Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 88 references

The Dynamics of Cosmic Evolution: Insights from Bouncing Cosmology

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An f(Q,C) modified-gravity theory is shown to admit non-singular bouncing solutions in a Bianchi type-I universe with a perfect fluid, with null energy condition violation and stable linear perturbations.

desk verdict The paper's central bounce results are not supported: the field equations are the isotropic FLRW ones applied to an anisotropic Bianchi I metric, and they fail the GR limit for Ω≠1. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06586 v1 pith:RHC5ATHU submitted 2025-08-08 gr-qc

M. Sharif , M.Zeeshan Gul , Ahmad Nawaz This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.50.Kd04.20.Dw04.40.Dg
keywords f(QC)gravitynon-metricitybouncingcosmologyBianchitype-Inullenergyconditionstabilityanalysisdarkcosmologicalsingularity
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 tries to establish that $f(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{C})$ gravity—a modified theory built from the non-metricity scalar and its boundary term—can drive a non-singular bouncing cosmology in a Bianchi type-I spacetime filled with a perfect fluid. Using three functional forms of $f$, it shows the universe can pass from contraction through $H=0$ into expansion, with positive energy density, negative pressure, and violation of the null energy condition at the bounce. It reports an equation-of-state parameter near $-1.03$, consistent with an accelerating phase, and claims that linear perturbations of the Hubble parameter decay, so the bounce is stable. If correct, this gives a singularity-free alternative to the big-bang model and a geometric source for dark-energy-like acceleration without a cosmological constant.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the reduction of the $f(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{C})$ field equations on a Bianchi type-I metric with the constraint $a=b^\Omega$ to the two ordinary differential equations (17)-(18), using the identifications $\mathcal{Q}=6H^2$, $\mathcal{C}=6(H^2+\dot H)$, and the average Hubble parameter $H=(\Omega+2)\dot b/(3b)$. Substituting the parametric scale factor $b=\beta e^{\vartheta_3 t^{n+1}/(n+1)+\vartheta_2 t^n/n+\vartheta_1 t}$ turns those equations into explicit density and pressure expressions for each model; the bounce is the $H=0$ crossing, and the perturbation ansatz $H_{\rm pert}(t)=H(t)(\delta_\Omega(t)+1)$ together with the conservation equation produces the

What would settle it

Compute the exact Einstein tensor components of metric (12) with $a=b^\Omega$ and $\Omega\neq1$, then insert the three $f(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{C})$ models into the full field equations (11). If the resulting dynamics no longer give an $H=0$ crossing with positive density and negative pressure, the claimed bounce is an artifact of the isotropic reduction used in (17)-(18).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $f(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{C})$ gravity—where $\mathcal{Q}$ is the non-metricity scalar and $\mathcal{C}=\bar{R}-\mathcal{Q}$ is the boundary term—admits viable non-singular bounces. For three model choices, the scale factor reaches a minimum, the Hubble parameter runs from negative through zero to positive, the energy density stays positive while pressure is negative, and the null energy condition is violated near the bounce. The equation-of-state parameter is about $-1.03$, and a linear perturbation of the Hubble parameter decays with time. The paper interprets these features as evidence that this modified-gravity framework can resolve the initial-singularity problem

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on treating the anisotropic Bianchi type-I metric (12) with $a=b^\Omega$ as though it had the isotropic forms $\mathcal{Q}=6H^2$, $\mathcal{C}=6(H^2+\dot H)$, and $G_{ab}=-h_{ab}(3H^2+2\dot H)+3H^2u_au_b$ with $H=(\Omega+2)\dot b/(3b)$; for $\Omega\neq1$ those reductions are not automatically the Einstein tensor of metric (12).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the results are correct, the big-bang singularity can be replaced by a smooth bounce in $f(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{C})$ gravity, giving a non-singular early universe.
  • All three models violate the null energy condition near the bounce, so the breach appears to be a feature of the framework rather than of one special choice of parameters.
  • The equation-of-state parameter near $-1.03$ can reproduce the observed late-time acceleration, so the theory can mimic dark energy without a cosmological constant.
  • The decaying perturbation $\delta_\Omega$ indicates the bounce is robust to small fluctuations of the Hubble rate, allowing the model to survive into later cosmic epochs.
  • The bounce occurs in a Bianchi type-I background with small anisotropy, connecting early anisotropic conditions to the nearly isotropic late universe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because $\mathcal{Q}=6H^2$ and $\mathcal{C}=6(H^2+\dot H)$ are isotropic reductions, the same analysis should be repeated with the exact anisotropic Einstein tensor of metric (12); for $\Omega\neq1$ the two sets of equations are not guaranteed to agree, so the quantitative profiles may change.
  • Editorial extension: the parametric scale factor can be used in reverse—prescribing any desired bounce profile $b(t)$ determines an $f(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{C})$ that realizes it—making the framework a reconstruction tool for bounce models.
  • Editorial extension: the stability test perturbs only the Hubble parameter; a fuller test would perturb the metric components and matter fields in the full Bianchi type-I equations, which could expose additional modes near the bounce.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims to construct feasible non-singular bouncing cosmological solutions in f(Q,C) gravity for a Bianchi type-I spacetime with a perfect fluid. It imposes the constraint a(t)=b(t)^Ω, adopts an isotropic-like set of geometric quantities (G_ab, Q, C) in Eqs. (13)-(16), and derives field equations (17)-(18). Three forms of f(Q,C) are then studied: μ1Q+μ2C^2, μ3Q^{λ+1}+μ2C^2, and Q+μ4/Q+μ2C^2. The paper presents scale-factor, Hubble, deceleration, density, pressure, equation-of-state, energy-condition, Hubble-radius, and redshift plots, and it argues from a stability analysis that the bounce is stable. The central claims are that the null energy condition is violated, that ω≈-1.03, and that the models are stable under linear perturbations.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide an interesting example of bouncing cosmology in a modified symmetric-teleparallel gravity and would extend the literature on f(Q,C) models to anisotropic geometries. The topic is relevant, and the authors correctly emphasize that a viable bounce requires NEC violation. However, the central derivation is inconsistent: the field equations used do not reduce to general relativity in the limit f(Q,C)=Q, and the stability analysis does not actually analyze perturbations. The reported physical conclusions are therefore not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (13)-(18)] The field equations used in the paper are not the field equations of f(Q,C) gravity for the stated Bianchi I geometry. Equation (13) replaces the Einstein tensor of the anisotropic metric (12) by the isotropic expression -h_ab(3H^2+2Hdot)+3H^2 u_a u_b. For a=b^Ω with Ω≠1, the Einstein tensor is anisotropic, and the non-metricity scalar Q in the coincident gauge is not generally 6H^2. More decisively, the GR limit f(Q,C)=Q in Eqs. (17)-(18) yields ρ=-(5+4Ω)H^2 and P=(7-2Ω)H^2-2Hdot. Even at Ω=1 this gives ρ=-9H^2 and P=5H^2-2Hdot instead of the standard Friedmann results ρ=3H^2 and P=-(3H^2+2Hdot). Thus the equations being solved are not those of the stated theory, and all subsequent model results, energy-condition violations, and stability statements rest on this incorrect starting point.
  2. [§5, Eqs. (47)-(51) and Fig. 14] The stability analysis is not a valid linear perturbation analysis. Equation (47) assumes δΩ is a small perturbation, but the subsequent calculation substitutes the background solution into the background conservation equation (48) and solves for δΩ(t). This is an algebraic rearrangement of the background equations, not an evolution equation for perturbations. Moreover, Fig. 14 shows δΩ values of order 10^5-10^10, which are not small and violate the linearization assumption. The plotted curves increase with time, contradicting the text's statement that the perturbations 'slowly decrease and approach to zero.' The stability conclusion is therefore unsupported.
  3. [§4.1 and §4.8, Eqs. (28) and (37)] The bounce is imposed rather than derived from the theory. The parametric scale factor (28) is chosen with specific values of θ1, θ2, θ3, n so that H crosses zero, and the subsequent NEC violation and ω≈-1.03 are consequences of that choice. Similarly, Sec. 4.8 fixes q=-0.831 from observation to set b(t)=t^{1/(1+q)} and then computes ρ and P as functions of z. These procedures are reconstructions from imposed kinematics or observational input, not predictions of the f(Q,C) dynamics. The paper would need to show that the field equations select such a bounce, or that the results are robust across a genuinely wide parameter range, before claiming that the framework 'admits' these solutions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.5, Eqs. (31)-(33)] The text states that ω=-1.03±0.03 'aligns with the results reported by the Planck collaboration' and then says this 'meets the conditions for the quintessence regime (−1<ω<−1/3).' Since −1.03 is in the phantom regime (ω<−1), this classification is internally inconsistent. The abstract and final remarks also refer to both quintessence and phantom, which should be reconciled.
  2. [§4.2, Tables 1-2] The claim that increasing Ω leads to a later bounce time is confounded: in Tables 1 and 2 both Ω and θ2 (or θ3) change simultaneously. A controlled comparison varying only Ω would be needed to support that statement.
  3. [§2 and §6] The manuscript contains passages of the form 'In the revised manuscript, we have included ...', which appear to be remnants of a response to a previous referee report. These should be removed or rewritten for a self-contained submission.
  4. [General] Many plotted quantities (e.g., ρ and P in Figs. 4-6 and 12-13) are displayed as large numbers without units or with unspecified units. Dimensional analysis and a statement of the chosen parameter values and their units would greatly improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed bounce and NEC violation are built into the scale-factor ansatz (28); Section 4.8 inputs the observed q and then reconstructs ρ and P from it.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (28); Sec. 6, bullet 1]
    "To construct a bouncing cosmological model, we define a scale factor as [80] b = βe^{ϑ3 t^{n+1}/(n+1)+ϑ2 t^n/n+ϑ1 t} ... Additionally, the parametric values ϑ1 = −0.05 and n = 2.3 are selected to effectively capture the cosmological bounce solutions."

    The bounce is not derived from the f(Q,C) field equations; it is imposed by choosing the exponential scale factor (28) and then selecting ϑ1, ϑ2, ϑ3, n so that H=(Ω+2)ḃ/(3b) crosses zero. The paper's reported findings — H<0 before the bounce, H=0 at the bounce, H>0 after, and the breach of the NEC that is presented as the key evidence — are properties of this chosen ansatz, not independent predictions of the theory. Inserting any monotonic scale factor would remove the bounce; the central claim is therefore equivalent to the input by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.8, Eqs. (36)-(42)]
    "By changing the value of Υ, we have b(t) = t^{1/(1+q)}, where q = −0.831^{+0.091}_{−0.091}."

    The observed deceleration parameter q is used as an input to fix the scale factor b(t)=t^{1/(1+q)}. From this, H(z), Q(z), and the redshift-space matter variables (41)-(46) follow algebraically. The plots of ρ and P versus z therefore do not predict or test anything beyond the already-assumed q; they are rearrangements of the same kinematic input. This is the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern: the observable is imported, then presented as a derived matter configuration.

full rationale

Score 6: The central claim — that f(Q,C) gravity supports non-singular bouncing solutions — reduces in large part to the choice of scale factor (28) and the parameter values. Equation (28) is introduced 'to construct a bouncing cosmological model,' and the parameters are explicitly 'selected to effectively capture the cosmological bounce solutions'; the H<0/H=0/H>0 transition and the negative ρ+P presented as the key evidence for the bounce are then read off from the same ansatz. This is not an independent prediction from the theory; it is the input restated. In Sec. 4.8 the deceleration parameter q is taken from observations and used to set b(t)=t^{1/(1+q)}; the subsequent H, Q, ρ, P versus z are algebraic consequences, so those plots do not test the model. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem, so the circularity is not of the self-citation kind. Separately (a correctness issue, not itself circularity), Eq. (13) uses the isotropic Einstein tensor for the Bianchi-I metric (12) with a=b^Ω; this substitution is only valid at Ω=1, so the field equations being solved are not those of the stated theory. This internal inconsistency reinforces the score but is not counted as a separate circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are controlled by hand-chosen constants: Omega, theta_i, n, and the unspecified mu's define the background, while the redshift analysis imports observed q. No constants are fitted with uncertainties, and no data are supplied. The assumption that Bianchi I can be treated as isotropic through Q=6H^2 is a domain assumption that is contradicted by the anisotropic Einstein tensor.

free parameters (11)
  • Omega (shear/expansion constant) = 4.5, 5, 5.3 in plots
    Introduced ad hoc through the constraint a=b^Omega to reduce Bianchi I to one scale factor.
  • theta1 (exponent coefficient) = -0.05 in final remarks
    Hand-selected to produce the desired bounce behavior in scale factor (28).
  • theta2 (exponent coefficient) = -13, -12, -10 in tables/figures
    Controls the contraction phase; values chosen by hand.
  • theta3 (exponent coefficient) = 1.8, 2.5, 3.1 in figures
    Controls the expansion phase; values chosen by hand.
  • n (exponent power) = 2.3 in final remarks
    Hand-selected power in scale factor (28).
  • beta (integration constant) = unspecified
    Overall normalization of scale factor; never assigned a value.
  • mu1, mu2 (model 1 constants) = not specified
    Arbitrary constants in f(Q,C)=mu1 Q + mu2 C^2; no values given.
  • mu3, lambda (model 2 constants) = not specified
    Arbitrary constants in f(Q,C)=mu3 Q^(lambda+1)+mu2 C^2; no values given.
  • mu4 (model 3 constant) = not specified
    Arbitrary constant in f(Q,C)=Q+mu4/Q+mu2 C^2; no value given.
  • q (deceleration parameter) = -0.831 from observations
    Imported from observational cosmology to define b(t)=t^(1/(1+q)) in redshift analysis.
  • H0 (present Hubble value) = used as H0 in redshift formulas
    Taken as an input scale; no fitted value or uncertainty reported.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption f(Q,C) field equations (11) from De et al [39]
    The modified gravity action and field equations are assumed valid as the starting point.
  • domain assumption Vanishing affine connection (coincident gauge)
    Used when writing the field equations and the expressions Q=6H^2, C=6(H^2+Hdot).
  • domain assumption Perfect fluid energy-momentum tensor
    Matter content is assumed to be a perfect fluid with density rho and pressure P.
  • ad hoc to paper Bianchi I metric with constraint a=b^Omega (Omega != 0, 1)
    The power-law link between scale factors is introduced for mathematical convenience; it is not derived from any dynamical principle.
  • ad hoc to paper Parametric scale factor b(t)=beta exp(theta3 t^(n+1)/(n+1)+theta2 t^n/n+theta1 t)
    This functional form is chosen to generate a bounce; the parameters are hand-picked rather than derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Isotropic expressions Q=6H^2 and G_{ab}=-h_{ab}(3H^2+2Hdot)+3H^2 u_a u_b for Bianchi I
    These are FRW forms applied to an anisotropic metric with Omega != 1; no justification is given for this reduction.
  • standard math Conservation equation dot_rho + 3H(rho+P)=0
    Used in the stability analysis as the equation governing the perturbed Hubble parameter.
  • domain assumption Linear perturbation ansatz H_pert = H(1+delta_Omega)
    The stability analysis assumes a small relative perturbation of the Hubble rate, an assumption later violated by the derived magnitudes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Dynamics of Cosmic Evolution: Insights from Bouncing Cosmology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHC5ATHU

@misc{pith2026250806586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Dynamics of Cosmic Evolution: Insights from Bouncing Cosmology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHC5ATHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06586}
}
abstract

The primary aim of this work is to explore feasible bouncing cosmological solutions in the framework of $f(\mathcal{Q}, \mathcal{C})$ gravity, where $\mathcal{Q}$ denotes non-metricity and $\mathcal{C}$ indicates the boundary term. To achieve this, we analyze the dynamics of a Bianchi type-I spacetime with perfect fluid distribution. We consider various functional forms of $f(\mathcal{Q,C})$ theory to assess how this modified gravity framework influences cosmic evolution. Additionally, we examine the dynamics of different cosmological parameters to explore non-singular bounce solutions. We also use linear perturbation to study the stability analysis. Our findings reveal the breach of the null energy conditions, which is required for the existence of viable bounce solutions. The equation of state parameter demonstrates either a quintessence phase or a phantom regime of the universe, demonstrating that the cosmos is undergoing accelerating expansion. This gravitational framework presents a promising alternative to the standard cosmological model, presenting an innovative viewpoint on gravitational interactions and the dynamics of the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06586 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the scale factor across various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots of the Hubble parameter and its temporal derivative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Graph of deceleration parameter for various values of Ω. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Behavior of matter variables corresponding to Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots of fluid parameters for Model 2. 0 2 4 6 8 10 4.0 ´106 6.0 ´106 8.0 ´106 1.0 ´107 1.2 ´107 1.4 ´107 1.6 ´107 t ž Model 3 W =4.5 W=5 W=5.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 -1.5 ´107 -1.0 ´107 -5.0 ´106 t P Model 3 W=4.5 W=5 W=5.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of matter contents with respect to model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Behavior of EOS parameter. constraints for each f(Q, C) model. The violation of the N EC leads to the vi￾olation of all other ECs, illustrating the existence of a non-singular bouncing universe. Figures 8-10 demonstrate the presence of a non singular bounce model in th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Graphs of energy conditions corresponding to different p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plots of the energy bounds for model 2. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Behavior of the energy conditions with respect to model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Behavior of the Hubble radius RH as a function of cosmic time. This indicates that q and H0 are responsible for the expansion of the cosmos. As a result of computing the relationship between the scale factor and the redshift parameter, we obtain H = H0(1 + z) 1+q , H˙…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Behavior of energy density versus redshift function fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Behavior of pressure with respect to redshift for differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Behavior of δΩ over cosmic time for various values of Ω. stabilities are prevented from growing and disrupting the evolution of the universe. 6 Final Remarks In recent years, limited data on the universe origin and evolution have posed significant challenges for the s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and King, R.W.: Phys

    Shapiro, I.I., Counselman, C.C. and King, R.W.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 36(1976)555

    1976

  2. [2]

    and Trewhella, M.: Astrophys

    Swaters, R.A., Madore, B.F. and Trewhella, M.: Astrophys. J. 531(2000)107

    2000

  3. [3]

    and Starobinsky, A.A.: Int

    Sahni, V. and Starobinsky, A.A.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9(2000)373

    2000

  4. [4]

    Carroll, S.M.: Living Rev. Rel. 4(2001)1

    2001

  5. [5]

    and Ratra, B.: Rev

    Peebles, P.J.E. and Ratra, B.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 75(2003)559

    2003

  6. [6]

    Padmanabhan, T.: Phys. Rep. 380(2003)235

    2003

  7. [7]

    and Tsujikawa, S.: Int

    Copeland, E.J., Sami, M. and Tsujikawa, S.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15(2006)175

    2006

  8. [8]

    and Odintsov, S.D.: Int

    Nojiri, S.I. and Odintsov, S.D.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 4(2007)115; Sotiriou, T.P. and Faraoni, V.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 82(2010)451

    2007

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    and Koivisto, T.: Phys

    Jimenez, J.B., Heisenberg, L. and Koivisto, T.: Phys. Rev. D 98(2018)044048

    2018

  2. [10]

    et al.: Phys

    Lazkoz, R. et al.: Phys. Rev. D 100(2019)104027

    2019

  3. [11]

    and Santos, J.R.: Phys

    Mandal, S., Sahoo, P.K. and Santos, J.R.: Phys. Rev. D 102(2020)024057

    2020

  4. [12]

    Adeel, M.: et al.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38(2023)2350152

    2023

  5. [13]

    Sharif, M.: et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 91(2024)66

    2024

  6. [14]

    Rani, S.: et al.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 21(2024)2450033

    2024

  7. [15]

    et.: Eur

    Gul, M.Z. et.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)8

    2024

  8. [16]

    et al.: Phys

    Maurya, S.K. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 46(2024)101619

    2024

  9. [17]

    et al.: New Astron

    Sharif, M. et al.: New Astron. 109(2024)102211

    2024

  10. [18]

    et al.: Eur

    Sharif, M. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)1065. 31

    2024

  11. [19]

    Dark Universe 47(2025)101754

    Rani, S.: et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 47(2025)101754

    2025

  12. [20]

    et al.: Phys

    Koussour, M. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 46(2024)101577

    2024

  13. [21]

    et al.: Chin

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 88(2024)388

    2024

  14. [22]

    et al.: Eur

    Sharif, M. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)1094

    2024

  15. [23]

    et al.: Phys

    Myrzakulov, Y. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 45(2024)101545

    2024

  16. [24]

    and Gul, M.Z.: Ann

    Sharif, M. and Gul, M.Z.: Ann. Phys. 465(2024)169674

    2024

  17. [25]

    et al.: Phys

    Errehymy, A. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 46(2024)101555

    2024

  18. [26]

    and Gul, M.Z.: Phys

    Sharif, M. and Gul, M.Z.: Phys. Scr. 99(2024)065036

    2024

  19. [27]

    et al.: Chin

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 89(2024)1347

    2024

  20. [28]

    High Energy Astrophys

    Zhadyranova, A.: J. High Energy Astrophys. 44(2024)123

    2024

  21. [30]

    Koussour, M.: Chin. J. Phys. 90(2024)108

    2024

  22. [32]

    et al.: Chin

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Chin. Phys. C. 48(2024)12503

    2024

  23. [33]

    Dark Universe 45(2024)101527

    Koussour, M.: Phys. Dark Universe 45(2024)101527

    2024

  24. [34]

    et al.: Phys

    Nan, G. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 46(2024)101635

    2024

  25. [37]

    et al.: Fortschr

    Pradhan, S. et al.: Fortschr. der Phys. 72(2024)2400092

    2024

  26. [38]

    et al.: Phys

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Phys. Scr. 99(2024)045006

    2024

  27. [39]

    and Saridakis, E.N.: J

    De, A., Loo, T.H. and Saridakis, E.N.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys . 2024(2024)050

    2024

  28. [40]

    and Ferrara, C.: Eur

    Capozziello, S., De Falco, V. and Ferrara, C.: Eur. Phys. J. C 83(2023)915. 32

    2023

  29. [41]

    and Lambiase, G.: arXiv:2407.14862

    Capozziello, S., Capriolo, M. and Lambiase, G.: arXiv:2407.14862

    arXiv

  30. [42]

    Maurya, D.C.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39(2024)2450034

    2024

  31. [43]

    Maurya, D.C.: Gravitation and Cosmology 30(2024)330

    2024

  32. [44]

    and Sultan, A

    Usman, M., Jawad, A. and Sultan, A. M.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)868

    2024

  33. [45]

    Sadatian, S. D. and Hosseini, S. M. R.: Phys. Dark. Universe 47(2024)101737

    2024

  34. [46]

    S., Muhammad, S

    Samaddar, A., Singh, S. S., Muhammad, S. and Zotos, E. E.: J. Hig h Energy Astrophys. 44(2024)18

    2024

  35. [47]

    et al.: Nucl

    Samaddar, A. et al.: Nucl. Phys. B 1006(2024)116643

    2024

  36. [48]

    et al.: Int

    Samaddar, A. et al.: Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 21(2024)2450231

    2024

  37. [49]

    Senovilla, J.M.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 30(1998)701

    1998

  38. [50]

    High Energy Phys

    Liddle, A.R.: J. High Energy Phys. 260(1998)3

    1998

  39. [51]

    Bojowald, M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(2001)5227; Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40(2008)2659

    2001

  40. [52]

    and Bennai, M.: Int

    Koussour, M. and Bennai, M.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys . 19(2022)2250038

    2022

  41. [53]

    et al.: Eur

    De, A. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 82(2022)72

    2022

  42. [54]

    and McNutt, D.D.: J

    Hoogen, R.J., Coley, A.A. and McNutt, D.D.: J. Cosmol. Astropart . Phys. 10(2023)042

    2023

  43. [55]

    et al.: Int

    Solanke, Y.S. et al.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 20(2023)2350212

    2023

  44. [57]

    and Capozziello, S.: Eur

    Bajardi, F., Vernieri, D. and Capozziello, S.: Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135(2020)14

    2020

  45. [59]

    and Shamir, M.F.: New Astron

    Malik, A. and Shamir, M.F.: New Astron. 82(2021)101460. 33

    2021

  46. [60]

    et al.: Indian J

    Ilyas, M. et al.: Indian J. Phys. 96(2022)4017

    2022

  47. [61]

    et al.: Can

    Bhardwaj, V.K. et al.: Can. J. Phys. 100(2022)475

    2022

  48. [62]

    et al.: Universe 8(2022)636

    Lohakare, S.V. et al.: Universe 8(2022)636

    2022

  49. [63]

    and Aman, H.: Chin

    Yousaf, Z., Bhatti, M.Z. and Aman, H.: Chin. J. Phys. 79(2022)275

    2022

  50. [64]

    et al.: Chin

    Houndjo, M.J.S. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 83(2023)558

    2023

  51. [65]

    et al.: Eur

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)802

    2024

  52. [66]

    et al.: Phys

    Sharif, M. et al.: Phys. Scr. 99(2024)115003

    2024

  53. [67]

    et al.: Mod

    Sharif, M. et al.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39(2024)2450140

    2024

  54. [68]

    and Hashim, I.: Eur

    Sharif, M., Gul, M.Z. and Hashim, I.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)1094

    2024

  55. [69]

    and Bruni, M.: J

    Bozza, V. and Bruni, M.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2009(2009)014

    2009

  56. [70]

    Cai, Y.F., Easson, D. A. and Brandenberger, R.: J. Cosmol. Astr opart. Phys. 2012(2012)020

    2012

  57. [71]

    China: Phys

    Cai, Y.F.: Sci. China: Phys. Mech. Astron. 57(2014)1414

    2014

  58. [72]

    and Odintso v, S.D.: J

    Bamba, K., Makarenko, A.N., Myagky, A.N., Nojiri, S.I. and Odintso v, S.D.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014(2014)008

    2014

  59. [73]

    and Odintsov, S.D.: Phy s

    Bamba, K., Makarenko, A.N., Myagky, A.N. and Odintsov, S.D.: Phy s. Lett. B, 732(2014)349

    2014

  60. [74]

    Amani, A.R.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25(2016)1650071

    2016

  61. [75]

    and Amors, J.: Phys

    De Haro, J. and Amors, J.: Phys. Rev. D 97(2018)064014

    2018

  62. [76]

    and Sengupta, R.: Chin

    Tripathy, S.K., Mishra, B., Ray, S. and Sengupta, R.: Chin. J. Phy s. 71(2021)610

    2021

  63. [77]

    and Sachs, R.K.: J

    Kantowski, R. and Sachs, R.K.: J. Math. Phys.J. Math. Phys. 7(1966)443; Ellis, G.F.R. and MacCallum, M.A.H.: Commun. Math. Phys. 12(1969)108

    1966

  64. [78]

    Xing-Xiang, W.: Chin. Phys. Lett. 22(2005)29. 34

    2005

  65. [79]

    and Sachs, R.K.: J

    Kantowski, R. and Sachs, R.K.: J. Math. Phys.J. Math. Phys. 7(1966)443; Ellis, G.F.R. and MacCallum, M.A.H.: Comgamman. Math. Phys. 12(1969)108

    1966

  66. [80]

    et al.: J

    Singh, J.K. et al.: J. High Energy Phys. 03(2023)191

    2023

  67. [81]

    and Gul, M.Z.: J

    Sharif, M. and Gul, M.Z.: J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 136(2023)436

    2023

  68. [82]

    et al.: Phys

    Agrawal, A.S. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 33(2021)100863

    2021

  69. [83]

    et al.: Phys

    Arora, S. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 30(2020)100664; Godani, N. and Samanta, G.C.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 18(2021)2150134

    2020

  70. [84]

    et al.: Phys

    Khurana, M. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 43(2024)101408; Zhadyranova, A., Koussour, M. and Bekkhozhayev, S.: Chin. J. Phys. 8(2024)1483

    2024

  71. [85]

    and Ajmal, M.: Chin

    Sharif, M. and Ajmal, M.: Chin. J. Phys. 88(2024)706

    2024

  72. [86]

    and Vagenas, E.C.: Phys

    Balart, L. and Vagenas, E.C.: Phys. Lett. B 730(2014)14; Corasaniti P.S. et al.: Phys. Rev. D 70(2004)083006

    2014

  73. [87]

    and Sanders, K.: Class

    Kontou, E.A. and Sanders, K.: Class. Quantum Grav. 37(2020)193001

    2020

  74. [88]

    and Brandenberger, R.: J

    Cai, Y.F., Easson, D.A. and Brandenberger, R.: J. Cosmol. Astro part. Phys. 08(2012)020

    2012

  75. [89]

    and Rahman, W.U.: Eur

    Ilyas, M. and Rahman, W.U.: Eur. Phys. J. C 81(2021)160

    2021

  76. [90]

    and Gunzig, E.: Ann

    Brout, R., Englert, F. and Gunzig, E.: Ann. Phys. 115(1978)78

    1978

  77. [91]

    and Bruni, M.: Phys

    Burkmar, M. and Bruni, M.: Phys. Rev. D 107(2023)083533

    2023

  78. [92]

    et al.: Eur

    Mandal, S. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136(2021)760

    2021

  79. [93]

    et al.: Phys

    Hossien, H. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 18(2017)29

    2017

  80. [94]

    and Fatima, N.: Phys

    Sharif, M., Gul, M.Z. and Fatima, N.: Phys. Dark Universe 47(2025)101760. 35

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.