Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Dark Energy and Cosmic Evolution: A Study in f (R, T) Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that an emergent Hubble law in f(R,T) gravity, fitted to Pantheon, BAO and H(z) data, reproduces late-time acceleration and drives the equation of state toward -1.

desk verdict Routine f(R,T) parameterized cosmology undone by an equation of state that contradicts the paper's own density and pressure expressions, and a data statement that denies the datasets the paper claims to fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08362 v1 pith:GIHSC2VM submitted 2025-01-14 gr-qc

N. Myrzakulov , S. H. Shekh , Anirudh Pradhan , Archana Dixit This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords f(RT)gravityemergentuniverseHubbleparameterparameterizationdarkenergyMarkovchainMonteCarloPantheonsupernovaebaryonacousticoscillationsconditions
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
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 tries to establish that a specific emergent Hubble parameter, H(z)=H0 βη[1+γ(1+z)^2], within f(R,T)=R+2λT gravity, can account for the observed late-time acceleration of the universe. Using Pantheon SNIa, BAO, and 36 H(z) measurements through a Markov chain Monte Carlo fit, the authors obtain best-fit parameters and then compute the equation of state, squared sound speed, energy conditions, and the (ω-ω') plane. They find that the equation of state evolves from matter-like values at high redshift toward -1, that the strong energy condition is violated while the null and dominant conditions hold, and that the model is stable and sits in the thawing region. If these results hold, the model offers a dynamical-dark-energy alternative to ΛCDM within modified gravity, with an emergent scale factor that avoids an initial singularity.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the emergent Hubble parameter H(z)=H0 βη[1+γ(1+z)^2], an assumed kinematic ansatz inherited from an emergent-universe scale factor of the form a(t)=A(B+$e^{{αt}}$)^β. Substituting it into the modified Friedmann equations of f(R,T)=R+2λT yields closed-form expressions for ρ, p, the equation of state ω, its derivative ω', the squared sound speed, and the energy-condition combinations; a combined χ² with Pantheon, BAO, and H(z) data then fixes β, η, γ through an MCMC fit. The same machinery generates the statefinder and cosmographic curves plotted in the paper.

What would settle it

Using cosmic-chronometer and BAO measurements in the redshift range 0<z<2.5 not included in the fit, reconstruct H(z) without assuming a model; if the reconstruction deviates from H0 βη[1+γ(1+z)^2] at the best-fit β, η, γ by more than the joint confidence interval, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the f(R,T) model with f(R,T)=R+2λT admits a flat FLRW cosmology whose expansion follows the emergent form H(z)=H0 βη[1+γ(1+z)^2], and that this form is observationally viable. Combining Pantheon, BAO, and H(z) data, the MCMC analysis fixes the free constants of the ansatz, and the resulting solutions show the universe transitioning from a matter-dominated decelerating phase to a dark-energy-dominated accelerating phase, with the equation of state approaching -1 and the trajectory in the (ω-ω') plane converging to (-1,0). The paper takes this as evidence that f(R,T) gravity with a non-minimal matter-geometry coupling and an emergent scale factor is a viable explanation of late-time acceleration.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis rests on the assumed emergent Hubble law H(z)=H0 βη[1+γ(1+z)^2]; the f(R,T) field equations are only used afterwards to convert that kinematic choice into density, pressure, and diagnostics, so if the ansatz is wrong the conclusions do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the best-fit parameters, the equation of state stays near zero at high redshift, moves toward -1 near the present, and settles at -1 in the far future, marking the matter-to-dark-energy transition.
  • The strong energy condition is violated at late times while the null and dominant energy conditions remain satisfied, the standard signature of accelerated expansion.
  • The squared sound speed remains positive across the plotted redshifts, so the cosmic fluid is stable in this model.
  • The (ω-ω') trajectory lies in the thawing region and ends at (-1,0), so the model mimics ΛCDM in the asymptotic future but allows dynamical deviations during the transition.
  • The emergent scale factor avoids an initial singularity while still producing a universe that accelerates late, matching the datasets used.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because H(z) is assumed rather than derived from the action, the fitted curves mostly test the ansatz; the same f(R,T) equations could be combined with any other H(z) ansatz, so the paper's evidence for f(R,T) itself is indirect.
  • The coupling constant λ never enters the fit, only the plotted diagnostics; a natural extension would be to include λ in the MCMC and check whether the data actually prefer a nonzero matter-geometry coupling.
  • A direct test of the emergent hypothesis would be to compare the best-fit H(z) against a model-independent reconstruction from cosmic chronometers at redshifts beyond those used in the fit.
  • The near-unity values of the squared sound speed come from the algebraic structure of the model; checking whether the model satisfies the full perturbation equations would be a stronger stability test.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies late-time cosmic acceleration in f(R,T) gravity with f(R,T)=R+2λT on a flat FLRW background. It adopts an 'emergent' Hubble parameter H(z)=H0 βη [1+γ(1+z)^2], claims to constrain the model parameters by MCMC using Pantheon SNIa, BAO, and 36 H(z) points, and then computes the energy density, pressure, equation-of-state parameter, sound speed, energy conditions, and the (ω−ω′) plane. The central conclusions are that the equation of state approaches −1 at late times, the strong energy condition is violated during acceleration, and the model exhibits thawing dark-energy dynamics, making it a viable alternative to ΛCDM.

Significance. If the analysis were correct and auditable, the paper would provide an observationally constrained f(R,T) alternative to ΛCDM with falsifiable statements about the EoS and its evolution. Those claims are potentially of interest to the modified-gravity and dark-energy communities. However, the current manuscript does not deliver that: the central EoS expression is algebraically inconsistent with the density and pressure from which it is supposedly derived, the statistical analysis is not reproducible (no best-fit values, priors, or convergence diagnostics, and a data-availability statement denying that any data were used), and the key diagnostics are algebraic consequences of an assumed H(z) rather than independent tests. These issues bear directly on every headline conclusion, so the paper's significance as written is substantially reduced.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.3, Eqs. (21)-(23)] Equations (21) and (22), with y=1+z and A=βηH0(6λ+3)(1+γy^2)^2, give p/ρ = −[A+4γ(3λ+1)y]/[A−4γλy]. Equation (23) is algebraically equivalent to −4γ(4λ+1)y/[A−4γλy]. These two expressions agree only if A=4γλy for all y, which cannot hold as a function of y. Therefore the EoS plotted in Fig. 5, the (ω−ω′) plane in Fig. 7, and the claimed thawing dark-energy dynamics are not supported by the paper's own equations.
  2. [III and Data Availability statement] The abstract and Section III state that the model is constrained with Pantheon SNIa, BAO, and 36 H(z) measurements and that MCMC provides best-fit parameters, yet the manuscript reports no best-fit values, uncertainties, priors, likelihood functions, or convergence diagnostics, and Fig. 3 is an unlabeled contour plot. The closing Data Availability statement says 'The research presented in the paper did not use any data,' which directly contradicts the described analysis. The central claim that the model is observationally constrained is therefore not auditable.
  3. [II.A, Eq. (19)] The Hubble function in Eq. (19) is an ad hoc kinematic ansatz rather than a solution derived from the f(R,T) field equations; γ is defined via γ=−(AB^2)^{1/β} with A and B left unspecified, and the coupling λ is never fitted or bounded. The field equations are used only to convert this ansatz into ρ and p, so the subsequent energy-condition, sound-speed, and (ω−ω′) statements are algebraic consequences of the assumed H(z), not independent tests of f(R,T) gravity.
  4. [IV.4, Eq. (24)] Equation (24) for ϑ_s^2 contains terms with different physical dimensions unless the arbitrary constants carry specially tuned units, and no derivation from δp=ϑ_s^2 δρ is given. Since the stability claim rests on this expression and on the unconstrained parameter λ, the stability analysis cannot be evaluated as stated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract promises an analysis of 'statefinders,' but no statefinder parameters are defined or computed anywhere in Section IV; the section covers EoS, sound speed, the (ω−ω′) plane, and energy conditions only.
  2. [IV.5] The text says that as the universe evolves toward the present epoch, 'ω approaches > 0,' but the surrounding discussion and Fig. 5 require ω to approach −1; this appears to be a typographical inversion.
  3. [II.A, Eq. (20)] The differential relation preceding Eq. (20) drops the η factor that appears in H(z)=H0 βη[1+γ(1+z)^2], and the integration constant in t(z) is not explicitly matched to the constants A and B in the scale factor, so the relation between t(z) and the emergent scale factor should be checked.
  4. [Throughout] Notation is inconsistent: the equation-of-state parameter is written as both ω and w, the same symbol ϑ_s^2 is used interchangeably with v_s^2, and Figure captions refer to 'H0 data' without stating the source or redshift range of the 36 points.
  5. [References] The manuscript should state explicitly what is new compared with Ref. [55], which already applies MCMC to a similar f(R,T)=R+f(T) model with Pantheon, BAO, and additional datasets; as written, the novelty relative to that work is not clear.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The diagnostics reduce to the fitted emergent-H(z) ansatz, and that ansatz is imported from a same-author paper, so the f(R,T) validation is largely circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.A, Eq. (19); Sec. IV, Eqs. (21)-(25)]
    "We begins with the Hubble parameter of the form redshift as H(z) =H0βη [1 + γ (1 + z)^2], (19) ... The best-fit parameters are derived by solving the modified Friedmann equations through a MCMC analysis. These parameters are used to compute the equation of state, statefinders, energy conditions, and the (ω − ω′) plane."

    The MCMC likelihoods (Eqs. 14-18) contain only H(z), SNIa and BAO comparisons; they fit β, η, γ in Eq. (19). The field equations are not part of the likelihood. Equations (21)-(25) then substitute this same fitted H(z) into the algebraic dictionary (12)-(13) to produce ρ, p, ω=p/ρ, ϑ_s^2, ω′, and energy-condition combinations. Thus every diagnostic is a function of the fitted curve; checking ω→−1, SEC violation and 'thawing' is checking properties of the assumed H(z), not an independent test of f(R,T). The f(R,T) coupling λ is left unconstrained, so it cannot validate the modified-gravity action. The claimed validation reduces to the fit by construction.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. III.A, paragraph after Eq. (19); Ref. [58]]
    "The expression in equation (19) represents the emergent scale factor of the universe [58]. Originally introduced as a model for a closed system, it describes the transition from an asymptotically static Einsteinian state to one dominated by accelerated expansion."

    Ref. [58] is Shekh, Bouali, Pradhan and Beesham (JHEAp 39, 53 (2023)), a paper with overlapping authors. The H(z) ansatz is imported from that work; no derivation from the f(R,T) action is given, and no alternative forms are tested. The cited prior work itself adopts the same emergent-H(z) ansatz in a different gravity theory, so the citation is not an external theorem or machine-checked result. The central functional form of the model is therefore load-bearing on a self-citation whose content is the same assumption. This is ansatz-by-citation rather than first-principles derivation.

full rationale

Score is 6 rather than higher because the paper does perform external fits to Pantheon, BAO and H(z) data, so the kinematic H(z) curve is falsifiable. But the 'f(R,T) validation' is largely circular: the fitted H(z) is the only dynamical input, and the diagnostics are algebraic consequences of it. The λ coupling is never constrained, so the modified-gravity part is inert. A separate algebraic inconsistency compounds this: the printed EoS Eq. (23) is not equal to p/ρ from Eqs. (21)-(22), so the thawing plot is not even the defined quantity; this is a correctness problem rather than circularity, but it further weakens the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on that the reader did not pay for upstream: a kinematic H(z) ansatz chosen by hand, a linear f(R,T) form with an unconstrained coupling lambda, and an MCMC procedure with unreported outputs. No new entities are introduced. The parameter count is effectively five (beta, eta, gamma, lambda, H0), none of which is reported with a value or uncertainty.

free parameters (5)
  • beta = not reported
    Proportionality constant in the H(z) ansatz, Eq. (19), fitted by MCMC to Pantheon, BAO, and H(z) data; no best-fit value or prior is given.
  • eta = not reported
    Model constant in Eq. (19), fitted by MCMC; value not reported.
  • gamma = not reported
    Redshift-shape parameter in Eq. (19), defined as gamma = -(A B^2)^(1/beta); fitted by MCMC, value not reported. This parameter controls the deceleration-acceleration transition in the diagnostics.
  • lambda = not reported
    Coupling constant in f(R,T)=R+2 lambda T. It appears in all density, pressure, EoS, and sound-speed expressions but is never constrained, varied, or reported; the plotted behavior can depend strongly on it.
  • h (or H0) = not reported
    Hubble constant appears in chi-square expressions and is degenerate with beta and eta in Eq. (19); best-fit value not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric and perfect fluid energy-momentum tensor with density rho and pressure p
    Assumed in Section II; the entire derivation of modified Friedmann equations (9)-(10) relies on homogeneity, isotropy, and the perfect-fluid form of T_ij.
  • ad hoc to paper The function f(R,T)=R+2 lambda T is chosen as the gravitational Lagrangian
    Stated after Eq. (2); no derivation or observational motivation is given for restricting to this linear form, and lambda remains unconstrained.
  • ad hoc to paper The emergent Hubble parameter H(z)=H0 beta eta [1+gamma(1+z)^2] is assumed, not derived
    Equation (19) is introduced as a starting point; this kinematic ansatz, not the field equations, determines the expansion history and all subsequent diagnostics.
  • domain assumption MCMC sampling with the stated chi-square likelihoods yields posterior distributions
    Section III assumes a standard MCMC procedure with chi-square likelihoods (14)-(18), but no sampler details, priors, burn-in, or convergence checks are provided, and the resulting parameter values are not reported.
  • standard math Field equations (7) derived from the f(R,T) action with f_R=1 and f_T=lambda
    The derivation follows the standard f(R,T) formalism of ref [17]; the paper relies on this unproved background calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Energy and Cosmic Evolution: A Study in f (R, T) Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GIHSC2VM

@misc{pith2026250108362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Energy and Cosmic Evolution: A Study in f (R, T) Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GIHSC2VM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08362}
}
read the original abstract

In the context of f(R, T) gravity theory for the flat Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker (FLRW) model, the accelerating expansion of the universe is investigated using a specific form of the emergent Hubble parameter. Datasets from H(z), Type Ia supernovae (SNIa), and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) are used to constrain the model and identify the ideal parameter values in order to evaluate the statistical significance of f(R, T) gravity. The best-fit parameters are derived by solving the modified Friedmann equations through a MCMC analysis. These parameters are used to compute the equation of state, statefinders, energy conditions, and the (w-w) plane. Furthermore, the evolution of kinematic cosmographic parameters is examined. The findings provide significant behavior and features of dark energy models. Our comprehension of the dynamics and evolution of the universe is improved by this study, which also advances our understanding of dark energy and how it shapes the universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08362 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The behavior of the distance modulus with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The behavior of the Hubble parameter with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. How the variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: illustrates how ω varies with redshift z, covering the universe’s transition from its early stages (z > 0) to the far future (z < 0). In the early universe, for z > 2, the EoS parameter remains close to zero, signifying a matter-dominated phase where the pressure p is …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The energy density The expression of energy density for the emergent hubble parameter is obtained as ρ = βηH0 βηH0(6λ + 3) γ(z + 1)2 + 1 2 − 4γλ(z + 1) 8λ2 + 6λ + 1 (21)

    work page

  2. [2]

    4 (green curve), remains positive throughout the Universe’s evolution and increases with rising redshift z

    The isotropic pressure The expression of isotropic pressure for the emergent hubble parameter is obtained as p = − βηH0 βηH0(6λ + 3) γ(z + 1)2 + 1 2 + 4γ(3λ + 1)(z + 1) 8λ2 + 6λ + 1 (22) The density parameter, as shown in Fig. 4 (green curve), remains positive throughout the Universe’s evolution and increases with rising redshift z. At high redshifts, it ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The plot in Fig

    The equation of state parameter The expression of equation of state parameter for the emergent hubble parameter is obtained as ω = 4γ(4λ + 1)(z + 1) 4γλ(z + 1) − 3βηH0(2λ + 1) (γ(z + 1)2 + 1)2 (23) The evolution of the equation of state (EoS) parame- ter ω = p ρ , as depicted in the figure, plays a crucial role in understanding the properties of the cosmi...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The attached Fig

    The stability of the model The expression of stability parameter for the emergent hubble parameter is obtained as ϑ2 s = − βηH0(6λ + 3)(z + 1) γ(z + 1)2 + 1 + 3λ + 1 βηH0(6λ + 3)(z + 1) (γ(z + 1)2 + 1) − λ (24) The squared velocity of sound ( v2 s) serves as a crucial stability parameter in cosmology, indicating whether perturbations in the cosmic fluid e...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The attached Fig

    The (ω − ω′) plane The expression of ω′ for the emergent hubble param- eter is obtained as ω′ = 12βγη H0 8λ2 + 6λ + 1 (−z − 1) γ(z + 1)2 3γ(z + 1)2 + 2 − 1 βηH0(6λ + 3) (γ(z + 1)2 + 1)2 − 4γλ(z + 1) 2 (25) The (ω − ω′) plane serves as a diagnostic tool to un- derstand the dynamics of dark energy by examining the relationship between the equation of state ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The at- tached Fig

    The energy conditions In cosmology, energy conditions are significant, serv- ing as guidelines to understand the physical behavior of energy and pressure in gravitational theories. The at- tached Fig. 8 illustrates the behavior of the null energy condition (NEC), dominant energy condition (DEC), and strong energy condition (SEC) as functions of red- shift...

    work page

  7. [7]

    From the graph ( pink curve), the NEC is satisfied throughout the evolution of the universe, as ρ + p re- mains positive across all values of z

    Null Energy Condition (NEC) The NEC is expressed as: ρ + p ≥ 0, (26) where ρ is the energy density and p is the pres- sure. From the graph ( pink curve), the NEC is satisfied throughout the evolution of the universe, as ρ + p re- mains positive across all values of z. At higher red- shifts ( z > 0), the NEC shows a significant positive value, reflecting t...

    work page

  8. [8]

    (27) This condition ensures that the energy density domi- nates over the pressure, maintaining the causal struc- ture of spacetime

    Dominant Energy Condition (DEC) The DEC is given by: ρ ≥ |p|. (27) This condition ensures that the energy density domi- nates over the pressure, maintaining the causal struc- ture of spacetime. The graph shows that ρ − p remains positive for all values of z (green curve), confirming that the DEC is satisfied throughout the universe’s evolu- tion. At high ...

    work page

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    (28) The graph ( red curve ) reveals that the SEC is violated during the late-time accelerated expansion ( z ≤ 0), where ρ + 3p < 0

    Strong Energy Condition (SEC) The SEC is expressed as: ρ + 3p ≥ 0. (28) The graph ( red curve ) reveals that the SEC is violated during the late-time accelerated expansion ( z ≤ 0), where ρ + 3p < 0. This violation is consistent with the presence of dark energy, which induces ...

  2. [10]

    Measurements of the Cosmological Pa- rameters W and L from the First Seven Supernovae at z ≥ 0.35, Astrophys

    S.Perlmutter, et al. Measurements of the Cosmological Pa- rameters W and L from the First Seven Supernovae at z ≥ 0.35, Astrophys. J. 483 565 (1997)

    1997

  3. [11]

    J 98 659 (2007)

    A.G.Riess, et al.,New Hubble space telescope discoveries of type Ia supernovae at z ≥ 1 Narrowing constraints on the early behavior of dark energy, Astrophys. J 98 659 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    First-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters, Astrophys

    D.N.Spergel, et al. First-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 148 , 175 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Hawkins et al

    E. Hawkins et al. The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: Cor- relation functions, peculiar velocities and the matter den- sity of the Universe, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 346, 78–96 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies, Astrophys

    D.J.Eisenstein et al. Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies, Astrophys. J. 633 560 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Sahni, V

    V . Sahni, V . Dark matter and dark energy. arXiv 2004, arXiv:astro-ph/0403324

    2004 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Padmanabhan, Dark energy and gravity

    T. Padmanabhan, Dark energy and gravity. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 2008, 40, 529–564. [CrossRef]

    2008

  9. [17]

    Caldwell, A phantom menace? Cosmological conse- quences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state, Phys

    R.R. Caldwell, A phantom menace? Cosmological conse- quences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state, Phys. Lett. B 545 23–29 (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Buchdahl, Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmolog- ical theory

    H.A. Buchdahl, Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmolog- ical theory. Month. Not. Royal Astronom. Soc. 150(1) (1970) 1-8

    1970

  11. [19]

    Starobinsky, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity

    A.A. Starobinsky, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity. Phys. Lett. B, 91(1) (1980) 99- 102

    1980

  12. [20]

    Mudassir, G.U

    S. Mudassir, G.U. Khapekar, S.H. Shekh, A. Dixit, LRS Bianchi type-I with Hubble’s horizon as IR cut-off inf (R) gravity, New Astronomy 113 (2024) 102274

    2024

  13. [21]

    Ferraro, F

    R. Ferraro, F. Fiorini, Modified teleparallel gravity: in- flation without an inflation. Phys. Rev. D 75(8), (2007) 084031. 11

    2007

  14. [22]

    S. H. Shekh, K. S. Wankhade, S. N. Khan, and A. Dixit, Late times ΛCDM f (T) gravity model with parameter- ized q(z), Modern Physics Letters A, 39 (23n24), 2450094 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    S. H. Shekh et al., Observational constraints on transit re- constructed Tsallis f (T) gravity, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 20 (12), 2350207 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S.I. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Modified Gauss-Bonnet theory as gravitational alternative for dark energy. Phys. Lett. B 631(1-2),(2005) 1-6

    2005

  17. [25]

    S. H. Shekh et al., Quintessential f (G) gravity with sta- tistically fitting of H(z), Modern Physics Letters A, 39 (21n22), 2450099 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Harko, F.S

    T. Harko, F.S. Lobo, S.I. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, f (R, T) grav- ity. Phys. Rev. D 84(2), (2011) 024020

    2011

  19. [27]

    V . R. Chirde, S.H. Shekh, Dark energy cosmological model in a modified theory of gravity Astrophysics 58 (1), 106-119 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Bamba, S.D

    K. Bamba, S.D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, S. Zerbini, Finite- time future singularities in modified Gauss-Bonnet and f (R, G)gravity and singularity avoidance. Europ. Phys. Jour. C, 67, (2010) 295-310

    2010

  21. [29]

    De la Cruz-Dombriz, D

    A. De la Cruz-Dombriz, D. Saez-Gomez, On the stabil- ity of the cosmological solutions in f (R, G) gravity. Class. Quant. Grav.29(24), (2012) 245014

    2012

  22. [30]

    Ghaderi, S H Shekh, K Karimizadeh and A Pradhan, Holographic dark energy inflation model in modified f (R, G) gravitational framework, Indian J Phys (2024) 98(6):2205–2216

    K. Ghaderi, S H Shekh, K Karimizadeh and A Pradhan, Holographic dark energy inflation model in modified f (R, G) gravitational framework, Indian J Phys (2024) 98(6):2205–2216

    2024

  23. [31]

    Shekh, Dynamical analysis with thermodynamic as- pects of anisotropic dark energy bounce cosmological model in f (R, G) gravity, New Astronomy, 83, 101464 (2021)

    S.H. Shekh, Dynamical analysis with thermodynamic as- pects of anisotropic dark energy bounce cosmological model in f (R, G) gravity, New Astronomy, 83, 101464 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Jimenez, L

    J.B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, T. Koivisto, Coincident gen- eral relativity. Phys. Rev. D 98(4), (2018) 044048

    2018

  25. [33]

    Shekh, Models of holographic dark energy in f (Q) gravity Physics of the Dark Universe, 33, 100850 (2021)

    S.H. Shekh, Models of holographic dark energy in f (Q) gravity Physics of the Dark Universe, 33, 100850 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    S. A. Narawade1, S. H. Shekh et al., Modelling the accel- erating universe with f (Q) gravity: observational consis- tency, Eur. Phys. J. C (2024) 84:773

    2024

  27. [35]

    Koussour, S

    M. Koussour, S. H. Shekh et al., Anisotropic f (Q) gravity model with bulk viscosity, Modern Physics Letters A 39 (08) (2024) 2450023

    2024

  28. [36]

    S. H. Shekh et al., Reconstruction of symmteric telepar- allel gravity with energy conditions, Int. J. of Geomet. Methods in Modern Phy. Vol. 21, No. 12, 2450204 (2024),

    2024

  29. [37]

    Koussour, S.H

    M. Koussour, S.H. Shekh, M. Bennai, Anisotropic nature of space–time in f (Q) Gravity, Phy. of the Dark Universe, 36, 101051 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    S. H. Shekh et al., Observational constraints in accelerated emergent f (Q) gravity model, Class. Quantum Grav. 40, 055011 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Y. Xu, G. Li, T. Harko, S.D. Liang, f (Q, T) gravity. Europ. Phys. Jour. C 79, (2019) 1-19

    2019

  32. [40]

    A. P . Kale, Y. S. Solanke, S. H. Shekh and A. Prad- han, Transit f (Q, T) Gravity Model: Observational Con- straints with Specific Hubble Parameter, Symmetry 2023, 15, 1835

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zerbini, S

    L.Sebastiani, S. Zerbini, S. Static spherically symmetric solutions in F(R) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 1591 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    S.Chakraborty, & S.SenGupta, Spherically symmetric brane spacetime with bulk f (R) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 11 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    505 59 (2011)

    S.Nojiri, S.D.Odintsov, Unified cosmic history in modi- fied gravity: From F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models, Phys.Rep. 505 59 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Moraes, Cosmology from induced matter model applied to 5D f (R, T) theory, Astroph

    P .H.R.S. Moraes, Cosmology from induced matter model applied to 5D f (R, T) theory, Astroph. Space Sci. 352 273–279 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    P .H.R.S Moraes, Cosmological solutions from induced matter model applied to 5D gravity and the shrinking of the extra coordinate, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 168 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Beesham, FLRW Transit Cosmo- logical Model in f (R, T) Gravity, Universe 10 272 (2024)

    V .Singh, S.Jokweni & A. Beesham, FLRW Transit Cosmo- logical Model in f (R, T) Gravity, Universe 10 272 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Space Sci

    P .H.R.S Moraes, G.Ribeiro, R.A.C Correa, A transition from a decelerated to an accelerated phase of the universe expansion from the simplest non-trivial polynomial func- tion of T in the f (R, T) formalism, Astroph. Space Sci. 361 227 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    F. G. Alvarenga, M. J. S. Houndjo, A. V . Monwanou, J. B. C. Orou, Jour. Mod. Phys. 4 (2013), 130

    2013

  41. [49]

    Zaregonbadi, M

    R. Zaregonbadi, M. Farhoudi, and N. Riazi, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016), 084052

    2016

  42. [50]

    Velten and T

    H. Velten and T. R. P . Carames, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), 123536

    2017

  43. [51]

    G. A. Carvalho et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), 871

    2017

  44. [52]

    J. Wu, G. Li, T. Harko and S-D Liang , Euro. Phys. J. C 78 (2018), 430

    2018

  45. [53]

    D. Deb, F. Rahaman, S. Ray and B.K. Guha1, J. Cosm. As- tropart. Phys. 03 (2018), 044

    2018

  46. [54]

    Sharif and M

    M. Sharif and M. Zubair, J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys. 1205 (2013), 028

    2013

  47. [55]

    Yousaf, Kazuharu Bamba, and M

    Z. Yousaf, Kazuharu Bamba, and M. Zaeem-ul-Haq Bhatti, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), 124048

    2016

  48. [56]

    A. Das, F. Rahaman, B. K. Guha and S. Ray, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016), 654

    2016

  49. [57]

    S. H. Shekh et al., f (T, B) gravity with statistically fitting of H(z), Commun. Theor. Phys. 75 (2023) 095401 (12pp),

    2023

  50. [58]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rep. 509 (2011), 167

    2011

  51. [59]

    Faraoni and S

    V . Faraoni and S. Capozziello, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 170 (2010), 428

    2010

  52. [60]

    Bamba and S

    K. Bamba and S. D. Odintsov, Symmetry 7 (2015), 220

    2015

  53. [61]

    Bamba, A

    R.Nagpal, S.K.J.Pacif, J.K Singh, K. Bamba, A. Beesham, Analysis with observational constraints in L L-cosmology in f (R, T) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 946 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    P .S.Debnath, B.C.Paul, Observational constraints of emer- gent universe in f (R, T) gravity with bulk viscosity,Int. J. Geom. Meth.Mod. Phys. 17 2050102 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Rudra, K

    P . Rudra, K. Giri, Observational constraint in f (R, T) gravity from the cosmic chronometers and some stan- dard distance measurement parameters,Nucl. Phys. B 967 115428 (2021). 12

    2021

  56. [64]

    Rani, &A

    A.Pradhan, G.Goswami, R. Rani, &A. Beesham, An f (R, T) gravity based FLRW model and observational constraints, Astronomy and Computing, 44, 100737 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Paul, N.K

    S.Mukherjee, B.C. Paul, N.K. Dadhich, S.D. Maharaj & A.Beesham, Emergent universe with exotic matter, Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity 23, 6927 (2006)

    2006

  58. [66]

    Maartens, The emergent universe: Inflation- ary cosmology with no singularity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 223 (2003)

    G.F.Ellis &R. Maartens, The emergent universe: Inflation- ary cosmology with no singularity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 223 (2003)

    2003

  59. [67]

    Shekh, A

    S.H. Shekh, A. Bouali, A. Pradhan A. Beesham, New emergent observational constraints in f (Q, T) gravity model, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 39 53 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.