Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

The Palatini formalism of the $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)$ theory of gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the first Palatini formulation of f(R,L_m,T) gravity, with field equations that differ from the metric-formalism version.

desk verdict First Palatini derivation for f(R,L_m,T) with a correct core, but the Newtonian limit is internally inconsistent and the Friedmann equations are unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15615 v1 pith:QAZFKYN6 submitted 2024-11-23 gr-qc

J.G. de Lima Júnior , P.H.R.S. Moraes , E. Brito , J.A.S. Fortunato This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.50.Kd
keywords f(RL_mT)gravityPalatiniformalismmodifiedauxiliarymetricNewtonianlimitFriedmannequationsmatter-geometrycoupling
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 sets out to build the Palatini version of $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m,T)$ gravity, a theory in which the gravitational action depends on curvature, the matter Lagrangian, and the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. In the Palatini approach the metric and the connection are varied independently, and the paper's central result is the resulting field equations, Eq. (18), together with their Newtonian and cosmological limits. A sympathetic reader should care because the Palatini equations differ from the metric-formalism ones in concrete, potentially observable ways: the connection becomes tied to an auxiliary metric built from $f_R$, and the weak-field and Friedmann equations carry new matter-dependent couplings. If the derivation holds, the theory now has two competing formulations whose predictions can be tested against gravitational and cosmological data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the auxiliary metric $h_{\mu\nu}=f_R g_{\mu\nu}$. It converts the connection variation equation $\nabla_\lambda(\sqrt{-g}f_R g^{\mu\nu})=0$ into a compatibility condition for $h$, so the independent connection is forced to be the unique torsion-free connection compatible with $h$; this is a constraint, not a dynamical equation, so the connection introduces no new propagating degrees of freedom. The rest of the derivation is a conformal transformation of the Ricci tensor and scalar from the $h$-connection to the $g$-connection, Eqs. (15)-(16), which yields the Einstein-tensor relation (17) and the complete field equations (18). In the Newtonian limit, the perfect-fluid form of $T_{\mu\nu}$ and the identification $\mathcal{L}_m=p$ produce the simplification $\Theta_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}-2T_{\mu\nu}$, leading to Poisson's equation (31).

What would settle it

Derive the Newtonian limit again with $\mathcal{L}_m=-\rho$ instead of $p$ and compare the resulting Poisson equation with Eq. (31); if the two differ, the theory's weak-field prediction is not unique and Eq. (31) cannot be tested without an additional rule for $\mathcal{L}_m$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that treating $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\Gamma^\alpha_{\mu\nu}$ as independent in the action $S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}(f(R,\mathcal{L}_m,T)/16\pi+\mathcal{L}_m)$ yields a consistent Palatini theory whose metric field equations are Eq. (6), whose trace is Eq. (9), and whose connection equation is $\nabla_\lambda(\sqrt{-g}f_R g^{\mu\nu})=0$. That connection equation is solved by an auxiliary metric $h_{\mu\nu}=f_R g_{\mu\nu}$, so the independent connection is the unique torsion-free connection compatible with $h$, exactly as in Palatini $f(R)$ and $f(R,T)$; the $\mathcal{L}_m$ and $T$ dependence changes only the matter side of the metric equations. Using the conformal transformation of the Ricci tensor and scalar, the paper assembles the complete Einstein tensor, Eq. (18). With a nearly flat metric and $f_R\approx1$, and for a perfect fluid with $\mathcal{L}_m=p$, it finds the Poisson equation, Eq. (31); with an FLRW metric it finds the modified Friedmann equations, Eqs. (33)-(36). The paper presents these results as the first Palatini formulation of $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m,T)$ gravity and as a starting point for observational tests.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's weak-field and cosmological equations assume a perfect fluid with $\mathcal{L}_m=p$; because the $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m,T)$ theory does not fix $\mathcal{L}_m$ uniquely, a different choice would change the predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Palatini field equations are second order in the metric, so this formulation avoids the higher-derivative ghost instabilities that threaten the metric version.
  • The connection equation is the same constraint as in Palatini $f(R)$ and $f(R,T)$: the independent connection is fixed by $h_{\mu\nu}=f_R g_{\mu\nu}$ and introduces no new propagating degrees of freedom.
  • In the Newtonian limit the theory reduces to a modified Poisson equation, Eq. (31), whose source term depends on $f$, $f_{\mathcal{L}}$, and $f_T$ evaluated on the matter density, so weak-field observations can in principle distinguish this formalism from general relativity and from the metric version.
  • The Friedmann-like equations, Eqs. (33)-(36), contain the derivatives $f_R$, $f_{\mathcal{L}}$, $f_T$ and the time derivatives $\dot{f}_R$ and $\ddot f$; substituting a concrete $f$ and fitting to cosmological data will test whether the Palatini version can explain cosmic acceleration without a cosmological constant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication beyond the paper is that a different choice of matter Lagrangian, $\mathcal{L}_m=-\rho$ instead of $p$, would alter $\Theta_{\mu\nu}$ and the effective coupling in Eq. (31), so the weak-field predictions are not unique until the theory fixes $\mathcal{L}_m$ by an independent principle.
  • A further extension would be to choose explicit $f$ forms, integrate the modified Friedmann equations, and fit the resulting expansion history to supernova and baryon acoustic oscillation data against the metric-formalism fits; the paper stops at the equation level.
  • The paper also leaves open what happens beyond the linear-order assumption $f_R\approx1$; computing post-Newtonian corrections would show whether Solar System tests can actually separate the two formalisms.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Palatini-formalism version of the f(R, L_m, T) gravity theory proposed in Ref. [22]. Starting from the action (1), the authors vary independently with respect to the metric and the connection, obtaining the field equations (6), the connection equation (11), and the combined Einstein-tensor form (18). They then specialize to the Newtonian limit, obtaining a Poisson equation (31), and to a FLRW background, obtaining Friedmann-like equations (33)-(36). The abstract advertises these results as a first step toward observational discrimination between metric and Palatini formulations.

Significance. If the derivation were fully correct, the paper would provide a useful reference for the Palatini version of a recently proposed modified-gravity theory. The variational core is credible: the connection variation follows the standard Palatini f(R) route, the auxiliary metric construction in Eqs. (11)-(14) is standard, and the trace manipulation leading to Eq. (10) can be checked. However, the two advertised applications--the Newtonian limit and the Friedmann equations--contain algebraic inconsistencies that currently undermine the observational-signature claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (25)-(31)] Equation (31) does not follow from Eq. (25). Evaluating Eq. (25) for the static 00 component with the paper's choices L_m=p, Θ_00=g_00-2T_00, g_00≈η_00=-1, and the standard perfect-fluid value T_00=ρ (from Eq. (26) with u_0=-1) gives -1/2 ∇² γ̃_00 = ρ(κ² + f_L/2 + f_T) - f/2, not ρ(κ² - f_T + f_L) - f/2. The two expressions differ in the sign of the f_T term and in the coefficient of f_L, so no convention choice can reconcile them. Equation (30) already shows the same problem: its right-hand side for the 00 component has the opposite overall sign from the direct evaluation of Eq. (25). Repeating the calculation with T_00=-ρ also fails to reproduce Eq. (31). The advertised Poisson equation and the observational-signature claim built on it are therefore unsupported.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (27)] The perfect-fluid statement T_μν=diag(-ρ,p,p,p) in Eq. (27) contradicts Eq. (26) in the comoving frame with u_μ=(-1,0,0,0) and a mostly-plus metric, which gives T_00=ρ. This sign error is likely the source of the discrepant terms in Eq. (30) and must be corrected before the Newtonian limit can be assessed.
  3. [Section 5, Eqs. (33)-(36)] The Friedmann equations are presented without derivation and contain notation that prevents verification: Eq. (35) has '2¨f' where the context requires '2¨f_R', and L_M in Eqs. (33)-(36) is not defined in terms of the action's L_m. More seriously, eliminating 3H² between Eq. (33) and Eq. (35) does not produce Eq. (36). Assuming the dotted f in Eq. (35) means f_R, the combination gives a bracket term with -f_m(3ρ-9p+8L_M)/2 and -5H f_R_dot, whereas Eq. (36) contains -f_m(4L_M + 3(ρ+p)/2) and +H f_R_dot, and the sign of the ¨f term is also different. As written, the cosmological equations are mutually inconsistent.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (29)] The choice L_m=p and the resulting Θ_μν=g_μν-2T_μν are not justified. In f(R,L_m,T) theories the equivalence between L_m=p and L_m=-ρ that holds for minimally coupled perfect fluids is broken by the f_Lm and f_T terms; a different matter Lagrangian changes Θ_μν and hence the weak-field coupling. The paper should either justify this choice physically or demonstrate that the Newtonian-limit results are independent of it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Notation] The symbol f_L is used in Eqs. (25), (30), and (31) without definition; it should be f_Lm or f_L should be defined explicitly.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (22)] The scalar W defined in Eq. (22) becomes lowercase w in Eqs. (25) and (30); the notation should be unified.
  3. [References] Reference [47] contains a corrupted author name ('M. Szyd/suppress lowski'), presumably 'M. Szydlowski'.
  4. [Section 5, Eq. (33)] The symbol L_M in Eq. (33) should be L_m to match the action (1).
  5. [Section 3, introductory paragraph] The claim that the Palatini formalism avoids instabilities is too categorical; Palatini f(R) theories have their own known viability issues, although this does not affect the present derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Palatini field equations are derived from the action (1) with independent metric and connection variations; the connection equation is benchmarked against external Palatini f(R,T) work (Ref. 55); and the Newtonian/cosmological limits are algebraic consequences of those field equations, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The starting action (1) is taken from the existing f(R,L_m,T) theory (Ref. 22, by Haghani and Harko), which is not authored by the present authors, so this is not a self-citation. The Palatini field equations are obtained by independent variations with respect to the metric (Eq. 6) and the connection (Eq. 11). The connection equation is explicitly benchmarked against prior Palatini f(R,T) results in Ref. 55, an external work. The auxiliary metric and relation between the two Ricci tensors are standard Palatini machinery cited to Refs. 55 and 56, both external. The Newtonian limit (Eq. 31) and Friedmann equations (Eqs. 33-36) are presented as direct consequences of the derived field equations under stated assumptions (e.g., L_m = p, perfect fluid, weak field), not as fits to data. The only self-citations in the paper (Refs. 42 and 44) appear in the introduction as examples of applications and are not load-bearing for any derivation. The choice L_m = p is a modeling assumption that affects the form of Theta_mu_nu, but it is not a circular redefinition; it is an external input to the derivation. No step in the paper reduces, by construction, to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Any algebraic inconsistency in the Newtonian limit, while a correctness concern, is not an instance of circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. It relies on standard Palatini techniques, the non-unique choice of matter Lagrangian, and the implicit invertibility of the trace equation. These assumptions are standard in the literature but should be stated explicitly.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Palatini variational principle: metric and connection are independent variables; curvature is built from the independent connection.
    Defines the formalism used in Section 3. Standard in modified gravity, stated but not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Matter Lagrangian is taken as L_m = p (pressure) for a perfect fluid, with Θ_μν given by Eq. (29).
    Used in Section 4 to obtain the Newtonian limit; the choice is non-unique in f(R,L_m,T) theories and affects the Poisson equation.
  • domain assumption The trace equation (9) can be solved algebraically for R in terms of matter variables.
    Needed for the connection solution and the closed form of field equations; the paper does not discuss conditions for this invertibility.
  • domain assumption In the Newtonian limit, f_R ≈ 1 and a harmonic (Lorenz) gauge is implicitly assumed for the metric perturbation.
    Used in Section 4 to write Eq. (24); the gauge condition is not stated explicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Palatini formalism of the $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},T)$ theory of gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QAZFKYN6

@misc{pith2026241115615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Palatini formalism of the $f(R,\mathcalL_m,T)$ theory of gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QAZFKYN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15615}
}
abstract

We present the first formulation of the recently proposed $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m,T)$ theory of gravity within the Palatini formalism, a well-known alternative variational approach where the metric and connection are treated as independent variables. By applying this formalism, we derive a new set of field equations that exhibit, as expected, distinct properties compared to their metric formalism counterparts. We particularly present the Newtonian limit of this formalism, as well as the resulting Friedmann-like equations. We highlight that potential observational signatures may distinguish between the metric and Palatini frameworks. Our results open new pathways for exploring the phenomenology of modified gravity theories and their testability with observational data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Generalizing the cou- pling between geometry and matter: f (R, L m, T ) gravity

    Zahra Haghani and Tiberiu Harko. Generalizing the cou- pling between geometry and matter: f (R, L m, T ) gravity. Eur. Phys. J. C , 81(7):615, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. Astron. J., 116:1009–1038, 1998

    work page 1998

  3. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, et al. Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal , 517(2):565, 1999

    work page 1999

  4. [3]

    Weinberg, Michael J

    David H. Weinberg, Michael J. Mortonson, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Christopher Hirata, Adam G. Riess, and Ed- uardo Rozo. Observational Probes of Cosmic Acceleration. Phys. Rept., 530:87–255, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    Rubin and B

    D. Rubin and B. Hayden. Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? all signs point to yes. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 833(2):L30, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Weinberg

    S. Weinberg. The cosmological constant problem. Reviews of modern physics , 61(1):1, 1989

    work page 1989

  7. [6]

    J. B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto. The geometrical trinity of gravity. Universe, 5(7):173, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    P. H. R. S. Moraes. Alternative Gravity Neutron Stars in the Gravitational Wave Era , pages 285–316. World Scientific, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov. Modified gravity with ln r terms and cosmic acceleration. General Relativity and Gravitation, 36:1765–1780, 2004

    2004

  2. [9]

    Y. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, and E. N. Saridakis. f(t) teleparallel gravity and cosmology. Reports on Progress in Physics , 79(10):106901, 2016

    2016

  3. [10]

    F Cardone, N

    V. F Cardone, N. Radicella, and S. Camera. Accelerating f (t) gravity models constrained by recent cosmological data. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 85(12):124007, 2012

    2012

  4. [11]

    Solanki, S

    R. Solanki, S. Pacif, A. Parida, and PK Sahoo. Cosmic acceleration with bulk viscosity in modified f (q) gravity. Physics of the Dark Universe , 32:100820, 2021

    2021

  5. [12]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. F. Cardone, S. Carloni, and A. Troisi. Can higher order curvature theories explain rotation curves of galaxies? Physics Letters A , 326(5-6):292–296, 2004

    2004

  6. [13]

    E Perkins, R

    S. E Perkins, R. Nair, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes. Improved gravitational-wave constraints on higher-order curvatur e theories of gravity. Physical Review D , 104(2):024060, 2021

    2021

  7. [14]

    R. Nair, S. Perkins, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes. Fundamen- tal physics implications for higher-curvature theories from binary black hole signals in the ligo-virgo catalog gwtc-1. Physical review letters , 123(19):191101, 2019

    2019

  8. [15]

    GGL Nashed, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou. Anisotropic compact stars in higher-order curvature the- ory. The European Physical Journal C , 81(6):1–15, 2021

    2021

  9. [16]

    T. B. Vasilev, J. AR. Cembranos, J. G. Valcarcel, and P. Mart´ ın-Moruno. Stability in quadratic torsion theories. The European Physical Journal C , 77:1–16, 2017

    2017

  10. [17]

    J. B. Fonseca-Neto, M. J. Rebou¸ cas, and A. F. F. Teixeira. The equivalence problem in torsion theories of gravitation. Journal of mathematical physics , 33(7):2574–2577, 1992

    1992

  11. [18]

    de la Cruz-Dombriz and F

    A. de la Cruz-Dombriz and F. J. M. Torralba. Birkhoff’s theorem for stable torsion theories. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2019(03):002, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    D’ambrosio and L

    F. D’ambrosio and L. Heisenberg. Classification of primary constraints of quadratic non-metricity theories of gravit y. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2021(2):1–13, 2021

    2021

  13. [20]

    Harko and F

    T. Harko and F. S.N. Lobo. f (r, l m) gravity.The European Physical Journal C , 70:373–379, 2010

    2010

  14. [21]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, and Sergei D. O. f (r, t) gravity. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 84(2):024020, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. Polarski, and S. Tsujikawa. Are f (r) dark energy models cosmologically viable? Physical review letters, 98(13):131302, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Amendola, R

    L. Amendola, R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, and S. Tsujikawa. Conditions for the cosmological viability of f (r) dark energy models. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 75(8):083504, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. Polarski, and S. Tsujikawa. Power-laws f (r) theories are cosmologically unacceptable. International Journal of Modern Physics D , 16(10):1555–1561, 2007. 6 J.G. de Lima J´ unior et al.: The Palatini formalism of the f(R, Lm, T ) theory of gravity

    2007

  18. [26]

    A. V. Frolov. Singularity problem with f (r) models for dark energy. Physical review letters , 101(6):061103, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    T. Chiba. 1/r gravity and scalar-tensor gravity. Physics Letters B, 575(1-2):1–3, 2003

    2003

  20. [28]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. L. Smith, and A. L. Erickcek. Solar system constraints to general f (r) gravity. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 75(12):124014, 2007

    2007

  21. [29]

    A. L. Erickcek, T. L. Smith, and M. Kamionkowski. Solar system tests do rule out 1/r gravity. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 74(12):121501, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov. Modified non-local-f (r) gravity as the key for the inflation and dark energy.Physics Letters B, 659(4):821–826, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Capozziello, A

    S. Capozziello, A. Stabile, and A. Troisi. Newtonian lim it of f (r) gravity. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 76(10):104019, 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Capozziello, A

    S. Capozziello, A. Stabile, and A. Troisi. Spherical symmetry in f (r)-gravity. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 25(8):085004, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    G. J. Olmo. Limit to general relativity in f (r) theories o f gravity. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 75(2):023511, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Kobayashi and K

    T. Kobayashi and K. Maeda. Relativistic stars in f (r) grav- ity, and absence thereof. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 78(6):064019, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Harko and F

    T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo. f (r, l m) gravity. The European Physical Journal C , 70:373–379, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    E. L. B. Junior, M. E. Rodrigues, I. G. Salako, and M. J. S. Houndjo. Reconstruction, thermodynamics and stability of the Λ CDM model in f(T, {T}) gravity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.00621, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y. Xu, G. Li, T. Harko, and S. Liang. f (q, t) gravity. The European Physical Journal C , 79:1–19, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    N´ ajera and A

    A. N´ ajera and A. Fajardo. Cosmological perturbation theory in f (q, t) gravity. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022(03):020, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Energy conditions in f (q, t) gravity

    Simran Arora and PK Sahoo. Energy conditions in f (q, t) gravity. Physica Scripta, 95(9):095003, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Myrzakulov, M

    N. Myrzakulov, M. Koussour, A. H. A. Alfedeel, and H. M. Elkhair. Cosmological implications of the constant jerk parameter in f (q, t) gravity theory. Chinese Journal of Physics, 86:300–312, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zubair, S

    M. Zubair, S. Waheed, Q. Muneer, and M. Ahmad. Thermodynamics and perturbative analysis of some newly developed f (r, l m, t) f(r,l m,t) theories under the scenario of conserved energy-momentum tensor. Fortschritte der Physik, 71(8-9):2300018, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    J. A. S. Fortunato, P. H. R. S. Moraes, E. Brito, J. G. J´ unior, and T. S. Guerini. Hydrostatic equilibrium config- urations of neutron stars in the f(R, L, T ) gravity theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15395 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mota, Juan M

    Cl´ esio E. Mota, Juan M. Z. Pretel, and C´ esar O. V. Flores. Neutron stars in f(R, L m, T ) gravity. Eur. Phys. J. C , 84(7):673, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    P. H. R. S. Moraes, A. S. Agrawal, and B. Mishra. Wormholes in the f(R,L,T) theory of gravity. Physics Letters B, page 138818, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    G. R. P´ erez Teruel. Generalized Einstein-Maxwell Fiel d Equations in the Palatini Formalism. International Jour- nal of Modern Physics D , 22(4):1350017, 2013

    2013

  38. [46]

    B. Li, K. C. Chan, and M-C. Chu. Constraints on f (r) cosmology in the palatini formalism. Physical Review D , 76(2):024002, 2007

    2007

  39. [47]

    Stachowski, M

    A. Stachowski, M. Szyd/suppress lowski, and A. Borowiec. Starobin- sky cosmological model in palatini formalism. The Euro- pean Physical Journal C , 77:1–17, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Bamba and C

    K. Bamba and C. Geng. Thermodynamics in f (r) gravity in the palatini formalism. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2010(06):014, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    S. Fay, R. Tavakol, and S. Tsujikawa. f(R) gravity theories in Palatini formalism: Cosmological dynamics and observational constraints. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 75(6):063509, 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    A. E. Dominguez and D. E. Barraco. Newtonian limit of the singular f (r) gravity in the palatini formalism.Physical Review D, 70(4):043505, 2004

    2004

  43. [51]

    Y. U. S. U. F. Kucukakca and U. Camci. Noether gauge symmetry for f (r) gravity in palatini formalism. Astrophysics and Space Science , 338:211–216, 2012

    2012

  44. [52]

    M. S. Movahed, S. Baghram, and S. Rahvar. Consistency of f(R) = √ R2 − R2 0 gravity with cosmological observations in the Palatini formalism. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 76(4):044008, 2007

    2007

  45. [53]

    D. J. Gogoi and U. D. Goswami. Cosmology with a new f (r) gravity model in palatini formalism. International Journal of Modern Physics D , 31(06):2250048, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Ostrogradsky

    M. Ostrogradsky. M´ emoires sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles, relatives au probl` eme des isop´ erim` etres. Mem. Acad. St. Petersbourg , 6(4):385–517, 1850

  47. [55]

    J. Wu, G. Li, T. Harko, and S. Liang. Palatini formulation of f (r, t) gravity theory, and its cosmological implications. The European Physical Journal C , 78:1–22, 2018

    2018

  48. [56]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni. f (r) theories of gravity. Reviews of Modern Physics , 82(1):451–497, 2010

    2010

  49. [57]

    Minazzoli

    O. Minazzoli. Rethinking the link between matter and geometry. Physical Review D , 98(12):124020, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.