Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 108 references

Cosmological implications and causality in $f(R, L_{m}, T)$ gravity theory with observational constraints

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a simple modified-gravity Lagrangian f(R,Lm,T)=R+μTLm−ν, applied to four perfect-fluid sources, yields Hubble models that fit CC+Pantheon+SH0ES data and all show late-time accelerating expansion, with dust and…

desk verdict The four-fluid survey is a legitimate extension, but the central derivation is internally inconsistent: the imposed standard conservation contradicts the theory's own continuity equation unless µ=0, so Models I–III are not solutions of f(R,Lm,T). read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09247 v2 pith:I2F4TJHU submitted 2025-01-16 gr-qc

Dinesh Chandra Maurya , Javlon Rayimbaev , Inomjon Ibragimov , Sokhibjan Muminov This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 98.80-k98.80.Jk04.50.Kd
keywords generalizedmatter-geometrycouplinggravitycausalityacceleratinguniverseequationofstateobservationalconstraintsf(RL_mT)decelerationparametersquaresoundspeed
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 argues that a simple modification of Einstein gravity, with Lagrangian $f(R,L_m,T)=R+\mu T L_m-\nu$, can produce viable dark-energy-like cosmologies for four different perfect-fluid sources: stiff, radiation, dust, and curvature. For each source the authors impose standard energy conservation, derive a closed-form Hubble function, and fit the free parameters to a joint sample of 31 cosmic-chronometer Hubble measurements and 1701 Pantheon+SH0ES supernovae. All four fitted models show a late-time transition from deceleration to acceleration, with current deceleration parameter in $-0.8857\le q_0\le -0.4279$ and effective equation-of-state parameter in $-0.9238\le \omega_{\rm eff}\le -0.6186$. Three of the four models satisfy the square-sound-speed stability condition, and statistical information criteria place the dust and curvature models close to $\Lambda$CDM. The paper concludes that this generalized matter-geometry coupling is a viable alternative explanation of cosmic acceleration.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a specific Lagrangian $f(R,L_m,T)=R+\mu TL_m-\nu$ with matter Lagrangian $L_m=-\rho$, chosen so the field equations take the almost-Einstein form with $f_R=1$, $f_T=\mu L_m$, and $f_{L_m}=\mu T$. The argument then assumes the standard fluid conservation equations $\dot\rho+3H(1+\omega_i)\rho=0$, giving $\rho_i(z)=\rho_{i0}(1+z)^{3(1+\omega_i)}$ for each source; substituting these into the Friedmann-like equations produces the Hubble functions. From these Hubble functions the paper constructs the effective equation-of-state parameter $\omega_{\rm eff}$, the deceleration parameter $q(z)$, and the square sound speed $c_s^2=dp_{\rm eff}/d\rho_{\rm eff}$, using $0\le c_s^2\le 1$ as the stability condition. The parameter fitting uses the joint $\chi^2=\chi^2_{CC}+\chi^2_{\rm Pantheon+SH0ES}$ and a Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampler.

What would settle it

Take the best-fit parameters from Tables 1 and 2 and substitute each fluid's density and the corresponding Hubble function into the theory's continuity equation (equation 23); with nonzero fitted $\mu$, the equation will fail for Models I, II, and III. Equivalently, fit the $\mu=0$ versions of all four models and compare the resulting $\chi^2$ values to see whether the claimed matter-geometry coupling term improves the fit at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the field equations of $f(R,L_m,T)$ gravity with $f=R+\mu TL_m-\nu$, together with the standard conservation equation $\dot\rho+3H(1+\omega_i)\rho=0$ for $\omega_i=1,\frac13,0,-\frac13$, yield four exact Hubble functions: $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_s(1+z)^6+\Omega_\mu(1+z)^{12}+\Omega_\nu}$ for stiff fluid, $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_r(1+z)^4+\Omega_\nu}$ for radiation, $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_\mu(1+z)^6+\Omega_\nu}$ for dust, and $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_c(1+z)^2-\Omega_\mu(1+z)^4+\Omega_\nu}$ for curvature fluid. Fitting these to CC+Pantheon+SH0ES data, the paper obtains best-fit $H_0$ between 71.87 and 73.54 km/s/Mpc and finds that all models are transit-phase accelerating in the late universe; Models I and II also exhibit an early accelerating phase. The dust and curvature models are statistically close to $\Lambda$CDM ($\Delta$AIC $\lesssim 2$), while the stiff and radiation models show mild tension. The paper interprets the nonzero $\Omega_\mu$ and $\Omega_\nu$ as evidence that the modified terms play a significant role in the expansion history.

Load-bearing premise

The models assume that each fluid obeys the ordinary energy-conservation equation, even though this gravity theory has its own, different continuity equation; without that assumption the derived Hubble functions do not follow from the field equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the models are solutions of the field equations, then a single matter-geometry coupling term $\mu TL_m$ plus a constant $\nu$ can replace a cosmological constant to drive late-time acceleration.
  • Models III (dust) and IV (curvature) are statistically close to $\Lambda$CDM at the AIC level, so minimal $f(R,L_m,T)$ gravity should be considered alongside $\Lambda$CDM in fits to expansion data.
  • Models I (stiff) and II (radiation) predict an early accelerating phase with transition redshifts $z_t=8.56$ and $31.62$, which could be checked by high-redshift probes.
  • The sound-speed analysis singles out the curvature-fluid model as unstable at late times, while stiff, radiation, and dust fluids are stable, suggesting that only barotropic sources with $\omega\ge0$ yield viable cosmologies in this theory.
  • The nonzero best-fit $\Omega_\mu$ and $\Omega_\nu$ indicate that the modified terms are not negligible; the fitted $\nu$ values of order $10^{-35}\,\mathrm{s}^{-2}$ act as an effective cosmological-constant scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • For the stiff, radiation, and dust fluids, substituting the assumed densities and Hubble functions into the theory's own continuity equation (equation 23) leaves a nonzero right-hand side when $\mu\neq0$ (for radiation it is $\mu\rho\dot\rho/(8\pi-\mu\rho)$), so those three Hubble functions are not forced by the field equations unless $\mu=0$; the curvature-fluid model happens to satisfy equation
  • The statistical closeness of Models III and IV to $\Lambda$CDM likely reflects that, when $\mu$ is small, their Hubble functions reduce to $\Lambda$CDM-like forms; a decisive test would be to fit the $\mu=0$ versions and check whether nonzero $\mu$ improves $\chi^2$ at all.
  • The early accelerating phases in Models I and II occur at redshifts 8.56 and 31.6, which would be in tension with standard structure formation; cosmic-microwave-background and growth data could exclude those models even if the Hubble and supernova fit is good.
  • A full perturbation analysis, rather than the simple square-sound-speed condition, is needed to certify stability of the dust and curvature models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The central claim is that the field equations of $f(R,L_m,T)$ gravity with $f=R+\mu TL_m-\nu$, together with the standard conservation equation $\dot\rho+3H(1+\omega_i)\rho=0$ for $\omega_i=1,\frac13,0,-\frac13$, yield four exact Hubble functions: $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_s(1+z)^6+\Omega_\mu(1+z)^{12}+\Omega_\nu}$ for stiff fluid, $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_r(1+z)^4+\Omega_\nu}$ for radiation, $H(z)=H_0\s

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs four cosmological models in f(R,L_m,T) gravity with f=R+µTL_m−ν, filled with stiff, radiation, dust, and curvature perfect fluids. For each fluid it derives a Hubble function, fits the free parameters to 31 CC and 1701 Pantheon+SH0ES data points using MCMC, and derives effective equation-of-state, deceleration, transition redshift, sound speed, and information criteria. The central claim is that all models show a late-time transit to acceleration with q0 between −0.8857 and −0.4279 and zt between 0.4867 and 0.839, with Models I–III sound-speed stable.

Significance. If the derivations were valid, the paper would provide an observationally constrained test of a generalized matter-geometry coupling theory, and the authors do follow standard MCMC practice and report AIC/BIC comparisons. However, the central derivation is internally inconsistent: the proposed Hubble functions do not satisfy the field equations of the theory for nonzero µ. Consequently, the MCMC constraints do not actually test f(R,L_m,T) gravity, and the 'agreement' of q0, zt, and ω_eff with previous estimates is an algebraic reflection of the fitting parameters rather than an independent prediction. The paper therefore does not deliver its advertised scientific conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (23)] The derivation of the Hubble functions (27), (33), and (39) contradicts the theory's own continuity equation. Equation (23) is not the standard conservation law; substituting the assumed standard conservation ρ̇+3H(1+ω_i)ρ=0 leaves a nonzero right-hand side for stiff, radiation, and dust fluids (e.g., radiation: µρρ̇/(8π−µρ); dust: µρρ̇/(16π−3µρ)). Only the curvature fluid, ω=−1/3, satisfies Eq. (23) under standard conservation. Thus Models I–III are not solutions of the field equations with D_μ u^μ=0 as stated in Sec. 2, and the later statistical analysis applies to functions that do not follow from the theory.
  2. [Secs. 3.1–3.3, Eqs. (24)–(41)] Even setting the continuity issue aside, the two Friedmann equations (21)–(22) are not simultaneously satisfied by the proposed H(z) and ρ(z) for Models I–III when µ≠0. For Model II, Eq. (30) together with ρ=ρ_r0(1+z)^4 and H from Eq. (33) gives Ḣ=−(16π/3)ρ; inserting this into Eq. (31) leaves the term (4µ/3)ρ², forcing µ=0. For Model III, Eqs. (36)–(39) leave a residual −µρ²/2 in Eq. (37). For Model I, the corresponding residual is −4µρ² in Eq. (25). Hence the claimed Hubble functions are not solutions unless the coupling constant µ vanishes.
  3. [Sec. 4 and Table 1] Because the fitted H(z) functions are not solutions of the f(R,L_m,T) field equations, the MCMC constraints on H0, Ω_i, Ω_μ, µ, and ν do not constrain the theory. Moreover, the derived quantities q0, zt, and ω_eff in Table 4 are algebraic combinations of the same fitted parameters, so their stated consistency with previous estimates (e.g., transition redshifts around 0.6–0.7) is not an independent test. The closure condition Ω_i+Ω_ν=1 is used as a normalization at z=0 rather than a prediction, further weakening the claim of agreement.
  4. [Tables 1 and 3, Eq. (55)] The quoted χ²_min values are negative (for example, −1771.30 for Model I, −1547.71 for ΛCDM), which is impossible for a genuine chi-squared statistic built from Eqs. (49)–(50) if the covariance matrix is positive definite. The authors appear to report −2 ln L without the normalization constant. Since the AIC and BIC values in Table 3 are computed from these numbers, the model comparison needs to be re-presented with a properly normalized likelihood, or at minimum with an explicit statement of the constant offset between χ² and −2 ln L.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Secs. 2–3] The text at the end of Sec. 2 states 'we assume D_μ u^μ = 0', while Sec. 3 says the theory is non-conservative and then imposes standard conservation separately; these statements are contradictory and should be reconciled even in a revised derivation.
  2. [Table 4] For Models I and II the transition redshift zt has two entries (early- and late-time transitions); the table should label these explicitly to avoid implying two different models.
  3. [Sec. 5.2] The assertion that f_Lm ≥ 0 and f_T > 0 'demonstrates the feasibility' of the models is not a recognized viability criterion and should be either justified with a reference or removed.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The paper states the condition as c_s² ≤ c², but then requires 0 ≤ c_s² ≤ 1; the discussion should clarify that negative c_s², as found for Model IV, indicates an imaginary sound speed rather than merely a violation of causality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: q0, zt, and omega_eff are derived from the fitted Hubble solutions and compared with external estimates; the model ansatz and closure are standard, and self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is not circular. The Hubble functions (27), (33), (39), and (46) are obtained by substituting the assumed fluid densities (26), (32), (38), and (45) into the Friedmann equation (21), and the reported q0, zt, omega_eff, and c_s^2 are then computed from those solutions; they are model outputs, not refit parameters. The comparison with the independent estimates cited in [103-108] is a standard cross-check rather than a self-fulfilling prediction. The ansatz f = R + mu T L_m - nu is attributed to Haghani and Harko [79], an external source, and the closure condition Omega_i + Omega_nu = 1 is the same flatness normalization used in LambdaCDM. The paper's self-citations [32-40,58-62,72-76,83,84] are contextual and do not bear the weight of any theorem or fitted value. The reader's take correctly identifies a serious internal-consistency defect: substituting the assumed standard conservation equations into the theory's own continuity equation (23) leaves a nonzero source term for Models I-III unless mu = 0, so those Hubble functions are not solutions of the stated field equations. That is a correctness/consistency problem, not a circularity of the input-output type, and the paper's concluding remark that 'more research is needed' about matter creation in this theory acknowledges the open issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All free parameters are fit to the same CC+Pantheon+SH0ES datasets used to validate the models; µ and ν are theory constants reconstructed from fits, not predicted. The most important axiom is the simultaneous imposition of Dµuµ=0 and standard fluid conservation, which is internally inconsistent with Eq. (23) for µ≠0.

free parameters (10)
  • H0 (per model) = 73.54, 72.24, 72.01, 71.87 km/s/Mpc
    Normalization of each Hubble function; fitted to CC+Pantheon+SH0ES.
  • Ωs (Model I) = 0.0381 ± 0.0025
    Stiff-fluid density parameter fitted to data.
  • Ωr (Model II) = 0.1699 ± 0.0090
    Radiation density parameter fitted to data.
  • Ωm (Model III) = 0.315 ± 0.018
    Dust density parameter fitted to data.
  • Ωμ (Model III) = 0.00120+0.00027-0.0012
    Modified-coupling density parameter fitted to data.
  • Ωc (Model IV) = 0.490 ± 0.077
    Curvature-fluid density parameter fitted to data.
  • Ωμ (Model IV) = -0.041 ± 0.020
    Modified-coupling density parameter fitted to data.
  • Ωμ (Model I) = 0.0000001 (fixed)
    Chosen by hand, not fit; small ad hoc value used to close the model.
  • M (absolute magnitude, per model) = -19.317, -19.307, -19.295, -19.289
    Supernova absolute magnitude marginalized in the fits.
  • µ and ν (per model) = Table 2 values
    Theory constants reconstructed from fitted Ω's and closure; not directly constrained in Models I and II.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat, homogeneous, isotropic FLRW spacetime
    Used throughout Sec. 3 to derive the Hubble equations; not justified by the data.
  • domain assumption Perfect-fluid stress tensor with Lm=-ρ
    Adopted in Sec. 2 after Eq. (13); standard but not unique for fluids.
  • domain assumption Dµuµ=0 assumption
    Stated in Sec. 2, but contradicted by the later use of standard continuity and nonzero µ.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard fluid conservation ρdot+3H(1+ω_i)ρ=0 for each fluid
    Imposed in Sec. 3 to obtain ρ(z); incompatible with Eq. (23) when µ≠0, so the derived H(z) are not solutions.
  • ad hoc to paper Ansatz f(R,Lm,T)=R+µTLm-ν
    Introduced in Eq. (18) without derivation from a deeper principle; it fixes the form of all models.
  • domain assumption CC and Pantheon+SH0ES datasets and covariance are appropriate
    The observational constraints in Sec. 4 rely on these public datasets and their stated uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological implications and causality in $f(R, L_{m}, T)$ gravity theory with observational constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2F4TJHU

@misc{pith2026250109247,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological implications and causality in $f(R, L_m, T)$ gravity theory with observational constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2F4TJHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09247}
}
abstract

In the generalized matter-geometry coupling theory, we investigate the physical characteristics and causality of some new cosmological models for a flat, homogeneous, and isotropic spacetime filled with stiff, radiation, dust, and curvature fluid sources. We obtain a particular cosmological model corresponding to each source fluid, called Models I, II, III, and IV, respectively. We make observational constraints on each model using the joint analysis of $31$ Cosmic Chronometer (CC) Hubble dataset and $1701$ Pantheon+SH0ES datasets to estimate the current values of model parameters. Using these statistical results, we have analyzed the information criteria, effective EoS parameter, causality of the models, and viability of this generalized gravity theory. Subsequently, we investigate the effective equation of state and deceleration parameter for each model. We found that all models in the late-time universe exhibit transit-phase acceleration, and Models I and II show both the early as well as late-time accelerating phase of the expanding universe. We found the current values of the deceleration parameter in the range $-0.8857\le q_{0}\le-0.4279$ with transition redshift $0.4867\le z_{t}\le0.839$ and the effective EoS parameter in the range $-0.9238\le\omega_{eff}\le-0.6186$. We analyzed the square sound speed condition $c_{s}^{2}\le c^{2}$ for each model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09247 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The contour plots of H0, Ωs, M and the contour plots of H0, Ωr, M, respectively, for joint analysis of CC+Pantheon+SH0ES. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The contour plots of H0, Ωm, Ωµ, M and the contour plots of H0, Ωc, Ωµ, M, respectively, for joint analysis of CC+Pantheon+SH0ES. Model ρi0 (in gm/cm3 ) µ (in s 2 ) ν (in s −2 ) I 2.5819 × 10−38 2.5548 × 1033 3.2765 × 10−35 II 1.1110 × 10−37 1.3314 × 1032 2.7285 × 10−35 III 2.0467 × 10−37 −2.3389 × 1035 2.2333 × 10−35 IV 3.1714 × 10−37 −6.6307 × 1036 1.5258 × 10−35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The variations of effective EoS parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The variations of deceleration parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The plot of square sound speed c 2 s versus z. 5.2 f(R, Lm, T) function Within this part, we analyze the Lagrangian function f(R, Lm, T). In order to accomplish this, we can derive the expression for the function f(R, Lm, T) for each model separately, as follows: fI (R…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, et al. , Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerati ng universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009-1038, [arXiv:astro-ph/9805201]

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, et al. , Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565-586, [arXiv:astro-ph/9812133]

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    R. A. Knop, G. Aldering, R. Amanullah, et al. , New Constraints on Ω M , Ω Λ , and ω from an Independent Set of 11 High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope, Astrophys. J. 598 (2003) 102, [arXiv:astro-ph/0309368]

    arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Amanullah, C

    R. Amanullah, C. Lidman, D. Rubin, et al. , Spectra and Hubble Space Telescope light curves of six type Ia supernovae at 0. 511 < z < 1. 12 and the Union2 compilation Astrophys. J. 716 (2010) 712-738, [arXiv:1004.1711 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, et al. , Observational probes of cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rep. 530 (2013) 87-255, [arXiv:1201.2434 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Einstein, The Principle of General Relativity, Annalen Physik Leipzig 55 (1918) 241-245

    A. Einstein, The Principle of General Relativity, Annalen Physik Leipzig 55 (1918) 241-245

    1918

  7. [7]

    Salucci, N

    P. Salucci, N. Turini, and C. Di Paolo, Paradigms and scen arios for the dark matter phenomenon, Universe 6 (2020) 118, [arXiv:2008.04052 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    S. Alam, M. Ata, S. Bailey, et al. (BOSS Collaboration), The clustering of galaxies in the com pleted SDSS- III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmologica l analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470 (2017) 2617-2652, [arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    T. M. C. Abbott, F. B. Abdalla, A. Alarcon, et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark Energy Survey year 1 re- sults: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering an d weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 98 043526 (2018), [arXiv:1708.01530 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Tanabashi, K

    M. Tanabashi, K. Hagiwara, K. Hikasa, et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics: particl e data groups, Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018),

    2018

  3. [11]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmolog ical parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmologic al theory, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 150, 1-8 (1970),

    1970

  5. [13]

    Kerner, Cosmology without singularity and nonlinea r gravitational Lagrangians, Gen

    R. Kerner, Cosmology without singularity and nonlinea r gravitational Lagrangians, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 14 453-469 (1982), 17

    1982

  6. [14]

    J. P. Duruisseau, R. Kerner, P. Eysseric, Non-Einstein ian gravitational Lagrangians assuring cosmological solutions without collapse, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 15 797-807 (1983),

    1983

  7. [15]

    J. D. Barrow, A. C. Ottewill, The stability of general re lativistic cosmological theory, J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 16, 2757 (1983),

    1983

  8. [16]

    Kleinert, H.-J

    H. Kleinert, H.-J. Schmidt, Cosmology with Curvature- Saturated Gravitational Lagrangian R, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 34, 1295-1318 (2002), [arXiv:gr-qc/0006074]

    2002 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Carroll, V

    S.M. Carroll, V. Duvvuri, M. Trodden, M.S. Turner, Is co smic speed-up due to new gravitational physics?, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043528 (2004). [arXiv:astro-ph/0306438]

    2004 arXiv

  10. [18]

    W. Hu, I. Sawicki, Models of f (R) cosmic acceleration that evade solar system tests, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064004 (2007), [arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye, Do consistent F (R) models mimic general relativity plus Λ?, Phys. Lett. B 654, 7-12 (2007), [arXiv:0705.3199 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Disappearing cosmological constan t in f (R) gravity, JETP Lett. 86, 157-163 (2007), [arXiv:0706.2041 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Faraoni, de Sitter space and the equivalence between f (R) and scalar-tensor gravity, Phys

    V. Faraoni, de Sitter space and the equivalence between f (R) and scalar-tensor gravity, Phys. Rev. D 75, 067302 (2007), [arXiv:gr-qc/0703044]

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    C. G. B¨ ohmer, L. Hollenstein, F. S. N. Lobo, Stability o f the Einstein static universe in f (R) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 76, 084005 (2007), [arXiv:0706.1663 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. G. B¨ ohmer, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Dark matter as a geo metric effect in f (R) gravity, Astropart. Phys. 29, 386-392 (2008), [arXiv:0709.0046 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye, A. A. Starobinsky, Curing si ngularities in cosmological evolution of F (R) gravity, JCAP 1006, 005 (2010), [arXiv:0909.1737 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chakraborty, K

    S. Chakraborty, K. MacDevette, P. Dunsby, A Model indep endent approach to the study of f (R) cosmologies with expansion histories close to ΛCDM, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124040 (2021), [arXiv:2103.02274 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    V. K. Oikonomou, Unifying inflation with early and late d ark energy epochs in axion F (R) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044036 (2021), [arXiv:2012.00586 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Modified gravity with negat ive and positive powers of the curvature: Unification of the inflation and of the cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 123512 [arXiv:hep-th/0307288 [hep-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Modified f(R) gravity consi stent with realistic cosmology: From matter domi- nated epoch to dark energy universe, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006), 086005 [arXiv:hep-th/0608008 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cognola, E

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, L. Se bastiani and S. Zerbini, A Class of viable modified f(R) gravities describing inflation and the onset of acceler ated expansion, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 046009 [arXiv:0712.4017 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Unified cosmic history in mo dified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models, Phys. Rept. 505 (2011), 59-144 [arXiv:1011.0544 [gr-qc]]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Dixit, D

    A. Dixit, D. C. Maurya, A. Pradhan, Transit cosmologica l models coupled with zero-mass scalar field with high redshift in higher derivative theory, New Astronomy 87, 101587 (2021), [arXiv:2005.11139 [physics.gen-ph]] 18

    2021 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Pradhan, De Avik, Tee How Loo, D

    A. Pradhan, De Avik, Tee How Loo, D. C. Maurya, A flat FLR W m odel with dynamical Λ as function of matter and geometry, New Astronomy 89, 101637 (2021), [arXiv:2010.09444 [physics.gen-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [34]

    D. C. Maurya, R. Zia, A. Pradhan, Anisotropic string cos mological model in Brans–Dicke theory of gravitation with time-dependent deceleration parameter, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 123, 617-622 (2016),

    2016

  26. [35]

    D. C. Maurya, R. Zia, A. Pradhan, Dark energy models in LR S Bianchi type-II space-time in the new perspective of time-dependent deceleration parameter, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 14(05) 1750077 (2017),

    2017

  27. [36]

    D. C. Maurya, Anisotropic dark energy transit cosmolog ical models with time-dependent ω (t) and redshift- dependent ω (z) EoS parameter, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 15(02) 1850019 (2018),

    2018

  28. [37]

    R. Zia, D. C. Maurya, Brans–Dicke scalar field cosmologi cal model in Lyra’s geometry with time-dependent deceleration parameter, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 15(11) 1850186 (2018),

    2018

  29. [38]

    D. C. Maurya, R. Zia, Brans-Dicke scalar field cosmologi cal model in Lyra’s geometry, Physical Review D 100(2) 023503 (2019), [arXiv:1907.07135 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [39]

    R. Zia, U. K. Sharma, D. C. Maurya, Transit two-fluid mode ls in anisotropic Bianchi type-III space-time, New Astronomy 72, 83-91 (2019),

    2019

  31. [40]

    Comment on ‘Brans-Dicke s calar field cosmological model in Lyra’s geome- try’

    D. C. Maurya, R. Zia, Reply to “Comment on ‘Brans-Dicke s calar field cosmological model in Lyra’s geome- try’”, Phys. Rev. D 102(10) 108302 (2020),

    2020

  32. [41]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Extr a force in f (R) modified theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 75, 104016 (2007), [arXiv:0704.1733 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  33. [42]

    T. P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni, f (R) theories of gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010), [arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [43]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, f (R) theories, Living Rev. Relativ. 13, 3 (2010), [arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Harko, Modified gravity with arbitrary coupling betw een matter and geometry, Phys

    T. Harko, Modified gravity with arbitrary coupling betw een matter and geometry, Phys. Lett. B 669, 376 (2008), [arXiv:0810.0742 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, f (R, L m) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 373 (2010), [arXiv:1008.4193 [gr-qc]]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Harko, The matter Lagrangian and the energy-momentu m tensor in modified gravity with nonminimal coupling between matter and geometry, Phys

    T. Harko, The matter Lagrangian and the energy-momentu m tensor in modified gravity with nonminimal coupling between matter and geometry, Phys. Rev. D 81, 044021 (2010), [arXiv:1001.5349 [gr-qc]]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Geodesic deviation, Raychaudhu ri equation, and tidal forces in modified gravity with an arbitrary curvature-matter coupling, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124034 (2012), [arXiv:1210.8044 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [48]

    J. Wang, K. Liao, Energy conditions in f (R, L m) gravity, Class. Quantum Gravity 29, 215016 (2012), [arXiv:1212.4656 [physics.gen-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Minazzoli, T

    O. Minazzoli, T. Harko, New derivation of the Lagrangia n of a perfect fluid with a barotropic equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 86, 087502 (2012), [arXiv:1209.2754 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, O. Minazzoli, Extended f (R, L m) gravity with generalized scalar field and kinetic term dependences, Phys. Rev. D 87, 047501 (2013), [arXiv:1210.4218 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [51]

    D. W. Tian, I. Booth, Lessons from ( R, R 2 c , R 2 m, L m) gravity: Smooth Gauss-Bonnet limit, energy-momentum conservation, and nonminimal coupling, Phys. Rev. D 90, 024059 (2014), [arXiv:1404.7823 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, J. P. Mimoso, D. Pav´ on, Gravitat ional induced particle production through a nonminimal curvature–matter coupling, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 386 (2015), [arXiv:1508.02511 [gr-qc]] 19

    2015 arXiv

  44. [53]

    R. P. L. Azevedo, P. P. Avelino, Big-bang nucleosynthes is and cosmic microwave background constraints on nonminimally coupled theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 98, 064045 (2018), [arXiv:1807.00798 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Bahamonde, Generalised nonminimally gravity-matt er coupled theory, Eur

    S. Bahamonde, Generalised nonminimally gravity-matt er coupled theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 326 (2018), [arXiv:1709.05319 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [55]

    March, O

    R. March, O. Bertolami, M. Muccino, et al. , Constraining a nonminimally coupled curvature-matter gr avity model with ocean experiments, Phys. Rev. D 100, 042002 (2019), [arXiv:1904.12789 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. Gomes, Nonminimally coupled Boltzman n equation: foundations, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084051 (2020), [arXiv:2002.08184 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Allemandi, A

    G. Allemandi, A. Borowiec, M. Francaviglia and S. D. Odi ntsov, Dark energy dominance and cosmic accel- eration in first order formalism, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), 063505 [arXiv:gr-qc/0504057 [gr-qc]]

    2005 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Pradhan, D

    A. Pradhan, D. C. Maurya, G. K. Goswami, A. Beesham, Mode ling Transit Dark Energy in F (R, L m)-gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. , 20(06) 2350105 (2023), [arXiv:2209.14269 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [59]

    D. C. Maurya, Accelerating scenarios of massive univer se in f (R, L m)-gravity, New Astronomy 100, 101974 (2023),

    2023

  51. [60]

    D. C. Maurya, Exact Cosmological Models in Modified F (R, L m)-Gravity with Observational Constraints, Grav. & Cosmo. 29(3) 315-325 (2023),

    2023

  52. [61]

    D. C. Maurya, Bianchi-I dark energy cosmological model in f (R, L m)-Gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 21(04) 2450072-194 (2024),

    2024

  53. [62]

    D. C. Maurya, Constrained ΛCDM Dark Energy Models in Hig her Derivative F (R, L m)-Gravity Theory, Phys. Dark Universe 42 (2023) 101373,

    2023

  54. [63]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, f (R, T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024020 (2011), [arXiv:1104.2669 [gr-qc]]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Harko, Thermodynamic interpretation of the general ized gravity models with geometry-matter coupling, Phys

    T. Harko, Thermodynamic interpretation of the general ized gravity models with geometry-matter coupling, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044067 (2014), [arXiv:1408.3465 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [65]

    E. H. Baffou, M. J. S. Houndjo, M. E. Rodrigues, et al. , Cosmological evolution in f (R, T ) theory with collisional matter, Phys. Rev. D 92, 084043 (2015), [arXiv:1504.05496 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [66]

    T. B. Gon¸ calves, J. L. Rosa, F. S. N. Lobo, Cosmology in s calar-tensor f (R, T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064019 (2022), [arXiv:2112.02541 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Shabani, A.H

    H. Shabani, A.H. Ziaie, Stability of the Einstein stati c universe in f (R, T ) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 31 (2017), [arXiv:1606.07959 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Velten, T

    H. Velten, T. R. P. Caramˆ es, Cosmological inviability of f (R, T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123536 (2017), [arXiv:1702.07710 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [69]

    P. H. R. S. Moraes, R. A. C. Correa, G. Ribeiro, Evading th e non-continuity equation in the f (R, T ) cosmology, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 192 (2018)

    2018

  61. [70]

    S. K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, Ksh. Newton Singh, et al. , Gravitational decoupling minimal geometric defor- mation model in modified f (R, T ) gravity theory, Phys. Dark Universe 30, 100640 (2020)

    2020

  62. [71]

    Reexamining f (R, T ) gravity

    T. Harko, P. H. R. S. Moraes, Comment on “Reexamining f (R, T ) gravity”, Phys. Rev. D 101, 108501 (2020). 20

    2020

  63. [72]

    R. Zia, D. C. Maurya, A. Pradhan, Transit dark energy str ing cosmological models with perfect fluid in F (R, T )-gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 15(10) 1850168 (2018)

    2018

  64. [73]

    D. C. Maurya, Modified F (R, T ) cosmology with observational constraints in Lyra’s geome try, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 17(01) 2050001 (2020)

    2020

  65. [74]

    D. C. Maurya, A. Pradhan, A. Dixit, Domain walls and quar k matter in Bianchi type-V universe with observational constraints in F (R, T ) gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 17(01) 2050014 (2020)

    2020

  66. [75]

    D. C. Maurya, Transit cosmological model with specific H ubble parameter in F (R, T ) gravity, New Astronomy 77, 101355 (2020)

    2020

  67. [76]

    D. C. Maurya, J. singh, L. K. Gaur, Dark Energy Nature in L ogarithmic f (R, T ) Cosmology, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 20(11) 2350192 (2023)

    2023

  68. [77]

    G. P. Singh, N. Hulke, A. Singh, Cosmological study of pa rticle creation in higher derivative theory, Indian J. Phys. 94 127-141 (2020)

    2020

  69. [78]

    Hulke, G

    N. Hulke, G. P. Singh, B. K. Bishi, A. Singh, Variable Cha plygin gas cosmologies in f (R, T ) gravity with particle creation, New Astronomy 77 101357 (2020)

    2020

  70. [79]

    Harko, Generalizing the coupling betwe en geometry and matter: f (R, L m, T ) gravity, Eur

    Z Haghani and T. Harko, Generalizing the coupling betwe en geometry and matter: f (R, L m, T ) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C (2021) 81:615

    2021

  71. [80]

    Arora, P.H.R.S

    S. Arora, P.H.R.S. Moraes, and P.K. Sahoo, Energy condi tions in the f (R, L, T ) theory of gravity, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139 (2024) 542

    2024

  72. [81]

    Pradhan, M

    A. Pradhan, M. Zeyauddin, A. Dixit, and S. Krishnannair , Dust-fluid accelerating flat cosmological models in f (R, T, L m)-gravity with observational constraints, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. , (2024), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887825500604

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    Gon¸ calves, A.F

    J.S. Gon¸ calves, A.F. Santos, On causality and its viol ation in f (R, L m, T ) gravity, Nuclear Physics B 1010 (2025) 116751

    2025

  74. [83]

    D. C. Maurya, Late-time accelerating cosmological mod els in f (R, L m, T )-gravity with observational con- straints, Phys. Dark Universe 46 (2024) 101722

    2024

  75. [84]

    D. C. Maurya, Constrained transit cosmological models in f (R, L m, T )-gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys., (2024), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887825500288

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    Capozziello, O

    S. Capozziello, O. Luongo, R. Pincak, et al. , Cosmic acceleration in non-flat f (T ) cosmology, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 50, 53 (2018), [arXiv:1804.03649v1 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [86]

    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz,The Classical Theory of Fie lds (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1998)

    1998

  78. [87]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dar k energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006), [arXiv:hep-th/0603057]

    2006 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde, R. Jimenez, Constraints on the redsh ift dependence of the dark energy potential, Phys. Rev. D 71, 123001 (2005)

    2005

  80. [89]

    G. S. Sharov, V. O. Vasiliev, How predictions of cosmolo gical models depend on Hubble parameter data sets, Math. Model. Geom. 6, 1-20 (2018)

    2018

  81. [90]

    Brout, et al

    D. Brout, et al. , The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, ApJ 938 110 (2022)

    2022

  82. [91]

    Scolnic, et al

    D. Scolnic, et al. , The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve R elease, ApJ 938 113 (2022). 21

    2022

  83. [92]

    Perivolaropoulos, F

    L. Perivolaropoulos, F. Skara, On the homogeneity of Sn Ia absolute magnitude in the Pantheon+ sample, MNRAS 520 5110-5125 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad4 51

    2023 doi

  84. [93]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. , A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubbl e Constant with 1 kms−1M pc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Te am, ApJL 934 L7 (2022). [arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [94]

    http://PantheonPlusSH)ES.github.io

  86. [95]

    Hogg and D.F

    D.W. Hogg and D.F. Mackey, Data analysis recipes: Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 236 (2018) 18. [arXiv:1710.06068 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2018 arXiv

  87. [96]

    D. M. Scolnic et al., The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan- STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pan theon Sample, ApJ 859 (2018) 101

    2018

  88. [97]

    Singh, S

    A. Singh, S. Mandal, R. Chaubey, R. Raushan, Observatio nal constraints on the expansion scalar and shear relation in the Locally rotationally symmetric Bianc hi I model, Phys. Dark Univ. 47 (2025) 101798, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2024.101798

    2025

  89. [98]

    Anderson, Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn

    K. Anderson, Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2002)

    2002

  90. [99]

    K. P. Burnham, D. R. Anderson, Multimodel Inference: Un derstanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection, Sociological Methods and Research 33, 261 (2004)

    2004

  91. [100]

    A. R. Liddle, Information criteria for astrophysical model selection, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 377, (2007) L74, [arXiv:astro-ph/0701113]

    2007 arXiv

  92. [101]

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, Bayes Factors, J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 90 773 (1995)

    1995

  93. [102]

    F. K. Anagnostopoulos, S. Basilakos, E.N. Saridakis, Observational constraints on Myrzakulov gravity, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104013 (2021), [arXiv:2012.06524 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Capozziello, O

    S. Capozziello, O. Farooq, O. Luongo, et al. , Cosmographic bounds on the cosmological deceleration- acceleration transition redshift in f (R) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044016 (2014), [arXiv:1403.1421v1 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Capozziello, O

    S. Capozziello, O. Luongo, E. N. Saridakis, Transitio n redshift in f (T ) cosmology and observational con- straints, Phys. Rev. D 91 124037 (2015), [arXiv:1503.02832v2 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Capozziello, P

    S. Capozziello, P. K. S. Dunsby, O. Luongo, Model indep endent reconstruction of cosmological accelerated- decelerated phase, MNRAS 509 (2022) 5399-5415, [arXiv:2106.15579v2 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Muccino, O

    M. Muccino, O. Luongo, D. Jain, Constraints on the tran sition redshift from the calibrated Gamma-ray Burst Ep-Eiso correlation, MNRAS 523 (2023) 4938-4948, [arXiv:2208.13700v3 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  98. [107]

    A. C. Alfano, S. Capozziello, O. Luongo, et al. , Cosmological transition epoch from gamma-ray burst correlations, (2024) [arXiv:2402.18967v1 [astro-ph.CO] ]

    2024 arXiv

  99. [108]

    A. C. Alfano, C. Cafaro, S. Capozziello, et al. , Dark energy-matter equivalence by the evolution of cosmic equation of state, Phys. Dark Univ. 42 101298 (2023), [arXiv:2306.08396v2 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Ellis, R

    G. Ellis, R. Maartens, M. MacCallum, Causality and the speed of sound, Gen. Rel. Grav. 39 1651-1660 (2007), [arXiv:gr-qc/0703121] 22

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

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