Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Baryon asymmetry from higher-order matter contributions in gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new 'matter-squared' coupling to the baryon current can generate the observed baryon asymmetry, the paper argues.

desk verdict A genuinely new (1+3w^2) trick for gravitational baryogenesis, wrapped in a parameter-fitting exercise with internal consistency slips; worth refereeing, but not yet an explanation. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21504 v1 pith:MMT2WOSZ submitted 2025-04-30 gr-qc hep-ph

David S. Pereira , Francisco S.N. Lobo , José Mimoso This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-ph PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.Cq
keywords baryogenesisgravitationalf(RT^2)gravityenergy-momentumsquaredmatter-antimatterasymmetryBigBangnucleosynthesisearlyUniversecosmologymodified
topics Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry
open problems Quantum GravityMatter-Antimatter Asymmetry
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 establish that higher-order matter contributions in gravity can produce the observed excess of matter over antimatter in the Universe. It proposes the interaction $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{int}} = (\epsilon/M_*^8)\,\partial_\mu(\mathcal{T}^2)J^\mu_B$, in which the derivative of the squared energy-momentum tensor couples to the baryon current, and it computes the resulting baryon-to-entropy ratio in General Relativity and in $f(R,\mathcal{T}^2)$ gravity with $n=1/2$ and $n=1$. The authors find that this term alone can reproduce $n_b/s \simeq 8.8\times10^{-11}$ in all these settings for suitable cutoff scales $M_*$ and decoupling temperatures $T_D$, and they check each scenario against Big Bang Nucleosynthesis bounds. The broader point is that a small departure from General Relativity, or even no departure at all, may suffice for baryogenesis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimension-12 effective operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{int}} = (\epsilon/M_*^8)\,\partial_\mu(\mathcal{T}^2)J^\mu_B$, built from the scalar $\mathcal{T}^2 \equiv T_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu} = \rho^2(1+3w^2)$ for a perfect fluid. It is the $\mathcal{T}^2$ analogue of the standard gravitational baryogenesis coupling $\partial_\mu R J^\mu$, but with two advantages used throughout the paper: it does not vanish when $w=1/3$, and its time derivative scales as a high power of temperature, so the asymmetry inherits a strong $T_D^9/M_*^8$ dependence. The machinery also includes the modified Friedmann, acceleration, and continuity equations of $f(R,\mathcal{T}^2)$ gravity with $f = R + \eta'(\mathcal{T}^2)^n$, whose functions $F_{\mathrm{Frd}}(n,w)$ and $F_{\mathrm{Acc}}(n,w)$ control how $\mathcal{T}^2$ alters the expansion rate and hence the decoupling condition.

What would settle it

Derive the coefficient of $\partial_\mu(\mathcal{T}^2)J^\mu_B$ in a concrete braneworld, string, or quantum-gravity effective action: if it is absent or corresponds to $M_*$ far above $10^{17}$ GeV, the predicted asymmetry cannot reach $8.8\times10^{-11}$. A second, independent check is to measure the expansion history near $T\sim10^{15}$ GeV through primordial gravitational waves; a background inconsistent with the modified Friedmann equations used here would close the viable window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{int}} = (\epsilon/M_*^8)\,\partial_\mu(\mathcal{T}^2)J^\mu_B$ generates a net baryon asymmetry through the time derivative of $\mathcal{T}^2$ evaluated at decoupling, giving $n_b/s \simeq -(15g_b\epsilon/4\pi^2 g_*)\,(\dot{\mathcal{T}}^2/M_*^8 T)\big|_{T_D}$. For a perfect fluid $\mathcal{T}^2 = \rho^2(1+3w^2)$, so the coupling survives in the radiation epoch ($w=1/3$), where the original Ricci-scalar coupling $\partial_\mu R J^\mu$ vanishes, and it is amplified by the quadratic density dependence. In pure General Relativity the paper obtains $n_b/s\simeq8.79\times10^{-11}$ for $M_*\simeq2\times10^{16}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $T_D\simeq1.48\times10^{15}\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and it reports successful baryogenesis in the $f(R,\mathcal{T}^2)$ models with $n=1/2$ and $n=1$ as well. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis bounds are used to restrict the model parameter $\eta$, leaving narrower but non-empty viable windows.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism rests on the assumption that the interaction (2) exists in the early-Universe effective theory with a cutoff $M_*$ in the range needed; the paper motivates it by analogy with braneworld, string-inspired, and quantum-gravity effective actions but does not derive it from any of them, and the actual $B$ or $B-L$ violating process is left unspecified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\mathcal{T}^2$ coupling remains active during the radiation epoch, so gravitational baryogenesis no longer suffers the vanishing $(1-3w)$ factor that suppresses the original Ricci-scalar mechanism.
  • A successful asymmetry can be obtained in pure General Relativity with $M_*\simeq2\times10^{16}$ GeV and $T_D\simeq1.48\times10^{15}$ GeV, so the mechanism does not require modified gravity.
  • In the $n=1/2$ $f(R,\mathcal{T}^2)$ model, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis-compatible values of $\eta$ still yield the observed asymmetry when the cutoff is pushed to $M_*\simeq10^{17}$ GeV and $T_D\simeq2\times10^{16}$ GeV, so only modest departures from GR are needed.
  • In the $n=1$ model, the original $\dot{R}$ coupling generates no asymmetry because $R=0$ in the radiation epoch, but the $\mathcal{T}^2$ coupling works and is the most sensitive to the model parameter $\eta$.
  • The dimension-12 interaction is suppressed by $(T_{\mathrm{BBN}}/M_*)^8$, so it is harmless at nucleosynthesis even for cutoff scales as low as $10^7$ GeV.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If operator (2) is real, the same construction could be tried with the lepton or $B-L$ current, and the required scales $M_*\sim10^{16}$ GeV point toward GUT-scale or Planck-scale physics; identifying the explicit B/L-violating process is the natural next step the paper leaves open.
  • The strong scaling $n_b/s\propto T_D^9/M_*^8$ makes the mechanism falsifiable by independent early-Universe probes, such as primordial gravitational-wave backgrounds, that constrain either $M_*$ or the expansion history at temperatures near $10^{15}$ GeV.
  • The constraint that forces $\rho\propto a^{-4}$ relates $\eta$ to the equation of state; since it vanishes for $w=1/3$, a radiation-only universe would reduce to GR, suggesting that stiff-matter or other non-radiation phases, which the paper notes can enhance gravitational-wave signals, may be the natural arena for this baryogenesis channel.
  • A direct derivation of (2) in a particular braneworld or string-inspired model would turn the parametric success into a prediction, because the effective cutoff $M_*$ would no longer be free.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 paper proposes a new effective interaction term L_int = (ε/M_*^8) ∂_μ(T^2) J^μ_B for gravitational baryogenesis, where T^2 = T_{μν}T^{μν}, and studies its consequences in General Relativity and in f(R,T^2) = R + η'(T^2)^n gravity for n = 1/2 and n = 1. It derives the cosmological background for these models, computes the resulting baryon-to-entropy ratio n_b/s for the new ∂(T^2) coupling and for the standard ∂R coupling, and checks Big Bang Nucleosynthesis constraints. The paper reports that suitable choices of the cutoff M_*, decoupling temperature T_D, and model parameter η reproduce the observed n_b/s ≈ 8.8×10^{-11} in GR, in the n = 1/2 model, and in the n = 1 model.

Significance. The paper is transparent in its presentation of the f(R,T^2) cosmological equations and includes an explicit BBN constraint analysis, which is a useful addition to the energy-momentum-squared gravity literature. The central proposal, however, is a conditional feasibility argument rather than a derivation: the operator (2) is assumed without a UV construction, the B/B−L violating processes are not specified, and the reported agreement with the observed asymmetry is obtained by scanning the free parameters M_*, T_D, and η. Since n_b/s scales as a high power of T_D (T_D^9 in the GR and n=1/2 cases, T_D^11 in the n=1 case), the quoted 'successes' are fits rather than independent predictions. The paper could be publishable as a parameter-space scan showing that such an operator can in principle bias baryogenesis to the observed level, but the present framing overstates the explanatory power of the mechanism.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (2); §5] The central claim rests on an unproven effective operator. The paper states that Eq. (2) 'may arise' in braneworld, string-inspired, or quantum-gravity settings, but no derivation from any of those frameworks is provided, and §5 explicitly leaves the B or B−L violating interaction to future work. Since the ∂_μ(T^2) coupling alone does not violate baryon number, the computed n_b/s in Eqs. (70), (71), and (78) is not a prediction: for fixed M_* and η, the asymmetry scales as T_D^9 or T_D^11, so the observed value 8.8×10^{-11} can be reproduced by a continuum of (M_*, T_D) choices. The authors should either reframe the results as a feasibility scan with explicit statements about the free parameters, or provide a concrete UV or particle-physics mechanism that fixes T_D and M_*.
  2. [§4.2(ii), Eqs. (70)-(71)] One of the two 'successful' benchmarks in the n = 1/2 case uses T_D = 2×10^{16} GeV with M_* = 10^{17} GeV. This decoupling temperature exceeds the paper's own upper bound M_I ≈ 1.6×10^{16} GeV, stated in §2 as the maximum energy scale based on tensor-mode constraints. The authors should either provide a benchmark that satisfies T_D ≤ M_I, or explicitly justify why the decoupling temperature can exceed the inflationary upper bound. As written, the quoted success lies outside the admitted domain of validity.
  3. [§4.2(iii), Eq. (78)] The quoted benchmark η = 989.7 × M_Pl^4 is dimensionally incompatible with the definition of η in the Introduction, where η' = η M_Pl^{−6} for n = 1 implies that η is dimensionless. Equation (78) contains η^{1/2} and is dimensionally consistent only if η is dimensionless; inserting a dimensionful η = 989.7 M_Pl^4 makes the expression dimensionally inconsistent. In addition, the statement in the text that η' = η/M_Pl^4 for n = 1 contradicts the Introduction's η' = η M_Pl^{−6}. These inconsistencies undermine the n = 1 success claim and must be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §4] The paper contains several typographical errors, including 'cuto ff' in the abstract and 'is is' at the start of §4; these should be corrected in a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [§1, §4.2(iii)] The notation η is used both for the f(R,T^2) coupling parameter and for the baryon-to-entropy ratio η_s in the introduction; the authors should consistently distinguish the two to avoid confusion.
  3. [§4.2(iii), Eqs. (74)-(78)] The derivation of ˙T^2 = −η'^{-1} t^{-3} from ρ(t) ≃ sqrt(3/(8η')) t^{-1} is not shown in detail, and the numerical coefficient in Eq. (78) is not transparent; a step-by-step derivation would help the reader verify the result.
  4. [§3.1, Eq. (14)] The term proportional to ∂^2 L_m/∂g^{μν}∂g^{αβ} is set to zero 'to mitigate divergences'; the authors should acknowledge the loss of generality that this choice entails, since the BBN constraints derived later depend on this assumption.
  5. [§4.1(i), Eq. (52)] The BBN bounds are quoted both for η and for η'; the authors should explicitly state the units of η' in each case (e.g., GeV^{−2} for n = 1/2) to avoid dimensional ambiguity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central 'predictions' of the new T² interaction are parameter choices inverted from the observed asymmetry; the operator itself is postulated rather than derived, so the mechanism is a fitting exercise.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.2 (ii), GR case, Eq. (70) and following text]
    "where we found that for TD = 1.48× 10^15 GeV, ϵ = 1 and M∗ = 2× 10^16 GeV the model predicts successful baryogenesis with nb/s≈ 8.7904× 10−11, a notable result as no deviation from GR is needed to obtain a valid asymmetry."

    Eq. (70) gives n_b/s = C T_D^9 / M_*^8 with C a constant, so the observed ratio (8.8±0.6)×10^{-11} is the target used to select T_D and M_*. Since these are continuous free parameters and the function is monotone, the quoted 'prediction' is the same number that was used as the selection condition: the model is not predicting the asymmetry, it is being solved backwards to reproduce it. Calling this 'a notable result' recasts a parameter choice as independent output.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.2 (iii), Model n=1, Eq. (78) and following text; same pattern in Eq. (71)]
    "In this case, for ϵ = 1, TD = 1× 10^12 GeV and M∗ = 1× 10^16 GeV we obtained the asymmetry nb/s (η = 989.7× M4 Pl)≃ 8.8002× 10−11 a result that solves the asymmetry dilemma while being in agreement with BBN constraints."

    In Eqs. (71) and (78), η is a free model parameter and n_b/s is monotone in η (through ρ0(η) in Eq. (71) and as η^{1/2} in Eq. (78)). The value η = 989.7×M_Pl^4 is chosen so that the right-hand side evaluates to the same observed 8.8×10^{-11} that defines 'successful baryogenesis'; in Eq. (71) the same is done with η=0.001. The agreement is therefore a fitting condition, not an independent confirmation. The BBN constraint is checked only after this tuning, so the quoted 'solution of the asymmetry dilemma' is the input target rewritten as an output.

full rationale

The paper's formal derivation chain from the postulated interaction (2) to the asymmetry formula (3) is internally consistent, and the f(R,T^2) cosmological equations are worked out rather than imported from a self-citation. The BBN bounds (52) and (68) are independent external constraints, and the citations to the authors' own earlier work (Refs. [12], [70]) are contextual, not load-bearing. However, the headline numerical successes in Sec. 4.2 are not independent predictions: in each case (GR, n=1/2, n=1) the observable n_b/s is a monotone function of free continuous parameters (M_*, T_D and/or η), and the parameter values quoted immediately after the formula have been chosen so that the formula evaluates to the observed 8.8×10^{-11}. Presenting this as 'the model predicts successful baryogenesis' converts a fitting condition into a prediction. The operator itself is not derived from a UV theory, and Sec. 5 concedes that the required B or B−L violating processes are left to future work, so the mechanism is conditional. These issues warrant score 6: partial circularity through fitted parameters renamed as predictions, while the self-citation dimension is not problematic.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a proposed EFT operator whose cutoff and auxiliary parameters (M_*, T_D, eta, rho_c) are adjusted to reproduce the observed asymmetry. The only external anchor is the BBN bound, which rules out some parameter choices but does not validate the operator's existence.

free parameters (5)
  • M_* (cutoff scale of the T^2-baryon coupling) = 2e16 GeV, 1e16 GeV, 1e17 GeV in different scenarios
    Chosen so that n_b/s matches the observed 8.8e-11; no independent determination.
  • eta (f(R,T^2) coupling, n=1/2) = 0.00192932 and 0.001 in examples
    Adjusted to match observed asymmetry while satisfying BBN bound.
  • eta (f(R,T^2) coupling, n=1) = 989.7 M_Pl^4
    Chosen to make Eq. (78) yield the observed asymmetry.
  • rho_c (integration constant in constrained case) = 9.545e57 and 7.028e36
    Selected to normalize the energy density evolution so that n_b/s matches observation.
  • T_D (decoupling temperature) = 1.48e15 GeV, 7.984e14 GeV, 1e12 GeV, 2e16 GeV in different scenarios
    Set by hand in each successful scenario; not predicted by the B-violating mechanism.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard FLRW cosmology and weak-interaction freeze-out rates for BBN are used without modification.
    Equations (31)-(39) rely on standard neutron-proton conversion rates and the bound on delta T_freeze/T_freeze from refs. [80,81].
  • domain assumption The f(R,T^2) field equations are used with L_m = p and the explicit setting of partial^2 L_m / partial g partial g = 0 to avoid divergences.
    Adopted in Section 3.1 following ref. [69]; this matter-Lagrangian choice affects the theta_mu nu tensor and all subsequent cosmological equations.
  • domain assumption A B or B-L violating interaction exists and decouples at T_D, but its identity is not specified.
    Section 5 states that the specific B or B-L violation mechanism will be examined in a future study; the asymmetry computation assumes such processes are active above T_D.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective operator (2) is assumed to exist, with no derivation from string theory, braneworlds, or quantum gravity.
    Introduced in Section 2 as 'may arise' in several frameworks, but never derived; the entire central claim depends on this operator.
invented entities (1)
  • The partial_mu(T^2) J^mu_B interaction operator
    purpose: Generate baryon asymmetry in the radiation epoch where the conventional R-coupling vanishes.
    No falsifiable handle outside the paper: M_* is fitted, no collider or cosmological signature is predicted independently of the fit, and there is no UV derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Baryon asymmetry from higher-order matter contributions in gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MMT2WOSZ

@misc{pith2026250421504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Baryon asymmetry from higher-order matter contributions in gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MMT2WOSZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21504}
}
abstract

We investigate the observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter by incorporating higher-order matter contributions in gravity, specifically analyzing gravitational baryogenesis within the framework of $ f(R,\mathcal{T}^2) $ gravity, where $ R $ is the Ricci scalar and $ \mathcal{T}^2 \equiv T_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu} $. We further explore the impact of high-order matter contributions by considering an interaction term analogous to those in gravitational and spontaneous baryogenesis, constructed using $ \mathcal{T}^2 $. The cutoff energy scale of the new interaction term is presented and its implications to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) are discussed. The properties and implications of this term are analyzed within the frameworks of General Relativity and $f(R, \mathcal{T}^2)$ gravity. Furthermore, a connection to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) is established, providing an observational constraint on the functional form of $f(R, \mathcal{T}^2)$. By introducing $\mathcal{T}^2$ into the gravitational action, we propose that these modifications could significantly influence the early Universe's dynamics, thereby altering the conditions necessary for baryogenesis to occur.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21504 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot of nb s vs η. The black line shows the evolution of nb s (η), the dashed red lines indicate the observation uncertainties for nb s , with the yellow band representing a validity zone, while the green line marks the observation value for the asymmetry. The green dot marks the point where nb s (ηc) ≃ 8.8 × 10−11 with ηc = 0.50112. asymmetry grows linearly with η demonstrating the impact of the additional terms in… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wilczek, The cosmic asymmetry between matter and antimatter, Sci- entific American 243 (6) (1980) 82–91

    F. Wilczek, The cosmic asymmetry between matter and antimatter, Sci- entific American 243 (6) (1980) 82–91. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/24966477

    work page arXiv 1980

  2. [2]

    What Is The BBN Prediction for the Baryon Density and How Reliable Is It?

    S. Burles, K. M. Nollett, M. S. Turner, What is the BBN prediction for the baryon density and how reliable is it?, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 063512. arXiv:astro-ph/0008495, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.063512

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    C. L. Bennett, et al., First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 1–27. arXiv:astro-ph/0302207, doi:10.1086/ 377253

    arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Burles, K

    S. Burles, K. M. Nollett, M. S. Turner, Big bang nucleosynthesis pre- dictions for precision cosmology, Astrophys. J. Lett. 552 (2001) L1–L6. arXiv:astro-ph/0010171, doi:10.1086/320251

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    C. L. Bennett, et al., The Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) mission, Astrophys. J. 583 (2003) 1–23. arXiv:astro-ph/0301158, doi:10. 1086/345346

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parame- ters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]. arXiv:1807.06209, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833910. 9

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T.-H. Yeh, C. Young, Big-Bang Nucleosynthe- sis after Planck, JCAP 03 (2020) 010, [Erratum: JCAP 11, E02 (2020)]. arXiv:1912.01132, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/010

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    P. A. Zyla, et al., Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2020 (8) (2020) 083C01. doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa104

    doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa104 2020

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Riotto, M

    A. Riotto, M. Trodden, Recent progress in baryogenesis, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49 (1999) 35–75. arXiv:hep-ph/9901362, doi:10.1146/ annurev.nucl.49.1.35

    1999 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Shaposhnikov, Baryogenesis, J

    M. Shaposhnikov, Baryogenesis, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 171 (2009) 012005. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/171/1/012005

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    D. E. Morrissey, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Electroweak baryogenesis, New J. Phys. 14 (2012) 125003. arXiv:1206.2942, doi:10.1088/ 1367-2630/14/12/125003

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D. S. Pereira, J. a. Ferraz, F. S. N. Lobo, J. P. Mimoso, Baryogenesis: A Symmetry Breaking in the Primordial Universe Revisited, Symmetry 16 (1) (2024) 13. arXiv:2312.14080, doi:10.3390/sym16010013

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, G. D. Kribs, H. Murayama, P. J. Steinhardt, Gravitational baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 201301. arXiv: hep-ph/0403019, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.201301

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S. M. Carroll, J. Shu, Models of baryogenesis via spontaneous Lorentz violation, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 103515. arXiv:hep-ph/0510081, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.103515

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Li, J.-Q

    M. Li, J.-Q. Xia, H. Li, X. Zhang, Cosmological CPT violation, baryo/leptogenesis and CMB polarization, Phys. Lett. B 651 (2007) 357–

    2007

  8. [16]

    M. Li, X. Zhang, Cosmological CPT violating e ffect on CMB polar- ization, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 103516. arXiv:0810.0403, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.103516

    2008 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J.-Q. Xia, H. Li, G.-B. Zhao, X. Zhang, Testing CPT Symmetry with CMB Measurements: Update after WMAP5, Astrophys. J. Lett. 679 (2008) L61–L63. arXiv:0803.2350, doi:10.1086/589447

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    N. E. Mavromatos, Violation of CPT Invariance in the Early Universe and Leptogenesis/Baryogenesis, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 447 (2013) 012016. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/447/1/012016

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    N. E. Mavromatos, S. Sarkar, CPT-violating leptogenesis induced by gravitational backgrounds, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 442 (2013) 012020. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/442/1/012020

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    J. I. McDonald, G. M. Shore, Gravitational leptogenesis, C, CP and strong equivalence, JHEP 02 (2015) 076. arXiv:1411.3669, doi:10.1007/ JHEP02(2015)076

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    N. E. Mavromatos, Models and (some) Searches for CPT Violation: From Early Universe to the Present Era, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 873 (1) (2017) 012006. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/873/1/012006

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Zhai, S.-Y

    H. Zhai, S.-Y . Li, M. Li, H. Li, X. Zhang, The e ffects on CMB power spectra and bispectra from the polarization rotation and its correlations with temperature and E-polarization, JCAP 12 (2020) 051.arXiv:2006. 01811, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/051

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Li, M.-z

    H. Li, M.-z. Li, X.-m. Zhang, Gravitational leptogenesis and neutrino mass limit, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 047302. arXiv:hep-ph/0403281, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.047302

    2004 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Lambiase, G

    G. Lambiase, G. Scarpetta, Baryogenesis in f(R): Theories of Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 087504. arXiv:astro-ph/0610367, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.74.087504

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Lambiase, S

    G. Lambiase, S. Mohanty, L. Pizza, Consequences of f(R)-theories of gravity on gravitational leptogenesis, Gen. Rel. Grav. 45 (2013) 1771–

    2013

  18. [26]

    Mohseni Sadjadi, Multicomponent solution in modified theory of gravity, Phys

    H. Mohseni Sadjadi, Multicomponent solution in modified theory of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 103501. arXiv:0710.3308, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.103501

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bhattacharjee, Gravitational baryogenesis in extended teleparallel the- ories of gravity, Phys

    S. Bhattacharjee, Gravitational baryogenesis in extended teleparallel the- ories of gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 30 (2020) 100612. arXiv:2005. 05534, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100612

    2020

  20. [28]

    M. A. Mojahed, K. Schmitz, X.-J. Xu, Gravitational chargegenesis (9 2024). arXiv:2409.10605

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    L. V . Jaybhaye, S. Bhattacharjee, P. K. Sahoo, Baryogenesis in f(R,Lm) gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 40 (2023) 101223. arXiv:2304.02482, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2023.101223

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. H. Ba ffou, M. J. S. Houndjo, D. A. Kanfon, I. G. Salako, f (R, T) models applied to baryogenesis, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2) (2019) 112. arXiv:1808.01917, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6559-0

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Nozari, F

    K. Nozari, F. Rajabi, Baryogenesis in f (R, T) Gravity, Commun. Theor. Phys. 70 (4) (2018) 451. doi:10.1088/0253-6102/70/4/451

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    P. K. Sahoo, S. Bhattacharjee, Gravitational Baryogenesis in Non- Minimal Coupled f (R, T) Gravity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 59 (5) (2020) 1451–

    2020

  25. [33]

    S. D. Odintsov, V . K. Oikonomou, Gauss–Bonnet gravitational baryoge- nesis, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 259–262. arXiv:1607.00545, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.06.074

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Arbuzova, A

    E. Arbuzova, A. Dolgov, K. Dutta, R. Rangarajan, Gravitational Baryo- genesis: Problems and Possible Resolution, Symmetry 15 (2) (2023) 404. arXiv:2301.08322, doi:10.3390/sym15020404

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Unified cosmic history in modified grav- ity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models, Phys. Rept. 505 (2011) 59–144. arXiv:1011.0544, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011. 04.001

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V . K. Oikonomou, Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution, Phys. Rept. 692 (2017) 1–104. arXiv:1705.11098, doi:10.1016/j.physrep. 2017.06.001

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Akrami, et al., Modified Gravity and Cosmology

    Y . Akrami, et al., Modified Gravity and Cosmology. An Update by the CANTATA Network, Springer, 2021. arXiv:2105.12582, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-83715-0

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Akrami, et al., Planck 2018 results

    Y . Akrami, et al., Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation, As- tron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A10. arXiv:1807.06211, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/201833887

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V . Dzhunushaliev, V . Folomeev, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Modified gravity from the quantum part of the metric, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2743. arXiv:1312.0225, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2743-4

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Maartens, K

    R. Maartens, K. Koyama, Brane-World Gravity, Living Rev. Rel. 13 (2010) 5. arXiv:1004.3962, doi:10.12942/lrr-2010-5

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    T.-P. Hack, V . Moretti, On the Stress-Energy Tensor of Quantum Fields in Curved Spacetimes - Comparison of Different Regularization Schemes and Symmetry of the Hadamard /Seeley-DeWitt Coefficients, J. Phys. A 45 (2012) 374019. arXiv:1202.5107, doi:10.1088/1751-8113/ 45/37/374019

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    L. H. Ford, Quantum field theory in curved space-time, in: 9th Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School: Particles and Fields, 1997, pp. 345–388. arXiv:gr-qc/9707062

    1997 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Katırcı, M

    N. Katırcı, M. Kavuk, f (R, TµνTµν) gravity and Cardassian-like expan- sion as one of its consequences, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 129 (2014) 163. arXiv:1302.4300, doi:10.1140/epjp/i2014-14163-6

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    C. V . R. Board, J. D. Barrow, Cosmological Models in Energy- Momentum-Squared Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 96 (12) (2017) 123517, [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 98, 129902 (2018)]. arXiv:1709.09501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123517

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Roshan, F

    M. Roshan, F. Shojai, Energy-Momentum Squared Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 94 (4) (2016) 044002. arXiv:1607.06049, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 94.044002

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Akarsu, A

    O. Akarsu, A. K. Camlibel, N. Katirci, I. Semiz, N. M. Uzun, Weak field and slow motion limits in energy–momentum powered gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 42 (2023) 101305. arXiv:2210.04668, doi:10.1016/j. dark.2023.101305

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Akarsu, M

    O. Akarsu, M. Bouhmadi-L ´opez, N. Katirci, N. M. Uzun, Quadratic energy–momentum squared gravity: Constraints from big bang nucle- osynthesis, Phys. Dark Univ. 45 (2024) 101505. arXiv:2312.11453, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101505

    2024

  40. [48]

    Nazari, M

    E. Nazari, M. Roshan, I. De Martino, Constraining energy-momentum- squared gravity by binary pulsar observations, Phys. Rev. D 105 (4) (2022) 044014. arXiv:2201.08578, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105. 044014

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Akarsu, J

    O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, S. C ¸ ıkınto ˘glu, K. Y . Eks ¸i, N. Katırcı, Con- straint on energy-momentum squared gravity from neutron stars and its cosmological implications, Phys. Rev. D 97 (12) (2018) 124017. arXiv: 1802.02093, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124017

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. A. Hosseini Mansoori, F. Felegary, M. Roshan, O. Akarsu, M. Sami, T2- inflation: Sourced by energy–momentum squared gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 42 (2023) 101360. arXiv:2306.09181, doi:10.1016/j.dark. 2023.101360

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    S. A. Hosseini Mansoori, F. Felegray, A. Talebian, M. Sami, PBHs and GWs from T2-inflation and NANOGrav 15-year data, JCAP 08 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    D. Jang, M. R. Gangopadhyay, M.-K. Cheoun, T. Kajino, M. Sami, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis constraints on the Energy-Momentum Squared Gravity: The T2 model (2 2024). arXiv:2402.01210

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. H. Barbar, A. M. Awad, M. T. AlFiky, Viability of bouncing cosmol- ogy in energy-momentum-squared gravity, Phys. Rev. D 101 (4) (2020) 044058. arXiv:1911.00556, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044058

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Faraji, N

    M. Faraji, N. Rashidi, K. Nozari, Inflation in energy-momentum squared gravity in light of Planck2018, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (5) (2022) 593. arXiv:2107.13547, doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-02820-6

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Nazari, F

    E. Nazari, F. Sarvi, M. Roshan, Generalized Energy-Momentum-Squared Gravity in the Palatini Formalism, Phys. Rev. D 102 (6) (2020) 064016. arXiv:2008.06681, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064016

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Harko, Thermodynamic interpretation of the generalized gravity mod- els with geometry - matter coupling, Phys

    T. Harko, Thermodynamic interpretation of the generalized gravity mod- els with geometry - matter coupling, Phys. Rev. D 90 (4) (2014) 044067. arXiv:1408.3465, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044067

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, J. P. Mimoso, D. Pav ´on, Gravitational in- duced particle production through a nonminimal curvature–matter cou- pling, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 386. arXiv:1508.02511, doi:10. 1140/epjc/s10052-015-3620-5

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    M. A. S. Pinto, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Gravitationally induced particle production in scalar-tensor f(R,T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 106 (4) (2022) 044043. arXiv:2205.12545, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.044043

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    M. A. S. Pinto, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Irreversible Geometrothermody- namics of Open Systems in Modified Gravity, Entropy 25 (6) (2023) 944. arXiv:2306.13912, doi:10.3390/e25060944

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    R. A. C. Cipriano, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, M. A. S. Pinto, J. a. L. Rosa, Gravitationally induced matter creation in scalar–tensor f(R,T µνTµν) gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 44 (2024) 101463. arXiv:2310.15018, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101463

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    E. W. Kolb, The Early Universe, V ol. 69, Taylor and Francis, 2019.doi: 10.1201/9780429492860

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, E. Witten, SUPERSTRING THEORY . VOL. 1: INTRODUCTION, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, 1988

    1988

  55. [63]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, E. Witten, SUPERSTRING THEORY . VOL. 2: LOOP AMPLITUDES, ANOMALIES AND PHENOMENOLOGY, 1988

    1988

  56. [64]

    Shtanov, V

    Y . Shtanov, V . Sahni, Bouncing brane worlds, Phys. Lett. B 557 (2003) 1–6. arXiv:gr-qc/0208047, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03) 00179-5

    2003 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, P. Singh, Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: An Analytical and Numerical Investigation. I., Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 124038. arXiv:gr-qc/0604013, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 73.124038

    2006 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Extra force in f(R) modified theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 104016. arXiv: 0704.1733, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.104016

    2007 arXiv

  59. [67]

    arXiv:2307.06757, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/067. 10

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Bertolami, F

    O. Bertolami, F. S. N. Lobo, J. Paramos, Non-minimum coupling of perfect fluids to curvature, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 064036. arXiv: 0806.4434, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.064036

    2008 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Akarsu, M

    O. Akarsu, M. Bouhmadi-L ´opez, N. Katırcı, E. Nazari, M. Roshan, N. M. Uzun, Equivalence of matter-type modified gravity theories to general rel- ativity with nonminimal matter interaction, Phys. Rev. D 109 (10) (2024) 104055. arXiv:2306.11717, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.104055

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    D. S. Pereira, Scalar-tensor Baryogenesis (12 2024). arXiv:2412. 06984

    2024

  63. [71]

    B. F. Schutz, Perfect Fluids in General Relativity: Velocity Potentials and a Variational Principle, Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 2762–2773. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.2.2762

    1970 doi

  64. [72]

    Rangarajan, D

    R. Rangarajan, D. V . Nanopoulos, Inflationary baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 063511. arXiv:hep-ph/0103348, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.64.063511

    2001 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Y . Cado, C. Englert, T. Modak, M. Quir ´os, Baryogenesis in R2-Higgs inflation: The gravitational connection, Phys. Rev. D 109 (4) (2024) 043026. arXiv:2312.10414, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043026

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Gunji, K

    Y . Gunji, K. Ishiwata, T. Yoshida, Supersymmetric baryogenesis in a hybrid inflation model, JHEP 08 (2023) 201. arXiv:2303.05663, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)201

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Ahmad, A

    S. Ahmad, A. De Felice, N. Jaman, S. Kuroyanagi, M. Sami, Baryoge- nesis in the paradigm of quintessential inflation, Phys. Rev. D 100 (10) (2019) 103525. arXiv:1908.03742, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100. 103525

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    T.-H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K. A. Olive, B. D. Fields, Probing physics beyond the standard model: limits from BBN and the CMB independently and combined, JCAP 10 (2022) 046. arXiv:2207.13133, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2022/10/046

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T.-H. Yeh, Big Bang Nucleosyn- thesis: 2015, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (2016) 015004. arXiv:1505.01076, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Park, C.-m

    J. Park, C.-m. Yun, M.-K. Cheoun, D. Jang, Oscillating cosmic evolution and constraints on big bang nucleosynthesis in the extended Starobin- sky model, JCAP 05 (2023) 016. arXiv:2212.11487, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2023/05/016

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Gouttenoire, G

    Y . Gouttenoire, G. Servant, P. Simakachorn, Kination cosmology from scalar fields and gravitational-wave signatures (11 2021). arXiv:2111. 01150

    2021

  72. [80]

    Capozziello, G

    S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase, E. N. Saridakis, Constraining f(T) teleparallel gravity by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (9) (2017) 576. arXiv:1702.07952, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-017-5143-8

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Asimakis, S

    P. Asimakis, S. Basilakos, N. E. Mavromatos, E. N. Saridakis, Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on higher-order modified gravities, Phys. Rev. D 105 (8) (2022) 084010. arXiv:2112.10863, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.105.084010

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Ghoshal, G

    A. Ghoshal, G. Lambiase, Constraints on Tsallis Cosmology from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Dark Matter Freeze-out (4 2021). arXiv: 2104.11296

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    V . F. Mukhanov, Nucleosynthesis without a computer, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 43 (2004) 669–693. arXiv:astro-ph/0303073, doi:10.1023/B: IJTP.0000048169.69609.77

    2004 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Y . I. Izotov, T. X. Thuan, Systematic e ffects and a new determination of the primordial abundance of He-4 and dY /dZ from observations of blue compact galaxies, Astrophys. J. 602 (2004) 200–230. arXiv: astro-ph/0310421, doi:10.1086/380830. 11

    2004 arXiv

  77. [87]

    A. Coc, E. Vangioni-Flam, P. Descouvemont, A. Adahchour, C. Angulo, Updated Big Bang nucleosynthesis confronted to WMAP observations and to the abundance of light elements, Astrophys. J. 600 (2004) 544–

    2004

  78. [362]

    arXiv:hep-ph/0611192, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007. 06.050

    2007 arXiv

  79. [552]

    arXiv:astro-ph/0309480, doi:10.1086/380121

    arXiv

  80. [1459]

    arXiv:1907.13460, doi:10.1007/s10773-020-04414-3

    1907 arXiv

  81. [1785]

    arXiv:1212.6026, doi:10.1007/s10714-013-1555-4

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.