Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Chebyshev cosmography in the framework of extended symmetric teleparallel theory

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a two-variable Chebyshev-polynomial reconstruction of the f(Q,T) gravity Lagrangian and reports that its distance modulus matches Pantheon+SH0ES supernovae and ΛCDM.

desk verdict A Taylor series in a Chebyshev basis plus a sign error in the trace does not make a model-independent reconstruction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03065 v1 pith:TSNBZASW submitted 2024-12-04 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Sai Swagat Mishra , N. S. Kavya , P.K. Sahoo , V. Venkatesha This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords Chebyshevpolynomialf(QT)gravitycosmographyluminositydistancePantheon+SH0ESnon-metricityMCMCmodulus
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 sets out to reconstruct the functional form of f(Q,T) gravity, an extended symmetric teleparallel theory in which the Lagrangian depends on non-metricity Q and the trace T of the matter energy-momentum tensor, directly from distance observations rather than from a pre-chosen model. It uses first-kind Chebyshev polynomials in two variables to expand f(Q,T) under a minimally coupled ansatz γ(Q)+η(T), and converts the standard Taylor luminosity distance into a Chebyshev series whose coefficients are explicit functions of the present-time cosmographic parameters H0, q0, j0, s0. Fitting that distance modulus to the 1701 Pantheon+SH0ES supernovae gives 1-sigma ranges for six free derivatives, with H0 around 73 km/s/Mpc and Ωm0 around 0.304. The paper's central claim is that the resulting curve matches both the data and the ΛCDM distance modulus across the entire sampled redshift range. A reader should care because this is a model-independent path from supernova distances to the coupling structure of a modified gravity theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the first-kind Chebyshev polynomials T_n(x)=cos(n arccos x), with orthogonality on [-1,1] and recurrence T_{n+1}=2xT_n(x)-T_{n-1}(x). The paper uses them in two roles: to expand the two-variable function f(Q,T) as Σ α_{i,j} T_i(Q) T_j(T), and to convert the Taylor luminosity distance into a Chebyshev series dL(z) = (c/H0) Σ_{n=0}^{4} c_n T_n(z), where c_n are explicit rational functions of q0, j0, s0. The non-metricity scalar Q=$6H^{2}$ and the assumed matter trace T=$3H0^{2}$ Ωm0/$a^{3}$ feed the f(Q,T) Friedmann equations, whose present-time solution ties the cosmographic parameters to the Chebyshev coefficients and lets the Markov-chain Monte Carlo run constrain the six derivatives.

What would settle it

Take the same f(Q,T) field equations but use the standard dust trace T = −ρ, redo the Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit, and compare the best-fit ranges to Table I; if the ranges shift by more than the quoted 1-σ errors, the reconstruction as stated does not describe the theory. A direct check is to insert the fitted γ(1), γ(3), γ(4), η(1), η(2), and Ωm0 into Eqs. (18)–(19) and ask whether the resulting H(z) reproduces the Pantheon+SH0ES distance moduli within the published covariance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the two-variable Chebyshev series reconstructs the f(Q,T) Lagrangian as f(Q,T) ≈ γ(Q)+η(T) with γ and η expanded to fourth order in (Q−Q0) and (T−T0), and that the luminosity distance can be written as dL(z) = (c/H0) Σ_{n=0}^{4} c_n T_n(z), where c0,...,c4 are closed-form rational functions of q0, j0, s0 (with α=1/192). Substituting the field equations at the present time yields expressions for q0, j0, and s0 in terms of γ(1), γ(3), γ(4), η(1), η(2), and Ωm0, so a Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit to the Pantheon+SH0ES distance moduli pins down those unknowns. The reported best-fit ranges are H0 = 73.$0^{{+1.0}}$_{-0.87}, Ωm0 = 0.$304^{{+0.042}}$_{-0.019}, γ(1) = 12528.74 ± 0.99, γ(3) = −1080.2 ± 1.0, γ(4) = −18.92 ± 0.98, η(1) = 0.$19^{{+0.41}}$_{-0.74}, and η(2) = 0.$88^{{+0.32}}$_{-0.55}. The paper interprets the resulting distance modulus as an excellent match to the 1701 data points and to ΛCDM, and reports ΔAIC = 1.88 as strong evidence in favor while ΔBIC = 14.43 offers no supportive evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the matter trace is T = $3H0^{2}$ Ωm0/$a^{3}$ with a positive sign under the paper's (−,+,+,+) metric signature; with the standard dust trace −ρ, every fitted coefficient in Eqs. (37)–(41) would change, so a sign mistake would collapse the reconstruction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fitted coefficients assemble into an explicit, data-anchored functional form for f(Q,T), something the paper argues single-variable cosmography cannot do for coupled theories.
  • The Chebyshev luminosity distance formula with the stated coefficients is a ready-made model-independent distance expression that can be reused with other distance catalogs or priors.
  • Because Chebyshev series converge exponentially for analytic functions, the reconstruction is intended to remain valid beyond the z < 1 range where Taylor cosmography breaks down.
  • The distance modulus matches ΛCDM over 0.001 ≤ z ≤ 2.2613, so the reconstructed theory is consistent with standard cosmology at the kinematic level.
  • The AIC/BIC split (1.88 versus 14.43) means the model gains strong support on fit quality but is penalized by its large number of parameters.
  • The reconstructed f(Q,T) is kinematic, fit to distances; connecting it to structure growth or perturbation theory would require additional constraints the paper does not address.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-variable Chebyshev coefficient scheme can be transplanted to other coupled theories, such as f(R,T) or f(Q,L_m), by replacing the trace and the matter Lagrangian; the paper only demonstrates f(Q,T).
  • The sign of T is convention-dependent: redoing the chain with T = −ρ, the standard dust trace under the declared signature, is likely to shift the fitted derivative ranges even if the qualitative match to ΛCDM survives, so the quoted numbers should be read within that convention.
  • The method's redshift reach could be tested by applying the fitted distance modulus to high-redshift probes such as quasars, gamma-ray bursts, or fast radio bursts beyond the z = 2.26 supernova ceiling; the paper does not perform that test.
  • The paper fits a kinematic reconstruction, not a full cosmological model, so further work would be needed to show that the reconstructed f(Q,T) also predicts the observed growth of structure and cosmic microwave background anisotropies.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a cosmographic reconstruction of f(Q,T) gravity using two-variable Chebyshev polynomials. It assumes the minimally coupled form f(Q,T)=γ(Q)+η(T), expands both functions in Taylor series around present-day values, rewrites the expansion as Eq. (32), and uses the f(Q,T) Friedmann equations to express the deceleration, jerk, and snap parameters in terms of the Taylor coefficients (Eqs. (39)-(41)). It then constructs a luminosity-distance expression from the standard cosmographic Taylor series, re-expresses it in terms of Chebyshev polynomials, and performs an MCMC fit to Pantheon+SH0ES data with free parameters H0, γ(1), γ(3), γ(4), η(1), η(2), and Ωm0. The authors report a distance modulus that closely follows ΛCDM and quote AIC/BIC values. The central claims are that this yields a model-independent two-variable Chebyshev reconstruction of f(Q,T) and that the reconstructed theory is consistent with current supernova data.

Significance. If the advertised method worked, it would extend single-variable cosmography to a two-variable Chebyshev reconstruction of f(Q,T) and would provide a genuinely model-independent route to fixing the functional form. The manuscript is clearly organized, derives the standard f(Q,T) field equations, and presents a complete MCMC pipeline with posterior contours and a comparison with Pantheon+SH0ES. However, two load-bearing problems undermine the central claim. First, Eq. (23) sets the dust trace T to +ρ, whereas with the stated (-,+,+,+) signature the trace is -ρ; since η(1), η(2) and all higher trace derivatives enter Eqs. (37)-(41), the fitted coefficients in Table I do not describe f(Q,T) for the theory defined in the paper. Second, the 'Chebyshev reconstruction' in Eq. (32) is algebraically identical to the Taylor expansion (31), and the luminosity distance (35)-(36) is a polynomial basis change of the Taylor series (34), so the Chebyshev machinery does no new work.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (23)] The trace of the dust energy-momentum tensor for the FLRW metric (16) with signature (-,+,+,+) is T = g^{μν}T_{μν} = -ρ, where ρ = 3H0^2 Ωm0/a^3. Equation (23) instead sets T = +3H0^2 Ωm0/a^3. This is not a cosmetic convention choice: T, T', T'', and T''' from Eq. (23) enter the Taylor expansion (31), the present-day field equations (37)-(38), and the cosmographic relations (39)-(41) through η(T) and its derivatives. With T = -ρ, the derivatives η(1), η(2) are evaluated at an argument of opposite sign from ρ, so the fitted values in Table I are not the coefficients of f(Q,T) for the theory defined by Eq. (8). The authors must either correct the sign and redo the reconstruction or explicitly adopt and justify a nonstandard convention for T; as it stands, the central result is not a reconstruction of the stated f(Q,T) theory.
  2. [Section IV A, Eq. (32)] Equation (32) is not a Chebyshev expansion. The Chebyshev coefficients αi,j defined in Eq. (30) never appear in the derivation; Eq. (32) is simply the Taylor polynomial (31) rewritten in nested form, as can be verified by expanding (Q-Q0) and (T-T0). The phrase 'By incorporating (30) and (31) in the Chebyshev series (29)' therefore does not describe what is actually done. To support the central claim of a two-variable Chebyshev reconstruction, the authors would need to compute the Chebyshev coefficients from an appropriately normalized domain and show that the resulting series differs from the Taylor truncation. As it stands, the advertised method reduces to a Taylor expansion of f(Q,T) around (Q0,T0).
  3. [Section V, Eqs. (34)-(36)] The luminosity distance used in the likelihood is the standard Taylor series (34) re-expressed in Chebyshev polynomials. Since Tn(z) are polynomials of degree n, the expression in Eq. (35) is exactly a quartic polynomial in z and is algebraically identical to the Taylor truncation (34). The fit therefore constrains the kinematic coefficients H0, q0, j0, s0, and the agreement with Pantheon+SH0ES and ΛCDM in Fig. 1 is a property of this polynomial distance modulus, not an independent test of f(Q,T). The subsequent use of Eqs. (39)-(41) to convert the fitted kinematic parameters into f(Q,T) coefficients is a consistency inversion: the output functional form is dictated by the input Taylor model. This is the sense in which the reconstruction is circular by construction, and the Chebyshev basis change adds no new information.
  4. [Section V B and Section VI] The statistical comparison is misreported. The paper states that ΔAIC = 1.88 'indicates strong evidence in favor of the model,' but a difference of 1.88 is at best weak-to-moderate support, especially for a model with seven free parameters. More importantly, the authors also report ΔBIC = 14.43, which under standard criteria is strong evidence against the model, not a neutral 'slightly higher' value. The concluding claim that the model makes 'an excellent match' to ΛCDM is therefore not supported by the paper's own information-criterion results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV A, Eq. (30)] The Chebyshev coefficient integrals in Eq. (30) are over the square [-1,1]^2, but Q = 6H^2 and T = 3H0^2Ωm0/a^3 are not normalized to this interval and have physical dimensions. An affine rescaling of Q and T is needed before the coefficients αi,j are defined; otherwise the integrals and the weight function are not meaningful as written.
  2. [Section V A, Eq. (35)] The polynomial variable z in Eq. (35) exceeds 1 for redshifts up to 2.26 in the Pantheon+SH0ES sample. Although the finite polynomial identity (33) holds for all z, the Chebyshev convergence properties invoked in Section IV A apply to functions on [-1,1]. To exploit those properties, the authors should map z (or dL) to a bounded variable such as (2z - zmax)/zmax.
  3. [Section IV C and Table I] The zero-order constants γ and η are omitted from the MCMC fit and from Table I. Since only the combination γ+η appears in Eq. (37), the individual values of γ(Q0) and η(T0) are not determined, and the full functional form f(Q,T) is not reconstructed. The paper should state whether these constants are fixed by a convention or simply left free.
  4. [Throughout] The notation mixes T for the trace of the matter energy-momentum tensor and Tn for Chebyshev polynomials; this makes several equations, such as Eq. (29), unnecessarily confusing. Renaming the trace, for example to τ, would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed f(Q,T) reconstruction is the input Taylor ansatz re-expressed, and the Pantheon+SH0ES 'match' is a fit to the same data used to constrain the model.

  1. self definitional [Section IV.A, Eqs. (29)-(32)]
    "where g(Q, T) is the Taylor series expansion of the function f (Q, T) ... By incorporating (30) and (31) in the Chebyshev series (29), one can finally achieve f (Q, T) ~ gamma + 1/120 (Q - Q0)(60 gamma^(1) + ..."

    The 'reconstructed' f(Q,T) in Eq. (32) is exactly the Taylor expansion in Eq. (31) that was assumed as input. The Chebyshev coefficients in Eq. (30) are defined as projections of that same Taylor series, so the two-variable Chebyshev step returns the input Taylor polynomial without adding or deriving new information. The claimed reconstruction of the functional form therefore reduces to the adopted Taylor ansatz by construction; the parameters later constrained are just the Taylor derivatives gamma^(n), eta^(n).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Eqs. (42)-(45) and Fig. 1]
    "The free parameters (H0, gamma^(1), gamma^(3), gamma^(4), eta^(1), eta^(2)Omega_m0) are constrained by applying equations (39)-(41) to (42). ... we depict from Figure 1 that the distance modulus function for our constrained theory perfectly aligns with the 1701 points of PANTHEON+SH0ES sample and the standard LambdaCDM model."

    The same Pantheon+SH0ES data set is used both to fit the free parameters via MCMC and to evaluate the 'excellent match' of the model's distance modulus. Because the model is fitted to these 1701 points, the agreement is a goodness-of-fit on the training data, not an independent prediction or validation. The claim that the result matches data is thus a self-consistency check of the fitting procedure rather than an independent test of the reconstructed f(Q,T).

full rationale

The reconstruction of f(Q,T) in Eq. (32) is obtained by plugging the assumed Taylor expansion (31) into the Chebyshev coefficient formulas (30); the result is the very same Taylor polynomial, so the 'obtained functional form' is the input ansatz, not an independent derivation. Separately, the free parameters are fitted with MCMC to the Pantheon+SH0ES distance moduli, and the same data are then used to claim an 'excellent match'; that is a training-set goodness-of-fit, not an independent prediction. The field-equation map (37)-(41) does provide some independent content linking cosmographic parameters to f(Q,T) derivatives, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing, so the paper is not wholly circular. However, the headline reconstruction and data-agreement claims reduce substantially to their inputs. The T = +rho sign choice in Eq. (23) is a separate correctness concern rather than a circularity and is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on seven numbers fitted to the same distance data used to define the series, plus a set of modeling choices (FLRW, dust, separable f(Q,T), 4th-order truncation, T sign convention). The paper contributes no independent evidence for these choices.

free parameters (7)
  • H0 = 73.0+1.0/-0.87 km/s/Mpc
    Hubble constant fitted to Pantheon+SH0ES distance moduli.
  • gamma^(1) = 12528.74 +/- 0.99
    First Taylor coefficient of gamma(Q) in the reconstructed f(Q,T); fitted.
  • gamma^(3) = -1080.2 +/- 1.0
    Third derivative coefficient of gamma(Q); fitted.
  • gamma^(4) = -18.92 +/- 0.98
    Fourth derivative coefficient of gamma(Q); fitted.
  • eta^(1) = 0.19+0.41/-0.74
    First derivative coefficient of eta(T); fitted.
  • eta^(2) = 0.88+0.32/-0.55
    Second derivative coefficient of eta(T); fitted.
  • Omega_m0 = 0.304+0.042/-0.019
    Present matter density parameter; fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Chebyshev polynomial orthogonality and recurrence in Eqs. (25)-(28)
    Used to construct the two-variable series; standard property of Chebyshev polynomials.
  • domain assumption FLRW metric, flat space, perfect-fluid dust, coincident gauge, N=1 (Sec. II)
    The background geometry and matter model for the field equations.
  • ad hoc to paper Separable ansatz f(Q,T)=gamma(Q)+eta(T) (Sec. IVA)
    Restricts the theory space; not justified by data or symmetry, and it is this restriction that makes the Taylor expansion a 'reconstruction'.
  • domain assumption The 4th-order Taylor truncation is a sufficient approximation for 0<=z<=2.26
    No convergence check is given over the full Pantheon+SH0ES redshift range.
  • domain assumption T = 3H0^2 Omega_m0/a^3 with positive sign (Eq. 23)
    Assumed trace of the matter energy-momentum tensor; conflicts with the standard trace under the stated signature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chebyshev cosmography in the framework of extended symmetric teleparallel theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSNBZASW

@misc{pith2026241203065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chebyshev cosmography in the framework of extended symmetric teleparallel theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSNBZASW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03065}
}
abstract

Cosmography has been extensively utilized to constrain the kinematic state of the Universe using measured distances. In this work, we propose a new method to reconstruct coupling theories using the first kind of Chebyshev polynomial for two variables in which the functional form of the $f(Q,T)$ theory has been obtained. Further, the unknowns that appeared in the series are constrained using the cosmographic parameters. We find the explicit form of the luminosity distance in terms of cosmographic parameters to perform MCMC analysis using the PANTHEON+SH0ES data set. Through the distance modulus function, we observe that the result comes out to be an excellent match to the standard cosmological model and data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03065 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Curve fitting of the distance modulus function against the 1701 data points of PANTHEON+SH0ES and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Upto 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Measurements ofΩ and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Type Ia supernova discoveries at z> 1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for past deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution, Astrophys. J. 607, 665 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402512

    arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    D. J. Eisenstein et al. (SDSS), Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501171

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    W. J. Percival et al. (SDSS), Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 Galaxy Sample, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.401, 2148 (2010), arXiv:0907.1660 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP), First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Heymans et al., CFHTLenS: The Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey, Mon

    C. Heymans et al., CFHTLenS: The Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 427, 146 (2012), arXiv:1210.0032 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Shi et al., Mapping the Real Space Distributions of Galaxies in SDSS DR7: II

    F. Shi et al., Mapping the Real Space Distributions of Galaxies in SDSS DR7: II. Measuring the growth rate, clustering ampli- tude of matter and biases of galaxies at redshift 0.1, Astrophys. J. 861, 137 (2018), arXiv:1712.04163 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP), Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: implications for cosmol- ogy, Astrophys. J. Suppl.170, 377 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0603449

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Komatsu et al

    E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP), Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Inter- pretation, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 18 (2011), arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Demianski, E

    M. Demianski, E. Piedipalumbo, D. Sawant, and L. Amati, Cosmology with gamma-ray bursts: I. The Hubble diagram through the calibrated Ep,i - Eiso correlation, Astron. Astrophys. 598, A112 (2017), arXiv:1610.00854 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Joyce, B

    A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden, Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model, Phys. Rept. 568, 1 (2015), arXiv:1407.0059 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Tsujikawa, Introductory review of cosmic inflation, in 2nd T ah Poe School on Cosmology: Modern Cosmology (2003) arXiv:hep- ph/0304257

    S. Tsujikawa, Introductory review of cosmic inflation, in 2nd T ah Poe School on Cosmology: Modern Cosmology (2003) arXiv:hep- ph/0304257

    2003

  6. [14]

    coincidence problem

    H. E. S. Velten, R. F. vom Marttens, and W. Zimdahl, Aspects of the cosmological “coincidence problem”, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3160 (2014), arXiv:1410.2509 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Astesiano and M

    D. Astesiano and M. L. Ruggiero, Galactic dark matter effects from purely geometrical aspects of general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044061 (2022), arXiv:2205.03091 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Katsuragawa and S

    T. Katsuragawa and S. Matsuzaki, Dark matter in modified gravity?, Phys. Rev. D95, 044040 (2017), arXiv:1610.01016 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zaregonbadi, M

    R. Zaregonbadi, M. Farhoudi, and N. Riazi, Dark Matter From f(R,T) Gravity, Phys. Rev. D94, 084052 (2016), arXiv:1608.00469 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Joudaki et al

    S. Joudaki et al. , KiDS-450: Testing extensions to the standard cosmological model, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471, 1259 (2017), arXiv:1610.04606 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Mandal, O

    S. Mandal, O. Sokoliuk, S. S. Mishra, and P . K. Sahoo, H0 tension in torsion-based modified gravity, Nucl. Phys. B993, 116285 (2023), arXiv:2301.06328 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    N. S. Kavya, S. S. Mishra, P . K. Sahoo, and V . Venkatesha, Can teleparallel f(T) models play a bridge between early and late time Universe?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.532, 3126 (2024), arXiv:2407.09589 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, f(R) theories, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010), arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, f (R, T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024020 (2011), arXiv:1104.2669 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P . H. R. S. Moraes and P . K. Sahoo, Modelling wormholes inf (R, T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D96, 044038 (2017), arXiv:1707.06968 [gr-qc]. 13

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    N. S. Kavya, V . Venkatesha, G. Mustafa, P . K. Sahoo, and S. V . D. Rashmi, Static traversable wormhole solutions in f(R,Lm) gravity, Chin. J. Phys. 84, 1 (2023), arXiv:2305.01469 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Weyl, Gravitation and electricity, Sitzungsber

    H. Weyl, Gravitation and electricity, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1918, 465 (1918)

    1918

  18. [26]

    Trautman, Einstein-Cartan theory, (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0606062

    A. Trautman, Einstein-Cartan theory, (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0606062

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V . De Falco, and C. Ferrara, Comparing equivalent gravities: common features and differences, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 865 (2022), arXiv:2208.03011 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Beltr ´an Jim´enez, L

    J. Beltr ´an Jim´enez, L. Heisenberg, T. S. Koivisto, and S. Pekar, Cosmology in f (Q) geometry, Phys. Rev. D101, 103507 (2020), arXiv:1906.10027 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. S. Mishra, A. Bhat, and P . K. Sahoo, Probing baryogenesis in f(Q) gravity, EPL146, 29001 (2024), arXiv:2404.00577 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    N. S. Kavya and V . Venkatesha, Embedding theΛCDM framework in non-minimal f(Q) gravity with matter-coupling, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138927 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    In the literature, a plethora of works have been carried out on the astronomical and cosmological implications of this modified gravity [32–39]

    proposed a well-known coupling of f (Q) gravity called f (Q, T) theory, in which the matter sector is coupled with the geometric sector. In the literature, a plethora of works have been carried out on the astronomical and cosmological implications of this modified gravity [32–...

  24. [32]

    N. S. Kavya, G. Mustafa, and V . Venkatesha, Probing the existence of wormhole solutions in f(Q,T) gravity with conformal symmetry, Annals Phys. 468, 169723 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Y. Xu, G. Li, T. Harko, and S.-D. Liang, f (Q, T) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 708 (2019), arXiv:1908.04760 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    G. N. Gadbail, S. Arora, and P . K. Sahoo, Reconstruction of f(Q,T) Lagrangian for various cosmological scenario, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137710 (2023), arXiv:2301.08876 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bhattacharjee and P

    S. Bhattacharjee and P . K. Sahoo, Baryogenesis inf (Q, T ) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 289 (2020), arXiv:2002.11483 [physics.gen- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Arora, S

    S. Arora, S. K. J. Pacif, S. Bhattacharjee, and P . K. Sahoo, f (Q, T) gravity models with observational constraints, Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100664 (2020), arXiv:2007.01703 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y. Xu, T. Harko, S. Shahidi, and S.-D. Liang, Weyl type f (Q, T) gravity, and its cosmological implications, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 449 (2020), arXiv:2005.04025 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Arora, J

    S. Arora, J. R. L. Santos, and P . K. Sahoo, Constraining f (Q, T) gravity from energy conditions, Phys. Dark Univ. 31, 100790 (2021), arXiv:2009.00240 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J.-Z. Yang, S. Shahidi, T. Harko, and S.-D. Liang, Geodesic deviation, Raychaudhuri equation, Newtonian limit, and tidal forces in Weyl-type f (Q, T) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 111 (2021), arXiv:2101.09956 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Capozziello, O

    S. Capozziello, O. Farooq, O. Luongo, and B. Ratra, Cosmographic bounds on the cosmological deceleration-acceleration transition redshift in f (R) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044016 (2014), arXiv:1403.1421 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    N ´ajera and A

    A. N ´ajera and A. Fajardo, Cosmological perturbation theory in f(Q,T) gravity, JCAP 03 (03), 020, arXiv:2111.04205 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    S. S. Mishra, N. S. Kavya, P . K. Sahoo, and V . Venkatesha, Constraining Extended Teleparallel Gravity via Cosmography: A Model-independent Approach, Astrophys. J. 970, 57 (2024), arXiv:2406.06661 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Luongo and H

    O. Luongo and H. Quevedo, Cosmographic study of the universe’s specific heat: A landscape for Cosmology?, Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1649 (2014), arXiv:1211.0626 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V . F. Cardone, H. Farajollahi, and A. Ravanpak, Cosmography in f(T)-gravity, Phys. Rev. D84, 043527 (2011), arXiv:1108.2789 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V . F. Cardone, and V . Salzano, Cosmography of f(R) gravity, Phys. Rev. D78, 063504 (2008), arXiv:0802.1583 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mandal, D

    S. Mandal, D. Wang, and P . K. Sahoo, Cosmography inf (Q) gravity, Phys. Rev. D102, 124029 (2020), arXiv:2011.00420 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Sabiee, M

    M. Sabiee, M. Malekjani, and D. Mohammad Zadeh Jassur, f(T) cosmology against the cosmographic method: A new study using mock and observational data, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.516, 2597 (2022), arXiv:2212.04113 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    I. S. Farias and P . H. R. S. Moraes, Cosmography off (R, T ) Gravity, Grav. Cosmol. 30, 28 (2024), arXiv:2108.09332 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. Gao, Z. Zhou, M. Du, R. Zou, J. Hu, and L. Xu, A measurement of hubble constant using cosmographic approach combining fast radio bursts and supernovae, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 527, 7861 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/527/3/7861/...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Beltr ´an Jim ´enez, L

    J. Beltr ´an Jim ´enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, The Geometrical Trinity of Gravity, Universe 5, 173 (2019), arXiv:1903.06830 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Capozziello, R

    S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino, and O. Luongo, Cosmographic analysis with Chebyshev polynomials, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476, 3924 (2018), arXiv:1712.04380 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    D’Ambrosio, S

    F. D’Ambrosio, S. D. B. Fell, L. Heisenberg, and S. Kuhn, Black holes in f(Q) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024042 (2022), arXiv:2109.03174 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Beltr ´an Jim ´enez, L

    J. Beltr ´an Jim ´enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, Coincident General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044048 (2018), arXiv:1710.03116 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Visser, Cosmography: Cosmology without the Einstein equations, Gen

    M. Visser, Cosmography: Cosmology without the Einstein equations, Gen. Rel. Grav. 37, 1541 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0411131

    2005 arXiv

  47. [55]

    T. P . Sotiriou and V . Faraoni, f(R) Theories Of Gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Scheiber, On the Chebyshev approximation of a function with two variables (2015) arXiv:1504.04693v1 [math.NA]

    E. Scheiber, On the Chebyshev approximation of a function with two variables (2015) arXiv:1504.04693v1 [math.NA]. 14

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Visser, Conformally Friedmann–Lema ˆıtre–Robertson–Walker cosmologies, Class

    M. Visser, Conformally Friedmann–Lema ˆıtre–Robertson–Walker cosmologies, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 135007 (2015), arXiv:1502.02758 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. G. Riess et al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km/s/ Mpc Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Litvinov, Approximate construction of rational approximations and the effect of error autocorrection

    G. Litvinov, Approximate construction of rational approximations and the effect of error autocorrection. applications., Russ. J. Math. Phys. 1 (1994), arXiv:math/0101042v1 [math.NA]

    1994

  52. [60]

    Brout et al

    D. Brout et al. , The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Malekjani, R

    M. Malekjani, R. M. Conville, E. O. Colg ´ain, S. Pourojaghi, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Negative Dark Energy Density from High Redshift Pantheon+ Supernovae, (2023), arXiv:2301.12725 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Scolnic et al

    D. Scolnic et al. , The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Brout et al

    D. Brout et al. , The Pantheon+ Analysis: SuperCal-fragilistic Cross Calibration, Retrained SALT2 Light-curve Model, and Calibration Systematic Uncertainty, Astrophys. J. 938, 111 (2022), arXiv:2112.03864 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kolhatkar, S

    A. Kolhatkar, S. S. Mishra, and P . K. Sahoo, Investigating early and late-time epochs in f(Q) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 888 (2024), arXiv:2409.01538 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, On the homogeneity of SnIa absolute magnitude in the Pantheon+ sample, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 520, 5110 (2023), arXiv:2301.01024 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    E. V . Linder, Challenges in connecting modified gravity theory and observations, Phys. Rev. D 95, 023518 (2017), arXiv:1607.03113 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    A. A. Starobinsky, A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  60. [68]

    J. Hu, J. Hu, X. Jia, B. Gao, and F. Wang, Testing cosmic anisotropy with Pad ´e approximations and the latest Pantheon+ sample, Astron. Astrophys. 689, A215 (2024), arXiv:2406.14827 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Capozziello, R

    S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino, and O. Luongo, High-redshift cosmography: auxiliary variables versus Pad ´e polynomials, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.494, 2576 (2020), arXiv:2003.09341 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [192]

    We intend to constrain the f (Q, T) theory by using the above 4th order dL(z) expression in terms of the cosmographic parameters. C. Cosmographic parameters We start this section by incorporating the assumed minimally coupled form in the motion equations (18) & (19). Hence the...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.