Physics

Letters B
Physics Letters B 00 (2022) 1–8

The galaxy rotation curves in the f (R, T ) modified gravity formalism

H. Shabania , P.H.R.S. Moraesb

a University
of Sistan and Baluchestan, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Physics, Department of Physics, Zahedan, Iran
arXiv:2206.14920v1 [gr-qc] 29 Jun 2022

a Schoolof Astronomy, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM) P. O. Box 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran
b Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC) - Centro de Ciências Naturais e Humanas (CCNH) - Avenida dos Estados 5001, 09210-580, Santo

André, SP, Brazil

Abstract
Astronomical data have shown that the galaxy rotation curves are mostly flat in the far distance of the galactic cores, which reveals
the insufficiency of our knowledges about how gravity works in these regimes. In this paper we introduce a resolution of this issue
from the f (R, T ) modified gravity formalism perspective. By investigating two classes of models with separable (minimal coupling
model) and inseparable (non-minimal coupling model) parts of the Ricci scalar R and trace of the energy-momentum tensor T , we
find that only in the latter models it is possible to attain flat galaxy rotation curves.

© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: dark matter, rotation curves, extended gravity

1. Introduction
The dark matter paradigm is among the main challenges of experimental physics nowadays. Although we have
a plethora of probes for dark matter gravitational effects [1]-[5], the search for dark matter particles have proved
negative so far [6]-[10]. The absence of detection of dark matter particles is referred to as dark matter problem.
WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) observations of cosmic microwave background radiation tempera-
ture fluctuations point to Ωc = 0.235 [11] as the density parameter of cold dark matter, which enhances the need for a
deep understanding of dark matter physics.
The same WMAP experiment points to 71.9% of the universe composition to be in the form of the cosmological con-
stant. The cosmological constant is what is expected to make the universe to accelerate its expansion, a phenomenon
that is probed from measurements of the brightness from distant type Ia supernovae [12].
Remarkably, the cosmological constant suffers from a fine tuning problem called cosmological constant problem [13].
The astronomical observations, such as those in [12], indicate that the cosmological constant is many (up to 120 orders
of magnitude) smaller than estimations from particle physics [13].
The cosmological constant problem has led to the construction of theoretical models attaining to explain the cosmic
acceleration from different ingredients than the cosmological constant, such as quintessence [14]-[16] and Chaplygin
gas [17, 18]. There are, actually, many other forms of describing the cosmic acceleration by replacing the cosmological
constant with other ingredient (check, for instance, References [19, 20], among several others) and the high degeneracy
coming from this numerous possibilities is usually referred to as dark energy problem.
The aforementioned problems can be approached through a different perspective, namely modified theories of gravity.
Those extend the General Relativity (GR) formalism in order to incorporate novel terms first in their actions and then
in their field equations. Preferably, those new terms must be able to describe the dark matter and dark energy effects.
1
 / Physics Letters B 00 (2022) 1–8 2

A good example of this possibility comes from the study of rotation curves of galaxies. Frigerio Martins and Salucci
have used the Rn gravity, which is a class of the f (R) gravity models, for which R is the Ricci scalar, with constant n,
to well fit observations of rotation curves of galaxies with no need for dark matter [21]. Strong bonds were put to the
f (R) gravity through rotation curves of galaxies in [22]. However, solar system tests seem to rule out most of the f (R)
models proposed so far [23]-[27]. Also, relativistic stars cannot be presented in some f (R) gravity models [28, 29].
Further f (R) gravity shortcomings can be seen in Reference [30].
With the purpose of circumventing the shortcomings of the f (R) gravity, Harko et al. have proposed to extend the
formalism, by inserting terms dependent on the trace of the energy-momentum tensor T , giving rise to the f (R, T )
gravity [31]. The dependence on T in such a gravity theory may be due to quantum effects, imperfect fluids, extra fluids
or an effective cosmological constant. The f (R, T ) gravity has been applied to several regimes, yielding interesting
results, as one can check, for example, [32]-[36].
In what concerns the “dark sector” of the universe, f (R, T ) models able to accelerate the expansion of the universe
were obtained in [37]-[39], for instance. The dark matter issue, on the other hand, was investigated in [40].
It is our purpose in the present letter to deeply investigate the rotation curves of galaxies in the trace of the energy-
momentum tensor dependent modified gravity, namely f (R, T ) gravity. A dark matter halo is needed to fit observations
of rotation curves of galaxies with newtonian dynamics predictions. Here, we will check if the f (R, T ) gravity is able
to fit the observations in the galactic regime with no need to impose the existence of a dark matter halo.

2. Trace of the energy-momentum tensor dependent modified gravity

Here we will highlight some important features of the f (R, T ) gravity formalism, following References [31, 41]. We
start from the f (R, T ) theory action, which reads
Z " #
√ 1
S = −gd4 x f (R, T ) + L , (1)
2κ
with g being the metric determinant, κ = 8πG, G is the newtonian gravitational constant, f (R, T ) is the generic
function of R and T , and L is the matter Lagrangian density. Varying action (1) with respect to the metric gµν yields
the following
1   h i
F(R, T )Rµν − f (R, T )gµν + gµν  − Oµ Oν F(R, T ) = 8πG + F (R, T ) T µν − F (R, T )pgµν , (2)
2
as the f (R, T ) gravity field equations, with F(R, T ) ≡ ∂ f /∂R, Rµν being the Ricci tensor, F (R, T ) ≡ ∂ f /∂T and T µν is
the energy-momentum tensor. Moreover, we assumed L = p, with p being the pressure.
The covariant derivative of the energy-momentum tensor in the f (R, T ) gravitational theory can be written as the
following

− 12 F ∇µ T − T µν ∇µ F + ∇ν (pF )
∇µ T µν = . (3)
κ+F
Note, from Eq. (3), that, in principle, the f (R, T ) gravity does not predict the conservation of the energy-momentum
tensor. In a cosmological perspective, this is related to a process of creation of matter through the universe evolution
[42].
In the present paper, we will consider models which respect the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor, i.e.,
models in which ∇µ Tµν = 0. Assuming the equation of state p = wρ, with constant w, the following constraints can
be obtained from Eq.(3)

 h2(w+1) F (R, T ) = T FT (R, T ) minimal

 w−1

 coupling models
i (4)
2 F (R, T ) − (w + 1)T FT (R, T ) Ṫ = (1 + w)(3w − 1)Ṙ non-minimal coupling models,
 w−1



in which with coupling we mean geometry-matter coupling, that is, separable and non-separable parts of R and T in
the f (R, T ) function. In (4), a dot represents time derivative.
2
 / Physics Letters B 00 (2022) 1–8 3

For the particular case of minimal coupling models f (R, T ) = R + h(T ), in which h(T ) = αT n + β, with α, n and β
being constants, the constraint (4) leads to n = (3w + 1)/[2(w + 1)].
By applying the Bianchi identity to the non-minimal coupling models f (R, T ) = Rh̃(T ), with h̃(T ) being a function of
T , one obtains the lower constraint in (4). In this case, the Ricci scalar is obtained by computing the trace of Eq.(2).
To discuss the problem of galaxy rotation curves we linearize the f (R, T ) gravity field equations (2) using the Newto-
nian gauge through which the perturbed version of the Friedmann-Lemâitre-Robertson-Walker metric reads [43]
h i h i
ds2 = − 1 + 2Ψ(r) dt2 + a2 (t) 1 + 2Φ(r) γi j , (5)
in which Ψ(r) and Φ(r) are the metric perturbations, a(t) is the scale factor and γi j is the spatially flat three dimensional
line element.
Through this approach we consider a spherical mass embedding in the cosmic fluid. To proceed we perturb all
scalar and tensor quantities included in the field equations (2) as a sum of a time dependent spatially homogeneous
background part and a time-independent one, i.e., Ξ(t, r) = Ξb (t) + Ξ s (r) (here the superscript b stands for background
while the superscript s stands for source). Thus, using this assumptions we obtain

Fb
"       #
F b Rµν
s
+ FRb Rµν
− gµν + FR p gµν − T µν + FR gµν  − ∇µ ∇ν + gµν  − ∇µ ∇ν FRb R s =
b b b b
2
Fb
  "     #
8πG + F b T µν
s
+ −FTb Rbµν + gµν + FTb T µν
b
− pb gµν − FTb gµν  − ∇µ ∇ν − (gµν  − ∇µ ∇ν )FTb T s − F b p s gµν ,
2
(6)
In the next sections we will investigate solutions of (6) for a spherical mass distribution to model galaxy rotation
curves. Two different types of f (R, T ) functions will be considered.

3. Galaxy rotation curves in the minimal coupling f (R, T) gravity

In a static case such as the hydrostatic stellar equilibrium or rotation curves of galaxies, it might be valuable to search
for “conservative” cases of the f (R, T ) formalism (check [44] for an example of the former case). Using Eq. (2), the
equations of motion for the background cosmic matter read

2n − w + 1
3H 2 = κρb + α [(3w − 1)ρb ]n , (7)
2(3w − 1)
α
− 2Ḣ − 3H 2 = κwρb + [(3w − 1)ρb ]n , (8)
2
in which H is the Hubble parameter (ρb and pb denote the time-dependent parts of the density and the pressure of
cosmic matter, respectively). Also, we consider a perfect fluid with pb = wρb equation of state. To avoid ambiguity in
the brackets one has to use T → −T for matter fluids with negative trace of the energy-momentum tensor.
The potentials Ψ and Φ are obtained by solving Eq. (6), which gives

2 2
− ∇ Φ(r) = ηbρ ρ(r) + ηbp p(r), (9)
a2 (t)
2  0
Ψ (r) + Φ0 (r) = ζρb ρ(r) + ζ pb p(r),

(10)
ra2 (t)
1 2 1  0
∇ [Ψ(r) + Φ(r)] − 2 Ψ (r) + Φ0 (r) = ζρb ρ(r) + ζ pb p(r),

2
(11)
a (t) ra (t)
with
4w − 1 h in−1 αn j 3w + 1 h in−1
ηbρ = κ + αn j (3w − 1) jρb , ηbp = − (3w − 1) jρb , (12)
3w − 1 4 3w − 1
αn j h in−1 3αn j h in−1
ζρb = − (3w − 1) jρb , ζ pb = κ + (3w − 1) jρb ,
2 2
3
 / Physics Letters B 00 (2022) 1–8 4

where
T < 0 or w < 31 ,
(
−1
j= (13)
+1 T > 0 or w > 13 ,
(in Eqs. (9)-(11), ρ(r) and p(r) indicate the density and the pressure of a spherical configuration of matter which is
immersed in the background cosmic matter). The superscript “s” has been dropped for the time-independent variables,
for abbreviation. In definitions (12) one obtains ρb from Eq. (7), which for a static solution (and also the scale factor
a(t)) has to be calculated in a fixed cosmic time. Assuming the present time, for w = 0, one reaches the solutions
ρb0 = [α/(1−Ω0 )]2 and ρb0 = [αΩ0 /(1−Ω0 )]2 (where Ω denotes the baryonic matter density parameter and the subscript
“0” denotes present time values)1 . Therefore, one can calculate the coefficients (12). Equation (8) simply gives the
potential Φ(r) and by a simple manipulation of Eqs.(9)-(11) one obtains
2 h i h i
∇2 Ψmin (r) = 3ζρb + ηbρ ρ(r) + 3ζ pb + ηbp p(r), (14)
a2 (t)
in which the subscript “min” stands for minimal coupling models. Therefore, in the minimal coupling f (R, T ) gravity
theories, the Newtonian gravitational potential admits a correction term, as Ψmin (r) = ΨN (r) + Ψc (r), which depends
on the properties of cosmic matter. Obviously, this correction term depends on the inverse of distance of observation
points like the Newtonian potential. Thus, the flatness problem of galaxy rotation curves cannot be solved in this
context. From the the r.h.s of Eq.(6) we see that for those models with FTb , 0 there appears a new term corresponding
to the derivatives of T s which sources our motivation to consider a non-minimal model in the subsequent section.

4. Galaxy rotation curves in the non-minimal coupling f (R, T) gravity

In this section we obtain the solution of the perturbed field equation (12) for the non-minimal coupling case, namely
f (R, T ) = R[1 + βh(T )] with constant β and h(T ) = T n , with constant n. In this case, the background equations of
motion read

n(w + 1)(9w + 1) w+1 h κ

( " #h in ) in
β − 1 (3w − 1)ρb − 1 H 2 + 2nβ (3w − 1)ρb Ḣ = − ρ, (15)
3w − 1 3w − 1 3
( h ih i) h in ( h ih in )
3 − 1 + β n(w + 1) − 1 3n(w + 1) − 1 (3w − 1)ρb H 2 + − 2 + β − 2 + 3n(1 + w) (3w − 1)ρb Ḣ = κwρ.
(16)

One can check that Eqs.(15) and (16) reduce to the usual GR form for β = 0. Therefore, the time dependent back-
ground variables are supposed to be obtained from solving the lower relation in the results (4), Eqs.(15) and (16) for
the chosen model. The perturbed equations for a static spherical mass read

n h io
2 1 + β hb − 2(w + 1)ρb h0b ∇2 Φ(r) − 2β(w + 1)h0b ρb ∇2 D(r) = −κρ(r) − βh0b ∇2 −ρ(r) + 3p(r) ,
 
(17)
0 0b
D (r) 2βh  0
2(1 + βhb ) = κp(r) − −ρ (r) + 3p0 (r) ,

(18)
r r
D0 (r)
" # !
d 
(1 + βh ) ∇ D(r) −
b 2
= κp(r) + βh −∇ +
0b 2
−ρ(r) + 3p(r) ,

(19)
r rdr
in which the prime denotes a derivative with respect to the argument, D(r) ≡ Ψ(r) + Φ(r) and a0 = 1 has been used.
Also, the argument T has been dropped from the corresponding functions2 . Again, by setting β = 0 one gets the
corresponding GR equations.

1 Easily, two solutions for the matter density can be understood from Eq. (7) for w = 0. Note that, from the discussion following Eq.(4), one

gains n = 1/2 for w = 0.

2 Obviously, we have h0b (ρ) = (3w − 1)h0b (T ).

4
 / Physics Letters B 00 (2022) 1–8 5

The system of equations (17)-(19) yields the results

1 n o
∇2 Φ(r) = −κρ(r) + κB b
p(r) + Cb 2
∇ −ρ(r) + 3p(r) , (20)
2Ab
∇2 Ψ(r) = κDb ρ(r) + κEb p(r) − Mb ∇2 −ρ(r) + 3p(r) ,
 
(21)
h i h0b
Ab = 1 + β hb − 2(1 + w)h0b ρb , Bb = 3(w + 1)β ,
1 + βhb
βh0b h i 1
Cb = − 2(w + 1)βh0b ρb + 1 , Db = ,
1 + βhb 2Ab
βh0b
" #
3 1 n h io
Eb = − (1 + w)βρ b 0b
h , M b
= 1 + β 2h − 6(w + 1)h ρ
0b b
.
1 + βhb 2 2(1 + βh)Ab
Comparing Eqs.(9) and (14) with (20)-(21) one finds an extra term in the r.h.s of the latter which is proportional to
the Laplacian of the matter density and pressure. To show how Eqs. (20)-(21) describe the galaxy rotation curve
we consider a pressureless fluid permeating the galaxy, that is we assume p(r) = 0. Note that because of different
coefficients in Eqs.(20) and (21) one does not expect the same solution for the two potentials as in GR. In the absence
of pressure, the modified Newtonian potential obeys the following equation

∇2 Ψnmin (r) = κDb ρ(r) + Mb ∇2 ρ(r), (22)

in which the subscript “nmin” stands for non-minimal coupling models. To continue, we firstly solve the above
equation for known potential functions. In the limit of √ large distances from the center of the galaxy, astronomical
f ar
data mostly predict a flat rotational curve, i.e., vgrc = V = constant (in which the subscript “grc” denotes “galaxy
rotation curve”), which means we are facing a gravitational potential of the form Ψ(r) = U + V log(r), for constant
U. Solving Eq.(22) for this long distance potential we obtain

 r  q  r  r 
Mb b  b 
q q
1  Db
b −r − Mb
 r − Db  D −r − Db D 
ρ f ar (r) = +V − b ,
   
2M ce e − − b r − e
Mb Ei  Mb Ei   − b r (23)
  
2Mb r D M M


 


in which Ei(x) is the Exponential Integral Function. The solution (23) has been obtained from the condition that
ρ(∞) = 0, with c being an integration constant. The above solution behaves like 1/r in far distances for appropriate
values of β and w.
grc = Dr for arbitrary
Near the center of a galaxy we take the approximation that the velocity rotation curves vary as vnear
values of the constant D. In this case, the solution of Eq.(22) is given by

  r  r 
1 Db  p b b Db 
ρ (r) = 2D −1 + cosh r + D M ρ0 sinh r ,
near
 
(24)
rDb Mb  Mb 
in which ρ0 is the galaxy density at the center.
Fig. 1 below shows the behavior of (23)-(24) solutions for the same values of β and w parameters as well as n = 1/2.
It can be seen that the non-minimal coupling f (R, T ) models are capable of justifying a matter density profile with an
admissible behavior while the source and the background pressures are vanished, i.e., w ≈ 0 and p(r) = 0.
Another approach is to find the matter density of a spherical mass using a known rotation curve profile. For instance,
in [45] it has been shown that the rotation curves of the Milky Way can be explained by taking an exponential density
distribution of the form ρES M (r) = ρc exp (−r/r0 ), in which ρc and r0 are the central density of the bulge of the galaxy
and a scale radius, respectively. The superscript “ESM” stands for “exponential sphere model”, which is the name of
this model [45]. The mentioned density profile corresponds to the following gravitational potential

"  #
1 − rr  r0  − r
Ψ ES M
(r) = ρc r02 e 0 +1 + e 0 − 1 + ΨcES M ,
r
(25)
2 3r
5
 / Physics Letters B 00 (2022) 1–8 6

=1 =0

1 1

0.100 0.100

0.010 0.010
(r)

(r)
0.001 0.001
β=100, w=0.05, v=0.5

10-4 β=100, w=0.05, v=2.0 10-4

β=100, w=0.05, v=1.0
10-5 β=500, w=0.00, v=1.0 10-5
β=1000, w=0.01, v=1.0
10-6 β=500, w=0.01, v=1.0 10-6
10 50 100 500 1000 5000 104 10 50 100 500 1000 5000 104
r r

0.5
ρ r)

=100, w=0.05, =0.5

β=100, w=0.05, =2.0

0.2 β=100, w=0.05, =1.0

β=500, w=0.00, =1.0
β=1000, w=0.01, =1.0
β=500, w=0.01, =1.0
0.1
0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50 100
r

Figure 1.√ The behavior of the galaxy density in the limit of far and near distances from the center of the galaxy in the context of the f (R, T ) =
R(1 + β T ) gravity. Upper panels show the solution in far distances for two values of c. Lower panel indicates the solution in the near distances
for ρ0s = 1.

in which ΨES M (0) = ΨcES M .

Solving Eq.(22) for the potential (25) gives
√ !
b
−2r 1
+ i√ D  √
ρc e
r0 2r ir√ Db  p
Mb
r0 +

p p   p p   
ρ f (R,T )
(r) = √  M b e Mb M b + ir D b 2 4r D b Mb + ir 2 1 − 2Db + 2iMb −

  0 0 0
4r Db r02 Db + Mb 2 

√
b p
+ √ D
2r 3ir p  
p p p   
i Mb e r0 Mb Mb − ir0 Db 2 4ir0 Db Mb + r02 1 − 2Db + 2Mb
√ ! 
b
p r r1 + 2i√ D h i
+2r0 D e
2
rr0 D + (r + 2r0 ) M 
2 b b 
.

b 0 M b
(26)



Solution (26) leads to the same rotation curves discussed in [45]. Note that, although in this solution the imaginary
number i appears, nevertheless, it gives real valued profiles for some amounts of the free parameters β and w. We
compare the solution (26) with the density profile of exponential sphere model in Fig. 2. It can be seen that in
the framework of non-minimal oupling f (R, T ) model, one can tackle the problem of galaxy rotation curves. The
phenomenological density profile of the exponential sphere model can be replaced by a completely theoretical solution
which does produce the same effect on the galaxy rotation curves.

6
 / Physics Letters B 00 (2022) 1–8 7

0.100

ρESM r)
0.010

n=-1/2, β=6, w=0.08

n=-2/3, β=110, w=0.00
0.001
n=-1, β=100, w=0.21
Exponential Sphere Model

2 4 6 8
r
√
Figure 2. Comparison of the galaxy density profiles of exponential sphere model to the one obtained from f (R, T ) = R(1+β T ) theory. ρc = 1 = r0
has been used.

5. Conclusion remarks

Since the seminal works by Rubin and collaborators [46]-[49], theoretical physicists have tried hard to explain the
flattened pattern that shows up for large distances to the galactic center. The “standard” approach is to assume there
is a dark matter halo involving the galaxies.
There is a number of models that theorize dark matter particles, such as axions [50] and neutralinos [51], among
many others. None of these dark matter particles has been experimentally probed so far (check the references in the
Introduction section, among others).
This has led some theoretical physicists to try to explain the rotation curves of galaxies with no dark matter, but by
changing the dynamical laws. For example, Milgrom phenomenologically changed the newtonian gravitational law
in the limit of low acceleration (check Reference [52] for example, among others), such as the outer regions of spiral
galaxies.
Even in the structure formation scenario, some alternatives to dark matter can be seen, as one can check, for instance,
[53]-[57].
Returning to the galaxy rotation curves issue, a more fundamental form of treating it with no dark matter is by
considering alternative (or modified or extended) theories of gravity in their weak-field regime, as it was done in
[58]-[60] for instance.
Here we have followed the above approach for the f (R, T ) theory of gravity. We highlighted the ability of the f (R, T )
gravity theories to describe the flatness problem of galaxy rotation curves. Distribution of a spherical mass immersed
in the background cosmic matter has been considered. Our investigation was done on two classes of models: f (R, T ) =
R + αT n models, which are called “minimal coupling models” and f (R, T ) = R(1 + βT n ) models, which are called
“non-minimal coupling model”.
We have shown that the former type of models cannot bring forward an important correction with respect to GR
results. In these models, the correction term is proportional to the inverse of distance which implies non-significant
deviation from GR.
To inspect the physical content of the field equations using the non-minimal coupling models, we obtained far and
near-distance solutions considering a linear and a constant approximation for the velocity rotation curves, respectively.
Correspondingly, two matter density profiles have been obtained with the property of being decreasing functions
of distance. We showed that in the f (R, T ) gravitational non-minimal coupling model, a local perturbation of a
pressureless cosmic matter yields spherical masses with flat rotation curves without demanding the existence of a
dark matter halo.
Also, we achieved the matter density profile for a known velocity profile which is phenomenologically suggested in
the Exponential Sphere Model [45] and we demonstrated that our solution behaves the same as the corresponding
phenomenological density profile.

7
 / Physics Letters B 00 (2022) 1–8 8

References
[1] P. Schneider, Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 283 (1996) 837.
[2] D.M. Wittman et al., Nature 405 (2000) 143.
[3] R.B. Metcalf and P. Madau, Astrophys. J. 563 (2001) 9.
[4] L.A. Moustakas and R.B. Mentcalf, Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 339 (2003) 607.
[5] N.C. Amorisco et al., Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 510 (2022) 2464.
[6] D.S. Akerib et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 021303.
[7] CDMS II Collaboration, Science 327 (2010) 1619.
[8] J. Angle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 051301.
[9] E. Aprile et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 181301.
[10] J. Abdallah et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 9 (2015) 8.
[11] G. Hinshaw et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 208 (2013) 19.
[12] A.G. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009.
[13] S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1.
[14] S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav. 30 (2013) 214003.
[15] G. Allemandi et al., Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 063505.
[16] V. Sahni, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002) 3435.
[17] W. Chakraborty et al., Grav. Cosm. 13 (2007) 293.
[18] P. Rudra, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28 (2013) 1350102.
[19] P.Y. Tsyba et al., Int. J. Theor. Phys. 50 (2011) 1876.
[20] R. Lazkoz et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14 (2005) 635.
[21] C. Frigerio Martins and P. Salucci, Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 381 (2007) 1103.
[22] V. Vikram et al., Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 104055.
[23] T. Chiba, Phys. Lett. B 575 (2003) 1.
[24] T. Chiba et al., Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 124014.
[25] A.L. Erickcek et al., Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 121501.
[26] S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 821.
[27] G.J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 023511.
[28] T. Kobayashi and K. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 064019.
[29] R. Goswami et al., Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 084011.
[30] S.E. Jorás, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 26 (2011) 3730.
[31] T. Harko et al., Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 024020.
[32] A. Das et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 654.
[33] F.G. Alvarenga et al., Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 103526.
[34] M.E.S. Alves et al., Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 024032.
[35] Z. Yousaf et al., Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 124048.
[36] M. Jamil et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1999.
[37] P.H.R.S. Moraes et al., Astrophys. Spa. Sci. 361 (2016) 227.
[38] V. Singh and C.P. Singh, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 55 (2016) 1257.
[39] R.K. Tiwari et al., Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 18 (2021) 2150104.
[40] R. Zaregonbadi et al., Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 084052.
[41] H. Shabani and M. Farhoudi, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 044031.
[42] T. Harko, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2013) 044067.
[43] S. Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press, New York, 2008).
[44] S.I. dos Santos et al., Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, 398 (2019).
[45] Y. Sofue, Astrophys. J. Lett. 447 (1995) L25.
[46] V.C. Rubin et al., Astrophys. J. 225 (1978) L107.
[47] V.C. Rubin et al., Astrophys. J. 238 (1980) 471.
[48] V.C. Rubin et al., Astrophys. J. 159 (1970) 379.
[49] V.C. Rubin et al., Astrophys. J. 230 (1979) 35.
[50] L.D. Duffy and K. van Bibber, New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 105008.
[51] V.A. Bednyakov et al., Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 503.
[52] M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J. 333 (1988) 689.
[53] S. Dodelson and M. Liguori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 231301.
[54] V. Acquaviva et al., Phys. Rev. D 71 (2006) 104025.
[55] M.V. Bebronne and P.G. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 084011.
[56] K. Koyama and R. Maartens, J. Cosm. Astrop. Phys. 01 (2006) 016.
[57] S. Pal, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 024005.
[58] C. Deliduman et al., Astrophys. Spa. Sci. 365 (2020) 51.
[59] J.G. O’Brien et al., Astrophys. J. 852 (2018) 6.
[60] M.K. Mak and T. Harko, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 024010.