Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 85 references

Understanding curvature-matter interaction in viable $f(R)$ dark energy models: A dynamical analysis approach

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

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a curvature–matter energy-exchange term to two viable f(R) gravity models yields stable late-time accelerating attractors without a cosmological constant, and negative coupling can ease the cosmic coincidence problem.

desk verdict The new interaction term in Eq. (18) is not derived from the stated action, so the claimed attractors are properties of a different model; the benchmark parameters also sit outside the models' own viable ranges. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20209 v2 pith:IIGCNQGM submitted 2024-12-28 gr-qc

Anirban Chatterjee , Yungui Gong This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583F0537C75 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords f(R)gravitydarkenergycurvature-matterinteractiondynamicalsystemsfixedpointstabilitycosmiccoincidenceproblemlate-timeaccelerationpower-lawmodel
topics Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies what happens when dark matter and the curvature fluid of f(R) gravity exchange energy through a specified source term, instead of evolving independently. It derives the autonomous dynamical system for two viable f(R) models, the generalized $\Lambda$CDM form $f(R)=(R^b-\Lambda)^c$ and the power-law form $f(R)=R-\gamma R^n$, and shows that the interaction changes which fixed points are stable. The central claim is that the coupled system admits stable, non-phantom, late-time accelerating attractors, P2 and P7 in the first model and P2 and P5 in the second, for ranges of the coupling $\alpha$ and model parameters. If correct, curvature-matter interaction would supply a mechanism for late-time acceleration and for keeping matter and curvature densities comparable, addressing the cosmic coincidence problem.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a four-dimensional autonomous system in the variables $X_1=-\dot{F}/(HF)$, $X_2=-f/(6FH^2)$, $X_3=R/(6H^2)$, and $X_4=\kappa^2\rho_r/(3H^2)$, closed by the f(R)-dependent relation $m\equiv d\ln F/d\ln R=m(r)$ with $r=-RF/f$. The interaction enters through the source term $\mathcal{Q}$, which appears with opposite signs in the matter and curvature continuity equations and preserves total energy conservation. Linear stability analysis of the Jacobian at each fixed point determines which points are attractors, saddles, or repellers, and comparison with the $\alpha=0$ case isolates the effect of the coupling.

What would settle it

Recompute the Jacobian eigenvalues at P2, P7, and P5 using parameter values inside the stated viable windows, for example $bc=1.01$ for $f(R)=(R^b-\Lambda)^c$ and $n=0.9$ for $R-\gamma R^n$, while varying $\alpha$; if no fixed point is simultaneously stable and accelerating in these windows, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the interaction term $\mathcal{Q}=\alpha\tilde{\rho}_{\rm m}\left(\frac{3H^3}{\kappa^2\rho_{\rm curv}}+\frac{\kappa^2}{3H}\rho_{\rm curv}\right)$ reshapes the fixed-point structure of f(R) cosmology. In the generalized $\Lambda$CDM model, the de Sitter point P2 is stable for $1.65<bc<2$, $\alpha>-1.5$, and the model-dependent point P7 is stable for $bc<-0.5$, $\alpha>-2$; in the power-law model, P2 is stable for $1.3<n<2$, $\alpha>-1.4$, and P5 is a stable accelerating attractor at $n=-1$, $\alpha=1$. The non-interacting ($\alpha=0$) case has only P2 as a late-time attractor, so the coupling creates new stable endpoints. The paper further finds that negative $\alpha$ makes the matter-to-curvature ratio peak near unity at late times, which it interprets as easing the coincidence problem, and that all trajectories eventually approach the $\Lambda$CDM limit with jerk $j\to1$ and deceleration $q\to-1$.

Load-bearing premise

The stable late-time attractors are exhibited at benchmark parameter values ($bc=1.75$, $bc=-3$, $n=-1$) that fall outside the observationally viable ranges the paper itself states for these models ($bc\approx1$ and $0<n<1$).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stable late-time acceleration can be obtained in both f(R) models without a cosmological constant, through the de Sitter point P2 and the new model-dependent points P7 and P5.
  • The stability of fixed points is controlled by $\alpha$ and the model parameters, so the same f(R) model can have different late-time endpoints depending on the coupling strength.
  • Negative coupling values can keep the matter-to-curvature density ratio from vanishing at late times, which the paper ties to the cosmic coincidence problem.
  • The interacting models produce jerk-deceleration trajectories that deviate from $\Lambda$CDM while converging to it in the far future, giving kinematic signatures that observations could in principle distinguish.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The demonstrated attractors use benchmark values ($bc=1.75$, $bc=-3$, $n=-1$) that the paper itself places outside the observationally viable windows ($bc\approx1$ and $0<n<1$); extending the claim to genuinely viable f(R) models would require finding stable accelerating fixed points inside those windows.
  • Because $\mathcal{Q}$ scales as $(1+z)^6$ during radiation domination and as $H\rho_{\rm curv}$ during dark-energy domination, the model makes epoch-dependent predictions for the matter power spectrum and growth rate that could be tested with structure-formation data.
  • The same dynamical-system construction could be applied to alternative interaction forms to test whether the appearance of new stable late-time attractors is generic or specific to this choice of $\mathcal{Q}$.
  • If a stable interacting attractor exists only for negative $\alpha$, then the sign of the energy transfer is itself a testable prediction: energy must flow from matter to curvature, not the reverse.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies curvature-matter interactions in two f(R) gravity models by constructing a four-dimensional autonomous system in the variables X1=-Fdot/(FH), X2=-f/(6FH^2), X3=R/(6H^2), and X4=Omega_r. An interaction Q is added to the continuity equations of the rescaled matter and curvature densities, and the fixed points, their stability, and the associated cosmographic parameters are analyzed for the generalized Lambda-CDM model f(R)=(R^b-Lambda)^c and the power-law model f(R)=R-gamma R^n. The paper claims that the interaction modifies the stability of fixed points, that stable late-time accelerating attractors can emerge for certain parameter regions, and that negative coupling alpha can alleviate the cosmic coincidence problem.

Significance. If the central equation were correct, the paper would offer a concrete demonstration that an interaction between curvature-driven dark energy and matter changes the fixed-point structure of viable f(R) gravity and can support stable acceleration without a cosmological constant. The manuscript has some strengths: the fixed-point tables are explicit, the parameter-space stability diagrams are clearly presented, the reduction to the non-interacting alpha=0 case is shown, and the comparison of j-q trajectories with Lambda-CDM is pedagogically useful. However, the significance is entirely conditional: the claimed new fixed points and stability regions all arise from the alpha term in Eq. (18), and that term is not derived from the stated action or field equations. Without a sound derivation of Eq. (18), the dynamical results describe a different model, not the minimally coupled f(R) gravity defined in Section II.

major comments (4)
  1. [III A, Eq. (18)] The alpha term in Eq. (18) is not derivable from the field equations of the stated action. For the minimal-coupling action (1), the matter stress tensor tilde T^(M) is conserved by diffeomorphism invariance, so for dust one has d(tilde_rho_m)/dt + 3H tilde_rho_m = 0. With rho_m = tilde_rho_m/F as defined in Section II, the exact conservation equation for the rescaled matter density is d(rho_m)/dt + 3H rho_m = (X1 H) rho_m, not Eq. (15) with a freely chosen Q. Taking the trace of Eq. (2) and converting to the X variables likewise reproduces Eq. (18) only for alpha = 0. The alpha term is therefore an ad hoc addition that has no support from the minimal-coupling action, and because Eq. (18) is the only place the interaction enters, the modified fixed points P7 (generalized Lambda-CDM) and P5 (power-law) and their claimed stability regions are not established for the model actually written down.
  2. [III A, Eqs. (15)-(16) and (18)-(21)] Even if one takes the phenomenological continuity equations (15)-(16) literally, the system is internally inconsistent. Equation (15) is written for rho_m = tilde_rho_m/F, but Eq. (18) contains a term alpha Omega_m (1/Omega_curv + Omega_curv) with Omega_m = 1-X1-X2-X3-X4, and no factor of F. A direct computation of Omega_m' from Eq. (15) with Q = alpha tilde_rho_m H (1/Omega_curv + Omega_curv) gives an alpha term multiplied by F, and a homogeneous piece without X1, whereas the same derivative obtained from Eqs. (18)-(21) and the constraint (24) gives an alpha term without F and a homogeneous piece containing X1. The two expressions agree only if F is constant or F=Omega_m, neither of which is a property of the system and both of which contradict the f(R) setting. Thus the fixed-point algebra in Tables I and II corresponds to a different dynamical system than the one defined by Eqs. (7)-(16).
  3. [III B-D and Figs. 2-5] The paper advertises 'viable' f(R) models but demonstrates stable acceleration at parameter values that violate the viability constraints it states. For the generalized Lambda-CDM model the stated viability condition is c >= 1 and bc ~ 1, yet the stable attractor P7 is claimed for bc < -0.5 and the benchmark used for P7 is bc = -3; the benchmark for P2 is bc = 1.75, also far from bc ~ 1. For the power-law model the stated viability range is 0 < n < 1, yet the stable attractor P5 is demonstrated at n = -1. Consequently the central claim that stable late-time acceleration occurs for viable interacting f(R) models is not supported by the benchmarks chosen; the stable regions shown in Figs. 1 and 4 lie substantially outside the models' own viability windows.
  4. [III C, P8/P9 and III D, P6/P7] The scaling fixed points P8/P9 in the generalized Lambda-CDM model and P6/P7 in the power-law model, which are the only fixed points that can have nonzero matter density Omega_m, are excluded with the statement that they 'are unable to simultaneously exhibit both a stable and an accelerating solution.' No eigenvalues or explicit parameter conditions are presented to justify this exclusion. Since these points are the only possible candidates for scaling solutions that would be directly relevant to the coincidence problem, the exclusion is load-bearing for the paper's claimed resolution of the coincidence problem and should be supported by concrete stability calculations rather than assertion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III D, P2 stability region] The text states 'For 1.3 < bc < 2 and alpha > -1.4' in the power-law section, but the parameter in that model is n, so this should read '1.3 < n < 2.'
  2. [Throughout] There are frequent typos: 'FLR W' should be 'FLRW', 'utlising' should be 'utilising', 'phnatom' should be 'phantom', and 'V arying' should be 'Varying.'
  3. [III A, Eq. (18)] The interaction term in Eq. (18) contains a factor 1/(X1+X2+X3) = 1/Omega_curv, so the vector field is singular on Omega_curv = 0; the paper does not discuss whether the compactified phase-space analysis in Section III C remains valid near this surface.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption of the right panel of Fig. 5 refers to the 'generalised Lambda-CDM model' but the plot is for the power-law model; this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central new attractors are constructed from an interaction term inserted into Eq. (18), not derived from the stated Q; epoch-by-epoch “predictions” also restate the design of Q.

  1. other [Sec. III A, Eq. (18) vs Eqs. (15)-(16), Sec. II]
    "With this approach, Eqs. (9), (15), and (16), which describe the evolution of the system in the context of curvature-matter interactions, can be rewritten as a set of four autonomous equations. dX1/dN = -1 - X1X3 - X3 - 3X2 + X4 + X1^2 + α (1 - X1 - X2 - X3 - X4)( 1/(X1+X2+X3) + (X1+X2+X3))."

    The α term in Eq. (18) is αΩ_m(1/Ω_curv+Ω_curv), but substituting the stated Q=αtildeρ_m(3H^3/(κ^2ρ_curv)+κ^2ρ_curv/(3H)) into Eq. (15) gives Ω_m'=(1−2X3)Ω_m−αFΩ_m(1/Ω_curv+Ω_curv); Eq. (18) instead yields Ω_m'=(1+X1−2X3)Ω_m−αΩ_m(...), with no F and an extra X1 term. Nothing between Eq. (2) and Eq. (18) bridges this gap; the trace of Eq. (2) reproduces only the α=0 part. The new fixed points P7 (generalized ΛCDM), P5 (power-law), and all α-dependent stability regions are therefore solutions of an inserted term, not consequences of the model defined by Eqs. (1), (15), (16). The claimed first-principles result reduces to this input by construction.

  2. self definitional [Sec. II, paragraph after Eq. (16)]
    "Building on this framework, our selected form of the source term exhibits distinct scaling behavior across cosmic epochs, making it useful for explaining the radiation-to-dark energy transition. During the radiation-dominated era, the term (H^3/ρcurv) dominates and scales as (1+z)^6, ensuring minimal interaction influence on radiation while allowing energy exchange between matter and curvature. In the matter-dominated era, the interaction facilitates a gradual transfer of energy from matter to curvature."

    The epoch-dependent behavior reported as a result—negligible interaction in the radiation era, matter-to-curvature transfer in the matter era, curvature dominance at late times, and the claimed alleviation of the coincidence problem for negative α—is exactly the scaling built into Q by the choice of the two terms 1/ρ_curv and ρ_curv and the sign of α. The later evolution plots and conclusions restate this design rather than deriving it from independent physics.

full rationale

The paper is mostly a self-contained dynamical-systems calculation: the critical points and eigenvalues follow from the autonomous equations, and the comparison with the α=0 case is internally consistent. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing: the Q form is also attributed to independent work [66], and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The mismatch between the stated benchmark parameters and the paper's own viability ranges (bc≈1, 0<n<1) is a correctness/viability problem, not circularity. However, the central new results fail as first-principles predictions because the α term in Eq. (18) is not shown to follow from the stated Q and field equations; translated through Eq. (15), Q contributes −αFΩ_m(...) to Ω_m', not the term written. Thus the new attractors and their stability regions are properties of an inserted ansatz, i.e., the conclusion is co-extensive with the input equation. The separate scaling-behavior findings are also built into Q's definition. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the stability machinery is real, but the distinctive interaction-driven results reduce to the constructed term.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on a hand-picked interaction term Q and on benchmark parameter values chosen outside the observationally allowed region. The free parameters α, bc, and n are varied by hand to obtain stable attractors. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (α) = varied, e.g., -2 to 2; benchmarks 1, 2
    Dimensionless coupling strength of the matter-curvature interaction introduced ad hoc in Q; stability regions and attractor nature depend on it.
  • bc (model parameter combination) = benchmarks 1.75 and -3
    Combination of parameters of f(R)=(R^b-Λ)^c; varied freely to obtain stable attractors, but these values violate the viability constraint bc≈1 stated by the authors.
  • n (power-law exponent) = benchmarks -1 and 0.9
    Exponent in f(R)=R-γR^n; the stable interacting attractor uses n=-1, outside the stated viable range 0<n<1.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Linear stability analysis via Jacobian eigenvalues determines fixed point stability.
    Standard dynamical systems method used throughout Section III.
  • domain assumption The universe is described by a flat FLRW metric with perfect fluids; radiation decouples from matter and curvature.
    Assumed in Section II and used to derive the autonomous system.
  • domain assumption The interaction is described by the phenomenological source term Q in the continuity equations.
    Eqs. (15)-(16); Q is chosen, not derived from an action.
  • ad hoc to paper The phase-space is restricted to the bounded region 0 ≤ X1+X2+X3 ≤ 1, and radiation is set to zero for the 3D phase portraits.
    Section III.C, after Eq. (30); used to plot trajectories but excludes asymptotic or radiation-influenced dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper Benchmark parameters (bc=1.75, -3; n=-1) are treated as representative of viable models.
    Section III.C/D and Figs. 2-5; these values actually violate the viability constraints stated in Section II.E and Appendix A, so this assumption is false.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding curvature-matter interaction in viable $f(R)$ dark energy models: A dynamical analysis approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIGCNQGM

@misc{pith2026241220209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding curvature-matter interaction in viable $f(R)$ dark energy models: A dynamical analysis approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIGCNQGM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20209}
}
abstract

We employ a linear stability analysis approach to explore the dynamics of matter and curvature-driven dark energy interactions within the framework of two types of viable $f(R)$ gravity models. The interaction is modeled via a source term in the continuity equations, $\mathcal{Q} = \alpha \tilde{\rho}_{\rm m} \Big{(}\frac{3H^3}{\kappa^2 \rho_{\rm curv}} + \frac{\kappa^2 }{3H}\rho_{\rm curv} \Big{)}$. Our results reveal significant modifications to the fixed points and their stability criteria compared to traditional $f(R)$ gravity analyses without matter-curvature coupling. We identify constraints on model and coupling parameters necessary for critical point stability, illustrating how the interaction influences cosmic dynamics within specific parameter ranges. The findings are consistent with observed cosmic evolution, supporting stable late-time acceleration. Moreover, we highlight the coupling parameter's potential role in addressing the cosmic coincidence problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20209 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left Panel: Parameter space for generalised ΛCDM model at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left Panel: Phase-space trajectories for generalised ΛCDM model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Left Panel: Phase-space trajectories for generalised ΛCDM model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left Panel: Parameter space for power-law model at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left Panel: Phase-space trajectories for generalised ΛCDM model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution plot of the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Parametric plot of jerk parameter with respect to deceleration parameter. Left Panel: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. [Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999) doi:10.1086/307221 [astro-ph/9812133]

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    D. N. Spergel et al. [WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003), 175-194 doi:10.1086/377226 [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Hinshaw et al

    G. Hinshaw et al. [WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180 (2009), 225-245 doi:10.1088/0067- 0049/180/2/225 [arXiv:0803.0732 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    D. J. Eisenstein et al. [SDSS], Astrophys. J. 633 (2005), 560-574 doi:10.1086/466512 [arXiv:astro-ph/0501171 [astro-ph]] 41

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Sofue and V

    Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 39, 137 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Phys. Rept. 340, 291 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    Clowe, A

    D. Clowe, A. Gonzalez and M. Markevitch Astrophys. J. 604, 596 (2004)

    2004

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 571 (2014), A16 doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201321591 [arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Zlatev, L

    I. Zlatev, L. M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999), 896-899 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.896 [arXiv:astro-ph/9807002 [astro-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique 13 (2012), 566-665 doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.008 [arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]]

    J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique 13 (2012), 566-665 doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.008 [arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    R. D. Peccei, J. Sola and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987), 183-190 doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(87)91191-9

    1987 doi

  5. [13]

    L. H. Ford, Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987), 2339 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.35.2339

    1987 doi

  6. [14]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003), 559-606 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559 [arXiv:astro-ph/0207347 [astro-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nishioka and Y

    T. Nishioka and Y. Fujii, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992), 2140-2143 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2140

    1992 doi

  8. [16]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997), 4740-4743 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.4740 [arXiv:astro-ph/9707286 [astro-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998), 023503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.023503 [arXiv:astro-ph/9711102 [astro-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998), 1582-1585 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1582 [arXiv:astro-ph/9708069 [astro-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998), 3067-3070 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3067 [arXiv:astro-ph/9806099 [astro-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  12. [20]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998), 4686-4690 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4686 [arXiv:gr-qc/9711068 [gr-qc]]

    1998 arXiv

  13. [21]

    W. Fang, H. Tu, Y. Li, J. Huang and C. Shu, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.12, 123514 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.123514 [arXiv:1406.0128 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Armendariz-Picon, T

    C. Armendariz-Picon, T. Damour and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B 458 (1999), 209-218 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00603-6 [arXiv:hep-th/9904075 [hep-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001), 103510 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.103510 [arXiv:astro-ph/0006373 [astro-ph]] 42

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000), 4438-4441 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4438 [arXiv:astro-ph/0004134 [astro-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Armendariz-Picon and E

    C. Armendariz-Picon and E. A. Lim, JCAP 08 (2005), 007 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2005/08/007 [arXiv:astro-ph/0505207 [astro-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. Okabe and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 023511 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.023511 [arXiv:astro-ph/9912463 [astro-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Arkani-Hamed, H

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H. C. Cheng, M. A. Luty and S. Mukohyama, JHEP 05 (2004), 074 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/05/074 [arXiv:hep-th/0312099 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B 545 (2002), 23-29 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02589-3 [arXiv:astro-ph/9908168 [astro-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bandyopadhyay and A

    A. Bandyopadhyay and A. Chatterjee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34 (2019) no.27, 1950219 doi:10.1142/S0217732319502195 [arXiv:1709.04334 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bandyopadhyay and A

    A. Bandyopadhyay and A. Chatterjee, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134 (2019) no.4, 174 doi:10.1140/epjp/i2019-12587-0 [arXiv:1808.05259 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bandyopadhyay and A

    A. Bandyopadhyay and A. Chatterjee, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 (2020) no.2, 181 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00161-w [arXiv:1902.04315 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bandyopadhyay and A

    A. Bandyopadhyay and A. Chatterjee, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 21 (2021) no.1, 002 doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/1/2 [arXiv:1910.10423 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Chatterjee, B

    A. Chatterjee, B. Jana and A. Bandyopadhyay, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2022) no.11, 1271 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03476-y [arXiv:2207.00888 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Capozziello, Int

    S. Capozziello, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11 (2002), 483-492 doi:10.1142/S0218271802002025 [arXiv:gr-qc/0201033 [gr-qc]]

    2002 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. F. Cardone, S. Carloni and A. Troisi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 12 (2003), 1969-1982 doi:10.1142/S0218271803004407 [arXiv:astro-ph/0307018 [astro-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 123512 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.123512 [arXiv:hep-th/0307288 [hep-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. 505 (2011), 59-144 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001 [arXiv:1011.0544 [gr-qc]]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept. 692 (2017), 1-104 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001 [arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    B. Jana, A. Chatterjee, K. Ravi and A. Bandyopadhyay, Class. Quant. Grav. 40 (2023) no.19, 43 195023 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acf554 [arXiv:2303.06961 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    K. Ravi, A. Chatterjee, B. Jana and A. Bandyopadhyay, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527 (2024) no.3, 7626-7651 doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3705 [arXiv:2306.12585 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Chatterjee, A

    A. Chatterjee, A. Panda and A. Bandyopadhyay, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad9f18 [arXiv:2407.14791 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 104016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.104016 [arXiv:0704.1733 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Barroso Varela and O

    M. Barroso Varela and O. Bertolami, [arXiv:2412.09348 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Chatterjee, A

    A. Chatterjee, A. Bandyopadhyay and D. Majumdar, [arXiv:2402.18882 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Chatterjee, S

    A. Chatterjee, S. Hussain and K. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.10, 2021 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103505 [arXiv:2105.00361 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Chatterjee, A

    A. Chatterjee, A. Bandyopadhyay and B. Jana, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2022) no.4, 518 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-02747-y [arXiv:2108.12186 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hussain, A

    S. Hussain, A. Chatterjee and K. Bhattacharya, Universe 9 (2023) no.2, 65 doi:10.3390/universe9020065 [arXiv:2203.10607 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bhattacharya, A

    K. Bhattacharya, A. Chatterjee and S. Hussain, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.6, 488 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11666-w [arXiv:2206.12398 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hussain, A

    S. Hussain, A. Chatterjee and K. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.10, 103502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103502 [arXiv:2305.19062 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    De Felice and S

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

    2010 arXiv

  43. [51]

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

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Amendola, R

    L. Amendola, R. Gannouji, D. Polarski and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 083504 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.083504 [arXiv:gr-qc/0612180 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bertolami and M

    O. Bertolami and M. C. Sequeira, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 104010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.104010 [arXiv:0903.4540 [gr-qc]]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gunzig, V

    E. Gunzig, V. Faraoni, A. Figueiredo, T. M. Rocha and L. Brenig, Class. Quant. Grav. 17 (2000), 1783-1814 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/8/304

    2000 doi

  47. [55]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.10, 104049 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.104049 [arXiv:1711.02230 [gr-qc]]. 44

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. Lu, X. Zhao and G. Chee, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.6, 530 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 019-7038-3 [arXiv:1906.08920 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.2, 024013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024013 [arXiv:1806.07295 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bahamonde, C

    S. Bahamonde, C. G. B¨ ohmer, S. Carloni, E. J. Copeland, W. Fang and N. Tamanini, Phys. Rept. 775-777 (2018), 1-122 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.09.001 [arXiv:1712.03107 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bahamonde, M

    S. Bahamonde, M. Marciu and P. Rudra, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.8, 083511 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083511 [arXiv:1906.00027 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Leon and E

    G. Leon and E. N. Saridakis, JCAP 03 (2013), 025 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/03/025 [arXiv:1211.3088 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    C. Xu, E. N. Saridakis and G. Leon, JCAP 07 (2012), 005 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/005 [arXiv:1202.3781 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Leon and E

    G. Leon and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010), 1-10 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.08.016 [arXiv:0904.1577 [gr-qc]]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Leon and E

    G. Leon and E. N. Saridakis, JCAP 11 (2009), 006 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/11/006 [arXiv:0909.3571 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kofinas, G

    G. Kofinas, G. Leon and E. N. Saridakis, Class. Quant. Grav. 31 (2014), 175011 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/17/175011 [arXiv:1404.7100 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Basilakos, G

    S. Basilakos, G. Leon, G. Papagiannopoulos and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.4, 043524 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043524 [arXiv:1904.01563 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Samart, B

    D. Samart, B. Silasan and P. Channuie, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.6, 063517 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063517 [arXiv:2104.12687 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    R. An, X. Xu, B. Wang and Y. Gong, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.10, 103505 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.103505 [arXiv:1512.09281 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. Polarski and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007), 131302 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.131302 [arXiv:astro-ph/0603703 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. Polarski and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16 (2007), 1555-1561 doi:10.1142/S0218271807010936 [arXiv:astro-ph/0605384 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Lett. B 660 (2008), 125-132 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.12.041 [arXiv:0705.0396 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Chatterjee, Class

    A. Chatterjee, Class. Quant. Grav. 41 (2024) no.9, 095007 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad2f11 45 [arXiv:2312.07173 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Faraoni, [arXiv:0810.2602 [gr-qc]]

    V. Faraoni, [arXiv:0810.2602 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Tsujikawa, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8685-3 8 [arXiv:1004.1493 [astro-ph.CO]]

    S. Tsujikawa, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8685-3 8 [arXiv:1004.1493 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Li and J

    B. Li and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 084010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.084010 [arXiv:gr-qc/0701111 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004), [arXiv:astro-ph/0309300]

    2004 arXiv

  68. [76]

    P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A. C. Davis, and D. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 78, 104021 (2008), [arXiv:0806.3415 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  69. [77]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 86, 157 (2007), [arXiv:0706.2041 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  70. [78]

    F. C. Carvalho, E. M. Santos, J. S. Alcaniz and J. Santos, JCAP 09 (2008), 008 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/09/008 [arXiv:0804.2878 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Astrophys

    Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Capozziello, O

    S. Capozziello, O. Luongo, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 91, 124037 (2015), [arXiv:1503.02832 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Motohashi, A

    H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 121302 (2013), [arXiv:1203.6828 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    J. N. Dossett, B. Hu, and D. Parkinson, JCAP 03, 046 (2014), [arXiv:1401.3980 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 657 (2007), 238-245 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.10.027 [arXiv:0707.1941 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. L. Smith and A. L. Erickcek, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 124014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.124014 [arXiv:astro-ph/0611867 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and A. Troisi, Phys. Lett. B 639 (2006), 135-143 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.06.034 [arXiv:astro-ph/0604431 [astro-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

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