The Regular Ricci-Inverse Cosmology with Multiple Anticurvature Scalars

Yicen Mou

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

The Regular Ricci-Inverse Cosmology with Multiple Anticurvature Scalars

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new Ricci-inverse gravity with two anticurvature scalars claims to be singularity-free and, in the linear model, to reduce to general relativity with a shifted Hubble parameter.

desk verdict A genuinely new algebraic construction and a clean GR-like background result, but the singularity-free claim is not supported at the perturbation level, especially at de Sitter. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16628 v1 pith:DGWN47QU submitted 2025-01-28 gr-qc

Yicen Mou This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k

keywords Ricci-inversegravityanticurvaturescalarmodifiedFLRWcosmologysingularity-freecosmologicalperturbationsfourth-orderHubbleparameterrescaling

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

This paper tries to show that a gravity theory built from two anticurvature scalars can avoid the singularities that have plagued Ricci-inverse gravity. The key move is a new scalar $L_1$ constructed so that its FLRW form no longer contains the rational denominators of the anticurvature tensors; all apparent poles become removable. In the linear model, the background Friedmann equations become exactly those of general relativity with the Hubble parameter rescaled by $\sqrt{1+\alpha}$, so the early- to late-time evolution is regular. The paper further argues that at the perturbation level the theory is fourth-order with an extra scalar degree of freedom, but in certain limits this degree of freedom can disappear and the modes reduce to a 'pseudo GR' form with a modified group velocity. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a concrete route to singularity-free cosmology without giving up the geometric, curvature-only description of gravity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ratio-symmetric scalar $L_n$ defined in equation (9), built from the Ricci powers $R_n$, $R_{-n}$, and $R_{-2n}$ so that its FLRW value reduces to $a^{-2n}(X^n+Y^n)$ instead of a rational function with poles. In FLRW, $X = a^2 R^0{}_0$ and $Y = a^2 R^i{}_i/(D-1)$; the three apparent poles $X=0$, $Y=0$, and $X=Y$ are all removable. The unified variational formula (4) with intermediate tensors $P^\mu{}_\nu$ and $Q^\mu{}_\nu$ keeps the equations compact, and the background system uses the modified Friedmann equation together with energy conservation, mirroring the standard $f(R_1)$ treatment.

What would settle it

Solve the full fourth-order tensor perturbation equations numerically across a transition into the exponential-expansion phase without assuming $\phi'^{-2}\to 0$. If no finite, regular solution exists unless the two conflicting equations (30) and (31) are both satisfied with $v_g=1$, the claim that the theory is safe for fluctuations in that phase is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the combination $L_n := (R_n - D R_{-n}/R_{-2n})/(D - R_{-n}^2/R_{-2n})$ forms a scalar with the same dimension as $R_n$ whose FLRW value is simply $a^{-2n}(X^n + Y^n)$, with no rational-function poles. For $n=1$ and with $L_1$ added linearly to the Ricci-scalar action, the background equations of motion reduce to $\rho = 3(1+\alpha) H^2$ and $p = -(1+\alpha)(2\xi+1) H^2$, i.e. general relativity with the replacement $H_0 \to \sqrt{1+\alpha}\,H_0$. The three singular points $X=0$, $Y=0$, and $X=Y$ are all removable, so the cosmic deceleration/acceleration boundary and the exponential-expansion (de Sitter) limit are not obstructions. On the perturbation side, the claim is that although the action is fourth-order and carries an extra scalar degree of freedom, in the limits $J\to 0$ and the exponential-expansion phase the extra mode decouples and scalar and tensor spectra reduce to the GR form with a modified group velocity $v_g$; the paper notes an unresolved conflict in the tensor-mode equations in that phase.

Load-bearing premise

The main bet is that the extra wobbling mode that appears in the perturbed equations quietly disappears in the $J\to 0$ limit and in the exponential-expansion phase, so the simplified 'pseudo GR' behavior is valid; the paper itself finds conflicting equations for gravitational waves in the exponential-expansion limit, so this bet is not settled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The background evolution of the linear $L_1$ model is identical to general relativity with $H_0 \to \sqrt{1+\alpha}\,H_0$, so standard cosmological solutions carry over with rescaled expansion rates.
The apparent singularities at $X=0$, $Y=0$, and $X=Y$ are removable, so the deceleration-acceleration transition and the exponential-expansion phase are not barriers for the background as long as the equation-of-state parameter lies between $-1$ and $1$.
At the perturbation level the theory is fourth-order with an extra scalar degree of freedom; in the $J\to 0$ limit, corresponding to $w=-1/3$ or $w=-1/11$ (redshifts $z\approx 0.67$ or $1.8$), the extra mode decouples and scalar perturbations follow the GR form with a modified group velocity.
Tensor modes reduce to the same pseudo-GR form in the $J\to 0$ limit, but in the exponential-expansion limit the two natural tensor equations conflict, leaving the fate of tensor fluctuations open.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the $J=0$ redshifts $z\approx 0.67$ and $1.8$ are structure-formation epochs, so the model predicts a change in the propagation speed of curvature perturbations during those epochs; large-scale-structure surveys could in principle look for this signature.
The same algebraic identity that builds $L_1$ can be applied at higher $n$ or to other combinations of anticurvature scalars, making the construction a general template for singularity-free Ricci-inverse theories rather than a single tuned model.
If the tensor-mode conflict in the exponential-expansion phase persists under a full analysis, the theory would suppress primordial tensor perturbations, so an observed primordial $B$-mode signal at CMB scales would rule out this simple version.
Reading $\rho_{\rm eff} = -3\alpha H^2$ as effective cold dark matter implies that background expansion data alone could constrain $\alpha$, because the model changes the effective matter density without altering the equation of state.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Good to have a paper like this to look at. The genuinely new thing is the L_n combination: by mixing R_{-1} and R_{-2} with R_n in the right ratio, the author gets L_n = a^{-2n}(X^n + Y^n). That identity (8) is simple, checkable, and it removes the rational-function singularities that normally plague Ricci-inverse models. The background analysis of the linear model f = R1 + αL1 is also clean: the Friedmann equations reduce to GR with a shifted Hubble parameter Hα = sqrt(1+α) H0. That is a neat result, and I found no error in the background algebra.

The soft spot is the perturbation sector, and it is exactly where the paper's strongest claim lives. The expansion (21) has denominators x-y and J/(x-y) that diverge at de Sitter (w=-1), where x=y and φ'=0. The tensor action (28) has an αJ/φ'^2 term that diverges there too. The author recognizes this: Eqs. (30) and (31) conflict, and he says detailed analyses are left for future work. But the conclusion still claims the theory is safe for fluctuations for -1 ≤ w ≤ 1. That is overbroad; w=-1 is precisely the de Sitter point. The scalar constraint (25) is also not solved, so the "pseudo-GR" reduction rests on an ansatz about J→0 rather than a derivation.

None of this kills the background construction. The paper is honest about the open issues, and the algebraic core is solid. But the singularity-free claim should be scoped to the background, or the de Sitter/φ'=0 cases need an actual treatment. The design is circular in the sense that L_n was chosen to cancel the singularities—that is worth saying—but it is not a flaw in itself; the construction is the contribution.

For a reader: this is for people working in Ricci-inverse gravity or modified gravity cosmology. It is a short paper with one useful algebraic trick and a clean background result. I would send it to a referee; the perturbation issues are substantive and need to be engaged, but the paper is not incoherent and the central background result is worth checking. With a revised conclusion and a fuller perturbation treatment, it could be a decent contribution. As is, I would not cite it for the safety claim, but I might cite the L_n construction if I worked on these models.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a class of Ricci-inverse gravity theories whose Lagrangian is a function of traces of powers of the Ricci tensor, including negative powers (anticurvature). A combined quantity L_n is introduced via an algebraic identity involving R_n, R_{-n}, and R_{-2n}. In FLRW spacetime, L_n simplifies to a closed algebraic form, and for the linear model f=R1+αL1 the background Friedmann equations are shown to coincide with GR up to the rescaling H→√(1+α)H. The paper claims that this construction is free from the singularity problem for both the background and linear perturbations for equations of state with w between -1 and 1. Perturbation actions for scalar and tensor modes are presented, but the scalar constraint is not solved and the de Sitter limit is left with an acknowledged conflict.

Significance. The construction of L_n is elegant, and the background dynamics of the linear model being GR-like is a clean and non-trivial result. The algebraic identity underlying L_n is a useful observation for the Ricci-inverse literature. However, the central safety claim is only demonstrated at the background level. The perturbation analysis, which is essential for the claim, is incomplete: the second-order actions are not derived, the scalar constraint is left unsolved, and the de Sitter tensor sector yields contradictory equations. As presented, the manuscript does not support the conclusion that the theory is free from singularities for fluctuations over the stated range of w. The main value of the paper would be in the background construction if the perturbative issues are either resolved or explicitly excluded from the claims.

major comments (4)

[Perturbations, Eq. (21)] The second-order expansion of L1 in Eq. (21) has denominators (x-y). At the de Sitter endpoint (w=-1) one has x=y and φ'=0, so the perturbation terms and the 1/φ'^2 prefactors in Eqs. (24) and (28) diverge unless the associated perturbation combinations vanish identically. The paper's ansatz that these combinations vanish is not proven, and for tensor modes it leads to the contradictory conditions in Eqs. (30)-(31). Therefore the claim that fluctuations are safe for -1≤w≤1 is not supported; the endpoint must either be analyzed or explicitly excluded.
[Perturbations, Eqs. (30)-(31)] In the de Sitter limit, requiring the singular 1/φ'^2 term in the tensor action (28) to vanish gives Eq. (30), while the remaining GR-like part of the action demands Eq. (31). For α≠0, v_g^2=(1+α/3)/(1+α)≠1, so no nonzero tensor perturbation can satisfy both equations. The paper acknowledges this conflict but does not resolve it; nevertheless the conclusion includes w=-1 in the claimed safe range. This inconsistency is load-bearing for the singularity-free claim and must be resolved before the claim can stand.
[Perturbations, Eq. (25)] The scalar constraint equation (25) is not solved; the authors explicitly defer this, noting that solving it would introduce k in the denominator. Since the regularity of scalar perturbations at x=y, φ'=0, and J=0 depends on the behavior of the lapse perturbation A after solving (25), the unsolved constraint leaves the safety claim for scalar modes unverified. The pseudo-GR argument for J→0 does not cover the de Sitter point or generic intermediate values of w.
[Perturbations, Eqs. (24) and (28)] The second-order actions (24) and (28) are presented as the outcome of 'tedious integration by parts' but no derivation is provided. These actions are the sole basis for the perturbation claims, and they contain the divergent 1/φ'^2 terms. The authors should supply the perturbed Ricci tensor components, the gauge-fixing conditions, and the reduction steps, or at least a detailed outline, so that the presence and form of these singular terms can be independently checked.

minor comments (5)

[Specific Model, Eq. (8)] The algebraic identity (8) and the definition of L_n in (9) are typeset in a garbled way that makes them difficult to read; they should be rewritten with explicit fractions and parentheses.
[Specific Model, Eq. (11)] The variables ξ_N and ξ_NN in Eqs. (11)-(12) are not explicitly defined; please define them as derivatives with respect to ln a.
[Perturbations, Eq. (24)] The definition of J from Eq. (21) should be restated near Eq. (24) for readability.
[Conclusion] The phrase 'as long as the EoS parameter w ranges between -1 and 1' should be clarified to state whether the endpoints are included, given that the de Sitter endpoint is exactly where the perturbation analysis encounters the unresolved conflict described in the text.
[Introduction] There is a typo: 'Talor/Laurent expasion' should be 'Taylor/Laurent expansion'. Additionally, the no-go theorem for L=R1+αR_{-1}^l mentioned in the introduction is stated without a citation; a reference should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the singularity-free background follows by explicit algebraic construction and direct variation, while the open de Sitter perturbation problem is an unsupported conclusion, not a circular one.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the action (2) and the unified EoM (4), the FLRW reduction gives Rn = a^{-2n}[X^n + (D-1)Y^n] in (7), and the algebraic identity (8) then defines Ln in (9) as a combination whose denominators cancel, leaving Ln = a^{-2n}[X^n + Y^n]. The statement that X=0, Y=0 and X=Y are removable singularities is therefore a direct consequence of the definition; the paper openly says 'we design' this class and calls the singularities removable. This is model-building by ansatz rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, so it does not meet the threshold for circularity. The background EoM (11)-(13) and their linear-L1 reduction (15) follow by substituting f = R1 + alpha L1 into the variational principle; the GR-like form with shifted Hubble parameter (16) is a computed consequence of FLL=0, not an input. No data are fitted, no external result is invoked through self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The genuine weakness is in the perturbation section: expressions (21), (24) and (28) contain denominators x-y and phi'^2 that diverge at the de Sitter limit (w=-1, x=y, phi'=0), and the paper's own ansatz produces the contradictory tensor equations (30) and (31), with the text explicitly stating 'there cannot be tensor mode fluctuations for de Sitter limit in our theory' and deferring detailed analysis. The conclusion's claim that the theory is safe 'both for background and fluctuations' for all w in [-1,1] is therefore broader than the demonstrated results. That is an evidentiary gap and an overbroad claim, but it is not circular: the perturbation results were derived, not assumed, and the contradiction is disclosed rather than hidden. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a deliberately constructed algebraic combination L_n, an unproven unified field equation, and several stated-but-not-derived perturbation results. There are no observations fitted, but the theory's regularity is an input rather than a prediction.

free parameters (2)

α
Coupling constant of the linear L1 term in the Lagrangian. Dimensionless and free; constrained only by α > -1 to keep the effective gravitational coupling positive.
F(L1)
The general form of the function of L1 in the action; arbitrary smooth function, not fitted to data.

assumptions (5)

standard math The algebraic identity in Eq. (8) holds for the FLRW Ricci eigenvalues X and Y.
Used to define L_n and to cancel the singular points; stated without proof, but numerically consistent in a test case.
domain assumption The unified field equations (4) follow from varying the action (2) with respect to the metric.
The EoM are stated without derivation; the variation of the inverse Ricci tensor terms is non-trivial and not shown.
domain assumption The FLRW metric with maximally symmetric Ricci tensor is the correct background for cosmological analysis.
Standard cosmological assumption; the paper restricts to spatially flat FLRW and does not discuss inhomogeneous backgrounds.
domain assumption The scalar perturbation action (24) is obtained after 'tedious integration by parts' and is correct.
The action is stated without intermediate steps; the subsequent stability analysis depends on its form.
ad hoc to paper The ansatz that in the de Sitter limit the perturbation should not blow up, requiring the square-bracketed parts in (24) to vanish.
This ansatz is introduced to connect the de Sitter limit to pseudo GR; it leads to a contradiction for tensor modes, so the ansatz itself is suspect.

invented entities (1)

L_n
purpose: A composite scalar combining Ricci, inverse Ricci, and the square of inverse Ricci to cancel FLRW singularities.
A mathematical construction specific to this paper; no independent observational handle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Regular Ricci-Inverse Cosmology with Multiple Anticurvature Scalars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DGWN47QU

@misc{pith2026250116628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Regular Ricci-Inverse Cosmology with Multiple Anticurvature Scalars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DGWN47QU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16628}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate the modified gravity in which the Lagrangian of gravity is a function of the trace of the n-th matrix power of Ricci tensor in a Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker(FLRW) spacetime. When n is negative, the inverse of Ricci tensor, also called the anticurvature tensor, will be introduced. We design a new class of Ricci-inverse theory containing two anticurvature scalars and resulting to be free from the singularity problem.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

The Mathematical Theory of Relativ- ity,

A.S. Eddington, “The Mathematical Theory of Relativ- ity,” Cambridge Univ. Press, 1923

work page 1923
[2]

Weyl, Annalen Phys

H. Weyl, Annalen Phys. 59, 101-133 (1919) doi:10.1002/andp.19193641002

doi:10.1002/andp.19193641002 1919
[3]

Brans and R

C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925-935 (1961) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.124.925

doi:10.1103/physrev.124.925 1961
[4]

R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 125, 2163-2167 (1962) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.125.2163

doi:10.1103/physrev.125.2163 1962
[5]

F. W. Hehl, P. Von Der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick and J. M. Nester, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 393-416 (1976) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.48.393

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.48.393 1976
[6]

A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. 116, 1009-1038 (1998) doi:10.1086/300499 [arXiv:astro- ph/9805201 [astro-ph]]

arXiv 1998
[7]

J. L. Bernal, L. Verde and A. G. Riess, JCAP 10, 019 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/019 [arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2016
[8]

Abuter et al

R. Abuter et al. [GRA VITY], Astron. Astrophys. 657, L12 (2022) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142465 [arXiv:2112.07478 [astro-ph.GA]]

arXiv 2022

Show all 40 references

[9]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1-23 (1989) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

1989 doi
[10]

Sakstein and M

J. Sakstein and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.16, 161301 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.161301 [arXiv:1911.11760 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[11]

S. M. Carroll, A. De Felice, V. Duvvuri, D. A. Eas- son, M. Trodden and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063513 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063513 [arXiv:astro-ph/0410031 [astro-ph]]

2005 arXiv
[12]

Capozziello and M

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509, 167-321 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 [arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]]

2011 arXiv
[13]

Glavan and C

D. Glavan and C. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.8, 081301 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.081301 [arXiv:1905.03601 [gr-qc]]

2020 arXiv
[14]

Mustafa, X

G. Mustafa, X. Tie-Cheng, M. F. Shamir and M. Javed, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, no.2, 166 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01083-x

2021 doi
[15]

Lee and G

S. Lee and G. Tumurtushaa, JCAP 06, 029 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/06/029 [arXiv:2001.07021 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[16]

T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451-497 (2010) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451 [arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]]

2010 arXiv
[17]

Clifton, P

T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1-189 (2012) 5 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001 [arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]]

2012 arXiv
[18]

De Felice and S

A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010) doi:10.12942/lrr-2010-3 [arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc ]]

2010 arXiv
[19]

Noh and J

H. Noh and J. c. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D 59, 047501 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.047501 [arXiv:gr-qc/9811013 [gr-qc]]

1999 arXiv
[20]

N. Ohta, R. Percacci and A. D. Pereira, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.10, 104039 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104039 [arXiv:1804.01608 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[21]

A. Z. Kaczmarek and D. Szcze´ sniak, Sci. Rep. 11, no.1, 18363 (2021) doi:10.1038/s41598-021-97907-y [arXiv:2105.05050 [gr-qc]]

2021 arXiv
[22]

Deser and R

S. Deser and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 111301 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.111301 [arXiv:0706.2151 [astro-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[23]

Deser and R

S. Deser and R. P. Woodard, JCAP 06, 034 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/034 [arXiv:1902.08075 [gr-qc]]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Amendola, L

L. Amendola, L. Giani and G. Laverda, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135923 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135923 [arXiv:2006.04209 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020
[25]

T. Q. Do, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.1, 15 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09974-0 [arXiv:2101.0853 8 [gr-qc]]

2022
[26]

Jawad and A

A. Jawad and A. M. Sultan, EPL 138, no.2, 29001 (2022) doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ac6977

2022 doi
[27]

J. C. R. de Souza and A. F. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.9, 834 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12020- w [arXiv:2309.05439 [gr-qc]]

2023 arXiv
[28]

Malik, A

A. Malik, A. Arif and M. F. Shamir, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 62, no.11, 243 (2023) doi:10.1007/s10773-023-05499-2

2023 doi
[29]

Ahmed, J

F. Ahmed, J. C. R. de Souza and A. F. Santos, Annals Phys. 461, 169578 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2023.169578 [arXiv:2312.16123 [gr-qc]]

2024
[30]

Ahmed and A

F. Ahmed and A. Guvendi, Chin. J. Phys. 89, 69-85 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2024.03.009

2024 doi
[31]

Ahmed, J

F. Ahmed, J. C. R. de Souza and A. F. San- tos, Nucl. Phys. B 1004, 116573 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116573

2024
[32]

Ahmed, J

F. Ahmed, J. C. R. de Souza and A. F. Santos, JCAP 10, 015 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/015 [arXiv:2407.11513 [gr-qc]]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Ahmed and A

F. Ahmed and A. Bouzenada, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.12, 1271 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13637-1 [arXiv:2410.11922 [gr-qc]]

2024 arXiv
[35]

Malik, A

A. Malik, A. Hussain, M. Ahmad and M. F. Shamir, Chin. J. Phys. 91, 560-574 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2024.08.005

2024 doi
[36]

Scomparin, [arXiv:2409.16529 [gr-qc]]

M. Scomparin, [arXiv:2409.16529 [gr-qc]]

arXiv
[37]

I. Das, J. P. Johnson and S. Shankaranarayanan, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, no.11, 1265 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03472-2 [arXiv:2108.0099 2 [gr-qc]]

2022
[38]

J. C. R. de Souza, A. F. Santos and F. Ahmed, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.6, 559 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 12934-z

2024 doi
[39]

Ahmed, J

F. Ahmed, J. C. R. de Souza and A. F. Santos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39, no.30, 2450120 (2024) doi:10.1142/S0217751X24501203

2024 doi
[40]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 78, 046006 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.046006 [arXiv:0804.3519 [hep-th]]

2008 arXiv
[41]

S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye and A. A. Starobin- sky, JCAP 06, 005 (2010) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2010/06/005 [arXiv:0909.1737 [astro-ph.CO]]

2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Mathematical Theory of Relativ- ity,

A.S. Eddington, “The Mathematical Theory of Relativ- ity,” Cambridge Univ. Press, 1923

work page 1923

[2] [2]

Weyl, Annalen Phys

H. Weyl, Annalen Phys. 59, 101-133 (1919) doi:10.1002/andp.19193641002

doi:10.1002/andp.19193641002 1919

[3] [3]

Brans and R

C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925-935 (1961) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.124.925

doi:10.1103/physrev.124.925 1961

[4] [4]

R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 125, 2163-2167 (1962) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.125.2163

doi:10.1103/physrev.125.2163 1962

[5] [5]

F. W. Hehl, P. Von Der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick and J. M. Nester, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 393-416 (1976) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.48.393

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.48.393 1976

[6] [6]

A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. 116, 1009-1038 (1998) doi:10.1086/300499 [arXiv:astro- ph/9805201 [astro-ph]]

arXiv 1998

[7] [7]

J. L. Bernal, L. Verde and A. G. Riess, JCAP 10, 019 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/019 [arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

Abuter et al

R. Abuter et al. [GRA VITY], Astron. Astrophys. 657, L12 (2022) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142465 [arXiv:2112.07478 [astro-ph.GA]]

arXiv 2022