Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Traversable wormholes from a smoothed string fluid in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A smoothed string fluid in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity can support zero-tidal-force traversable wormholes whose null energy condition holds at and outside the throat for \(\alpha\ge1\) and \(\varepsilon\le0.1\).

desk verdict The smoothed-string wormhole is a real, checkable construction, but the paper's own equations kill the two headline claims: the NEC is violated at every flaring throat and the spacetime is conical, not flat. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07028 v3 pith:BBGQQTEE submitted 2025-05-11 gr-qc hep-phhep-th

C. R. Muniz , M. S. Cunha , L. C. N. Santos This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords traversablewormholesEinstein-Gauss-Bonnetgravitysmoothedstringfluidnullenergyconditionexoticmatterregularblackholeszero-tidal-forcewormholecomplexityfactor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that the smoothed string-fluid energy density already used to build regular black holes can also sustain traversable wormholes once the fluid equation of state is allowed to vary with radius, and that four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity can do this with little or no exotic matter. The central result is a zero-tidal-force solution whose shape function satisfies the throat, flaring-out, and regularity conditions, and in the parameter window \(\$\alpha$\ge1\), \(\varepsilon\le0.1\) the combinations \(\rho+p_r\) and \(\rho+p_t\) stay non-negative at and outside the throat. If correct, this would mean the null energy condition need not be violated near the throat, that the volume-integral measure of exotic matter can be pushed toward zero by the Gauss-Bonnet coupling, and that one matter source can produce both regular black holes and traversable wormholes. That matters because traversability in general relativity normally demands null-energy-condition violation, and this construction identifies a concrete higher-curvature mechanism that replaces exotic matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the shape function \(b(r)\), Eq. (22) of the paper, selected from the two branches of the EGB mass formula by requiring a smooth \(\$\alpha$\to0\) limit and built from the smoothed string-fluid mass \(m(r)\). Zero tidal force is imposed by taking the redshift function \(\Phi\) constant. The load-bearing mechanism is the appearance of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling \(\$\alpha$\) inside \(b(r)\) and in the effective stress-energy, which converts a geometry that would require NEC violation in general relativity into one where \(\rho+p_r\) and \(\rho+p_t\) are non-negative near and outside the throat; the variable transverse equation of state of the string fluid makes the source interpolate between a de Sitter-like core and a cosmic-string-like exterior.

What would settle it

Compute \(\lim_{r\to\infty} b(r)/r\) from Eqs. (21)-(23): the exponential factors vanish, the square root in (22) tends to \(1+2\$\alpha$\varepsilon/$r^{2}$\), and \(b(r)/r\) tends to \(\varepsilon\), not \(0\). This directly contradicts condition (26), so a reader can settle the asymptotic-flatness claim by evaluating the shape function numerically for, say, \(\varepsilon=0.1\), \(r_0=5\), \(a=1\).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the smoothed string-fluid density, with mass function \(m(r)=\frac12[\$\beta$+\varepsilon r-(\varepsilon r+r_0)$e^{{-r^3/a^3}}$]\), yields through the 4D EGB field equations a shape function \(b(r)\) with a genuine throat at \(r_0\), finite curvature invariants, and zero tidal force. In the parameter region \(\$\alpha$\ge1\), \(\varepsilon\le0.1\), the authors find that both \(\rho+p_r\ge0\) and \(\rho+p_t\ge0\) hold at and outside the throat, so the wormhole can be sustained with little or no exotic matter. They interpret this as the higher-curvature sector itself supplying part of the effective stress-energy that supports the flaring-out geometry, which also drives the volume integral quantifier toward zero and lowers the complexity factor as \(\$\alpha$\) grows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise behind the claim that all traversability criteria are met is asymptotic flatness, \(b(r)/r\to0\), but substituting the mass function (21) into the shape function (22) gives \(b(r)/r\to\varepsilon\) for \(\varepsilon>0\), so the stated solution is asymptotically conical and that premise fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For \(\alpha\ge1\) and \(\varepsilon\le0.1\), a traversable wormhole can be supported without a region of NEC-violating matter immediately around the throat.
  • The volume-integral quantifier can be made arbitrarily small by increasing \(\alpha\), meaning the integrated amount of exotic matter required is suppressed by higher-curvature corrections.
  • The same smoothed string-fluid source that produces regular black holes also produces traversable wormholes when the radial equation of state is relaxed, unifying the two geometries.
  • The Kretschmann scalar remains finite across the parameter space, so the wormhole is globally regular rather than singular.
  • Stronger Gauss-Bonnet coupling lowers both the complexity factor and the NEC-violation measure, so the higher-curvature corrections simplify the internal structure while reducing exoticity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check the paper does not make explicit: from Eq. (22), \(b(r)/r\to\varepsilon\) for \(\varepsilon>0\), so the spacetime is asymptotically conical, not flat; the traversability condition (26) would need to be replaced by a conical-asymptotics criterion.
  • If conical asymptotics is accepted, the solution is naturally interpreted as a wormhole sitting in a cosmic-string-like environment, since \(\varepsilon\) is the string-fluid density parameter; this may yield distinctive lensing or Shapiro-delay signatures.
  • A natural next test is linear stability of these wormholes under axial and polar perturbations; the paper leaves this to future work, and it would determine whether the non-exotic region around the throat survives dynamical evolution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs static, zero-tidal-force, spherically symmetric traversable wormhole solutions in regularized four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, sourced by a smoothed string fluid with a radially varying equation of state. It derives a mass function, fixes the shape function from the throat condition, and studies traversability conditions, curvature regularity, radial and transverse equations of state, a Kiselev-type effective EoS, the null energy condition, the volume integral quantifier, and the complexity factor. The central claims are that the wormhole satisfies all traversability criteria, that for Gauss-Bonnet coupling alpha >= 1 and string parameter epsilon <= 0.1 the null energy condition holds at and outside the throat so that little or no exotic matter is needed, and that the same smoothed string fluid unifies regular black holes and traversable wormholes.

Significance. If the central NEC claim were correct, the paper would be significant: it would show that higher-curvature corrections can remove NEC violations at a wormhole throat in four dimensions without sacrificing traversability. The manuscript is also commendably explicit: the field equations, shape function, and mass function are written out, and the numerical diagnostics (b/r, flaring-out, Kretschmann scalar, VIQ, complexity factor) are easy to follow and check. However, the main physical conclusion is contradicted by the paper's own exact field equations at the throat, and the asymptotic-flatness claim is likewise false. These are not presentation issues but load-bearing errors: the abstract and conclusion assert a NEC-satisfying region that cannot exist, and the traversability analysis relies on an asymptotically flat geometry that the solution does not have. The remaining useful content an explicit EGB wormhole sourced by this fluid and a quantitative study of the VIQ does not by itself establish the advertised new physics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (12)-(13); abstract and conclusion] The central NEC claim is internally inconsistent with the paper's own field equations. For the zero-tidal-force case Phi'=0, adding Eqs. (12) and (13) at the throat b(r0)=r0 gives 8*pi*(rho+p_r)(r0) = (1/r0^2)(1+2*alpha/r0^2)(b'(r0)-1). The flaring-out condition stated as condition 4 in Sec. IIIC requires b(r0)-r0*b'(r0)>0, i.e. b'(r0)<1, and the prefactor is positive for the admitted alpha>=0. Hence rho+p_r<0 at the throat for every alpha and every epsilon. This directly contradicts the abstract's parameter region alpha>=1, epsilon<=0.1 with the NEC satisfied 'in the vicinity of the throat', and the conclusion's statement that 'both rho+p_r and rho+p_t remain non-negative at and outside the throat'. The paper's own hedge in Sec. IV, that the NEC may still be locally violated near the throat, is the correct statement. This is a load-bearing error: it removes the paper's main physical result.
  2. [Sec. IIIB, Eq. (22); Sec. IIIC, condition (26)] The claimed asymptotic flatness is not correct. With beta from Eq. (23), the mass function satisfies m(r) ~ (beta+epsilon*r)/2 as r goes to infinity, so from Eq. (22) one obtains b(r)/r = (r^2/(2*alpha))(-1 + sqrt(1 + 4*alpha*(beta+epsilon*r+o(1))/r^3)) -> epsilon, not 0, whenever epsilon>0. The geometry is therefore asymptotically conical rather than asymptotically flat, and condition (26) is not satisfied for any positive epsilon. Since epsilon is the string-density parameter and is positive in every numerical example, the statement in Sec. IIIB that asymptotic flatness follows directly, and the corresponding claim in Sec. IIIC that condition (iii) is satisfied by construction, are both false.
  3. [Sec. IIIB, Eqs. (20)-(21)] As printed, the energy density (20) does not integrate to the mass function (21). Differentiating Eq. (21) gives m'(r) = (1/2)[epsilon(1-e^{-r^3/a^3}) + (3r^2/a^3)(epsilon*r+r0)e^{-r^3/a^3}], so the density required by Eq. (15) is rho = m'/(4*pi*r^2), which does not match Eq. (20). In particular, the first term of Eq. (20), epsilon*a^3*e^{r^3/a^3}, has the wrong dimension and grows exponentially with r, making it incompatible with a finite-mass function of the form (21). Since the shape function (22) is obtained by substituting Eq. (21) into Eq. (17), this discrepancy propagates into the throat condition and all subsequent traversability and NEC plots. The source-fluid identification needs to be corrected or the derivation of Eq. (21) needs to be shown explicitly.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (36)] The claimed volume-integral expansion is dimensionally inconsistent and does not reproduce the exact leading behavior. The exact throat identity from Eqs. (12)-(13) gives I_v = 8*pi*integral_{r0}^r x^2(rho+p_r) dx ~ (1+2*alpha/r0^2)(b'(r0)-1)(r-r0) for r -> r0+, which is negative whenever the flaring-out condition b'(r0)<1 holds. Equation (36), by contrast, has a bracket containing a dimensionless term, a term with dimension L^{-2}, and another dimensionless term, and it can become positive for large alpha. A positive or vanishing VIQ in the strong-coupling regime therefore cannot be inferred from Eq. (36) without at the same time giving up the flaring-out condition. The VIQ discussion as presented reinforces the same incorrect NEC conclusion as the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, around Eqs. (7)-(9)] The symbol \bar{\alpha} for the density-to-transverse-pressure ratio is easily confused with the Gauss-Bonnet coupling alpha; renaming this ratio (for example, to \lambda) would improve readability.
  2. [Fig. 7, bottom-left caption] The caption states epsilon in (0,10), while the text and the other panels use epsilon in [0,1]; please reconcile the range used in the plotting.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The abstract uses the phrase 'stable traversable wormholes', but no stability analysis is presented; Sec. VI explicitly defers linear stability to future work. The claim of stability should be removed or supported.
  4. [Sec. IIIF and Sec. V] There are minor typos: 'observational constrains' should be 'observational constraints', and 'the the degree' should be 'the degree'.
  5. [Sec. IIIA, Eq. (18)] The branch selection leading to Eq. (17) is standard, but the paper does not explain why the requirement of a smooth alpha->0 limit uniquely selects this branch for the wormhole boundary conditions; a brief justification would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the construction integrates the EGB field equations with an imported source density; the self-citation to Ref. [10] supplies the ansatz but is not load-bearing for the central derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: adopting the smoothed-string density ρ(r) (Eq. 20), it integrates to m(r) (Eq. 21), solves for b(r) (Eq. 22), fixes the integration constant β by the throat condition (Eq. 23), and then evaluates the NEC combinations (Eq. 34) from the EGB field equations (12)-(14). The NEC and VIQ statements are numerical/differential readouts of those equations, not restatements of the inputs; no parameter is fitted to a target output and then re-predicted. The only clearly self-referential element is the source density, taken from Ref. [10] by one of the present authors, but that is an external model imported as an ansatz, and the wormhole-specific results do not reduce to it. The 'unified framework' wording is a presentation choice, not a derivation from the prior paper. I therefore find no circular step. Correctness concerns exist but are distinct: at r0 with Φ=0, adding Eqs. (12) and (13) gives 8π(ρ+p_r)=(1/r0^2)(1+2α/r0^2)(b'(r0)-1), negative whenever flaring-out holds, contradicting the abstract; and Eq. (22) with β from (23) gives b(r)/r→ε, so the asymptotic-flatness condition (26) is not met. These are internal-consistency issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main inputs are the chosen density profile parameters (epsilon, a, r0) and the GB coupling alpha, all selected by hand. The theoretical framework leans on the contested 4D EGB regularization and on the prior regular black hole model by one of the authors. No genuinely new physical entities are introduced beyond the existing smoothed string fluid construction.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon (string density parameter) = scanned in (0,1] and figures up to 10
    Controls the amount of string fluid; chosen by hand in plots and in the claimed NEC region epsilon <= 0.1.
  • a (smoothing scale) = a = 1 in most figures
    Sets the regularization scale of the density profile; fixed by hand.
  • r0 (throat radius) = r0 = 5 in most figures
    Throat radius chosen by hand; Eq. (33) relates alpha to r0 if omega_q(r0) = -1 is imposed.
  • alpha (Gauss-Bonnet coupling) = scanned in [0,10]; claim region alpha >= 1
    The central control parameter; varied by hand and the NEC region is read off plots.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet regularization via the Glavan-Lin/Aoki procedure is a valid gravitational theory.
    The paper cites Refs. [24,30,31] for the D->4 limit, but the regularization remains contested (Refs. [25-29] raise objections); the field equations used assume its validity.
  • domain assumption The smoothed string fluid energy-momentum tensor (8) with the density (20) is a legitimate matter source.
    This profile is taken from the authors' prior regular black hole paper [10] without independent derivation.
  • domain assumption The Morris-Thorne traversability conditions (throat, flaring-out, no horizon, asymptotic flatness) are the correct criteria.
    The paper applies these standard criteria, but its own solution does not satisfy the asymptotic flatness condition.
  • domain assumption Herrera's complexity factor Y_TF applies to wormhole configurations.
    The complexity factor is borrowed from relativistic star literature and applied to wormholes without detailed justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Traversable wormholes from a smoothed string fluid in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBGQQTEE

@misc{pith2026250507028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Traversable wormholes from a smoothed string fluid in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBGQQTEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07028}
}
abstract

We investigate traversable wormhole solutions in four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (EGB) gravity sourced by a smoothed string fluid. Originally proposed to model regular black holes, this energy density profile is adapted here to sustain wormhole geometries by allowing for a radially varying equation of state. We obtain zero-tidal-force solutions that satisfy all traversability criteria and remain globally regular. The Gauss-Bonnet (GB) coupling $\alpha$ plays a central role in shaping the throat geometry. We identify a parameter region ($\alpha \geq 1$, $\varepsilon \leq 0.1$) in which the null energy condition is satisfied in the vicinity of the throat, representing a significant improvement over general relativistic counterparts. The interplay between the smoothing scale $a$ and the string density $\varepsilon$ ensures finite curvature invariants while reducing the violation of energy conditions. An analysis of the volume integral quantifier and the complexity factor further shows that strong EGB coupling simultaneously suppresses gravitational complexity and the total amount of exotic matter. These results establish a unified framework in which the same string fluid source can generate both regular black holes and stable traversable wormholes, depending on the strength of higher-curvature corrections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07028 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Color gradient for the energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Top left panel: The geometric condition (2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Left panel: Embedding profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left panel: Kretschmann curvature for the wormhole in 4D EGB gravity surrounded by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Radial state parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Left panel: Values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. NEC profiles for the wormhole in EGB gravity supported by a smoothed string fluid. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Radial profiles of the complexity factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Santos L C N 2025Phys. Rev. D111064032 (Preprint2502.15846)

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Caldwell R R, Dave R and Steinhardt P J 1998Phys. Rev. Lett.801582–1585 (Preprint astro-ph/9708069)

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    Peebles P J E and Ratra B 2003Rev. Mod. Phys.75559–606 (Preprintastro-ph/0207347)

    work page arXiv

  4. [3]

    Kiselev V V 2003Class. Quant. Grav.201187–1198 (Preprintgr-qc/0210040)

    work page arXiv

  5. [4]

    Capozziello S, Cardone V F, Lambiase G and Troisi A 2006Int. J. Mod. Phys. D1569–94 (Preprintastro-ph/0601266)

    work page arXiv

  6. [5]

    Soleng H H 1995Gen. Rel. Grav.27367–378 (Preprintgr-qc/9412053)

    work page arXiv

  7. [6]

    Sofue Y and Rubin V 2001Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.39137–174 (Preprintastro- ph/0010594)

    arXiv

  8. [7]

    Vilenkin A 1981Phys. Rev. D242082–2089

    work page

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Nemiroff R J and Patla B 2008Am. J. Phys.76265–276 (Preprintastro-ph/0703739)

  2. [9]

    Arshad S and Sheikh U 2024Int. J. Theor. Phys.6390

  3. [11]

    Morris M S and Thorne K S 1988Am. J. Phys.56395–412

  4. [12]

    Visser M 1995Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(AIP Press)

  5. [13]

    Richarte M G and Simeone C 2008Int. J. Mod. Phys. D171179–1196 (Preprint0711.2297)

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sheikh U, Arshad S and Pincak R 2023Can. J. Phys.101525–531

  7. [15]

    Mustafa G, Javed F, Maurya S K and Ray S 2024Chin. J. Phys.8832–54 (Preprint 2211.10778)

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gogoi D J and Goswami U D 2023JCAP02027 (Preprint2208.07055) 21

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Waseem A, Javed F, Gul M Z, Mustafa G and Errehymy A 2023Eur. Phys. J. C831088

  10. [18]

    Lovelock D 1972J. Math. Phys.13874–876

  11. [19]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016Phys. Rev. Lett.116061102 (Preprint 1602.03837)

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Riess A G, Filippenko A V, Challis P, Clocchiatti A, Diercks A, Garnavich P M, Gilliland R L, Hogan C J, Jha S, Kirshner R P, Leibundgut B, Phillips M M, Reiss D, Schmidt B P, Schommer R A, Smith R C, Spyromilio J, Stubbs C, Suntzeff N B and Tonry J 1998The Astronomical Journa...

  13. [21]

    Perlmutter S, Aldering G, Goldhaber G, Knop R A, Nugent P, Castro P G, Deustua S, Fabbro S, Goobar A, Groom D E, Hook I M, Kim A G, Kim M Y, Lee J C, Nunes N J, Pain R, Pennypacker C R, Quimby R, Lidman C, Ellis R S, Irwin M, McMahon R G, Ruiz-Lapuente P, Walton N, Schaefer B,...

  14. [22]

    Lovelock D 1971J. Math. Phys.12498–501

  15. [23]

    Boulware D G and Deser S 1985Phys. Rev. Lett.552656

  16. [24]

    Glavan D and Lin C 2020Phys. Rev. Lett.124081301 (Preprint1905.03601)

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269320305207

    L¨ u H and Pang Y 2020Physics Letters B809135717 ISSN 0370-2693 URLhttps://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269320305207

  18. [26]

    G¨ urses M, S ¸i¸ sman T c and Tekin B 2020Eur. Phys. J. C80647 (Preprint2004.03390)

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ai W Y 2020Commun. Theor. Phys.72095402 (Preprint2004.02858)

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Shu F W 2020Phys. Lett. B811135907 (Preprint2004.09339)

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Mahapatra, Subhash 2020Eur. Phys. J. C80992 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-08568-6

    doi

  22. [30]

    Hennigar R A, Kubizˇ n´ ak D, Mann R B and Pollack C 2020JHEP07027 (Preprint 2004.09472)

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Fernandes P G S, Carrilho P, Clifton T and Mulryne D J 2020Phys. Rev. D102024025 (Preprint2004.08362)

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mann R B and Ross S F 1993Class. Quant. Grav.101405–1408 (Preprintgr-qc/9208004)

  25. [33]

    Gammon M and Mann R B 2024Phys. Rev. D110044004 (Preprint2210.01909)

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gammon M, Rourke S and Mann R B 2024Phys. Rev. D109024026 (Preprint2309.00703)

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jusufi K, Banerjee A and Ghosh S G 2020Eur. Phys. J. C80698 (Preprint2004.10750) 22

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zhang C Y, Niu C, Qian W L, Wang X and Liu P 2023Chin. J. Phys.83527–538 (Preprint 2004.14267)

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Yang S J, Wan J J, Chen J C, Yang J and Wang Y Q 2020European Physical Journal C80 937 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08511-9

    doi

  30. [38]

    Liu P, Niu C and Zhang C Y 2021Chin. Phys. C45025111

  31. [39]

    Mishra A K, Shweta and Sharma U K 2022Pramana96218 (Preprint2106.04369)

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Oikonomou V K 2021Class. Quant. Grav.38195025 (Preprint2108.10460)

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Godani N 2024Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.212450227

  34. [42]

    Hassan Z and Sahoo P K 2024Annalen Phys.5362400114 (Preprint2406.13224)

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dark Univ.47101793

    Chakraborty M and Chakraborty S 2025Phys. Dark Univ.47101793

  36. [44]

    Muniz C R, Cruz M B, Neves R M P, Farooq M and Zubair M 2025JCAP07015 (Preprint 2503.12943)

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Das B and Chandra Paul B 2025Classical and Quantum Gravity43015011 URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ae2732

    doi

  38. [46]

    Letelier P S 1979Physical Review D201294

  39. [47]

    Letelier P S 1981Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)63519–528

    1971

  40. [48]

    Farooq M and Zubair M 2023Annals Phys.459169542

  41. [49]

    Cunha M S, Tahim M O and Muniz C R 2025Commun. Theor. Phys.77085402

  42. [50]

    Scripta99065032 (Preprint2307.11611)

    Ghosh S G, Islam S U and Maharaj S D 2024Phys. Scripta99065032 (Preprint2307.11611)

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bezerra V B, Lobo I P, Morais Gra¸ ca J P and Santos L C N 2019Eur. Phys. J. C79949

  44. [52]

    Nojiri S, Odintsov S and Oikonomou V 2017Physics Reports6921–104 ISSN 0370-1573 modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157317301527

  45. [53]

    Fern´ andez-N´ u˜ nez I and Bulashenko O 2016Phys. Lett. A3802897–2901 (Preprint 1605.03176)

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Nandi K K, Zhang Y Z and Vijaya Kumar K B 2004Phys. Rev. D70127503 (Preprint gr-qc/0407079)

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Elizalde E, Nojiri S, Odintsov S and Oikonomou V 2024Physics of the Dark Universe 45101536 ISSN 2212-6864 URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2212686424001183

  48. [56]

    Herrera L 2018Phys. Rev. D97044010 (Preprint1801.08358) 23

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.