Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Cosmography of Non-Interacting Ghost and Generalized Ghost Dark Energy Models in f(Q) Gravity

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reconstructs ghost and generalized ghost dark energy models inside f(Q) gravity and claims both enter a phantom phase, while only the generalized model is stable.

desk verdict Routine f(Q) reconstruction with a fatal consistency error: the reconstructed models do not satisfy the Friedmann equation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02280 v1 pith:H2GSHHYY submitted 2025-07-03 gr-qc

M. Sharif , Madiha Ajmal This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd95.36.+x64.30.+t
keywords ghostdarkenergygeneralizedf(Q)gravitynon-interactingcosmologicalreconstructionequationofstatestatefinderdiagnosticssquaredspeedsound
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 build explicit dark-energy models in $f(Q)$ gravity by matching the energy density of ghost dark energy, and of its generalized version with an added $H^2$ term, to the effective dark-energy density that $f(Q)$ gravity produces. The matching is done in a flat Friedmann--Robertson--Walker universe with pressureless matter and a power-law scale factor $a(t)=a_0 t^m$, and it converts the reconstruction problem into differential equations for the function $f(Q)$. The paper claims that both resulting models drive a phantom phase (equation-of-state parameter below $-1$), that their trajectories lie in the freezing region of the $\omega_D$--$\omega'_D$ plane, and that the statefinder $(r,s)$ plane indicates Chaplygin-gas behaviour. It further claims that the generalized ghost model is stable, with positive squared speed of sound, while the plain ghost model is not, and that the computed equation-of-state values agree with the quoted cosmic-microwave-background constraints. If these claims are right, the generalized ghost reconstruction is an observationally viable, non-interacting dark-energy model in $f(Q)$ gravity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the correspondence relation $\rho_D^{\rm ghost} = f/2 - 6H^2 f_Q$, which equates the known ghost dark-energy density to the effective dark-energy component produced by $f(Q)$ gravity. Because the ghost density is an explicit function of $H$, this identity is a first-order linear ordinary differential equation for $f$ as a function of the non-metricity scalar $Q=6H^2$, and its solutions are the reconstructed models. The power-law scale factor $a(t)=a_0 t^m$ is then used to express every diagnostic in cosmic time, and the paper evaluates the equation of state, the $\omega_D$--$\omega'_D$ freezing/thawing plane, the statefinder pair, and the squared speed of sound on these solutions. Here $f(Q)$ gravity is the symmetric-teleparallel modified theory whose action is a general function of the non-metricity scalar $Q$. The reconstruction scheme is what turns a dark-energy model into a specific choice of gravitational Lagrangian.

What would settle it

Substitute the reconstructed $f(Q)$ from (31) or (41), together with $H=m/t$ and $\rho_m=\rho_0 t^{-3m}$, into the Friedmann constraint $3H^2=\rho_D+\rho_m$. For the GDE model this gives $3m^2/t^2 = \alpha m/t + c + \rho_0 t^{-3m}$, and the GGDE model adds $\beta m^2/t^2$; choosing two different values of $t$ shows that no fixed constants $m,\alpha,\beta,c,\rho_0$ can make either identity hold for all times, so the models fail this consistency test unless the framework is modified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is a pair of analytic reconstructions. Solving $f/2 - 6H^2 f_Q = \alpha H$ gives the GDE model $f(Q)=\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{Q}\,(6c-\sqrt{6}\,\alpha\ln Q)$, and solving $f/2 - 6H^2 f_Q = \alpha H + \beta H^2$ gives the GGDE model $f(Q)=-\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{Q}\,(-6c+\sqrt{6}\,\alpha\ln Q+2\beta\sqrt{Q})$. With $a(t)=a_0 t^m$, the paper sets $H=m/t$, $Q=6m^2/t^2$, and computes $\rho_D$, $p_D$, $\omega_D$, $\omega'_D$, the statefinder pair $(r,s)$, and the squared speed of sound $\nu_s^2$ for both models. It reports $\omega_D<-1$ (phantom), a freezing region ($\omega_D<0$, $\omega'_D<0$), and a Chaplygin-gas signature ($r>1$, $s<0$) in both cases, together with $\nu_s^2<0$ for GDE and $\nu_s^2>0$ for GGDE for the chosen values of $m$. The paper's conclusion is that these features match the observed accelerated expansion and keep the equation of state close to the measured value $\omega_D\approx -1.02$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the power-law expansion history and the reconstructed $f(Q)$ satisfy the $f(Q)$ Friedmann equations together with the matter density, but this compatibility is never checked; if it fails, the models are not actual solutions of the theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both reconstructed models place the late-time equation of state in the phantom regime ($\omega_D<-1$), so $f(Q)$ gravity can host ghost-type dark energy without any interaction between dark energy and dark matter.
  • The generalized ghost model keeps a positive squared speed of sound on the analysed trajectories, whereas the plain ghost model does not, which singles out GGDE as the stable reconstruction.
  • The freezing-region trajectories in the $\omega_D$--$\omega'_D$ plane imply that cosmic acceleration strengthens over time in both models.
  • The statefinder signatures ($r>1$, $s<0$) place both models in the Chaplygin-gas class, connecting them to unified descriptions of dark energy and dark matter.
  • The reported equation-of-state values near $-1.02$ fall inside the 85% confidence intervals quoted from observational constraints, so the models are not ruled out by background equation-of-state data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Friedmann constraint is imposed rather than assumed, the reconstruction would need time-dependent coefficients or a different background; the same diagnostic machinery could then decide which trajectory family survives.
  • Applying the correspondence scheme to the interacting case would show whether a coupling between dark energy and dark matter can stabilize the plain GDE model, whose squared sound speed is negative here.
  • A sharper observational test would compare the models' predicted expansion history against distance and Hubble-parameter data, since the quoted equation-of-state value constrains only the background.
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 paper reconstructs ghost dark energy (GDE) and generalized ghost dark energy (GGDE) models in f(Q) gravity by equating the model energy densities with the effective dark-energy density obtained from the f(Q) field equations. Using a flat FRW metric with power-law scale factor a(t)=t^m and pressureless matter, the authors derive explicit f(Q) functions, then study the equation-of-state parameter, the (ω_D−ω'_D) plane, the (r−s) statefinder plane, and the squared speed of sound. The paper claims both models exhibit phantom behavior and a freezing region, that both correspond to Chaplygin-gas behavior in the statefinder plane, that the GGDE model is stable while the GDE model is unstable, and that these findings align with Planck observations.

Significance. If the reconstruction were valid, the paper would provide explicit f(Q) realizations of two widely studied dark-energy models and a stability dichotomy between GDE and GGDE. The manuscript is clearly written and the algebraic reconstruction starting from Eq. (30) is explicit. However, the central construction fails a necessary consistency check: the reconstructed f(Q) functions do not satisfy the f(Q) Friedmann equations for the assumed background. Consequently, the EoS, phase-plane, statefinder, and stability results are not properties of a solution of the theory, and the observational-alignment claim is unsupported. The strengths of the paper are its systematic organization and the explicitness of the derived expressions, but these do not compensate for the absence of a solution to the field equations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (30)-(35)] The solution (31) of Eq. (30) is formally correct, but substituting it into Eq. (23) gives ρ_D = αH; the integration constant c cancels identically. The reported ρ_D = αH + c in Eqs. (33) and (35) is therefore spurious. With H = m/t and ρ_m = ρ_0 t^{-3m}, the first Friedmann equation (22) becomes 3m^2/t^2 = αm/t + ρ_0 t^{-3m}, which cannot hold for all t for any fixed m, α, and ρ_0. The reconstructed GDE f(Q) is thus not a solution of the f(Q) field equations, and all subsequent cosmological diagnostics in this section are not properties of a valid model in this theory.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (40)-(45)] The same cancellation occurs in the GGDE case: Eq. (41) substituted into Eq. (23) yields ρ_D = αH + βH^2, not ρ_D = αH + βH^2 + c as reported in Eqs. (43) and (45). Even after this correction, the first Friedmann equation (22) requires 3m^2/t^2 = αm/t + βm^2/t^2 + ρ_0 t^{-3m}, which is impossible for generic parameter values. The GGDE reconstruction therefore also fails to satisfy the field equations, undermining the stability and phase-plane conclusions of Section 4 and the summary in Section 5.
  3. [Eqs. (37)-(49) and Appendices A-B] The symbol ξ appears throughout the expressions for ω_D, ω'_D, ν_s^2, r, and s but is never defined in the text. Because all plotted quantities depend on ξ, the figures cannot be reproduced and the displayed formulas are not well-defined mathematical expressions. This is a load-bearing omission, since the claimed cosmological behavior is read off from plots of these quantities.
  4. [Section 5, observational alignment] The conclusion that the findings 'align well with current observational data' is not substantiated quantitatively. The Planck values quoted in Section 5 are given with error bars, but Figures 3 and 9 show only model curves for chosen values of m, with no confidence intervals, likelihood comparison, or parameter estimation. The claimed agreement is therefore an assertion rather than a demonstrated result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, first bullet] The text says 'non-interacting GGD and GGDE f(Q) gravity models'; 'GGD' appears to be a typo for 'GDE'.
  2. [Figures 1-12] The plotted curves are said to correspond to m = 1, 1.1, 1.2, but the values of α, β, c, ρ_0, and ξ are not specified, so the figures do not uniquely represent the stated models.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (37)] The definition of ω'_D is described in the text as a derivative with respect to Q, but the presentation does not make clear whether the plotted quantity is dω_D/dQ or dω_D/d ln a; this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 2, Eq. (22)] The second Friedmann equation is written with p_D + p_m; since p_m = 0 for pressureless matter, this is harmless, but the notation would be clearer if p_m were set to zero explicitly from the start.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the reconstruction is an algebraic exercise, though it fails a separate field-equation consistency check.

full rationale

The paper is a reconstruction exercise rather than a fitted prediction: the GDE and GGDE densities (Eqs. 1 and 2) are inputs, and the f(Q) functions are solved from Eq. (30) and Eq. (40). The phantom EoS, freezing-region, statefinder, and stability outcomes are algebraic consequences of the chosen power-law scale factor (27) and the arbitrary parameters m, alpha, beta, c; they are not obtained by fitting those parameters to the observational target. Self-citations [20] and [32] appear in the conclusion as supporting references, but the load-bearing comparison in the abstract and Section 5 is made against Planck data [39], an external benchmark, so no self-citation chain forces the result. There is, however, a serious non-circularity defect: the reconstructed f(Q) is never checked against the first Friedmann equation (22). Using the paper's own expressions, Eq. (22) with Eq. (31) or Eq. (41) and Eq. (29) would require 3m^2/t^2 = alpha m/t (+ beta m^2/t^2) + rho0 t^{-3m} for all t, which cannot hold for fixed parameters; furthermore the '+c' in Eqs. (33), (35), (43), and (45) is algebraically spurious because c cancels when Eq. (31)/Eq. (41) is substituted into Eq. (23). This means the subsequent EoS, phase-plane, and stability results are not properties of a solution of the stated field equations. That is an internal-consistency and correctness problem, not a case where a prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All conclusions rest on unconstrained parameters and on ansätze that are not checked against the theory's full field equations. The presence of an undefined ξ effectively makes the number of free parameters larger than advertised.

free parameters (5)
  • m (power-law exponent) = 1, 1.1, 1.2 (chosen, not fitted)
    Controls the entire evolution and the EoS/stability outcomes; no observational constraint or error bar is provided.
  • alpha (GDE coupling) = not specified
    Appears in ρ_D=αH and in all derived quantities; the figures do not state its value, so the graphs cannot be reproduced.
  • beta (GGDE coupling) = not specified
    Appears in ρ_D=αH+βH^2; its value is never stated, yet the stability result depends on it.
  • c (integration constant) = 0.5 used in plots
    Integration constant of the reconstructed f(Q); set to 0.5 without justification.
  • xi (undefined symbol) = not defined
    Appears in Eqs (37)-(49) and in the r-s appendices but is never introduced; functions as an unconstrained free parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption f(Q) symmetric teleparallel gravity with action (11) and effective dark energy definitions (23)-(24)
    The paper adopts this modified gravity framework as the basis for reconstruction; it is a model choice, not a standard mathematical theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper Flat FRW metric and a power-law scale factor a(t)=t^m
    Equation (27) is assumed to obtain analytic solutions. No justification is given for why the universe's expansion should follow a pure power law at all epochs, and the same m is used for both early and late times.
  • domain assumption Correspondence scheme: GDE/GGDE energy density equals the geometric effective density from f(Q)
    Equations (30) and (40) equate ρ_D from the ghost models to the f(Q) effective density; the validity of this identification is assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Pressureless matter with continuity equation (25) and no interaction with dark energy
    Standard assumption; the paper does not test sensitivity to interaction or to the equation of state of matter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmography of Non-Interacting Ghost and Generalized Ghost Dark Energy Models in f(Q) Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2GSHHYY

@misc{pith2026250702280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmography of Non-Interacting Ghost and Generalized Ghost Dark Energy Models in f(Q) Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2GSHHYY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02280}
}
abstract

This paper aims to develop non-interacting ghost dark energy and generalized ghost dark energy models within the framework of $f(Q)$ theory using the correspondence scheme. We use pressureless matter and a power-law scale factor. The cosmic implications of the resulting models are studied through the equation of state parameter and the phase planes. We also check the stability of the reconstructed models through the squared speed of sound parameter. The equation of state parameter exhibits a phantom era, the $(\omega_{D}-\omega^{\prime}_{D})$-plane indicates a freezing region, while the $(r-s)$-plane corresponds to the Chaplygin gas model for both models. It is also found that only the generalized ghost dark energy model remains stable throughout cosmic evolution. We conclude that our findings align well with current observational data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02280 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The graph illustrates the relationship between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graphs show ρD and pD against t − 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot shows the relationship between ωD with t. analyzing the EoS parameter, researchers can gain insights into the dynamics of cosmic expansion and the nature of the universe energy components. This can be evaluated as follows ωD = 1 72√ 6  αm3ξ + m q m2 t 2 t 2−3m   ξ  6  c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Graph of ω ′ D against ωD. region, ωD < 0 and ω ′ D < 0. Thus we have ω ′ D = 1 864√ 6m3 q m2 t 2  αξq m2 t 2 t 3m + 12  ξt3m  2  c 2αξr m2 t 2 t 3m + 1 × 36m2 + 3t 3  4αξr m2 t 2 t 3m + 3 − 216αm3 ξ r m2 t 2 t 3m  − α  36m3 + 12αξt3m+2 m2 t 2 3/2 − t 3 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graph depicts r against s. predictions with observational data. These can be described as [38] r = ... a aH3 , s = r − 1 3(q − 1 2 ) , Trajectories within the range (r < 1) and (s > 0) correspond to phantom and quintessence DE eras, while trajectories with (r > 1) and …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Graph of ν 2 s with t. × r m2 t 2 − 12√ 6cm2 − t 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Graphical representation of f(Q) versus t. Its solution is given by f(Q) = − 1 6 p Q  − 6c + √ 6α ln(Q) + 2β p Q  , (41) and in terms of t, we have f(Q) = √ 6c r m2 t 2 − α r m2 t 2 ln  6m2 t 2  − 2βm2 t 2 . (42) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plots of ρD and pD versus t. pD = 1 72√ 6t 4 m2 t 2  3 2  m √ 6α [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Graph of ωD with t. that could disrupt the fabric of spacetime. Overall, this figure highlights the complex behavior of DE and underscores the importance of exploring how modifications to existing models can improve our understanding of cosmic evolution. The expression…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plot of ω ′ D versus ωD. m=1.2 m=1.1 m=1 4 6 8 10 12 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 r s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Plot of r versus s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Graph of ν 2 s versus t. 5 Conclusions The main goal of this manuscript is to achieve a comprehensive understand￾ing of the cosmic behavior and consequences of DE models in the framework of cosmic evolution. Initially, we have reconstructed the DE f(Q) gravity models …

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. Reconstruction of f(G) Gravity from an Interacting Viscous Generalized QCD Ghost Dark Energy Model: Cosmology and Thermodynamics: Cosmology and Thermodynamics

    gr-qc 2026-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A reconstructed f(G) gravity from viscous interacting ghost dark energy with a hybrid expansion law is claimed to be thermodynamically consistent and to match 31 cosmic-chronometer data points.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [32]

    Sharif M and Ajmal M 2024 Generalized ghost dark energy in f (Q) gravity Chin. J. Phys. 88 706

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Berman M S 1983 A special law of variation for Hubble’s parameter Il Nuovo Cimento B 74 182; Saez D and Ballester V J 1986 A simple coupling with cosmological implications Phys. Lett. A 113 467

    work page 1983

  3. [2]

    1998 Observational evidence from supernovae fo r an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant Astron

    Riess A G et al. 1998 Observational evidence from supernovae fo r an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant Astron. J. 116 1009

    work page 1998

  4. [3]

    2004 Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WM AP Phys

    Tegmark M et al. 2004 Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WM AP Phys. Rev. D 69 103501; Seljak U et al. 2005 Cosmological parame- ter analysis including SDSS Ly forest and galaxy bias: Constraints on the primordial spectrum of fluctuations, neutrino mass and dark e n- ergy Phys. Rev. D 71 103515; Eisenstein D J et al. 2005 Detection of the baryon acousti...

    work page 2004

  5. [4]

    2009 Five-year Wilkinson microwave anisotropy pr obe observations: cosmological interpretation Astrophys

    Komatsu E et al. 2009 Five-year Wilkinson microwave anisotropy pr obe observations: cosmological interpretation Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180 330

    work page 2009

  6. [5]

    2011 The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon acoustic osc illa- tions and the local Hubble constant Mon

    Beutler F et al. 2011 The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon acoustic osc illa- tions and the local Hubble constant Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416 3017; Betoule M E A et al. 2014 Improved cosmological constraints f rom a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS supernova samples Astron . As- trophys. 568 32; Ade P A R et al. 2016 Planck 2015 results-XXVIII. The Pla...

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    Sheykhi A 2009 Interacting agegraphic dark energy models in no n-flat universe Phys. Lett. B 680 113; 2010 Thermodynamics of interacting holographic dark energy with the apparent horizon as an IR cutoff C lass. Quantum Grav. 27 025007

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    Urban F R and Zhitnitsky A R 2010 The cosmological constant from the QCD Veneziano ghost Phys. Lett. B 688 9; The QCD nature of dark energy Nucl. Phys. B 835 135. 29

    work page 2010

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Witten E 1979 Current algebra theorems for the U(1) Goldstone boson Nucl. Phys. B 156 269; Veneziano G 1979 U(1) without instantons Nucl. Phys. B 159 213; Rosenzweig C, Schechter J and Trahern C G 1980 Is the effective Lagrangian for quantum chromodynamics a σ model Phys. Rev. ...

    1979

  2. [9]

    Cai R G and Tuo Z L and Zhang H B and Su Q 2011 Notes on ghost dark energy Phys. Rev. D 84 123501; Ebrahimi E and Sheykhi A 2011 Instability of QCD ghost dark energy model Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20 2369

    2011

  3. [10]

    Saaidi K and Aghamohammadi A and Sabet B and Farooq O 2012 Gh ost dark energy in f (R) model of gravity Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 21 1250057

    2012

  4. [11]

    Sheykhi A and Movahed M S 2012 Interacting ghost dark energ y in non-flat universe Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44 449

    2012

  5. [12]

    Sadeghi J and Khurshudyan M and Movsisyan A and Farahani H 2 013 Interacting ghost dark energy models with variable G and Λ J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2013 031

    2013

  6. [13]

    Fayaz V and Hossienkhani H and Aghamohammadi A and Amirabad i M 2014 Ghost dark energy models in Bianchi I cosmologies with modified gravity Can. J. Phys. 92 168

    2014

  7. [14]

    Chattopadhyay S 2014 QCD ghost reconstruction of f (T ) gravity in flat FR W universe Eur. Phys. J. Plus 129 82

    2014

  8. [15]

    Pasqua A, Chattopadhyay S and Myrzakulov R 2014 A dark ener gy model with higher order derivatives of H in the f (R, T) modified gravity model Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2014 535010

    2014

  9. [16]

    Fayaz V, Hossienkhani H, Zarei Z and Azimi N 2016 Anisotropic c os- mologies with ghost dark energy models in f (R, T) gravity Eur. Phys. J. Plus 131 22. 30

    2016

  10. [17]

    Sharif M and Saba S 2019 Ghost dark energy model in f (G) gravity Chin. J. Phys. 58 202; Cosmography of generalized ghost dark energy model in f (G) gravity J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 128 571

    2019

  11. [18]

    Liu Y 2020 Interacting ghost dark energy in complex quintessen ce theory Eur. Phys. J. C 80 1204

    2020

  12. [19]

    Zarandi H R M and Ebrahimi E 2022 Cosmic age problem in holograph ic and ghost dark energy models Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 511 42

    2022

  13. [20]

    Sharif M and Ibrar I 2024 Analysis of reconstructed modified f (Q, T) gravity Chin. J. Phys. 89 1578

    2024

  14. [21]

    M¨oller C 1961 Conservation laws and absolute parallelism in general rel- ativity Mat. Fys. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 1 10; Pellegrini C and Plebanski J 1963 Tetrad fields and gravitational field Mat. Fys. Skr. 2 4; Hayashi K and Shirafuji T 1979 New general relativity Phys. Rev. D 19 3524

    1961

  15. [22]

    Nester J M and Yo H -J 1998 Symmetric teleparallel general relat ivity Chin. J. Phys. 37 113

    1998

  16. [23]

    Ferraro R and Fiorini F 2007 Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflat ion without an inflaton Phys. Rev. D 75 084031

    2007

  17. [24]

    Jim´enez J B, Heisenberg L and Koivisto T 2018 Coincident general relativity Phys. Rev. D 98 044048

    2018

  18. [25]

    Bengochea G R and Ferraro R 2009 Dark torsion as the cosmic sp eed- up Phys. Rev. D 79 124019; Linder E V 2010 Einstein’s other gravity and the acceleration of the universe Phys. Rev. D 81 127301; Atayde L and Frusciante N 2021 Can f (Q) gravity challenge ΛCDM Phys. Rev. D 104...

    2009

  19. [26]

    Frusciante N 2021 Signatures of f (Q) gravity in cosmology Phys. Rev. D 103 044021. 31

    2021

  20. [27]

    Ayuso I, Lazkoz R and Salzano V 2021 Observational constrain ts on cosmological solutions of f (Q) theories Phys. Rev. D 103 063505

    2021

  21. [28]

    Dark Univ

    Solanki R, Pacif S K J, Parida A and Sahoo P K 2021 Cosmic accelera - tion with bulk viscosity in modified f (Q) gravity Phys. Dark Univ. 32 100820

    2021

  22. [29]

    Dark Univ

    Albuquerque I S and Frusciante N 2022 A designer approach to f (Q) gravity and cosmological implications Phys. Dark Univ. 35 100980

    2022

  23. [30]

    Esposito F, Carloni S, Cianci R and Vignolo S 2022 Reconstructin g isotropic and anisotropic f (Q) cosmologies Phys. Rev. D 105 084061

    2022

  24. [31]

    Sokoliuk O, Arora S, Praharaj S, Baransky A and Sahoo P K 2023 On the impact of f (Q) gravity on the large scale structure Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 522 252

    2023

  25. [33]

    Gadbail G N and Sahoo P K 2024 Modified f (Q) gravity models and their cosmological consequences Chin. J. Phys 89 1754

    2024

  26. [34]

    109 102211

    Sharif M, Gul M Z and Fatima N 2024 Analysis of bouncing cosmology in non-Riemannian geometry New Astron. 109 102211

    2024

  27. [35]

    Weyl H 1918 Gravitation und elektrizit¨ at Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 465 465

    1918

  28. [36]

    Dirac P A M 1973 Long range forces and broken symmetries Proc . R. Soc. London A 333 403

    1973

  29. [37]

    Caldwell R R and Linder E V 2005 Limits of quintessence Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 141301

    2005

  30. [38]

    Sahni V, Saini T D, Starobinsky A A and Alam U 2003 Statefinder a new geometrical diagnostic of dark energy J. Exp. Theor. Phys. L ett. 77 201

    2003

  31. [39]

    2016 Planck 2015 results-XIII

    Ade P A, Aghanim N, Arnaud M, Ashdown M, Aumont J, Baccigalupi C, et al. 2016 Planck 2015 results-XIII. cosmological parameters Astron. Astrophys. 594 A13. 32

    2016

  32. [40]

    Malekjani M 2013 Cosmography of interacting generalized QCD g host dark energy Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22 1350084

    2013

  33. [41]

    Space Sci

    Zubair M and Abbas G 2015 Reconstructing QCD ghost f (R, T) models Astrophys. Space Sci. 357 154

    2015

  34. [42]

    Myrzakulov N, Shekh S H, Mussatayeva A and Koussour M 2022 A naly- sis of reconstructed modified symmetric teleparallel f (Q) gravity Front. Astron. Space Sci. 9 902552. 33

    2022

Pith tools

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