Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Cosmology with Distinct Functions $f$ of the Non-metricity Scalar $Q$ : A Dynamical System Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For six f(Q) gravity models, cosmic evolution reduces to a three-variable autonomous system whose fixed points—stable, saddle, or unstable—are the matter, radiation, de Sitter, and dark-energy eras.

desk verdict The stability tables contradict the paper's own Jacobian equations; the central comparative classification is unsound. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21646 v1 pith:4WYYSLAK submitted 2025-06-26 gr-qc

Promila Biswas , Subhajit Pal , Ritabrata Biswas , Satyajit Pal This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.Jk02.40.Yy64.60.F
keywords symmetricteleparallelgravityf(Q)non-metricityscalardynamicalsystemanalysisfixedpointsphaseportraitsmatterperturbationsdarkenergy
topics Dark Energy
open problems 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 six different modified-gravity theories built from the non-metricity scalar $Q$, a measure of how much the connection fails to preserve lengths, can be compared on one footing by converting cosmology into a three-variable autonomous system. For each model it locates the fixed points of that system and classifies them as stable, unstable, or saddle, then reads every point as a cosmic epoch such as matter domination, radiation, cosmological-constant-like acceleration, or an era with growing or decaying matter perturbations. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns the question of whether an $f(Q)$ model produces the observed late-time acceleration into a check of whether a suitable stable fixed point exists, without solving the full nonlinear field equations.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the three-dimensional autonomous system with variables $x=F/(6H^2)$, $y=-2F_Q$, and $u=\mathrm{d}\ln\delta/\mathrm{d}\ln a$, where $F(Q)=f(Q)-Q$, $F_Q=\mathrm{d}F/\mathrm{d}Q$, and derivatives are taken with respect to $\ln a$. The physical phase space is the strip $0\le x+y\le1$ with $\Omega_m=1-x-y$; fixed points solve $(x',y',u')=(0,0,0)$, stability is read from the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix, and for non-hyperbolic points the paper supplements linear labels with a center-manifold approximation in the exponential and pure-quadratic models. This machinery turns each $f(Q)$ theory into a phase portrait whose attractors, repellers, and saddles are interpreted as cosmological epochs.

What would settle it

A center-manifold reduction at the non-hyperbolic point $(1+2n,-2n,0)$ in the exponential model would settle whether the linear 'stable' label survives; observationally, the stable exponential-model point predicts $\delta\propto a^{(-7+\sqrt{73})/4}$, so a late-time growth-rate measurement inconsistent with that scaling while the model sits in that phase would falsify the assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for each of the six functional forms $F(Q)=e^{nQ}$, $Q+\eta\ln(\alpha Q)$, $Q+\eta Q^{-1}$, $Q+\eta Q^2$, $\eta Q^2$, and $\alpha(-Q)^n$, the autonomous system in $x$, $y$, $u$ has fixed points whose stability properties are exactly those listed in Tables 1 to 6. Those fixed points include cosmological-constant-like curves with $\Omega_Q=1$, matter-dominated points with $\Omega_m=1$, and hyperbolic points whose equation-of-state parameter matches the model's effective dark-energy behavior. The paper interprets stable fixed points as late-time attractors, unstable points as repellers or early stages, and saddle points as transitions between epochs, and it uses the $u$ variable to say whether matter overdensities grow or decay at each phase.

Load-bearing premise

The whole stability map rests on the quasi-static approximation to the matter perturbation equation (time derivatives of the fluctuation are dropped) and on taking the linearized eigenvalues as decisive even at non-hyperbolic fixed points; if either assumption fails at the scales considered, the table classifications are not reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the exponential model $F(Q)=e^{nQ}$, a hyperbolic stable fixed point exists with $u=(-7+\sqrt{73})/4>0$, so matter perturbations grow while the universe approaches a dark-energy-like late-time phase.
  • For the logarithmic model $F(Q)=Q+\eta\ln(\alpha Q)$, the fixed point $(1,-2,1)$ is hyperbolic stable with growing matter perturbations, while the cosmological-constant-like curve $(1-y,y,0)$ is a non-hyperbolic saddle.
  • For the inverse model $F(Q)=Q+\eta Q^{-1}$, Table 3 shows no stable fixed point: all four critical points are unstable or saddle, so this form lacks a late-time attractor within the present analysis.
  • For the quadratic-correction and pure-quadratic models, stability of the non-hyperbolic cosmological-constant-like curves depends on the value of $y$, and the stable hyperbolic point of $Q+\eta Q^2$ has $u=(\sqrt{7}-1)/2$, meaning growing matter perturbations.
  • For the power-law model $F(Q)=\alpha(-Q)^n$, the fixed point $(0,0,1)$ is stable for $n>1$ and unstable for $n<1$, making $n$ a switch between a stable and an unstable matter-growth phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The linear labels attached to non-hyperbolic points are provisional, since the paper itself notes that center-manifold analysis is required; completing that reduction for the exponential and pure-quadratic models is the direct next step.
  • Because several fixed points are curves parametrized by $y$, the observationally relevant question is not which entire curve is stable but which segment of it is allowed by the matter-density constraint $0\le\Omega_m\le1$; observational priors would select the physically realized part of each family.
  • The parameter-dependent stability of the $\alpha(-Q)^n$ and $Q+\eta Q^2$ models suggests that a bifurcation diagram in the model-parameter plane could organize all six cases into a single map of cosmic endpoints.
  • The quasi-static growth rates in the tables, such as $\delta\propto a^{(-7+\sqrt{73})/4}$ for the stable exponential-model point, are direct predictions that redshift-space distortion surveys could test once the model parameters are fixed by other observations.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies six f(Q) models in symmetric teleparallel gravity by constructing three-dimensional autonomous systems in the variables (x, y, u) defined in Eq. (18), listing fixed points and linearized stability in Tables 1-6, and interpreting the points as matter, radiation, de Sitter, or dark-energy phases. The central claim is that the fixed points and stability properties are exactly those listed in the tables, and that these points describe cosmological phases when the initial state is perturbed. The work uses the quasi-static matter-perturbation equation (17), carries free parameters (n, eta, alpha) from earlier f(Q) literature, and does not fit data.

Significance. The comparative classification would be a convenient reference if the tables were correct, and the inclusion of the perturbation variable u in the phase space is a useful feature. The paper also provides a systematic treatment and phase portraits for all six models, plus explicit center-manifold sketches for two non-hyperbolic cases. However, the central deliverable is not reproducible from the printed equations: the stability signs in several tables are reversed, and at least one table lists points that are not fixed points of the stated system. The analysis is derivative of existing f(Q) dynamical-system literature and offers no falsifiable new prediction; its value would rest entirely on the correctness of the classification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 2, Eqs. (34)-(36)] At the fixed point (1,-2,1), the Jacobian of the printed system is [[3,3/2,0],[0,3,0],[-3/2,-3/2,-5/2]], whose eigenvalues are 3, 3, -5/2 (trace +7/2). Table 2 lists (-3,-3,-5/2) and calls the point stable. With two positive real parts, the point is not stable; this is a sign error in the central stability classification, not a non-hyperbolic subtlety. The same sign pattern appears in Tables 3, 5, and 6 (for example, for Model V at (0,0,1), Eqs. (49)-(51) give a Jacobian eigenvalue +3, while Table 5 lists -3). Since the paper's central claim is that the fixed points have exactly the properties listed in Tables 1 to 6, this mismatch is load-bearing.
  2. [§3.4, Table 4, Eq. (46)] Setting x=1 and y=-2 in Eq. (46) gives u' = -u^2 - 3u + 3/2, whose roots are (-3 +/- sqrt(15))/2, not the values (-1 +/- sqrt(7))/2 reported in Table 4. Therefore the last two rows of Table 4 are not equilibrium points of the autonomous system (44)-(46); the sign of the final term in Eq. (46) appears inconsistent with the table. This directly affects the claimed stable point in Model IV.
  3. [Section 1, page 3, and Tables 1-6] The paper explicitly states that linear analysis is insufficient for non-hyperbolic equilibria, yet most non-hyperbolic rows (e.g., (1-y,y,-2) and (1-y,y,0) in Tables 2-6) are classified as stable, unstable, or saddle directly from the linearized eigenvalues. Center-manifold calculations are sketched only for Model I and Model V, in Sections 3.1 and 3.5; no analogous calculation is provided for Models II, III, IV, or VI. Hence the non-hyperbolic stability claims in those tables are not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.5, paragraph after Table 5] For the critical point (0,0,1), the text says 'Since u=-2, thus the matter density delta varies as a^{-2}', but the point has u=1; the sentence should state u=1 and delta proportional to a.
  2. [§3.6] The statement that n=1 recovers GR should be qualified, because f(Q)=alpha(-Q)^n with n=1 equals -alpha Q, which coincides with Q only for alpha=-1.
  3. [Eq. (17)] Equation (17) is introduced as a quasi-static approximation, but the paper does not discuss the scales at which this approximation applies or compare it with the sub-horizon limit; a brief justification would improve the perturbation interpretation.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, e.g., 'Leimatre' in Section 3.5 and 'eads' in Section 3.3; a thorough proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fixed-point and stability analysis is derived in-paper from the background and perturbation equations; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained mathematical analysis. Beginning from the f(Q) action and the Friedmann equations (Eqs. 9-10) together with the quasi-static matter-perturbation equation (Eq. 17), it defines the dimensionless variables x, y, u in Eq. (18), derives the autonomous system in Eqs. (22)-(25), and then computes critical points and Jacobian eigenvalues separately for each of the six f(Q) forms in Sections 3.1-3.6. The free parameters n, eta, and alpha enter symbolically from the chosen model functions and are not fitted to any data, nor are they adjusted to force the reported fixed-point classifications. The paper makes no observational prediction that could reduce by construction to an input value; its claims are internal statements about the dynamical systems it has constructed. The governing equations and the quasi-static approximation are cited from external literature ([27], [30], [36], [37]), not from prior work by the present authors, so there is no load-bearing self-citation chain. The paper's own caveat that linearization is insufficient for non-hyperbolic fixed points is a stated technical limitation rather than a circular step, because the tables and text do not claim that linear eigenvalues constitute a fully nonlinear proof for those points. Any alleged sign error in the eigenvalue tables (e.g., Table 2) would be a correctness or verifiability issue, not an instance of a result being equivalent to its inputs by definition. Consequently, there is no circularity of the kinds enumerated: nothing is self-definitional, no fitted input is renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particle, force, dimension, or conserved quantity. Its central claim rests on standard dynamical systems theory, the f(Q) field equations from the cited literature, the FLRW background, the constant-omega perfect fluid, and the quasi-static perturbation approximation. The model parameters n, eta, alpha are free inputs, not fitted values.

free parameters (6)
  • n in F(Q)=exp(nQ)
    Free parameter of Model I; not constrained by data. Some eigenvalues in Table 1 are independent of n but Omega_m depends on n.
  • eta and alpha in F(Q)=Q+eta ln(alpha Q)
    Arbitrary parameters taken from ref [36]; not fitted in this paper. They drop out of the fixed-point coordinates.
  • eta in F(Q)=Q+eta/Q
    Free parameter of Model III; not fitted. The fixed-point table does not depend on eta.
  • eta in F(Q)=Q+eta Q^2
    Free parameter of Model IV; not fitted. Fixed-point coordinates are eta-independent.
  • eta in F(Q)=eta Q^2
    Free parameter of Model V; not fitted, though the model conflates F and f.
  • alpha and n in F(Q)=alpha(-Q)^n
    Free parameters of Model VI; not fitted. Stability of some fixed points depends on n.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hartman-Grobman theorem justifies linear stability analysis for hyperbolic fixed points.
    Invoked in Section 1 as the basis for reading stability from the Jacobian eigenvalues.
  • domain assumption Background spacetime is a spatially flat FLRW metric with a perfect fluid of constant equation of state omega.
    Metric (8) and conservation equation (11) set the cosmological setting for all six models.
  • domain assumption The f(Q) field equations (7) and Friedmann equations (9)-(10) from refs [27,29] are correct for f=Q+F(Q).
    The paper relies on these cited equations for every model without re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption The quasi-static approximation for the matter density contrast delta, dropping time derivatives in Eq (17), is valid.
    Used to build the u equation (24) and all fixed-point stability results involving matter perturbations.
  • domain assumption The expression (-Q)^n with Q>0 is interpreted using the sign chosen to keep the function real for non-integer n.
    Stated in Section 3.6 and taken from the conventions of ref [43]; the ranges 0<n<1 and n>1 are adopted without derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmology with Distinct Functions $f$ of the Non-metricity Scalar $Q$ : A Dynamical System Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4WYYSLAK

@misc{pith2026250621646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmology with Distinct Functions $f$ of the Non-metricity Scalar $Q$ : A Dynamical System Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4WYYSLAK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21646}
}
abstract

Symmetric teleparallel gravity is one among the general relativistic trinity which deals with the non-metricity scalar $Q$. In the Einstein Hilbert action, a function of $Q$ is chosen to be the main contributory part of the Lagrangian and a modified theory of gravity is constructed. In literature, different structures of the function of $Q$ are found which sustain several astrophysical observations like Big Bang nucleosynthesis, late-time cosmic acceleration etc. Autonomous systems for each such models with different $f(Q)$ structures are constructed. Corresponding fixed points and their stability properties are studied. For every case, stable, unstable and saddle-type fixed points are found to exist. These points on the phase portraits are cosmologically analyzed. It is tried to justify which way the corresponding state may lead if the initial state is perturbed. A comparative study of different models is represented.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Cosmology inf(Q) gravity: A unified dynamical systems analysis of the background and perturbations,

    W. Khyllep, J. Dutta, E. N. Saridakis, and K. Yesmakhanova, “Cosmology inf(Q) gravity: A unified dynamical systems analysis of the background and perturbations,”Phys. Rev. D, vol.107, no. 4, p. 044022, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Coincident general relativity,

    J. B. Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, “Coincident general relativity,”Physical Review D, vol.98, Aug. 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Aldrovandi and J

    R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira,Teleparallel Gravity: An Introduction. Springer, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    Nonlinear realizations of space-time symmetries. scalar and tensor gravity,

    C. Isham, A. Salam, and J. Strathdee, “Nonlinear realizations of space-time symmetries. scalar and tensor gravity,”Annals of Physics, vol.62, no. 1, pp. 98–119, 1971

    work page 1971

  5. [4]

    Metric-affine approach to teleparallel gravity,

    Y. N. Obukhov and J. G. Pereira, “Metric-affine approach to teleparallel gravity,”Phys. Rev. D, vol.67, p. 044016, Feb 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [5]

    Ortin,Gravity and Strings

    T. Ortin,Gravity and Strings. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed. ed., 7 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    Dynamical system analysis of cosmological evolution in the aether scalar tensor theory,

    J. a. L. Rosa and T. Zlosnik, “Dynamical system analysis of cosmological evolution in the aether scalar tensor theory,” Phys. Rev. D, vol.109, p. 024018, Jan 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    C. G. B¨ ohmer and N. Chan,Dynamical Systems in Cosmology, p. 121–156. WORLD SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE), Dec. 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Well-defined f (q) gravity, reconstruction of flrw spacetime and unification of inflation with dark energy epoch,

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, “Well-defined f (q) gravity, reconstruction of flrw spacetime and unification of inflation with dark energy epoch,”Physics of the Dark Universe, vol. 45, p. 101538, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Slow-roll inflation in f (q) non-metric gravity,

    S. Capozziello and M. Shokri, “Slow-roll inflation in f (q) non-metric gravity,”Physics of the Dark Universe, vol. 37, p. 101113, 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    Graceful exit in extended inflation and implications for density perturbations,

    R. Crittenden and P. J. Steinhardt, “Graceful exit in extended inflation and implications for density perturbations,”Physics Letters B, vol. 293, no. 1-2, pp. 32–36, 1992

    1992

  4. [11]

    Modelling the accelerating universe with f (q) gravity: observational consistency,

    S. Narawade, S. Shekh, B. Mishra, W. Khyllep, and J. Dutta, “Modelling the accelerating universe with f (q) gravity: observational consistency,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 84, no. 8, p. 773, 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    Layek,An Introduction to Dynamical Systems and Chaos

    G. Layek,An Introduction to Dynamical Systems and Chaos. Springer, 01 2015

    2015

  6. [13]

    Bouncing Scenario in thef(T) Modified Gravity Model with Dynamical System Analysis,

    S. Davood Sadatian and S. M. R. Hosseini, “Bouncing Scenario in thef(T) Modified Gravity Model with Dynamical System Analysis,”arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2410.04062, Oct. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Barrow Holographic Dark Energy inf(Q, L m) gravity: A dynamical system per- spective,

    A. Samaddar and S. Surendra Singh, “Barrow Holographic Dark Energy inf(Q, L m) gravity: A dynamical system per- spective,”arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2409.12205, Sept. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    New features of circular geodesics in kalb–ramond gravity: an autonomous dynamical system approach,

    Volotskova, Rezeda R., Palit, Aniruddha, Mihaylov, Pavel N., and Potapov, A. A., “New features of circular geodesics in kalb–ramond gravity: an autonomous dynamical system approach,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol.84, no. 8, p. 791, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Dynamical System Analysis for Scalar Field Potential in Teleparallel Gravity,

    S. A. Kadam, A. Sahu, S. K. Tripathy, and B. Mishra, “Dynamical System Analysis for Scalar Field Potential in Teleparallel Gravity,”arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2405.10354, May 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Stability off(Q, B) gravity via Dynamical System Approach: a Comprehensive Bayesian Statistical Analysis,

    S. V. Lohakare and B. Mishra, “Stability off(Q, B) gravity via Dynamical System Approach: a Comprehensive Bayesian Statistical Analysis,”arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2403.10956, Mar. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Observational constrained Weyl typef(Q, T) gravity cosmological model and the dynamical system analysis,

    R. Bhagat and B. Mishra, “Observational constrained Weyl typef(Q, T) gravity cosmological model and the dynamical system analysis,”Astroparticle Physics, vol.163, p. 103011, Nov. 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Dynamical system analysis for scalar field potential in teleparallel gravity,

    S. A. Kadam, A. Sahu, S. K. Tripathy, and B. Mishra, “Dynamical system analysis for scalar field potential in teleparallel gravity,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 84, p. 1088, 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Dynamical systems analysis inf(t, ϕ) gravity,

    L. K. Duchaniya, S. A. Kadam, J. L. Said, and B. Mishra, “Dynamical systems analysis inf(t, ϕ) gravity,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 83, p. 27, 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    Scalar field induced dynamical evolution in teleparallel gravity,

    B. Mishra, S. A. Kadam, and S. K. Tripathy, “Scalar field induced dynamical evolution in teleparallel gravity,”Physics Letters B, vol. 857, p. 138968, 2024

    2024

  15. [22]

    Teleparallel gravity and quintessence: The role of nonminimal boundary couplings,

    S. A. Kadam, L. K. Duchaniya, and B. Mishra, “Teleparallel gravity and quintessence: The role of nonminimal boundary couplings,”Annals of Physics, vol. 470, p. 169808, 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    Dynamical system analysis in teleparallel gravity with boundary term,

    S. A. Kadam, N. P. Thakkar, and B. Mishra, “Dynamical system analysis in teleparallel gravity with boundary term,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 83, p. 809, 2023

    2023

  17. [24]

    Teleparallel scalar-tensor gravity through cosmological dynamical systems,

    S. A. Kadam, B. Mishra, and J. L. Said, “Teleparallel scalar-tensor gravity through cosmological dynamical systems,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 82, p. 680, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    Rip cosmological models in extended symmetric teleparallel gravity,

    L. Pati, S. A. Kadam, S. K. Tripathy, and B. Mishra, “Rip cosmological models in extended symmetric teleparallel gravity,” Physics of the Dark Universe, vol. 35, p. 100925, 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    Constrainingf(t, b, t g, bg) gravity by dynamical system analysis,

    S. A. Kadam and B. Mishra, “Constrainingf(t, b, t g, bg) gravity by dynamical system analysis,”Physics of the Dark Universe, vol. 46, p. 101693, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Cosmology inf(q) geometry,

    J. B. Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, T. Koivisto, and S. Pekar, “Cosmology inf(q) geometry,”Physical Review D, vol.101, May 2020. 16

    2020

  21. [29]

    Noether symmetries in symmetric teleparallel cosmology,

    K. F. Dialektopoulos, T. S. Koivisto, and S. Capozziello, “Noether symmetries in symmetric teleparallel cosmology,”The European Physical Journal C, vol.79, July 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    First evidence that non-metricityf(q) gravity could challenge λcdm,

    F. K. Anagnostopoulos, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, “First evidence that non-metricityf(q) gravity could challenge λcdm,”Physics Letters B, vol.822, p. 136634, Nov. 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Stability analysis for cosmological models inf(r) gravity using dynamical system analysis,

    P. Shah and G. C. Samanta, “Stability analysis for cosmological models inf(r) gravity using dynamical system analysis,” The European Physical Journal C, vol.79, pp. 1–9, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    New models and big bang nucleosynthesis constraints in f(q) gravity,

    F. K. Anagnostopoulos, V. Gakis, E. N. Saridakis, and S. Basilakos, “New models and big bang nucleosynthesis constraints in f(q) gravity,”The European Physical Journal C, vol.83, Jan. 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Observational constraints off(Q) gravity,

    R. Lazkoz, F. S. N. Lobo, M. Ortiz-Ba˜ nos, and V. Salzano, “Observational constraints off(Q) gravity,”Phys. Rev. D, vol.100, no. 10, p. 104027, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Analysis of the cosmological evolution parameters, energy conditions, and linear matter perturbations of an exponential-type model in f(q) gravity,

    S. A. Narawade, S. H. Shekh, B. Mishra, W. Khyllep, and J. Dutta, “Analysis of the cosmological evolution parameters, energy conditions, and linear matter perturbations of an exponential-type model in f(q) gravity,”General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 57, p. 34, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Cosmological dynamics,

    J. M. Overduin and P. S. Wesson, “Cosmological dynamics,”Physics Reports, vol. 283, no. 5–6, pp. 303–378, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    Energy conditions inf(q) gravity,

    S. Mandal, P. K. Sahoo, and J. R. L. Santos, “Energy conditions inf(q) gravity,”Phys. Rev. D, vol.102, p. 024057, Jul 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Modelling the accelerating universe with f(q) gravity: Observational consistency,

    S. A. Narawade, S. H. Shekh, B. Mishra, W. Khyllep, and J. Dutta, “Modelling the accelerating universe with f(q) gravity: Observational consistency,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 84, no. 773, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Harrison,Cosmology: The Science of the Universe

    E. Harrison,Cosmology: The Science of the Universe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 2000

    2000

  31. [39]

    Cosmology of f(q) gravity in non-flat universe,

    H. Shabani, A. De, T.-H. Loo, and E. N. Saridakis, “Cosmology of f(q) gravity in non-flat universe,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 84, no. 285, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Comprehensive study of bouncing cosmological models in f (q, t) theory,

    M. Z. Gul, M. Sharif, and S. Shabbir, “Comprehensive study of bouncing cosmological models in f (q, t) theory,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 84, no. 8, p. 802, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Modified f (q) gravity models and their cosmological consequences,

    G. N. Gadbail and P. Sahoo, “Modified f (q) gravity models and their cosmological consequences,”Chinese Journal of Physics, vol. 89, pp. 1754–1762, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Complete dark energy scenario in f (q) gravity,

    R. Solanki, A. De, and P. Sahoo, “Complete dark energy scenario in f (q) gravity,”Physics of the Dark Universe, vol. 36, p. 100996, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Linear cosmological perturbations inf(q) gravity,

    S. Sahlu and E. Tsegaye, “Linear cosmological perturbations inf(q) gravity,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02517, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Dynamical system analysis of quintessence dark energy model,

    S. Chakraborty, S. Mishra, and S. Chakraborty, “Dynamical system analysis of quintessence dark energy model,”Interna- tional Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, vol. 21, no. 07, p. 2450250, 2024. 17

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.