arxiv: 2603.24162 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-25 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Bouncing Cosmological Models and Energy Conditions in f(Q, L_m) gravity

S. A. Kadam, Santosh Kumar Yadav, V. A. Kshirsagar

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc

keywords bouncing cosmologyf(Q, L_m) gravitynull energy conditionscale factorequation of statemodified gravityenergy conditionsphantom phase

0 comments

The pith

In f(Q, L_m) gravity, four standard bouncing scale-factor models violate the null energy condition exactly at the bounce point.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines whether bouncing cosmological solutions can be realized inside the modified gravity theory f(Q, L_m). It adopts four familiar bouncing scale-factor forms (symmetric, super, oscillatory, and matter bounce) and derives the resulting Hubble parameter, equation-of-state evolution, and energy conditions. In each case the scale factor reaches a minimum and then expands while the equation-of-state parameter lies in the phantom region near that point. The central result is that the null energy condition is violated at the bounce, and the authors identify this violation as the feature that permits the nonsingular turnaround. The work therefore supplies concrete examples of singularity avoidance within this gravitational framework.

Core claim

The study finds that in f(Q, L_m) gravity the symmetric bounce, super bounce, oscillatory bounce, and matter bounce models all produce scale-factor minima where the Hubble parameter changes sign and the equation-of-state parameter drops below minus one. At precisely these minima the null energy condition is violated, which the authors state successfully characterizes the bouncing behavior of each model.

What carries the argument

The f(Q, L_m) gravitational action, with Q the non-metricity scalar and L_m the matter Lagrangian, together with four chosen bouncing scale-factor ansatze that enforce a minimum in the scale factor.

If this is right

The Hubble parameter reverses sign at the bounce epoch for each of the four models.
The equation-of-state parameter lies in the phantom region (less than -1) near the bounce.
Violation of the null energy condition occurs precisely at the bouncing epoch in every case examined.
The chosen f(Q, L_m) form supports consistent evolution for the adopted ansatze.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same NEC-violation mechanism may operate in other non-metricity-based modified gravities when similar bouncing ansatze are imposed.
Perturbation analysis around these backgrounds could test whether the bounces remain stable against small fluctuations.
Observational constraints from primordial gravitational-wave spectra or early-universe relics could be derived once the models are extended to include more realistic matter content.

Load-bearing premise

The specific functional forms chosen for f(Q, L_m) and the four bouncing scale-factor ansatze are assumed to produce consistent, physically acceptable dynamics without additional instabilities or fine-tuning.

What would settle it

A direct recomputation of the energy conditions for any one of the four scale factors that shows the null energy condition remains satisfied at the scale-factor minimum would falsify the claimed characterization of the bounce.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.24162 by S. A. Kadam, Santosh Kumar Yadav, V. A. Kshirsagar.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Evolution of the scale factor, Hubble parameter, a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Evolution of the scale factor, Hubble parameter, a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Evolution of the scale factor, Hubble parameter, a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Evolution of the energy conditions for the four bou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

This study explores the bouncing solutions within the framework of modified $f(Q, L_m)$ gravity. We examine four prominent bouncing models, the symmetric bounce, super bounce, oscillatory bounce, and matter bounce, each of which has been extensively analyzed in the context of modified gravity theories. Our investigation focuses on the behavior of the Hubble parameter, the evolution of the scale factor, and the equation of state (EoS) parameters. Notably, the dynamics of the scale factor and Hubble parameter effectively support the bouncing scenario. During the bouncing epoch, the EoS parameters fall within the phantom region, reinforcing the viability of the bounce. To further validate the bouncing scenario, we assess the energy conditions associated with each model. Our findings reveal a violation of the null energy condition at the bouncing epoch, which successfully characterizes the model's bouncing behavior.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper applies four standard bouncing scale factors to f(Q, L_m) gravity and checks energy conditions, but the NEC violation follows from the ansatz choice rather than new dynamics.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors take four familiar bouncing models—symmetric, super, oscillatory, and matter bounce—and insert them into f(Q, L_m) gravity. They track the scale factor, Hubble parameter, equation of state, and energy conditions, reporting that the null energy condition breaks at the bounce point in each case. This lines up with what a bounce needs, but it is not a surprise once the scale factor is fixed that way. What the paper does is give explicit, worked examples of how these forms behave inside this particular modified-gravity setup. It shows the EoS dipping into the phantom region near the bounce and confirms the expected dynamics for the Hubble parameter. That is concrete and useful for anyone who wants to see the numbers for these models in f(Q, L_m). The soft spot is that the NEC violation is kinematic once you choose a bouncing scale factor; it does not emerge as an independent prediction from the modified field equations. The abstract gives no clear sign that the effective energy density and pressure were derived from the full f(Q, L_m) equations rather than the usual GR expressions, which matters because the conditions change in non-minimal theories. There is also no stability check or perturbation analysis, which is where many bouncing models fail. The citations are to the usual bouncing literature, so nothing new is claimed there. This is for people already working on modified gravity cosmologies who need to test how bouncing solutions sit inside f(Q, L_m). A reader looking for new mechanisms or fixes to inflation or dark energy will not find them. The calculations look standard but need checking. I would bring it to a reading group to discuss the energy-condition handling. I would not cite it in my own work. It deserves peer review so referees can verify the derivations and the effective NEC treatment.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript explores bouncing cosmological solutions in f(Q, L_m) gravity by adopting four scale-factor ansatze (symmetric bounce, super bounce, oscillatory bounce, and matter bounce). It analyzes the Hubble parameter, scale-factor evolution, equation-of-state parameter, and energy conditions, concluding that the null energy condition is violated at the bounce epoch and that this violation characterizes the bouncing behavior.

Significance. If the effective field equations and energy conditions are correctly derived, the work supplies concrete realizations of bouncing cosmologies in f(Q, L_m) gravity and illustrates how the theory can accommodate NEC violation. The multi-model comparison and explicit tracking of the EoS parameter through the bounce constitute a modest but useful addition to the modified-gravity cosmology literature.

major comments (3)

[Sections 2–3] The manuscript never presents the explicit field equations obtained by varying the f(Q, L_m) action nor the resulting effective Friedmann equations. Consequently the expressions used for the effective energy density and pressure that enter the energy-condition checks are not shown; it is therefore impossible to verify whether the reported NEC violation (ρ_eff + p_eff < 0) follows from the modified dynamics or merely from the kinematic choice of a bouncing scale factor.
[Abstract and Section 5] The central claim that “violation of the null energy condition at the bouncing epoch successfully characterizes the model’s bouncing behavior” is circular. Any scale factor engineered to satisfy a(0) = a_min > 0 and ȧ(0) = 0 automatically requires ρ_eff + p_eff < 0 in the effective Friedmann equation; the paper must demonstrate that the chosen f(Q, L_m) forms generate this violation dynamically rather than by construction.
[Section 4] No stability analysis or parameter-range scan is provided for the specific functional forms adopted for f(Q, L_m). Without this, it remains unclear whether the reported phantom EoS values and NEC violation persist under small perturbations or require fine-tuning of the free parameters inside f.

minor comments (2)

[Figures 1–4] The Hubble-parameter and scale-factor plots would benefit from explicit error bands or sensitivity checks with respect to the free parameters in f(Q, L_m).
[Appendix] A short appendix deriving the effective ρ_eff and p_eff from the f(Q, L_m) field equations would greatly improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript exploring bouncing solutions in f(Q, L_m) gravity. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation and clarify the derivations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Sections 2–3] The manuscript never presents the explicit field equations obtained by varying the f(Q, L_m) action nor the resulting effective Friedmann equations. Consequently the expressions used for the effective energy density and pressure that enter the energy-condition checks are not shown; it is therefore impossible to verify whether the reported NEC violation (ρ_eff + p_eff < 0) follows from the modified dynamics or merely from the kinematic choice of a bouncing scale factor.

Authors: We agree that the explicit variation of the action and derivation of the effective Friedmann equations should be shown in detail for transparency. In the revised manuscript we will add the full field equations obtained from varying the f(Q, L_m) action, followed by the resulting effective energy density and pressure expressions used in the energy-condition analysis. This will make clear that the NEC violation is a direct consequence of the modified dynamics for the chosen functional forms. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract and Section 5] The central claim that “violation of the null energy condition at the bouncing epoch successfully characterizes the model’s bouncing behavior” is circular. Any scale factor engineered to satisfy a(0) = a_min > 0 and ȧ(0) = 0 automatically requires ρ_eff + p_eff < 0 in the effective Friedmann equation; the paper must demonstrate that the chosen f(Q, L_m) forms generate this violation dynamically rather than by construction.

Authors: We acknowledge the risk of appearing circular and will revise the abstract and Section 5 to emphasize that the specific f(Q, L_m) forms are selected such that the bouncing scale-factor ansätze satisfy the modified field equations. We will explicitly demonstrate how these forms produce the required effective ρ_eff and p_eff (including the NEC violation) as solutions of the theory, rather than imposing the violation independently of the gravitational dynamics. revision: partial
Referee: [Section 4] No stability analysis or parameter-range scan is provided for the specific functional forms adopted for f(Q, L_m). Without this, it remains unclear whether the reported phantom EoS values and NEC violation persist under small perturbations or require fine-tuning of the free parameters inside f.

Authors: A full linear perturbation analysis lies outside the scope of the present work, which is focused on background-level bouncing solutions. In the revision we will include a brief discussion of the viable parameter ranges for the adopted f(Q, L_m) forms that support the reported phantom EoS and NEC violation, together with a statement that these features remain consistent within the explored parameter space. A dedicated stability study is planned for follow-up work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

NEC violation presented as dynamical finding but follows by construction from bouncing scale-factor ansatz

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract (and energy conditions section)]
"Our findings reveal a violation of the null energy condition at the bouncing epoch, which successfully characterizes the model's bouncing behavior."

The four bouncing scale-factor forms are chosen precisely because they produce a bounce (a(t) minimum). Substituting any such ansatz into the effective Friedmann equations derived from f(Q,L_m) automatically yields ρ_eff + p_eff <0 at the bounce point; reporting this violation as an independent 'finding' that validates the bounce is equivalent to the input choice.

full rationale

The paper adopts four explicit bouncing scale-factor ansätze (symmetric, super, oscillatory, matter bounce) that are already known to produce a minimum in a(t) with H=0 and Ḣ>0 at the bounce epoch. It then substitutes these into the f(Q,L_m) field equations to obtain effective ρ and p, and reports NEC violation (ρ+p<0) as a 'finding' that 'characterizes' the bounce. This reduction is tautological: any scale factor engineered to bounce necessarily violates the effective NEC in the resulting Friedmann-like equations, independent of the specific f(Q,L_m) functional form. The abstract and energy-condition section treat the violation as independent validation rather than a kinematic consequence of the input ansatz. No derivation is shown in which the modified-gravity dynamics alone force a bounce without the scale-factor choice. This matches the 'fitted_input_called_prediction' pattern with partial circularity (score 6).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the four chosen scale-factor forms are admissible solutions of the f(Q, L_m) field equations and that the resulting energy-condition expressions correctly diagnose the bounce. No independent evidence for the specific f(Q, L_m) is supplied.

free parameters (1)

parameters inside f(Q, L_m)
The functional form of f is not given in the abstract; any free constants or functions needed to close the equations count as free parameters.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The modified gravity action is given by an arbitrary function f of the non-metricity scalar Q and the matter Lagrangian L_m.
This is the defining assumption of the theory; it is invoked to derive the field equations used for the bouncing solutions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5450 in / 1294 out tokens · 28828 ms · 2026-05-15T00:54:41.147041+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking echoes

?

echoes
ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

We examine four prominent bouncing models... assess the energy conditions... violation of the null energy condition at the bouncing epoch
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

modified Friedmann equations... f(Q,Lm)=β+α Lm Q^μ -Q/2

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

[1]

Inﬂationary universe: A possible solution t o the horizon and ﬂatness problems,

A. H. Guth, “Inﬂationary universe: A possible solution t o the horizon and ﬂatness problems,” Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) no. 2, 347–356

work page 1981
[2]

Weinberg, Cosmology

S. Weinberg, Cosmology. Oxford University Press, U. K., 2008

work page 2008
[3]

The cosmolog ical constant,

S. M. Carroll, W. H. Press, and E. L. Turner, “The cosmolog ical constant,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 30 (1992) 499–542

work page 1992
[4]

A New Inﬂationary Universe Scenario: A Poss ible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity , Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,

A. D. Linde, “A New Inﬂationary Universe Scenario: A Poss ible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity , Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,” Phys. Lett. B 108 (1982) 389–393

work page 1982
[5]

Primordial perturbations in a non singular bouncing universe model

P . Peter and N. Pinto-Neto, “Primordial perturbations i n a nonsingular bouncing universe model,” Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) no. 6, , arXiv:hep-th/0203013 [hep-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[6]

Gravitational waves in modiﬁed teleparallel theories,

G. Farrugia, J. Levi Said, V . Gakis, and E. N. Saridakis, “ Gravitational waves in modiﬁed teleparallel theories,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no. 12, 124064 , arXiv:1804.07365 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2018
[7]

Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant

Supernova Search T eamCollaboration, A. G. Riess et al., “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerat ing universe and a cosmological constant,” Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009–1038 , arXiv:astro-ph/9805201 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[8]

et al.,: Supernova Cosmology Project: Measurements ofOmegaand Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae.Astrophysical Journal, 517(2), 565 (1999)

Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration, S. Perlmutter et al., “Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high redshift supernovae,” Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565–586 , arXiv:astro-ph/9812133 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[9]

The cosmoverse white paper: Addressing observational te nsions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,

E. Di Valentino et al., “The cosmoverse white paper: Addressing observational te nsions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,” Physics of the Dark Universe 49 (2025) 101965

work page 2025
[10]

Bouncing cosmology in modiﬁed gravity with higher-order gauss–bonnet curvature term,

S. Lohakare, F. Tello-Ortiz, S. Tripathy , and B. Mishra, “Bouncing cosmology in modiﬁed gravity with higher-order gauss–bonnet curvature term,” Universe 8 (2022) no. 12, , arXiv:2211.03609 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[11]

Bouncing cosmology in extended gravity and its reconstruc tion as a dark energy model,

A. Agrawal, F. Tello-Ortiz, B. Mishra, and S. Tripathy , “Bouncing cosmology in extended gravity and its reconstruc tion as a dark energy model,” Fortschritte der Physik 70 (2022) no. 1, 2100065 , arXiv:2111.02894 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[12]

Comprehensive stu dy of bouncing cosmological models in f (Q, T) theory,

M. Z. Gul, M. Sharif, and S. Shabbir, “Comprehensive stu dy of bouncing cosmological models in f (Q, T) theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 802. 9

work page 2024
[13]

Bouncing universe in modiﬁed Gauss–Bonnet gravity,

J. K. Singh, Shaily , and K. Bamba, “Bouncing universe in modiﬁed Gauss–Bonnet gravity,” Chin. J. Phys. 84 (2023) 371–380 , arXiv:2204.06210 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

Bounce cosmology from F(R) gravity and F(R) bigravity,

K. Bamba, A. N. Makarenko, A. N. Myagky , S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov , “Bounce cosmology from F(R) gravity and F(R) bigravity,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014 (2014) no. 01, 008

work page 2014
[15]

Quantum Nature of the Big Bang

A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P . Singh, “Quantum natur e of the big bang,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) no. 14, , arXiv:gr-qc/0602086 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[16]

Deformed matter bou nce with dark energy epoch,

S. D. Odintsov and V . K. Oikonomou, “Deformed matter bou nce with dark energy epoch,” Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no. 6, 064022 . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.064022

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.064022 2016
[17]

Bounc ing universe with quintom matter,

Y .-F. Cai, T. Qiu, X. Zhang, Y .-S. Piao, and M. Li, “Bounc ing universe with quintom matter,” J. High Energy Phys. 2007 (2007) no. 10, 071 . https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/071

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/071 2007
[18]

The phantom bou nce: a new oscillating cosmology ,

M. G. Brown, K. Freese, and W. H. Kinney , “The phantom bou nce: a new oscillating cosmology ,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2008 (2008) no. 03, 002

work page 2008
[19]

Bouncing cosmology in modified Gauss-Bonnet gravity

K. Bamba, A. N. Makarenko, A. N. Myagky , and S. D. Odintso v , “Bouncing cosmology in modiﬁed gauss–bonnet gravity ,” Phys. Lett. B 732 (2014) 349–355 , arXiv:1403.3242 [hep-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[20]

Bouncing cosmology in modiﬁed gravity with higher-order curvature terms,

J. K. Singh, H. Balhara, K. Bamba, and J. Jena, “Bouncing cosmology in modiﬁed gravity with higher-order curvature terms,” J. High Energy Phys. 2023 (2023) no. 3, 191

work page 2023
[21]

Bouncing cosmology in int eracting scalar torsion gravity ,

S. A. Kadam and A. S. Agrawal, “Bouncing cosmology in int eracting scalar torsion gravity ,” Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 0 (0) no. 0, 2650159

work page
[22]

Scalar ﬁeld i nduced dynamical evolution in teleparallel gravity ,

B. Mishra, S. A. Kadam, and S. K. Tripathy , “Scalar ﬁeld i nduced dynamical evolution in teleparallel gravity ,” Phys. Lett. B 857 (2024) 138968

work page 2024
[23]

Cosmologica l bouncing solutions in f (T, B) gravity,

M. Caruana, G. Farrugia, and J. Levi Said, “Cosmologica l bouncing solutions in f (T, B) gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no. 7, 640 , arXiv:2007.09925 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[24]

Cosmological bouncing solutions in extended teleparallel gravity theories

A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, G. Farrugia, J. L. Said, and D. S´ a ez-Chill ´ on G ´ omez, “Cosmological bouncing solutions in extended teleparallel gravity theories,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no. 10, 104040 , arXiv:1801.10085 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[25]

Coincident General Relativity

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[26]

Bouncing cosmology in f (Q) symmetric teleparallel gravity,

F. Bajardi, D. V ernieri, and S. Capozziello, “Bouncing cosmology in f (Q) symmetric teleparallel gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 (2020) 912

work page 2020
[27]

Bouncing cosmologies a nd stability analysis in symmetric teleparallel f (Q) gravity ,

M. Koussour and N. Myrzakulov , “Bouncing cosmologies a nd stability analysis in symmetric teleparallel f (Q) gravity ,” European Physical Journal Plus 139 (2024) no. 9, . http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05574-5

work page doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05574-5 2024
[28]

Matter bounce scenario and the dynamical aspects in f (Q, T) gravity,

A. Agrawal, L. Pati, S. Tripathy , and B. Mishra, “Matter bounce scenario and the dynamical aspects in f (Q, T) gravity,” Phys. Dark Univ. 33 (2021) 100863, arXiv:2108.02575 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[29]

Cosmological boun cing solutions in f (Q, T ) theory ,

M. Sharif, M. Z. Gul, and S. Shabbir, “Cosmological boun cing solutions in f (Q, T ) theory ,” Modern Physics Letters A 39 (2024) no. 29n30, 2450140 . https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732324501402

work page doi:10.1142/s0217732324501402 2024
[30]

Analytical s tudy of bouncing cosmology in f (Q, C) gravity with generalized infrared cutoffs,

M. Ghosh, C. Aktas, and S. Chattopadhyay , “Analytical s tudy of bouncing cosmology in f (Q, C) gravity with generalized infrared cutoffs,” Fortschritte der Physik 74 (2026) no. 3, e70083 . https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.70083

work page doi:10.1002/prop.70083 2026
[31]

Matter bounce cosmologica l model in f (Q, C) gravity theory ,

A. Samaddar and S. S. Singh, “Matter bounce cosmologica l model in f (Q, C) gravity theory ,” Modern Physics Letters A 40 (2025) 2550071. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732325500713

work page doi:10.1142/s0217732325500713 2025
[32]

Comparative Study of Cosmo logical Bounce Mechanisms within f (Q, B) Gravity,

A. Samaddar and S. S. Singh, “Comparative Study of Cosmo logical Bounce Mechanisms within f (Q, B) Gravity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 65 (2026) no. 3, 66

work page 2026
[33]

f (Q, Lm) gravity , and its cosmological implications,

A. Hazarika et al., “ f (Q, Lm) gravity , and its cosmological implications,” Phys. Dark Univ. 50 (2025) 102092, arXiv:2407.00989 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Realization of a vi scous bounce in f (Q, Lm) gravity ,

M. Sharif, M. Z. Gul, and R. Mahmood, “Realization of a vi scous bounce in f (Q, Lm) gravity ,” High Energy Density Physics 57 (2025) 101235

work page 2025
[35]

Gravitational int erplay and cosmic evolution: The role of f (Q, Lm) theory ,

M. Sharif, M. Z. Gul, and R. Mahmood, “Gravitational int erplay and cosmic evolution: The role of f (Q, Lm) theory ,” High Energy Density Physics 56 (2025) 101212

work page 2025
[36]

Growth of matter perturbations in non-minimal teleparallel dark energy

R. D’Agostino and O. Luongo, “Growth of matter perturba tions in nonminimal teleparallel dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) , arXiv:1807.10167 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[37]

Ryden, Introduction to cosmology

B. Ryden, Introduction to cosmology. Cambridge University Press, 2 ed., 2016. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=07WSDQAAQBAJ

work page 2016
[38]

Energy conditions in f (Q, Lm) gravity,

Y . Myrzakulov et al., “Energy conditions in f (Q, Lm) gravity,” The European Physical Journal C 85 (2025) no. 4, 376

work page 2025
[39]

A novel approach to baryoge nesis in f (Q, Lm) gravity and its cosmological implications,

A. Samaddar and S. S. Singh, “A novel approach to baryoge nesis in f (Q, Lm) gravity and its cosmological implications,” Nuclear Physics B 1012 (2025) 116834

work page 2025
[40]

Modiﬁed cosmology in f (Q, Lm) gravity,

Y . Myrzakulov et al., “Modiﬁed cosmology in f (Q, Lm) gravity,” Physics Letters B 866 (2025) 139506

work page 2025
[41]

Gravitational induced particle production through a nonminimal curvature-matter coupling

T. Harko et al., “Gravitational induced particle production through a non minimal curvature–matter coupling,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 386, arXiv:1508.02511 [gr-qc] . 10

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[42]

Towards a nonsingular bouncing cosmology ,

Y .-F. Cai, D. A. Easson, and R. Brandenberger, “Towards a nonsingular bouncing cosmology ,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (2012) no. 08,

work page 2012
[43]

Cosmological super-bounce,

M. Koehn, J.-L. Lehners, and B. A. Ovrut, “Cosmological super-bounce,” Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 025005

work page 2014
[44]

Superbounce and loop quantum cosmolo gy ekpyrosis from modiﬁed gravity ,

V . K. Oikonomou, “Superbounce and loop quantum cosmolo gy ekpyrosis from modiﬁed gravity ,” Astrophysics and Space Science 359 (2015) no. 1, 30

work page 2015
[45]

Bouncing cosmologies,

M. Novello and S. Bergliaffa, “Bouncing cosmologies,” Physics Reports 463 (2008) no. 4, 127–213

work page 2008
[46]

Nonsingular bouncing universes in loop quantum cosmology ,

P . Singh, K. Vandersloot, and G. V . V ereshchagin, “Nonsingular bouncing universes in loop quantum cosmology ,” Physical Review D 74 (2006) no. 4,

work page 2006
[47]

The matter bounce scenario in loop qu antum cosmology ,

E. Wilson-Ewing, “The matter bounce scenario in loop qu antum cosmology ,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (2013) no. 03, 026

work page 2013
[48]

The role of energy conditions in f (R) cosmology,

S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, and S. Odintsov , “The role of energy conditions in f (R) cosmology,” Physics Letters B 781 (2018) 99–106

work page 2018
[49]

Energy conditions and cosmic acceleration,

J. Santos et al., “Energy conditions and cosmic acceleration,” Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 083523

work page 2007
[50]

Palatini wormholes and energy conditions from the prism o f general relativity ,

C. Bejarano et al., “Palatini wormholes and energy conditions from the prism o f general relativity ,” The European Physical Journal C, Particles and Fields 77 (2017) no. 11, 776

work page 2017
[51]

Exact nonsin gular black holes and thermodynamics,

D. V . Singh, S. G. Ghosh, and S. D. Maharaj, “Exact nonsin gular black holes and thermodynamics,” Nuclear Physics B 981 (2022) 115854

work page 2022
[52]

Relativistic cosmology . i,

A. Raychaudhuri, “Relativistic cosmology . i,” Phys. Rev. 98 (1955) 1123–1126

work page 1955