Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Correspondence between particle creation and dark components interaction in the context of $f(\mathcal{G})$ gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that particle creation in the late universe is described by $\dot{N}/N = 3 b^2 H/(1+\omega_m)$, which produces a phantom-crossing dark energy with $\Omega_{m0}=0.31$ and $\Omega_{de0}=0.69$.

desk verdict Fatal algebra error in Eqs. (29d)-(29e) invalidates the dark energy results; the paper is a parameter-tuned reconstruction, not a testable prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22699 v1 pith:IWH2FYSE submitted 2025-05-28 gr-qc hep-th

S. Ganjizadeh , Alireza Amani , M. A. Ramzanpour This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Es95.35.+d04.50.Kd
keywords equationofstateparameterf(G)gravityparticlecreationinteractingmodeldarkenergyGauss-Bonnetpower-lawcosmologyHubble
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 argues that the rate of particle creation in the late universe is fixed by the interaction between matter and dark energy: $\dot{N}/N = 3 b^2 H/(1+\omega_m)$. The identification follows from demanding that the thermodynamic continuity equation for an adiabatic universe that produces particles match the interacting continuity equation of $f(\mathcal{G})$ gravity. With the three-term form $f(\mathcal{G}) = C_1\mathcal{G} + C_2\sqrt{\alpha\mathcal{G}} + C_3\mathcal{G}^m$ and power-law expansion $a(t)\sim t^n$, the model produces a dark energy with positive density and negative pressure whose equation of state crosses from quintessence to phantom. The present density parameters come out as $\Omega_{m0}=0.31$ and $\Omega_{de0}=0.69$, consistent with Planck 2018. If correct, the model gives a single mechanism that connects particle creation, dark-sector interaction, and late-time acceleration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the correspondence identity $\dot{N}/N = 3b^2 H/(1+\omega_m)$, which equates the particle-creation rate from the thermodynamic continuity equation with the energy-transfer rate built into the $f(\mathcal{G})$ gravity two-fluid equations. This single identity converts the particle number $N$ into a redshift variable, lets every geometric quantity ($H$, $\dot{H}$, the Gauss-Bonnet term $\mathcal{G}$, and derivatives of $f(\mathcal{G})$) be expressed in terms of $N$, and thereby produces closed-form expressions for $\rho_{de}$, $p_{de}$, and $\omega_{de}$ through the $f(\mathcal{G})$ field equations.

What would settle it

Compute the predicted Hubble rate $H(z)$ from the model's $\rho_{de}$ and $p_{de}$ via the Friedmann equation and compare it against the full Hubble parameter data compilation; if the fit is notably worse than the simple power-law fit, the chosen parameters are ruled out. A second, independent falsifier is a direct measurement of the matter equation of state: any determination far from $\omega_m = 12$ would contradict the assumed input.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the particle production rate coincides with the interaction rate between matter and dark energy. Matching Eq. (17), the adiabatic continuity equation for a particle-creating universe, with Eq. (11a), the matter continuity equation of $f(\mathcal{G})$ gravity that includes $Q = 3b^2 H \rho_m$, gives $\dot{N}/N = 3b^2 H/(1+\omega_m)$. Consequently the particle number scales as $N \sim a^{3b^2/(1+\omega_m)}$ and the matter density as $\rho_m = \rho_{m0} a^{-3(1-b^2+\omega_m)}$. Inserting power-law expansion and the polynomial $f(\mathcal{G})$, the dark energy density and pressure become explicit functions of redshift; for the adopted parameters $\rho_{de}>0$ and $p_{de}<0$ throughout, and $\omega_{de}$ falls from the quintessence region (above $-1$) to the phantom region (below $-1$). The model also yields $\Omega_{m0}=0.31$ and $\Omega_{de0}=0.69$, which the authors take to be compatible with Planck 2018.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation depends on the specific phenomenological interaction $Q = 3b^2 H \rho_m$ with constant coupling $b$, and on the hand-picked values $b=4.5$, $\omega_m=12$, and $\rho_{m0}=4225$ that force the plotted behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dark energy equation of state crosses from quintessence to phantom, so the model describes the late-time accelerated expansion without a cosmological constant.
  • The present matter and dark energy densities are $\Omega_{m0}=0.31$ and $\Omega_{de0}=0.69$, matching the Planck 2018 energy budget.
  • The particle creation rate is set by the interaction coupling $b$ and the matter equation-of-state $\omega_m$, so measuring one of these quantities determines the other.
  • The matter energy density evolves as $\rho_m = \rho_{m0} a^{-3(1-b^2+\omega_m)}$, a direct prediction of the interaction cosmology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The correspondence suggests that the 'matter creation' seen in the thermodynamics and the 'interaction' appearing in the Friedmann equations are two labels for the same energy flow; if so, the particle number $N$ should be treated as a dynamical observable rather than a bookkeeping device.
  • The specific parameter values $b=4.5$, $\omega_m=12$, and $\rho_{m0}=4225$ are chosen to satisfy the sign conditions, so a natural test is to run the same derivation with other $f(\mathcal{G})$ forms or other $Q$ prescriptions to see whether the quintessence-to-phantom crossing is generic or an artifact of the tuning.
  • Because the identity relates $\dot{N}/N$ directly to $H$, precise measurements of the Hubble parameter as a function of redshift could be inverted to reconstruct the particle creation history, offering an observational route to test the model.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a correspondence between adiabatic particle creation and the interaction of dark matter and dark energy in f(G) gravity. It derives the particle production rate Ndot/N = 3b^2 H/(1 + omega_m), rewrites H, the Gauss-Bonnet term G, and the function f(G) in terms of the particle number N, and, using power-law cosmology with the specific choice f(G) = C1 G + C2 sqrt(alpha G) + C3 G^m, obtains expressions for the dark-energy density and pressure. The authors then plot rho_de, p_de, and omega_de, report a quintessence-to-phantom crossing, and quote Omega_m0 = 0.31 and Omega_de0 = 0.69 as consistent with Planck 2018. The abstract also claims a fit to Hubble parameter data.

Significance. If the construction were correct, the paper would offer a unified picture in which particle creation, an interaction between the dark components, and f(G) gravity jointly produce late-time acceleration and a phantom-crossing equation of state. The formal setup up to Eq. (19) is straightforward, and the authors are transparent about their parameter choices. However, the central equations (29d) and (29e) contain a derivative error that invalidates the computed p_de and hence the phantom crossing and the quoted Omega_de0. In addition, the reported Omega_m0 agreement with Planck is enforced by hand through the choice of rho_m0. Because the main quantitative claims rest on an algebraic mistake and on parameter tuning rather than on a predictive fit, the significance of the paper as it stands is low.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (29d)-(29e)] The quantities fGN and fGNN are not the derivatives of fG that the notation claims. From Eq. (26c), G is proportional to N^{-4(1+omega_m)/(3 n b^2)}, and Eq. (29d) is exactly G_N; it contains no fGG and no dependence on C2, C3, or m. For the adopted m=2, fG includes the term 2 C3 G, so fGN must include 2 C3 G_N; Eq. (29d) cannot be correct. Equation (29e) is likewise the second N-derivative of G, not of fG. Because Eqs. (26e)-(26f) and hence pde in Eq. (27b) are built on fGN and fGNN, the plotted pde, the phantom-crossing behavior in Fig. 2, and the quoted Omega_de0 are consequences of a miscomputed intermediate quantity rather than of the specified f(G) model. In addition, Eq. (29c) has the wrong sign for the C3 term: differentiating C3 G^m gives +C3 m(m-1) G^{m-2}, not +C3 m(1-m) G^{m-2}.
  2. [Sec. IV, parameter list and Table I] The reported present density parameters are not predictions. Equation (14) gives Omega_m0 = kappa^2 rho_m0/(3 H0^2); with H0 fixed at 67.4, choosing rho_m0 = 4225 fixes Omega_m0, and Omega_de0 = 1 - Omega_m0 is then automatic. The parameter set C1 = C2 = 2, C3 = -0.8, m = 2, alpha = -1, b = 4.5, omega_m = 12 is selected, in the authors' own words, to enforce rho_de > 0 and pde < 0. Agreement with the Planck value Omega_m0 = 0.315 +/- 0.007 is therefore obtained by construction, not by fitting or prediction.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. IV, Eq. (24c)] The abstract claims that the model is fitted to Hubble data, but no fit of the full model is performed. The only cited fit is H(z) = H0(1+z)^{1/n} with n = 0.956, taken from Refs. [63-68]; this expression is independent of the particle-creation and f(G) content. The f(G) parameters are not constrained by data, and no likelihood, chi-square, or error bars for the derived Omega values are given. The claimed observational agreement therefore reduces to the known power-law fit plus hand-picked parameters, not to a test of the proposed correspondence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, after Eq. (19)] The text says the production rate is positive 'when the energy flows from matter to dark energy', but Eqs. (11) and the preceding paragraph state that positive Q corresponds to transfer from dark energy to dark matter; please reconcile this wording.
  2. [Sec. I and Sec. IV] The outline promises a stability analysis, and Sec. IV says 'we explore stability analysis,' but no stability analysis appears in the paper.
  3. [Sec. IV and Sec. V] The value of n is quoted as 0.956 in Sec. IV and as 0.965 in the conclusion; one of these is a typo.
  4. [Sec. IV, parameter list] The unit of rho_m0 = 4225 is not specified; without units, the values in Fig. 1 and Table I are not reproducible.
  5. [Title and Sec. V] There are typographical errors, including 'compone nts' in the title and 'atter' in Sec. V, which should be corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Planck density parameters are fixed by the hand-picked ρm0, and the phantom-crossing pressure is built from a mislabeled derivative (dG/dN presented as dfG/dN) rather than from the stated f(G).

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, parameter list and density-parameter subsection, around Eqs. (14), (31) and Table I]
    "Now, to describe the model, we selectively test the current model with some free parameters, which are chosen here as C1 = C2 = 2, C3 = −0.8, m = 2, α = −1, b = 4.5, ω m = 12, and ρm0 = 4225. It should be noted that the corresponding choice is so sensitive and plays an important role in the evolution of the universe."

    From Eq. (14), Ωm0 = κ²ρm0/(3H0²), and Eq. (31) reduces to this same algebraic identity at z = 0 (N = 1). The value ρm0 = 4225 was selected as a free parameter before the paper reports Ωm0 = 0.31 and declares the result compatible with Planck. Thus the Planck agreement is not an output of the cosmology; it is inserted by the choice of ρm0 and then read back as a confirmed density parameter.

  2. renaming known result [Sec. IV, after Eq. (26f) and Eqs. (29d)-(29e)]
    "where fGN = d fG/dN and fGN N = d fGN /dN . ... fGN = 32η(1+ω m)/n2b2 N^{−4(1+ω m)/(3nb2)−1}, (29d)"

    Differentiating Eq. (26c), G = −24(1−n)H0^4/n N^{−4(1+ωm)/(3nb²)}, with respect to N produces exactly Eq. (29d), with no fGG factor and no dependence on C2, C3, m, or α. For the stated f(G), dfG/dN = fGG dG/dN, so Eq. (29d) is not dfG/dN but merely dG/dN. Since Eq. (27b) constructs pde from fGN and fGNN, the plotted pressure, the quintessence-to-phantom crossing, and the inferred Ωde0 are consequences of a power-law kinematic quantity renamed as an f(G) derivative, not of the stated f(G) dynamics.

full rationale

The headline cosmological output, Ωm0 = 0.31, is not an independent prediction: it is the definition Ωm0 = κ²ρm0/(3H0²) evaluated with the hand-picked ρm0 = 4225, so the claimed Planck compatibility is forced by construction. That alone warrants a partial-circularity score in the 6 range. A second defect compounds the problem and is visible inside the paper's own equations: Eq. (29d) is labeled dfG/dN, but it is exactly the N-derivative of G from Eq. (26c), independent of the f(G) coefficients. Consequently the phantom-crossing result is not a genuine consequence of the stated f(G) model. I did not score the self-citations [67,68] heavily: the power-law fit n is also attributed to external references [63–66], and n is not the contested result. The main circularity is the parameter-selected Planck density parameter presented as a derived compatibility.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's central outputs are controlled by nine hand-picked or imported parameters; the specific f(G) form and the interaction Q are assumed rather than derived. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • b (interaction coupling) = 4.5
    Chosen ad hoc in Sec. IV to satisfy rho_de > 0 and p_de < 0; with b = 4.5, b^2 = 20.25, a very strong interaction.
  • omega_m (matter equation of state) = 12
    Hand-picked value, far from dust (0) or radiation (1/3); controls N growth and all z-dependence through 1 + omega_m.
  • C1 = 2
    f(G) polynomial coefficient selected ad hoc, no observational constraint.
  • C2 = 2
    f(G) polynomial coefficient selected ad hoc; affects the sqrt(G) term.
  • C3 = -0.8
    f(G) polynomial coefficient selected ad hoc to make pressure negative.
  • m = 2
    Exponent in C3 G^m chosen ad hoc; integer value simplifies algebra.
  • alpha = -1
    Parameter inside sqrt(alpha G); negative value chosen to make alpha G positive for late-time G < 0.
  • rho_m0 (present matter density) = 4225
    Tuned so that Eq. (31) returns Omega_m0 = 0.31; agreement with Planck is enforced by this choice.
  • n (power-law exponent) = 0.956
    Taken from Refs. [67,68], not re-fit here; determines H(z) and all scaling exponents.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric (3)
    Background geometry assumed throughout; no spatial curvature.
  • domain assumption Universe is an adiabatic open system with dE = dQ - p dV + (h/n) d(nV), and Q = 0
    Used to derive Eq. (17); if heat exchange or non-standard particle creation entropy exists, the modified continuity equation changes.
  • domain assumption Interaction term Q = 3 b^2 H rho_m with constant b
    Phenomenological interaction form assumed in Eq. (11); the entire Ndot/N result (19) depends on this form.
  • domain assumption Power-law scale factor a(t) = a0 (t/t0)^n
    Chosen in Eq. (23) for solvability; H(z) is exactly H0 (1+z)^(1/n).
  • ad hoc to paper Specific f(G) = C1 G + C2 sqrt(alpha G) + C3 G^m
    The specific function with hand-picked coefficients is introduced in Eq. (28) solely to make Friedmann equations solvable.
  • domain assumption Matter component obeys barotropic EoS p_m = omega_m rho_m with constant omega_m
    Used in deriving Eq. (12); physically questionable for omega_m = 12 but mathematically required.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correspondence between particle creation and dark components interaction in the context of $f(\mathcal{G})$ gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IWH2FYSE

@misc{pith2026250522699,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correspondence between particle creation and dark components interaction in the context of $f(\mathcalG)$ gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IWH2FYSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22699}
}
abstract

In this paper, we explore the particle creation scenario in the context of $f(\mathcal{G})$ gravity in flat-FLRW metric. For this purpose, from the perspective of thermodynamics and considering an adiabatic universe, we obtain the modified continuity equation in terms of the dynamic number of particles $N$. On the other hand, we obtain Friedmann's equations in $f(\mathcal{G})$ gravity and then write down the continuity equations of the components of matter and dark energy, taking into account the interaction between them. In what follows, by establishing a correspondence between the particle production scenario and $f(\mathcal{G})$ gravity, we obtain the cosmological parameters in terms of $N$. After that, we find cosmological solutions using power-law cosmology and compare them with Hubble parameter data. Finally, we fit the current model with Hubble data and plot the best fit in terms of the redshift parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22699 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The energy density (line) and the pressure (point) of dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The EoS parameter of dark energy in terms of redshift par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Weinberg, ”The cosmological constant problem.” Reviews of mo dern physics 61, no

    S. Weinberg, ”The cosmological constant problem.” Reviews of mo dern physics 61, no. 1 (1989): 1

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    R. R. Caldwell, ”A phantom menace? Cosmological consequences o f a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state.” Physics Letters B, 545(1):23 , 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    A. R. Amani, ”Stability of Quintom Model of Dark Energy in ( ω , ω ′) Phase Plane.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 50(10):3078, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Sadeghi, and A

    J. Sadeghi, and A. R. Amani, ”The solution of tachyon inflation in cu rved universe.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 48(1):14, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    R. A. Battye and F. Pace, ”Approximation of the potential in sca lar field dark energy models.” Physical Review D 94, no. 6 (2016): 063513

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    M. Li, T. Qiu, Y. Cai and X. Zhang, ”On dark energy models of single scalar field.” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012, no. 04 (2012): 003

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    A. R. Amani and S. L. Dehneshin, ”Interacting F (R, T ) gravity with modified Chaplygin gas.” Canadian Journal of Physics 93.12 (2015): 1453-1459

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Faraoni, ”Turnaround radius in modified gravity.” Physics of th e Dark Universe 11 (2016): 11-15

    V. Faraoni, ”Turnaround radius in modified gravity.” Physics of th e Dark Universe 11 (2016): 11-15

    work page 2016

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Wei, ”Entropy-corrected holographic dark energy.” Commun ications in Theoretical Physics, 52(4):743, 2009

    H. Wei, ”Entropy-corrected holographic dark energy.” Commun ications in Theoretical Physics, 52(4):743, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    A. R. Amani, and A. Samiee-Nouri, ”Logarithmic entropy correc ted holographic dark energy with F (R, T ) gravity.” Communications in Theoretical Physics, 64(4):485, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, ”Unifying inflation with Λ CDM epoch in modified f (R) gravity consistent with Solar System tests.” Physics Letters B 657.4 (2007): 238-245

    2007

  4. [12]

    Li, ”A model of holographic dark energy.” Physics Letters B 6 03, no

    M. Li, ”A model of holographic dark energy.” Physics Letters B 6 03, no. 1 (2004): 1-5

    2004

  5. [13]

    Del Campo, J

    S. Del Campo, J. C. Fabris, R. Herrera and W. Zimdahl, ”Hologra phic dark-energy models.” Physical Review D 83, no. 12 (2011): 123006

    2011

  6. [14]

    Y. Hu, M. Li, N. Li and Z. Zhang, ”Holographic dark energy with c osmological constant.” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015, no. 08 (2015): 012. 14

    2015

  7. [15]

    A. R. Amani, C. Escamilla-Rivera, and H. R. Faghani, ”Interactin g closed string tachyon with modified Chaplygin gas and its stability,” Phys. Rev. D 88:124008, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Morais, M

    J. Morais, M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, K. Sravan Kumar, J. Marto and Y. Tavakoli, ”Interacting 3-form dark energy models: Distinguishing interactions and avoiding the Little Siblin g of the Big Rip.” Physics of the Dark Universe 15 (2017): 7-30

    2017

  9. [17]

    Zhang, ”Self-interacting dark matter without direct detec tion constraints.” Physics of the Dark Universe 15 (2017) 82

    Y. Zhang, ”Self-interacting dark matter without direct detec tion constraints.” Physics of the Dark Universe 15 (2017) 82

    2017

  10. [18]

    Singh, R

    T. Singh, R. Chaubey and A. Singh, ”Bouncing cosmologies in Bran s–Dicke theory.” Canadian Journal of Physics 94, no. 7 (2016): 623-627

    2016

  11. [19]

    S. D. Sadatian, and S. M. R. Hosseini, ”Bouncing universe scena rio in f (Q, T ) gravity model.” Inter- national Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 21, no. 9 (2024): 2450168-688

    2024

  12. [20]

    G. C. Assolohou, C. A ¨ ınamon, C. D. Akowanou, M. G. Ganiou, an d M. J. S. Houndjo, ”Generat- ing f (R, G) gravity from type IV singular bouncing cosmology.” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 21, no. 7 (2024): 2450140-144

    2024

  13. [21]

    Malik, Adnan, Z

    A. Malik, Adnan, Z. Asghar, A. H. Alkhaldi, and M. Farasat Shamir , ”Bouncing cosmology in Chern- Simons f (R) gravity.” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 21, no. 4 (2024): 2450088-321

    2024

  14. [22]

    Battista, ”Nonsingular bouncing cosmology in general relativ ity: physical analysis of the spacetime defect.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, no

    E. Battista, ”Nonsingular bouncing cosmology in general relativ ity: physical analysis of the spacetime defect.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, no. 19 (2021): 195007

    2021

  15. [23]

    Sahni, and Y

    V. Sahni, and Y. Shtanov, ”Braneworld models of dark energy.” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2003(11):014, 2003

    2003

  16. [24]

    M. R. Setare, J. Sadeghi, and A. R. Amani, ”Shape invariance me thod for quintom model in the bent brane background.” Physics Letters B, 660(4):299, 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    G. P. de Brito, J. M. Hoff da Silva, P. Michel LT da Silva, and A. de So uza Dutra, ”Smooth braneworld models possibility in modified gravities.” International Journal of Mod ern Physics D, 24, no. 11 (2015): 1550089

    2015

  18. [26]

    A. R. Amani and H. Farahani, ”Phantom accretion onto the Sch warzschild anti de-Sitter black hole.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 51, no. 5 (2012): 1498-1502

    2012

  19. [27]

    A. R. Amani and H. Farahani, ”Phantom Accretion onto the Sch warzschild AdS Black Hole with Topological Defect.” International Journal of Theoretical Phys ics 51, no. 9 (2012): 2943-2949

    2012

  20. [28]

    S. R. Bhoyar, V. R. Chirde and S. H. Shekh, ”Stability of Acceler ating Universe with Linear Equation of State in f (T ) Gravity Using Hybrid Expansion Law.” Astrophysics 60, no. 2 (2017 ): 259-272

    2017

  21. [29]

    V. R. Chirde and S. H. Shekh, ”Transition between general rela tivity and quantum gravity using quark and strange quark matter with some kinematical test.” Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 39, no. 5 (2018): 56

    2018

  22. [30]

    J. K. Singh, K. Bamba, R. Nagpal and S. K. J. Pacif, ”Bouncing c osmology in f (R, T ) gravity.” Physical Review D 97, no. 12 (2018): 123536. 15

    2018

  23. [31]

    Nagpal, S

    R. Nagpal, S. K. J. Pacif, J. K. Singh, Kazuharu Bamba and A. Be esham, ”Analysis with observational constraints in Λ-cosmology in f (R, T ) gravity.” The European Physical Journal C 78, no. 11 (2018): 946

    2018

  24. [32]

    H. Wei, R. G. Cai, ”Cosmological constraints on new agegraphic d ark energy.” Phys. Lett. B 663, 1 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Wei, R.G

    H. Wei, R.G. Cai, ”Statefinder diagnostic and ω − ω ′ analysis for the agegraphic dark energy models without and with interaction.” Phys. Lett. B 665, 1 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, and et al, ”Observational evidence from supernovae for an accele rating universe and a cosmological constant.” The Astronomical Journal 116, no. 3 (1998): 1009

    1998

  27. [35]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugen t, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, and et al, ”Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae.” T he Astrophysical Journal 517, no. 2 (1999): 565

    1999

  28. [36]

    C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M . Limon, S. S. Meyer et al, ”First- Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)* Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results.” The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148, no. 1 (2003): 1

    2003

  29. [37]

    Tegmark, M

    M. Tegmark, M. A. Strauss, M. R. Blanton, K. Abazajian, S. Do delson, H. Sandvik, X. Wang et al, ”Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP.” Physical Review D 6 9, no. 10 (2004): 103501

    2004

  30. [38]

    Parker, ”Particle creation in expanding universes.” Physical Review Letters 21, no

    L. Parker, ”Particle creation in expanding universes.” Physical Review Letters 21, no. 8 (1968): 562

    1968

  31. [39]

    Hawking, ”Particle creation by black holes.” Commun

    S.W. Hawking, ”Particle creation by black holes.” Commun. Math. P hys. 43(1975)199

    1975

  32. [40]

    Y. B. ZelDovich, and A. A. Starobinskii, ”Particle production and vacuum polarization in an anisotropic gravitational field.” Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretic al Physics 34 (1972): 1159

    1972

  33. [41]

    Prigogine, ”Thermodynamics and cosmology.” International journal of theoretical physics 28, no

    I. Prigogine, ”Thermodynamics and cosmology.” International journal of theoretical physics 28, no. 9 (1989): 927-933

    1989

  34. [42]

    Parker, ”Particle creation and particle number in an expandin g universe.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 45, no

    L. Parker, ”Particle creation and particle number in an expandin g universe.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 45, no. 37 (2012): 374023

    2012

  35. [43]

    V. H. Cardenas, ”Dark energy, matter creation and curvatu re.” The European Physical Journal C 72, no. 9 (2012): 1-6

    2012

  36. [44]

    J. C. Fabris, J. A. de Freitas Pacheco, and O. F. Piattella, ”Is t he continuous matter creation cosmology an alternative to Λ CDM ?.” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014, no. 06 (2 014): 038

    2014

  37. [45]

    S. K. Biswas, W. Khyllep, J. Dutta, and S. Chakraborty, ”Dyna mical analysis of an interacting dark energy model in the framework of a particle creation mechanism.” Ph ysical Review D 95, no. 10 (2017): 103009

    2017

  38. [46]

    Rashidi, F

    R. Rashidi, F. Ahmadi, and M. R. Setare, ”Particle creation in the framework of f (G) gravity.” Astro- physics and Space Science 363, no. 9 (2018): 196

    2018

  39. [47]

    Mandal, and P

    S. Mandal, and P. K. Sahoo, ”On the temporal evolution of part icle production in f (T ) gravity.” Modern Physics Letters A 35, no. 40 (2020): 2050328. 16

    2020

  40. [48]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and M. Sasaki. ”Gauss-Bonnet dark e nergy.” Physical Review D 71, no. 12 (2005): 123509

    2005

  41. [49]

    Nojiri, and S

    S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov. ”Modified Gauss–Bonnet theory a s gravitational alternative for dark energy.” Physics Letters B 631, no. 1-2 (2005): 1-6

    2005

  42. [50]

    Guo, Zong-Kuan, and D. J. Schwarz. ”Power spectra from an inflaton coupled to the Gauss-Bonnet term.” Physical Review D 80, no. 6 (2009): 063523

    2009

  43. [51]

    Bamba, Kazuharu, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, and Sergio Ze rbini, ”Finite-time future singularities in modified Gauss–Bonnet and F (R, G ) gravity and singularity avoidance.” The European Physical Journal C 67, no. 1 (2010): 295-310

    2010

  44. [52]

    N. M. Garcia, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, and J. P. Mimoso, ”Energ y conditions in modified Gauss-Bonnet gravity.” Physical Review D 83, no. 10 (2011): 104032

    2011

  45. [53]

    Bamba, M

    K. Bamba, M. Ilyas, M. Z. Bhatti, and Z. Yousaf, ”Energy cond itions in modified f (G) gravity.” General Relativity and Gravitation 49, no. 8 (2017): 1-17

    2017

  46. [54]

    Carloni, and J

    S. Carloni, and J. P. Mimoso, ”Phase space of modified Gauss–Bo nnet gravity.” The European Physical Journal C 77, no. 8 (2017): 1-10

    2017

  47. [55]

    Glavan, and C

    D. Glavan, and C. Lin, ”Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity in four- dimensional spacetime.” Physical review letters 124, no. 8 (2020): 081301

    2020

  48. [56]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, F. P. Fronimos, and K. V. Faso ulakos, ”Unification of a bounce with a viable dark energy era in Gauss-Bonnet gravity.” Physical Review D 102, no. 10 (2020): 104042

    2020

  49. [57]

    Chern, ”A simple intrinsic proof of the Gauss-Bonnet formula for closed Riemannian manifolds.” Annals of mathematics Vol

    S. Chern, ”A simple intrinsic proof of the Gauss-Bonnet formula for closed Riemannian manifolds.” Annals of mathematics Vol. 45, No. 4 (1944): 747-752

    1944

  50. [58]

    B. Li, J. D. Barrow, and D. F. Mota, ”Cosmology of modified Gaus s-Bonnet gravity.” Physical Review D 76, no. 4 (2007): 044027

    2007

  51. [59]

    Pav´ on, and B

    D. Pav´ on, and B. Wang, ”Le Chˆ atelier–Braun principle in cosmo logical physics.” General Relativity and Gravitation 41, no. 1 (2009): 1-5

    2009

  52. [60]

    Zimdahl, D

    W. Zimdahl, D. Pav´ on, and L. P. Chimento, ”Interacting quinte ssence.” Physics Letters B 521, no. 3-4 (2001): 133-138

    2001

  53. [61]

    Dutta, W

    J. Dutta, W. Khyllep, and N. Tamanini, ”Dark energy with a gradie nt coupling to the dark matter fluid: cosmological dynamics and structure formation.” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018, no. 01 (2018): 038

    2018

  54. [62]

    Aghanim and et al, ”Planck 2018 results-VI

    N. Aghanim and et al, ”Planck 2018 results-VI. Cosmological par ameters.” Astronomy and Astro- physics, 641 (2020): A6

    2020

  55. [63]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti and et al, ”A 6% measureme nt of the Hubble parameter at z ∼ 0. 45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration.” Journal o f Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016, no. 05 (2016): 014

    2016

  56. [64]

    Farooq, F

    O. Farooq, F. R. Madiyar, S. Crandall and B. Ratra, ”Hubble Pa rameter Measurement Constraints on the Redshift of the Deceleration–acceleration Transition, Dynamic al Dark Energy, and Space Curva- 17 ture.” The Astrophysical Journal, 835, no. 1 (2017): 26

    2017

  57. [65]

    S. K. J. Pacif, R. Myrzakulov and S. Myrzakul, ”Reconstructio n of cosmic history from a simple parametrization of H.” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 1 4, no. 07 (2017): 1750111

    2017

  58. [66]

    Magana, M

    J. Magana, M. H. Amante, M. A. Garcia-Aspeitia and V. Motta, ” The Cardassian expansion revisited: constraints from updated Hubble parameter measurements and t ype Ia supernova data.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 476, no. 1 (2018): 103 6-1049

    2018

  59. [67]

    Pourbagher and A

    A. Pourbagher and A. Amani, Thermodynamics of the viscous f (T, B ) gravity in the new agegraphic dark energy model. Modern Physics Letters A 35, no. 20 (2020): 2 050166

    2020

  60. [68]

    Mahichi, A

    E. Mahichi, A. Amani, and M. A. Ramzanpour, ”Extended Bose-E instein condensate dark matter in viscous Gauss-Bonnet gravity.” Modern Physics Letters A 37, no. 35n36 (2022): 2250228

    2022

  61. [69]

    Goheer, R

    N. Goheer, R. Goswami, P. K. S. Dunsby, and K. Ananda, ”Coex istence of matter dominated and accelerating solutions in f (G) gravity.” Physical Review D 79, no. 12 (2009): 121301

    2009

  62. [70]

    A. R. Rastkar, M. R. Setare, and F. Darabi, ”Phantom phase p ower-law solution in f (G) gravity.” Astrophysics and Space Science 337 (2012): 487-491

    2012

  63. [71]

    Munyeshyaka, A

    A. Munyeshyaka, A. Ayirwanda, F. Twagirayezu, B. Murorunk were, and J. Ntahompagaze, ”Multifluid cosmology in f (G) gravity.” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 20, no. 02 (2023): 2350031

    2023

  64. [72]

    D. M. Scolnic, D. O. Jones, A. Rest, Y. C. Pan, R. Chornock, R. J. Foley, M. E. Huber et al, ”The complete light-curve sample of spectroscopically confirmed SNe Ia f rom Pan-STARRS1 and cosmological constraints from the combined pantheon sample.” The Astrophysic al Journal 859,...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.