Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Cosmological dynamics based on Lovelock's gravity. Qualitative analysis

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every flat Lovelock cosmology with barotropic matter reduces to a single autonomous equation in the Hubble parameter; positive roots of two fixed polynomials decide all possible scenarios, including the 'Big Shock' birth in higher dimension

desk verdict Solid qualitative classification of flat FRW Lovelock dynamics, but the finite-time and Big Shock claims are proven in rescaled time and need a constant (or bounded-away-from-zero) equation-of-state parameter to carry over to physical time. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01702 v1 pith:GNEQRION submitted 2026-08-03 gr-qc

Aleksei V. Nikolaev , Victor M. Zhuravlev , Sergei V. Chervon This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.50.-h04.50.Kd98.80.-k98.80.Jk
keywords LovelockgravityqualitativeanalysisdynamicalsystemsFriedmannequationsBigShockphantomintervalsEinstein-Gauss-Bonnethigher-dimensionalcosmology
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

Lovelock gravity is the natural higher-dimensional generalization of Einstein's theory that keeps second-order field equations, and in a spatially flat universe its geometry still has only two independent pieces. This paper reduces the full dynamics of such a universe, filled with a fluid whose pressure is proportional to its density, to one autonomous first-order equation for the Hubble parameter H, whose right-hand side is H² times the ratio of two fixed polynomials built from the dimension, the Lovelock order, and the coupling constants. Everything then follows from the roots: positive roots of the numerator polynomial are fixed points reached only in infinite time (de Sitter-like final states), positive roots of the denominator polynomial are singular barriers reached in finite time with |Ḣ| infinite, and a differential identity links the two polynomials, fixing the order of the roots and ruling every scenario. The payoff is a new kind of initial state for N > 4 with suitable negative couplings — the 'Big Shock' — in which the universe begins with finite density and finite size but infinite acceleration of expansion, replacing the standard Big Bang. A sympathetic reader should care because the paper replaces solving nonlinear cosmological equations with a finite algebraic root count.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of polynomials P₁(H²) and P₂(H²) appearing in the generalized Friedmann equations P₁ Ḣ + H²P₂ = p and H²P₂ = −ρ: P₂ carries the matter sector (the density is −H²P₂), and P₁ multiplies Ḣ, so its zeros are exactly where |Ḣ| diverges. The reduction exploits the fact that for the flat FRW metric the Riemann tensor has just two independent components, making the field equations two algebraic equations in H² and Ḣ. The argument is carried by the roots of P₁ and P₂ together with the differential identity (N−1)P₁(Z) = 2 d/dZ[Z P₂(Z)] — a direct consequence of the continuity equation — which interlaces the roots (s₁ < h₁) and keeps fixed and singular points disjoin

What would settle it

Integrate the exact field equations (10a)–(10b) for the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet case n=2, N=5 with α2 = −0.1, starting just above the singular point s₁ ≈ 1.581. The classification predicts H cannot cross s₁, the trajectory approaches the fixed point h₁ ≈ 2.236 only asymptotically, and a start just below s₁ reaches s₁ in finite time with a and ρ finite while |Ḣ| → ∞. A run that crosses H = s₁ smoothly, or diverges in ρ there, refutes the classification. A cheaper check: for n=3, N=7 with random couplings, the roots should always satisfy s₁ < h₁ with strictly positive density in the central basin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the entire dynamics of a flat FRW universe in Lovelock gravity with a barotropic fluid collapses into one autonomous equation, dH/dτ = −ε H² P₂(H²)/P₁(H²), with ε the fixed sign of 1+ω and P₁, P₂ polynomials fixed by the Lovelock order n, dimension N, and couplings αi. From this form the authors extract a complete classification of scenarios: the positive roots h_i of P₂ are fixed points reached only in infinite time, while the positive roots s_i of P₁ are singular points reached in finite time with finite scale factor, density, and pressure but |Ḣ| → ∞ — a purely geometric singularity impossible in general relativity, where Ḣ is tied to the pressure. A differential

Load-bearing premise

The classification presupposes that 1+ω(t) keeps a fixed sign throughout the evolution — the time reparameterization that makes the system autonomous, and with it every Big Shock scenario, depends on this, and the paper sets aside fluids that cross ω = −1 — and that the positive roots of P₂ are simple, so fixed and singular points remain distinct as the classification tables assume.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any Lovelock model (order n, dimension N, couplings αi) the full set of possible cosmological evolutions is finite and sorted by the positive real roots of two polynomials — no exact solutions and no case-by-case integration are needed to know every possible fate of the universe.
  • In N > 4 with at least one negative coupling, the Big Shock is a new generic initial state: a finite-size, finite-density universe whose expansion begins with infinite |Ḣ|, replacing the infinite-density Big Bang; the same mechanism yields time-reversed final states with contraction ending at finite a and finite ρ.
  • Fixed endpoints are reached only asymptotically — in infinite time — so any de Sitter final state in Lovelock cosmology is approached but never attained; singular barriers are reached in finite time, so they genuinely terminate or begin evolution.
  • For negative couplings, intervals of H with negative effective matter density exist and are bounded by the fixed points; ordinary matter cannot enter them, so observing Hubble-parameter values inside a phantom interval would force exotic (phantom-type) matter — the paper's own suggested observational test.
  • Near H = 0 every Lovelock model behaves exactly like general relativity, so the new effects (Big Shock, phantom intervals, singular barriers) are confined to high-curvature regimes |H| ≥ s₁; the expanding and contracting branches are dynamically disconnected for all models in the family.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The analysis explicitly excludes fluids whose 1+ω changes sign (a phantom crossing at ω = −1). A natural next step is to glue the sign-fixed phase portraits across the crossing and ask whether the Big Shock endpoints survive a continuous transition through ω = −1; the paper leaves this matching open.
  • At the Big Shock both scale factor and density stay finite; the paper expects but does not prove that the singularity is weak. A direct geodesic-deviation computation through the singular time would settle whether an observer survives the event and would distinguish the Big Shock from a crushing singularity.
  • Because the classification depends only on the sign pattern of the couplings and the positive roots of the two polynomials, the same phase-portrait program should transfer to nearby settings the paper leaves out — nonzero spatial curvature, scalar-field matter, or f(Lovelock) generalizations — where a two-polynomial structure is likely to reappear with modified coefficients.
  • For a pure Lovelock term the paper proves that the spacing ratio h₁²/s₁² = n^{1/(n−1)} is independent of both the coupling strength and the dimension; left implicit is that this is a sharp fingerprint of the Lovelock order — locating the first singular barrier relative to the first fixed point would fix n without knowing the couplings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper performs a qualitative analysis of flat FRW cosmological dynamics in Lovelock gravity with a perfect fluid satisfying p = ω ρ. Starting from the field equations written in terms of the independent Riemann-tensor components, the authors reduce the dynamics to a single autonomous first-order equation for the Hubble parameter, dH/dτ = -ε H^2 P2(H^2)/P1(H^2), where P1 and P2 are fixed by the Lovelock order n, spacetime dimension N, and couplings α_i. The real positive roots of P2 are associated with fixed points and those of P1 with singular points where |dH/dτ| diverges. The paper classifies the resulting evolution scenarios, discusses stability, phantom intervals, and the time to reach fixed and singular points, and illustrates the analysis for n=1,N=4 (GR), n=2,N=5 (Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet), and n=3,N=7 (cubic Lovelock). A central advertised result is the 'Big Shock' scenario for N>4 with negative couplings, in which the universe starts from finite density and finite scale factor but with infinite dH/dt.

Significance. The mathematical core of the paper is valuable and, for the autonomous τ-time system, essentially correct. The reduction to a single rational autonomous equation is elegant, and the differential identity (38) connecting P1 and P2 is derived cleanly from the continuity equation; the interlacing of roots and the resulting structure of phantom-free intervals are useful general results. The worked examples (GR, EGB, cubic Lovelock) are concrete and internally consistent, and the paper is honest about many of its technical assumptions. The analysis contains no fitted parameters and makes no empirical predictions; its value is classificatory. If the physical-time claims can be made rigorous or explicitly restricted to constant ω, the paper would be a solid contribution to the qualitative theory of higher-dimensional Lovelock cosmology. As it stands, however, a central advertised conclusion—the physical 'Big Shock' as a finite-time event—is not established for the general time-dependent barotropic case claimed in the abstract.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (13)–(14); §IV.H; Abstract] The paper switches from physical time t to the rescaled time τ = ∫|Γ(t')|dt' and then states all finiteness conclusions in τ-time, while the abstract and Section V present them as physical-time statements. For a sign-constant but non-constant Γ(t), dH/dt = Γ(t) dH/dτ, and a finite τ interval can correspond to an infinite t interval if |Γ| decays sufficiently fast; conversely, a divergent dH/dτ need not imply a divergent dH/dt. Thus the claims that singular points are reached in 'finite time' and that the Big Shock is an initial state with infinite dH/dt at finite t are established only for constant ω (Γ = const). The text in §III that this reduction is 'practically the same as ω = const' is not justified. The authors should either restrict the central claims to ω = const or add explicit conditions on Γ (e.g., a positive lower bound, or an integrability condition) and prove that the resca
  2. [§IV.A, Eq. (15); Appendix B, Eq. (38); §V.C] The classification is presented as 'complete', but it is carried out under the generic assumption that the positive roots of P2 are simple. When P2 has a multiple positive root, identity (38) forces P1 to vanish at that same point, so the fixed and singular sets are no longer disjoint and the scenario tables do not apply. The authors acknowledge such degeneracies only in passing (e.g., the curve α3 = 3α2^2/2 for N=7,n=3) and state that they reduce to a lower-order model, but the generality of this statement is not proved for arbitrary n,N, and the tabulated classification explicitly assumes the generic case. The claim of a 'complete classification' should be qualified to all couplings outside the relevant discriminant locus, or the degenerate cases should be analyzed systematically.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V.B, after Eq. (27)] The text says the model 'has a singular point H0 = 0', but §IV.E carefully defines H=0 as a degenerate/special fixed point, reserving 'singular points' for the poles of F(H). This should be reworded for consistency.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption and §V.B] The caption states '|ω| = 1/3' for both ε=+1 and ε=-1. For constant ω, ε = sign(1+ω); ε=-1 requires ω<-1, so |ω|=1/3 is not consistent with ε=-1. Please specify the actual ω values used in the two panels.
  3. [Tables 2a/2b and 3a/3b] The arrow notation in the interval rows is hard to parse: the reader must infer that the left/right entries are the limiting values at the left/right interval endpoints and that arrows show the direction of evolution. A short explanatory sentence in each caption would improve readability.
  4. [§IV.H] The partial-fraction formula for Δτ assumes simple roots of P2. In the degenerate case, the logarithmic divergence at a fixed point can be replaced by a stronger power-law divergence; this is not discussed. A sentence noting this would prevent confusion when the discriminant locus is approached.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a self-contained mathematical classification with no fitted parameters; the self-citation to [7] supplies an independent parameter-free derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central reduction is genuinely derived: Eq. (10a) and (10b), together with the barotropic law p = ωρ, give Eq. (13), H-dot = -Γ H^2 P2/P1, and the time reparameterization τ = ∫|Γ| dt yields the autonomous Eq. (14). No quantity is defined in terms of a target 'prediction', and no parameter is fitted to data; the illustrative values of αi are chosen examples, not calibrated outputs. The key identity (38), linking P1 and P2, is proven in Appendix B from the continuity equation and the explicit form ρ = -H^2 P2, rather than assumed. The classification of fixed and singular points follows directly from the roots of explicitly defined polynomials and standard 1D autonomous ODE theory, so it does not reduce to an input by construction. The citation to [7] for the Riemann-component form of the Lovelock field equations is by a co-author but is an independent, parameter-free derivation that does not contain the target result; per the review rules, this is real evidence and not circular. The Big Shock scenarios are mathematical consequences of the reduced equation and the polynomial structure, not renamed empirical fits. The paper also explicitly states that sign-changing Γ(t) is outside its scope, and the only notable caveat — that conclusions proven in τ-time may require extra care when Γ is non-constant — is a correctness/scope concern, not a circular reduction. Thus no significant circularity is present.

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

No parameters are fitted; the analysis depends on the choice of Lovelock couplings α_i and the barotropic index ω, which are theory inputs, and on generic assumptions about polynomial roots. The example couplings (e.g., α2=-0.1, -0.3) are illustrative and do not enter the central classification.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FRW metric (k=0)
    The reduction to polynomials in H² uses f1=H², equation (6) with κ=0; non-flat universes are outside scope.
  • domain assumption Barotropic fluid with constant or sign-constant Γ=1+ω
    Equation (14) requires sign-constant Γ so the time reparameterization yields an autonomous system; §III explicitly excludes sign-changing Γ.
  • domain assumption Polynomials P1 and P2 have simple real roots (generic couplings)
    Interlacing and disjointness of fixed/singular points stated in Appendix B assume simple roots; multiple-root cases are only noted in passing in §IV A.
  • standard math Standard Lovelock field equations and conservation of energy-momentum
    Field equations (1) and continuity equation are used to derive identity (38); these are established background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological dynamics based on Lovelock's gravity. Qualitative analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GNEQRION

@misc{pith2026260801702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological dynamics based on Lovelock's gravity. Qualitative analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GNEQRION}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01702}
}
abstract

We perform a complete qualitative analysis of the cosmological dynamics of Lovelock gravity in a spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe filled with a perfect fluid obeying a barotropic equation of state $p=\omega\rho$. Starting from the generalized $N$-dimensional Friedmann equations written in terms of the independent components of the Riemann tensor, we reduce the dynamics to a single autonomous first-order equation for the Hubble parameter $H$, whose right-hand side is a ratio of polynomials in $H^2$ fixed by the order $n$ of the Lovelock polynomial, the number of dimensions $N$, and the coupling constants $\alpha_i$. The real roots of these polynomials determine the fixed points and the singular points of the system, which govern its asymptotic behaviour. We give a complete classification of the possible evolution scenarios, identify the attractive and repulsive fixed points, locate the "phantom intervals" in which the effective matter density becomes negative, and show that fixed points are reached in infinite time whereas singular points are reached in finite time. For $N>4$ and suitable negative couplings a qualitatively new scenario arises, which we call the "Big Shock": the universe starts from a state with finite density and finite scale factor but with an infinite rate of change of the Hubble parameter, replacing the standard Big Bang. The general analysis is illustrated for $n=1$, $N=4$ (general relativity), $n=2$, $N=5$ (Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity), and $n=3$, $N=7$ (cubic Lovelock gravity).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01702 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Phase portraits of the system (26) together with the dep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Phase portraits of the (27) system for the case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Roots of the polynomials as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The polynomials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Phase portraits of the system (28) for the case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Big Shock

    Possible evolution scenarios The considered variant of the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet model with n = 2 and N = 5, corresponding to the specific value α2 =−0.1, represents the most general variant of models of this type. When α2 is changed in the region of negative values, the general differences in phase diagrams and the evolution of ρ and a will be reduced to c...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In this case, the model equations become: dH dτ =−εH 2 15 + 180α2H 2 + 360α3H 4 5 + 120α2H 2 + 360α3H 4

    Equations and singular points of the model To illustrate the possible types of evolution in general, consider the c ase of N = 7 and n = 3. In this case, the model equations become: dH dτ =−εH 2 15 + 180α2H 2 + 360α3H 4 5 + 120α2H 2 + 360α3H 4 . (28) 26 The roots of the polynomial P1(z) are as follows: S2 1,2 =− 1 12α3 ( 2α2± √ 4α2 2− 2α3 ) , (29) Accordi...

    work page

  3. [3]

    6ab shows the phase diagrams of the system (28) for the situa tions ε = +1 (a) and ε =−1 (b) at α2 =−0.3, α 3 = 0.1

    Phase diagrams Fig. 6ab shows the phase diagrams of the system (28) for the situa tions ε = +1 (a) and ε =−1 (b) at α2 =−0.3, α 3 = 0.1. The values of the coefficients α2, α 3 are chosen so that the polynomials P1(z) and P2(z) have two real positive roots. The variants with one real root are analogous to models (27), and the variants with no positive real r...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Big Shock

    Possible evolution scenarios The entire interval of H values is divided into ten subintervals in Figures 6ab, corre- sponding to ten different types of evolution scenarios, which mostly repeat the scenarios corresponding to the models (27). Tables 3a and 3b present all the main characteristics of 28 a b FIG. 6. Phase portraits of the system (28) for the ca...

    work page

  5. [5]

    If Z∗ > 0 is a common root of P1 and P2, then (38) yields 0 = ( N− 1)P1(Z∗) = 2 Z∗P ′ 2(Z∗), hence P ′ 2(Z∗) = 0 and Z∗ is a multiple root of P2

    Interlacing of the roots. If Z∗ > 0 is a common root of P1 and P2, then (38) yields 0 = ( N− 1)P1(Z∗) = 2 Z∗P ′ 2(Z∗), hence P ′ 2(Z∗) = 0 and Z∗ is a multiple root of P2. Therefore, whenever the positive roots of P2 are simple — which holds for generic values of the couplings αi — the sets of singular points {si} and of fixed points {hi} are disjoint. 35 ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Let h2 1 be the smallest positive root of P2

    The first barrier precedes the first fixed point. Let h2 1 be the smallest positive root of P2. Since P2(0) = −(N− 1)(N− 2)/2 < 0, the polynomial P2 is non-positive on [0 , h2 1] and P ′ 2(h2 1)≥ 0. Then (38) gives ( N− 1)P1(h2

    work page

  7. [7]

    = 2 h2 1P ′ 2(h2 1)≥ 0, and since P1(0) =−(N− 2) < 0, the polynomial P1 has a root s2 1∈ (0, h2 1], with equality possible only in the degenerate case P ′ 2(h2

    work page

  8. [8]

    = 0. Hence for generic couplings s1 < h 1, and the entire central basin ( −s1, s1) lies in the region ρ(H) =−H 2P2(H 2) > 0: the central basin is free of phantom intervals for arbitrary admissible values of the couplings αi

    work page

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Pure Lovelock order. For the pure theory of order n, P1 =−(N−2)+ αn(n)k12Z n−1 and P2 =−(N− 1)(N− 2)/2 + αn(n)k21Z n−1, positive roots exist only for αn < 0 (with N≥ 2n + 1), and (39) fixes their ratio universally: h2 1 s2 1 = n1/(n−1), independently of αn and N. In particular,...

  2. [10]

    All the coefficients (i)k21 are negative for N ≥ 2i + 1

    A sufficient condition for the absence of phantom intervals . All the coefficients (i)k21 are negative for N ≥ 2i + 1. Consequently, if all αi ≥ 0, then P20(Z) ≤ 0 for Z≥ 0 and P2(Z)≤− (N− 1)(N− 2)/2 < 0 everywhere, so that ρ(H) > 0 for all H̸= 0 and phantom intervals are absent a...

    2026

  3. [11]

    Lovelock, J

    D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys. 12, 498 (1971). doi:10.1063/1.1665613

    1971 doi

  4. [12]

    Dadhich, Pramana 74, 875 (2010)

    N. Dadhich, Pramana 74, 875 (2010). doi:10.1007/s12043-010-0080-1

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys . 4, 115 (2007). doi:10.1142/S0219887807001928

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rep. 509, 167 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 79, 024012 (2009). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.024012

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Chakraborty, N

    S. Chakraborty, N. Dadhich, Phys. Dark Universe 30, 100658 (2020). doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100658

    2020

  9. [17]

    A. V. Nikolaev, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 25 (2025). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13695-5

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    S. D. Maharaj, N. Naidoo, G. Amery, K. S. Govinder, Eur. Ph ys. J. C 83, 333 (2023). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11513-y

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    Naicker, S

    S. Naicker, S. D. Maharaj, B. P. Brassel, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 343 (2023). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11483-1

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    A. V. Nikolaev, S. D. Maharaj, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 7 (2020)

    2020

  13. [22]

    V. M. Zhuravlev, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 93, 903 (2001). doi:10.1134/1.1427102

    2001 doi

  14. [23]

    N. N. Bautin, E. A. Leontovich, Methods and Techniques of Qualitative Analysis of Dynamica l Systems in the Plane (Nauka, Moscow, 1989)

    1989

  15. [24]

    O. I. Bogoyavlensky, Methods of the Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems in Ast rophysics and Gas Dynamics (Nauka, Moscow, 1980)

    1980

  16. [25]

    V. A. Belinsky, L. P. Grishchuk, I. M. Khalatnikov, Ya. B . Zeldovich, Phys. Lett. B 155, 232 (1985). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90644-6

    1985 doi

  17. [26]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006). doi:10.1142/S021827180600942X

    2006 doi

  18. [27]

    Yu. G. Ignat’ev, Classical Cosmology and Dark Energy (Kazan University Press, Kazan, 2016)

    2016

  19. [28]

    Yu. G. Ignat’ev, Space Time Fundam. Interact., no. 3, 17 (2016)

    2016

  20. [29]

    V. M. Zhuravlev, Space Time Fundam. Interact., no. 4, 39 (2016)

    2016

  21. [30]

    V. M. Zhuravlev, T. V. Podymova, E. A. Pereskokov, Gravi t. Cosmol. 17, 101 (2011). doi:10.1134/S0202289311020204

    2011 doi

  22. [31]

    Yu. G. Ignat’ev, A. R. Samigullina, Gravit. Cosmol. 31, 1 (2025); arXiv:2410.10703. doi:10.1134/S0202289324700439

    2025 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Yu. G. Ignat’ev, I. A. Kokh, Gravit. Cosmol. 30, 426 (2024). doi:10.1134/S0202289324700324

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    Yu. G. Ignat’ev, D. Yu. Ignatyev, Gravit. Cosmol. 26, 29 (2020); arXiv:2005.14010

    2020 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Yu. G. Ignat’ev, Theor. Math. Phys. 219, 688 (2024); arXiv:2307.13761. doi:10.1134/S0040577924040123

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Zhuravlev, S

    V. Zhuravlev, S. Chervon, Universe 6, 195 (2020). doi:10.3390/universe6110195

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

    1980 doi

  28. [37]

    M. H. Dehghani, N. Farhangkhah, Phys. Lett. B 674, 243 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.03.045

    2009 doi

  29. [38]

    Deser, J

    S. Deser, J. Franklin, Class. Quantum Grav. 29, 072001 (2012). doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/29/7/072001

    2012 doi

  30. [39]

    Dadhich, J

    N. Dadhich, J. M. Pons, K. Prabhu, Gen. Rel. Gravit. 45, 1131 (2013). doi:10.1007/s10714- 013-1514-0 38

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    Padmanabhan, D

    T. Padmanabhan, D. Kothawala, Phys. Rep. 531, 115 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.05.007

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    Chakraborty, J

    S. Chakraborty, J. High Energy Phys. 2015, 029 (2015). doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)029

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

    Bueno, P

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, O. Lasso A., P. F. Ram ´ ırez, J. High E nergy Phys. 2016, 028 (2016). doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)028

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    Concha, E

    P. Concha, E. Rodr ´ ıguez, Phys. Lett. B 774, 616 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.019

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    S. A. Pavluchenko, Universe 10, 429 (2024). doi:10.3390/universe10110429

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    Bousder, A

    M. Bousder, A. Riadsolh, M. El Belkacemi, H. Ez-Zahraou y, Ann. Phys. 458, 169441 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.aop.2023.169441

    2023

  37. [46]

    B. P. Brassel, Vacuum dark energy and equation of state for a Lovelock–FLR W u niverse with effective thermodynamics, submitted (2025)

    2025

  38. [47]

    Singh, B

    S. Singh, B. P. Brassel, S. D. Maharaj, Universe 11, 155 (2025). doi:10.3390/universe11050155

    2025 doi

  39. [48]

    B. P. Brassel, S. Singh, S. D. Maharaj, Ann. Phys. 482, 170234 (2025). doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170234

    2025

  40. [49]

    Arroyo, R

    A. Arroyo, R. Cordero, G. Cruz, E. Rojas, Class. Quantum Grav. 43, 055008 (2026); arXiv:2509.05920

    2026 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Myrzakulov, M

    N. Myrzakulov, M. Koussour, D.J. Gogoi, Phys. Dark Univ . 42, 101268 (2023); arXiv:2306.13218

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Shi-Bei Kong, Fortschr. Phys. 73, e70052 (2025)

    2025

  43. [52]

    Esmakhanova, N

    K. Esmakhanova, N. Myrzakulov, G. Nugmanova, Y. Myrzak ulov, L. Chechin, R. Myrzakulov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20, 2419 (2011); arXiv:1104.3705

    2011 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063004 (2005); arXiv:hep-th/0501025

    2005 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Barrow, Class

    J.D. Barrow, Class. Quantum Grav. 21, L79 (2004); arXiv:gr-qc/0403084

    2004 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Fern´ andez-Jambrina, R

    L. Fern´ andez-Jambrina, R. Lazkoz, Phys. Rev. D 70, 121503(R) (2004); arXiv:gr-qc/0410124

    2004 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Kirnos, A.N

    I.V. Kirnos, A.N. Makarenko, S.A. Pavluchenko, A.V. To porensky, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 42, 2633 (2010); arXiv:0906.0140

    2010 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Naicker, S.D

    S. Naicker, S.D. Maharaj, B.P. Brassel, Gen. Relativ. G ravit. 58, 24 (2026)

    2026

  49. [58]

    Maharaj, S

    S.D. Maharaj, S. Naicker, B.P. Brassel, Class. Quantum Grav. 43, 015010 (2026)

    2026

  50. [59]

    Naicker, B.P

    S. Naicker, B.P. Brassel, S.D. Maharaj, Ann. Phys. 493, 170589 (2026)

    2026

  51. [60]

    Maharaj, B.P

    S.D. Maharaj, B.P. Brassel, S. Singh, K.S. Govinder, Nu cl. Phys. B 1023, 117307 (2026)

    2026

  52. [61]

    Maharaj, K.S

    S.D. Maharaj, K.S. Govinder, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 57, 11 (2025). 39

    2025

  53. [62]

    Bogadi, G

    R.S. Bogadi, G. Leon, M. Govender, K.S. Govinder, S. Mah araj, A. Paliathanasis, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 58, 40 (2026)

    2026

  54. [63]

    Zwiebach, Phys

    B. Zwiebach, Phys. Lett. B 156, 315 (1985)

    1985

  55. [64]

    Zumino, Phys

    B. Zumino, Phys. Rep. 137, 109 (1986)

    1986

  56. [65]

    Boulware, S

    D.G. Boulware, S. Deser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2656 (1985)

    1985

  57. [66]

    K. Aoki, H. Motohashi, JCAP 08 (2020) 026; arXiv:2001.06756

    2020 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Kitaura, J.T

    T. Kitaura, J.T. Wheeler, Nucl. Phys. B 355, 250 (1991)

    1991

  59. [68]

    L. K. Duchaniya, B. Mishra, I. V. Fomin, S. V. Chervon, Cl ass. Quantum Grav. 41, 235016 (2024). doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad8a13

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002); arXiv:astro-ph/9908168. doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(02)02589-3

    2002 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Gannouji, D

    R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, A. Ranquet, A. A. Starobinsky , JCAP 0609, 016 (2006). doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/09/016; arXiv:astro-ph/06 06287. 40

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.