pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.11837 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-12 · 🌀 gr-qc · hep-th

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Gravitational baryogenesis beyond the spectator approximation

David S. Pereira , Beatriz A. Fernandes , Jos\'e Pedro Mimoso
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 12:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc hep-th
keywords gravitational baryogenesiscurvature-matter couplingeffective Planck massFLRW cosmologyvector density currentmodified Friedmann equationsspectator approximation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Including the gravitational-baryogenesis operator in the action yields a time-dependent effective Planck mass for vector-density currents.

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

The paper examines what happens when the standard term λ ∇_μ R J^μ is promoted from a spectator interaction to a genuine part of the gravitational action. This converts the problem into a curvature-matter-coupling variational problem whose metric variation depends on how the current J^μ is realized as a function of the metric. For the vector-density realization the explicit gradient term cancels after variation, leaving an algebraic correction that produces an effective gravitational coupling G_eff varying with the divergence of J^μ. In flat FLRW cosmology with a homogeneous current this leads to modified Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations plus a continuity relation that must be solved together with the baryon asymmetry. A reader cares because most prior calculations assume a fixed background metric and therefore miss the back-reaction on the expansion history precisely when the asymmetry is being generated.

Core claim

Up to a boundary term the interaction λ ∇_μ R J^μ is equivalent to −λ R ∇_μ J^μ. When varied with respect to the metric, for a vector-density realization of J^μ the explicit J^α ∇_α R term cancels but an algebraic term −λ g_μν R ∇_α J^α survives, so the Einstein equations acquire an effective Planck mass squared M_eff² = M_Pl² − 2λ ∇_μ J^μ. Specializing to flat FLRW with homogeneous J^μ = n_X u^μ yields the modified Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations, the associated continuity relation, and dimensionless diagnostics that quantify when the spectator approximation remains valid.

What carries the argument

The curvature-matter-coupling variational problem generated by the operator λ ∇_μ R J^μ, whose metric variation isolates a universal piece plus a realization-dependent tensor from δ_g J^μ; for the vector-density realization this yields the partial effective-Planck-mass form M_eff² = M_Pl² − 2λ ∇_μ J^μ.

If this is right

  • The modified Friedmann equation acquires an extra term proportional to R ∇_μ J^μ that changes the Hubble evolution during the epoch when the asymmetry is generated.
  • The effective gravitational coupling becomes time-dependent whenever ∇_μ J^μ is nonzero, forcing a self-consistent solution for the scale factor and the current.
  • Dimensionless diagnostics supplied in the paper mark the regime in which the spectator approximation remains accurate to a chosen tolerance.
  • Any gravitational-baryogenesis study performed inside modified-gravity frameworks must first reproduce this consistent GR baseline before adding further modifications.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the current is not realized as a vector density the metric equations remain open and no effective-Planck-mass rewriting exists, so the choice of realization must be fixed before comparing predictions to data.
  • The time-dependent G_eff during radiation domination could shift the final baryon asymmetry by an amount controlled by the same diagnostics, giving a new lever arm on the coupling strength λ.
  • The same variational treatment applied to other curvature-coupled operators would generate analogous effective couplings when the models are extended to scalar-tensor or f(R) gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The current J^μ must be realized as a vector density so that its metric variation produces the specific algebraic term that allows the effective-Planck-mass rewriting.

What would settle it

A calculation of the baryon-to-entropy ratio that differs when the effective Planck mass is allowed to vary with ∇_μ J^μ versus when it is held fixed, or an inconsistency between the modified Raychaudhuri equation and the observed early-universe expansion history.

read the original abstract

The standard gravitational-baryogenesis operator $\lambda\,\nabla_\mu R\,J^\mu$, with $\lambda\equiv \epsilon/M_\ast^{2}$, is usually treated as a spectator interaction that generates an effective chemical potential in a prescribed background. When included in the gravitational action, however, it defines a genuine curvature--matter-coupling variational problem, relevant for the baryon, lepton, and $B\!-\!L$ currents, whether described microscopically by particle-physics operators or macroscopically by a fluid current $J^\mu=n_Xu^\mu$. Up to a boundary term the interaction is equivalent to $-\lambda R\nabla_\mu J^\mu$, making its $f(R,{\rm Matter})$ character manifest, but the metric equations remain open unless the metric dependence of $J^\mu$ is specified. For an arbitrary local realization $J^\mu(\Psi,g)$ we derive the universal part of the field equations and isolate the realization-dependent tensor generated by $\delta_g J^\mu$. In the vector-density realization the explicit $J^\alpha\nabla_\alpha R$ term cancels, but an algebraic term $-\lambda g_{\mu\nu}R\nabla_\alpha J^\alpha$ survives, so the theory admits only a partial effective-Planck-mass interpretation, $M_{\rm eff}^2=M_{\rm Pl}^2-2\lambda\nabla_\mu J^\mu$, and a time-dependent effective gravitational coupling during baryogenesis. Specializing to flat Friedmann-Lema\^itre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) with a homogeneous current $J^\mu=n_Xu^\mu$, we obtain the modified Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations, the associated continuity relation, and dimensionless diagnostics that quantify when the spectator approximation is controlled. We also discuss the implications for gravitational-baryogenesis studies in modified theories of gravity, providing a consistent General Relativity (GR) baseline for implementations in both standard cosmology and modified-gravity frameworks.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper examines the gravitational baryogenesis operator λ ∇_μ R J^μ (with λ = ε/M_*²) when promoted from a spectator interaction to a term in the gravitational action. It demonstrates equivalence (up to boundary) to -λ R ∇_μ J^μ, derives the universal metric field equations for arbitrary local realizations J^μ(Ψ,g), isolates the realization-dependent contribution from δ_g J^μ, and specializes to the vector-density case where the J^α ∇_α R term cancels but an algebraic -λ g_μν R ∇_α J^α term remains. This yields a partial effective-Planck-mass form M_eff² = M_Pl² - 2λ ∇_μ J^μ together with time-dependent effective gravitational coupling. The analysis is then restricted to homogeneous FLRW with J^μ = n_X u^μ, producing modified Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations, a continuity relation, and dimensionless diagnostics that quantify the validity of the spectator approximation. Implications for implementations in modified gravity are discussed.

Significance. If the central variational results hold, the manuscript supplies a consistent GR baseline for gravitational baryogenesis that clarifies when and how the spectator approximation is controlled. The separation into universal and realization-dependent pieces, together with the explicit modified FLRW system and the diagnostic quantities, is a concrete advance that can be used directly in both standard cosmology and f(R)-type extensions. The partial effective-mass rewriting for the vector-density realization is a falsifiable structural prediction that future numerical studies of baryon asymmetry can test.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim that the vector-density realization produces exactly M_eff² = M_Pl² - 2λ ∇_μ J^μ rests on the cancellation of the J^α ∇_α R term while retaining the algebraic term. The abstract states this occurs “up to a boundary term,” but an explicit verification that all boundary contributions vanish (or are consistently discarded) under the vector-density choice is required to confirm the rewriting is not an artifact of the variational procedure.
  2. In the FLRW specialization, the modified continuity equation and the diagnostic quantities that quantify departure from the spectator limit are presented as direct consequences of the field equations. It is not shown whether these diagnostics remain robust when the current J^μ is allowed a small but non-zero spatial dependence or when the baryogenesis epoch is matched to a concrete particle-physics realization of n_X.
minor comments (3)
  1. Notation: the symbol λ is introduced as ε/M_*² but the subsequent equations treat λ as a constant; a brief remark on whether M_* is taken fixed or allowed to run would remove ambiguity.
  2. The abstract refers to “dimensionless diagnostics” without naming them; adding a short table or explicit definitions (e.g., the ratio of the extra term to the standard Hubble friction) would improve readability.
  3. The discussion of implications for modified gravity is stated only at the level of principle; a single concrete example (e.g., insertion into f(R) gravity) would illustrate the utility of the GR baseline.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and positive recommendation for minor revision. We address the two major comments below, providing explicit verification where requested and clarifying the scope of the diagnostics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the vector-density realization produces exactly M_eff² = M_Pl² - 2λ ∇_μ J^μ rests on the cancellation of the J^α ∇_α R term while retaining the algebraic term. The abstract states this occurs “up to a boundary term,” but an explicit verification that all boundary contributions vanish (or are consistently discarded) under the vector-density choice is required to confirm the rewriting is not an artifact of the variational procedure.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification strengthens the claim. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section II.B detailing the variation procedure for the vector-density case. We show that the boundary terms, which arise from ∫ ∇_μ (λ R δJ^μ) or similar, evaluate to zero because the vector density J^μ satisfies the appropriate fall-off conditions at spatial infinity in the FLRW setup, and the metric variations are compactly supported. This confirms the partial effective Planck mass form is not an artifact. revision: yes

  2. Referee: In the FLRW specialization, the modified continuity equation and the diagnostic quantities that quantify departure from the spectator limit are presented as direct consequences of the field equations. It is not shown whether these diagnostics remain robust when the current J^μ is allowed a small but non-zero spatial dependence or when the baryogenesis epoch is matched to a concrete particle-physics realization of n_X.

    Authors: The analysis is performed in the homogeneous FLRW background, which is the standard setting for baryogenesis calculations. We have revised the text to include a short subsection discussing perturbative spatial dependence: the diagnostics receive corrections suppressed by the square of the relative inhomogeneity amplitude, which is expected to be small during the relevant epoch. For concrete particle-physics realizations of n_X, the macroscopic current description remains valid, and the diagnostics apply directly; model-specific details would enter only through the evolution of n_X itself, which is left general in our framework. This keeps the paper focused as a GR baseline. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained variational calculus

full rationale

The paper starts from the standard operator λ ∇_μ R J^μ added to the gravitational action and performs the metric variation, obtaining a universal piece plus a realization-dependent tensor from δ_g J^μ. For the vector-density realization the J^α ∇_α R term cancels by direct algebra, leaving the algebraic −λ g_μν R ∇_α J^α term that yields the partial M_eff² = M_Pl² − 2λ ∇_μ J^μ expression. This reduction is exhibited explicitly in the field equations and does not rely on any fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or imported uniqueness theorem. The subsequent FLRW specialization follows by imposing homogeneity on the already-derived equations. No load-bearing step collapses to a definition of its own output or to a prior result by the same authors; the derivation is therefore internally consistent and independent of the target claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard variational principle of GR applied to the augmented action, the equivalence of the operator to -λ R ∇_μ J^μ up to a boundary term, and the choice of vector-density realization for J^μ.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The operator λ ∇_μ R J^μ is equivalent to -λ R ∇_μ J^μ up to a boundary term.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the starting point for the variational problem.
  • domain assumption The current admits a local realization J^μ(Ψ, g) whose metric variation can be isolated.
    Required to close the metric equations; invoked when separating the universal and realization-dependent tensors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5666 in / 1354 out tokens · 40841 ms · 2026-05-15T12:14:10.161667+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Sign-Locked Gravitational Baryogenesis from Bulk Viscosity and Cosmological Particle Creation

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Bulk viscosity deforms the radiation era to produce a sign-definite Ricci scalar derivative, enabling gravitational baryogenesis to match the observed baryon asymmetry η_obs ≈ 8.6×10^{-11} for ξ in 10^{-4}–10^{-3}.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 25 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Gravitational Baryogenesis

    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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.201301 2004

  2. [2]

    D. S. Pereira, Scalar–tensor baryogenesis: a scalar–tensor completion of gravitational baryogenesis, Phys. Lett. B 875 (2026) 140312. arXiv:2412.06984, doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2026.140312

    work page arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    D. S. Pereira, F. S. N. Lobo, J. P. Mimoso, Gravitational baryogenesis in energy-momentum squared gravity (9 2024).arXiv:2409.04623

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    D. S. Pereira, F. S. N. Lobo, J. P. Mimoso, Baryon asym- metry from higher-order matter contributions in gravity, Phys. Lett. B 866 (2025) 139521. arXiv:2504.21504, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139521

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139521 2025

  5. [6]

    I. B. Whittingham, Gravitational Baryogenesis in f (R) Cosmologies (2 2026).arXiv:2602.19075

    work page arXiv 2026

  6. [7]

    Goodarzi, Gravitational baryogenesis in F(R) gravity’s rainbow, JHEP 02 (2026) 029

    P. Goodarzi, Gravitational baryogenesis in F(R) gravity’s rainbow, JHEP 02 (2026) 029. arXiv:2508.16955, doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2026)029

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2026)029 2026

  7. [8]

    V . K. Oikonomou, E. N. Saridakis, f (T) gravitational baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. D 94 (12) (2016) 124005.arXiv: 1607.08561,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.124005

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.124005 2016

  8. [9]

    A. S. Sooraki, A. Sheykhi, Constraining zero-point length from gravitational baryogenesis, JCAP 02 (2026) 036. arXiv:2512.03009, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/ 02/036

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/ 2026

  9. [10]

    Majeed, S

    A. Majeed, S. Rani, N. Azhar, M. M. Alam, S. Shaymatov, A. M. Sultan, f(T,B,TG,BG) gravity tested through grav- itational baryogenesis mechanisms, Phys. Dark Univ. 48 (2025) 101957.doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101957

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101957 2025

  10. [11]

    A. M. Sultan, A. Mushtaq, A. Jawad, S. Shaymatov, M. S. Saleem, Gravitational baryogenesis analysis of observa- tionally favored f(T,ϕ) models, Phys. Dark Univ. 48 (2025) 101936.doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101936

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101936 2025

  11. [12]

    A. M. Sultan, Gravitational Baryogenesis in Extended Proca-Nuevo Gravity (4 2025).arXiv:2504.06133

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [13]

    A. D. Alruwaili, N. Azhar, A. Jawad, A. B. Albarrak, Probing gravitational baryogenesis phenomenon in spe- cific modified gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 48 (2025) 101842. doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101842

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101842 2025

  13. [14]

    Bhattacharjee, P

    S. Bhattacharjee, P. K. Sahoo, Baryogenesis in f (Q,T ) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (3) (2020) 289. arXiv:2002. 11483,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7844-7

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7844-7 2020

  14. [15]

    S. D. Odintsov, V . K. Oikonomou, Gauss–Bonnet grav- itational baryogenesis, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 259–

    work page 2016

  15. [17]

    P. K. Sahoo, S. Bhattacharjee, Gravitational Baryogenesis in Non-Minimal Coupled f (R,T ) Gravity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 59 (5) (2020) 1451–1459. arXiv:1907.13460, doi:10.1007/s10773-020-04414-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10773-020-04414-3 2020

  16. [19]

    E. H. Baffou, 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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [20]

    M. C. Bento, R. Gonzalez Felipe, N. M. C. Santos, Grav- itational baryogenesis in Gauss-Bonnet braneworld cos- mology, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 123517.arXiv:hep-ph/ 0504113,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123517

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.123517 2005

  18. [22]

    Azhar, A

    N. Azhar, A. Jawad, S. Rani, Generalized gravitational baryogenesis of well-known f (T,TG ) and f (T,B ) models, Phys. Dark Univ. 30 (2020) 100724. arXiv:2009.13293, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100724

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100724 2020

  19. [24]

    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

    work page 2018

  20. [28]

    Spacetime dynamics and baryogenesis in braneworld

    T. Shiromizu, K. Koyama, Space-time dynamics and baryogenesis in brane world, JCAP 07 (2004) 011. arXiv:hep-ph/0403231, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2004/07/011

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2004

  21. [29]

    A. S. Agrawal, S. K. Tripathy, B. Mishra, Gravitational baryogenesis models comparison in f(R) gravity, Chin. J. Phys. 71 (2021) 333–340. arXiv:2103.13328, doi: 10.1016/j.cjph.2021.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2021.03.004 2021

  22. [30]

    S. S. Mishra, A. Bhat, P. K. Sahoo, Probing baryogenesis in f(Q) gravity, EPL 146 (2) (2024) 29001. arXiv:2404. 00577,doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ad329b

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ad329b 2024

  23. [31]

    Samaddar, S

    A. Samaddar, S. S. Singh, A novel approach to baryogene- sis in f(Q,Lm) gravity and its cosmological implications, Nucl. Phys. B 1012 (2025) 116834. arXiv:2410.05335, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116834

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116834 2025

  24. [32]

    Samaddar, S

    A. Samaddar, S. S. Singh, S. Muhammad, E. E. Zotos, Gravitational baryogenesis in f(Q,C) gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 21 (13) (2024) 2450231.doi:10.1142/ S0219887824502311

    work page 2024

  25. [33]

    Jawad, M

    A. Jawad, M. Usman, M. M. Alam, Compatibility of Gravitational Baryogenesis with theoretical framework of f(R,G,T) Gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 46 (2024) 101631. doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101631

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101631 2024

  26. [34]

    Maity, P

    S. Maity, P. Rudra, Gravitational Baryogenesis in Hoˇrava–Lifshitz gravity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34 (25) (2019) 1950203. arXiv:1802.00313, doi:10.1142/ S0217732319502031

    work page arXiv 2019

  27. [35]

    Bhattacharjee, Baryogenesis in f(P) gravity, Int

    S. Bhattacharjee, Baryogenesis in f(P) gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36 (27) (2021) 2150200. arXiv:2103.15312, doi:10.1142/S0217751X21502006

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x21502006 2021

  28. [36]

    Baryogenesis by Quantum Gravity

    K.-j. Hamada, A. Minamizaki, A. Sugamoto, Baryo- genesis by Quantum Gravity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23 (2008) 237–244. arXiv:0708.2127, doi:10.1142/ S021773230802639X

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [37]

    S. Rani, N. Azhar, A. Jawad, f (T, Θ) gravity and general- ized gravitational baryogenesis, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 37 (09) (2022) 2250056.doi:10.1142/S0217732322500560

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732322500560 2022

  30. [38]

    Anisotropy effects on Baryogenesis in $f(R)$-Theories of Gravity

    A. Aghamohammadi, H. Hossienkhani, K. Saaidi, Anisotropy effects on baryogenesis in f(R) theories of grav- ity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 33 (13) (2018) 1850072. arXiv: 1709.06996,doi:10.1142/S0217732318500724

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0217732318500724 2018

  31. [40]

    Atazadeh, Gravitational baryogenesis in DGP brane cos- mology, Eur

    K. Atazadeh, Gravitational baryogenesis in DGP brane cos- mology, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (6) (2018) 455. arXiv:2012. 12965,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5952-4

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5952-4 2018

  32. [41]

    A. M. Sultan, A. Mushtaq, D. Chou, H. U. Rehman, H. Ashraf, A. U. Awan, Observational analysis of grav- itational baryogenesis constraints in Einstein-Æther grav- ity, JHEAp 45 (2025) 135–145. doi:10.1016/j.jheap. 2024.11.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap 2025

  33. [42]

    S. Rani, A. Javed, A. Jawad, Consequences of baryogenesis phenomenon in ˜f (R,P ) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138 (1) (2023) 5.doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03557-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03557-y 2023

  34. [43]

    Yang, Y .-B

    R.-J. Yang, Y .-B. Shi, Baryogenesis in quantum fluc- tuation modified gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 46 (2024) 101645. arXiv:2402.07205, doi:10.1016/j.dark. 2024.101645

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark 2024

  35. [44]

    E. V . Arbuzova, A. D. Dolgov, Instability Effects in F(R)-Modified Gravity and in Gravitational Baryogen- esis, Phys. Part. Nucl. 50 (6) (2019) 850–943. doi: 10.1134/S1063779619060078. 10

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063779619060078 2019

  36. [45]

    S. A. Narawade, S. K. Tripathy, R. Patra, B. Mishra, Baryon Asymmetry Constraints on Extended Sym- metric Teleparallel Gravity, Grav. Cosmol. 30 (2) (2024) 135–140. arXiv:2402.16275, doi:10.1134/ S0202289324700026

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [46]

    A. D. Alruwaili, N. Azhar, A. Jawad, Observational con- straining on baryon to entropy ratios in modified the- ories of gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 50 (2025) 102103. doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.102103

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.102103 2025

  38. [48]

    Lambiase, G

    G. Lambiase, G. Scarpetta, f(R)-theories of gravity and gravitational baryogenesis, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 67 (2007) 012055.doi:10.1088/1742-6596/67/1/012055

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/67/1/012055 2007

  39. [49]

    Baryogenesis after Hyperextended Inflation

    A. De Felice, M. Trodden, Baryogenesis af- ter hyperextended inflation, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 043512. arXiv:hep-ph/0412020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043512

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.043512 2005

  40. [50]

    H. M. Sadjadi, A Note on Gravitational Baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 123507. arXiv:0709.0697, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.123507

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.123507 2007

  41. [51]

    Gravitational Baryogenesis in Anisotropic Universe

    K. Saaidi, H. Hossienkhani, Gravitational Baryogene- sis in Anisotropic Universe, Astrophys. Space Sci. 333 (2011) 305–309. arXiv:1010.4966, doi:10.1007/ s10509-010-0580-y

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [52]

    Gravitational Baryogenesis after Anisotropic Inflation

    M. Fukushima, S. Mizuno, K.-i. Maeda, Gravitational Baryogenesis after Anisotropic Inflation, Phys. Rev. D 93 (10) (2016) 103513. arXiv:1603.02403, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.93.103513

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [53]

    E. V . Arbuzova, A. D. Dolgov, Problems of spontaneous and gravitational baryogenesis, in: 18th Lomonosov Con- ference on Elementary Particle Physics, 2019, pp. 309–313. arXiv:1712.04627, doi:10.1142/9789811202339_ 0059

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/9789811202339_ 2019

  44. [54]

    E. V . Arbuzova, A. D. Dolgov, Instability of gravita- tional baryogenesis with fermions, JCAP 06 (2017) 001. arXiv:1702.07477, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/ 06/001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/ 2017

  45. [55]

    E. V . Arbuzova, A. D. Dolgov, Intrinsic problems of the gravitational baryogenesis, Phys. Lett. B 769 (2017) 171–

    work page 2017

  46. [56]

    Intrinsic problems of gravitational baryogenesis

    arXiv:1612.06206, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2017.03.055

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb 2017

  47. [57]

    Arbuzova, A

    E. Arbuzova, A. Dolgov, K. Dutta, R. Rangarajan, Grav- itational Baryogenesis: Problems and Possible Resolu- tion, Symmetry 15 (2) (2023) 404. arXiv:2301.08322, doi:10.3390/sym15020404

    work page doi:10.3390/sym15020404 2023

  48. [58]

    f(R,L_m) gravity

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, f(R,Lm) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 373–379. arXiv:1008.4193, doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-010-1467-3

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [59]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, f (R,T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 024020. arXiv:1104. 2669,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.024020 2011

  50. [60]

    Harko, M

    T. Harko, M. A. S. Pinto, S. Shahidi, Matter really does matter, or Why f(R,Matter) type theories are significant for gravitational physics and cosmology, Phys. Dark Univ. 48 (2025) 101863. arXiv:2408.13594, doi:10.1016/ j.dark.2025.101863

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [61]

    Energy-Momentum Squared Gravity

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.044002 2016

  52. [62]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [63]

    Gravitational induced particle production through a nonminimal curvature-matter coupling

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, J. P. Mimoso, D. Pavón, Gravitational induced particle production through a non- minimal curvature–matter coupling, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 386. arXiv:1508.02511, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-015-3620-5

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2015

  54. [64]

    Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame

    T. Jacobson, D. Mattingly, Gravity with a dynami- cal preferred frame, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 024028. arXiv:gr-qc/0007031, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64. 024028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.64 2001

  55. [65]

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.2.2762 1970

  56. [66]

    J. D. Brown, Action functionals for rela- tivistic perfect fluids, Class. Quant. Grav. 10 (1993) 1579–1606. arXiv:gr-qc/9304026, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/10/8/017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0264-9381/10/8/017 1993

  57. [67]

    Effective field theory for hydrodynamics: thermodynamics, and the derivative expansion

    S. Dubovsky, L. Hui, A. Nicolis, D. T. Son, Effec- tive field theory for hydrodynamics: thermodynamics, and the derivative expansion, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 085029. arXiv:1107.0731, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 85.085029

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd 2012

  58. [68]

    Iosifidis, E

    D. Iosifidis, E. Jensko, T. S. Koivisto, Relativistic in- teracting fluids in cosmology, JCAP 11 (2024) 043. arXiv:2406.01412, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/ 11/043

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/ 2024

  59. [69]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Nasri, M. Trodden, Quintessential baryo- genesis, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 043509. arXiv:hep-ph/ 0207211,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.043509

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.67.043509 2003

  60. [70]

    Ahmad, A

    S. Ahmad, A. De Felice, N. Jaman, S. Kuroyanagi, M. Sami, Baryogenesis in the paradigm of quintessential inflation, Phys. Rev. D 100 (10) (2019) 103525. arXiv: 1908.03742,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103525. 11

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.103525 2019

  61. [71]

    C. M. Will, The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. Rel. 17 (2014) 4. arXiv: 1403.7377,doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-4

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-4 2014

  62. [72]

    Varying constants, Gravitation and Cosmology

    J.-P. Uzan, Varying Constants, Gravitation and Cosmology, Living Rev. Rel. 14 (2011) 2. arXiv:1009.5514, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2011-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.12942/lrr-2011-2 2011

  63. [73]

    C. J. Copi, A. N. Davis, L. M. Krauss, A New nucle- osynthesis constraint on the variation of G, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 171301. arXiv:astro-ph/0311334, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.171301

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.171301 2004

  64. [74]

    Alvey, N

    J. Alvey, N. Sabti, M. Escudero, M. Fairbairn, Improved BBN Constraints on the Variation of the Gravitational Con- stant, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2) (2020) 148. arXiv:1910. 10730,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7727-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7727-y 2020

  65. [75]

    Friction in Gravitational Waves: a test for early-time modified gravity

    V . Pettorino, L. Amendola, Friction in Gravitational Waves: a test for early-time modified gravity, Phys. Lett. B 742 (2015) 353–357. arXiv:1408.2224, doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2015.02.007

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j 2015

  66. [76]

    Gravitational waves from an early matter era

    H. Assadullahi, D. Wands, Gravitational waves from an early matter era, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 083511. arXiv: 0901.0989,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.083511. 12

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.083511 2009