Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Validation of Energy Conditions in Wormhole Geometry within Viable $f(R)$ Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Wormhole in f(R) gravity needs no exotic matter.

desk verdict Load-bearing algebraic error in Eq. (14) breaks the central derivation, so the claimed energy-condition results do not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04406 v1 pith:U3SOQWYN submitted 2019-08-06 gr-qc

Gauranga C Samanta , Nisha Godani This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords wormholef(R)gravityenergyconditionsexoticmattershapefunctiontraversableviablemodelequationofstate
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

This paper tries to show that traversable wormholes can exist in f(R) gravity without violating any energy condition. Starting from the power-law shape function $b(r)=r_0(r/r_0)^\gamma$ and the equation of state $p_r=\omega\rho$, the authors derive a concrete $f(R)$ model and then check the null, weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions. They find that for throat radius $r_0\ge 1.7$, with $0.7\le\gamma<1$ and $0\le\omega\le 0.9$, all four energy conditions hold everywhere in the wormhole geometry. If correct, this means the wormhole is filled with normal, non-exotic matter and has attractive geometry, so the exotic matter that general relativity requires near a wormhole throat is not needed in modified gravity.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three objects: the power-law shape function $b(r)=r_0(r/r_0)^\gamma$ that fixes the wormhole geometry; the equation of state $p_r=\omega\rho$ that closes the matter system; and the algebraic inversion $r(R)$ of Eq. (14), which converts the $r$-dependent field-equation solution into an explicit $f(R)$ model (Eq. (15)). $f(R)$ gravity is a modified theory in which the Einstein-Hilbert action is replaced by a general function of the Ricci scalar $R$. The energy conditions are then evaluated as inequalities on $\rho$, $p_r$, and $p_t$; the key step is identifying the range of $r$, $\gamma$, and $\omega$ for which all those inequalities hold simultaneously.

What would settle it

Compute $R=2b'(r)/r^2$ for $b(r)=r_0(r/r_0)^\gamma$; this gives $R=2\gamma r_0^{1-\gamma} r^{\gamma-3}$, whose inversion is $r=(2\gamma r_0^{1-\gamma}/R)^{1/(3-\gamma)}$. If this differs from Eq. (14) except at isolated parameter values, the derived $f(R)$ model and the subsequent energy-condition analysis are not valid for the stated shape function.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the wormhole geometry sourced by the shape function $b(r)=r_0(r/r_0)^\gamma$ and the barotropic equation of state $p_r=\omega\rho$ supports an $f(R)$ model that satisfies the standard viability conditions for $f(R)$ gravity. With this model, the energy density $\rho$ and the combinations $\rho+p_r$, $\rho+p_t$, $\rho+p_r+2p_t$, $\rho-|p_r|$, and $\rho-|p_t|$ are all non-negative for $\gamma\in[0.7,1)$, $\omega\in[0,0.9]$, and $r\ge 1.7$. Consequently the null, weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions are satisfied simultaneously beyond the throat, so the matter supporting the wormhole is not exotic. The anisotropy parameter $\Delta=p_t-p_r$ is negative for the same broad range, indicating an attractive geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation hinges on the algebraic relation (14) linking the radial coordinate and the curvature scalar, but this relation does not follow from the chosen shape function and the standard formula $R=2b'(r)/r^2$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a throat radius $r_0\ge 1.7$, the wormhole satisfies NEC, WEC, SEC, and DEC throughout, so no exotic matter is required in that region.
  • The derived $f(R)$ model obeys the viability conditions $f_R>0$, $f_{RR}>0$, and the late-time de Sitter stability condition, so the solution is compatible with local gravity tests and cosmological perturbation stability.
  • Across the allowed parameter range, the anisotropy parameter is negative, meaning the wormhole geometry is attractive rather than repulsive.
  • Because the energy conditions hold, the usual general-relativity argument that wormholes must contain exotic matter does not apply to this $f(R)$ solution.
  • The results restrict the shape-function exponent to $\gamma\in[0.7,1)$ and the equation-of-state parameter to $\omega\in[0,0.9]$ for all energy conditions to hold simultaneously.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Section 4's Eq. (14) is the step that converts the field-equation solution into an $f(R)$ model; recomputing $R$ from the shape function gives a different relation, so the derived model and the energy-condition ranges are contingent on that algebraic step.
  • The same construction could be repeated with other shape functions (exponential, inverse power-law, or numerical) to test whether the no-exotic-matter conclusion is generic in $f(R)$ gravity or an artifact of this particular power law.
  • The paper's parameter window $\omega\in[0,0.9]$ covers only non-negative and mildly negative pressures; extending to $\omega<0$ would probe whether phantom-like matter is still needed near the throat.
  • A numerical integration of the field equations using the exact $r(R)$ relation would settle whether the reported energy-condition regions survive the corrected algebra.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies traversable wormholes in metric f(R) gravity using a power-law shape function and a radial equation of state p_r = ω ρ. It derives an f(R) model, claims this model satisfies the standard viability conditions, computes the energy density and pressure components, and states parameter ranges (γ ≥ 0.7, 0 ≤ ω ≤ 0.9, r ≥ 1.7) for which NEC, WEC, SEC, and DEC all hold. The central physical claim is that no exotic matter is needed to support the wormhole in this f(R) model and that the geometry is attractive throughout.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the result would be a concrete example of a traversable wormhole in modified gravity with all standard energy conditions satisfied, which would be a useful counterpoint to the usual General Relativity requirement of exotic matter. The paper also purports to construct a viable f(R) model from the wormhole geometry, which would be of interest for modified-gravity phenomenology. However, the central derivation rests on an algebraic inversion of the Ricci scalar that is wrong for the stated shape function, so the derived f(R) and all subsequent energy-condition expressions do not follow. The paper does not provide machine-checked algebra or reproducible numerical code, and the parameter ranges are selected after the fact from the plotted expressions, which further weakens the support for the conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) does not follow from the stated geometry. For the shape function in the abstract, b(r) = r0 (r/r0)^γ, the Ricci scalar is R = 2b'(r)/r^2 = 2γ r0^(1−γ) r^(γ−3); solving gives r = [R r0^(γ−1)/(2γ)]^(1/(γ−3)), not the expression in Eq. (14). For the shape function used in Section 4, b(r) = r (r/r0)^γ, one obtains R = 2(γ+1) r0^(−γ) r^(γ−2), which would give r = [R r0^γ/(2(γ+1))]^(1/(γ−2)); the exponent here matches Eq. (14) but the prefactor in Eq. (14) is r0^(γ+1) instead of r0^γ. Thus Eq. (14) is incorrect under either reading of the paper, and since Eq. (15) and all subsequent expressions for ρ, p_r, p_t, and the energy-condition combinations in Section 4 are built on this substitution, the claimed results in Table 2 and the conclusion that all energy conditions hold for r ≥ 1.7 are not established for the stated wormhole model.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4, shape function] The paper is internally inconsistent about the shape function. The abstract and Section 5 use b(r) = r0 (r/r0)^γ, while Section 4, Eq. (13), and the derivation of Eq. (14) use b(r) = r (r/r0)^γ. These are different functions, and the second one fails the standard wormhole throat conditions listed in Section 2: for γ > 0 one has b(r)/r = (r/r0)^γ > 1 for r > r0, and b'(r0) − 1 = γ > 0, violating condition (iii). The paper must specify which shape function is actually being used and check the throat conditions for it; the current mixed usage makes the derivation ambiguous.
  3. [Section 4, viability conditions] The claim that the derived f(R) in Eq. (15) 'is found to satisfy all the above conditions' is not demonstrated. The paper lists five viability conditions after Eq. (15) but gives no expressions for f,R, f,RR, or the ratio Rf,RR/f,R computed from Eq. (15), and no plots or inequalities are shown. Given that Eq. (15) itself is derived from an incorrect inversion, the viability claim is unsupported; even if Eq. (14) were fixed, the viability analysis would need to be redone explicitly for the corrected model.
  4. [Section 5, Table 2 and parameter ranges] The parameter ranges in Table 2 (γ ∈ [0.7,1), ω ∈ [0,0.9], r ≥ 1.7) are selected by inspecting the plots after computing the energy-condition expressions, rather than being derived from the model or from independent constraints. This is a post-hoc selection that, together with the circular construction of f(R) from the same field equations and equation of state used to evaluate the energy conditions, means the central claim largely restates the chosen ansatz. The conclusion that exotic matter is not needed is therefore only as strong as the assumed shape function and equation of state, and it does not constitute a general result about wormholes in f(R) gravity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors and incomplete expressions: 'dominated energy condition' should be 'dominant energy condition'; Eq. (12) has a mismatched parenthesis; the expression for p_t in Eq. (16) contains a stray 'cv'; and several displayed equations are split across lines with unresolved closing brackets. A careful editorial pass is needed.
  2. [Section 3, energy conditions] The definition of SEC in Section 3 is given in terms of principal pressures, but the statement 'SEC ⇔ (T_μν − (T/2) g_μν) V^μ V^ν ≥ 0' is the standard form; the subsequent condition ρ + Σ p_j ≥ 0 is correct only for a perfect fluid, whereas the paper later uses ρ + p_r + 2p_t for an anisotropic fluid. This should be clarified.
  3. [Figure captions] Figures (e) and (f) are described as showing positivity for γ = 0.5, but the text claims the DEC terms are positive for γ ∈ [0.2,1); the captions should state the actual plotted parameter ranges and the values of ω and r0 used, so the reader can verify the claimed positivity regions.
  4. [Units and dimensions] Equation (14) is dimensionally inconsistent if r0 and R retain their physical dimensions, since R^(1/(γ−2)) has dimension (length)^(3/(γ−2)) while r has dimension length unless γ = 5/3. The paper implicitly treats r0 and R as dimensionless; this should be stated explicitly, and the final energy-condition results should be checked for scale dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the f(R) model and energy-condition ranges are computed outputs of the chosen ansatz, not assumptions; the main technical problem is an algebraic error in Eq. (14), which is a correctness issue rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: a shape function and an equation of state pr=ωρ are chosen, the f(R) function is obtained by integrating the field equations (Eqs. 8-13), and the energy conditions are evaluated afterward from the resulting matter variables. The parameter ranges in Tables 1-2 (γ≥0.7, ω∈[0,0.9], r≥1.7, r0≥1.7) are selected because the computed inequalities are positive there; they are outputs of the calculation, not inputs imposed to force the conclusion. This is model construction with parameter selection, not fitted-input-called-prediction. The self-citations (refs. [18]-[21]) appear only in the introduction as context and are not load-bearing. The viability conditions are cited to Amendola & Tsujikawa [81] and other standard f(R) literature, not to the authors' own prior uniqueness theorems. The paper's serious difficulty is Eq. (14), which does not follow from R=2b'(r)/r^2 for either stated shape function (b(r)=r0(r/r0)^γ or b(r)=r(r/r0)^γ); this is an algebraic/correctness error that would undermine the derived f(R) and the energy-condition results, but it is not an equivalence-by-construction or a self-citation-based reduction, so it does not constitute circularity under the criteria. The assertion that Eq. (15) satisfies the viability conditions is made without demonstration, an omitted proof, but again not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several ad hoc choices: the power-law shape function, the linear equation of state, the constant integration constant, and post hoc parameter ranges. No new physical entities are introduced, but the derived f(R) model is itself a construction from these inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma (shape exponent) = 0.7 to 1
    Free exponent in the power-law shape function; restricted post hoc to gamma in [0.7,1) to make all energy conditions positive (Table 2).
  • omega (equation of state parameter) = 0 to 0.9
    EoS parameter p_r=omega*rho; restricted to omega in [0,0.9] to satisfy the dominant energy condition.
  • r0 (throat radius) = at least 1.7
    Throat radius of the wormhole; the paper concludes all energy conditions hold for r>=1.7, so r0 must be >=1.7 for the entire geometry to be non-exotic.
  • k (integration constant) = 1
    Arbitrary integration constant in f(R), set to 1 for simplicity.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard f(R) field equations (Eq 3) and trace equation (Eq 4)
    Unproved background of f(R) gravity in metric formalism.
  • domain assumption Morris-Thorne wormhole metric with constant redshift function
    The analysis assumes e^(2Phi) is constant, avoiding horizons; this is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Shape function conditions (i)-(v) including flaring-out
    Conditions for a traversable wormhole; the paper uses them implicitly.
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law shape function b(r)=r0(r/r0)^gamma
    Chosen by hand; there is no physical derivation for this form.
  • ad hoc to paper Equation of state p_r=omega*rho
    Chosen by hand to close the system; not observationally motivated.
  • domain assumption Viability conditions for f(R) models (f,R>0, f,RR>0, etc.)
    Standard conditions cited from the literature, but the paper asserts rather than verifies them for the derived model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Validation of Energy Conditions in Wormhole Geometry within Viable $f(R)$ Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U3SOQWYN

@misc{pith2026190804406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Validation of Energy Conditions in Wormhole Geometry within Viable $f(R)$ Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U3SOQWYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04406}
}
abstract

In this work, wormholes, tunnel like structures introduced by Morris \& Thorne \cite{Morris95}, are explored within the framework of $f(R)$ gravity. Using the shape function $b(r)=r_0\big(\frac{r}{r_0}\big)^\gamma$, where $0<\gamma<1$, and the equation of state $p_r=\omega\rho$, the $f(R)$ function is derived and the field equations are solved. Then null, weak, strong and dominated energy conditions are analyzed and spherical regions satisfying these energy conditions are determined. Furthermore, we calculated the range of the radius of the throat of the wormhole, where the energy conditions are satisfied.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An innovative black hole solution and thermodynamic properties in higher-order curvature gravity with a scalar field

    gr-qc 2025-09 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A reverse-engineered modified-Schwarzschild solution in scalar-coupled higher-curvature gravity is presented, whose headline 'weaker singularity' claim is contradicted by its own Kretschmann-scalar results (r^-9 versu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Am. J. Phys. 56 (1988) 395

    1988

  2. [2]

    Beitraege zur Einsteinischen Gritationstheorie

    L. Flamm “Beitraege zur Einsteinischen Gritationstheorie”. Physikalische Zeitscrift XVII: 448 (1916)

    1916

  3. [3]

    Einstein and N

    A. Einstein and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 48 (1935) 73

    1935

  4. [4]

    Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking (AIP, New York, 1995)

    M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking (AIP, New York, 1995)

    1995

  5. [5]

    Hochberg and M

    D. Hochberg and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 044021

    1998

  6. [6]

    Jamil, M

    M. Jamil, M. U. Farooq and M. A. Rashid, Eur. Phys. J. C 59 (2009) 907

    2009

  7. [7]

    Jamil, P

    M. Jamil, P. K. F. Kuhfittig, F. Rahaman and Sk. A. Rakib, Eur. Phys. J. C 67 (2010) 513

    2010

  8. [8]

    F. S. N. Lobo, F. Parsaei and N. Riazi, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 084030

    2013

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 064027

    2007

  2. [10]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Classical Quantum Gravity 25 (2008) 175006

    2008

  3. [11]

    F. S. N. Lobo and M. A. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 104012

    2009

  4. [12]

    N. M. Garcia and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 104018

    2010

  5. [13]

    S. N. Sajadi and N. Riazi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 126 (2011) 753

    2011

  6. [14]

    Garcia and F

    N.M. Garcia and F. S. N. Lobo, Classical Quantum Gravity 28 (2011) 085018

    2011

  7. [15]

    Bertolami and R

    O. Bertolami and R. Z. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 104050

    2012

  8. [16]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, M. K. Mak and S. V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 067504

    2013

  9. [17]

    Pavlovic and M

    P. Pavlovic and M. Sossich, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 117. 15

    2015

  10. [18]

    Godani and G

    N. Godani and G. C. Samanta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2018) 1950039

    2018

  11. [19]

    G. C. Samanta, N. Godani and K. Bamba, arXiv:1811.06834 [gr-qc] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    G. C. Samanta and N. Godani, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, accepted (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Godani and G

    N. Godani and G. C. Samanta, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, accepted (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. Odintsov, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 4 (2007) 115

    2007

  15. [23]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13 (2010) 3

    2010

  16. [24]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Phys. Repports, 509 (2011) 167

    2011

  17. [25]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, Astrophys. Space Sci. 342 (2012) 155

    2012

  18. [26]

    de Martino, M

    I. de Martino, M. De Laurentis and S. Capozziello, Universe 1 (2015) 123

    2015

  19. [27]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 150 (1970) 1

    1970

  20. [28]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99

    1980

  21. [29]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, F. S.N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 104016

    2007

  22. [30]

    Bertolami, P

    O. Bertolami, P. Fraz˜ao, J. P´ aramos, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 104046

    2010

  23. [31]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 046004

    2006

  24. [32]

    Shirasaki, Y

    Y. Shirasaki, Y. Komiya, M. Ohishi and Y. Mizumoto Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 68 (2016) 23

    2016

  25. [33]

    Capozziello, T

    S. Capozziello, T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo and G. J. Olmo J. Cosm. Astrop. Phys. 2013 (2013) 024

    2013

  26. [34]

    D. C. Rodrigues, P. L. de Oliveira, J. C. Fabris and G. Gentile, Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 445 (2014) 3823

    2014

  27. [35]

    Capozziello, C

    S. Capozziello, C. A. Mantica and L. G. Molinari, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 16 (2018) 1950008

    2018

  28. [36]

    Bombacigno and G

    F. Bombacigno and G. Montani, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 405

    2019

  29. [37]

    Sbis` a, O

    F. Sbis` a, O. F. Piattella and S. E. Jor´ as, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 104046

    2019

  30. [38]

    Chen, Phys

    L. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 064025

    2019

  31. [39]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and T. Paul, JCAP 1902 (2019) 017

    2019

  32. [40]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. D. Odintsov, T. Paul and D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 063506

    2019

  33. [41]

    A. V. Astashenok, K. Mosani, S. D. Odintsov and G. C. Samanta, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 16 (2019) 1950035. 16

    2019

  34. [42]

    Miranda, C

    T. Miranda, C. Escamilla-Rivera, O. F. Piattella and J. C. Fabris, JCAP 2019 (2019) 028

    2019

  35. [43]

    J. R. Nascimento, G. J. Olmo, P. J. Porfirio, A. Yu. Petrov and A. R. Soares, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 064053

    2019

  36. [44]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 064049

    2019

  37. [45]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Class. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019) 065008

    2019

  38. [46]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Nucl. Phys. B 941 (2019) 11

    2019

  39. [47]

    Shah and G

    P. Shah and G. C. Samanta, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 414

    2019

  40. [48]

    Saiedi and B

    H. Saiedi and B. N. Esfahani, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 26 (2011) 1211

    2011

  41. [49]

    Bouhmadi-L´ opez, F

    M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, F. S. N. Lobo and P. Mart´ ın-Moruno, JCAP1411 (2014) 007

    2014

  42. [50]

    Najafi, T

    S. Najafi, T. Rostami and S. Jalalzadeh, Annals of Physics, 354 (2015) 288

    2015

  43. [51]

    Bahamonde, M

    S. Bahamonde, M. Jamil, P. Pavlovic and M. Sossich, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 044041

    2016

  44. [52]

    Rahaman, N

    F. Rahaman, N. Paul, A. Banerjee, S. S. De, S. Ray and A. A. Usmani, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 246

    2016

  45. [53]

    Zubair, F

    M. Zubair, F. Kousar and S. Bahamonde, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133 (2018) 523

    2018

  46. [54]

    P. K. F. Kuhfittig, Ind. J. of Phys. 92 (2018) 1207

    2018

  47. [55]

    I. D. Novikov, Physics-Uspekhi 61 (2018) 280

    2018

  48. [56]

    S. N. Sajadi and N. Riazi, arXiv:1611.04343v2 [gr-qc] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M. K. Zangeneh, F. S. N. Lobo and N. Riazi, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 024072

    2014

  50. [58]

    M. R. Mehdizadeh, M. K. Zangeneh and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 084004

    2015

  51. [59]

    M. K. Zangeneh, F. S. N. Lobo and M. H. Dehghani, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 124049

    2015

  52. [60]

    P. H. R. S. Moraes, R. A. C. Correa and R. V. Lobato, JCAP 1707 (2017) 029

    2017

  53. [61]

    Bejarano, F

    C. Bejarano, F. S. N. Lobo, G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 776

    2017

  54. [62]

    M. R. Mehdizadeh and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 124014

    2016

  55. [63]

    Rogatko, Phys

    M. Rogatko, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 024001

    2018

  56. [64]

    B. C. Paul and A. S. Majumdar, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 065001

    2018

  57. [65]

    Shaikh, Phys

    R. Shaikh, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 024044

    2018

  58. [66]

    ¨Ovg¨ un, K

    A. ¨Ovg¨ un, K. Jusufi and˙Izzet Sakalli, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 024042. 17

    2019

  59. [67]

    Tsukamoto and T

    N. Tsukamoto and T. Kokubu, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 044026

    2018

  60. [68]

    B. J. Barros and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 044012

    2018

  61. [69]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev.D 71 (2005) 084011

    2005

  62. [70]

    Garattini, F

    R. Garattini, F. S. N. Lobo, arXiv:1512.04470v1 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Heydarzade, N

    Y. Heydarzade, N. Riazi and H. Moradpour, Can. J. Phys. 93 (2015) 1523

    2015

  64. [72]

    Capozziello, Int

    S. Capozziello, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11 (2002) 483

    2002

  65. [73]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. F. Cardone, S. Carloni, and A. Troisi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 12 (2003) 1969

    2003

  66. [74]

    S. M. Carroll, V. Duvvuri, M. Trodden, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 043528

    2004

  67. [75]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 123512

    2003

  68. [76]

    Chiba, Phys

    T. Chiba, Phys. Lett. B 575 (2003) 1

    2003

  69. [77]

    A. D. Dolgov and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Lett. B 573 (2003) 1

    2003

  70. [78]

    M. E. Soussa and R. P. Woodard, Gen. Rel. Grav. 36 (2004) 855

    2004

  71. [79]

    G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 083505

    2005

  72. [80]

    Faraoni, Phys

    V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 023529

    2006

  73. [81]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa Dark Energy: Theory and Observations Cambride University Press (2013)

    2013

  74. [82]

    Navarro and K

    I. Navarro and K. Van Acoleyen, JCAP 0702 (2007) 022

    2007

  75. [83]

    Amendola, R

    L. Amendola, R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 083504

    2007

  76. [84]

    S. M. Carroll, I. Sawicki, A. Silvestri, and M. Trodden, New J. Phys. 8 (2006) 323

    2006

  77. [85]

    Y. S. Song, W. Hu, and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 044004

    2007

  78. [86]

    R. Bean, D. Bernat, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 064020

    2007

  79. [87]

    Faulkner, M

    T. Faulkner, M. Tegmark, E. F. Bunn, and Y. Mao, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 063505

    2007

  80. [88]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 064004

    2007

  81. [89]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 86 (2007) 157

    2007

  82. [90]

    S. A. Appleby and R. A. Battye, Phys. Lett. B 654 (2007) 7

    2007

  83. [91]

    Tsujikawa, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 023507

    2008

  84. [92]

    Muller, H

    V. Muller, H. J. Schmidt, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 202 (1988) 198

    1988

  85. [93]

    Faraoni, Phys

    V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 044037. 18

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.