Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 65 references

Cosmological Realization of Baryon Asymmetry in f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) Gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) gravity produces a baryon-to-entropy ratio inside observational bounds through gravitational baryogenesis.

desk verdict This paper applies gravitational baryogenesis to f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) gravity but reports compatibility only after fitting parameters and without re-deriving the interaction term from the modified action. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.14377 v1 pith:4FM4VSQ6 submitted 2026-05-14 gr-qc

Kalyan Malakar , Rajdeep Mazumdar , Kalyan Bhuyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords gravitationalbaryogenesisbaryonasymmetryf(RGT)gravitymodifiedHubbleparametercosmologicalobservationsbaryon-to-entropyratio
topics Matter-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 examines gravitational baryogenesis inside the $f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu})$ gravity framework to determine whether this modified theory can account for the observed excess of matter over antimatter. The authors compute the baryon-to-entropy ratio for both the standard interaction and a generalized version, finding both results compatible with measured limits. They further perform chi-square fits of the model's Hubble parameter and distance modulus to cosmic chronometer and Pantheon+SH0ES data, obtaining consistency comparable to the Lambda CDM model. A reader would care because the origin of the cosmic matter dominance is a longstanding puzzle, and this approach supplies a purely gravitational mechanism without additional particles or forces.

What carries the argument

The $f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu})$ gravity action, which replaces the Einstein-Hilbert term with a function of the Ricci scalar and the Einstein tensor contracted with the energy-momentum tensor, allowing curvature to source the baryon number violation.

What would settle it

A measured baryon-to-entropy ratio lying outside the interval permitted by the model's parameter space while the Hubble expansion still matches current data would disprove the viability of the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the $f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu})$ gravity formalism the gravitational baryogenesis interaction produces a baryon-to-entropy ratio that aligns with observational constraints from the cosmic microwave background and big bang nucleosynthesis. The result persists for a generalized version of the interaction. Chi-square minimization against Hubble parameter and distance modulus measurements from cosmic chronometers and Pantheon+SH0ES data yields parameter values that reproduce the observed expansion history at a level comparable to Lambda CDM.

Load-bearing premise

The gravitational baryogenesis interaction term and its derivation in general relativity carry over unchanged to the $f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu})$ action without additional interaction vertices or consistency conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard gravitational baryogenesis term suffices to generate the correct asymmetry in this theory.
  • The generalized interaction term also reproduces the observed ratio.
  • The model is consistent with current measurements of the Hubble expansion and luminosity distances.
  • Parameters can be chosen so that the cosmology agrees with both early-universe baryon data and late-universe observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Similar baryogenesis calculations could be repeated in other higher-order or non-minimally coupled gravity theories if the interaction term carries over unchanged.
  • Future high-precision measurements of the baryon asymmetry at higher redshifts could further restrict the free functions appearing in the model.
  • The same framework might be extended to couple the asymmetry generation directly to late-time acceleration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that gravitational baryogenesis can be realized in f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) gravity, with the baryon-to-entropy ratio computed via the standard mechanism and found compatible with observational bounds; the analysis is extended to a generalized case, and chi-square fits to H(z) and distance modulus data from CC and Pantheon+SH0ES datasets are reported to agree with \Lambda CDM.

Significance. If the central assumption that the standard GB interaction carries over unchanged holds and the numerical results follow from the modified action, the work would show that this class of modified gravity supplies a viable setting for the observed baryon asymmetry and passes basic cosmological tests at a level comparable to \Lambda CDM.

major comments (2)
  1. [Baryon asymmetry calculation] The manuscript states that the standard gravitational baryogenesis interaction is applied directly to obtain the baryon-to-entropy ratio, yet supplies no re-derivation of the interaction Lagrangian or the effective curvature scalar from the f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) action. Because the metric field equations are modified by the G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu} term, it is necessary to confirm that the coupling \partial_\mu R J^\mu / M^2 and the out-of-equilibrium condition remain unmodified; the abstract reports compatibility but contains no derivation steps or explicit functional form of f.
  2. [Comparison with observations] Compatibility with observational limits on the baryon-to-entropy ratio is achieved by adjusting free parameters inside f; the reported agreement therefore constitutes a fit rather than an independent prediction, undermining the claim that the model yields a viable theoretical setting without additional tuning.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The chi-square analysis of H(z) and \mu(z) is mentioned but no explicit best-fit values, error budgets, degrees of freedom, or reduced-\chi^2 figures are supplied, preventing direct assessment of the claimed agreement with CC and Pantheon+SH0ES data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results on gravitational baryogenesis in f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) gravity. We address each major point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Baryon asymmetry calculation] The manuscript states that the standard gravitational baryogenesis interaction is applied directly to obtain the baryon-to-entropy ratio, yet supplies no re-derivation of the interaction Lagrangian or the effective curvature scalar from the f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) action. Because the metric field equations are modified by the G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu} term, it is necessary to confirm that the coupling \partial_\mu R J^\mu / M^2 and the out-of-equilibrium condition remain unmodified; the abstract reports compatibility but contains no derivation steps or explicit functional form of f.

    Authors: The gravitational baryogenesis interaction is introduced as an effective term \partial_\mu R J^\mu / M^2 coupled to the Ricci scalar R, which is unchanged by the modification to the gravitational action. The modified field equations affect the background evolution but do not alter the form of this effective coupling or the requirement that the interaction occurs out of equilibrium during the radiation era. The baryon-to-entropy ratio is computed using the standard expression evaluated at decoupling, with the Hubble evolution obtained from the modified Friedmann equations. The explicit functional forms of f considered (power-law and other ansatze) are given in Section 3 of the manuscript; the abstract is necessarily concise. We will add a short clarifying paragraph in the revised version confirming that the interaction Lagrangian is taken as standard while the dynamics are solved consistently with the modified gravity. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Comparison with observations] Compatibility with observational limits on the baryon-to-entropy ratio is achieved by adjusting free parameters inside f; the reported agreement therefore constitutes a fit rather than an independent prediction, undermining the claim that the model yields a viable theoretical setting without additional tuning.

    Authors: The model contains free parameters in the function f, as is standard for modified gravity theories. Our analysis demonstrates that there exist parameter choices for which the computed baryon-to-entropy ratio lies within observational bounds while the background expansion remains consistent with H(z) and distance-modulus data at a level comparable to \Lambda CDM. This establishes viability of the framework rather than a parameter-free prediction. The chi-square comparison quantifies that the model is not disfavored by current data. We do not claim the asymmetry is predicted without reference to the parameters of f; the goal is to show the mechanism can be realized without contradiction. revision: no

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

BnER compatibility obtained by fitting free parameters in f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) rather than independent prediction

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) model is considered to evaluate the baryon-to-entropy ratio (BnER), which is subsequently compared against the observational limits. The results obtained exhibit compatibility with the estimated matter imbalance. ... A chi-square (\chi^2) analysis of the Hubble parameter, H(z), and distance modulus, \mu(z), is performed, confirming their consistency with current cosmological observations."

    The reported compatibility is produced by choosing the arbitrary functions/parameters inside f so that the computed BnER falls inside the observational window; the chi-square step repeats the same adjustment for background cosmology. The numerical agreement is therefore enforced by construction rather than emerging as an independent output of the model.

full rationale

The paper evaluates the baryon-to-entropy ratio using the standard gravitational baryogenesis interaction in the modified-gravity background, then reports compatibility with observations. This match is achieved by selecting values of the free functions/parameters inside f; the chi-square analysis of H(z) and \mu(z) further confirms the same fitting procedure. No re-derivation of the interaction term from the new action is supplied, and the central viability claim therefore reduces to a parameter adjustment that forces agreement with the target datum. The derivation chain is otherwise self-contained against external data once the fit is performed.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transfer of the gravitational baryogenesis formula to the new action and on the existence of free parameters inside f that are adjusted to match the observed baryon-to-entropy ratio and expansion data.

free parameters (1)
  • parameters inside f
    Chosen or fitted so that the computed baryon-to-entropy ratio lies inside observational bounds and the Hubble and distance-modulus chi-square values remain acceptable.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The gravitational baryogenesis interaction term derived in general relativity applies without modification to the f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) action
    Invoked when the baryon-to-entropy ratio is computed from the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological Realization of Baryon Asymmetry in f(R, G_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}) Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4FM4VSQ6

@misc{pith2026260514377,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological Realization of Baryon Asymmetry in f(R, G_\mu\nuT^\mu\nu) Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4FM4VSQ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.14377}
}
read the original abstract

This work investigates the mechanism of gravitational baryogenesis (GB) under the formalism of f(R, G_{{\mu}{\nu}}T^{{\mu}{\nu}}) gravity, where R denotes the Ricci scalar, G_{{\mu}{\nu}} is the Einstein tensor and T^{{\mu}{\nu}} represents the energy--momentum tensor. f(R, G_{{\mu}{\nu}}T^{{\mu}{\nu}}) model is considered to evaluate the baryon-to-entropy ratio (BnER), which is subsequently compared against the observational limits. The results obtained exhibit compatibility with the estimated matter imbalance. Moreover, the analysis is extended to generalized GB case, resulting in outcomes that closely match empirical bounds. The findings reveal that the f(R, G_{{\mu}{\nu}}T^{{\mu}{\nu}}) formulation yields a viable theoretical setting for explaining the detected matter-antimatter disparity of the universe, highlighting its relevance in early cosmic evolution. To further validate the models, a chi-square ({\chi}^2) analysis of the Hubble parameter, H(z), and distance modulus, {\mu}(z), is performed, confirming their consistency with current cosmological observations. A comparative assessment simultaneously with the {\Lambda}CDM paradigm demonstrates a satisfactory level of agreement between the proposed model and cosmological observations from CC and Pantheon+SH0ES datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14377 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows a variation of ( ηB s )ggb as a function of α for the adopted values of β, namely β = −1, β = −102 and β = −104 . The observationally determined baryon asymmetry is marked by the red line (dashed). Theoretical results compared to observational limits conclude that the viable range of α lies approximately within the interval: (2.5, 2.65), indicating a close alignment between the theoretical analysis and the obs… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Key outcomes of GB analysis: • The analysis of the gravity modelf(R, ξ)highlights that the predicted BnER( ηB s )remains compatible with current observational constraints for the parameter choicesβ=−5.44×10 19, β=−5.92×10 17, andβ=−6.71×10 15. The evolution ofH(z)examined against the CC data and the standardΛCDM framework, demonstrates that the model can ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Key outcomes of GGB analysis: • We have further extended the analysis to the generalized (GGB) scenario. Eq. (37) represents the asym- metry ratio corresponding to the GGB case. In Fig. 2, the BnER is plotted in relation toαfor three different choices ofβ, namelyβ=−1, β=−10 2 andβ=−10 4. The obtained values of the asymmetry ratio are shown to align closel...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The model effectively recreates the behavior of bothH(z)andµ(z), remaining close to theΛCDM predictions across the redshift range considered,0.07≤z≤2.5

    Key outcomes of the statistical analysis: • The joint assessment of the CC and Pantheon+SH0ES datasets demonstrates that the adopted gravity formulation is observationally viable for parameter space restricted by GB and compatible with the cosmic acceleration of the cosmos. The model effectively recreates the behavior of bothH(z)andµ(z), remaining close t...

    work page

  4. [4]

    C. D. Anderson, The Positive Electron, Phys. Rev.43, 491 (1933)

    work page 1933

  5. [5]

    P . A. M. Dirac, The quantum theory of the electron, Proc. R. Soc. London A117, 610 (1928)

    work page 1928

  6. [6]

    A. G. Cohen, A. De R ´ujula, and S. L. Glashow, A Matter-Antimatter Universe?, Astrophys. J.495, 539 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Dine and A

    M. Dine and A. Kusenko, Origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 1 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    A. D. Sakharov, Violation of CP invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Sov. Phys. Usp.34, 392 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    C. L. Bennett, M. Bay, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, C. Jackson, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, G. S. Tucker, D. T. Wilkinson, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright, The Microwave Anisotropy Probe∗Mission, Astrophys. J.583, 1 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Dolgov, Matter-antimatter domains in the universe, Nucl

    A. Dolgov, Matter-antimatter domains in the universe, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.95, 42 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    A. D. Dolgov, I. B. Zel’dovich, and M. V . Sazhin, Cosmology of the early universe, Moscow Izdatel Moskovskogo Universiteta Pt (1988)

    1988

  4. [12]

    Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields(Cambridge university press, 1995)

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields(Cambridge university press, 1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    P . J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, The cosmological constant and dark energy, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Kolb,The Early Universe(Taylor & Francis, Andover, England, UK, 2018)

    E. Kolb,The Early Universe(Taylor & Francis, Andover, England, UK, 2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Collaboration, Planck 2018 results - VI

    P . Collaboration, Planck 2018 results - VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Steigman, Observational Tests of Antimatter Cosmologies, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 339 (1976)

    G. Steigman, Observational Tests of Antimatter Cosmologies, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 339 (1976)

    1976

  9. [17]

    Burles, K

    S. Burles, K. M. Nollett, and M. S. Turner, What is the big-bang-nucleosynthesis prediction for the baryon density and how reliable is it?, Phys. Rev. D63, 063512 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, The cosmological constant and the theory of elementary particles, Phys.-Usp.11, 381 (1968)

    1968

  11. [19]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, G. D. Kribs, H. Murayama, and P . J. Steinhardt, Gravitational Baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 201301 (2004)

    2004

  12. [20]

    Cheng and L.-F

    T.-P . Cheng and L.-F. Li,Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle Physics(Oxford University Press, 1984)

    1984

  13. [21]

    Riotto and M

    A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Recent progress in baryogenesis, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. , 35 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    E. D. Stewart, M. Kawasaki, and T. Yanagida, Affleck-Dine baryogenesis after thermal inflation, Phys. Rev. D54, 6032 (1996)

    1996

  15. [23]

    Trodden, Electroweak baryogenesis, Rev

    M. Trodden, Electroweak baryogenesis, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 1463 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    E. W. Kolb, A. Linde, and A. Riotto, Grand-Unified-Theory Baryogenesis after Preheating, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 4290 (1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    R. H. Brandenberger and M. Yamaguchi, Spontaneous baryogenesis in warm inflation, Phys. Rev. D68, 023505 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    Takahashi and M

    F. Takahashi and M. Yamaguchi, Spontaneous baryogenesis in flat directions, Phys. Rev. D69, 083506 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    M. A. Luty, Baryogenesis via leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D45, 455 (1992)

    1992

  20. [28]

    Barbieri, P

    R. Barbieri, P . Creminelli, A. Strumia, and N. Tetradis, Baryogenesis through leptogenesis, Nucl. Phys. B575, 61 (2000)

    2000

  21. [29]

    Ambrosone, R

    A. Ambrosone, R. Calabrese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Miele, and S. Morisi, Towards baryogenesis via absorption from primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D105, 045001 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Lambiase and G

    G. Lambiase and G. Scarpetta, Baryogenesis inf(R)theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D74, 087504 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    V . K. Oikonomou, Constraints on singular evolution from gravitational baryogenesis, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.13, 10.1142/S021988781650033X (2016)

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    V . K. Oikonomou and E. N. Saridakis,f(T)gravitational baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. D94, 124005 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    S. D. Odintsov and V . K. Oikonomou, Gauss–Bonnet gravitational baryogenesis, Phys. Lett. B760, 259 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Nozari and F

    K. Nozari and F. Rajabi, Baryogenesis in f(R, T ) Gravity∗, Commun. Theor. Phys.70, 451 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Atazadeh, Gravitational baryogenesis in DGP brane cosmology, Eur

    K. Atazadeh, Gravitational baryogenesis in DGP brane cosmology, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 455 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    E. H. Baffou, M. J. S. Houndjo, D. A. Kanfon, and I. G. Salako, f(R, T) models applied to baryogenesis, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 1 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Swagat Mishra, N

    S. Swagat Mishra, N. S. Kavya, and P . K. Sahoo, Effects of DESI and GW observations on f(T) gravitational baryogenesis, Phys. Lett. B872, 140036 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    S. S. Mishra, A. Bhat, and P . K. Sahoo, Probing baryogenesis in f(Q) gravity, Europhys. Lett.146, 29001 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    L. V . Jaybhaye, S. Bhattacharjee, and P . K. Sahoo, Baryogenesis in f(R,Lm) gravity, Phys. Dark Universe40, 101223 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    A. M. Sultan, A. Mushtaq, A. Jawad, S. Shaymatov, and M. S. Saleem, Gravitational baryogenesis analysis of observationally favored f(T,ϕ) models, Phys. Dark Universe48, 101936 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    D. F. P . Cruz, D. S. Pereira, and F. S. N. Lobo, Gravitational baryogenesis in f(T, Lm) gravity, Nucl. Phys. B1023, 117304 (2026)

    2026

  34. [42]

    Samaddar and S

    A. Samaddar and S. S. Singh, A novel approach to baryogenesis in f(Q,Lm) gravity and its cosmological implications, Nucl. Phys. B1012, 116834 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Malakar, R

    K. Malakar, R. Mazumdar, M. M. Gohain, and K. Bhuyan, Viability constraints on baryogenesis in f(R, Lm, T) gravity, Phys. Dark Universe52, 102288 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    A. M. Sultan, A. Mushtaq, D. Chou, H. U. Rehman, H. Ashraf, and A. U. Awan, Observational analysis of gravitational baryogenesis constraints in Einstein-Æther gravity, J. High Energy Astrophys.45, 135 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Marciu and D

    M. Marciu and D. M. Ioan, Physical aspects off(R,G µν T µν)modified gravity theories, Chin. Phys. C47, 105103 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    R ¨as¨anen, K

    S. R ¨as¨anen, K. Bolejko, and A. Finoguenov, New Test of the Friedmann-Lema ˆıtre-Robertson-Walker Metric Using the Dis- 15 tance Sum Rule, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 101301 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    L’Huillier and A

    B. L’Huillier and A. Shafieloo, Model-independent test of the FLRW metric, the flatness of the Universe, and non-local estimation of H0rd, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2017(1), 015

    2017

  40. [48]

    Jimenez, R

    R. Jimenez, R. Maartens, A. Rida Khalifeh, R. R. Caldwell, A. F. Heavens, and L. Verde, Measuring the homogeneity of the universe using polarization drift, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2019(5), 048, arXiv:1902.11298

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Foidl and T

    H. Foidl and T. Rindler-Daller, AΛCDM Extension Explaining the Hubble Tension and the Spatial CurvatureΩk,0 =−0.012± 0.010Measured by the Final PR4 of the Planck Mission, ResearchGate 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04126 (2024)

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity(The University of Chicago Press, 1984)

    1984

  43. [51]

    White,Electroweak Baryogenesis (Second Edition) – An introduction(IOP Publishing, Bristol, England, UK, 2022)

    G. White,Electroweak Baryogenesis (Second Edition) – An introduction(IOP Publishing, Bristol, England, UK, 2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    O. F. Piattella,Lecture Notes in Cosmology(Springer International Publishing, 2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Mukhanov,Physical Foundations of Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, UK, 2005)

    V . Mukhanov,Physical Foundations of Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, UK, 2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    Sugamoto, Baryon Asymmetry: Evidence of CP Violation and Phase Transition in the Early Universe ?, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.hep-ph/9505342 (1995), hep-ph/9505342

    A. Sugamoto, Baryon Asymmetry: Evidence of CP Violation and Phase Transition in the Early Universe ?, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.hep-ph/9505342 (1995), hep-ph/9505342

    1995 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    K. R. S. Balaji, T. Biswas, R. H. Brandenberger, and D. London, Dynamical CP violation in the early universe and leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D72, 056005 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    S. J. Huber, K. Mimasu, and J. M. No, Baryogenesis from transitional CP violation in the early Universe, Phys. Rev. D107, 075042 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Malakar, R

    K. Malakar, R. Mazumdar, M. M. Gohain, and K. Bhuyan, f(R) Gravity reconstruction using Barrow holographic dark energy model, Journal of Subatomic Particles and Cosmology3, 100068 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

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

    2020

  51. [59]

    V . K. Oikonomou and E. N. Saridakis, f(T) gravitational baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. D94, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.124005 (2016)

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    M. P . L. P . Ramos and J. P´aramos, Baryogenesis in nonminimally coupled f(R) theories, Phys. Rev. D96, 104024 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    Samaddar and S

    A. Samaddar and S. S. Singh, Late-time cosmic dynamics in f(R, Lm) gravity with recent observations, J. High Energy Astro- phys.51, 100558 (2026)

    2026

  54. [62]

    A. K. C ¸ amlıbel,˙I. Semiz, and M. A. xn Feyizolu-rwc, Pantheon update on a model-independent analysis of cosmological supernova data, Classical Quantum Gravity37, 235001 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Scolnic et al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Mazumdar, K

    R. Mazumdar, K. Malakar, and K. Bhuyan, Fractional holographic dark energy driven reconstruction of f(Q) gravity and its cosmological implications, Classical Quantum Gravity43, 085004 (2026)

    2026

  57. [65]

    Mazumdar, K

    R. Mazumdar, K. Malakar, M. M. Gohain, and K. Bhuyan, New agegraphic dark energy driven reconstruction of f(Q) gravity and its cosmological implications, Classical Quantum Gravity42, 205010 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.