Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

This paper claims that bulk viscosity in f(Q) gravity, with viscosity proportional to the Hubble rate, produces a non-singular cosmic bounce consistent with the generalized second law of thermodynamics.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 08:54 UTC pith:BTPVLLVP

load-bearing objection The paper's bounce does not exist: its own H(t) has no zero, its deceleration parameter is constant, and the displayed solution does not satisfy the field equations, so the central claim fails despite fluent prose. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21668 v1 pith:BTPVLLVP submitted 2026-07-23 gr-qc

Bulk Viscosity and Thermodynamic Approaches to Singularity Resolution in Non-Metric Gravity

M. Sharif , M. Zeeshan Gul , Nusrat Fatima This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 05.70.-a04.40.Nr04.20.Dw04.40.Dg
keywords f(Q) gravitybulk viscositybouncing cosmologynon-metricityenergy conditionsentropy productiongeneralized second lawsingularity resolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to show that bulk viscosity in a non-metricity-based modified gravity, f(Q), can replace the big-bang singularity with a smooth cosmic bounce. Choosing f(Q)=ψQ and a viscosity coefficient ζ=ζ0H, the authors derive an explicit Hubble solution and interpret it as a transition from contraction to expansion, with positive energy density, negative effective pressure, and violation of the null and strong energy conditions at the bounce. They compute horizon and matter entropy and claim that the total entropy increases with time, satisfying the generalized second law. If correct, this would be a singularity-free alternative to standard cosmology that needs no exotic matter and makes bulk viscosity central to early-universe physics.

Core claim

For a flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric in f(Q) gravity with the linear form f(Q)=ψQ, the authors combine the modified Friedmann equations with a barotropic ansatz ρ=P/(1−μ) and a bulk viscosity law ζ=ζ0H. The resulting Hubble parameter, H(t)=2ψ/[3ζ0t+3μψt−2ψΦ1], is the centerpiece: the paper reads its sign change as the bounce, notes that the deceleration parameter is negative (accelerated expansion), and reports that energy density stays positive while pressure is negative, with the null and strong energy conditions violated near the bounce. The thermodynamics is assessed through the apparent-horizon entropy plus matter entropy, and the paper claims the total entropy rises over time w

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combination of the non-metricity scalar Q (a measure of how the connection fails to preserve the metric) in the gravitational action f(Q), the linear choice f(Q)=ψQ, and two constitutive assumptions: the barotropic relation ρ=P/(1−μ) and the viscosity law ζ=ζ0H. Feeding these into the field equations yields the explicit Hubble solution H(t), which then determines every derived quantity (deceleration, equation of state, energy conditions, horizon radius, entropies, Hawking temperature). The bounce is identified with a zero of H(t), and the second law is checked by summing the entropy inside and on the apparent horizon.

Load-bearing premise

The entire bounce rests on treating the barotropic relation ρ=P/(1−μ) with 0<μ<1 and the viscosity law ζ=ζ0H as mutually consistent closures; substituting them into Eq. (12) forces μ=3/2, outside the allowed range, and the resulting Hubble parameter (17) never crosses zero for finite time, so the model's central bounce is not actually realized.

What would settle it

Compute H(t) from Eq. (17) for any ψ≠0 and finite t: H(t)=2ψ/[t(3ζ0+3μψ)−2ψΦ1]. Since the numerator is a non-zero constant, H(t) never vanishes; a bounce requires H=0 at some finite t. Also substitute (13) and (14) into (12) to see that consistency demands μ=3/2, contradicting 0<μ<1. Either check would disprove the claimed bounce.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The initial big-bang singularity is replaced by a finite-time bounce, so the universe can cycle between contraction and expansion.
  • Bulk viscosity alone can supply the effective negative pressure needed for acceleration, potentially imitating dark energy without exotic fields.
  • The null and strong energy conditions are violated at the bounce, while the weak and dominant conditions hold, matching the usual bounce criteria.
  • The generalized second law is satisfied, so the model is thermodynamically consistent and produces an arrow of time via entropy production.
  • The equation-of-state parameter traverses phantom and quintessence regimes, giving observable predictions comparable with Planck constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consistency check of the paper's own equations indicates the chosen ansatz may not close: substituting (13) and (14) into (12) forces μ=3/2, outside the stated 0<μ<1, and the Hubble solution (17) has no finite-time zero for ψ≠0, so the bounce may not exist within the exact system.
  • If a different viscosity parametrization restores a genuine H=0 crossing, the same framework could be fitted to cosmological data by constraining ζ0 and ψ against supernova or cosmic-chronometer observations.
  • The general lesson extends beyond f(Q): any modified-gravity bounce program should include dissipative fluids, since bulk viscosity can generate the required negative pressure without phantom matter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies an isotropic, homogeneous FLRW universe filled with a bulk-viscous perfect fluid in f(Q) gravity with f(Q)=ψQ. It assumes a linear barotropic relation ρ=P/(1−μ) with 0<μ<1 and a viscosity coefficient proportional to the Hubble parameter, ζ=ζ0H. From these assumptions the authors derive an explicit Hubble solution, Eq. (17), and then analyze the deceleration parameter, energy density, pressure, equation-of-state parameter, energy conditions, and the generalized second law of thermodynamics. The central claim is that the model realizes a non-singular cosmological bounce, with H crossing zero at the bounce epoch, accompanied by violation of the NEC and SEC, positive entropy production, and an increasing Hawking temperature.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would provide a concrete example of a bounce in f(Q) gravity driven by bulk viscosity, with a closed-form analytic solution and a thermodynamic consistency check. The manuscript is organized clearly, and it is commendable that the authors present explicit formulae for H, q, ω, energy conditions, and entropy production rather than leaving them implicit. However, the significance is not realized because the central derivation fails on multiple independent grounds: the displayed Hubble solution cannot produce a finite-time bounce, it does not actually satisfy the field equations from which it is allegedly derived, and the subsidiary quantities built on it inherit the inconsistency. The paper therefore does not support its main conclusion. The explicit formulas and the attempt to connect with thermodynamics are nonetheless useful and could inform a corrected future study.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (17)] The claimed bounce is absent. For any nonzero ψ, the numerator 2ψ in H(t)=2ψ/[3(ζ0+μψ)t−2ψΦ1] is a nonzero constant, so H(t)=0 has no finite-time solution. The denominator can vanish at t*=2ψΦ1/[3(ζ0+μψ)], producing a pole and a curvature singularity, not a smooth bounce. Therefore the H(t) curves shown in Figure 1, which cross zero, cannot be plots of Eq. (17). This directly contradicts the text in §3.1 stating that 'The Hubble parameter disappears exactly at the bounce epoch.'
  2. [§2, Eqs. (12)–(17)] Eq. (17) is not a solution of the system from which it is claimed to be derived. Using P=(1−μ)ρ and ζ=ζ0H in Eq. (12), and eliminating ρ via Eq. (15), gives -3[(3−2μ)ζ0+(2−μ)ψ]H²−2ψ(3−2μ)Ḣ=0. Substituting Eq. (17) into this condition leaves a residual proportional to −24ψ³(μ−1)²/[3(ζ0+μψ)t−2ψΦ1]², which vanishes only for μ=1, outside the stated interval 0<μ<1. Alternatively, requiring the equation to hold as an algebraic identity in (H,Ḣ) forces μ=3/2, also outside the allowed range, and then forces H=0. Thus Eq. (17) does not solve the equations that allegedly produced it.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (19)] The deceleration parameter q is constant, q=3/2(μ+ζ0/ψ)−1. A genuine bounce requires H to change sign through zero; for a regular scale factor at the bounce, q generally diverges near H=0. A constant q describes a power-law expansion or contraction, not a transition from contraction to expansion. The constancy of q is thus incompatible with the bounce scenario claimed in Table 1 and §3.1, even before the inconsistency of Eq. (17) is accounted for.
  4. [§4, Eqs. (21)–(29)] The thermodynamic analysis is built directly on the invalid Hubble solution Eq. (17): the apparent horizon radius R_H=1/H, the horizon entropy, the matter entropy from Gibbs' relation, and the Hawking temperature all inherit the pole structure of H. Since Eq. (17) diverges rather than crossing zero, the claimed monotonic entropy growth and positive Hawking temperature shown in Figure 6 are not established by the model. The entropy derivative in Eq. (29) is asserted to be nonnegative, but no proof is given; given the inconsistency of the underlying H, the sign-definiteness claim is unsupported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (18)] The scale factor expression is garbled: it contains 'H 2' where a clear argument of the exponent is needed, and the power-law form is inconsistent with a bounce. Please rewrite and check the derivation.
  2. [Eqs. (26)–(27)] There are typographical errors: Eq. (26) uses ζ1 instead of ζ0 in several terms, and Eq. (27) contains 'Phi 1' instead of Φ1. These make the formulas even harder to verify.
  3. [Figure 6] The right panel is described in the text as the Hawking temperature, but the axis label is ω. Please correct the label or the caption.
  4. [General] There are numerous language and typographical issues (e.g., 'caculating', 'quantum events prevent', 'the data was obtained', 'this study' vs. 'we') that should be corrected in any revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the paper's derivation is self-contained algebraic manipulation of stated ansatze; the central bounce claim is instead internally contradicted by the paper's own Eq. (17), which is a correctness problem, not a circularity problem.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The field equations (9)-(12) follow from the stated action and FRW metric; Eqs. (13)-(14) are explicit assumptions, not hidden imports. All subsequent quantities—H(t), a(t), q, ω, energy conditions, and entropy rates—are closed-form algebraic consequences of these assumptions and the free constants (ψ, ζ0, μ, Φ1, Φ2). No observable dataset is fitted to a subset of predictions, no parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing result is imported from the authors' prior work. The citations in the paper are background or standard references; no uniqueness theorem is invoked. This is therefore not a case of circularity: the model simply has free parameters, and the plotted curves are parameter choices. I do, however, flag a serious internal mathematical inconsistency, which is outside the circularity score: Eq. (17) reads H = 2ψ/[3ζ0t + 3μψt − 2ψΦ1], and for any allowed ψ ≠ 0 the numerator is a nonzero constant, so H(t) has no finite-time zero. The denominator zero is a pole, not a smooth bounce. Section 3.1 nevertheless states 'The Hubble parameter disappears exactly at the bounce epoch,' which cannot follow from the displayed solution. Likewise, substituting the assumed constitutive relations into Eq. (12) does not genuinely produce Eq. (17); the displayed solution is not the solution of the equations that allegedly generated it. These are fatal correctness defects, but they are not circular reductions of a prediction to an input. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several hand-chosen ingredients: the linear f(Q) ansatz (ψ constant), the bulk viscosity parametrization ζ=ζ0H, and the barotropic relation ρ=P/(1−μ). No microphysical derivation or observational constraint fixes these; the claimed bounce and its thermodynamic signature are consequences of these choices, and the paper's own equations contradict the bounce.

free parameters (4)
  • ψ = negative constants: -1.70, -2.21, -3.34, -4.50 in plots
    Coupling constant in f(Q)=ψQ; chosen negative to produce NEC violation and the desired bounce profile; no constraint from data.
  • ζ0 = bound asserted as ζ0≤10.13; actual plot value not stated
    Proportionality constant in ζ=ζ0H; free parameter controlling viscosity strength; the bound is asserted without derivation.
  • μ = not explicitly given; q plots imply μ≈0.5 if ζ0=1
    Barotropic index in ρ=P/(1−μ); chosen in (0,1); not observationally constrained; combined with Eq. (12) it forces μ=3/2, outside the stated range.
  • Φ1, Φ2 = unspecified
    Integration constants in H and a; Φ1 sets the location of the pole in H; values not reported, so figures are not reproducible.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Field equations of f(Q) gravity with the given sign conventions (Eqs. 6–10)
    Background theory assumed without derivation; no check of sign consistency with standard f(Q) literature is provided.
  • domain assumption FRW metric with flat spatial sections (Eq. 7)
    Standard cosmological assumption restricting the analysis to a homogeneous and isotropic universe.
  • ad hoc to paper Bulk viscosity coefficient ζ=ζ0H (Eq. 14)
    Chosen for analytic tractability; no microphysical derivation; directly controls the bounce behavior and is the main tuning knob.
  • ad hoc to paper Barotropic relation ρ=P/(1−μ), 0<μ<1 (Eq. 13)
    Extra relation used to close the system; no physical justification; substitution into Eq. (12) forces μ=3/2, contradicting the stated range.
  • domain assumption Apparent horizon entropy S=K_b A/(4l_p^2) and Gibbs relation (Eqs. 22–24)
    Standard thermodynamic relations assumed to hold in f(Q) gravity with a viscous fluid without proof or derivation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12402 in / 16564 out tokens · 151911 ms · 2026-08-01T08:54:59.005893+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This manuscript investigates the impact of bulk viscosity on the viability of cosmic bounce solutions in the context of $f(\mathcal{Q})$ theory, where $\mathcal{Q}$ is a non-metricity scalar. To complete this objective, we study the behavior of an isotropic homogeneous universe filled with a perfect fluid and consider a innovative parametrization of bulk viscosity coefficient with an arbitrary constant $\zeta_0$ as $\zeta=\zeta_{0}H$. We consider the particular functional form of this modified theory to explore how this gravitational framework influences the cosmic evolution and explore a range of cosmological parameters to assess the existence and physical viability of bounce solutions. We also investigate the evolution of entropy through the second law of thermodynamics. The positive trend of energy density, negative pressure profile and violation of energy conditions support the existence of viable cosmological bounce scenario and highlights the significance of bulk viscosity in this framework. These results demonstrate that $f(\mathcal{Q})$ gravity provides a compelling alternative to standard cosmic models and provides deep insights into the nature of gravitational interaction and the early cosmos.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21668 by M. Sharif, M. Zeeshan Gul, Nusrat Fatima.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Plots of Hubble parameter to cosmic time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Plots of deceleration parameter to cosmic time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Plots of energy density and pressure. dominates over gravitational deceleration. This accelerated trend is signifi￾cant in explaining the late-time cosmic expansion, as observed in cosmological data. 3.3 Study of Matter Variables Through matter variables, we investigate how the bulk viscosity fluid con￾figuration affects the cosmic geometric structure. The pressure dynamic and energy density evolution over… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots of EoS parameter versus cosmic time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots of energy conditions corresponding to cosmic time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plots of Entropy and Hawking Temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references

  1. [1]

    et al.: Astron

    Riess, A.G. et al.: Astron. J. 116(1998)1009; Perlmutter, S. et al.: As- trophys. J. 517(1999)565

    1998

  2. [2]

    et al.: Astrophys

    Hanany, S. et al.: Astrophys. J. 545(2000)5; Spergel, D.N. et al.: As- trophys. J. Suppl. 170(2007)377

    2000

  3. [3]

    et al.: Astrophys

    Komatsu, E. et al.: Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180(2009)330

    2009

  4. [4]

    and Faraoni, V.: Rev

    Sotiriou, T.P. and Faraoni, V.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 82(2010)451; Nojiri, S. and Odintsov, S.D.: Phys. Rep. 505(2011)59; Harko, T. et al.: Phys. Rev. D 84(2011)024020

    2010

  5. [5]

    et al.: Astrophys

    Qiao, C. et al.: Astrophys. J. 991(2025)46. 18

    2025

  6. [6]

    and Koivisto, T.: Eur

    Conroy, A. and Koivisto, T.: Eur. Phys. J. C 78(2018)923

    2018

  7. [7]

    et al.: Mod

    Adeel, M. et al.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38(2023)2350152

    2023

  8. [8]

    et al.: Int

    Rani, S. et al.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 21(2024)2450033

    2024

  9. [9]

    et al.: Eur

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)8

    2024

  10. [10]

    Heisenberg, L.: Phys. Rep. 1066(2024)78

    2024

  11. [11]

    et al.: Nucl

    Nusrat, F. et al.: Nucl. Phys. B 1016(2025)116923

    2025

  12. [12]

    et al.: Phys

    Rani, S. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 47(2025)101754

    2025

  13. [13]

    et al.: Phys

    Sharif, M. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 47(2025)101760

    2025

  14. [14]

    and Xia, T.: Chin

    Mustafa, G., Abbas, G. and Xia, T.: Chin. J. Phys. 60(2019)362

    2019

  15. [15]

    et al.: Eur

    Mustafa, G. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 80(2020)26

    2020

  16. [16]

    and Sahin, T.: Universe 8(2022)458

    Donmez, O., Dogan, F. and Sahin, T.: Universe 8(2022)458

    2022

  17. [17]

    et al.: Eur

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

    2023

  18. [18]

    et al.: Phys

    Nan G. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 46(2024)101635

    2024

  19. [19]

    et al.: Eur

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)775

    2024

  20. [20]

    et al.: Eur

    Nasir, M.M.M. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 85(2025)159

    2025

  21. [21]

    et al.: Phys

    Sharif, M. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 48(2025)101839

    2025

  22. [22]

    et al.: Nucl

    Javed, F. et al.: Nucl. Phys. B 1018(2025)117001

    2025

  23. [23]

    et al.: Ann

    Javed, F. et al.: Ann. Phys. 476(2025)169956

    2025

  24. [24]

    et al.: High Energy Density Phys

    Hashim, I. et al.: High Energy Density Phys. 57(2025)101223

    2025

  25. [25]

    et al.: Ann

    Javed, F. et al.: Ann. Phys. 482(2025)170189

    2025

  26. [26]

    et al.: Int

    Hashim, I. et al.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 22(2025)2540049

    2025

  27. [27]

    et al.: Phys

    Malik, A. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 50(2025)102114

    2025

  28. [28]

    et al.: Phys

    Naz, T. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 50(2025)102166. 19

    2025

  29. [29]

    et al.: Eur

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 85(2025)595

    2025

  30. [30]

    Yousaf, M.: Chin. J. Phys. 95(2025)1278; Chin. J. Phys. 97(2025)1284; Yousaf, M. Asad, H.: Phys. Dark Universe 48(2025)101841

    2025

  31. [31]

    et al.: Nucl

    Shabbir, S. et al.: Nucl. Phys. B 1022(2026)117249

    2026

  32. [32]

    Senovilla, J. M.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 30(1998)701

    1998

  33. [33]

    High Energy Phys

    Liddle, A.R.: J. High Energy Phys. 260(1998)3

    1998

  34. [34]

    Bojowald, M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(2001)5227; Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40(2008)2659

    2001

  35. [35]

    et al.: Ann

    Feng, G. et al.: Ann. Phys. 473(2025)169903

    2025

  36. [36]

    et al.: Astrophys

    Qiao, C. et al.: Astrophys. J. 991(2025)46

    2025

  37. [37]

    and Capozziello, S.: Eur

    Bajardi, F., Vernieri, D. and Capozziello, S.: Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135(2020)14

    2020

  38. [38]

    et al.: Eur

    Mandal, S. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136(2021)760

    2021

  39. [39]

    and Shamir, M.F.: New Astron

    Malik, A. and Shamir, M.F.: New Astron. 82(2021)101460

    2021

  40. [40]

    et al.: Ind

    Ilyas, M. et al.: Ind. J. Phys. 96(2022)4017

    2022

  41. [41]

    et al.: Universe 8(2022)636

    Lohakare, S.V. et al.: Universe 8(2022)636

    2022

  42. [42]

    and Bruni, M.: J

    Bozza, V. and Bruni, M.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2009(2009)014

    2009

  43. [43]

    F., Easson, D

    Cai, Y. F., Easson, D. A. and Brandenberger, R.: J. Cosmol. Ast ropart. Phys. 2012(2012)020

    2012

  44. [44]

    et al.: J

    Bamba, K. et al.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014(2014)008

    2014

  45. [45]

    Amani, A.R.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25(2016)1650071

    2016

  46. [46]

    et al.: Chin

    Tripathy, S.K. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 71(2021)610

    2021

  47. [47]

    Amoros et al.: Phys. Rev. D 87(2013)104037

    2013

  48. [48]

    K and Singh, A.: Fortschr

    Shaily, Singh, J. K and Singh, A.: Fortschr. der Phys. 72(2024)2300244. 20

    2024

  49. [49]

    and Fatima, N.: Eur

    Sharif, M., Gul, M.Z. and Fatima, N.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)1065

    2024

  50. [50]

    and Rahman, W.U.: Eur

    Ilyas, M. and Rahman, W.U.: Eur. Phys. J. C 81(2021)9

    2021

  51. [51]

    et al.: Phys

    Solanki, R. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 32(2021)100820

    2021

  52. [52]

    et al.: Phys

    Solanki, R. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 36(2022)101053

    2022

  53. [53]

    and Sahoo, P.K.: Fortschr

    Hassan, Z., Mandal, S. and Sahoo, P.K.: Fortschr. der Phys. 69(2021)2100023

    2021

  54. [54]

    et al.: Fortschr

    Solanki, R. et al.: Fortschr. der Phys. 71(2023)2200202

    2023

  55. [55]

    and Bishi, B.K.: Adv

    Singh, G.P. and Bishi, B.K.: Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017(2017)1390572

    2017

  56. [56]

    and Oikonmou, V.K.: Phys

    Odintsov, S.D. and Oikonmou, V.K.: Phys. Rev. D 92(2015)024016

    2015

  57. [57]

    and DAgostino, R

    Capozziello, S. and DAgostino, R. Phys. Lett. B 832(2022)137229

    2022

  58. [58]

    and Heisenberg, L

    Jimenez, J.B. and Heisenberg, L. and Koivisto, T.S.: Universe 5(2019)173

    2019

  59. [59]

    and Babar, R.: Gen

    Ali, R., Tiecheng, X. and Babar, R.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 56(2024)13

    2024

  60. [60]

    et al.: Fortschr

    Shaukat, S. et al.: Fortschr. der Phys. 56(2025)70037

    2025

  61. [61]

    et al.: Astron

    Ade, P.A. et al.: Astron. Astrophys. 594(2016)13

    2016

  62. [62]

    et al.: Front

    Myrzakulov, N. et al.: Front. Astron. Space Sci. 9(2022)902552. 21

    2022