Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 87 references

Cosmological model with Gong-Zong Parametrization in $f(R,L_m)$ gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Two one-parameter dark-energy equations of state, inserted into $f(R,L_m)=R/2+L_m^{\alpha}$ gravity, reproduce the observed late-time acceleration while predicting different futures: Model I crosses the phantom divide and Model II…

desk verdict A standard but competently executed f(R,L_m) parametrized-DE paper with explicit H(z) formulas; the statistical claims need work and the headline late-time behaviors are inherited from the assumed EoS, not derived from the gravity model. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08161 v3 pith:UKIQO4QX submitted 2025-01-14 gr-qc

Romanshu Garg , Tanmoy Chowdhury , G. P. Singh , Farook Rahaman This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords darkenergyGong-Zhangparametrizationf(RL_m)gravitycosmicchronometerPantheonsupernovaedecelerationparameterstatefinderdiagnosticfuture
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

The paper aims to show that the two Gong-Zhang dark-energy equations of state, $\omega(z)=w_0/(1+z)$ and $\omega(z)=w_0/(1+z)\,\exp(z/(1+z))$, work inside the modified-gravity theory $f(R,L_m)=R/2+L_m^{\alpha}$. Solving the $f(R,L_m)$ Friedmann equations with these inputs yields closed-form Hubble rates that fit cosmic-chronometer data and the Pantheon supernova sample. Both models transition from deceleration to acceleration, with present-day equation-of-state values around $w_0\approx-0.8$, but they diverge later: Model I crosses $\omega=-1$ into phantom territory, while Model II predicts the universe will eventually decelerate again. The authors read this as a testable difference, since the second model also lacks the long matter-dominated phase needed for efficient structure formation.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the closure relation obtained by combining the $f(R,L_m)$ field equations with an assumed dark-energy equation of state. For the chosen gravity model, the equation-of-state parameter takes the form $\omega = \frac{2(2\alpha-1)(z+1)H' - 3\alpha H}{3\alpha H}$, a first-order differential equation for $H(z)$. The Gong-Zhang parametrizations, one-parameter forms that stay finite at high redshift, are substituted in and integrated, giving the closed-form Hubble functions (21) and (23). Every later result, including the deceleration parameter, energy density, pressure, energy conditions, statefinder pair, and cosmic age, is derived from those two Hubble functions.

What would settle it

A decisive discriminant is the high-redshift expansion rate: Model I and Model II predict different $H(z)$ for $z\approx2$-$3$, so a precise measurement at those redshifts from cosmic chronometers or baryon acoustic oscillations that lands on one curve and off the other would rule out the other model; a galaxy survey showing normal large-scale-structure power would falsify Model II's missing-matter-era prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the Gong-Zhang parametrizations are a natural fit in the $f(R,L_m)$ framework: with $f(R,L_m)=R/2+L_m^{\alpha}$ and $L_m=\rho$, the field equations reduce to $3H^2=(2\alpha-1)\rho^{\alpha}$ and a first-order equation for $H(z)$; substituting either equation of state closes the system and integrates to the explicit Hubble functions (21) and (23). Bayesian MCMC fits give $H_0\approx66$-$69$ km/s/Mpc, $w_0\approx-0.77$ to $-0.82$, and $\alpha\approx0.65$-$0.84$. The resulting deceleration parameters are negative today, with transition redshifts $0.6$-$0.9$, and the derived ages $t_0\approx12.6$-$13.4$ Gyr are compatible with the currently accepted age of the universe. The distinctive late-time predictions are Model I's future phantom crossing and Model II's future deceleration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dark-energy pressure-to-density ratio is exactly one of the two preset one-parameter functions at every redshift, together with the identification of the matter Lagrangian with the energy density; if either prior is wrong, the derived expansion histories are conclusions from that prior rather than from the gravity theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reconstructions are correct, both models are viable late-time cosmologies in $f(R,L_m)$ gravity, with best-fit parameters consistent with current $H_0$, $w_0$, and $\alpha$ constraints.
  • Model I predicts a present quintessence phase with $w\approx-0.8$ and a future crossing into phantom behavior, which would violate the null, weak, and dominant energy conditions in the future.
  • Model II predicts a future decelerating epoch, plausibly through energy transfer from dark energy to dark matter, and already violates the strong energy condition today.
  • Model II lacks a sustained cold-dark-matter-dominated phase, so structure formation would be inefficient, making the model distinguishable from standard cosmology through large-scale-structure observations.
  • The computed ages, about 13.2-13.4 Gyr for Model I and 12.6-12.7 Gyr for Model II, are compatible with the currently accepted age of the universe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the future-deceleration and phantom-crossing predictions are baked into the assumed dark-energy equation-of-state priors rather than emerging independently from $f(R,L_m)$ dynamics, so any modified gravity with the same closure equation would produce the same $H(z)$.
  • Editorial inference: the two models could be separated by precise measurements of $H(z)$ at $z\approx2$-$3$, where their analytic forms diverge, or by growth-rate data that would reveal the missing cold-dark-matter epoch in Model II.
  • Editorial inference: the fitted values of $\alpha$ (about 0.65-0.84) differ from the general-relativistic limit $\alpha=1$, suggesting a non-minimal matter-geometry coupling; a model-selection comparison against $\alpha=1$ would test whether the extra freedom is actually needed.
  • Editorial inference: the same Gong-Zhang equation-of-state forms can be tested in other modified-gravity settings, since the derivation only requires the algebraic relation between $H$, $H'$, and $\omega$.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs two cosmological models in f(R,L_m)=R/2+L_m^alpha gravity by imposing the Gong-Zhang dark-energy equation-of-state parametrizations omega(z)=w_0/(1+z) and omega(z)=w_0/(1+z) exp(z/(1+z)). Solving the Friedmann-like equations yields analytic Hubble-rate expressions, Eq. (21) for Model I and Eq. (23) for Model II. The authors constrain H_0, w_0, alpha, and a nuisance magnitude M using cosmic-chronometer (CC) data and a joint CC+Pantheon sample via MCMC. From the best-fit parameters they compute the deceleration parameter, energy density, pressure, energy conditions, statefinder diagnostics, and cosmic age, concluding that both models are compatible with late-time observations, that Model I crosses into a phantom regime in the future, and that Model II predicts future deceleration.

Significance. The paper's strength is its explicit analytic construction: the field equations (13)-(14) lead to a clean differential relation (18), and the two H(z) solutions are simple enough to be tested against standard data. The use of public CC and Pantheon datasets and the inclusion of several diagnostics (statefinder, age, energy conditions) are useful features. However, the significance is substantially weakened by two gaps. First, no goodness-of-fit statistic is reported, so the central claim of observational compatibility is not quantitatively demonstrated. Second, the headline late-time behaviors (phantom crossing in Model I, future deceleration in Model II) are direct consequences of the a priori assumed EoS parametrizations rather than independent predictions of f(R,L_m) gravity. If the authors supply proper model comparison and reframe the claims accordingly, the paper can be a valid contribution to f(R,L_m) phenomenology.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Tables 1-2] The paper never reports a goodness-of-fit statistic. Eq. (24) defines chi^2_CC and the MCMC minimizes chi^2, but the text gives only median parameter values and 1-sigma uncertainties. Without chi^2_min, chi^2/dof, AIC, DIC, or a quantitative comparison with Lambda-CDM on the same datasets, the repeated claim that the models are 'compatible with current observations' is not established. The authors should report the best-fit chi^2 for each model and dataset and, preferably, a model-selection metric relative to Lambda-CDM.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (19), (22), (31)-(32)] The assumed omega(z) parametrizations are inserted into Eq. (18) to solve for H(z); consequently the deceleration parameter, the phantom crossing in Model I, and the future deceleration in Model II are mathematical consequences of these priors, not independent predictions of the f(R,L_m) theory. The paper should state this clearly and avoid presenting these behaviors as derived results. To claim a genuine prediction of the theory, the authors would need to derive the EoS from the f(R,L_m) action or show that the qualitative conclusions are stable under reasonable variations of the parametrization.
  3. [Section 6.1 and Conclusions] The attribution of Model II's future deceleration to 'energy exchange between dark matter and dark energy' is unsupported by the field equations. Eqs. (13)-(14) describe a single perfect fluid with no coupling or interaction term; there is no two-fluid interaction in the model. This interpretation should be removed or replaced by an explicit model of interacting dark sectors with an interaction current in the field equations.
  4. [Section 4, after Eq. (18)] The EoS parameter in Eq. (18) is defined for the total cosmic fluid appearing in the energy-momentum tensor (12). The Gong-Zhang parametrizations are introduced as dark-energy EoS forms, but the paper does not justify equating the total-fluid EoS with a dark-energy parametrization. Unless the authors clarify why the total cosmic fluid should obey these forms, the derived H(z) is a kinematical ansatz rather than a consequence of the f(R,L_m) gravitational dynamics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title uses 'Gong-Zong' while the text and references use 'Gong-Zhang'; the spelling should be harmonized throughout.
  2. [Section 5] The MCMC analysis does not state the priors, the number of walkers and steps, the burn-in length, or convergence criteria such as the Gelman-Rubin statistic; these details are needed to reproduce and validate the results.
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 shows only model curves and no data points; overlaying the 31 cosmic-chronometer measurements with error bars would make the comparison with the models and with Lambda-CDM far more informative.
  4. [Section 5.2, Eq. (25)] The quantity called mu_th in Eq. (25) is actually the apparent magnitude (it includes the absolute magnitude M), whereas the standard distance-modulus notation does not include M; the notation should be made consistent with Eq. (28).
  5. [Section 6.5] The sentence 'We can see that the model's age of the universe has been change due to the absence of a structure formation era' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten clearly.
  6. [Tables 1 and 2] The uncertainties quoted for t0 are not described anywhere; the authors should explain how these errors are propagated from the MCMC chains or, if they come from a separate calculation, provide the formula used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper transparently derives H(z) from explicitly assumed EoS priors; the late-time behaviors are model-dependent consequences, not fitted inputs relabeled as predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the paper fixes f(R,L_m)=R/2+L_m^alpha with L_m=rho (Sec. 4), derives the relation (18) between omega and H from Eqs. (16)-(17), and then explicitly assumes the Gong-Zhang forms (19) and (22) as model inputs. Solving the resulting first-order ODEs gives H(z) in Eqs. (21) and (23); q, rho, p, statefinders, and age are algebraic or integral consequences of that H(z). No step defines an input in terms of an output, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as an independent prediction: w0 and alpha are fitted to CC/Pantheon data, while q0, zt, and t0 are functions of the best-fit parameters, which is standard parametric modeling. The late-time acceleration, phantom crossing in Model I, and future deceleration in Model II are visibly inherited from the assumed omega(z) forms; however, the paper presents these as properties of the chosen parametrization, not as first-principles predictions of f(R,L_m) gravity, so this is model dependence rather than circularity. Self-citations (e.g., [46,80]) are contextual and not load-bearing. Two non-circular limitations should be flagged: Sec. 5 gives no chi^2_min/dof, AIC, or model-comparison statistic, so 'compatibility with observations' is not quantitatively demonstrated; and the attribution of Model II's future deceleration to 'energy exchange between dark matter and dark energy' (Sec. 6.1, Conclusions) is not supported by Eqs. (13)-(14), which contain no interaction term. These are reporting and interpretation issues, not circular reductions.

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

The ledger is essentially a list of fitted parameters and assumed dynamical priors. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The load-bearing content external to the fit is the Harko-Lobo field equations, the FLRW metric, L_m=ρ, and the two ad hoc Gong-Zhang EoS forms. The fitted parameters, w0, α, H0 and the nuisance M, absorb most of the freedom in the model. The central predictions (deceleration-acceleration transition, phantom future in Model I, future deceleration in Model II) are all carried by the assumed EoS prior rather than by an independent mechanism.

free parameters (4)
  • w0 = Model I: -0.801 (CC), -0.779 (joint); Model II: -0.768 (CC), -0.822 (joint)
    Present-day dark-energy EoS value, a free parameter in the assumed Gong-Zhang EoS and fitted via MCMC. It determines the cosmic dynamics through Eqs. (21) and (23).
  • alpha = Model I: 0.810 (CC), 0.843 (joint); Model II: 0.657 (CC), 0.645 (joint)
    Exponent in f(R,L_m)=R/2+L_m^alpha, treated as a free constant and fitted to data. It controls the effective gravitational coupling in Eq. (16) and the EoS mapping in Eq. (18).
  • H0 = Model I: 68.9 (CC), 69.1 (joint); Model II: 66.1 (CC), 68.9 (joint) in km/s/Mpc
    Present-day Hubble constant, a normalization constant in the H(z) formulas and a fitted parameter.
  • M = 23.807 (Model I joint), 23.824 (Model II joint)
    Combined absolute magnitude and H0 nuisance parameter in the Pantheon distance modulus, fitted in the joint analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The f(R,L_m) field equations of Harko and Lobo (Eq. (5)) are correct and used as the starting point.
    The entire derivation rests on the published action and field equations of the f(R,L_m) theory; the paper cites [34] without re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption L_m = ρ is taken as the matter Lagrangian, following [57].
    The choice L_m=ρ enters Eqs. (16) and (17) directly and is a standard but non-unique assumption in curvature-matter coupling theories; the paper states it without discussion in Sec. 4.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark-energy EoS takes exactly the chosen Gong-Zhang forms, ω(z)=w0/(1+z) and ω(z)=w0/(1+z) exp(z/(1+z)).
    These parametrizations are introduced in Sec. 4 as priors to close the system of equations. They are not derived from f(R,L_m) and all subsequent predictions, including the future deceleration, inherit them.
  • domain assumption A perfect-fluid FLRW universe with a single effective dark-energy fluid describes the data.
    The field equations (13)-(14) are written for a single perfect fluid with energy density ρ and pressure p, and the Hubble data are fit with these homogeneous-isotropic equations.
  • standard math H(z) alone determines luminosity distances, deceleration parameter, statefinders, and age through the standard FLRW formulas (26), (30), (37), (38).
    These are textbook FLRW relations; the paper applies them without proving them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological model with Gong-Zong Parametrization in $f(R,L_m)$ gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKIQO4QX

@misc{pith2026250108161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological model with Gong-Zong Parametrization in $f(R,L_m)$ gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKIQO4QX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08161}
}
abstract

We present the cosmic expansion scenarios in the $f(R, L_m)$ gravity studied by using the dark energy equation of state (EoS) parameters. We proceed with the specific form of $f(R, L_m)$ gravity termed as $f(R, L_m)=\frac{R}{2}+L_{m}^{\alpha}$. We derive the expansion rate in terms of the red-shift for two different forms of EoS parameter. In first model, EoS parameter varies inversely with the redshift and in second model, it involves the exponential form with the redshift. By using the Bayesian methods based on the $\chi^{2}$-minimization technique, the median values of model parameters are determined for the cosmic chronometer(CC) and Joint (CC+Pantheon) data sets. The behavior of fundamental cosmological parameters such as the deceleration parameter, energy density and pressure are thoroughly examined. Additionally, the nature of Statefinder diagnostics and the present age of universe exemplifies the compatibility with the late-time astronomical observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08161 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In comparison to the ΛCDM model, the best fit Hubble parameters (given by Eq. (21) and (23)) with z. where M is the absolute magnitude. Also, the luminosity distance dL(z) (having dimension of the Length) may be written as [74] dL(z) = c(1+z) Z z 0 dz′ H(z ′) , (26) where the parameter z signifies SNIa’s redshift as determined in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) rest frame and c is defined as speed of the light… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model-I: Marginalized 1σ and 2σ contours map with median values of H0, w0 and α for CC data set. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model-II: Marginalized 1σ and 2σ contours map with median values of H0, w0 and α for CC data set. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model-I: 1σ and 2σ likelihood contours map for the Joint dataset. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model-II: 1σ and 2σ likelihood contours map for the Joint dataset. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For Model-I: q with z. −       [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: For Model-I: ρe f f and pe f f with z −        [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: For Model-II: ρe f f and pe f f with z 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: For Model I: ω with z. −       [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: For Model I: The components of energy conditions with z of dark energy may not be ruled out in this model. In the phantom dark energy dominated era, the violation of ρe f f +3pe f f > 0 will also be valid. For Model-II, graphical representations of all energy conditio…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: For Model-II: The components of energy conditions with z • For Quintessence model, one may have (r < 1,s > 0). • For Holographic dark energy model (HDE), (r = 1,s = 2 3 ). • For Standard cold dark matter (SCDM), one may have (r = 1,s = 1). The figures (14) and (15) il…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Model-II: Statefinder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V . Filippenko, P . Challis, A. Clocchiatti , A. Diercks et al., Observational Evidence from Super- novae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Const ant, Astronomical Journal, 116, 1009-1038 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1086/300499

    doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P . N ugent et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High- Redshift Supernovae, Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565–586 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1086/307221 20

    doi:10.1086/307221 1999

  3. [3]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y . Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigal upi, et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological param- eters, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  4. [4]

    Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Review s of Modern Physics, 61, 1 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Review s of Modern Physics, 61, 1 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

  5. [5]

    Di V alentino, O

    E. Di V alentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W . Y ang, etal., In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions , Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d 2021

  6. [6]

    S. M. Carroll, The cosmological constant, Living Review s in Relativity, 4, 1-56 (2001) https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2001-1

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-1 2001

  7. [7]

    Kerner, Cosmology without singularity and nonlinear gravitational Lagrangians, General Relativity and Gravit ation, 14, 453-469 (1982) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00756329

    R. Kerner, Cosmology without singularity and nonlinear gravitational Lagrangians, General Relativity and Gravit ation, 14, 453-469 (1982) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00756329

    doi:10.1007/bf00756329 1982

  8. [8]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmologica l theory, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 150, 1-8 (1970) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/150.1.1

    doi:10.1093/mnras/150.1.1 1970

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Unified cosmic history in modifi ed gravity: from f (R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models, Physics Reports, 505, 59-144 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V . K. Oikonomou, Modified grav ity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution, Physics Reports, 692, 1-104 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, f (R,T ) gravity, Physical Review D, 84, 024020 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024020

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Y .-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, E. N. Sarida kis, f (T ) teleparallel gravity and cosmology, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 106901 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106901

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V . F. Cardone, H. Farajollahi, A. Ravan pak, Cosmography in f (T ) gravity, Physical Review D, 84, 043527 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.043527

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Capozziello, R

    S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino, O. Luongo, Extended gra vity cosmography, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 28, 1930016 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271819300167

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, S. Zerbini, Fin ite-time future singularities in modified Gauss- Bonnet and f (R,G) gravity and singularity avoidance, The European Physical J ournal C, 67, 295-310 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1292-8

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V . De Falco, C. Ferrara, The role of the b oundary term in f (Q,B) symmetric teleparallel gravity, The European Physical Journal C, 83, 915 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12072-y

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    G. P . Singh, A. R. Lalke, N. Hulke, Study of particle crea tion with quadratic equation of state in higher derivative t he- ory, Brazilian Journal of Physics, 50, 725-743 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s13538-020-00788-1

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    G. P . Singh, R. Garg, A. Singh, A generalized Λ CDM model with parameterized Hubble parameter in particle creation, viscous and f (R) model framework, International Journal of Geometric Metho ds in Modern Physics, 2550111 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887825501117

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    R. Garg, G. P . Singh, A. Singh, Cosmic dynamics and obser vational constraints in f (Q) gravity with affine equation of state, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03212 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    G. K. Goswami, R. Rani, J. K. Singh, A. Pradhan, FLRW cosm ology in Weyl type f (Q) gravity and observational constraints, Journal of High Ene rgy Astrophysics, 43, 105-113 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.06.011

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Hulke, G

    N. Hulke, G. P . Singh, B. K. Bishi, A. Singh, V ariable Cha plygin gas cosmologies in f (R,T ) gravity with particle creation, New Astronomy, 77, 101357 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2020.101357 21

    2020

  14. [22]

    A. Singh, Dynamical systems of modified Gauss-Bonnet gr avity cosmological implications, The European Physical Journal C, 85, 1–12 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13732-3

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    K. N. Singh, G. R. P . Teruel, S. K. Maurya, T. Chowdhury, F . Rahaman, Conservative worm- holes in generalized K(R,T ) function, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 44, 132–145 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.09.009

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Chowdhury, P

    T. Chowdhury, P . Rudra, T. Chowdhury, F. Rahaman, Study of Wormhole in f (Q) Gravity with Some Dark Energy Models, Annals of Physics, 480, 170108 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2025.170108

    2025

  17. [25]

    Singh, S

    A. Singh, S. Mandal, R. Chaubey, R. Raushan, Observatio nal constraints on the expansion scalar and shear re- lation in the Locally rotationally symmetric Bianchi I mode l, Physics of the Dark Universe, 47, 101798 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2024.101798

    2025

  18. [26]

    Kotambkar, G

    S. Kotambkar, G. P . Singh, R. Kelkar, B. K. Bishi, Anisot ropic Bianchi type I cosmological models with generalized Chaplygin gas and dynamical gravitational and cosmologica l constants, Communications in Theoretical Physics, 67, 222 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/0253-6102/67/2/222

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    G. P . Singh, K. Desikan, A new class of cosmological mode ls in Lyra geometry, Pramana, 49, 205–212 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02845856

    1997 doi

  20. [28]

    M. B. V arela, O. Bertolami, Is cosmological data sugges ting a nonminimal coupling between matter and gravity?, Physics of the Dark Universe, 48, 101861 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.101861

    2025

  21. [29]

    Singh, G

    A. Singh, G. P . Singh, A. Pradhan, Cosmic dynamics and qu alitative study of Rastall model with spatial curvature, International Journal of Mod ern Physics A, 37, 2250104 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X22501044

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    G. P . Singh, A. R. Lalke, Cosmological study with hyperb olic solution in modified f (Q,T ) gravity theory, Indian Journal of Physics, 96, 4361–4372 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12648-022-02341-z

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Singh, R

    A. Singh, R. Raushan, R. Chaubey, S. Mandal, K. C. Mishra , Lagrangian formulation and implications of barotropic fluid cosmologies, International Journal of Geo metric Methods in Modern Physics, 19, 2250107 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887822501079

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    A. Singh, Homogeneous and anisotropic cosmologies wit h affine EoS: a dynamical system perspective, European Physical Journal C, 83, 696 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11879-z

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    A. R. Lalke, G. P . Singh, A. Singh, Late-time accelerati on from ekpyrotic bounce in f (Q,T ) gravity, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Mod ern Physics, 20, 2350131 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887823501311

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, f (R,Lm) gravity, The European Physical Journal C, 70, 373–379 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1467-3

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    Faraoni, Cosmology in scalar tensor gravity, Springer (2004) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-1989-0

    V . Faraoni, Cosmology in scalar tensor gravity, Springer (2004) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-1989-0

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    Zhang, Behaviour of f (R) gravity in the solar system, galaxies, and clusters, Physic al Review D, 76, 024007 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.024007

    P . Zhang, Behaviour of f (R) gravity in the solar system, galaxies, and clusters, Physic al Review D, 76, 024007 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.024007

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    Bertolami, J

    O. Bertolami, J. P´ aramos, S. G. Turyshev, General Theo ry of Relativity: Will it survive the next decade?, in: Lasers, Clocks and Drag-Free Control: Exploration of Re lativistic Gravity in Space, Springer, 27–74 (2008) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.gr-qc/0602016

    2008 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Rahaman, S

    F. Rahaman, S. Ray, M. Kalam, M. Sarker, Do Solar system t ests permit higher dimen- sional general relativity?, International Journal of Theo retical Physics, 48, 3124–3138 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-009-0110-2

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Gravity assisted dark energy dominance and cosmic acceleration, Physics Letters B, 599, 137–142 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.08.045 22

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    Allemandi, A

    G. Allemandi, A. Borowiec, M. Francaviglia, S. D. Odint sov, Dark energy dominance and cosmic acceleration in first-order formalism, Physical Review D, 72, 063505 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.063505

    2005 doi

  33. [41]

    F. S. N. Lobo, T. Harko, Extended f (R,Lm) theories of gravity, THE THIRTEENTH MARCEL GROSSMANN MEETING, , 1164–1166 (2015) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1211.0426

    2015 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Myrzakulov, O

    Y . Myrzakulov, O. Donmez, G. D. A. Yildiz, E. Gudekli, S. Muminov et al., Linear redshift parametriza- tion of deceleration parameter in f (R,Lm) gravity, Physics of the Dark Universe, 45, 101545 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2024.101545

    2024

  35. [43]

    V . K. Bhardwaj, S. Ray, Cosmological model in the framew ork of f (R,Lm) gravity with quadratic equation of state pa- rameter, Physics of the Dark Universe, 101930 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.101930

    2025

  36. [44]

    L. V . Jaybhaye, R. Solanki, P . K. Sahoo, Late time cosmic acceleration through parametriza- tion of Hubble parameter in f (R,Lm) gravity, Physics of the Dark Universe, 46, 101639 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2024.101639

    2024

  37. [45]

    Myrzakulova, M

    S. Myrzakulova, M. Koussour, N. Myrzakulov, Investiga ting the dark energy phenomenon in f (R,Lm) cosmological models with observational constraints, Phys ics of the Dark Universe, 43, 101399 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2023.101399

    2024

  38. [46]

    R. Garg, G. P . Singh, A. R. Lalke, S. Ray, Cosmological mo del with linear equation of state parameter in f (R,Lm) gravity, Physics Letters A, 525, 129937 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2024.129937

    2024

  39. [47]

    Pradhan, D

    A. Pradhan, D. C. Maurya, G. K. Goswami, A. Beesham, Mode ling transit dark energy in f (R,Lm) gravity, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Mod ern Physics, 20, 2350105 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887823501050

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    B. K. Shukla, R. K. Tiwari, D. Sofuo˘ glu, A. Beesham, FLR W Universe in f (R,Lm) Grav- ity with Equation of State Parameter, East European Journal of Physics, 4, 376–389 (2023) https://doi.org/10.26565/2312-4334-2023-4-48

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    D. C. Maurya, Bianchi-I dark energy cosmological model in f (R,Lm) gravity, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 21, 2450072, (2024) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887824500725

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Shukla, R

    A. Shukla, R. Raushan, R. Chaubey, Dynamical Systems An alysis of f (R,Lm) Gravity Model, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 2550118 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1142/S021988782550118X

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    L. V . Jaybhaye, R. Solanki, S. Mandal, P . K. Sahoo, Cosmo logy in f (R,Lm) gravity, Physics Letters B, 831, 137148 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137148

    2022

  44. [52]

    Gong, Y .-Z

    Y . Gong, Y .-Z. Zhang, Probing the curvature and dark ene rgy, Physical Review D, 72, 043518 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043518

    2005 doi

  45. [53]

    Y ang, X.-Y

    J. Y ang, X.-Y . Fan, C.-J. Feng, X.-H. Zhai, Latest data c onstraint of some parameterized dark energy models, Chines e Physics Letters, 40, 019801 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307X/40/1/019801

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    M. N. Castillo-Santos, A. Hern´ andez-Almada, M. A. Gar c´ ıa-Aspeitia, J. Maga˜ na, An exponential equation of state of dark energy in the light of 2018 CMB Planck data, Phys ics of the Dark Universe, 40, 101225 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2023.101225

    2023

  47. [55]

    Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology, Addison-Wesley S an Francisco, (2003)

    B. Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology, Addison-Wesley S an Francisco, (2003)

    2003

  48. [56]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Generalised curvature-matter c ouplings in modified gravity, Galaxies, 2, 410–465 (2014) https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies2030410

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    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, The Europ ean Physical Journal C, 75, 1–15 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3620-5 23

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    Huterer, M

    D. Huterer, M. S. Turner, Probing dark energy: Methods a nd strategies, Physical Review D, 64, 123527 (2001)https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.123527

    2001 doi

  51. [59]

    G. Efstathiou, Constraining the equation of state of th e universe from distant type Ia supernovae and cosmic microwave background anisotropies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 310, 842–850, (1999) https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02997.x

    1999

  52. [60]

    Weller, A

    J. Weller, A. Albrecht, Future supernovae observation s as a probe of dark energy, Physical Review D, 65, 103512 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.103512

    2002 doi

  53. [61]

    E. V . Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the uni verse, Physical review letters, 90, 091301 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301

    2003 doi

  54. [62]

    D. J. Liu, X. Z. Li, J. Hao, X. H. Jin, Revisiting the param etrization of equation of state of dark energy via SNIa data, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro nomical Society, 388, 275–281 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13380.x

    2008

  55. [63]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W . Hogg, D. Lang, J. Goodman, emce e: the MCMC hammer, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    Jimenez, A

    R. Jimenez, A. Loeb, Constraining cosmological parame ters based on relative galaxy ages, The Astrophysical Journ al, 573, 37 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1086/340549

    2002 doi

  57. [65]

    Mandal, A

    S. Mandal, A. Singh, R. Chaubey, Late-time constraints on barotropic fluid cosmology, Physics Letters A, 519, 129714 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2024.129714

    2024

  58. [66]

    Mandal, A

    S. Mandal, A. Singh, R. Chaubey, Observational constra ints and cosmological implica- tions of NLE model with variable G, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1246 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03471-3

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    Singh, S

    A. Singh, S. Krishnannair, Affine EoS cosmologies: Obse rvational and dynamical system constraints, Astronomy and Computing, 47, 100827 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2024.100827

    2024

  60. [68]

    D. M. Scolnic, D. O. Jones, A. Rest, Y . C. Pan, R. Chornock et al., The complete light-curve sample of spectroscop- ically confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and cosmological co nstraints from the combined Pantheon sample, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 101 (2018) https://doi....

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    A. G. Riess, R. P . Kirshner, B. P . Schmidt, S. Jha, P . Chal lis et al., BVRI light curves for 22 type Ia supernovae, The Astronomical Journal, 117, 707 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1086/300738

    1999 doi

  62. [70]

    Hicken, W

    M. Hicken, W . M. Wood-V asey, S. Blondin, P . Challis, S. J ha et al., Improved dark energy con- straints from 100 new CfA supernova type Ia light curves, The Astrophysical Journal, 700, 1097 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1097

    2009 doi

  63. [71]

    M. Sako, B. Bassett, A. C. Becker, P . J. Brown, H. Campbel l et al., The data release of the Sloan Digi- tal Sky Survey-II supernova survey, Publications of the Ast ronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 064002 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/aab4e0

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    J. Guy, M. Sullivan, A. Conley, N. Regnault, P . Astier, e t al., The Supernova Legacy Survey 3-year sample: Type Ia supernovae photometric distances and cosmological constraints, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 523, (2010) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014468

    2010 doi

  65. [73]

    Contreras, M

    C. Contreras, M. Hamuy, M. M. Phillips, G. Folatelli, N. B. Suntzeff, et al., The Carnegie Supernova Project: first photometry data release of low-redshift type Ia supern ovae, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 519 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/139/2/519

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    S. D. Odintsov, V . Oikonomou, A. Timoshkin, E. N. Sarida kis, R. Myrzakulov, Cosmo- logical fluids with logarithmic equation of state, Annals of Physics, 398, 238–253 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2018.09.015 24

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    G. F. R. Ellis, R. Maartens, M. A. H. MacCallum, Relativi stic cosmology, Cambridge University Press (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139014403

    2012 doi

  68. [76]

    Asvesta, L

    K. Asvesta, L. Kazantzidis, L. Perivolaropoulos, C. G. Tsagas, Observational constraints on the deceleration parameter in a tilted universe, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 2394–2406 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac922

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    A. R. Lalke, G. P . Singh, A. Singh, Cosmic dynamics with l ate-time constraints on the parametric deceleration parameter model, European Physic al Journal Plus, 139, 288 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05091-5

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    Pradhan, G

    A. Pradhan, G. Goswami, A. Beesham, Reconstruction of a n observationally constrained f (R,T ) gravity model, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 20, 2350169 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887823501694

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    Pradhan, G

    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) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2023.100737

    2023

  72. [80]

    R. Garg, G. P . Singh, A. Singh, Late-time dynamics of dar k energy EoS in symmetric teleparallel gravity, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 2550099 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X2550099X

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    Y ang, A

    W . Y ang, A. Mukherjee, E. D. V alentino, S. Pan, Interact ing dark energy with time varying equation of state and the H0 tension, Physical Review D, 98, 123527 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123527

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    Chakraborty, S

    S. Chakraborty, S. Pan, S. Saha, A third alternative to e xplain recent observations: Future deceleration, Physics Letters B, 738, 424–427 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.10.009

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    A. A. Escobal, J. F. Jesus, S. H. Pereira, J. A. S. Lima, Ca n the Universe decelerate in the future?, Physical Review D, 109, 023514 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023514

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    Visser, Energy conditions in the epoch of galaxy form ation, Science, 276, 88–90 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5309.88

    M. Visser, Energy conditions in the epoch of galaxy form ation, Science, 276, 88–90 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5309.88

    1997 doi

  77. [85]

    Sahni, T

    V . Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A. Starobinsky, U. Alam, Statefi nder—a new geometrical diagnostic of dark energy, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters, 77, 201–206 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1134/1.1574831

    2003 doi

  78. [86]

    U. Alam, V . Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A. Starobinsky, Explor ing the expanding universe and dark energy us- ing the Statefinder diagnostic, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344 , 1057–1074 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06871.x

    2003

  79. [87]

    M. L. Tong, Y . Zhang, Cosmic age, statefinder and Om diagn ostics in the decaying vacuum cosmology, Physical Review D, 80, 023503 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.023503 25

    2009 doi

Pith tools

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