Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 78 references

Exploring the dynamics of coincident f(Q) gravity in the presence of DBI-essence scalar field

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 claims that two coincident $f(Q)$ gravity models, power-law and exponential, each with a DBI-essence scalar field, reproduce the cosmic sequence from stiff matter through late-time acceleration and yield present-day dark-energy…

desk verdict The exponential-model half of this paper is invalidated by a variable-definition constraint its critical points do not satisfy; the power-law half is a routine but competent exercise. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13406 v1 pith:FEEWLJAT submitted 2025-07-17 gr-qc

Ratul Mandal , Ujjal Debnath , Anirudh Pradhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583F0583C05 PACS 04.50.Kd95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords f(Q)gravitysymmetricteleparallelnonmetricityDBI-essencescalarfielddynamicalsystemanalysisdarkenergycosmologicalepochsphase-spacestability
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

This paper tries to establish that two models of coincident $f(Q)$ gravity — the power-law form $f(Q)=Q+nQ^m$ and the exponential form $f(Q)=Q e^{\beta Q_0/Q}$ — can describe the full cosmic sequence from a stiff-matter era through radiation and matter domination to the present accelerated expansion, provided a generalized DBI-essence scalar field (a Dirac-Born-Infeld dark-energy scalar with exponential potential and warp factor) is added as a second dark-energy component. To do this the authors build autonomous dynamical systems in dimensionless variables, identify their critical points, and classify each point's stability with linear stability theory. The evolution diagrams are then read at the present time, giving $\Omega_M \approx 0.3$, $\Omega_d \approx 0.7$, $\omega_d \approx -1$ for the power-law model and $\omega_d \approx -1.01$ for the exponential model, with deceleration parameters $q \approx -0.6$ and $q \approx -0.5$. On this basis the authors conclude that the accelerated solution can serve as an alternative to the $\Lambda$CDM dark-energy model.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a phase-space reduction of the Friedmann equations. For the power-law model the dimensionless variables are $x=(\Psi-2Q\Psi_Q)/(6H^2)$, $z=\nu\dot{\phi}/(\sqrt{3(1+\nu)}\,H)$, $u=\sqrt{V(\phi)}/(\sqrt{3}H)$, and $\nu$, with $\Psi(Q)=nQ^m$; for the exponential model $\Psi(Q)=Q e^{\beta Q_0/Q}-Q$ and an extra variable $y=-2\Psi_Q$ is added so that $\Omega_Q=x+y$. The autonomous systems (40)-(43) and (51)-(55) are closed using $Q=6H^2$, the DBI Klein-Gordon equation, and the separate conservation equations for matter, the scalar field, and the geometric dark energy. Fixed points are classified by the eigenvalues of the Jacobian (Hartman-Grobman theorem), and the physical phase space is restricted to $0\le 1-x-z^2-u^2\le 1$ and $\nu>0$; this step is what connects parameter choices $(m,\lambda,\mu,\beta)$ to specific epochs such as stiff matter, radiation, matter, quintessence, and de Sitter.

What would settle it

Restrict the exponential-model system (51)-(55) to the surface $y+2x=2(\beta Q_0/Q)(1+x)$ with finite $\beta$ and $Q_0$, evolve from generic initial data, and check whether the $B_{1\pm}$ and $B_{2\pm}$ fixed points appear; if they disappear, the model's claimed stiff-matter and matter eras are artifacts of the unconstrained phase space.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the Conclusions, is that the accelerated cosmological solution obtained for specific parameter choices can serve as an alternative to $\Lambda$CDM dark energy. In support, the paper shows that the critical points of the two $f(Q)$ models reproduce the standard sequence of epochs: $A_{4\pm}$ and $B_{1\pm}$ give decelerated stiff matter, $A_{3\pm}$ and $B_{4\pm}$ can give radiation, $A_{1\pm}$ and $B_{2\pm}$ give matter domination, and $A_{2\pm}$ (for $|\lambda|<\sqrt{2}$) and $B_{3-}$ give accelerated quintessence or de Sitter phases. The phase portraits and evolution diagrams yield present-day density parameters $\Omega_M \approx 0.3$, $\Omega_d \approx 0.7$, dark-energy equations of state $\omega_d \approx -1$ (power law) and $-1.01$ (exponential), and deceleration parameters $q \approx -0.6$ and $-0.5$, which the authors take to be compatible with observational data. The exponential model's $\omega_d \approx -1.01$ crosses the phantom divide at the present epoch.

Load-bearing premise

For the exponential model, every physical trajectory must satisfy $y+2x=2(\beta Q_0/Q)(1+x)$, but the critical points $B_{1\pm}$ and $B_{2\pm}$ have $y=-2x$ and so satisfy this only when $\beta=0$ or $Q\to\infty$; if those points are excluded, the claimed stiff-matter and matter eras of that model are unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the analysis is correct, both $f(Q)$ models reproduce the sequence stiff matter to radiation to matter to late-time acceleration without a cosmological constant.
  • The power-law model's present values ($\Omega_M \approx 0.3$, $\Omega_d \approx 0.7$, $\omega_d \approx -1$, $q \approx -0.6$) can be compared directly with current observational compilations.
  • The exponential model's $\omega_d \approx -1.01$ puts it in the phantom regime at the present epoch, which the authors note is closer to the observed range than $\omega_d=-1$.
  • The stability conditions on the parameters $m,\lambda,\mu,\beta$ determine which critical points act as past and future attractors, so the model can be tuned to begin decelerating and end accelerating.
  • The acceleration is driven jointly by the DBI-essence field and the geometric $\Omega_Q$ component, so neither the scalar field nor the modified gravity alone has to mimic $\Lambda$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exponential-model phase space is analyzed with $x$ and $y$ treated as independent, even though the definitions imply $y+2x=2(\beta Q_0/Q)(1+x)$; imposing that constraint could remove the $B_{1\pm}$ and $B_{2\pm}$ epochs, leaving the model's late-time attractor $B_{3-}$ as its main physical content.
  • The present-day values come from fine-tuned initial conditions in the evolution plots; testing whether these values are reached from a generic basin of attraction would show whether they are an attractor property or a curve fit.
  • The same analysis could be run for the log-square-root or logarithmic $f(Q)$ forms named in the Conclusions; if those also end on the same dark-energy attractor, the result would be a feature of the $f(Q)$+DBI coupling rather than of the two chosen functions.
  • A measurement of the dark-energy equation of state that excludes $\omega<-1$ would discriminate the exponential model ($\omega_d\approx-1.01$) from the power-law model ($\omega_d\approx-1$), because the phantom value depends on $\beta\neq 0$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies flat FLRW cosmology in coincident f(Q) gravity with a generalized DBI-essence scalar field. It constructs dimensionless dynamical variables for two forms of f(Q) — a power-law f(Q)=Q+nQ^m and an exponential f(Q)=Q exp(beta Q0/Q) — obtains autonomous systems, lists critical points (Tables 1 and 2), analyzes their stability with linear stability theory, and presents phase portraits and evolution diagrams. On this basis the authors claim that the models can reproduce the standard cosmic sequence from stiff matter through late-time acceleration and that the present-day values (Omega_M approx 0.3, Omega_d approx 0.7, omega_d approx -1 or -1.01, q approx -0.6 or -0.5) are compatible with observations, providing an alternative to the Lambda-CDM model.

Significance. The paper applies a standard and well-motivated dynamical-system methodology to a pair of f(Q) models with a DBI-essence field, and a correct version of the power-law classification would be a useful reference. However, the exponential-model analysis is invalid as written, the power-law evolution equation contains a factor error, and the claimed observational compatibility is a fine-tuned consistency check rather than a prediction. These issues affect the central claims, so the manuscript in its present form does not establish its conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (44)-(55), Table 2] The variables x and y are not independent. For Psi(Q)=Q e^{beta Q0/Q} - Q, with x=Psi/(6H^2), y=-2 Psi_Q, and x+1=e^{beta Q0/Q}, the definitions imply y+2x=2(beta Q0/Q)(1+x). Every family in Table 2 (B1±, B2±, B3±, B4±) has y=-2x, so y+2x=0. For finite Q and beta≠0 the right-hand side is nonzero, and since x+1>0 it cannot vanish; hence none of the listed critical points lies on the constraint surface. The dynamical system (51)-(55) was solved in the full five-variable space without imposing this algebraic relation, so the exponential-model critical points, their stability, and the claimed stiff-matter, matter, and accelerating epochs are not solutions of the original field equations. The only escape is beta=0, where Psi=0 and the model reduces to GR without a cosmological constant, in which case the exponential-model alternative-to-Lambda-CDM conclusion disappears.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (32), (37), (40)] For the power-law model Psi=nQ^m, the definition x=(Psi-2Q Psi_Q)/(6H^2) gives x=n(1-2m)Q^{m-1}. With Q=6H^2 and N=ln a, differentiating yields dx/dN=2(m-1)x Hdot/H^2. Inserting Eq. (37) gives dx/dN=3(m-1)x S/(1-mx), where S=x-1-z^2/nu+u^2, which differs from Eq. (40) by a factor of 6. The critical-point locations are the same, but the Jacobian, eigenvalues, stability regions (Figs. 1-3), and phase-portrait conclusions for A_i± are computed from the wrong differential equation and must be rederived.
  3. [Section 3, Figs. 5 and 11, Section 4] The paper's claim that the present values are compatible with observational data is not a test of the models. The parameters m, lambda, mu, and the fine-tuned initial conditions in the figure captions are chosen so that the trajectories pass through Omega_M≈0.3, Omega_d≈0.7, omega_d≈-1 (or -1.01), and q≈-0.6 (or -0.5); no likelihood, error budget, or comparison with a data set is provided. These values are therefore consistency checks determined by construction, and they cannot by themselves establish the models as alternatives to Lambda-CDM.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (21)] The pressure equation is inconsistent with Eq. (23). For Psi=0, Eq. (21) gives 2Hdot+3H^2=-4 p_phi, whereas Eq. (23) gives 2Hdot+3H^2=-p_phi; correct the factor or remove Eq. (21).
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The power-law model is written as f(Q)=Q+nQ^m in the abstract and as f(Q)=Q+mQ^n in the Introduction; the notation should be unified throughout.
  3. [Table 2] The quantity u_c in the entries for B3± is not defined; it should be defined in the table caption or in the text.
  4. [Section 4] The Conclusions refer to B3+ as the late-time accelerating point, but Section 3.2 identifies B3- as the accelerated one; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  5. [Figures 5 and 11] The initial conditions are described only as fine-tuned; the actual numerical values should be given so the evolution curves are reproducible.
  6. [Section 2, Eq. (31) discussion] The quoted observational value q≈-0.810±0.1 is stated without a reference and is far from the commonly quoted q0≈-0.55; either provide a proper reference or correct the value.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Present-day outputs are fine-tuned consistency checks, and the exponential-model critical points all violate the constraint y+2x=2βQ0/Q(1+x) imposed by the variable definitions, so the claimed ΛCDM alternative is unsupported.

  1. other [Section 3.2, Eq. (44)-(55), Table 2]
    "In order to construct the dynamical system, we have considered the auxiliary variable as x = Ψ/6H², y = −2Ψ_Q, z = νϕ˙√3(1+ν)H, u = √V(ϕ)√3H ... dx/dN = − 3(x + 1)(x + y − 1 − z²/ν + u²)/(2(x + 1) − y(x + 1) + (2x + y)²)(y + 2x) ... Table 2: B1± xc −2xc ±√1 + xc 0 1 xc ≥ −1"

    With Ψ=Qe^{βQ0/Q}−Q and Q=6H², the definitions imply y+2x=2(βQ0/Q)(1+x). Every family in Table 2 (B1±, B2±, B3±, B4±) has y+2x=0, so these fixed points lie on the physical constraint surface only when β=0 (or Q→∞). Because the system (51)-(52) was solved on the full unconstrained (x,y) plane, the exponential-model critical points are artifacts of the variable definitions, not solutions of the stated f(Q)=Qe^{βQ0/Q} dynamics. The claimed stiff-matter, matter, and late-time accelerating epochs reduce by construction to the β=0 (GR-without-Λ) limit, so they cannot support the paper's ΛCDM-alternative conclusion.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Fig. 5) and Section 3.2 (Fig. 11)]
    "The evolution of density parameters are presented in Figure[5], where the vertical line corresponding to N = 0 indicates the present cosmological epoch. ... For Model-1, we obtain the present values of ΩM ≈ 0.3 and Ωd ≈ 0.7 respectively, which is compatible with observational data. ... Evolution of density parameters ΩM, Ωd, wd for m = 1.16, λ = 0.27, µ = −0.98 with fine-tuned initial condition"

    The parameter triple (m,λ,μ)=(1.16,0.27,−0.98) and the initial conditions are explicitly fine-tuned so that the N=0 integration outputs ΩM≈0.3, Ωd≈0.7 and ωd≈−1. The paper then reports these same outputs as compatible with observational data. Because no independent data subset is used and the initial conditions are chosen to produce the target present-day values, the claimed observational compatibility is a consistency check of the chosen inputs, not a prediction; the same applies to the exponential model's Figure 11 (λ=0.27, μ=−0.98, fine-tuned initial condition).

full rationale

The power-law critical-point and stability analysis is a genuine dynamical-system reduction of the field equations: the fixed points, epochs, and stability conditions follow from Eqs. (40)-(43) and are not circular. The two circular/self-defeating elements are at the level of the paper's advertised results. First, the present-day observables are not independent predictions: the figures explicitly label the runs as fine-tuned initial-condition choices, and the parameter values (m=1.16, λ=0.27, μ=-0.98) are selected so that N=0 outputs hit ΩM≈0.3, Ωd≈0.7, ωd≈-1; reporting those outputs as consistent with Planck/SNe data is a consistency check, though not statistically circular in the sense of a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Second and more serious, the exponential model's critical-point table is internally inconsistent with the variable definitions: the definitions force y+2x=2(βQ0/Q)(1+x), while every tabulated fixed point satisfies y+2x=0, so the exponential-model epochs are those of the β=0 limit, not of f(Q)=Qe^{βQ0/Q}. This does not fit the classic self-citation pattern and may be classified as a validity error as much as circularity, but it makes the exponential model's central 'alternative to ΛCDM' claim unsupported by construction. Overall score 6: one or more predictions reduce by construction, while the power-law dynamical-system derivation retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on model choices (exponential potential and warp factor, non-interacting dark sectors, the two f(Q) forms), a set of free parameters chosen for the plots (m, λ, μ, n, β, initial conditions), and an unverified assumption in the exponential model that x and y can be treated as independent state variables. No new entities are introduced; the DBI scalar and geometric dark energy are inherited from the cited framework.

free parameters (6)
  • m (power-law exponent) = 1.16 in Figure 5
    Chosen for the power-law model evolution; affects stability of A1± and the evolution diagrams. Not derived from data.
  • λ (DBI potential exponent) = 0.27 in Figures 5 and 11
    Sets the DBI potential V=e^{λφ}; controls the EoS at A2± and B3±.
  • μ (DBI warp-factor exponent) = -0.98 in Figures 5 and 11
    Sets f(φ)=e^{μφ}; controls ν dynamics and A3±/B4± stability.
  • n (power-law coefficient) = not specified
    Amplitude of the nonmetricity correction in f(Q)=Q+nQ^m; needed to match field equations but not reported.
  • β (exponential model parameter) = not specified
    Controls Q0 scale in f(Q)=Q e^{βQ0/Q}; appears in the x-y constraint but no value given for the plots.
  • fine-tuned initial conditions for evolution plots = not reported
    Figures 5 and 11 use 'fine-tuned initial condition' to obtain ΩM≈0.3 and Ωd≈0.7; the values are not listed, making the observational compatibility a tuning exercise.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FLRW metric and the coincident-gauge f(Q) field equations (22)-(25) are the correct starting point.
    Taken from refs [41,42]; all subsequent dynamics depend on these equations.
  • domain assumption The DBI scalar field is described by Lagrangian (12) with exponential potential and warp factor V=e^{λφ}, f=e^{μφ}.
    Follows refs [15,61]; the sign of the L_DBI terms in the text is inconsistent with the quoted energy density and pressure.
  • ad hoc to paper x and y can be treated as independent dynamical variables without enforcing the constraint y+2x=2(βQ0/Q)(1+x) from their definitions.
    Needed to obtain the exponential-model critical points in Table 2; not stated or verified in the paper and likely invalid for β≠0.
  • ad hoc to paper The present-day values from the evolution diagrams are obtained by choosing parameters and initial conditions; no fitting procedure or uncertainty is given.
    Figures 5 and 11 rely on 'fine-tuned initial condition'; the choice is not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the dynamics of coincident f(Q) gravity in the presence of DBI-essence scalar field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEEWLJAT

@misc{pith2026250713406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the dynamics of coincident f(Q) gravity in the presence of DBI-essence scalar field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEEWLJAT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13406}
}
abstract

In theoretical cosmology, symmetric teleparallel gravity or $f(Q)$ gravity based on nonmetricity tensor Q has become an interesting alternative to General relativity in recent years. The present research paper contains a rigorous dynamical system analysis of coincident f (Q) gravity in the presence of a generalized DBI essence scalar field. We have considered two different models of coincident f(Q) gravity, such as power law model $f(Q) = Q + nQ^m$ and exponential model $f(Q) = Q e^{\frac{\beta Q_0}{Q}}$ respectively, where n, m, \b{eta} are constant parameter and Q is the nonmetricity component. In this study, the generalized DBI essence scalar field acts as an additional dark energy component. After obtaining the field equation for the corresponding cosmological model, we employed several dynamical variables to form the dynamical system. The critical points of these dynamical systems are influenced by cosmological parameters and associated with particular epochs in the cosmological timeline. For different combinations of cosmological parameters, the critical points exhibit different cosmological eras, starting from the accelerated stiff matter era to late-time acceleration phenomena. The stability criteria of each critical point are studied by using linear stability theory, and the physical constraints on the cosmological parameters are also considered during this analysis. Furthermore, the current values of energy densities, deceleration parameters, and equation of state parameters obtained from the evolution diagram are compatible with observational data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13406 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3 Dimensional region where A1± exhibits sta￾ble behavior 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 3 dimensional region where A2± exhibits stable bahavior. • Critical point A3± :The set of critical point A3+, A3− represents a valid cosmological solu￾tion for µ > √ 3 ∨ µ < − √ 3.The deceleration parameter and effective Eos parameter at these critical points are calculated as q = 6+µ 2 2(−3+µ2) and ωef f = 3 −3+µ2 respectively.For µ = ±2 √ 3 , we get ωef f = 1 3 and q = 1 represents the radiation dominated decelera… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In region only A3+ exhibits saddle nature,in region only A3− exhibits saddle nature and in region both A3± exhibit saddle nature. saddle or unstable behavior according to the value of the parameters m, λ, µ.In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase portrait of critical points for Model-1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of cosmological parameters for Model-1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In region only B1+ exhibits saddle nature,in region only B1− exhibits saddle nature and in region both B1± exhibit saddle nature. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Region plots for critical points B2± and B3− • Critical point B3± :At these two critical points the dark energy density has a constant value Ωd = 1 and the matter density ΩM = 0, representing a completely dark energy domi￾nated cosmological epoch. These two critical po…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variation of ωef f for critical points B3− 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Region plots for critical points B4± The eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix are too complex to be written in the manuscript. By investi￾gating the eigenvalues numerically, we have found that B3+ cannot be stable for any combination of λ, µ, and uc, but stability is pos…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phase portrait of critical points for Model-2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of cosmological parameters for Model-2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [70]

    & Sahoo, P

    Ghosh, S., Solanki, R. & Sahoo, P. Dynamical system analysis of Dirac-Born-Infeld scalar field cosmology in coincident f(Q) gravity*. Chinese Physics C 48, 095102. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1674-1137/ad50aa (Sept. 2024)

    doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad50aa 2024

  2. [1]

    Riess, A. G. et al. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. The Astronomical Jour- nal 116, 1009–1038. issn: 0004-6256. http : / / dx.doi.org/10.1086/300499 (Sept. 1998)

    doi:10.1086/300499

  3. [2]

    Perlmutter, S. et al. Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae. Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586. arXiv: astro-ph/9812133 (1999)

    arXiv 1999

  4. [3]

    Hinshaw, G. et al. NINE-YEAR WILKIN- SON MICROW A VE ANISOTROPY PROBE ( WMAP ) OBSER V ATIONS: COSMOLOGI- CAL PARAMETER RESULTS. The Astrophys- ical Journal Supplement Series 208, 19. issn: 1538-4365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067- 0049/208/2/19 (Sept. 2013)

    doi:10.1088/0067-

  5. [4]

    Aghanim, N. et al. Planck 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove. Astron. Astrophys. 571, A27. arXiv: 1303.5087 [astro-ph.CO] (2014)

    arXiv 2014

  6. [5]

    Spergel, D. N. et al. First-Year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)* Observa- tions: Determination of Cosmological Parame- ters. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Se- ries 148, 175. https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ 377226 (Sept. 2003). 17

    work page

  7. [6]

    Anderson, L. et al. The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Data Release 9 Spectroscopic Galaxy Sample. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 427, 3435–3467. arXiv: 1203.6594 [astro-ph.CO] (2013)

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    & Steinhardt, P

    Zlatev, I., Wang, L. & Steinhardt, P. J. Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cos- mological Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896–

    work page

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    J., Kolda, C

    Arkani-Hamed, N., Hall, L. J., Kolda, C. & Mu- rayama, H. New Perspective on Cosmic Coinci- dence Problems. Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4434–4437. https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.85.4434 (21 Nov. 2000)

    2000

  2. [9]

    Cosmological constant—the weight of the vacuum

    Padmanabhan, T. Cosmological constant—the weight of the vacuum. Physics Reports 380, 235–320. issn: 0370-1573. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S0370157303001200 (2003)

    2003

  3. [10]

    The cosmological constant problem

    Weinberg, S. The cosmological constant problem. Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1–23. https://link.aps. org / doi / 10 . 1103 / RevModPhys . 61 . 1(1 Jan. 1989)

    1989

  4. [11]

    Cosmology and the fate of dilata- tion symmetry

    Wetterich, C. Cosmology and the fate of dilata- tion symmetry. Nuclear Physics B302, 668–696. issn: 0550-3213. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0550321388901939 (1988)

    1988

  5. [12]

    Quintessence: a review

    Tsujikawa, S. Quintessence: a review. Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 214003. https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/0264- 9381/30/21/214003 (Oct. 2013)

    2013 doi

  6. [13]

    & Stein- hardt, P

    Armendariz-Picon, C., Mukhanov, V. & Stein- hardt, P. J. Essentials of k-essence. Phys. Rev. D 63, 103510. https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.63.103510 (10 Apr. 2001)

    2001

  7. [14]

    & Yamaguchi, M

    Chiba, T., Okabe, T. & Yamaguchi, M. Ki- netically driven quintessence. Phys. Rev. D 62, 023511. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.62.023511 (2 June 2000)

  8. [15]

    & Yamaguchi, M

    Martin, J. & Yamaguchi, M. DBI-essence. Phys. Rev. D 77, 123508. https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 77 . 123508(12 June 2008)

    2008

  9. [16]

    & Liddle, A

    Calcagni, G. & Liddle, A. R. Tachyon dark energy models: Dynamics and constraints. Phys. Rev. D 74, 043528. https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.74.043528 (4 Aug. 2006)

    2006

  10. [17]

    & Chakraborty, S

    Debnath, U., Banerjee, A. & Chakraborty, S. Role of modified Chaplygin gas in accelerated universe. Classical and Quantum Gravity21, 5609. https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/21/23/019 (Nov. 2004)

    2004 doi

  11. [18]

    & Zhang, X

    Xia, J.-Q., Li, H. & Zhang, X. Dark energy con- straints after the new Planck data. Phys. Rev. D 88, 063501. https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.88.063501 (6 Sept. 2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    & Pe- lykh, V

    Novosyadlyj, B., Sergijenko, O., Durrer, R. & Pe- lykh, V. Constraining the dynamical dark energy parameters: Planck-2013 vs WMAP9. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014, 030–

    2013

  13. [20]

    J., Mizuno, S

    Copeland, E. J., Mizuno, S. & Shaeri, M. Cos- mological dynamics of a Dirac-Born-Infeld field. Phys. Rev. D 81, 123501. https://link.aps. org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 81 . 123501(12 June 2010)

    2010

  14. [21]

    & Linder, E

    Ahn, C., Kim, C. & Linder, E. V. Dark en- ergy properties in DBI theory. Phys. Rev. D80, 123016. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.80.123016 (12 Dec. 2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    & Linder, E

    Ahn, C., Kim, C. & Linder, E. V. Cosmological constant behavior in DBI theory. Physics Letters B 684, 181–184. issn: 0370-2693. https://www. sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S0370269310000766 (2010)

    2010

  16. [23]

    & Tsujikawa, S

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

    2010 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Sotiriou, T. P. & Faraoni, V. f (R) theories of gravity. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451–497. https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / RevModPhys . 82.451 (1 Mar. 2010)

    2010

  18. [25]

    & Samanta, G

    Shah, P. & Samanta, G. C. Cosmological dynam- ics of f (R) models in dynamical system analysis. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050124. arXiv: 2111. 09009 [gr-qc] (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Odintsov, S. D. & Oikonomou, V. K. Autonomous dynamical system approach for f (R) gravity. Phys. Rev. D 96, 104049. https://link.aps. org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 96 . 104049(10 Nov. 2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    & Uggla, C

    Alho, A., Carloni, S. & Uggla, C. On dynamical systems approaches and methods in f (R) cosmol- ogy. JCAP 08, 064. arXiv: 1607.05715 [gr-qc] (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    A new approach to the analysis of the phase space of f (R)-gravity

    Carloni, S. A new approach to the analysis of the phase space of f (R)-gravity. JCAP 09, 013. arXiv: 1505.06015 [gr-qc] (2015). 18

    2015 arXiv

  22. [29]

    & Maroto, A

    De la Cruz-Dombriz, A., Dobado, A. & Maroto, A. L. Black holes in f (R) theories. Phys. Rev. D 80, 124011. https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.80.124011 (12 Dec. 2009)

    2009

  23. [30]

    http://dx.doi.org/10

    issn: 1475-7516. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1475-7516/2014/05/030 (May 2014)

    2014

  24. [31]

    & Odintsov, S

    Nojiri, S. & Odintsov, S. D. Modified Gauss–Bonnet theory as gravitational alternative for dark energy. Physics Letters B631, 1–6. issn: 0370-2693. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science / article / pii / S0370269305014619 (2005)

    2005

  25. [32]

    F., Malik, A

    Shamir, M. F., Malik, A. & Mustafa, G. Non- commutative wormhole solutions in modified f(R) theory of gravity. Chinese Journal of Physics 73, 634–648. issn: 0577-9073. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S0577907321001982 (2021)

    2021

  26. [33]

    & Cano, P

    Bueno, P. & Cano, P. A. Einsteinian cubic grav- ity. Phys. Rev. D 94, 104005. https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 94 . 104005 (10 Nov. 2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    & Mimoso, J

    Carloni, S. & Mimoso, J. P. Phase space of mod- ified Gauss–Bonnet gravity. Eur. Phys. J. C77,

  28. [35]

    & Fiorini, F

    Ferraro, R. & Fiorini, F. Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without an inflaton. Phys. Rev. D 75, 084031. https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.75.084031 (8 Apr. 2007)

    2007

  29. [36]

    & Ferraro, R

    Fiorini, F. & Ferraro, R. A type of Born-Infeld regular gravity and its cosmological consequences. International Journal of Modern Physics A24, 1686–1689. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0217751X09045236. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1142/S0217751X09045236 (2009)

    2009

  30. [37]

    & Saridakis, E

    Erices, C., Papantonopoulos, E. & Saridakis, E. N. Cosmology in cubic and f (P ) gravity. Phys. Rev. D 99, 123527. https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 99 . 123527(12 June 2019)

    2019

  31. [38]

    F., Farajollahi, H

    Capozziello, S., Cardone, V. F., Farajollahi, H. & Ravanpak, A. Cosmography in f (T ) gravity. Phys. Rev. D 84, 043527. https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.043527 (4 Aug. 2011)

    2011 doi

  32. [39]

    Cai, Y.-F., Capozziello, S., Laurentis, M. D. & Saridakis, E. N. f(T) teleparallel gravity and cosmology. Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 106901. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034- 4885/79/10/106901 (Sept. 2016)

    2016 doi

  33. [40]

    Accelerating universe from F(T) gravity

    Myrzakulov, R. Accelerating universe from F(T) gravity. Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1752. arXiv: 1006. 1120 [gr-qc] (2011)

    2011

  34. [41]

    B., Heisenberg, L

    Jim´ enez, J. B., Heisenberg, L. & Koivisto, T. Coincident general relativity. Phys. Rev. D 98, 044048. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.98.044048 (4 Aug. 2018)

    2018

  35. [42]

    B., Heisenberg, L., Koivisto, T

    Jim´ enez, J. B., Heisenberg, L., Koivisto, T. & Pekar, S. Cosmology in f (Q) geometry. Phys. Rev. D 101, 103507. https://link.aps.org/ doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 101 . 103507(10 May 2020)

    2020

  36. [43]

    & Chakraborty, S

    Mishra, S. & Chakraborty, S. Stability and bi- furcation analysis of interacting f(T) cosmology. Eur. Phys. J. C79, 328 (2019)

    2019

  37. [44]

    G., J¨ arv, L

    Bahamonde, S., Valcarcel, J. G., J¨ arv, L. & Lem- ber, J. Black hole solutions in scalar-tensor sym- metric teleparallel gravity. 2022, 082. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/08/082 (Aug. 2022)

    2022 doi

  38. [45]

    & Mustafa, G

    Javed, F., Fatima, G., Sadiq, S. & Mustafa, G. Thermodynamics of Charged Black Hole in Sym- metric Teleparallel Gravity. Fortsch. Phys. 71, 2200214 (2023)

    2023

  39. [46]

    & Kuhn, S

    D’Ambrosio, F., Heisenberg, L. & Kuhn, S. Revis- iting cosmologies in teleparallelism. Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 025013. arXiv: 2109 . 04209 [gr-qc] (2022)

    2022

  40. [47]

    & Ra- haman, F

    Banerjee, A., Pradhan, A., Tangphati, T. & Ra- haman, F. Wormhole geometries in f (Q) gravity and the energy conditions. Eur. Phys. J. C 81,

  41. [48]

    & Sahoo, P

    Pradhan, S., Solanki, R. & Sahoo, P. K. Cosmo- logical constraints on f(Q) gravity models in the non-coincident formalism. JHEAp 43, 258–267. arXiv: 2410.00922 [gr-qc] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    & Sahoo, P

    Hassan, Z., Mustafa, G. & Sahoo, P. K. Worm- hole Solutions in Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity with Noncommutative Geometry. Symmetry 13. issn: 2073-8994. https://www.mdpi.com/2073- 8994/13/7/1260 (2021)

    2021

  43. [50]

    Signatures of f (Q) gravity in cos- mology

    Frusciante, N. Signatures of f (Q) gravity in cos- mology. Phys. Rev. D 103, 044021. https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 103 . 044021 (4 Feb. 2021)

    2021

  44. [51]

    S., Lobo, F

    Harko, T., Koivisto, T. S., Lobo, F. S. N., Olmo, G. J. & Rubiera-Garcia, D. Coupling matter in modified Q gravity. Phys. Rev. D 98, 084043. https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD.98.084043 (8 Oct. 2018). 19

    2018

  45. [52]

    Pradhan, A., Maurya, D. C. & Dixit, A. Dark en- ergy nature of viscus universe in f(Q)-gravity with observational constraints. Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.18, 2150124 (2021)

    2021

  46. [53]

    Mandal, S., Sahoo, P. K. & Santos, J. R. L. En- ergy conditions in f (Q) gravity. Phys. Rev. D 102, 024057. https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.102.024057 (2 July 2020)

    2020

  47. [54]

    C., Dixit, A

    Maurya, D. C., Dixit, A. & Pradhan, A. Tran- sit String Dark Energy Models in f (Q) Gravity. arXiv: 2302.14104 [gr-qc] (Feb. 2023)

    2023 arXiv

  48. [55]

    K., Rani, R., Singh, J

    Goswami, G. K., Rani, R., Singh, J. K. & Prad- han, A. FLR W cosmology in Weyl type f(Q) gravity and observational constraints.JHEAp 43, 105–113. arXiv: 2309.01233 [gr-qc] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    & Koivisto, T

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, J. & Koivisto, T. S. Acciden- tal Gauge Symmetries of Minkowski Spacetime in Teleparallel Theories. Universe 7. issn: 2218-

  50. [57]

    & Maurya, D

    Pradhan, A., Dixit, A. & Maurya, D. C. Quintessence Behavior of an Anisotropic Bulk Viscous Cosmological Model in Modified f(Q)- Gravity. Symmetry 14, 2630. arXiv: 2210.13730 [gr-qc] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  51. [58]

    J., Sami, M

    Copeland, E. J., Sami, M. & Tsujikawa, S. Dynamics of dark energy. International Jour- nal of Modern Physics D 15, 1753–1935. eprint: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1142 / S021827180600942X. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1142/S021827180600942X (2006)

    2006

  52. [59]

    Coley, A. A. Dynamical Systems in Cosmology

  53. [60]

    Boehmer, C. G. & Chan, N. Dynamical systems in cosmology in (Sept. 2014). arXiv: 1409.5585 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [61]

    & Chakraborty, S

    Pal, S. & Chakraborty, S. Dynamical system anal- ysis of a Dirac-Born-Infeld model: a center mani- fold perspective. Gen. Rel. Grav.51, 124. arXiv: 2103.02715 [gr-qc] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Bahamonde, S. et al. Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: Dark energy and modified grav- ity. Physics Reports775-777. Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: Dark energy and modified gravity, 1–122. issn: 0370-1573. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article ...

    2018

  56. [63]

    & Debnath, U

    Bhadra, J. & Debnath, U. Dynamical Study of DBI-essence in Loop Quantum Cosmology and Braneworld. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2087. arXiv: 1207.2144 [gr-qc] (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Khyllep, W., Dutta, J., Saridakis, E. N. & Yesmakhanova, K. Cosmology in f (Q) gravity: A unified dynamical systems analysis of the back- ground and perturbations. Phys. Rev. D 107, 044022. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.107.044022 (4 Feb. 2023)

  58. [65]

    & Dutta, J

    Khyllep, W., Paliathanasis, A. & Dutta, J. Cos- mological solutions and growth index of matter perturbations in f (Q) gravity. Phys. Rev. D103, 103521. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.103521 (10 May 2021)

    2021

  59. [66]

    & Tripathy, S

    Narawade, S., Pati, L., Mishra, B. & Tripathy, S. Dynamical system analysis for accelerating models in non-metricity f (Q) gravity. Physics of the Dark Universe 36, 101020. issn: 2212-6864. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article/pii/S2212686422000383 (2022)

    2022

  60. [67]

    & Shah, P

    Vishwakarma, P. & Shah, P. Stability analysis of f (Q) gravity models using dynamical systems. International Journal of Modern Physics D32. issn: 1793-6594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/ S0218271823500712 (Aug. 2023)

    2023

  61. [68]

    & Chakraborty, S

    Mahata, N. & Chakraborty, S. Dynamical sys- tem analysis for DBI dark energy interacting with dark matter. Modern Physics Letters A30, 1550009. eprint: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1142 / S0217732315500091. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1142/S0217732315500091 (2015)

    2015

  62. [69]

    & Shah, P

    Vishwakarma, P. & Shah, P. Qualitative be- haviour of higher-curvature gravity with bound- ary terms i.e the f(Q) gravity models by dynam- ical system analysis. Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 159. arXiv: 2402.07951 [gr-qc] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    W., McCrea, J., Mielke, E

    Hehl, F. W., McCrea, J., Mielke, E. W. & Ne’eman, Y. Metric-affine gauge theory of grav- ity: field equations, Noether identities, world spinors, and breaking of dilation invariance. Physics Reports 258, 1–171. issn: 0370-1573. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science /...

    1995

  64. [72]

    Samaddar, A., Singh, S. S. & Alam, M. K. Dy- namical system approach of interacting dark en- ergy models with minimally coupled scalar field. International Journal of Modern Physics D32, 2350062. eprint: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1142 / S0218271823500621. https : / / doi . ...

    2023

  65. [74]

    & Lazkoz, R

    B¨ ohmer, C., Jensko, E. & Lazkoz, R. Dynami- cal Systems Analysis of f(Q) Gravity. Universe 9. issn: 2218-1997. https://www.mdpi.com/2218- 1997/9/4/166 (2023)

    2023

  66. [547]

    arXiv: 1701.00231 [gr-qc] (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  67. [899]

    https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.82.896 (5 Feb. 1999)

    1999

  68. [1031]

    arXiv: 2109.15105 [gr-qc] (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  69. [1997]

    https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/7/5/ 143 (2021)

    2021

  70. [1999]

    https : //arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9910074

    arXiv: gr - qc / 9910074 [gr-qc]. https : //arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9910074

    arXiv

Pith tools

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