Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Apparent horizon thermodynamics in an exponential $f(Q)$ gravity model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives exponentially corrected apparent-horizon entropy in exponential $f(Q)$ gravity and shows the generalized second law excludes $b>0.26$.

desk verdict Sound entropy derivation; the GSL bound b>0.26 is likely an artifact of the truncated H(z), so treat it as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08302 v1 pith:M3KUTJ23 submitted 2026-08-08 gr-qc

A. Oliveros , Ivan R. Vasquez This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords f(Q)gravitynon-metricityapparenthorizonKodama-HaywardtemperaturegeneralizedsecondlawexponentialdarkenergymodelBekenstein-Hawkingentropycosmologicalthermodynamics
topics 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 asks whether the exponential $f(Q)$ gravity model, $f(Q)=Q+2\Lambda\,\exp[-(b\Lambda/Q)^n]$ with $n=1$, can pass the thermodynamic tests that any cosmological theory faces at its apparent horizon. It derives the horizon entropy from Hayward's unified first law and finds exponentially suppressed corrections to the Bekenstein--Hawking area law, $S(A)=A/4$ plus terms controlled by $b$, with the standard area law recovered as $b\to0$. It then applies the generalized second law to the combined horizon-plus-matter system and shows that, when matter and horizon share one temperature, viability requires $f_Q+2Qf_{QQ}\ge0$. The observationally preferred values of $b$ pass this test, but positive values above about $0.26$ violate the generalized second law at future redshifts $z<0$. A sympathetic reader should care because this turns horizon thermodynamics into a parameter constraint on a modified-gravity dark-energy candidate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combination $f_Q+2Qf_{QQ}$, the same response function that controls how the energy density changes with the non-metricity scalar, since $\partial\rho/\partial Q=(f_Q+2Qf_{QQ})/16\pi$. It enters the projected unified first law as the coefficient of the area change and therefore fixes both the horizon entropy differential and the sign of the total entropy production in the GSL. The supporting construction is Hayward's unified first law, with the work density and energy-supply vector built from an effective Misner--Sharp--Hernandez mass, and the Kodama--Hayward temperature $T_{\rm AH}=|\kappa_{\rm AH}|/2\pi$ supplies the thermal factor. The exponential form $f(Q)=Q+2\Lambda e^{-(b\Lambda/Q)^n}$ with $n=1$ converts the integral into the closed-form exponentially corrected entropy.

What would settle it

Compute $\Phi(z;b)=f_Q+2Qf_{QQ}$ using the exact numerical solution of the transcendental Friedmann equation (3.13) rather than the $b^2$-truncated approximation, and check its sign at $z<0$ for $b=0.27$; if $\Phi$ stays nonnegative, the claimed $b>0.26$ exclusion is an artifact of the approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the coincident-gauge flat FLRW branch of the exponential $f(Q)$ model with $n=1$, apparent-horizon dynamics admits an equilibrium thermodynamic description whose entropy is not the bare area law. Projecting Hayward's unified first law along the horizon tangent with the effective Misner--Sharp--Hernandez mass $M_{\rm MSH}^{(\rm eff)}=R^3(Qf_Q-f/2)/6$ gives an entropy differential proportional to $f_Q+2Qf_{QQ}$, so $dS_{\rm AH}=\frac14(f_Q+2Qf_{QQ})\,dA$. Integrating with $Q=6H^2$ and $f(Q)=Q+2\Lambda\exp(-b\Lambda A/24\pi)$ yields $S(A)=A/4-e^{-b\Lambda A/24\pi}\bigl(72\pi/(b^2\Lambda)+3A/b+\Lambda A^2/(16\pi)+\Lambda^2 A^3 b/(576\pi^2)\bigr)-S(A_0)$, which reduces to $S=A/4$ in the limit $b\to0$. Under the GSL criterion from the $f(Q)$ thermodynamics literature, the total entropy rate is $\dot S_t=\dot H^2/(2H^4T)(f_Q+2Qf_{QQ})$, so the generalized second law holds exactly when $f_Q+2Qf_{QQ}\ge0$. The paper concludes that the best-fit values of $b$ from earlier observational analyses satisfy this condition over the studied redshift range, whereas $b>0.26$ drives the viability function negative in the future region $z<0$, making large positive $b$ thermodynamically disfavored.

Load-bearing premise

The bound on $b$ rests on identifying the temperature of the matter inside the horizon with the apparent-horizon temperature; if those temperatures differ, the sign of the total entropy rate can change and the bound no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The horizon entropy of the $n=1$ exponential model is $S(A)=A/4$ plus exponentially suppressed corrections, and the standard Bekenstein--Hawking area law is recovered exactly as $b\to0$.
  • The unified first law holds as an equilibrium first law at the apparent horizon in the coincident gauge, with no additional entropy-production term.
  • The generalized second law reduces to the condition $f_Q+2Qf_{QQ}\ge0$ when matter and horizon share a common temperature.
  • Observationally preferred values of $b$, ranging from about $-0.151$ to $0.163$ in the cited fits, satisfy the generalized second law over the redshifts studied.
  • Values $b>0.26$ are excluded in the future redshift region $z<0$, providing a new upper bound on the exponential parameter from horizon thermodynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if matter has a temperature different from the horizon temperature, the sign of the total entropy rate is no longer fixed by $f_Q+2Qf_{QQ}$ alone, so the $b>0.26$ bound is conditional on that thermal identification.
  • Beyond the paper: recomputing $\Phi(z;b)$ with the exact numerical solution of the transcendental Friedmann equation (3.13) would test whether the threshold near $b\simeq0.26$ survives beyond the second-order-$b$ approximation.
  • Beyond the paper: the closed-form entropy could be compared with microstate-counting exponential corrections to black-hole entropy, even though the origin here is classical non-metricity rather than quantum states.
  • Beyond the paper: extending the analysis to non-trivial flat connection branches would introduce entropy-production terms and require a non-equilibrium GSL criterion, which could shift or remove the parameter bound.
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 studies apparent-horizon thermodynamics for the exponential f(Q) model f(Q)=Q+2Λ exp[-(bΛ/Q)^n] in a spatially flat FLRW background in the coincident gauge, focusing on the n=1 branch and on the O(b^2) approximate Hubble solution H(z;b). It constructs Hayward's unified first law with an effective Misner-Sharp-Hernandez mass, derives an entropy differential dS=(1/4)(f_Q+2Q f_QQ)dA, integrates it to an exponentially corrected area law, and uses the GSL criterion f_Q+2Q f_QQ≥0 to claim that positive values b>0.26 violate the GSL in the future region z<0. The paper also compares the resulting horizon temperature, radius, and entropy with ΛCDM for the best-fit values of b taken from Ref. [31].

Significance. The algebraic derivation that the apparent-horizon entropy differential is controlled by f_Q+2Q f_QQ is transparent and agrees with the earlier result of Ref. [44], and the paper is useful in showing how exponential f(Q) corrections enter the equilibrium thermodynamic description of the horizon. The claimed new GSL bound on b, if correct, would be a genuinely quantitative constraint on the model parameter space. However, the integrated entropy expression in Eq. (4.33) does not match its defining integral, and the numerical GSL bound is computed with an approximate background that does not satisfy H(0)=H0 for b≠0; both issues directly affect the main quantitative claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (4.32) and (4.33)] Equation (4.33) is not the integral of Eq. (4.32). Differentiating Eq. (4.33) gives dS/dA = 1/4 - e^{-bΛA/24π}[bΛ^2A^2/(384π^2) - b^2Λ^3A^3/(13824π^3)], whereas the integrand implied by Eq. (4.32) is 1/4 - e^{-bΛA/24π}[bΛ^2A^2/(96π^2) - bΛ^3A^3/(3456π^3)]. The A^3 term in particular has the wrong power of b after differentiation. Since Fig. 3 and the discussion of exponential entropy corrections are based on Eq. (4.33), the integrated entropy must be recomputed, and the b→0 limit and monotonicity statements must be verified for the corrected expression.
  2. [Secs. 3 and 4.3, Eqs. (3.14)-(3.15) and Figs. 4-5] The GSL bound b>0.26 is evaluated using H^2(z;b)=H0^2 ξ(z)F(z;b). At z=0 one has ξ(0)=1 and E(0)=F(0;b)=1-(3/2)Ω_Λ,0^2 b+..., which for b=0.26 and Ω_Λ,0≈0.685 is approximately 0.84. Thus the approximate background used to locate the Φ=0 crossing does not satisfy H(0)=H0, contradicting the statement that H0 is the present-epoch Hubble parameter. The paper's justification of the truncated solution in Sec. 3 refers to the best-fit values from Ref. [31], not to the extended range b=0.20-0.35 used to find the threshold. The b>0.26 exclusion should be recomputed using a numerical solution of Eq. (3.13), or the expansion should be redefined so that E(0)=1 exactly, before the bound is presented as a model constraint.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4.38)] The GSL criterion f_Q+2Q f_QQ≥0 is derived under the explicit assumption that the matter temperature equals the apparent-horizon temperature. If T_m≠T_AH, the coefficient relating the total entropy production rate to f_Q+2Q f_QQ is no longer guaranteed to be positive, so the sign of dS_t/dt can change and the bound b>0.26 does not follow. The paper does acknowledge this assumption in words, but the abstract and conclusions state the constraint without this caveat. The authors should either provide a physical justification for the common-temperature identification or clearly present the bound as conditional on it.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.4)] The effective Misner-Sharp-Hernandez mass in Eq. (4.4) is posited by analogy with the GR expression rather than derived covariantly, and the text explicitly states that a full covariant derivation lies beyond the scope of the paper. Because the demonstration that Hayward's unified first law is satisfied is built on this ansatz, the statement that the model admits an equilibrium thermodynamic description is currently a consistency check conditional on that ansatz, not a derivation. The authors should either supply a covariant derivation or explicitly present the first-law result as conjectural at this stage.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption refers to Eq. (3.25) of the present work for H(z;b), but there is no Eq. (3.25); the intended reference appears to be Eq. (3.14).
  2. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.15)-(3.16)] The text following Eq. (3.15) states that F(z)=1 for ΛCDM and for z→∞, and then gives F=1-3b/2-13b^2/8 as the late-time form. This is the z=0 limit, not a general late-time expression; the label should be made precise.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, text preceding Eq. (4.40)] There is a typo in the sentence 'the the GSL is preserved'; it should read 'the GSL is preserved'.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.35)] The series expansion in Eq. (4.35) should be rechecked after Eq. (4.33) is corrected; as written, several constant and A-dependent terms that cancel between the upper and lower limits are not exhibited, making the b→0 limit less transparent than it could be.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; entropy and GSL results follow from stated field equations and an external GSL criterion.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. The horizon entropy S(A) is obtained by integrating dS_AH = 4π(∂ρ/∂Q)dA, where ∂ρ/∂Q = (1/16π)(f_Q + 2Qf_QQ) follows algebraically from the modified Friedmann equations (2.11)-(2.12) and the explicit f(Q) in (2.14); the result is a consequence of the model's field equations, not an input disguised as an output. The GSL criterion Φ = f_Q + 2Qf_QQ ≥ 0 is imported from the independent Ref. [44] (Rao, Liu, Geng), with the common-temperature assumption explicitly stated and flagged as an assumption in Sec. 4.3, so its use is a consistency test rather than a circular derivation. The model definition [31] and the second-order Hubble solution [32] are authored by the present authors, but these are external, checkable results: the background equation (3.13) is given in the paper, and the numerical-versus-approximate discrepancy is addressed, and neither result assumes the entropy or GSL conclusions. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported to force the model choice. The apparent z = 0 normalization issue in Eq. (3.16) is a possible correctness concern about the truncated background, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation depends on the f(Q) field equations, the coincident-gauge FLRW branch, the standard apparent-horizon geometry, the GSL criterion borrowed from Ref. [44], the approximate Hubble solution from Ref. [32], and an ad hoc effective Misner-Sharp mass. Free parameters are the model parameter b (from observational fits) and Ωm0 (from Planck); no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • b = -0.116 (H(z) best-fit), 0.163 (Pantheon best-fit), -0.151 (joint H(z)+Pantheon best-fit) from Ref.
    Exponential model parameter entering f(Q)=Q+2Λ exp[-(bΛ/Q)^n]; the GSL constraint is a function of b.
  • Ω_m,0 = 0.315
    Matter density parameter from Planck, used with ΩΛ0=1-Ωm0 in numerical evaluation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption f(Q) gravity field equations (2.8) and Friedmann equations (2.11)-(2.12) follow from action (2.7) with minimally coupled matter.
    Starting point of the thermodynamic analysis; the model is defined by this action.
  • domain assumption Coincident gauge with flat torsionless connection Γ=0 is used.
    The equilibrium thermodynamic description and integrability of the entropy depend on this branch; non-trivial connections would require non-equilibrium treatment.
  • standard math Apparent horizon radius RAH=1/H and Kodama-Hayward temperature TAH=|κAH|/(2π).
    Standard FLRW apparent-horizon geometry used throughout.
  • domain assumption GSL criterion f_Q+2Qf_QQ≥0 from Ref. [44], under common matter/horizon temperature.
    Basis for the b>0.26 constraint; not re-derived here and depends on a strong thermal assumption.
  • domain assumption Approximate Hubble solution H^2(z;b) to second order in b from Ref. [32] is valid for the b values considered.
    All numerical plots and the GSL threshold use this solution; its normalization H(0)=H0 is not satisfied for b≠0.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective Misner-Sharp-Hernandez mass M_MSH^(eff)=R^3/6(Qf_Q-f/2).
    Introduced to make the unified first law hold; no covariant derivation provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Apparent horizon thermodynamics in an exponential $f(Q)$ gravity model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M3KUTJ23

@misc{pith2026260808302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Apparent horizon thermodynamics in an exponential $f(Q)$ gravity model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M3KUTJ23}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08302}
}
abstract

We investigate the thermodynamics of the apparent horizon in an exponential $f(Q)$ gravity model characterized by the two parameters $b$ and $n$, within a spatially flat Friedmann--Lema\^itre--Robertson--Walker background and the coincident gauge. Focusing on the $n=1$ solution, we use the approximate cosmological solution for the Hubble parameter up to second order in the exponential parameter $b$ to study the redshift evolution of the apparent-horizon radius and the Kodama--Hayward temperature. We formulate Hayward's unified first law in terms of the Misner--Sharp--Hernandez mass, the work density, and the energy-supply vector, and show that the horizon dynamics admits an equilibrium thermodynamic description. The associated entropy differential is proportional to $f_Q+2Qf_{QQ}$, yielding exponentially suppressed corrections to the Bekenstein--Hawking area law and recovering $S=A/4$ in the limit $b\to0$. We then examine the generalized second law (GSL) by including the entropy of matter inside the apparent horizon. When the matter and horizon temperatures are identified, we adopt the GSL viability criterion $f_Q+2Qf_{QQ}\geq0$ previously derived in the literature. The observationally motivated best-fit values of $b$ satisfy this condition over the redshift interval studied and produce departures from $\Lambda$CDM mainly at late times. In contrast, sufficiently large positive values, approximately $b>0.26$, can violate the GSL in the future region $z<0$. These results show that apparent-horizon thermodynamics provides a complementary constraint on the parameter space of exponential $f(Q)$ cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08302 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Redshift evolution of the dimensionless apparent-horizon radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Redshift evolution of the Kodama–Hayward apparent-horizon temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Redshift evolution of the normalized apparent-horizon entropy obtained from Eq. (4.33) for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Thermodynamic viability of the present exponential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Thermodynamic viability of the exponential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    H. Rao, C. Liu, C.-Q. Geng, Thermodynamic of thef(Q)universe, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 1317.arXiv:2406.09036,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13711-8

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [31]

    Cosmological dynamics and observational constraints on a viable $f(Q)$ non-metric gravity model

    A. Oliveros, M. A. Acero, Cosmological dynamics and observational constraints on a viablef(Q)non-metric gravity model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 33 (01) (2024) 2450004. arXiv:2311.01857,doi:10.1142/S0218271824500044

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    A. G. Riess, et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009–1038. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201,doi:10.1086/300499

    arXiv 1998

  4. [2]

    Perlmutter, et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 high-redshift supernovae, Astrophys

    S. Perlmutter, et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 high-redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565–586.arXiv:astro-ph/9812133,doi:10.1086/307221

    arXiv 1999

  5. [3]

    Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1–23. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

  6. [4]

    Sahni, A

    V. Sahni, A. A. Starobinsky, The case for a positive cosmologicalΛ-term, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9 (2000) 373–444.arXiv:astro-ph/9904398, doi:10.1142/S0218271800000542

    arXiv 2000

  7. [5]

    P. J. E. Peebles, B. Ratra, The cosmological constant and dark energy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 559–606.arXiv:astro-ph/0207347, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559

    arXiv 2003

  8. [6]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15 (2006) 1753–1936.arXiv:hep-th/0603057,doi:10.1142/S021827180600942X

    arXiv 2006

Show all 69 references
  1. [7]

    Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6.arXiv:1807.06209,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 arXiv

  2. [8]

    A. G. Riess, et al., A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the Hubble constant with 1 km s−1 mpc−1 uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES team, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934 (1) (2022) L7.arXiv:2112.04510, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b. 23

    2022 arXiv

  3. [9]

    A. G. Adame, et al., DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP 02 (2025) 021.arXiv:2404.03002, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    2025 arXiv

  4. [10]

    A. G. Adame, et al., DESI DR2 results. II. measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, Phys. Rev. D 112 (8) (2025) 083515. arXiv:2503.14738,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.112.083515

    2025 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: FromF(R) theory to lorentz non-invariant models, Phys. Rept. 505 (2011) 59–144. arXiv:1011.0544,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001

    2011 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, C. Skordis, Modified gravity and cosmology, Phys. Rept. 513 (2012) 1–189.arXiv:1106.2476, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001

    2012 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Joyce, L

    A. Joyce, L. Lombriser, F. Schmidt, Dark energy versus modified gravity, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66 (2016) 95–122.arXiv:1601.06133, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102115-044553

    2016 arXiv

  8. [14]

    J. B. Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, T. Koivisto, Coincident general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 98 (4) (2018) 044048.arXiv:1710.03116,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044048

    2018 arXiv

  9. [15]

    J. B. Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, T. S. Koivisto, The geometrical trinity of gravity, Universe 5 (7) (2019) 173.arXiv:1903.06830,doi:10.3390/universe5070173

    2019 arXiv

  10. [16]

    J. B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, T. S. Koivisto, S. Pekar, Cosmology inf(Q)geometry, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 103507.arXiv:1906.10027, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103507

    2020 arXiv

  11. [17]

    D’Ambrosio, L

    F. D’Ambrosio, L. Heisenberg, S. Zentarra, Hamiltonian analysis off(Q)gravity and the failure of the dirac–bergmann algorithm for teleparallel theories of gravity, Fortsch. Phys. 71 (2023) 2300185.arXiv:2308.02250,doi:10.1002/prop.202300185

    2023 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Tomonari, S

    K. Tomonari, S. Bahamonde, Dirac–bergmann analysis and degrees of freedom of coincidentf(Q)gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 349.arXiv:2308.06469, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12677-x

    2024 arXiv

  13. [19]

    D. A. Gomes, J. B. Jimenez, A. J. Cano, T. S. Koivisto, Pathological character of modifications to coincident general relativity: Cosmological strong coupling and ghosts inf(Q)theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 141401.arXiv:2311.04201, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.141401

    2024 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Heisenberg, M

    L. Heisenberg, M. Hohmann, S. Kuhn, Cosmological teleparallel perturbations, JCAP 03 (2024) 063.arXiv:2311.05495,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/03/063

    2024 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Lazkoz, F

    R. Lazkoz, F. S. N. Lobo, M. Ortiz-Baños, V. Salzano, Observational constraints of f(Q)gravity, Phys. Rev. D 100 (10) (2019) 104027.arXiv:1907.13219, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104027. 24

    2019 arXiv

  16. [22]

    F. K. Anagnostopoulos, S. Basilakos, E. N. Saridakis, First evidence that non-metricityf(Q)gravity could challengeΛCDM, Phys. Lett. B 822 (2021) 136634. arXiv:2104.15123,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136634

    2021 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Heisenberg, Review onf(Q)gravity, Phys

    L. Heisenberg, Review onf(Q)gravity, Phys. Rept. 1066 (2024) 1–78. arXiv:2309.15958,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.02.001

    2024 arXiv

  18. [24]

    E. V. Linder, Exponential gravity, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 123528.arXiv:0905.2962, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.123528

    2009 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, S. Zerbini, Non-singular exponential gravity: A simple theory for early- and late-time accelerated expansion, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 086006.arXiv:1012.2280, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.086006

    2011 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Li, C.-C

    J.-T. Li, C.-C. Lee, C.-Q. Geng, Einstein static universe in exponentialf(T)gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2315.arXiv:1302.2688, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2315-z

    2013 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Khyllep, J

    W. Khyllep, J. Dutta, E. N. Saridakis, K. Yesmakhanova, Cosmology inf(Q)gravity: A unified dynamical system analysis at background and perturbation levels, Phys. Rev. D 107 (4) (2023) 044022.arXiv:2207.02610,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.044022

    2023 arXiv

  22. [28]

    S. A. Narawade, S. P. Singh, B. Mishra, Accelerating cosmological models inf(Q) gravity and the phase space analysis, Phys. Dark Univ. 42 (2023) 101282. arXiv:2303.06427,doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101282

    2023 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Sokoliuk, S

    O. Sokoliuk, S. Arora, S. Praharaj, A. Baransky, P. K. Sahoo, On the impact off(Q) gravity on the large scale structure, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 522 (1) (2023) 252–267.arXiv:2303.17341,doi:10.1093/mnras/stad968

    2023 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Mhamdi, F

    D. Mhamdi, F. Bargach, S. Dahmani, A. Bouali, T. Ouali, Constraints on power law and exponential models inf(Q)gravity, Phys. Lett. B 859 (2024) 139113. arXiv:2410.10480,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139113

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    I. R. Vasquez, A. Oliveros, Analysis of the cosmological evolution parameters, energy conditions, and linear matter perturbations of an exponential-type model inf(Q) gravity, Gen. Rel. Grav. 57 (4) (2025) 67.arXiv:2501.12585, doi:10.1007/s10714-025-03403-3

    2025 arXiv

  26. [33]

    I. R. Vasquez, A. Oliveros, Phase space analysis of an exponential model inf(Q) gravity including linear dark-sector interactions, Eur. Phys. J. C 86 (2026) 104. arXiv:2510.12020,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15313-y. 25

    2026

  27. [34]

    A. Ganz, M. Spinelli, Ghost instabilities and strong coupling in quadratic non-metricity theories, JCAP 05 (2026) 104.arXiv:2511.19101, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/05/104

    2026

  28. [35]

    S. D. Odintsov, D. Sáez-Chillón Gómez, G. S. Sharov, Is exponential gravity a viable description for the whole cosmological history?, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (12) (2017) 862. arXiv:1709.06800,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5419-z

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Black holes and entropy, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2333–2346. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333

    1973 doi

  30. [37]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199–220.doi:10.1007/BF02345020

    1975 doi

  31. [38]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, S. W. Hawking, The Four laws of black hole mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys. 31 (1973) 161–170.doi:10.1007/BF01645742

    1973 doi

  32. [39]

    Jacobson, Thermodynamics of spacetime: The einstein equation of state, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Thermodynamics of spacetime: The einstein equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1260–1263.arXiv:gr-qc/9504004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1260

    1995 arXiv

  33. [40]

    R.-G. Cai, S. P. Kim, First law of thermodynamics and friedmann equations of friedmann-robertson-walker universe, JHEP 02 (2005) 050.arXiv:hep-th/0501055, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/02/050

    2005 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Akbar, R.-G

    M. Akbar, R.-G. Cai, Thermodynamic behavior of field equations forf(R)gravity, Phys. Lett. B 648 (2007) 243–248.arXiv:gr-qc/0612089, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.03.005

    2007 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Bamba, C.-Q

    K. Bamba, C.-Q. Geng, Thermodynamics inf(R)gravity in the palatini formalism, JCAP 06 (2010) 014.arXiv:1005.5234,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/06/014

    2010 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Bamba, C.-Q

    K. Bamba, C.-Q. Geng, C.-C. Lee, L.-W. Luo, Equation of state for dark energy in f(T)gravity, JCAP 01 (2011) 021.arXiv:1011.0508, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/01/021

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Pradhan, A

    A. Pradhan, A. Husain, M. Zeyauddin, S. H. Shekh, Generalized second law and thermodynamical aspects off(Q,T)gravity, Annals Phys. 490 (2026) 170498. arXiv:2510.12863,doi:10.1016/j.aop.2026.170498

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pervaiz, N

    N. Pervaiz, N. Azhar, J.-Z. Li, A. Jawad, N. Myrzakulov, et al., Late-time cosmic acceleration in torsion-freef(Q)gravity: Dynamical and thermodynamical analysis, Nucl. Phys. B 1029 (2026) 117517.doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2026.117517

    2026

  39. [47]

    Guzmán, L

    M.-J. Guzmán, L. Järv, L. Pati, Exploring the stability of f(Q) cosmology near general relativity limit with different connections, Phys. Rev. D 110 (12) (2024) 124013. arXiv:2406.11621,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.124013. 26

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Di Criscienzo, M

    R. Di Criscienzo, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, S. Zerbini, G. Zoccatelli, On the Hawking radiation as tunneling for a class of dynamical black holes, Phys. Lett. B 657 (2007) 107–111.arXiv:0707.4425,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.10.005

    2007 arXiv

  41. [49]

    B. C. Nolan, A Point mass in an isotropic universe: Existence, uniqueness and basic properties, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 064006.arXiv:gr-qc/9805041, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.064006

    1998 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Faraoni, Cosmological and Black Hole Apparent Horizons, Vol

    V. Faraoni, Cosmological and Black Hole Apparent Horizons, Vol. 907, Springer, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19240-6

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Kodama, Conserved Energy Flux for the Spherically Symmetric System and the Back Reaction Problem in the Black Hole Evaporation, Prog

    H. Kodama, Conserved Energy Flux for the Spherically Symmetric System and the Back Reaction Problem in the Black Hole Evaporation, Prog. Theor. Phys. 63 (1980) 1217.doi:10.1143/PTP.63.1217

    1980 doi

  44. [52]

    S. A. Hayward, Unified first law of black hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics, Class. Quant. Grav. 15 (1998) 3147–3162.arXiv:gr-qc/9710089, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/15/10/017

    1998 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, T. Paul, Different Aspects of Entropic Cosmology, Universe 10 (9) (2024) 352.arXiv:2409.01090,doi:10.3390/universe10090352

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M. K. Parikh, F. Wilczek, Hawking radiation as tunneling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 5042–5045.arXiv:hep-th/9907001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5042

    2000 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Vanzo, G

    L. Vanzo, G. Acquaviva, R. Di Criscienzo, Tunnelling Methods and Hawking’s radiation: achievements and prospects, Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011) 183001. arXiv:1106.4153,doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/18/183001

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Rivadeneira-Caro, J

    R. Rivadeneira-Caro, J. F. Saavedra, F. Tello-Ortiz, Cosmological FLRW phase transitions under exponential corrected entropy, Fortschr. Phys. 74 (3) (2026) e70063. arXiv:2509.11919,doi:10.1002/prop.70063

    2026

  49. [57]

    S. A. Hayward, S. Mukohyama, M. C. Ashworth, Dynamic black hole entropy, Phys. Lett. A 256 (1999) 347–350.arXiv:gr-qc/9810006, doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00225-X

    1999 arXiv

  50. [58]

    C. W. Misner, D. H. Sharp, Relativistic equations for adiabatic, spherically symmetric gravitational collapse, Phys. Rev. 136 (1964) B571–B576. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.136.B571

    1964 doi

  51. [59]

    W. C. Hernandez, C. W. Misner, Observer Time as a Coordinate in Relativistic Spherical Hydrodynamics, Astrophys. J. 143 (1966) 452.doi:10.1086/148525

    1966 doi

  52. [60]

    Cai, L.-M

    R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, Y.-P. Hu, N. Ohta, Generalized Misner-Sharp Energy in f(R) Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 104016.arXiv:0910.2387, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.104016. 27

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Maeda, Final fate of spherically symmetric gravitational collapse of a dust cloud in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Phys

    H. Maeda, Final fate of spherically symmetric gravitational collapse of a dust cloud in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 104004. arXiv:gr-qc/0602109,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.104004

    2006 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Heydari, P

    S. Heydari, P. Askari, K. Karami, Revisited apparent horizon entropy and GSL in modified gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 86 (6) (2026) 603.arXiv:2512.17861, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15832-8

    2026 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, T. Paul, S. SenGupta, Modified gravity as entropic cosmology, Universe 12 (5) (2026) 126.arXiv:2503.19056, doi:10.3390/universe12050126

    2026 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Momeni, R

    D. Momeni, R. Myrzakulov, Wald Entropy in Extended Modified Myrzakulov Gravity Theories:f(R, T, Q, RµνT µν, RµνQµν, . . .), Int. J. Theor. Phys. 64 (10) (2025) 268. arXiv:2511.03509,doi:10.1007/s10773-025-06143-x

    2025

  57. [65]

    Chatterjee, A

    A. Chatterjee, A. Ghosh, Exponential corrections to black hole entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (4) (2020) 041302.arXiv:2007.15401, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.041302

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Pourhassan, Exponential corrected thermodynamics of black holes, J

    B. Pourhassan, Exponential corrected thermodynamics of black holes, J. Stat. Mech. 2107 (2021) 073102.arXiv:2010.03946,doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ac0f6a

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Brout, et al., The Pantheon+ analysis: Cosmological constraints, Astrophys

    D. Brout, et al., The Pantheon+ analysis: Cosmological constraints, Astrophys. J. 938 (2) (2022) 110.arXiv:2202.04077,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Kazantzidis, L

    L. Kazantzidis, L. Perivolaropoulos, Evolution of thef σ8 tension with the Planck15/λCDM determination and implications for modified gravity theories, Phys. Rev. D 97 (10) (2018) 103503.arXiv:1803.01337, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103503

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    T. M. C. Abbott, et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2) (2022) 023520. arXiv:2105.13549,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520. 28

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.