arxiv: 2602.15448 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Cosmological Averaging in Nonminimally Coupled Gravity

S. R. Pinto , P. P. Avelino

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 22:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

keywords f(R,T) gravitycosmological averagingnonminimal couplingK-monopolesinhomogeneous universedust pressuremodified gravityaveraging problem

0 comments

The pith

In f(R,T) gravity with nonlinear F(T), the spatial average of F deviates from F evaluated at the spatial average of T, depending on particle density and invalidating the usual homogeneous approximation.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the cosmological averaging problem in gravity theories with nonminimal matter couplings, focusing on the class of models where the action is R plus a function F of the trace T of the energy-momentum tensor. Using global K-monopoles as a toy model, it demonstrates that when F is nonlinear the ratio of the spatial average of F to F of the averaged T can differ substantially from one. This deviation scales with particle number density, so assuming the ratio equals unity produces an inaccurate account of how the universe expands and evolves. The analysis also reveals that dust, normally pressureless, acquires a non-vanishing proper pressure in these theories. Properly handling spatial inhomogeneity is therefore required for consistent cosmological predictions in nonminimally coupled gravity.

Core claim

In the f(R,T) = R + F(T) framework recast as general relativity with a modified matter Lagrangian, global K-monopoles show that for nonlinear F the ratio of the spatial average of F to F evaluated at the spatial average of T deviates significantly from unity in a manner that depends on the particle number density; assuming the ratio equals one therefore yields an inaccurate description of cosmological dynamics, and dust generally exhibits non-vanishing proper pressure.

What carries the argument

The ratio of the spatial average of F to F evaluated at the spatial average of T, which deviates from unity for nonlinear F and varies with particle number density.

If this is right

Cosmological dynamics are described inaccurately when the ratio of averaged F to F of the average is assumed to equal one.
Dust acquires a non-vanishing proper pressure.
The size of the deviation depends explicitly on particle number density.
Spatial averaging must be accounted for explicitly in any cosmological model with nonminimal matter-gravity coupling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar averaging mismatches could appear in other modified-gravity models that couple geometry directly to the matter trace or energy density.
In a clumpy real universe the density-dependent deviation might shift the inferred expansion history or growth rate away from the predictions of homogeneous f(R,T) models.
Quantitative error estimates would require simulations that embed nonlinear F(T) inside full N-body or relativistic inhomogeneous cosmologies rather than isolated monopoles.

Load-bearing premise

The global K-monopole toy model captures the essential averaging behavior of realistic inhomogeneous matter distributions in f(R,T) cosmologies.

What would settle it

A numerical computation of the spatial average of F versus F of the averaged T performed on a realistic inhomogeneous density field that reproduces observed galaxy clustering, or a direct measurement showing whether dust acquires non-zero proper pressure in such models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.15448 by P. P. Avelino, S. R. Pinto.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. The solid lines display the behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The solid lines display the behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We address the challenge, commonly referred to as the cosmological averaging problem, of relating the large-scale evolution of an inhomogeneous universe to that predicted by a homogeneous matter distribution in theories of gravity with nonminimal matter-gravity couplings. To this end, we focus on the class of $f(R,T)$ models given by $f(R,T) = R + F(T)$, where $R$ denotes the Ricci scalar and $T$ the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. This framework provides a simple yet theoretically consistent realization of nonminimal coupled gravity and can be recast as General Relativity minimally coupled to a modified matter Lagrangian. Using global K-monopoles as an illustrative toy model, we show that, when $F$ is a nonlinear function of $T$, the ratio between the spatial average of $F$ and $F$ evaluated at the spatial average of $T$ can deviate significantly from unity and depends on the particle number density. We demonstrate that the common assumption that this ratio is equal to unity generally leads to an inaccurate description of cosmological dynamics. We further show that dust in these theories generally exhibits a non-vanishing proper pressure. Our results highlight the importance of properly accounting for spatial averaging in cosmological models with nonminimal matter-gravity couplings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper shows via K-monopoles that averaging F(T) fails to commute with F of the average for nonlinear F in f(R,T) gravity, inducing effective pressure on dust, but the result is tied to one symmetric toy model.

read the letter

The punchline is that when F is nonlinear in T, the spatial average of F(T) deviates from F evaluated at the averaged T in a way that depends on particle number density. Using global K-monopoles, the paper shows this leads to an inaccurate description of the dynamics if you assume the ratio is unity, and it gives dust a nonzero proper pressure. The calculation is explicit and internally consistent in the chosen setup. It does a clean job of turning the abstract averaging problem into a concrete demonstration without extra machinery. The logic follows directly from the model equations and highlights why the usual shortcut breaks. The main limitation is the toy model. The K-monopole has exact spherical symmetry and a fixed radial density profile, so the size of the deviation and its density dependence may not carry over to generic inhomogeneities such as superposed overdensities or statistically homogeneous fields. No other configurations are checked and there are no error estimates or robustness tests, which leaves the claim that the assumption 'generally' fails on shaky ground. This is for people working on f(R,T) or similar nonminimal coupling cosmologies who already worry about averaging. A reader gets a useful concrete example of the issue even if the scope is narrow. It deserves peer review so the derivation can be verified and the generality question can be pressed.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the cosmological averaging problem in f(R,T) gravity with f(R,T)=R+F(T). Using global K-monopoles as a toy model, it shows that for nonlinear F(T) the ratio <F(T)>/F(<T>) deviates from unity in a manner dependent on particle number density, that assuming the ratio equals unity produces inaccurate cosmological dynamics, and that dust generally acquires non-vanishing proper pressure.

Significance. If the non-commutativity result generalizes beyond the specific monopole configuration, the work would usefully highlight a systematic error in the treatment of inhomogeneous matter in nonminimally coupled gravity, with direct implications for the derivation of effective Friedmann equations and the interpretation of late-time acceleration in such models. The explicit dependence on number density provides a falsifiable signature that could be tested in more realistic simulations.

major comments (2)

[Toy-model results (around the presentation of Eqs. for the averaged quantities)] The claim that assuming <F(T)>/F(<T>)=1 'generally leads to an inaccurate description of cosmological dynamics' is load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion, yet the demonstration is performed exclusively within the global K-monopole ansatz (fixed radial profile, topological winding, exact spherical symmetry). No additional calculation or argument is supplied showing that the magnitude of the deviation or its particle-density dependence persists for statistically homogeneous random fields or superpositions of localized overdensities.
[Section deriving the effective pressure for dust] The statement that dust exhibits non-vanishing proper pressure is derived within the same monopole background; it is unclear whether this feature survives when the matter distribution is altered while keeping the same nonlinear F(T), which is necessary to support the generality of the result.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction and methods] Notation for the spatial averaging operator should be defined once at first use and used consistently; occasional switches between angle brackets and explicit integrals reduce readability.
[Numerical or analytic results] The manuscript would benefit from a brief statement of the range of F(T) forms considered (e.g., power-law indices) and whether the reported deviation persists for all nonlinear choices or only for specific exponents.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and agreeing to targeted revisions that strengthen the presentation of generality without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The claim that assuming <F(T)>/F(<T>)=1 'generally leads to an inaccurate description of cosmological dynamics' is load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion, yet the demonstration is performed exclusively within the global K-monopole ansatz (fixed radial profile, topological winding, exact spherical symmetry). No additional calculation or argument is supplied showing that the magnitude of the deviation or its particle-density dependence persists for statistically homogeneous random fields or superpositions of localized overdensities.

Authors: We acknowledge that the explicit numerical demonstration uses the global K-monopole configuration. The deviation itself, however, follows directly from the nonlinearity of F(T) together with spatial variations in T: for any nonlinear F, Jensen's inequality implies <F(T)> ≠ F(<T>) whenever the variance of T is nonzero. In the model, the particle number density sets the amplitude of these variations, producing the reported dependence. We will add a concise general argument in a new paragraph of the revised manuscript (immediately following the averaged-equation derivation) that invokes this nonlinearity-plus-variance reasoning and notes that the same mechanism applies to any inhomogeneous T field, including superpositions of localized overdensities or statistically homogeneous random distributions. No new numerical calculation is required for this clarification. revision: partial
Referee: The statement that dust exhibits non-vanishing proper pressure is derived within the same monopole background; it is unclear whether this feature survives when the matter distribution is altered while keeping the same nonlinear F(T), which is necessary to support the generality of the result.

Authors: The effective proper pressure for dust is obtained by substituting the averaged modified field equations into the continuity equation; the pressure term is proportional to the commutator <F(T)> − F(<T>), which is nonzero for any spatially inhomogeneous T when F is nonlinear. This algebraic structure does not depend on the specific radial profile or spherical symmetry of the monopole. We will revise the relevant paragraph in Section 4 to derive the pressure expression from the general averaged equations before specializing to the toy model, thereby making explicit that the result holds for arbitrary inhomogeneous dust distributions. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; explicit calculation in toy model

full rationale

The paper selects the global K-monopole configuration as an illustrative toy model and performs direct spatial averaging on its explicit density and T profiles. For nonlinear F(T) the ratio <F(T)>/F(<T>) is obtained by straightforward integration over the model's radial profile, yielding a particle-density-dependent deviation from unity. This step is a concrete evaluation of the model's equations rather than a self-definitional identity, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a result imported via self-citation. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of a known result is invoked to reach the central claim. The statement that assuming the ratio equals unity leads to inaccurate dynamics follows directly from the computed mismatch within the chosen model. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the model's own equations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the standard definition of spatial averaging in cosmology, the specific f(R,T) = R + F(T) ansatz, and the global K-monopole solution as a proxy for inhomogeneity. No additional free parameters are introduced beyond the choice of F; the monopole configuration supplies the inhomogeneity.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Spatial averaging commutes with the field equations only when the coupling is linear in T.
Invoked to justify why the nonlinear case requires explicit averaging.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5523 in / 1225 out tokens · 42247 ms · 2026-05-15T22:08:38.361688+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

when F is a nonlinear function of T, the ratio between the spatial average of F and F evaluated at the spatial average of T can deviate significantly from unity
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Using global K-monopoles as an illustrative toy model

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 28 internal anchors

[1]

R. S. Somerville and R. Dav´ e, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys.53, 51 (2015), arXiv:1412.2712 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[2]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[3]

H. P. Robertson, Astrophys. J.82, 284 (1935)

work page 1935
[4]

Buchert, Gen

T. Buchert, Gen. Rel. Grav.32, 105 (2000), arXiv:gr- qc/9906015

work page arXiv 2000
[5]

Buchert, Gen

T. Buchert, Gen. Rel. Grav.33, 1381 (2001), arXiv:gr- qc/0102049

work page arXiv 2001
[6]

Rasanen, JCAP02, 003 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0311257

S. Rasanen, JCAP02, 003 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0311257

work page arXiv 2004
[7]

E. W. Kolb, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 164009 (2011)

work page 2011
[8]

G. F. R. Ellis, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 164001 (2011), arXiv:1103.2335 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[9]

Does the growth of structure affect our dynamical models of the universe? The averaging, backreaction and fitting problems in cosmology

C. Clarkson, G. Ellis, J. Larena, and O. Umeh, Rept. Prog. Phys.74, 112901 (2011), arXiv:1109.2314 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[10]

Buchert, P

T. Buchert, P. Mourier, and X. Roy, Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 27 (2020), arXiv:1912.04213 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[11]

Cosmological Non-Linearities as an Effective Fluid

D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore, and M. Zal- darriaga, JCAP07, 051 (2012), arXiv:1004.2488 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[12]

H. J. Macpherson, D. J. Price, and P. D. Lasky, Phys. Rev. D99, 063522 (2019), arXiv:1807.01711 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[13]

P. P. Avelino, L. M. G. Beca, J. P. M. de Carvalho, C. J. A. P. Martins, and E. J. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D69, 041301 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0306493

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004
[14]

L. M. G. Beca and P. P. Avelino, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.376, 1169 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0507075

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[15]

P. P. Avelino, L. M. G. Beca, and C. J. A. P. Martins, Phys. Rev. D77, 063515 (2008), arXiv:0711.4288 [astro- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[16]

f(R,L_m) gravity

T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C70, 373 (2010), arXiv:1008.4193 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[17]

f(R,T) gravity

T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D84, 024020 (2011), arXiv:1104.2669 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[18]

Extended Theories of Gravity

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509, 167 (2011), arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[19]

Modified Gravity and Cosmology

T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Sko- rdis, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[20]

F. G. Alvarenga, M. J. S. Houndjo, A. V. Monwanou, and J. B. C. Orou, J. Mod. Phys.4, 130 (2013), arXiv:1205.4678 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[21]

F. G. Alvarenga, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, M. J. S. Houndjo, M. E. Rodrigues, and D. S´ aez-G´ omez, Phys. Rev. D87, 103526 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 129905 (2013)], arXiv:1302.1866 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[22]

Haghani, T

Z. Haghani, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, H. R. Sepa- ngi, and S. Shahidi, Phys. Rev. D88, 044023 (2013), arXiv:1304.5957 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2013
[23]

$f(R,{T_{\mu\nu} T^{\mu\nu}})$ gravity and Cardassian-like expansion as one of its consequences

N. Katırcı and M. Kavuk, Eur. Phys. J. Plus129, 163 (2014), arXiv:1302.4300 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[24]

Ludwig, O

H. Ludwig, O. Minazzoli, and S. Capozziello, Physics Letters B751, 576–578 (2015)

work page 2015
[25]

Dark Matter From f(R,T) Gravity

R. Zaregonbadi, M. Farhoudi, and N. Riazi, Phys. Rev. D94, 084052 (2016), arXiv:1608.00469 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[26]

Cosmological inviability of $f(R,T)$ gravity

H. Velten and T. R. P. Caramˆ es, Phys. Rev. D95, 123536 (2017), arXiv:1702.07710 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[27]

Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept.692, 1 (2017), arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[28]

Generalised nonminimally gravity-matter coupled theory

S. Bahamonde, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 326 (2018), arXiv:1709.05319 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[29]

P. P. Avelino and R. P. L. Azevedo, Phys. Rev. D97, 064018 (2018), arXiv:1802.04760 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[30]

Coupling matter in modified $Q$-gravity

T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D98, 084043 (2018), arXiv:1806.10437 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[31]

R. P. L. Azevedo and P. P. Avelino, Phys. Rev. D98, 064045 (2018), arXiv:1807.00798 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[32]

Rethinking the link between matter and geometry

O. Minazzoli, Phys. Rev. D98, 124020 (2018), arXiv:1811.05845 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[33]

R. P. L. Azevedo and P. P. Avelino, Phys. Rev. D99, 064027 (2019), arXiv:1901.06299 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[34]

S. B. Fisher and E. D. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D100, 064059 (2019), arXiv:1908.05306 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[35]

P. P. Avelino and R. P. L. Azevedo, Phys. Lett. B808, 135641 (2020), arXiv:2003.10154 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[36]

Rudra and K

P. Rudra and K. Giri, Nucl. Phys. B967, 115428 (2021), arXiv:2009.14630 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[37]

Arruga, O

D. Arruga, O. Rousselle, and O. Minazzoli, Phys. Rev. D103, 024034 (2021), arXiv:2011.14629 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[38]

R. P. L. Azevedo and P. P. Avelino, Phys. Rev. D104, 084079 (2021), arXiv:2104.01209 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[39]

Arruga and O

D. Arruga and O. Minazzoli, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1027 (2021), arXiv:2106.03426 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[40]

G. A. Carvalho, R. V. Lobato, P. H. R. S. Moraes, D. Deb, and M. Malheiro, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1096 (2022), arXiv:2201.08726 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[41]

T. D. Pappas, C. Posada, and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124014 (2022), arXiv:2210.15597 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[42]

T. B. Gon¸ calves, J. L. Rosa, and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D109, 084008 (2024), arXiv:2305.05337 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[43]

B. Jana, A. Chatterjee, K. Ravi, and A. Bandyopadhyay, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 195023 (2023), arXiv:2303.06961 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[44]

Haghani, T

Z. Haghani, T. Harko, and S. Shahidi, Phys. Dark Univ. 44, 101448 (2024), arXiv:2301.12133 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[45]

Y. S. Solanke, S. Mhaske, D. D. Pawar, and V. J. Dag- wal, Mod. Phys. Lett. A38, 2350091 (2023)

work page 2023
[46]

Lacombe, S

O. Lacombe, S. Mukohyama, and J. Seitz, JCAP05, 064 (2024), arXiv:2311.12925 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[47]

Harko, M

T. Harko, M. A. S. Pinto, and S. Shahidi, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101863 (2025), arXiv:2408.13594 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

Asghari and A

M. Asghari and A. Sheykhi, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101695 (2024), arXiv:2405.11840 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[49]

Asghari and A

M. Asghari and A. Sheykhi, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101928 (2025), arXiv:2410.12674 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

A. Z. Kaczmarek, J. L. Rosa, and D. Szcz¸ e´ sniak, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 203 (2025), arXiv:2410.00707 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[51]

Errehymy, Y

A. Errehymy, Y. Khedif, M. Daoud, K. Myrzakulov, A. H. Abdel-Aty, and K. S. Nisar, JHEAp47, 100370 (2025)

work page 2025
[52]

Minazzoli, M

O. Minazzoli, M. Wavasseur, and T. Chehab, Phys. Lett. B873, 140117 (2026), arXiv:2506.15209 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[53]

C. G. Boehmer and E. Al-Nasrallah, Phys. Rev. D112, 124073 (2025), arXiv:2509.24843 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[54]

G. J. Olmo and M. A. S. Pinto, Universe11, 386 (2025), arXiv:2509.24890 [gr-qc]. 10

work page arXiv 2025
[55]

Chehab, O

T. Chehab, O. Minazzoli, and A. Hees, Class. Quant. Grav.43, 015025 (2026)

work page 2026
[56]

V. M. C. Ferreira, P. P. Avelino, and R. P. L. Azevedo, Phys. Rev. D102, 063525 (2020), arXiv:2005.07739 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[57]

Babichev, Phys

E. Babichev, Phys. Rev. D74, 085004 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0608071

work page arXiv 2006
[58]

P. P. Avelino, D. Bazeia, and R. Menezes, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1683 (2011), arXiv:1007.1457 [hep-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[59]

S. R. Pinto and P. P. Avelino, Phys. Rev. D111, 083556 (2025), arXiv:2502.10427 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

R. H. Hobart, Proc. Phys. Soc.82, 201 (1963)

work page 1963
[61]

G. H. Derrick, J. Math. Phys.5, 1252 (1964)

work page 1964
[62]

Laue, Annalen der Physik340, 524 (1911)

M. Laue, Annalen der Physik340, 524 (1911)

work page 1911
[63]

P. P. Avelino and L. Sousa, Phys. Rev. D97, 064019 (2018), arXiv:1802.03961 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[64]

Laue's Theorem Revisited: Energy-Momentum Tensors, Symmetries, and the Habitat of Globally Conserved Quantities

D. Giulini, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.15, 1850182 (2018), arXiv:1808.09320 [math-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[65]

P. P. Avelino, JCAP08, 005 (2023), arXiv:2303.06630 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[66]

P. P. Avelino, Phys. Lett. B859, 139144 (2024), arXiv:2406.04335 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[67]

P. A. Cano, Phys. Lett. B858, 139059 (2024), arXiv:2404.01376 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024