. Cosmological consequences of a chaplygin gas dark energy. Physical Review D, 67(2):023515, 2003

    2003

  9. [16]

    Evolution of spherical overdensity in chaplygin gas model

    Amin Rezaei Akbarieh, Mohammad Ahmadi, Yousef Izadi, Shahabeddin M Aslmarand, and Warner A Miller. Evolution of spherical overdensity in chaplygin gas model. The European Physical Journal C, 80:1–11, 2020

    2020

  10. [17]

    On chaplygin models in f (g) gravity

    Fidele Twagirayezu, Abraham Ayirwanda, Albert Munyeshyaka, Solange Mukeshimana, Joseph Ntahompagaze, and Leon Fidele Ruganzu Uwimbabazi. On chaplygin models in f (g) gravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 32(arXiv: 2305.19711), 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    The chaplygin gas as a model for modified teleparallel gravity? The European Physical Journal C, 79(9):1–31, 2019

    Shambel Sahlu, Joseph Ntahompagaze, Maye Elmardi, and Amare Abebe. The chaplygin gas as a model for modified teleparallel gravity? The European Physical Journal C, 79(9):1–31, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    Cosmological chaplygin gas as modified gravity

    Maye Elmardi and Amare Abebe. Cosmological chaplygin gas as modified gravity. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 905:012015,2017

    2017

  13. [20]

    Polytropic and chaplygin f (r)-gravity models

    K Karami and MS Khaledian. Polytropic and chaplygin f (r)-gravity models. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 21(12):1250083,2012

    2012

  14. [21]

    International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26(10):1730024, 2017

    Brevik Iver, Grøn Øyvind, de Haro Jaume, Odintsov Sergei D and Saridakis Emmanuel N Viscous cosmology for early-and late-time universe. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26(10):1730024, 2017

    2017

  15. [22]

    Viscous universes

    T Padmanabhan and SM Chitre. Viscous universes. Physics Letters A, 120(9):433–436, 1987

    1987

  16. [23]

    Dissipative cosmology

    Roy Maartens. Dissipative cosmology. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 12(6):1455, 1995

    1995

  17. [24]

    Frw-type cosmologies with adiabatic matter creation

    JAS Lima, ASM Germano, and LR W Abramo. Frw-type cosmologies with adiabatic matter creation. Physical Review D, 53(8):4287, 1996

    1996

  18. [25]

    Some viscous fluid cosmological models

    JK Singh. Some viscous fluid cosmological models. Nuovo Cimento B Serie, 120(12):1251, 2005

    2005

  19. [26]

    Interaction of viscous modified chaplygin gas with f (r, t) gravity

    M Sharif and Aisha Siddiqa. Interaction of viscous modified chaplygin gas with f (r, t) gravity. Modern Physics Letters A, 32(28):1750151, 2017

    2017

  20. [27]

    Viscous generalized chaplygin gas

    Xiang-Hua Zhai, You-Dong Xu, and Xin-Zhou Li. Viscous generalized chaplygin gas. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 15(08):1151–1161, 2006

    2006

  21. [28]

    Time-dependent density of viscous modified chaplygin gas with arbitrary α

    H Saadat. Time-dependent density of viscous modified chaplygin gas with arbitrary α. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 52:3902–3907, 2013

    2013

  22. [29]

    Frw bulk viscous cosmology with modified chaplygin gas in flat space

    H Saadat and B Pourhassan. Frw bulk viscous cosmology with modified chaplygin gas in flat space. Astrophysics and Space Science, 343(2):783–786, 2013

    2013

  23. [30]

    Interpretation of bulk viscosity as the generalized chaplygin gas

    Marek Szydlowski and Adam Krawiec. Interpretation of bulk viscosity as the generalized chaplygin gas. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.14900, 2020. 24

    2006 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Frw viscous modified cosmic chaplygin gas cosmology in the presence of cosmological constant.International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 16(09):1950141, 2019

    GS Khadekar, Aina Gupta, and Kalpana Pande. Frw viscous modified cosmic chaplygin gas cosmology in the presence of cosmological constant.International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 16(09):1950141, 2019

    2019

  25. [32]

    Bianchi type-i bulk viscous cosmology with chaplygin gas in lyra geometry

    GP Singh, Binaya K Bishi, and PK Sahoo. Bianchi type-i bulk viscous cosmology with chaplygin gas in lyra geometry. Chinese Journal of Physics, 54(6):895–905, 2016

    2016

  26. [33]

    Frw bulk viscous cosmology with modified chaplygin gas in flat space in (2+ 1)-dimensional spacetime

    PRA VEEN KUMAR DHANKAR. Frw bulk viscous cosmology with modified chaplygin gas in flat space in (2+ 1)-dimensional spacetime. 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Gauge-invariant cosmological perturbations

    James M Bardeen. Gauge-invariant cosmological perturbations. Physical Review D, 22(8):1882, 1980

    1980

  28. [36]

    Cosmological perturbation theory

    Hideo Kodama and Misao Sasaki. Cosmological perturbation theory. Progress of Theoret- ical Physics Supplement, 78:1–166, 1984

    1984

  29. [37]

    Covariant and gauge-independent perfect- fluid robertson-walker perturbations

    George FR Ellis, J Hwang, and Marco Bruni. Covariant and gauge-independent perfect- fluid robertson-walker perturbations. Physical Review D, 40(6):1819, 1989

    1989

  30. [38]

    Covariant gauge-invariant perturbations in multifluid f (r) gravity

    Amare Abebe, Mohamed Abdelwahab, Alvaro De la Cruz-Dombriz, and Peter KS Dunsby. Covariant gauge-invariant perturbations in multifluid f (r) gravity. Classical and quantum gravity, 29(13):135011, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Scalar perturbations in f (t) gravity using the 1+ 3 covariant approach

    Shambel Sahlu, Joseph Ntahompagaze, Amare Abebe, ´Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz, and David F Mota. Scalar perturbations in f (t) gravity using the 1+ 3 covariant approach. The European Physical Journal C, 80(5):422, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Perturbations in bianchi-v spacetimes with varying λ, g and viscous fluids

    Amare Abebe, Alnadhief HA Alfedeel, De˘ ger Sofuo˘ glu, Eltegani I Hassan, and Rishi Ku- mar Tiwari. Perturbations in bianchi-v spacetimes with varying λ, g and viscous fluids. Universe, 9(2):61, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Confronting the chaplygin gas with data: Background and perturbed cosmic dynamics

    Shambel Sahlu, Heba Sami, Renier Hough, Maye Elmardi, Anna-Mia Swart, and Amare Abebe. Confronting the chaplygin gas with data: Background and perturbed cosmic dynamics. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 32(13):2350090, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Cosmological perturba- tions in f (g) gravity

    Albert Munyeshyaka, Joseph Ntahompagaze, and Tom Mutabazi. Cosmological perturba- tions in f (g) gravity. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 30(07):2150053, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Multifluid cosmology in f (g) gravity

    Albert Munyeshyaka, Abraham Ayirwanda, Fidele Twagirayezu, Beatrice Murorunkwere, and Joseph Ntahompagaze. Multifluid cosmology in f (g) gravity. International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 20(02):2350031, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    f (T) gravity mimicking dy- namical dark energy

    Dent James B, Dutta Sourish and Saridakis Emmanuel N. f (T) gravity mimicking dy- namical dark energy. Background and perturbation analysis. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011(01):009, 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    Physical Review D,100(4):043524, 2019

    Basilakos Spyros, Leon Genly, Papagiannopoulos G and Saridakis Emmanuel N Dynamical system analysis at background and perturbation levels: Quintessence in severe disadvan- tage comparing to Λ CDM. Physical Review D,100(4):043524, 2019. 25

    2019

  38. [46]

    Saridakis and Kuralay Yesmakhanova Cosmology in f (Q) gravity: A unified dynamical system analysis at back- ground and perturbation levels

    Wompherdeiki Khyllep, Jibitesh Dutta, Emmanuel N. Saridakis and Kuralay Yesmakhanova Cosmology in f (Q) gravity: A unified dynamical system analysis at back- ground and perturbation levels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.02610

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Physics Letters B,822:136649, 2021

    Saridakis Emmanuel N Do we need soft cosmology?. Physics Letters B,822:136649, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Nuclear Physics B, 986:116042, 2023

    Saridakis Emmanuel N, Yang Weiqiang, Pan Supriya, Anagnostopoulos Fotios K and Basi- lakos Spyros Observational constraints on soft dark energy and soft dark matter: Chal- lenging ΛCDM cosmology. Nuclear Physics B, 986:116042, 2023. [49]

    2023

  41. [50]

    On 1+ 3 covariant perturbations of the quasi-newtonian space-time in modified gauss-bonnet gravity

    Albert Munyeshyaka, Joseph Ntahompagaze, Tom Mutabazi, Manasse Mbonye, et al. On 1+ 3 covariant perturbations of the quasi-newtonian space-time in modified gauss-bonnet gravity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01331, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    On covariant perturbations with scalar field in modified gauss–bonnet gravity

    Albert Munyeshyaka, Joseph Ntahompagaze, Tom Mutabazi, and Manasse Mbonye. On covariant perturbations with scalar field in modified gauss–bonnet gravity. The European Physical Journal C, 84(1):51, 2024

    2024

  43. [52]

    Perturbations in the interacting vacuum

    Albert Munyeshyaka, Joseph Ntahompagaze, Tom Mutabazi, Manasse R Mbonye, Abra- ham Ayirwanda, Fidele Twagirayezu, and Amare Abebe. Perturbations in the interacting vacuum. International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 20(03):2350047, 2023

    2023

  44. [53]

    Rotating and expanding bianchi type-ix model in f(r,t) theory of gravity

    De˘ ger Sofuo˘ glu. Rotating and expanding bianchi type-ix model in f(r,t) theory of gravity. Astrophysics and Space Science, 361:1–7, 2016

    2016

  45. [54]

    The cosmology of a non-minimally coupled f (r, t) gravitation

    De˘ ger Sofuo˘ glu, Rishi Kumar Tiwari, Amare Abebe, Alnadhief HA Alfedeel, and Eltegani I Hassan. The cosmology of a non-minimally coupled f (r, t) gravitation. Physics, 4(4):1348– 1358, 2022

    2022

  46. [55]

    On f (r) gravity in scalar–tensor theories

    Joseph Ntahompagaze, Amare Abebe, and Manasse Mbonye. On f (r) gravity in scalar–tensor theories. International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 14(07):1750107, 2017

    2017

  47. [56]

    A detailed analysis of structure growth in f (r) theories of gravity

    KishoreN Ananda, Sante Carloni, and Peter KS Dunsby. A detailed analysis of structure growth in f (r) theories of gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 26(arXiv: 0809.3673), 2009

    2009 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Covariant approach for perturbations of rotationally symmetric space- times

    Chris Clarkson. Covariant approach for perturbations of rotationally symmetric space- times. Physical Review D, 76(10):104034, 2007

    2007

  49. [58]

    A study of perturbations in scalar–tensor theory using 1+ 3 covariant approach

    Joseph Ntahompagaze, Amare Abebe, and Manasse Mbonye. A study of perturbations in scalar–tensor theory using 1+ 3 covariant approach. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27(03):1850033, 2018

    2018

  50. [59]

    On mul- tifluid perturbations in scalar–tensor cosmology

    Joseph Ntahompagaze, Shambel Sahlu, Amare Abebe, and Manasse R Mbonye. On mul- tifluid perturbations in scalar–tensor cosmology. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 29(16):2050120, 2020

    2020

  51. [60]

    Evolution of density perturbations in f (r) gravity

    S Carloni, PKS Dunsby, and Antonio Troisi. Evolution of density perturbations in f (r) gravity. Physical Review D, 77(2):024024, 2008. 26

    2008

  52. [61]

    Breaking the cosmological background degeneracy by two-fluid perturba- tions in f (r) gravity

    Amare Abebe. Breaking the cosmological background degeneracy by two-fluid perturba- tions in f (r) gravity. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 24(07):1550053, 2015

    2015

  53. [62]

    1+ 3 covariant per- turbations in power-law f (r) gravity

    Beatrice Murorunkwere, Joseph Ntahompagaze, and Edward Jurua. 1+ 3 covariant per- turbations in power-law f (r) gravity. The European Physical Journal C, 81(4):353, 2021

    2021

  54. [63]

    Confronting the chaplygin gas with data: background and perturbed cosmic dy- namics

    Renier Hough, Shambel Sahlu, Heba Sami, Maye Elmardi, Anna-Mia Swart, and Amare Abebe. Confronting the chaplygin gas with data: background and perturbed cosmic dy- namics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11695, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Covariant density and velocity perturbations of the quasi-newtonian cosmological model in f (t) gravity

    Heba Sami, Shambel Sahlu, Amare Abebe, and Peter KS Dunsby. Covariant density and velocity perturbations of the quasi-newtonian cosmological model in f (t) gravity. The European Physical Journal C, 81:1–17, 2021. 27

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.