Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Constraining model parameters in f(Q,C) gravity: Observational analysis and geometric diagnostics

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 A linear f(Q,C) gravity model with three dark energy equations of state fits Hubble, BAO, and supernova data and supports late-time cosmic acceleration.

desk verdict The f(Q,C) parameters cancel out of the background equations, so the paper constrains only the imposed EoS ansatz, not the gravity model. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17754 v1 pith:G6EGCIFP submitted 2024-11-14 gr-qc hep-th

Amit Samaddar , S. Surendra Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords f(QC)gravitynon-metricitydarkenergyequationofstateparameterizationobservationalconstraintsdecelerationparameterstatefinderdiagnosticsconditions
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tests whether a specific modified gravity theory, $f(Q,C)$ gravity with the linear action $f(Q,C)=\alpha Q+\beta C$, can describe late-time cosmic acceleration. The authors impose three redshift-dependent forms for the dark energy equation of state, integrate them through the field equations to get explicit Hubble functions $H(z)$, and fit the free parameters against Hubble, BAO, and Pantheon supernova data. All three parameterizations fit the data, yield a deceleration-to-acceleration transition at redshifts near $0.5$--$1.0$, and satisfy the usual energy-condition and stability checks while predicting a positive energy density and negative pressure. The paper concludes that $f(Q,C)$ gravity is a viable framework for diverse dark energy dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the linear Lagrangian $f(Q,C)=\alpha Q+\beta C$, which reduces the $f(Q,C)$ field equations in a flat FRW universe to $\kappa\rho=3\alpha H^2$ and $\kappa p=-3\alpha H^2-2\alpha \dot H$, giving the equation-of-state identity $\omega=-1-\frac{2}{3}\frac{\dot H}{H^2}$. Substituting the three parameterized $\omega(z)$ forms into this identity and integrating yields closed-form Hubble functions $H(z)$ (equations 33, 35, and 37), from which the deceleration parameter, energy density, pressure, energy conditions, statefinder parameters, and sound speed are all derived.

What would settle it

Measure $H(z)$ at several redshifts between $0.4$ and $1.2$ with errors below about 2 percent and compare the deceleration-to-acceleration transition redshift $z_{\rm tr}$: the models predict $z_{\rm tr}\approx0.54$--$0.99$, so observing a transition outside this range, or none at all, would rule out these parameterizations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the linear $f(Q,C)=\alpha Q+\beta C$ model, combined with any of three parameterized dark energy equations of state ($\omega=\omega_0+\omega_1 z$, $\omega=\omega_0+\omega_1 z(1+z)/(1+z^2)$, and $\omega=\omega_0+\omega_1 z^2/(1+z^2)$), reproduces the observed expansion history. With best-fit parameters, the deceleration parameter crosses from positive to negative at low redshift, the energy density is positive while the pressure is negative, the NEC, WEC, and DEC hold while the SEC is violated, and the sound speed lies between 0 and 1. The statefinder diagnostics place the first two parameterizations in the quintessence region of the $\{r,s\}$ plane and the third near the $\Lambda$CDM fixed point, supporting $f(Q,C)$ gravity as a viable dark energy framework.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the universe's total energy content behaves as a single perfect fluid whose equation of state is exactly one of the three adopted redshift parameterizations, with no separate matter or radiation density parameter; if the real universe needs a multi-component energy budget, or if these EoS forms are not the correct effective description of $f(Q,C)$ gravity, the fitted parameters are not predictions of the theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model predicts a deceleration-to-acceleration transition at $z_{\rm tr}\approx0.54$--$0.99$ depending on the parameterization and dataset, a directly testable signature.
  • The fitted $H_0\approx67.4$--$67.9$ km/s/Mpc sits close to the value from CMB measurements, so the model does not aggravate the Hubble tension.
  • Models 1 and 2 describe dark energy as quintessence-like with a time-varying equation of state, while Model 3 behaves nearly like $\Lambda$CDM, so the framework accommodates a spectrum of dark energy behaviors.
  • All three parameterizations satisfy the sound-speed stability condition $0<c_s^2<1$, meaning dark energy perturbations do not grow uncontrollably.
  • The energy conditions are satisfied except for the SEC, which is violated, matching the standard requirement for accelerated expansion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The three EoS forms are assumed rather than derived from the action, so the viability claim attaches to the parameterized one-fluid cosmologies; a different EoS history could change the conclusions.
  • Adding growth-rate data or explicitly including radiation and baryonic matter would test whether the single-fluid simplification hides tension with CMB-era observations.
  • The near-$\Lambda$CDM behavior of Model 3 suggests the framework may mimic a cosmological constant at the background level; checking the growth index would distinguish this from a true constant.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to constrain the parameters of f(Q,C)=αQ+βC gravity using three redshift-dependent dark-energy equation-of-state parameterizations against Hubble, Hubble+BAO, and Hubble+BAO+Pantheon datasets, and to derive deceleration parameters, energy conditions, statefinder diagnostics, and sound speeds from the fits. The central conclusion, stated in the abstract, is that the observational results 'support f(Q,C) gravity as a viable framework for describing diverse dark energy dynamics.' The manuscript derives the background field equations, integrates the Hubble parameter for each EoS ansatz, performs a standard MCMC likelihood analysis, and presents contour plots, error bars, and a battery of cosmological diagnostics.

Significance. If the analysis were a genuine test of f(Q,C) gravity, the paper would provide useful observational constraints on a modified-gravity model and a comparison of three dark-energy parameterizations. The paper has some strengths: the H(z) integrals in Eqs. (33), (35), and (37) are standard and, as algebraic exercises, are carried out correctly; the MCMC pipeline is conventional; and the use of three data combinations allows a check of parameter stability. However, the central inference is not supported because, as the paper's own equations show, the free parameters α and β of f(Q,C) cancel from the background dynamics, so the fits constrain only the hand-chosen EoS parameters and H0. Consequently, the paper does not test f(Q,C) gravity; it tests phenomenological EoS forms in a background that is indistinguishable from GR with a perfect fluid. This is a load-bearing problem that cannot be repaired by a local correction.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (19)-(21)] The background field equations for f(Q,C)=αQ+βC reduce to κρ=3αH² and κp=-3αH²-2αḢ. The resulting EoS, ω=p/ρ=-1-(2/3)Ḣ/H², is independent of both α and β, and α merely rescales the effective gravitational constant. Therefore the Hubble parameter in Eqs. (33), (35), and (37) is determined solely by the assumed ω(z) and H0; the MCMC fits constrain only H0, ω0, and ω1. The choice α=0.5 made in Section 6.2 is arbitrary and cancels from all diagnostics. Because of this degeneracy, the abstract's statement that the findings 'support f(Q,C) gravity as a viable framework' does not follow from the analysis: any theory with the same background fluid would produce identical fits, transition redshifts, statefinders, and sound speeds. The paper's observational analysis is thus not a test of f(Q,C) gravity.
  2. [Section 5.3, Eq. (40)] The deceleration parameter for Model 5.3 is inconsistent with the standard relation q=0.5+1.5ω(z). Inserting ω=ω0+ω1z²/(1+z²) gives q(z)=0.5+1.5ω0+1.5ω1z²/(1+z²), whereas Eq. (40) contains the terms 3ω1z(1+z)/(4(1+z²)) and -3ω1/(4(1+z²)), which do not reduce to the required quadratic-in-z² form. Differentiating ln H from Eq. (37) yields a constant prefactor of 3(2+2ω0+ω1)/2, not 3(2+2ω0+ω1)/4 as written, and a last term proportional to (1+z)/(1+z²). This error propagates into the q0 and ztr values reported in Section 6.1 and Figure 7(c).
  3. [Section 6.3 and Tables 4-6] The present-day EoS values quoted in the text do not match the MCMC best-fit values in the tables. For Model 5.1, Table 4 lists ω0≈-0.588 to -0.590, while Section 6.3 reports ω0=-0.635, -0.657, and -0.675. For Model 5.2, Table 5 lists ω0≈-0.650 to -0.654, while the text reports -0.9630, -0.9016, and -0.8401. For Model 5.3, Table 6 lists ω0≈-0.569 to -0.571, while the text reports -0.6214, -0.5396, and -0.52345. Because ω0 and ω1 are the only physically meaningful free parameters in the fits, these inconsistencies affect every subsequently derived diagnostic, including the deceleration parameter, statefinders, and sound speed.
  4. [Section 6.4, Eqs. (47)-(55)] The SEC inequalities are written as ρ+3p≥0 for Models 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, but the surrounding text and Figures 11-13 state that the SEC is negative at all redshifts. For an accelerating universe the SEC should be violated, i.e., ρ+3p<0, and the figures indeed plot negative values. The equations as written contradict the interpretation and the plotted results, so the energy-condition analysis is internally inconsistent.
  5. [Section 6.6, Figure 16] The text claims all models satisfy 0<c_s²<1, but Figure 16(b) for Model 5.2 appears to show sound speed values orders of magnitude larger than 1; the axis labels are corrupted, and the plotted curves are not in the claimed range. As written, the figure contradicts the causality/stability conclusion, and the typesetting artifacts make the quantitative claim impossible to verify.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.4] The abstract states that the Pantheon sample contains 1408 data points, whereas Section 4.4 and Table 3 state 1048; the discrepancy should be reconciled.
  2. [Figure 16] The axis labels in Figure 16 contain obvious typesetting artifacts (e.g., '3 4 3', '7 4 3', 'G F H'), rendering the figure unintelligible; it should be regenerated with proper mathematical notation.
  3. [Section 4.2] Eq. (25) defines χ²_BAO using D_obs and D_th, but the text calls D_th a theoretical distance modulus, while Table 2 lists H(z) values; the notation needs to be clarified so the reader can identify which quantity is actually compared.
  4. [Section 6.1, Figure 7(b)] In the caption of Figure 7(b), the value '-303 842' appears to be a typo for '-0.3842'.
  5. [Section 6.3] The sentence 'The values from Model 5.2 show a strong negative trend, suggesting a more pronounced dark energy component that could hint at phantom behavior' is not supported by the reported ω0 values, which are all greater than -1; this should be reworded.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The f(Q,C) parameters α and β cancel from the background equations, so the MCMC fits only the hand-chosen ω(z) ansatz; the reported H(z), q(z), statefinders and sound speeds are algebraic functions of the fitted ω0, ω1, not predictions of f(Q,C) gravity.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Eqs. (19)–(21)]
    "κρ = 3αH 2 , (19) κp = −3αH 2 − 2α ˙H. (20) ... The EoS parameter’s expression is derived by using the formula ( ω = p ρ ) in the following manner: ω = −1 − 2 3 ˙H H 2 . (21)"

    Substituting f(Q,C)=αQ+βC into Eqs. (16)–(17) makes the β terms cancel identically and leaves ρ and p proportional to αH² and αHḢ. Since α appears in both ρ and p, the equation of state ω=p/ρ reduces to the standard single-fluid identity ω = −1 − (2/3)Ḣ/H². Thus the model-specific parameters α and β carry no background information, and every quantity later compared with data is fixed by the assumed ω(z), not by f(Q,C).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1, Eqs. (32)–(33); analogous constructions in Eqs. (34)–(35) and (36)–(37)]
    "By inserting the above linear form into equation (21) and using the fo rmula dH dt = −H(z)(1 + z) dH dz , we obtain the explicit form of H(z) as H(z) = H0(1 + z) 3 2 (1+ω 0−ω 1)exp [ 3ω 1z 2 ] , (33)"

    The 'model' H(z) is obtained by inverting Eq. (21) for the adopted ω(z) ansatz. The MCMC then reports best-fit H0, ω0, ω1 and the paper presents the resulting H(z) as the prediction of f(Q,C) gravity, but α and β never appear in the likelihood. Any single-fluid cosmological model with the same ω(z) would yield identical H(z), identical χ² values, and identical constraints; the observational fit therefore tests only the EoS parameterization, not f(Q,C).

2 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.1, Eq. (38) (also Eqs. (39)–(40)) and discussion of ztr and q0]
    "For our H(z) models, we derive the deceleration parameter expressions by utilising the equations (33), (35) and (37) as follows : • Model 5.1: q(z) = −1 + 3(1 + ω 0 − ω 1) 2 + 3ω 1 2 (1 + z), (38)"

    Using Eq. (21), this q(z) is exactly q(z) = 1/2 + (3/2)ω(z). Consequently q0 is the fitted ω0 renamed, q0 = 1/2 + 3ω0/2, and the reported transition redshift solves ω(ztr) = −1/3. The claimed deceleration-to-acceleration transition is therefore imposed by the assumed parameterization crossing the acceleration threshold; it is not a new result derived from f(Q,C) gravity.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.5–6.6, Eqs. (56)–(60) and Figures 14–16]
    "The statefinder diagnostics, {r, s }, introduced by [63, 64] ... r = ... a aH 3 = 2q2 + q − ˙q H , (56) s = (r − 1) 3(q − 1 2 ) . (57) ... The formula for finding c2 s is: dp dρ ."

    All higher-order diagnostics are computed from q(z) and from ρ, p, which are proportional to αH² times functions of the fitted ω0, ω1. The arbitrary α = 0.5 chosen by hand in §6.2 cancels in c²s, and β cancels from the start. Thus the sound-speed stability and the quintessence/ΛCDM classification merely restate properties of the assumed ω(z) ansatz, giving no independent evidence about f(Q,C).

full rationale

The paper's central observable chain is: assume ω(z), integrate Eq. (21) to obtain H(z), fit H0, ω0, ω1 to Hubble/BAO/Pantheon data, and then present q(z), energy conditions, statefinders and sound speed as consequences of f(Q,C) gravity. But the linear model f(Q,C)=αQ+βC has β cancelling identically from Eqs. (19)–(20) and α cancelling from ω, so the gravitational action contributes nothing to the background equations beyond the standard relation ω = −1 − (2/3)Ḣ/H². The paper's own text states that the EoS parameterizations are assumed in §5, and Eq. (21) is then inverted to produce H(z) in Eqs. (33), (35) and (37). Every derived diagnostic, including q0, ztr, {r0, s0} and c²s, is an algebraic function of the fitted ω0 and ω1; no f(Q,C) parameter is constrained by the MCMC. The choice α=0.5 is made by hand in §6.2, and β never appears in any likelihood or diagnostic. The abstract's conclusion that the results 'support f(Q,C) gravity as a viable framework' therefore does not follow from the data analysis: the fit supports the assumed dark-energy EoS forms, not the specific gravity theory. Self-citations in the reference list are not load-bearing; the circularity is internal, via Eq. (21) plus the EoS ansatz. This is a case where the 'predictions' reduce by construction to the fitted inputs, so a score of 8 is appropriate rather than a lower self-citation-only score.

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

The central claim rests on the assumed EoS parameterizations and on α>0, while the f(Q,C) parameter β cancels from the background. The data fit constrains only H0, ω0, ω1; the f(Q,C) model parameters are either unconstrained (β) or fixed by hand (α).

free parameters (5)
  • ω0 = -0.57 to -0.65 depending on model/dataset
    Present-day EoS parameter, fitted to H(z), BAO, and Pantheon data.
  • ω1 = 0.27 to 0.58 depending on model/dataset
    Redshift evolution parameter, fitted to the same observational data.
  • H0 = 67.4 to 67.9 km/s/Mpc
    Present-day Hubble constant, fitted to the data.
  • α = 0.5 (chosen by hand)
    Coupling of Q in f(Q,C); does not appear in H(z) but scales ρ and p, and is 'chosen to fit observational data' without a fitting procedure.
  • β = unconstrained
    Coupling of boundary term C; cancels from the background equations and is never constrained by the data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The universe is described by a spatially flat FRW metric
    Assumed in Section 2, Eq (14). Standard in cosmological model fits.
  • domain assumption The affine connection is flat (Γ=0)
    Assumed in Section 2 before Eq (15), giving Q=-6H², C=6(3H²+Ȟ) and the field equations.
  • ad hoc to paper The matter content is a single perfect fluid whose total EoS is one of the three parameterizations
    Introduced in Section 5; no matter or radiation component is included, and the parameterized ω is used as the total EoS in Eq (21).
  • ad hoc to paper The linear form f(Q,C)=αQ+βC captures the relevant f(Q,C) dynamics
    Eq (18) in Section 3; the boundary term βC is found to cancel from the background equations, so the form adds no new background dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper α>0 so that ρ≥0
    Section 6.2 sets α=0.5 by hand; the energy condition results depend on this sign choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining model parameters in f(Q,C) gravity: Observational analysis and geometric diagnostics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G6EGCIFP

@misc{pith2026241117754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining model parameters in f(Q,C) gravity: Observational analysis and geometric diagnostics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G6EGCIFP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17754}
}
abstract

We investigate the cosmological implications of $f(Q,C)$ gravity with $f(Q,C)=\alpha Q+\beta C$, where $Q$ is the non-metricity scalar and $C$ encapsulates cosmological expansion terms. Three parameterizations of the EoS for dark energy, $\omega=\omega_{0}+\omega_{1}z$, $\omega=\omega_{0}+\frac{\omega_{1}z(1+z)}{1+z^{2}}$ and $\omega=\omega_{0}+\frac{\omega_{1}z^{2}}{1+z^{2}}$ are tested using the Hubble, Hubble plus BAO, and Hubble plus BAO plus Pantheon datasets to constrain model parameters. The resulting Hubble and deceleration parameters reveal a transition from deceleration to acceleration, supporting current cosmic acceleration observations. Analysis of the energy density and pressure confirms positive energy density and a negative pressure for dark energy, potentially driving the late-time acceleration. We examine energy conditions, showing compliance with NEC, WEC and DEC, while SEC remains negative, supporting an accelerated expansion. Statefinder diagnostics suggest that two of the EoS parameterizations lead to Quintessence-like behavior with a time-varying dark energy component, while the third closely approaches $\Lambda$CDM showing slight deviations consistent with recent observations. Sound speed analysis demonstrates the physical stability of all parameterizations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17754 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 1 − σ and 2 − σ likelihood contours from the analysis of (a) Hubble, (b) Hubble+BAO and (c) Hubble+BAO+Pantheon datasets. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The error bar plot for our H(z) model by using (a) Hubble and (b) Hubble+BAO datasets. The EoS parameter in this model is defined as [56]: ω = ω0 + ω1z(1 + z) 1 + z 2 , (34) where ω0 represents the present-day value of the EoS and ω1 characterizes the rate of change in dark energy’s influence over time. This model is designed to allow a gradual change in the EoS from low redshifts (z ≈ 0) to high redshifts. When z i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1 − σ and 2 − σ likelihood contours from the analysis of (a) Hubble, (b) Hubble+BAO and (c) Hubble+BAO+Pantheon datasets. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The error bar plot for our H(z) model by using (a) Hubble and (b) Hubble+BAO datasets. values and the Planck satellite’s CMB measurements provides strong evidence for the model’s accuracy in describing the early Universe’s dynamics [53]. This consistency demonstrates t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 1 − σ and 2 − σ likelihood contours from the analysis of (a) Hubble, (b) Hubble+BAO and (c) Hubble+BAO+Pantheon datasets. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The error bar plot for our H(z) model by using (a) Hubble and (b) Hubble+BAO datasets. governs the redshift dependence of the dark energy equation of state, clusters around 0.585, with minimal variations between the datasets. A positive value of ω1 indicates that the d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The plot of q vs. z for the constrained parameter values of (a) Model 5.1, (b) Model 5.2 and (c) Model 5.3. The plot 7 of q(z) vs. z for the three models showcases the behavior of the deceleration parameter across cosmic time, illustrating the transition from a deceler…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The plot of ρ vs. z for the constrained parameter values of (a) Model 5.1, (b) Model 5.2 and (c) Model 5.3 with α = 0.5. (a) (b) Hubble Hubble+BAO Joint dataset - 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 - 6000 - 5000 - 4000 - 3000 - 2000 - 1000 0 redshift [z] pressure [p] (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The plot of p vs. z for the constrained parameter values of (a) Model 5.1, (b) Model 5.2 and (c) Model 5.3 with α = 0.5. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The plot of ω vs. z for the constrained parameter values of (a) Model 5.1, (b) Model 5.2 and (c) Model 5.3. As depicted in Figures 10a, 10b and 10c, the evolution of ω provides significant insights into the dynamic behavior of the Universe over time. Initially, at hig…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Energy conditions vs. z for the constrained parameter values of Model 5.1 with α = 0.5. The expressions of the energy conditions for our models are derived by using the equations (41)-(46) as follows: • Model 5.1: ρ + p = 2αH2 0 exp[3ω1z]  3(1 + ω0 − ω1) 2 (1 + z) 3(…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Energy conditions vs. z for the constrained parameter values of Model 5.2 with α = 0.5. Hubble Hubble+BAO Joint dataset - 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 100 000 200 000 300 000 400 000 redshift [z] NEC [ρ+p] (a) Hubble Hubble+BAO Joint dataset - 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 100 000 200 000 300 0…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Energy conditions vs. z for the constrained parameter values of Model 5.3 with α = 0.5. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: r-s plane for (a) Model 5.1, (b) Model 5.2 and (c) Model 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: r-q plane for (a) Model 5.1, (b) Model 5.2 and (c) Model 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: c 2 s vs. z for the constrained parameter values of (a) Model 5.1, (b) Model 5.2 and (c) Model 5.3 with α = 0.5. • Model 5.1: c 2 s = −1 + 2ω0(1 + z)  3(1+ω0−ω1) 2 + 3ω1(1+z) 2  + 2 3  9(1+ω0−ω1) 2 2 + 3ω1(4+3ω0−3ω1) 2 (1 + z)  3(1 + ω0 − ω1) + 3ω1(1 + z) , (58) •…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Parameterized Deceleration in $f(Q,C)$ Gravity: A Logarithmic Approach

    gr-qc 2024-12 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A logarithmic q(z) ansatz fitted to OHD and Pantheon+SH0ES in f(Q,C)=gamma1 Q^2 + gamma2 C claims zt about 0.98 and 0.76, but C is dynamically irrelevant and Table I's q0 contradicts the reported q(z=0).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Misner, K

    C. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. Wheeler ”Gravitation”, (1973), https://books.google.com.mt/books?id=w4Gigq3tY1kC

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, ”Modified Gra vity and Cosmology”, Phys. Rept., 513, 1 (2012), 1106.2476

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, and D. Scolnic, ” Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hu bble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM”, Astrophys. J., 876, 85 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Prob e (WMAP) Observations: Cos- mological Interpretation

    E. Komatsu et al., “Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Prob e (WMAP) Observations: Cos- mological Interpretation”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192 (2011) 18

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Dynamics of dark e nergy

    Edmund J Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa,“Dynamics of dark e nergy”, Int. J. Mod Phys D, 15 (2006) 1753

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, ”Unified cosmic history in modified grav ity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models”, Phys. Rept. , 505 (2011) 59 [arXiv:1011.0544] [INSPIRE]

    arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, ”Modified gravity and its reconstruction from the universe expansion his- tory”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 66 (2007) 012005

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Padmanabhan and D

    T. Padmanabhan and D. Kothawala, ”Lanczos-Lovelock models o f gravity”, Phys. Rep., 531, (2013) 115

    work page 2013

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Luca Amendola, ”Scaling solutions in general nonminimal coupling th eories”, Phys. Rev. D, 60, (1999) 043501

    1999

  2. [10]

    Gia Dvali, Gregory Gabadadze and Massimo Porrati, ”4D gravity o n a brane in 5D Minkowski space”, Phys. Lett. B, 485, (2000) 208

    2000

  3. [11]

    Symmetric teleparallel general relativit y

    J. M. Nester, H-J Yo, “Symmetric teleparallel general relativit y”, Chin. J. Phys. 37, 113 (1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    Coincident gener al relativity

    J. B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg and T. Koivisto, “Coincident gener al relativity”, Phys. Rev. D , 98, 044048 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Teleparallel Gravity: From Theory to Cosm ology

    S. Bahamonde et al., “Teleparallel Gravity: From Theory to Cosm ology”, Rep. Prog. Phys. , 86 026901 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Non-metricity with bounday t erms: f (Q, C ) gravity and cos- mology

    A. De, T. H. Loo, E. N. Saridakis, “Non-metricity with bounday t erms: f (Q, C ) gravity and cos- mology”, arXiv:2308.00652[gr-qc]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    The role of the bounda ry term in f (Q, B ) symmetric teleparallel gravity

    S. Capozziello, V. De Falco, C. Ferrara, “The role of the bounda ry term in f (Q, B ) symmetric teleparallel gravity”, Arxiv: 2307.13280v2 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Exploring Late-Time Cosmic Ac- celeration with Eos Parameterizations in Horava-Lifshitz Gravity via Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    M. Khurana, H. Chaudhary, U. Debnath, A. Sardar, G. Musta fa, “Exploring Late-Time Cosmic Ac- celeration with Eos Parameterizations in Horava-Lifshitz Gravity via Baryon Acoustic Oscillations”, Fortschritte der Physik, 72 (2), 2300238 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Exploring accelerated expansion in the universe: A study of f (Q, T ) gravity with parameterized EoS and cosmological constraints

    M. Koussour, N. Myrzakulov, J. Rayimbaev, A. Errehymy, O. D onmez, “Exploring accelerated expansion in the universe: A study of f (Q, T ) gravity with parameterized EoS and cosmological constraints”, Chinese Journal of Physics, 90, 108-120 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Constraining effective equa tion of state in f (Q, T ) gravity

    S. Arora, A. Parida, P. K. Sahoo, “ Constraining effective equa tion of state in f (Q, T ) gravity”, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 555 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Evolution of the Universe with quintessence mo del in Rastall gravity

    J. K. Singh et al., “Evolution of the Universe with quintessence mo del in Rastall gravity”, Phys. Scr. 99, 125001 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Observational constraints on Gong-Zhang parametrizations in f (Q) gravity

    Romanshu Garg, G. P. Singh, Ashutosh Singh, “Observational constraints on Gong-Zhang parametrizations in f (Q) gravity”, arXiv:2410.18568v1 [gr-qc] 29

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    K., Tiwari, D

    B.K Shukla, R. K., Tiwari, D. Sofuoglu, Int. J Geom. Meth. Mod. Ph ys, 20 (12) 2350210-1466 (2003)

    2003

  14. [22]

    Cosmic chronometers: constrain- ing the equation of state of dark energy. I: H(z) measurements

    D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, S.A. Stanfor d, “Cosmic chronometers: constrain- ing the equation of state of dark energy. I: H(z) measurements”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 008 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release

    D. Scolnic, et al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release”, Astro- phys.J. 938 113 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    First cosmological results using Type Ia supernovae from the dark energy survey: Measurement of the Hubble costant

    E. Macaulay, R. C. Nichol, D. Bacon, D. Brout, T. M. Davis, et al., “First cosmological results using Type Ia supernovae from the dark energy survey: Measurement of the Hubble costant”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 486, 2184-2196, (2019). [CrossRef]

    2019

  17. [25]

    Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data re lease seven

    C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang and Y.-C. Sun, “Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data re lease seven”, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 14, 1221 (2014), 1207.4541

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Constraints on the redshif t dependence of the dark energy potential

    J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez, “Constraints on the redshif t dependence of the dark energy potential”, Phys. Rev. D, 71, astro-ph/0412269, 123001 (2005)

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cosmic chronometers: Con- straining the equation of state of dark energy I: H(z) measurements

    D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, S.A. Stanfor d, “Cosmic chronometers: Con- straining the equation of state of dark energy I: H(z) measurements”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 008, 2010, 2010. [CrossRef]

    2010

  20. [28]

    Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z ∼ 1. 1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers

    M. Moresco, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, L. Pozzetti, G. Zamorani, M . Bolzonella, et al., “Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z ∼ 1. 1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 006, 2012, 2012 . [CrossRef]

    2012

  21. [29]

    Clustering of luminous red gala xies IV. Baryon acoustic peak in the line-of-sight direction and a direct measurement of H(z)

    E. Gaztanaga, A. Cabre, L. Hui, “Clustering of luminous red gala xies IV. Baryon acoustic peak in the line-of-sight direction and a direct measurement of H(z)”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 399, 1663–1680 (2009). [CrossRef]

    2009

  22. [30]

    D. H. Chuang, Y. Wang, “Modelling the anisotropic two-point gala xy correlation function on small scales and single-probe measurements of H(z), DA(z) and f (z) 8( z) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR7 luminous red galaxies”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 435, 255 (2013). [CrossRef]

    2013

  23. [31]

    The clus tering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cos mological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample

    Shadab Alam, Metin Ata, Stephen Bailey, Florian Beutler, Dmitry B izyaev, Jonathan A. Blazek, Adam S. Bolton, Joel R. Brownstein, Angela Burden, et al., “The clus tering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cos mological analysis of th...

    2016

  24. [32]

    A 6% measurement of the Hubble paramet er z ∼ 0. 45: Directevidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. Tojeiro, and D. Wilkinson, “A 6% measurement of the Hubble paramet er z ∼ 0. 45: Directevidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration”, JCAP, 05, 014 (2016). 1601.01701

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    The Wiggle Z Dark Energy S urvey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z < 1

    C. Blake, S. Brough, M. Colless, et al., “The Wiggle Z Dark Energy S urvey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z < 1”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 425, 405–414 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Age-dating luminous red galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope

    A. L. Ratsimbazafy, S. I. Loubser, S. M. Crawford, C. M. Cre ss, B. A. Bassett, R. C. Nichol, P. V¨ai¨anen, “Age-dating luminous red galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope”, 467, 3239–3254 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx301

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubb le parameter with cos- mic chronometers at z ∼ 2

    Michele Moresco, “Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubb le parameter with cos- mic chronometers at z ∼ 2”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 450, L16–L20 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slv037

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Ly α forest of BOSS quasars

    T. Delubac, J. Rich, S. Bailey, et al., “Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Ly α forest of BOSS quasars”, Astron Astrophys. 2013, 552, A96

    2013

  29. [37]

    Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Ly α forest of BOSS DR11 quasars

    T. Delubac, Julian E. Bautista, James Rich, David Kirkby, et. al., “ Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Ly α forest of BOSS DR11 quasars”, Astron Astrophys. 2015, 584, A59. 30

    2015

  30. [38]

    Quasar-Lyman α forest cross-correlation from BOSS DR11: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    Andreu Font-Ribera, David Kirkby, Nicolas Busca, Nicholas P. Ro ss, et. al., “Quasar-Lyman α forest cross-correlation from BOSS DR11: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 05 (2014) 027

    2014

  31. [39]

    Baryon acous tic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sample

    W. J. Percival, B. A. Reid, D. J. Eisenstein, et al., “Baryon acous tic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sample”, Mon. Not. Roy. As tron. Soc., 401 (2010) no. 4, 2148–2168

    2010

  32. [40]

    Simultaneous constraints on the growth of struc ture and cosmic expansion from the multipole power spectra of the SDSS DR7 LRG sample

    A. Oka et al., “Simultaneous constraints on the growth of struc ture and cosmic expansion from the multipole power spectra of the SDSS DR7 LRG sample”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 439, 2515(2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Clustering of luminous red galaxies-IV. Bary on acoustic peak in the line-of-sight direction and a direct measurement of H(z)

    E. Gaztaaga et al., “Clustering of luminous red galaxies-IV. Bary on acoustic peak in the line-of-sight direction and a direct measurement of H(z)”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 399, 1663(2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Wang et al., Mon

    Y. Wang et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 469, 3762 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: joint measurem ents of the expansion and growth history at z < 1

    C. Blake et al., “The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: joint measurem ents of the expansion and growth history at z < 1”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 425, 405 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Ba ryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: single-probe measurements and the strong power of f (z) σ 8(z) on constraining dark energy

    C. H. Chuang et al., “The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Ba ryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: single-probe measurements and the strong power of f (z) σ 8(z) on constraining dark energy”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 433, 3559 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Ba ryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 G alaxy samples

    L. Anderson et al., “The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Ba ryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 G alaxy samples”, Mon. Not. roy. Astron. Soc. 441, 24 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-II I Baryon Oscillation Spectro- scopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample

    S. Alam et al., “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-II I Baryon Oscillation Spectro- scopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample”, Mo n. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617(2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    N. G. Busca et al., Astron. Astrophys. 552, A96 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Camlibel, I

    A.K. Camlibel, I. Semiz, M.A. Feyizoglu, Class. Quantum Gravity 37, 235001 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Scolnic et al., Astrophys

    D.M. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J. 859, 101 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc

    K. Asvesta, L. Kazantzidis, L. Perivolaropoulos and C. G. Tsag as, “Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.”, 513, no.2, 2394-2406 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Probing dark energy: Methods an d strategies

    D. Huterer, M. S. Turner, “Probing dark energy: Methods an d strategies”, Phys. Rev. D 64 123527 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    Future supernovae observations a s a probe of dark energy

    J. Weller and A. Albrecht, “Future supernovae observations a s a probe of dark energy”, Phys. Rev. D 65 103512 (2002)

    2002

  45. [53]

    Planck 2018 Results. VI . Cosmological Parameters

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., et al., “Planck 2018 Results. VI . Cosmological Parameters”, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Dynamical System Approach and Th ermodynamical Per- spective of Ho˘ rava-Lifshitz Gravity

    A. Samaddar, S. S. Singh, “Dynamical System Approach and Th ermodynamical Per- spective of Ho˘ rava-Lifshitz Gravity”, Fortschritte der Physik, 72 (6), 2400006 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.202400006

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    Dynamical system met hod of viscous fluid in f (T ) gravity theory

    Amit Samaddar and Surendra Sanasam, “Dynamical system met hod of viscous fluid in f (T ) gravity theory”, 2024, Phys. Scr., 99, 035219. DOI 10.1088/1402-4896/ad232a

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    Probing the time depende nce of dark energy

    E. M. Barboza, Jr. and J. S. Alcaniz, “Probing the time depende nce of dark energy”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 042 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Holographic dark energy models and their behaviors within the framework of f (Q, C ) gravity theory

    A. Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, S. Muhammad, E. E. Zotos, “ Holographic dark energy models and their behaviors within the framework of f (Q, C ) gravity theory”, Journal of High Energy As- trophysics, 44, 1-18 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.09.001. 31

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    C. -J. Feng et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 023 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Dynamica l system approach of in- teracting dark energy models with minimally coupled scalar field

    Amit Samaddar, S. Surendra Singh, Md Khurshid Alam, “Dynamica l system approach of in- teracting dark energy models with minimally coupled scalar field”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271823500621

    doi

  52. [60]

    The constrained cosmological model in Lyra geometry

    J. K. Singh, Shaily, S. Ram, J. R. L. Santos and J. A. S. Fortuna to, “The constrained cosmological model in Lyra geometry”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 32, 2350040 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    A Primer on Energy Conditions

    E. Curiel, “A Primer on Energy Conditions”, Einstein Stud. 13, 43-104 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Energy conditions in general re lativity and quantum field theory

    E. A. Kontou and K. Sanders, “Energy conditions in general re lativity and quantum field theory”, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 193001 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Statefinder—A new geometrical diagnost ic of dark energy

    Sahni, Varun, et al., “Statefinder—A new geometrical diagnost ic of dark energy”, Journal of Exper- imental and Theoretical Physics Letters 77.5 (2003): 201

    2003

  56. [64]

    A. Starobinsky, Exploring the e xpanding universe and dark energy using the statefinder diagnostic

    U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. Deep Saini, “A. Starobinsky, Exploring the e xpanding universe and dark energy using the statefinder diagnostic”, Monthly Notices of the R oyal Astronomical Society 344 (4) (2003) 1057–1074. 32

    2003

Pith tools

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