Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A non-linear f(R,T,L_m) gravity model fits a transit universe that turns from deceleration to acceleration at z≈0.62, with a dark-energy equation of state ω_de≈-1.000006 approaching the phantom side of a cosmological constant.

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

2026-08-04 18:20 UTC pith:F6TCAQMN

load-bearing objection A tidy MCMC exercise in a previously studied f(R,T,L_m) model, but the claimed phantom signal is tiny and the solution never checks the second Friedmann equation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.09994 v1 pith:F6TCAQMN submitted 2025-09-12 gr-qc

Transit dark energy cosmological models in generalized matter-geometry coupling theory using a non-linear form of f(R,T,L_(m)) function

Dinesh Chandra Maurya , Rashid Zia This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83F0583D0585A40 PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Jk04.50.Kd
keywords f(R,T,L_m) gravitymatter-geometry couplingdark energytransit universephantom equation of stateMCMC parameter estimationcosmic chronometerPantheon supernovae
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 claims that a specific non-linear Lagrangian in generalized matter-geometry coupling theory, f(R,T,L_m)=αR+βRT+γRL_m−η, produces a Hubble function that, when fit to 31 cosmic chronometer Hubble measurements and 1048 Pantheon supernova magnitudes, describes a transit universe: decelerating in the past, accelerating today. The best-fit solution gives a transition redshift z_t≈0.62, a current deceleration parameter q0≈-0.55, and a phantom-like dark-energy equation of state ω_de≈-1.000006. If correct, this shows that late-time cosmic acceleration can emerge entirely from matter-geometry coupling terms, without a separate cosmological constant or scalar field. A sympathetic reader would care because the model reproduces several independent cosmological observations (age, density parameters, transition redshift) while offering a modified-gravity origin for dark energy.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the specific non-linear f(R,T,L_m) model with f=αR+(βT+γL_m)R−η yields a closed-form Hubble function H(z) whose best fit to the combined CC+Pantheon dataset describes a transit universe. The deceleration parameter crosses from positive to negative at z_t=0.618, the current deceleration is q0=-0.555, the effective equation of state is ω_eff=-0.703, and the dark-energy equation of state is ω_de=-1.000006, i.e., phantom but indistinguishable from -1. The model passes the Om diagnostic (phantom behaviour), the causality test (0≤c_s²/c²≤1), and all energy conditions except the strong one, which is violated only below the transition redshift, as expecte

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-linear Lagrangian f(R,T,L_m)=αR+βRT+γRL_m−η, which upon variation gives modified field equations recast into an effective Friedmann form with an effective gravitational constant G_eff and a dark-energy density and pressure. Substituting the perfect-fluid relations T=−ρ+3p, L_m=−ρ, and R=6(Ḣ+2H²) leads to a single closed-form expression for the Hubble function H(z) in terms of H0, Ω_m0, Ω_r0, Ω_η, β, and γ. This H(z) is the load-bearing object: it is fit to the data, and every derived diagnostic—deceleration parameter, effective and dark-energy equations of state, density parameters, Om function, sound speed, and energy conditions—is computed from it. The viabili

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that matter and radiation obey the unchanged conservation equations ρ̇_m+3Hρ_m=0 and ρ̇_r+4Hρ_r=0 even though the modified theory is non-conservative; if those equations gain extra coupling terms, the Hubble function and all fitted parameters change.

What would settle it

Solve the full non-conservative field equations without imposing the standard continuity assumption and compare the resulting H(z) at the same parameter values with Eq. (31); a mismatch larger than the reported 1σ uncertainties would falsify the model. Alternatively, if high-precision growth-rate data fσ8 at z<1 rule out the background expansion and perturbation growth predicted by this model, the viability claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, late-time acceleration can be produced by matter-geometry coupling terms βRT and γRL_m, removing the need for a vacuum-energy cosmological constant or an explicit scalar field.
  • The fitted dark-energy equation of state ω_de≈-1.000006 places the model on the phantom side but so close to -1 that current and near-future distance measurements likely cannot distinguish it from ΛCDM; the Om diagnostic slope indicates phantom evolution.
  • The transition redshift z_t≈0.62 agrees with independent estimates from supernovae, cosmic chronometers, and gamma-ray bursts, supporting the model's consistency with the standard expansion history.
  • The derived age t0≈13.8 Gyr and density parameters Ω_m≈0.27, Ω_de≈0.71 broadly match Planck-era values, making the model a viable background-level alternative to ΛCDM.
  • The causality condition 0≤c_s²/c²≤1 and the energy-condition behaviour (all except SEC satisfied) corroborate the physical stability and acceptability of the solution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The derivation of H(z) assumes matter and radiation obey their standard conservation equations even though the modified theory is non-conservative; a natural extension is to solve the full non-conservative system and test whether the fitted H(z) and parameters shift.
  • The paper assumes β=γ because the two coupling constants are degenerate; breaking this degeneracy with growth-rate data (fσ8) or CMB lensing could confirm or change the phantom-side conclusion.
  • The phantom behaviour is an effective property of the dark-energy sector reconstructed from the coupling terms, not a fundamental phantom field; a testable extension is to compute solar-system or binary-pulsar effects of the modified G_eff and see whether the couplings leave observable signatures.
  • The model is currently background-only: it has not been tested against linear perturbations or CMB anisotropies. Deriving the perturbation equations and comparing the predicted growth rate with redshift-space distortion data would provide a decisive test.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a flat FLRW cosmological model in f(R,T,L_m) gravity with the non-linear Lagrangian f(R,T,L_m)=αR+βRT+γRL_m−η. The authors derive an expression for the Hubble function H(z) from the 00 field equation, impose the standard matter and radiation scaling laws ρ_m ∝ (1+z)^3 and ρ_r ∝ (1+z)^4, and constrain the model parameters by MCMC using 31 cosmic-chronometer H(z) points and 1048 Pantheon SNe Ia magnitudes. They then compute the deceleration parameter, effective and dark-energy equations of state, density parameters, universe age, and perform Om, causality, and energy-condition tests. The paper claims to find a transit universe with current acceleration and past deceleration, with a phantom-like dark-energy equation of state ω_de ≈ −1.000006, and a low-redshift transition z_t ≈ 0.62.

Significance. If correct, the model would provide a phenomenologically viable example of a non-linear f(R,T,L_m) theory consistent with late-time cosmic acceleration and a deceleration–acceleration transition. The work is in a well-populated area of modified-gravity cosmology, and the fits use standard public datasets. However, the significance is weakened by three features: (i) the solution is constructed only from the 00 Friedmann equation and is not checked against the full system; (ii) the standard conservation laws are imposed ad hoc in a non-conservative theory; and (iii) the best-fit coupling β ≈ −5×10^{−9} is extremely small and only marginally resolved from zero, making the claimed phantom behaviour statistically fragile. The paper does not compare against ΛCDM with a model-selection statistic, so its added value over the standard model is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (19)–(31)] The Hubble function (31) is obtained from the 00 Friedmann equation (19) after inserting Eq. (26). The spatial (11) equation (20) is never imposed. In this theory, once one imposes the standard conservation laws (27), the generalized equation of motion (24) is a nontrivial extra constraint, not an identity. Thus H(z) from Eq. (31) is not guaranteed to be a solution of the full f(R,T,L_m) field equations. The authors should substitute Eq. (31), Eq. (28), and the definitions of G_eff and p_de into Eqs. (20) and (24) and show explicitly whether the residuals vanish. If they do not, all derived quantities (q0, z_t, ω_de, Ω_de, age, energy conditions) are not predictions of the theory but artifacts of an incomplete reduction. This is a load-bearing point for the paper's central claim.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (27)] The sentence before Eq. (27) acknowledges that the theory is non-conservative, yet the analysis assumes ρ_m ∝ a^{−3} and ρ_r ∝ a^{−4}. The equation of motion (24) would generally imply a modified continuity equation, and imposing ordinary conservation is an extra ansatz. The paper does not derive the compatibility conditions under which Eq. (24) is consistent with Eq. (27). If the two are incompatible, the H(z) used in the MCMC fits does not follow from the theory. At minimum, the authors must show that Eq. (24) is satisfied by their solution after imposing Eq. (27), or state the additional constraints on the model parameters that make it so.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 5, Eq. (49)] The phantom claim rests entirely on the fitted coupling β. With the CC+Pantheon data, 10^7 β = −0.052^{+0.025}_{−0.039}, i.e., β ≈ (−5.2±3)×10^{−9} at 1σ, which is only about 1.7σ away from zero. The reported dark-energy EoS ω_de ≈ −1.000006 deviates from −1 by an amount of the same order as |β|. No ΛCDM comparison (Δχ², AIC, or BIC) is provided, so the data cannot be claimed to prefer a phantom phase or the f(R,T,L_m) model over ΛCDM. The authors should quote a model-selection statistic and propagate the MCMC uncertainties to q0, z_t, and ω_de before claiming a discovery of a phantom dark-energy phase.
  4. [Section 5, Eqs. (46)–(53)] The derived cosmological quantities are evaluated at the best-fit parameters only, with no error bars. For example, q0 = −0.5547 and z_t = 0.6177 are quoted to four digits, and t0H0 = 0.9697 is converted to an age t0 = 13.82^{+0.17}_{−0.11} Gyr using point estimates of Ω_m0, Ω_r0, Ω_η, and β. Given the wide 1σ ranges in Table 1 (e.g., Ω_m0 = 0.266^{+0.11}_{−0.091}), these diagnostics should be presented as posterior distributions or at least with propagated errors. Otherwise the reported precision is not meaningful.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: “mat ter-geometry” should be “matter-geometry”.
  2. [Section 4, after Fig. 2] The degeneracy between β and γ is used to set β=γ. This degeneracy-breaking ansatz should be justified or displayed; the posterior for (β,γ) is not shown, so the reader cannot assess how strongly β is determined once γ is fixed.
  3. [Eq. (36)] The luminosity distance formula uses “M pc”; should be “Mpc”.
  4. [Eq. (53)] The integrand is written with (1+z)^3 and (1+z)^4 inside the square root, but the integration variable is z′. This is a typographical error that makes the equation confusing.
  5. [Section 6.2, Eq. (57)] The squared sound speed c_s^2 is defined for the effective fluid, but no derivation of Eq. (57) from the effective pressure in Eq. (44) is given. Please add a derivation or a reference.
  6. [Data Availability] The statement “No data is associated in the manuscript” is inconsistent with the use of the 31-point CC sample and the 1048-point Pantheon sample. The datasets should be cited with accessible repositories.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: H(z) is fitted to external CC+Pantheon data, and q0, z_t, and ωde are derived consequences of that fitted H(z), not fitted inputs or self-citation imports.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense of the rubric. The Hubble function H(z) in Eq. (31) is obtained from the 00 field equation (19) after explicitly assuming the standard matter/radiation scalings stated before Eq. (27) ('we assume the perfect fluid source as matter and radiations that may be derived from rho_m(dot)+3H rho_m=0 and rho_r(dot)+4H rho_r=0'). The MCMC fit then constrains H0, Ωm0, Ωr0, Ωη, and β against external cosmic-chronometer and Pantheon data. Derived quantities such as q0, z_t, ωde, Ωm, Ωde, and the age are algebraically computed from the fitted H(z) and the same parameter values; reporting them is standard post-fit interpretation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The continuity assumption is an input, and if it is wrong the model changes, but that is model risk rather than equivalence between output and input. The skeptic's concern that the 11 field equation (20) is never imposed is a consistency/completeness issue, not a circularity: the paper may fail to give a full solution of the theory, but H(z) is not defined in terms of the quantities it is used to predict. Self-citations are present (e.g., refs. [71,72,74]) for prior use of the same Lagrangian and for comparison, but the theoretical framework is from the external reference [70], the MCMC sampler is external, and the datasets are external; no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The Om, causality, and energy-condition tests are properties of the fitted model rather than independent confirmations, but the paper does not present them as independently fitted data. Therefore no circular step can be identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

All quantities that the model depends on come from the chosen Lagrangian, the non-conservative theory's field equations, and the imposed matter scalings; no external independent constraints are used beyond the fitted data.

free parameters (8)
  • α = 1.03 (CC), 0.986 (CC+Pantheon)
    Coupling constant of linear R term; not sampled directly, derived from constraint Eq. (30).
  • β = (-0.047±0.028)x10^-7 (CC), (-0.052+0.025-0.039)x10^-7 (CC+Pantheon)
    Coupling constant in βRT term; sampled in MCMC; γ assumed equal to β.
  • γ = assumed equal to β
    Coupling constant in γRL_m term; degenerate with β, set equal to β.
  • Ωη = 0.69+0.26-0.16 (CC), 0.70+0.27-0.14 (CC+Pantheon)
    Dimensionless parameter for constant term η; directly affects late-time acceleration.
  • Ωm0 = 0.29±0.13 (CC), 0.266+0.11-0.091 (CC+Pantheon)
    Current matter density parameter; fitted.
  • Ωr0 = 0.020±0.011 (CC), 0.020+0.013-0.012 (CC+Pantheon)
    Current radiation density parameter; fitted.
  • H0 = 67.9±3.1 (CC), 68.6±1.9 (CC+Pantheon)
    Hubble constant; fitted.
  • M = 23.809±0.011 (CC+Pantheon)
    Nuisance absolute magnitude parameter for Pantheon; fitted.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Field equations of f(R,T,L_m) gravity as derived by Haghani and Harko [70], Eq. (11).
    The modified Einstein equations are taken as the starting point; no derivation within the paper.
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric with zero spatial curvature, Eq. (14).
    The analysis is restricted to flat, homogeneous, isotropic spacetime.
  • domain assumption Perfect fluid stress-energy tensor, Eq. (13), with matter EoS ωm=0 and radiation EoS ωr=1/3.
    Used to construct Tij and compute trace terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Matter Lagrangian L_m = -ρ.
    Choice of L_m is not unique in f(R,T,L_m); affects field equations and dark energy density definitions. The paper asserts it without justification.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard conservation laws rho_m ∝ a^-3 and rho_r ∝ a^-4 hold even though the theory is non-conservative.
    Stated before Eq. (27): 'Although this modified theory is not conservative... we assume the perfect fluid source as matter and radiations that may be derived from rho_m(dot)+3H rho_m=0 and rho_r(dot)+4H rho_r=0.' This is a load-bearing assumption for the Hubble function.
  • ad hoc to paper Specific Lagrangian f = αR + βRT + γRL_m - η, Eq. (17).
    Chosen functional form; motivated by prior work, but no uniqueness or derivation from deeper principle.
  • ad hoc to paper β = γ due to degeneracy.
    Section 4: 'the parameters β and γ show degeneracy. Hence, in our analysis, we assume β = γ.' This reduces the parameter space without a physical justification.
  • ad hoc to paper Viability conditions f>0, ∂f/∂R>0, ∂f/∂ρ>0 imposed, giving α>0, β<0, γ<0, η>0.
    Section 3.1 asserts these inequalities are needed for viability but does not derive them from stability analysis of the full theory.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21630 in / 22166 out tokens · 190590 ms · 2026-08-04T18:20:49.538099+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We have investigated the cosmological consequences of the model in the recently developed gravity theory [Haghani and Harko, \textit{Eur. Phys. J. C} \textbf{81} (2021) 615.] using a non-linear form of the $f(R,T,L_{m})$ function and the latest observational datasets. For flat Friedman-Lema\^{\i}tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) spacetime and $f(R,T,L_{m})= \alpha\,R+\beta\,RT+\gamma\,RL_{m}-\eta$ with $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, and $\eta$ as coupling constants, we have solved the modified field equations to get the Hubble function $H(z)$ in terms of $H_{0}$, $\Omega_{m0}$, $\Omega_{r0}$, $\Omega_{\eta}$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$. To ensure that the model is consistent with the physically observed universe, we constrained the model parameters using Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) analysis on joint datasets of cosmic chronometer and Pantheon samples. Using these approximated model parameter values, we investigated the universe's cosmic evolution history, including the deceleration parameter, effective equation of state, dark energy equation of state, total dark energy density parameters, universe age, and so on. In addition, to assess the physical acceptability and stability of the generated model, we conducted the Om diagnostic test, causality test, and energy conditions test.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09994 by Dinesh Chandra Maurya, Rashid Zia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The contour plots of H0 Ωm0, Ωr0, Ωη and β at 1 − σ, 2 − σ confidence level in MCMC analysis of CC datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The contour plots of H0 Ωm0, Ωr0, Ωη, β and M at 1 − σ, 2 − σ confidence level in MCMC analysis of CC+Pantheon datasets. 5 Cosmic evolution history of the universe To explore the expansion history of the model, in this section, we have discussed some cosmological parameters derived from the field equations of the generalized matter-curvature gravity theory using the assumed non-linear Lagrangian function f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: depicts the variation of q(z) over redshift z (as expressed by Eq. (41)). From the figure, we can observe that q(z) is an increasing function of z. It is observed that q → −1 as z → −1, indicating that the cosmos will experience accelerated expansion in the far future. Also, it is shown that q → 0.6 as z → 3, demonstrating that the early universe was experiencing a decelerated expansion. The transition fro… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The variation of effective EoS parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The variation of dark energy EoS parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The variation of energy density parameters Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The variation of Om diagnostic parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the variation of c 2 s/c2 over the redshift z as expressed by Eq. (57). We measure the present value of c 2 s/c2 = 0.0280 for CC data and c 2 s/c2 = 0.0303 for CC+Pantheon datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The variation of effective energy conditions versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The variation of dark energy conditions versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Evolutionary Phase of Universe in $f(R,L_m,T)$ Gravity: The Dynamical System Analysis

    gr-qc 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Dynamical systems analysis in f(R,L_m,T) gravity identifies stable critical points that describe different evolutionary phases of the Universe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Supernova Cosmology Project Collab. (S. Perlmutter et a l.), Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications, Nature 391 (1998) 51. 17

    1998

  2. [2]

    Supernova Cosmology Project Collab. (S. Perlmutter et a l.), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565

    1999

  3. [3]

    High-Z Supernova Search Team (A. G. Riess et al.), Observ ational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009

    1998

  4. [4]

    High-Z Supernova Search Team (A. G. Riess et al.), Type Ia supernova discoveries at z > 1 from the Hubble space telescope: Evidence for past Deceleration and constr aints on dark energy evolution, Astrophys. J. 607 (2004) 665

    2004

  5. [5]

    A. G. Riess et al., New Hubble space telescope discoverie s of type Ia supernovae at z > 1 : Narrowing constraints on the early behavior of dark energy, Astrophys. J. 659 (2007) 98

    2007

  6. [6]

    G. F. Smoot, COBE observations and results, AIP Conf. Proc. 476 (1999) 1, [arXiv: astro-ph/9902027]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    C. L. Bennett et al., First year wilkinson microwave anis otropy probe (WMAP) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 1

    2003

  8. [8]

    D. N. Sergel et al., Three-year wilkinson microwave anis otropy probe (WMAP) observations: Implications for cosmology, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 170 (2007) 377

    2007

  9. [9]

    Komatsu et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisot ropy probe (WMAP) observations: Cosmological interpretation, Astrophys

    D. Komatsu et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisot ropy probe (WMAP) observations: Cosmological interpretation, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Series 180 (2009) 330

    2009

  10. [10]

    Colless et al., The 2dF galaxy redshift survey: Spect ra and redshifts, Mon

    M. Colless et al., The 2dF galaxy redshift survey: Spect ra and redshifts, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 328 (2001) 1039, arXiv: astro-ph/0106498

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  11. [11]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, The case for a positive cosm ological Λ-term, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9 373 (2000)

    2000

  12. [12]

    S. M. Carroll, The cosmological constant, Living Rev. Rel. 4 1 (2001)

    2001

  13. [13]

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

    2003

  14. [14]

    Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 1 (1989)

    1989

  15. [15]

    Padmanabhan, Cosmological constant-the weight of t he vacuum, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Cosmological constant-the weight of t he vacuum, Phys. Rept. 380 235 (2003)

    2003

  16. [16]

    Salucci, N

    P. Salucci, N. Turini, and C. Di Paolo, Paradigms and sce narios for the dark matter phenomenon, Universe 6 (2020) 118, [arXiv:2008.04052 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    S. Alam, M. Ata, S. Bailey, et al. (BOSS Collaboration), The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS- III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmologica l analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470 (2017) 2617-2652, [arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    T. M. C. Abbott, F. B. Abdalla, A. Alarcon, et al. (DES Col laboration), Dark Energy Survey year 1 re- sults: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering an d weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 043526, [arXiv:1708.01530 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Tanabashi, K

    M. Tanabashi, K. Hagiwara, K. Hikasa, et al. (Particle D ata Group), Review of Particle Physics: particle data groups, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  20. [20]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, et al. (Planck Collab oration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Harko, S

    T. Harko, S. Shahidi, Coupling matter and curvature in W eyl geometry: Conformally invariant f (R, Lm) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (219) (2022) 22 pages. [arXiv:2202.06349 [gr-qc]]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Singh, G

    T. Singh, G. P. Singh, Lyra’s Geometry and Cosmology: A R eview, Fortschritte der Physik/Progress of Physics 41 (8) (1993) , 737-764

    1993

  23. [23]

    J. B. Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, T. Koivisto, The couplin g of matter and spacetime geometry, Classical Quant. Grav. 37 (2020) 195013

    2020

  24. [24]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmologic al theory, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 150 (1970) 1-8

    1970

  25. [25]

    W. Hu, I. Sawicki, Models of f (R) cosmic acceleration that evade solar system tests, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 064004, [arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  26. [26]

    S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye, Do consistent F (R) models mimic general relativity plus Λ?, Phys. Lett. B 654 (2007) 7-12, [arXiv:0705.3199 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    C. G. B¨ ohmer, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Dark matter as a geo metric effect in f (R) gravity, Astropart. Phys. 29 (2008) 386-392, [arXiv:0709.0046 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    Chakraborty, K

    S. Chakraborty, K. MacDevette, P. Dunsby, A Model indep endent approach to the study of f (R) cosmologies with expansion histories close to ΛCDM, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 124040, [arXiv:2103.02274 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Modified gravity with negat ive and positive powers of the curvature: Unification of the inflation and of the cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 123512, [arXiv:hep-th/0307288 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  30. [30]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Modified f (R) gravity consistent with realistic cosmology: From matter domi- nated epoch to dark energy universe, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 086005, [arXiv:hep-th/0608008 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  31. [31]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Extr a force in f (R) modified theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 104016, [arXiv:0704.1733 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  32. [32]

    T. P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni, f (R) theories of gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 451, [arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, f (R) theories, Living Rev. Relativ. 13 (2010) 3, [arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    Harko, Modified gravity with arbitrary coupling betw een matter and geometry, Phys

    T. Harko, Modified gravity with arbitrary coupling betw een matter and geometry, Phys. Lett. B 669 (2008) 376, [arXiv:0810.0742 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, f (R, Lm) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 373, [arXiv:1008.4193 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    J. Wang, K. Liao, Energy conditions in f (R, Lm) gravity, Class. Quantum Gravity 29 (2012) 215016, [arXiv:1212.4656 [physics.gen-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    Bahamonde, Generalised non-minimally gravity-mat ter coupled theory, Eur

    S. Bahamonde, Generalised non-minimally gravity-mat ter coupled theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 326, [arXiv:1709.05319 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    March, O

    R. March, O. Bertolami, M. Muccino, et al. , Constraining a non-minimally coupled curvature-matter g ravity model with ocean experiments, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 042002, [arXiv:1904.12789 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Allemandi, A

    G. Allemandi, A. Borowiec, M. Francaviglia and S. D. Odi ntsov, Dark energy dominance and cosmic accel- eration in first order formalism, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 063505, [arXiv:gr-qc/0504057 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    L. V. Jaybhaye, Study of curvature-matter coupling in m odified gravity, arXiv:2505.24470 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Pradhan, D

    A. Pradhan, D. C. Maurya, G. K. Goswami, A. Beesham, Mode ling Transit Dark Energy in F (R, Lm)-gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 20(06) (2023) 2350105, [arXiv:2209.14269 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    D. C. Maurya, Accelerating scenarios of massive univer se in f (R, Lm)-gravity, New Astronomy 100 (2023) 101974. 19

    2023

  43. [43]

    D. C. Maurya, Exact Cosmological Models in Modified F (R, Lm)-Gravity with Observational Constraints, Grav. & Cosmo. 29(3) (2023) 315-325

    2023

  44. [44]

    D. C. Maurya, Bianchi-I dark energy cosmological model in f (R, Lm)-Gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 21(04) (2024) 2450072-194

    2024

  45. [45]

    D. C. Maurya, Constrained ΛCDM Dark Energy Models in Hig her Derivative F (R, Lm)-Gravity Theory, Phys. Dark Universe 42 (2023) 101373

    2023

  46. [46]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, f (R, T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 024020, [arXiv:1104.2669 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  47. [47]

    Katırcı and M

    N. Katırcı and M. Kavuk, f (R, TµνT µν) gravity and Cardassian-like expansion as one of its conseq uences, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 129 (2014) 163

    2014

  48. [48]

    Roshan and F

    M. Roshan and F. Shojai, Energy-momentum squared gravi ty, Phys. Rev. D 94, 044002 (2016)

    2016

  49. [49]

    Akarsu, N

    ¨O. Akarsu, N. Katırcı, and S. Kumar, Cosmic acceleration in a dust only universe via energy-momentum powered gravity, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 024011

    2018

  50. [50]

    C. V. R. Board and J. D. Barrow, Cosmological models in en ergy-momentum-squared gravity, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 123517

    2017

  51. [51]

    Haghani, T

    Z. Haghani, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, H. R. Sepangi and S. Sh ahidi, Further matters in space-time geometry: f (R, T, RµνT µν) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 044023

    2013

  52. [52]

    S. D. Odintsov and D. Saez-Gmez, f (R, TµνT µν) gravity phenomenology and ΛCDM universe Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 437

    2013

  53. [53]

    Haghani, T

    Z. Haghani, T. Harko, H. R. Sepangi, and S. Shahidi, Matt er may matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 23 (2014) 1442016

    2014

  54. [54]

    Ayuso, J.B

    I. Ayuso, J.B. Jim´ enez, ´Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz, Consistency of universally non- minimally coupled f (R, T, RµνT µν) theories, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 104003

    2015

  55. [55]

    Lacombe, S

    O. Lacombe, S. Mukohyama, J. Seitz, Are f (R, M atter) theories really relevant to cosmology?, JCAP 2024 (2024) 064

    2024

  56. [56]

    Harko, M.A.S

    T. Harko, M.A.S. Pinto, S. Shahidi, Matter really does m atter, or Why f (R, M atter) type theories are significant for gravitational physics and cosmology, Phys. Dark Univ. 48 (2025) 101863

    2025

  57. [57]

    E. H. Baffou, M. J. S. Houndjo, M. E. Rodrigues, et al. , Cosmological evolution in f (R, T ) theory with collisional matter, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 084043, [arXiv:1504.05496 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [58]

    Harko, Thermodynamic interpretation of the general ized gravity models with geometry-matter coupling, Phys

    T. Harko, Thermodynamic interpretation of the general ized gravity models with geometry-matter coupling, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 044067, [arXiv:1408.3465 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    T. B. Gon¸ calves, J. L. Rosa, F. S. N. Lobo, Cosmology in s calar-tensor f (R, T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 064019, [arXiv:2112.02541 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Velten, T

    H. Velten, T. R. P. Caramˆ es, Cosmological inviability of f (R, T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 123536, [arXiv:1702.07710 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Shabani, A.H

    H. Shabani, A.H. Ziaie, Stability of the Einstein stati c universe in f (R, T ) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 31, [arXiv:1606.07959 [gr-qc]]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    P. H. R. S. Moraes, R. A. C. Correa, G. Ribeiro, Evading th e non-continuity equation in the f (R, T ) cosmology, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 192

    2018

  63. [63]

    S. K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, Ksh. Newton Singh, et al. , Gravitational decoupling minimal geometric defor- mation model in modified f (R, T ) gravity theory, Phys. Dark Universe 30 (2020) 100640

    2020

  64. [64]

    R. Zia, D. C. Maurya, A. Pradhan, Transit dark energy str ing cosmological models with perfect fluid in F (R, T )-gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 15(10) (2018) 1850168

    2018

  65. [65]

    D. C. Maurya, A. Pradhan, A. Dixit, Domain walls and quar k matter in Bianchi type-V universe with observational constraints in F (R, T ) gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 17(01) (2020) 2050014

    2020

  66. [66]

    D. C. Maurya, Transit cosmological model with specific H ubble parameter in F (R, T ) gravity, New Astronomy 77 (2020) 101355

    2020

  67. [67]

    D. C. Maurya, J. singh, L. K. Gaur, Dark Energy Nature in L ogarithmic f (R, T ) Cosmology, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 20(11) (2023) 2350192

    2023

  68. [68]

    G. P. Singh, N. Hulke, A. Singh, Cosmological study of pa rticle creation in higher derivative theory, Indian J. Phys. 94 (2020) 127-141

    2020

  69. [69]

    Hulke, G

    N. Hulke, G. P. Singh, B. K. Bishi, A. Singh, Variable Cha plygin gas cosmologies in f (R, T ) gravity with particle creation, New Astronomy 77 (2020) 101357

    2020

  70. [70]

    Harko, Generalizing the coupling betwe en geometry and matter: f (R, Lm, T ) gravity, Eur

    Z Haghani and T. Harko, Generalizing the coupling betwe en geometry and matter: f (R, Lm, T ) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 615

    2021

  71. [71]

    D. C. Maurya, Late-time accelerating cosmological mod els in f (R, Lm, T )-gravity with observational con- straints, Phys. Dark Universe 46 (2024) 101722

    2024

  72. [72]

    D. C. Maurya, Constrained transit cosmological models in f (R, Lm, T )-gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys., (2025) 2550028, https://doi.org/10.1142/S02198878255 00288. [arXiv:2409.14024 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Pradhan, M

    A. Pradhan, M. Zeyauddin, A. Dixit, and S. Krishnannair , Dust-fluid accelerating flat cosmological mod- els in f (R, T, Lm)-gravity with observational constraints, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. , (2024) 2550060, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887825500604

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219887825500604 2024

  74. [74]

    D. C. Maurya, R. Zia, Phantom Dark Energy Cosmological M odels in f (R, T, Lm) Gravity, J. High Energy Astrophys. 47 (2025) 100392

    2025

  75. [75]

    Stefancic, Generalized phantom energy, Phys

    H. Stefancic, Generalized phantom energy, Phys. Lett. B 586 (2004) 5-10, [arXiv:astro-ph/0310904]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  76. [76]

    M. P. Dabrowski, T. Stachowiak, M. Szydlowski. Phantom cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 103519, [arXiv:hep-th/0307128]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  77. [77]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-G´ omez , V. Faraoni, Reconstructing the universe history, from inflation to acceleration, with phantom and canonical s calar fields, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 106005, [arXiv:0803.1311 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  78. [78]

    Yi-Fu Cai, Tao-tao Qiu, Jun-Qing Xia, Xinmin Zhang, A mo del of inflationary cosmology without Singularity, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 021303, [arXiv:0808.0819v1 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  79. [79]

    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz,The Classical Theory of Fie lds (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1998)

    1998

  80. [80]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark e nergy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15 (2006) 1753-1935. 21

    2006

Showing first 80 references.