Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 118 references

Interpretation of complexity for spherically symmetric fluid composition within the context of modified gravity theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)$ gravity, the complexity of a static, spherically symmetric, anisotropic fluid is carried by a single structure scalar $Y_{TF}$, and demanding zero complexity reduces to a non-local equation of state.

desk verdict The first f(R,L_m,T) complexity-factor paper is let down by a load-bearing algebra error: Eq. (65) does not follow from Eq. (60), so the vanishing-complexity solutions are built on an inconsistent condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17424 v1 pith:ANMSWAHC submitted 2025-05-23 gr-qc

A. Rehman , Tayyab Naseer , Baiju Dayanandan This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583C5583C20 PACS 04.50.Kd04.40.Dg
keywords modifiedgravitycomplexityfactorstructurescalarsanisotropicfluidorthogonalsplittingf(RL_mT)TolmanmassMisner-Sharp
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

The paper extends the curvature-based definition of complexity to $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)$ modified gravity, arguing that for a static, spherically symmetric, anisotropic fluid the degree of structural complexity is fully captured by one scalar, $Y_{TF}$, obtained from the orthogonal splitting of the Riemann tensor. It derives an explicit expression for $Y_{TF}$ that combines anisotropic pressure, the combination of radial and tangential pressures, the dark source terms of the theory, and the radial inhomogeneity of the effective energy density. The paper then shows that requiring zero complexity ($Y_{TF}=0$) reduces to a non-local equation of state, and it constructs two explicit model families, one based on a quadratic density-profile ansatz and two based on polytropic equations of state, that satisfy this condition. If the interpretation is correct, this provides a practical handle for building the least structured stellar models in $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)$ gravity, since zero-complexity configurations are the simplest allowed by the theory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the orthogonal splitting of the Riemann tensor with respect to the fluid four-velocity, which produces the structure scalars $X_T$, $X_{TF}$, $Y_T$, and $Y_{TF}$. The working mechanism is the trace-free scalar $Y_{TF}$, which acts as the complexity factor: it packages anisotropic pressure $\Pi$, the pressure sum $P_r+2P_\perp$, the dark source corrections $T_i^{(cr)}$, and the effective-density inhomogeneity integral into a single curvature-derived quantity. The chain of argument runs from the splitting identities (Eqs. (44)\u2013(49)), through the modified field equations that convert $Y_{TF}$ into the fluid-variable form of Eq. (60), to the mass-function relations (Eqs. (62)\u2013(64)) that tie $Y_{TF}$ to the Tolman mass.

What would settle it

Compute the full set of junction conditions for an explicit choice of $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)$ and $\mathcal{L}_m$ and check whether the vacuum exterior used in Eq. (17) is actually a solution of the modified field equations with the same function $f$; if the exterior is not Ricci-flat in that theory, or if $[P_r]_\Sigma=-D_0$ is not recovered, the boundary justification for the mass formulas breaks. An equivalent test is to evaluate $Y_{TF}$ in the limit where the dark source terms vanish and compare the result with the original GR complexity factor of Ref. [1]: the extra terms must disappear in that limit for the interpretation to be consistent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)$ gravity, the complexity factor of a static, spherically symmetric, anisotropic fluid is the structure scalar $$Y_{TF}=\frac{8\pi}{3}\Pi+\frac{8\pi}{3}\left(P_r+2P_\perp-$T_1^{{(cr)}}$-$2T_2^{{(cr)}}$\right)+L_{a\psi}-\frac{8\pi}{9}\int_0^r \tilde{r}^3\left(\rho+$T_0^{{(cr)}}$\right)'\, d\tilde{r}.$$ This scalar emerges from the orthogonal decomposition of the Riemann tensor and is shown to control the deviation of the Tolman mass from its uniform, isotropic reference value. Imposing $Y_{TF}=0$ yields Eq. (65), a non-local equation of state that balances anisotropy, density inhomogeneity, and dark source terms. The paper presents two families of solutions, one built on a quadratic density-profile ansatz and two built on polytropic equations of state, that satisfy the zero-complexity condition, and concludes that dark source terms can suppress complexity even when anisotropy and density gradients are present.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the interior metric can be matched to the vacuum Schwarzschild exterior using the Darmois conditions, Eqs. (18)\u2013(21), even though the junction conditions for $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)$ gravity are never derived in the paper; if the true exterior is not Schwarzschild or the boundary condition $[P_r]_\Sigma=-D_0$ fails because of dark source terms, the mass formulas in Eqs. (29), (33), and (38) lose their boundary justification, and so does the link between those formulas and $Y_{TF}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Imposing $Y_{TF}=0$ produces a non-local equation of state, Eq. (65), that supplies one of the extra restrictions needed to close the field equations for static anisotropic spheres.
  • Configurations built from a quadratic density-profile ansatz or from a polytropic equation of state can satisfy zero complexity, giving explicit interior models for compact objects in $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)$ gravity.
  • The Tolman mass of a spherical source is tied to $Y_{TF}$, so deviations of the effective gravitational mass from the homogeneous, isotropic idealization are governed by the same scalar that defines complexity.
  • In the $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)\to\mathrm{GR}$ limit the derived expressions reduce to the original complexity-factor formalism of Ref. [1], making the extension a limiting-case-consistent generalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to invert the zero-complexity condition and use Eq. (65) as an equation of state in a stellar-structure code, checking whether the resulting mass\u2013radius curves differ from GR enough to constrain the coupling functions $f_T$ and $f_{\mathcal{L}_m}$.
  • Because the derivation relies only on the orthogonal splitting and the form of the effective energy-momentum tensor, the same $Y_{TF}$ construction should transfer to other modified theories with non-minimal matter\u2013geometry couplings, as long as their effective stress tensor admits a similar trace structure.
  • The non-locality of the zero-complexity constraint, with its integral over the whole stellar interior, suggests that \u201csimple\u201d stars in modified gravity are globally, not locally, simple; local probes that look isotropic and homogeneous may still register non-zero complexity.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends Herrera's complexity-factor construction to f(R,L_m,T) gravity for static, spherically symmetric, anisotropic fluids. It derives the modified field equations, the Misner-Sharp and Tolman mass functions, the orthogonal decomposition of the Riemann tensor, and identifies the structure scalar Y_TF as the complexity factor. It then imposes Y_TF = 0 to obtain a non-local equation of state, Eq. (65), and uses this condition to construct two families of solutions: the Gokhroo-Mehra density ansatz and polytropic equations of state.

Significance. If the derivations were correct, the paper would offer a concrete modified-gravity generalization of Herrera's complexity formalism, with explicit dark-source corrections to the zero-complexity condition and a framework for building static anisotropic models in f(R,L_m,T) gravity. The paper does follow the standard orthogonal-splitting route and provides detailed appendix computations for the f(R,L_m,T) corrections. However, the central result—the vanishing-complexity condition—contains algebraic errors that invalidate the subsequent solution families as stated, and the matching to a Schwarzschild exterior is assumed without deriving the modified junction conditions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Eqs. (60), (65)] Setting Y_TF = 0 in Eq. (60) yields Π = −(Pr + 2P⊥ − T1^(cr) − 2T2^(cr)) − (3/(8π))L_ab + (1/3)∫_0^r r^3(ρ + T0^(cr))' dr, but Eq. (65) prints the integral coefficient as 1/9 and the L_ab coefficient as 1/(4π). This is not a notational difference: it changes the non-local equation of state, and the solutions constructed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 to satisfy Eq. (65) do not in fact satisfy Y_TF = 0 as defined by Eq. (60). Since the vanishing-complexity condition is the paper's central new claim, this is a load-bearing internal inconsistency.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (30), (32), (33)] Substituting Eq. (32) into Eq. (30) gives, for the diagonal energy-momentum tensor with Tμ(cr)ν = T0^(cr)+T1^(cr)+T2^(cr), the result m = (4πr^3/3)(ρ + T0^(cr) − T2^(cr)) − (4π/3)∫_0^r r^3(ρ + T0^(cr))' dr. The printed Eq. (33) instead contains an additional term −6P⊥ inside the bracket. As printed, Eq. (33) does not follow from Eqs. (30) and (32), and the mass formulas in Eqs. (38), (39), (62), and (63) inherit this inconsistency.
  3. [§2, Eq. (21)] The paper matches the interior spacetime to the Schwarzschild exterior using the Darmois conditions and states [Pr]_Σ = −D0 without deriving the junction conditions appropriate to f(R,L_m,T) gravity. In this modified theory the effective energy-momentum tensor contains f_R, f_T, f_Lm and derivative terms, so a GR vacuum exterior and the boundary condition on the radial pressure are valid only under additional constraints (for example, continuity of f_R and its normal derivative and the absence of surface layers) that are never stated. This leaves the boundary justification of the mass formulas and of the link between Y_TF and the Tolman mass incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (13)] Equation (13) uses e^{-λ} while the metric in Eq. (8) uses e^{-σ}; the notation should be made consistent.
  2. [§2, Eq. (15) and elsewhere] Expressions such as "8πr3" and "4πr3" appear without superscripts; these should read 8πr^3 and 4πr^3 throughout.
  3. [§2, Eq. (21) and Appendix] The appendix defines D0 explicitly, but the derivation of the boundary condition [Pr]_Σ = −D0 from the junction conditions is not shown; a short derivation or a specific reference would improve clarity.
  4. [§5.2, Eqs. (76)-(78)] The notation for the polytropic variable is confusing: Eq. (76) uses φ for the exponent, while Eq. (77) defines φ_n = ρ/ρ_b and later ψ also appears; these symbols should be disambiguated.
  5. [§4, Eqs. (48)-(49)] Terms such as ∂^2 L_m/(∂δ^ϑ_a ∂g^{μν}) appear to contain typesetting errors in the denominators; these expressions are not used later, but they should be corrected for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Y_TF is Herrera's external complexity factor and the zero-complexity models are imposed consistency constraints, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: Y_TF is introduced via the orthogonal splitting of the Riemann tensor (Sec. 4, Eqs. (52)-(60)) following Herrera's external framework, and the vanishing-complexity condition (Eq. (65)) is imposed as a consistency constraint, so the Sec. 5 'solutions' are constructed examples rather than predictions fitted to the output. The Tolman-mass formulas (62)-(64) are algebraic re-expressions obtained by substituting the field-equation identity (32) into Eq. (39); they re-express the same variables and do not presuppose the complexity claim. Numerous self-citations appear (e.g., Refs. 17-21, 85-94), but the load-bearing step does not reduce to any of them. Two correctness/completeness concerns are flagged without scoring them as circularity: (i) Sec. 2, Eqs. (18)-(21) assume Darmois matching to a Schwarzschild vacuum and [P_r]_Sigma = -D_0 without deriving the f(R,L_m,T) junction conditions, so the boundary condition is asserted, not proven. (ii) Eq. (65) is not the algebraic consequence of setting Y_TF=0 in Eq. (60); direct substitution gives Pi = -(Pr+2P_perp-T1^(cr)-2T2^(cr)) - (3/(8pi))L_a_psi + (1/3)integral r^3(rho+T0^(cr))'dr, whereas the printed Eq. (65) has integral coefficient 1/9 and L_a_psi coefficient 1/(4pi). Neither issue is circular, because neither makes the conclusion equivalent to its input by definition or by fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on Herrera's structure-scalar framework, an assumed static spherical anisotropic configuration, and the arbitrary f(R,L_m,T) Lagrangian. The paper does not fit any constants to data, but it introduces four model parameters or functions (Y, h, F, and polytropic constants) that determine the example solutions.

free parameters (4)
  • Y
    Constant in the Gokhroo-Mehra density profile, Eq. (66), with values in (0,1); it is chosen by hand to generate a non-uniform density.
  • h(r)
    Generating function introduced in Eq. (70) to close the Gokhroo-Mehra model; no physical or observational determination is given.
  • F
    Integration constant in the metric solution Eq. (72); its value is not fixed by the paper.
  • K, n, eta
    Polytropic parameters in section 5.2, including the polytropic constant K, polytropic index n, and boundary pressure ratio eta; they are free inputs, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Orthogonal decomposition of the Riemann tensor into electric and magnetic parts and the structure-scalar framework of Herrera.
    The derivation of X, Y, Z tensors and the identification of Y_TF relies on this standard decomposition, invoked in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The spacetime is static, spherically symmetric, and filled with an anisotropic fluid with energy-momentum tensor Eq. (5).
    This restricts the scope of all field equations and structure scalars to a single symmetry class; Section 2 introduces the metric Eq. (8).
  • domain assumption The matter Lagrangian L_m is well-defined and the effective energy-momentum tensor Eqs. (3) and (4) is valid.
    The paper never specifies L_m explicitly, yet the field equations and dark source terms require the second derivative term ∂^2 L_m/∂g^2 to exist and be tractable.
  • ad hoc to paper The exterior spacetime is exactly Schwarzschild and the Darmois matching conditions apply unchanged in f(R,L_m,T) gravity.
    The paper imposes Eqs. (18) to (21) without deriving modified junction conditions, which is not guaranteed when dark source terms are present.
  • domain assumption Y_TF is the complexity factor of the system.
    The paper adopts Herrera's criterion that the trace-free scalar Y_TF measures complexity, stated before Eq. (65).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretation of complexity for spherically symmetric fluid composition within the context of modified gravity theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANMSWAHC

@misc{pith2026250517424,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretation of complexity for spherically symmetric fluid composition within the context of modified gravity theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANMSWAHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17424}
}
abstract

Regardless of the adequate descriptions of complexity in distinct alternative gravity theories, its elaboration in the framework of $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},\mathcal{T})$ theory remains uncertain. The orthogonal splitting of the curvature tensor yields the complexity factor as suggested by Herrera \cite {herrera2018new}. To commence our study, the inner spacetime is assumed to be spherically symmetric static composition comprised of the anisotropic fluid. In this context, we derive the modified field equations for the considered theory and take into account the established relationship between the conformal and curvature tensors to interpret the complexity. Furthermore, we determine the correspondence of the mass functions with the complexity factor, represented by a specific scalar $Y_{TF}$. Certain solutions complying with the precedent of diminishing $Y_{TF}$ are also evaluated. It is noted that celestial formations having anisotropic and non-uniform compositions of matter assert the utmost complexity. Nevertheless, the spherically symmetric matter distribution may not exhibit complexity in the scenario of vanishing impacts of non-homogenous energy density and anisotropic pressure due to the presence of dark source terms associated with this extended gravity theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Herrera, Phys

    L. Herrera, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 044010

    2018

  2. [2]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 150 (1970) 1

    1970

  3. [3]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP. Lett. 86 (2007) 157

    2007

  4. [4]

    T. P. Sotiriou, and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 451

    2010

  5. [5]

    Felice, and S

    A. Felice, and S. Tsujikawa, Living. Rev. Relativ. 13 (2010) 1

    2010

  6. [6]

    Naseer, and M

    T. Naseer, and M. Sharif, Phys. Dark Universe 46 (2024) 101595. 24

    2024

  7. [7]

    Amendola, R

    L. Amendola, R. Gannouji, and D. Polarski, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 083504

    2007

  8. [8]

    Capozziello, and M

    S. Capozziello, and M. De. Laurentis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24 (2015) 1541002

    2015

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    Nojiri, and S

    S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 086005

    2006

  2. [10]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, and T. Harko, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 104016

    2007

  3. [11]

    Harko, et al., Phys

    T. Harko, et al., Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 024020

    2011

  4. [12]

    X. M. Deng, and Y. Xie, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 54 (2015) 1739

    2015

  5. [13]

    Alvarenga, et al., Phys

    F. Alvarenga, et al., Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 103526

    2013

  6. [14]

    Baffou, et al., Eur

    E. Baffou, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 708

    2017

  7. [15]

    Yousaf, M

    Z. Yousaf, M. Z. Bhatti, and M. Ilyas, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 307

    2018

  8. [16]

    M. Z. Bhatti, Z. Yousaf, and M. Yousaf, Phys. Dark Universe 28 (2020) 100501

    2020

  9. [17]

    M. Z. Bhatti, Z. Yousaf, and A. Rehman, Galaxies 10 (2022) 40

    2022

  10. [18]

    M. Z. Bhatti, Z. Yousaf, and A. Rehman, Pramana 96 (2022) 224

    2022

  11. [19]

    M. Z. Bhatti, Z. Yousaf, and A. Rehman, Fortschr. Phys 71 (2023) 2200113

    2023

  12. [20]

    M. Z. Bhatti, Z. Yousaf, and A. Rehman, Indian J. Phys. 97 (2023) 2227

    2023

  13. [21]

    Rehman, M

    A. Rehman, M. Z. Bhatti, and Z. Yousaf, Fortschr. Phys. 72 (2024) 2300247

    2024

  14. [22]

    M. Z. Bhatti, Z. Yousaf, and M. Yousaf, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 19 (2022) 2250018

    2022

  15. [23]

    M. Z. Bhatti, Z. Yousaf, and M. Yousaf, Commun. Theor. Phys. 75 (2023) 125401

    2023

  16. [24]

    Yousaf, M

    M. Yousaf, M. Z. Bhatti, and Z. Yousaf, Nucl. Phys. B 995 (2023) 116328

    2023

  17. [25]

    Naseer, and M

    T. Naseer, and M. Sharif, Commun. Theor. Phys. 76 (2024) 095407

    2024

  18. [26]

    M. Z. Bhatti, M. Yousaf, and Z. Yousaf, New Astron. 106 (2024) 102132

    2024

  19. [27]

    Naseer, and M

    T. Naseer, and M. Sharif, Phys. Scr. 99 (2024) 075012

    2024

  20. [28]

    Naseer, M

    T. Naseer, M. Sharif, M. Faiza, and B. Dayanandan, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 1187. 25

    2024

  21. [29]

    Velten, and T

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

    2017

  22. [30]

    Velten, and T

    H. Velten, and T. R. Carames, Universe 7 (2021) 38

    2021

  23. [31]

    Haghani, and T

    Z. Haghani, and T. Harko, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 615

    2021

  24. [32]

    Zubair, et al., Fortschr

    M. Zubair, et al., Fortschr. Phys. 71 (2023) 2300018

    2023

  25. [33]

    Naseer, and J

    T. Naseer, and J. L. Said, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 808

    2024

  26. [34]

    Yousaf, Phys

    Z. Yousaf, Phys. Dark Universe 28 (2020) 100509

    2020

  27. [35]

    Waseem, et al., Eur

    A. Waseem, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1088

    2023

  28. [36]

    Javed, A

    F. Javed, A. Waseem, and B. Almutairi, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 811

    2023

  29. [37]

    Mustafa, et al., Chin

    G. Mustafa, et al., Chin. J. Phys. 88 (2024) 32

    2024

  30. [38]

    Caliskan, et al., J

    A. Caliskan, et al., J. High Energy Astrophys. 44 (2024) 99

    2024

  31. [39]

    Mustafa, et al., Ann

    G. Mustafa, et al., Ann. Phys. 460 (2024) 169551

    2024

  32. [40]

    S. Khan, A. Adeel, and Z. Yousaf, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 572

    2024

  33. [41]

    Murtaza, et al., J

    G. Murtaza, et al., J. High Energy Astrophys. 44 (2024) 279

    2024

  34. [42]

    Waseem, et al., Phys

    A. Waseem, et al., Phys. Dark Universe 46 (2024) 101609

    2024

  35. [43]

    Yousaf, K

    Z. Yousaf, K. Bamba, M. Z. Bhatti, and U. Farwa, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 21 (2024) 2430005

    2024

  36. [44]

    Feng, et al., Chin

    Y. Feng, et al., Chin. J. Phys. 90 (2024) 372

    2024

  37. [45]

    Ashraf, et al., Int

    A. Ashraf, et al., Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 21 (2024) 2450161

    2024

  38. [46]

    Mustafa, et al., Nucl

    G. Mustafa, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 1012 (2025) 116812

    2025

  39. [47]

    Lopez-Ruiz, H

    R. Lopez-Ruiz, H. L. Mancini, and X. Calbet, Phys. Lett. A 209 (1995) 321

    1995

  40. [48]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ospino, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 104059

    2018

  41. [49]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ospino, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 044049

    2019

  42. [50]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. D. Prisco, and J. Ospino, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 631. 26

    2020

  43. [51]

    Contreras, and E

    E. Contreras, and E. Fuenmayor, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 124065

    2021

  44. [52]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ospino, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 024037

    2021

  45. [53]

    Zubair, and H

    M. Zubair, and H. Azmat, Phys. Dark Universe 28 (2020) 100531

    2020

  46. [54]

    Yousaf, M

    Z. Yousaf, M. Z. Bhatti, and T. Naseer, Phys. Dark Universe 28 (2020) 100535

    2020

  47. [55]

    Zubair, and H

    M. Zubair, and H. Azmat, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29 (2020) 2050014

    2020

  48. [56]

    Yousaf, et al., Mon

    Z. Yousaf, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 495 (2020) 4334

    2020

  49. [57]

    Yousaf, et al., Phys

    Z. Yousaf, et al., Phys. Dark Universe 29 (2020) 100581

    2020

  50. [58]

    Yousaf, Phys

    Z. Yousaf, Phys. Scr. 95 (2020) 075307

    2020

  51. [59]

    Nazar, A

    H. Nazar, A. Alkhaldi, G. Abbas, and M. R. Shahzad, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36 (2021) 2150233

    2021

  52. [60]

    Arias, E

    C. Arias, E. Contreras, E. Fuenmayor, and A. Ramos, Ann. Phys. 436 (2022) 168671

    2022

  53. [61]

    S. K. Maurya, M. Govender, and R. Nag, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 100

    2022

  54. [62]

    Contreras, E

    E. Contreras, E. Fuenmayor, and G. Abellan, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 187

    2022

  55. [63]

    S. K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, R. Nag, and M. Daoud, Fortschr. Phys. 70 (2022) 2200041

    2022

  56. [64]

    Andrade, Eur

    J. Andrade, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 266

    2022

  57. [65]

    Bogadi, M

    S. Bogadi, M. Govender, and S. Moyo, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 747

    2022

  58. [66]

    Yousaf, M

    Z. Yousaf, M. Z. Bhatti, S. Khan, and P. K. Sahoo, Phys. Dark Universe 36 (2022) 101015

    2022

  59. [67]

    S. K. Maurya, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 1173

    2022

  60. [68]

    Asad, and Z

    H. Asad, and Z. Yousaf, Universe 8 (2022) 630

    2022

  61. [69]

    S. K. Maurya, M. Govender, and G. Mustafa, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 1006

    2022

  62. [70]

    Sharif, and K

    M. Sharif, and K. Hassan, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138 (2023) 787

    2023

  63. [71]

    S. K. Maurya, et al., Fortschr. Phys. 71 (2023) 2300023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Sharif, and T

    M. Sharif, and T. Naseer, Ann. Phys. 459 (2023) 169527. 27

    2023

  65. [73]

    S. K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, M. K. Jasim, M. Daoud, N. Al-Harbi, and A. H. Abdel- Aty, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 317

    2023

  66. [74]

    Habsi, et al., Eur

    M. Habsi, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 286

    2023

  67. [75]

    M. K. Jasim, et al., Phys. Scr. 98 (2023) 045305

    2023

  68. [76]

    S. K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, M. Govender, G. Mustafa, N. Al-Harbi, and A.H. Abdel- Aty, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 348

    2023

  69. [77]

    Naseer, and M

    T. Naseer, and M. Sharif, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 554

    2024

  70. [78]

    Naseer, and M

    T. Naseer, and M. Sharif, Fortschr. Phys. 72 (2024) 2300254

    2024

  71. [79]

    Sharif, and T

    M. Sharif, and T. Naseer, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139 (2024) 86

    2024

  72. [80]

    S. K. Maurya, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 527 (2024) 5192

    2024

  73. [81]

    Naseer, Eur

    T. Naseer, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 1256

    2024

  74. [82]

    M. K. Jasim, et al., Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) 075108

    2024

  75. [83]

    Naseer, Phys

    T. Naseer, Phys. Dark Universe 46 (2024) 101595

    2024

  76. [84]

    Ditta, et al., Nucl

    A. Ditta, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 1007 (2024) 116689

    2024

  77. [85]

    Naseer, et al., Chin

    T. Naseer, et al., Chin. J. Phys. 93 (2025) 75

    2025

  78. [86]

    Hassan, T

    K. Hassan, T. Naseer, and M. Sharif, Chin. J. Phys. 91 (2024) 916

    2024

  79. [87]

    Naseer, and M

    T. Naseer, and M. Sharif, Class. Quantum Grav. 41 (2024) 245006

    2024

  80. [88]

    Feng, et al., Eur

    Y. Feng, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 18

    2025

  81. [89]

    Naseer, Astropart

    T. Naseer, Astropart. Phys. 166 (2025) 103073

    2025

  82. [90]

    M. Z. Bhatti, Z. Yousaf, and A. Rehman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31 (2022) 2150124

    2022

  83. [91]

    Feng, et al., Phys

    Y. Feng, et al., Phys. Scr. 99 (2024) 085034

    2024

  84. [92]

    Sharif, T

    M. Sharif, T. Naseer, A. Tabassum, Chin. J. Phys. 92 (2024) 579

    2024

  85. [93]

    Demir, et al., Chin

    E. Demir, et al., Chin. J. Phys. 91 (2024) 299

    2024

  86. [94]

    Naseer, and G

    T. Naseer, and G. Mustafa, Ann. Phys. 473 (2025) 169886. 28

    2025

  87. [95]

    Darmois, Les equations de la gravitation einsteinienne (1927)

    G. Darmois, Les equations de la gravitation einsteinienne (1927)

    1927

  88. [96]

    C. W. Misner, and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 136 (1964) 571

    1964

  89. [97]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 35 (1930) 875

    1930

  90. [98]

    J. R. Wilson, Astrophys. J. 163 (1971) 209

    1971

  91. [99]

    S. W. Bruenn, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 58 (1985) 771

    1985

  92. [100]

    W. B. Bonnor, Class. Quantum Grav. 18 (2001) 1381

    2001

  93. [101]

    Herrera, and N

    L. Herrera, and N. O. Santos, Phys. Rep. 286 (1997) 53

    1997

  94. [102]

    Herrera, et al., Phys

    L. Herrera, et al., Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 064025

    2009

  95. [103]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ibanez, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011)107501

    2011

  96. [104]

    Lobo, et al., Class

    A. Lobo, et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 25 (2008) 205018

    2008

  97. [105]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ospino, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44 (2012) 2645

    2012

  98. [106]

    Sharif, S

    M. Sharif, S. Mumtaz, and F. Javed, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) 2050030

    2020

  99. [107]

    Sharif, et al., Chin

    M. Sharif, et al., Chin. J. Phys. 61 (2019) 262

    2019

  100. [108]

    Sharif, et al., Ann

    M. Sharif, et al., Ann. Phys. 407 (2019) 198

    2019

  101. [109]

    Sharif, et al., Phys

    M. Sharif, et al., Phys. Scr. 96 (2021) 055003

    2021

  102. [110]

    Sharif, et al., J

    M. Sharif, et al., J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 132 (2021) 381

    2021

  103. [111]

    Siza, et al., Eur

    B. Siza, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 1203

    2024

  104. [112]

    Naseer, and M

    T. Naseer, and M. Sharif, Chin. J. Phys. 88 (2024) 10

    2024

  105. [113]

    Gokhroo, and A

    M. Gokhroo, and A. Mehra, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 26 (1994) 75

    1994

  106. [114]

    Herrera, J

    L. Herrera, J. Ospino, and A. Di Prisco, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 027502

    2008

  107. [115]

    Di Prisco, et al., Int

    A. Di Prisco, et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20 (2011) 2351

    2011

  108. [116]

    Herrera, and W

    L. Herrera, and W. Barreto, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 087303

    2013

  109. [117]

    Herrera, and W

    L. Herrera, and W. Barreto, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 084022

    2013

  110. [118]

    Herrera, E

    L. Herrera, E. Fuenmayor and P. Leon, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 024047. 29

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.