Cosmological Tensions as Consistency Conditions for f(Q) Gravity

Amare Abebe

arxiv: 2604.27773 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌀 gr-qc

Cosmological Tensions as Consistency Conditions for f(Q) Gravity

Amare Abebe This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 07:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc

keywords f(Q) gravitycosmological tensionsH0 tensionS8 tensiongrowth indexconsistency conditionsmodified gravitybulk viscosity

0 comments

The pith

f(Q) gravity models easing one cosmological tension typically fail when required to satisfy H0, S8, and growth index at once.

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

The paper treats the H0 tension, S8 tension, and the observed redshift dependence of structure growth as a joint consistency triangle rather than separate anomalies. In f(Q) gravity, the main functional families can reduce either the expansion-rate mismatch or the clustering-amplitude mismatch in isolation, yet the additional demand that they reproduce the shape of fσ8(z) or the growth index γ leaves only a narrow slice of parameter space viable. Recent Bayesian and dynamical-system studies of power-law, exponential, and logarithmic forms are combined to reach this conclusion. Adding bulk viscosity in the matter sector is shown to face the same joint constraint. The result frames tensions as global filters that any competitive extension of ΛCDM must pass together.

Core claim

Synthesizing existing analyses shows that while power-law, exponential, and logarithmic f(Q) models can alleviate the H0 tension or the S8 tension individually, the simultaneous requirement of consistency with the growth index or fσ8(z) shape restricts the allowed parameter space severely. The same filtering occurs when a bulk-viscous component is introduced. Only a restricted subset of f(Q) models therefore remains competitive under the global consistency requirement.

What carries the argument

The consistency triangle of background expansion (H0), structure-growth amplitude (S8), and redshift-dependent growth shape (growth index γ or fσ8(z) curve), which decouples in modified gravity unlike the rigid ΛCDM relations.

If this is right

Only a restricted subset of f(Q) models remains competitive with current data.
Viable extensions of ΛCDM must satisfy the full multi-probe consistency triangle.
Bulk-viscous extensions do not easily evade the joint restriction.
Cosmological tensions function as global consistency conditions rather than isolated problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Other modified-gravity or dark-energy models with independent growth evolution are likely to face analogous restrictions.
High-precision growth measurements at multiple redshifts could further shrink or eliminate the remaining viable space.
Model-building efforts should test proposals against the full triangle before claiming resolution of any single tension.

Load-bearing premise

That the three observables must be satisfied simultaneously as independent constraints and that the reviewed analyses of the three main f(Q) families are representative of the broader model space.

What would settle it

A new measurement of the growth index γ lying outside the narrow interval allowed by the surviving parameter ranges, or a systematic scan that identifies a broad class of f(Q) models fitting all three observables without severe restriction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27773 by Amare Abebe.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The cosmological consistency triangle. Any viable cosmological model must simul view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Cosmology has entered a precision era in which discrepancies between independent datasets, most notably the $H_0$ and $S_8$ tensions, have become robust and statistically significant. These tensions are no longer isolated anomalies but increasingly appear as global consistency constraints on the underlying cosmological model, defining what we will refer to here as a \emph{consistency triangle} of background expansion ($H_0$), structure-growth amplitude ($S_8$), and the redshift-dependence of growth - summarised by the growth index $\gamma$, or equivalently the shape of $f\sigma_8(z)$. The third vertex is non-trivial because in modified-gravity scenarios with a redshift-dependent effective gravitational coupling, growth amplitude and growth shape evolve independently, breaking the rigid coupling characteristic of $\Lambda$CDM. In this work, we use $f(Q)$ gravity as a test case for this emerging paradigm. By drawing on a focused set of recent Bayesian and dynamical-system analyses of the three best-studied functional families - power-law, exponential, and logarithmic - we show that while $f(Q)$ models can alleviate individual tensions, the requirement of simultaneous consistency across $H_0$, $S_8$ and the growth index severely restricts the viable parameter space. A bulk-viscous extension is then briefly examined as a representative illustration of how additional matter-sector freedom is constrained by the same consistency requirement. Our reading of the current literature supports the view that cosmological tensions should be interpreted as global consistency conditions, and that viable extensions of $\Lambda$CDM must satisfy this multi-probe constraint \cite{CosmoVerse,DiValentino2025Corfu}. Within this framework, only a restricted subset of $f(Q)$ models remains competitive.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper frames tensions as a consistency triangle for f(Q) models but offers only a literature synthesis without new joint analysis or derivations.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that f(Q) gravity can ease the H0 or S8 tension on its own, yet requiring simultaneous consistency with the growth index or fσ8(z) shape cuts the viable parameter space down sharply. Abebe calls this the consistency triangle of background expansion, growth amplitude, and growth shape, and uses it to interpret recent work on power-law, exponential, and logarithmic f(Q) families plus a short bulk-viscous extension. The point about modified gravity decoupling amplitude from shape is standard but worth repeating here because it explains why the third vertex is independent of the first two. The paper pulls together existing Bayesian and dynamical-system results to argue that only a restricted subset of models survives all three constraints at once. That organizing step is the clearest contribution; it gives readers a compact way to think about multi-probe tests in late-time modified gravity. No new equations are derived and no fresh data fits are performed. The central restriction claim rests on comparing outputs from separate papers that used non-identical datasets, priors, and approximations. Without a re-analysis under one common likelihood that enforces the full triangle simultaneously, it remains unclear whether the claimed severity is intrinsic to f(Q) or partly an artifact of the heterogeneous inputs. The abstract states the conclusion without quoting specific parameter ranges or error bars from a unified run, which leaves the quantitative support thin. This is useful reading for people already working on f(Q) or similar models who want a quick synthesis of how tensions constrain the space. A reader expecting new calculations or a statistically self-contained test will come away wanting more. I would send it to peer review because the framing is worth airing and the literature summary is competent, even though referees will probably request a joint posterior or at least a clearer mapping of the cited results onto common data.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that cosmological tensions (H0, S8) together with the growth index γ (or fσ8(z) shape) form a 'consistency triangle' that functions as a global constraint on modified-gravity models. Treating f(Q) gravity as a test case, it synthesizes recent Bayesian and dynamical-system analyses of the power-law, exponential, and logarithmic families to argue that, while individual tensions can be alleviated, simultaneous consistency across all three vertices severely restricts the viable parameter space. A short discussion of a bulk-viscous extension is included to illustrate how additional matter-sector freedom is likewise constrained by the same requirement.

Significance. If the synthesis is robust, the work would usefully reframe cosmological tensions as interconnected consistency conditions rather than isolated anomalies, thereby tightening the requirements on viable f(Q) extensions of ΛCDM. The approach draws on existing literature analyses but does not itself supply new joint posteriors or machine-checked derivations, limiting the strength of the quantitative restriction claim.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and main synthesis: the central assertion that 'the requirement of simultaneous consistency across H0, S8 and the growth index severely restricts the viable parameter space' is supported only by comparing results from separate Bayesian and dynamical-system papers that employ non-identical data combinations, priors, and approximations. No joint likelihood is constructed that maps the f(Q) parameters onto a common posterior enforcing all three constraints at once; this is load-bearing for the 'severe restriction' conclusion and leaves open whether the apparent tension is intrinsic or an artifact of heterogeneous inputs.
[Bulk-viscous extension] Bulk-viscous extension paragraph: the brief illustration that additional matter-sector freedom is 'constrained by the same consistency requirement' is presented without a unified statistical test or re-derivation under the consistency triangle; the claim therefore inherits the same methodological limitation as the f(Q) families.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The newly introduced term 'consistency triangle' is used without an explicit definition or diagram showing how the three vertices are statistically independent once the model is allowed to have a redshift-dependent effective gravitational coupling; a short clarifying paragraph or figure would improve readability.
Citations to the underlying Bayesian and dynamical-system analyses are referenced collectively (e.g., 'recent analyses'); listing the specific papers, data sets, and priors used for each f(Q) family in a table would make the synthesis traceable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The work is conceived as a synthesis of recent literature to illustrate how cosmological tensions can be viewed as a joint consistency triangle, using f(Q) gravity as a test case. We respond to the major comments point by point below, acknowledging the methodological limitations of our approach and indicating the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and main synthesis: the central assertion that 'the requirement of simultaneous consistency across H0, S8 and the growth index severely restricts the viable parameter space' is supported only by comparing results from separate Bayesian and dynamical-system papers that employ non-identical data combinations, priors, and approximations. No joint likelihood is constructed that maps the f(Q) parameters onto a common posterior enforcing all three constraints at once; this is load-bearing for the 'severe restriction' conclusion and leaves open whether the apparent tension is intrinsic or an artifact of heterogeneous inputs.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not construct a new joint likelihood and that the 'severe restriction' claim rests on a comparison of independent studies with non-identical data sets, priors, and approximations. The paper's intent is to synthesize existing Bayesian and dynamical-system results to highlight an emerging pattern rather than to derive new quantitative bounds. In revision we will (i) qualify the abstract statement to read that the literature 'suggests' a severe restriction on viable parameter space, (ii) add an explicit paragraph in the discussion section acknowledging the heterogeneity of the input analyses and the consequent need for a dedicated joint posterior study, and (iii) replace the phrase 'severely restricts' with 'appears to restrict' where appropriate. These changes will make the scope and evidential basis of the claim transparent. revision: partial
Referee: [Bulk-viscous extension] Bulk-viscous extension paragraph: the brief illustration that additional matter-sector freedom is 'constrained by the same consistency requirement' is presented without a unified statistical test or re-derivation under the consistency triangle; the claim therefore inherits the same methodological limitation as the f(Q) families.

Authors: The bulk-viscous paragraph is included solely as a short, qualitative illustration of how the consistency-triangle requirement extends to hybrid models that combine modified gravity with additional matter-sector freedom. We accept that it does not contain a unified statistical test. In the revised manuscript we will expand the paragraph to state explicitly that the example is illustrative, that it inherits the same limitations as the f(Q) synthesis, and that a full re-derivation under a common likelihood would be required to quantify the constraints. This framing will prevent any over-interpretation of the illustration. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; central claim is external literature synthesis without internal reduction

full rationale

The paper introduces the 'consistency triangle' as a conceptual framing for H0, S8, and growth-index constraints, then states that simultaneous satisfaction 'severely restricts the viable parameter space' for f(Q) families by 'drawing on a focused set of recent Bayesian and dynamical-system analyses.' No equations, parameter fits, or derivations appear in the provided text that would equate the restriction claim to its own inputs by construction. The argument defers quantitative restriction to independent prior studies rather than performing a joint likelihood or re-deriving posteriors internally. No self-citations are load-bearing for the core result, no ansatz is smuggled, and no known result is merely renamed. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as a synthesis and exhibits none of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that tensions constitute global consistency conditions and on the representativeness of prior f(Q) analyses; the new 'consistency triangle' is an invented framing with no independent evidence supplied.

free parameters (1)

parameters of power-law, exponential, and logarithmic f(Q) families
The claim states that these parameters are severely restricted by the consistency requirement, implying they are the quantities being constrained or fitted in the referenced analyses.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Cosmological tensions are global consistency constraints rather than isolated anomalies
Explicitly presented as the emerging paradigm that defines the consistency triangle.
domain assumption In f(Q) gravity the effective gravitational coupling is redshift-dependent, allowing growth amplitude and growth shape to evolve independently
Stated as the reason the consistency triangle is non-trivial compared with LambdaCDM.

invented entities (1)

consistency triangle no independent evidence
purpose: To frame H0, S8, and the growth index as a joint multi-probe constraint on cosmological models
New interpretive construct introduced in the abstract with no external falsifiable handle provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5609 in / 1678 out tokens · 67143 ms · 2026-05-07T07:51:53.093170+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Di Valentino, et al

CosmoVerse Collaboration, E. Di Valentino, et al. The CosmoVerse White Paper: Ad- dressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics. Physics of the Dark Universe, 2025

work page 2025
[2]

Saridakis

Eleonora Di Valentino, Jackson Levi Said, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis. Cosmological tensions in the era of precision cosmology: Insights from Tensions in Cosmology 2025. Nature Astronomy, 10:180–182, 2026

work page 2025
[3]

Planck 2018 results

Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641:A6, 2020

work page 2018
[4]

Birrer, et al

TDCOSMO Collaboration, S. Birrer, et al. TDCOSMO 2025: Cosmological constraints from strong lensing time delays.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 704:A63, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints.Physical Review D, 112:083515, 2025

DESI Collaboration. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints.Physical Review D, 112:083515, 2025

work page 2025
[6]

Qu et al

F.-J. Qu et al. Unified and consistent structure growth measurements from joint ACT, SPT and Planck CMB lensing.Physical Review Letters, 136:021001, 2026

work page 2026
[7]

Review onf(Q) Gravity.Physics Reports, 1066:1–78, 2024

Lavinia Heisenberg. Review onf(Q) Gravity.Physics Reports, 1066:1–78, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Boiza, Maria Petronikolou, Mariam Bouhmadi-L´ opez, and Emmanuel N

Carlos G. Boiza, Maria Petronikolou, Mariam Bouhmadi-L´ opez, and Emmanuel N. Sari- dakis. AddressingH 0 andS 8 tensions withinf(Q) cosmology.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 12:011, 2025

work page 2025
[9]

Insights inf(Q) cosmology: the relevance of the connection.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 11:068, 2025

Ismael Ayuso, Mariam Bouhmadi-L´ opez, Che-Yu Chen, Xiao Yan Chew, Konstantinos Dialektopoulos, and Yen Chin Ong. Insights inf(Q) cosmology: the relevance of the connection.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 11:068, 2025

work page 2025
[10]

Sneha Pradhan, Raja Solanki, and P. K. Sahoo. Cosmological constraints onf(Q) gravity models in the non-coincident formalism.Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 43:258–267, 2024

work page 2024
[11]

Structure growth inf(Q) cosmology.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 539(2):690–703, 2025

Shambel Sahlu, ´Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz, and Amare Abebe. Structure growth inf(Q) cosmology.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 539(2):690–703, 2025

work page 2025
[12]

Saridakis, and Kuralay Yesmakhanova

Wompherdeiki Khyllep, Jibitesh Dutta, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, and Kuralay Yesmakhanova. Cosmology inf(Q) gravity: A unified dynamical system analysis at back- ground and perturbation levels.Physical Review D, 107(4):044022, 2023

work page 2023
[13]

Cosmological so- lutions and growth index of matter perturbations inf(Q) gravity.Physical Review D, 103(10):103521, 2021

Wompherdeiki Khyllep, Andronikos Paliathanasis, and Jibitesh Dutta. Cosmological so- lutions and growth index of matter perturbations inf(Q) gravity.Physical Review D, 103(10):103521, 2021

work page 2021
[14]

Con- straints on Power Law and Exponential models inf(Q) Gravity.Physics Letters B, 2024

Dalale Mhamdi, Farida Bargach, Safae Dahmani, Amine Bouali, and Taoufik Ouali. Con- straints on Power Law and Exponential models inf(Q) Gravity.Physics Letters B, 2024

work page 2024
[15]

Saridakis

Hamid Shabani, Avik De, Tee-How Loo, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis. Cosmology off(Q) gravity in non-flat Universe.European Physical Journal C, 84:285, 2024

work page 2024
[16]

The Einstein Telescope standard siren simulations forf(Q) cosmologies.European Physical Journal C, 85:358, 2025

Xianfu Su, Dongze He, and Yi Zhang. The Einstein Telescope standard siren simulations forf(Q) cosmologies.European Physical Journal C, 85:358, 2025. 8

work page 2025
[17]

Constraints on f(Q) logarithmic model using gravitational wave standard sirens.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524(4):5280–5290, 2023

Jos´ e Antonio N´ ajera, Carlos Ar´ aoz Alvarado, and Celia Escamilla-Rivera. Constraints on f(Q) logarithmic model using gravitational wave standard sirens.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524(4):5280–5290, 2023

work page 2023
[18]

Gadbail and P

Gaurav N. Gadbail and P. K. Sahoo. Modifiedf(Q) gravity models and their cosmological consequences.Chinese Journal of Physics, 89:1754–1762, 2024

work page 2024
[19]

Testing Non-Coincidentf(Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs.Physics of the Dark Universe, 49:101993, 2025

Andronikos Paliathanasis. Testing Non-Coincidentf(Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs.Physics of the Dark Universe, 49:101993, 2025

work page 2025
[20]

Exact cosmological solutions in non-coincidence f(Q)-theory.Nuclear Physics B, 1022:117262, 2026

Avik De and Andronikos Paliathanasis. Exact cosmological solutions in non-coincidence f(Q)-theory.Nuclear Physics B, 1022:117262, 2026

work page 2026
[21]

Ayush Hazarika, Simran Arora, P. K. Sahoo, and Tiberiu Harko.f(Q,L m) gravity, and its cosmological implications.Physics of the Dark Universe, 50:102092, 2025

work page 2025
[22]

Hough, Amare Abebe, and ´Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz

Shambel Sahlu, Renier T. Hough, Amare Abebe, and ´Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz. Con- straining viscous-fluid models inf(Q) gravity with data.European Physical Journal C, 2025

work page 2025
[23]

Emergent Universe inf(Q) gravity theories

Hamid Shabani, Avik De, and Tee-How Loo. Emergent Universe inf(Q) gravity theories. Annals of Physics, 473:169865, 2025

work page 2025
[24]

Observational constraints on the growth index parameters inf(Q) gravity.Fortschritte der Physik, 2025

Dalale Mhamdi, Safae Dahmani, Amine Bouali, Imad El Bojaddaini, and Taoufik Ouali. Observational constraints on the growth index parameters inf(Q) gravity.Fortschritte der Physik, 2025. 9

work page 2025

[1] [1]

Di Valentino, et al

CosmoVerse Collaboration, E. Di Valentino, et al. The CosmoVerse White Paper: Ad- dressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics. Physics of the Dark Universe, 2025

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Saridakis

Eleonora Di Valentino, Jackson Levi Said, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis. Cosmological tensions in the era of precision cosmology: Insights from Tensions in Cosmology 2025. Nature Astronomy, 10:180–182, 2026

work page 2025

[3] [3]

Planck 2018 results

Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641:A6, 2020

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Birrer, et al

TDCOSMO Collaboration, S. Birrer, et al. TDCOSMO 2025: Cosmological constraints from strong lensing time delays.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 704:A63, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints.Physical Review D, 112:083515, 2025

DESI Collaboration. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints.Physical Review D, 112:083515, 2025

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Qu et al

F.-J. Qu et al. Unified and consistent structure growth measurements from joint ACT, SPT and Planck CMB lensing.Physical Review Letters, 136:021001, 2026

work page 2026

[7] [7]

Review onf(Q) Gravity.Physics Reports, 1066:1–78, 2024

Lavinia Heisenberg. Review onf(Q) Gravity.Physics Reports, 1066:1–78, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Boiza, Maria Petronikolou, Mariam Bouhmadi-L´ opez, and Emmanuel N

Carlos G. Boiza, Maria Petronikolou, Mariam Bouhmadi-L´ opez, and Emmanuel N. Sari- dakis. AddressingH 0 andS 8 tensions withinf(Q) cosmology.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 12:011, 2025

work page 2025

[9] [9]

Insights inf(Q) cosmology: the relevance of the connection.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 11:068, 2025

Ismael Ayuso, Mariam Bouhmadi-L´ opez, Che-Yu Chen, Xiao Yan Chew, Konstantinos Dialektopoulos, and Yen Chin Ong. Insights inf(Q) cosmology: the relevance of the connection.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 11:068, 2025

work page 2025

[10] [10]

Sneha Pradhan, Raja Solanki, and P. K. Sahoo. Cosmological constraints onf(Q) gravity models in the non-coincident formalism.Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 43:258–267, 2024

work page 2024

[11] [11]

Structure growth inf(Q) cosmology.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 539(2):690–703, 2025

Shambel Sahlu, ´Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz, and Amare Abebe. Structure growth inf(Q) cosmology.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 539(2):690–703, 2025

work page 2025

[12] [12]

Saridakis, and Kuralay Yesmakhanova

Wompherdeiki Khyllep, Jibitesh Dutta, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, and Kuralay Yesmakhanova. Cosmology inf(Q) gravity: A unified dynamical system analysis at back- ground and perturbation levels.Physical Review D, 107(4):044022, 2023

work page 2023

[13] [13]

Cosmological so- lutions and growth index of matter perturbations inf(Q) gravity.Physical Review D, 103(10):103521, 2021

Wompherdeiki Khyllep, Andronikos Paliathanasis, and Jibitesh Dutta. Cosmological so- lutions and growth index of matter perturbations inf(Q) gravity.Physical Review D, 103(10):103521, 2021

work page 2021

[14] [14]

Con- straints on Power Law and Exponential models inf(Q) Gravity.Physics Letters B, 2024

Dalale Mhamdi, Farida Bargach, Safae Dahmani, Amine Bouali, and Taoufik Ouali. Con- straints on Power Law and Exponential models inf(Q) Gravity.Physics Letters B, 2024

work page 2024

[15] [15]

Saridakis

Hamid Shabani, Avik De, Tee-How Loo, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis. Cosmology off(Q) gravity in non-flat Universe.European Physical Journal C, 84:285, 2024

work page 2024

[16] [16]

The Einstein Telescope standard siren simulations forf(Q) cosmologies.European Physical Journal C, 85:358, 2025

Xianfu Su, Dongze He, and Yi Zhang. The Einstein Telescope standard siren simulations forf(Q) cosmologies.European Physical Journal C, 85:358, 2025. 8

work page 2025

[17] [17]

Constraints on f(Q) logarithmic model using gravitational wave standard sirens.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524(4):5280–5290, 2023

Jos´ e Antonio N´ ajera, Carlos Ar´ aoz Alvarado, and Celia Escamilla-Rivera. Constraints on f(Q) logarithmic model using gravitational wave standard sirens.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524(4):5280–5290, 2023

work page 2023

[18] [18]

Gadbail and P

Gaurav N. Gadbail and P. K. Sahoo. Modifiedf(Q) gravity models and their cosmological consequences.Chinese Journal of Physics, 89:1754–1762, 2024

work page 2024

[19] [19]

Testing Non-Coincidentf(Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs.Physics of the Dark Universe, 49:101993, 2025

Andronikos Paliathanasis. Testing Non-Coincidentf(Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs.Physics of the Dark Universe, 49:101993, 2025

work page 2025

[20] [20]

Exact cosmological solutions in non-coincidence f(Q)-theory.Nuclear Physics B, 1022:117262, 2026

Avik De and Andronikos Paliathanasis. Exact cosmological solutions in non-coincidence f(Q)-theory.Nuclear Physics B, 1022:117262, 2026

work page 2026

[21] [21]

Ayush Hazarika, Simran Arora, P. K. Sahoo, and Tiberiu Harko.f(Q,L m) gravity, and its cosmological implications.Physics of the Dark Universe, 50:102092, 2025

work page 2025

[22] [22]

Hough, Amare Abebe, and ´Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz

Shambel Sahlu, Renier T. Hough, Amare Abebe, and ´Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz. Con- straining viscous-fluid models inf(Q) gravity with data.European Physical Journal C, 2025

work page 2025

[23] [23]

Emergent Universe inf(Q) gravity theories

Hamid Shabani, Avik De, and Tee-How Loo. Emergent Universe inf(Q) gravity theories. Annals of Physics, 473:169865, 2025

work page 2025

[24] [24]

Observational constraints on the growth index parameters inf(Q) gravity.Fortschritte der Physik, 2025

Dalale Mhamdi, Safae Dahmani, Amine Bouali, Imad El Bojaddaini, and Taoufik Ouali. Observational constraints on the growth index parameters inf(Q) gravity.Fortschritte der Physik, 2025. 9

work page 2025