Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Two logarithmic f(Q) gravity models fit the latest cosmological data with nearly identical expansion histories, yet they predict opposite changes in the strength of gravity and in gravitational-wave damping at late times.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Two new logarithmic f(Q) gravity models fit current cosmological data and predict contrasting, testable deviations in the effective gravitational coupling and gravitational-wave damping.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection New log f(Q) models give opposite, testable predictions for Geff and GW damping, but those predictions rest on a quasi-static treatment of a strongly coupled theory, and the abstract misstates which model is phantom-like. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2508.21054 v1 pith:DBZOCO5E submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Constraints on Logarithmic Model Extensions of Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity

Purnendu Karmakar , Sandeep Haridasu , Atsushi Nishizawa This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph MSC 83D0583F0583C35 PACS 04.50.Kd95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords f(Q) gravitysymmetric teleparallel gravitylogarithmic modelsdark energy equation of stateeffective gravitational couplinggravitational wave dampingredshift space distortionsDESI DR2
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 seeks to establish that two new logarithmic versions of f(Q) gravity—an alternative to general relativity built on spacetime non-metricity rather than curvature—can fit the latest cosmology data as well as the standard model while disagreeing sharply about perturbative observables. The key move is a free parameter ξ that rescales the logarithm's argument, removing the need for the model to reduce to general relativity today; this makes the simple logarithmic model, with ξ fixed to zero, observationally inadequate. Fitting DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, Pantheon+ supernovae, CMB distance-ladder priors, and redshift-space-distortion growth data, the authors find that the generalized-log model predicts a late-time weakening of gravity by about 3–4%, while the inverse-log model predicts a comparable strengthening, with opposite signs for the gravitational-wave damping parameter. The two models also give different dark-energy equations of state—one phantom-like at late times, the other quintessence-like—offering two distinct responses to the DESI hints of evolving dark energy. The authors emphasize that these perturbative signatures are already fixed by the background fits and should be testable with future growth and gravitational-wave data.

Core claim

Within symmetric teleparallel gravity in the coincident-gauge coordinate choice Q = 6H², the paper introduces gLog, f(Q) = Q − Γ ln(E² + ξ), and iLog, f(Q) = Q − Γ / ln(E² + ξ), with E = H/H0 and Γ fixed by the flatness condition so each family has one free parameter ξ beyond ΛCDM. Bayesian fits show that ξ = 0 is excluded at more than 3σ and that the allowed models have nearly identical expansion histories to each other and to ΛCDM (H0 ≈ 69 km/s/Mpc, Ωm0 ≈ 0.30). The central result is the perturbative split: from the same background posteriors, the effective gravitational coupling today is μ0 ≈ 1.034 for iLog and μ0 ≈ 0.964 for gLog, so gravitational strength rises by ~3–4% in one model and

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the non-metricity scalar Q (set to 6H² in the chosen connection) and the two model functions with the rescaling parameter ξ: f(Q) = Q − Γ ln(E² + ξ) for gLog and f(Q) = Q − Γ / ln(E² + ξ) for iLog, with Γ fixed by the flatness/closure condition, and F denoting the non-linear part of f. From these functions the paper derives the effective gravitational coupling μ = 1/(1 + F_Q), the gravitational-wave damping parameter ν = 12 Hdot F_QQ / (1 + F_Q), and the dark-energy equation of state wde. The ξ parameter does the decisive work: it lets the two models share nearly the same background expansion while driving μ and ν in opposite directions, and it removes the teleol

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hidden degrees of freedom acknowledged to reappear at higher orders in every f(Q) model do not affect the sub-horizon scales used in the quasi-static growth and gravitational-wave equations; if they do, the predicted opposite 3–4% shifts in gravitational strength and the opposite GW damping signs would not be reliable.

What would settle it

Measure the redshift dependence of the effective gravitational coupling μ(z) at z < 1 with percent-level precision—through combined galaxy clustering and weak lensing, or through growth-rate data—and measure the gravitational-wave amplitude-damping parameter ν via standard-siren luminosity distances. If both remain consistent with general relativity (μ = 1, ν = 0) at the percent level, the gLog and iLog predictions fail together; if the deviation has a positive sign in μ, iLog survives and gLog is excluded, while the opposite sign would favor gLog.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The simple Log model with ξ=0 is excluded at more than 3σ, so any viable logarithmic f(Q) model needs the free normalization parameter ξ rather than the bare Q/Q0 form.
  • Because μ and ν are fixed by the background fits alone, current data already produce sign-definite, percent-level predictions for gravity's strength and gravitational-wave damping at z < 3.
  • RSD growth data do not yet discriminate between gLog and iLog; future measurements of growth, weak lensing, and gravitational-wave standard sirens should be able to tell the two models apart.
  • If the predictions hold, f(Q) geometry can mimic an evolving dark-energy fluid: gLog gives late-time phantom behavior and iLog gives quintessence-like late-time behavior, both consistent with the DESI DR2 dark-energy hints.
  • The 3–4% deviations occur only at z ≲ 3, after big-bang nucleosynthesis and recombination, so the models do not disturb early-universe physics or existing CMB constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the acknowledged strong-coupling hidden degrees of freedom leak into the quasi-static regime, the specific μ ≈ 1.034 and μ ≈ 0.964 values are forecasts for the cosmological branch only; a UV completion could change their size and even their sign.
  • The ξ-rescaling trick is general: applying the same argument shift to exponential or power-law f(Q) forms should generate other background-degenerate pairs with tunable perturbative signs, a useful design strategy for future modified-gravity surveys.
  • Combining standard-siren luminosity distances, which constrain the integrated ν, with RSD or lensing growth, which constrains μ, should break the gLog/iLog degeneracy; a future null detection of both deviations at the percent level would favor ΛCDM over both models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper constrains logarithmic extensions of f(Q) gravity against recent cosmological data. It introduces two models, gLog and iLog, whose background dynamics are nearly degenerate, and uses DESI DR2 BAO, Pantheon+ SNe, Planck Hrec/rd priors, and a compilation of RSD fσ8 data to constrain their parameters. The paper's central claim is that, despite the background degeneracy, the two models make complementary, testable predictions for the effective gravitational coupling μ and the gravitational-wave damping parameter ν: gLog gives μ0 ≈ 0.964 and ν0 > 0, while iLog gives μ0 ≈ 1.034 and ν0 < 0 (Table III, Fig. 5). The dark-energy equation of state and deceleration parameter are also derived, with gLog showing a phantom-like late-time behavior.

Significance. If the perturbative predictions are robust, the paper offers a useful illustration of how two modified-gravity models with nearly identical background histories can be distinguished through structure-growth and gravitational-wave observations. The background equations are derived cleanly, the analytic expressions for the models are explicit, and the Bayesian analysis uses standard public datasets, which are strengths. The paper also clearly acknowledges the well-known strong-coupling issue in f(Q) gravity. However, the paper's novelty rests precisely on the μ and ν predictions, and these are the least secure parts of the framework because they rely on linear quasi-static perturbation theory in a theory whose scalar sector is strongly coupled. The statistical analysis is otherwise standard, but the reported significance of some claims needs to be checked.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. I, Sec. II.2, Eqs. (21), (25), (46); Table III, Fig. 5] The central perturbative predictions are obtained from the quasi-static linear expressions μ = 1/f_Q and ν = 12ḢF_QQ/f_Q, inserted into the growth equation. The paper itself states (Sec. I) that all f(Q) models are strongly coupled at the fundamental level and that hidden degrees of freedom reappear at higher orders in perturbation theory. A linear-order stability check on the cosmological branch does not resolve this: the obstruction is a strong-coupling pathology of the scalar sector, not a background or linear instability, and the quasi-static growth equation is precisely a linear-order subhorizon observable. The paper should either estimate the strong-coupling scale and argue that it lies above the scales probed by the RSD and GW observations, or explicitly frame μ and ν as formal tree-level quantities in a truncated EFT and soften the claim that these are robust testable prediction
  2. [Abstract vs Sec. V.1 and Table III] The abstract states that the inverse Logarithmic (iLog) model accommodates a phantom-like dark-energy equation of state at late times, consistent with DESI DR2. However, Table III gives wde0 ≈ −0.995 for iLog (quintessence-like, wde0 > −1), and Sec. V.1 explicitly says that gLog is phantom at late times (wde0 ≈ −1.012) while iLog is phantom at z ≳ 1.5. This is an internal contradiction in a headline result. Please correct the abstract and any related summary text to attribute the late-time phantom behavior to gLog, or present the results consistently.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (24)] The chain of equalities in Eq. (24) appears to use H for both the conformal Hubble parameter in ν and the cosmic Hubble parameter in Q = 6H^2. The intermediate equality is not correct if the same symbol is used throughout; please clarify the notation. The final expression (25) is presumably the intended one.
  2. [Sec. IV] The text describes the DESY5 SNe sample, but no subsequent analysis uses it; the data combinations in Tables II and III use Pantheon+ only. Either remove the DESY5 description or present the corresponding results.
  3. [Sec. V, Table II] The text says that ξ = 0 is excluded at 'more than ∼3σ C.L.', while Table II reports a 95% lower limit log10 ξ > 0.918. A 95% one-sided limit corresponds to roughly 2σ, not 3σ. Please state the confidence level consistently and avoid overstating the significance.
  4. [Sec. V.1, near Fig. 3] The sentence 'indicating mild hints of phantom crossing at lower redshifts' is immediately followed by 'does not indicate any phantom crossing'. This is self-contradictory; please clarify the intended statement.
  5. [Acknowledgments] The JSPS grant number 'JP12345678' appears to be a placeholder and should be replaced with the actual grant number.
  6. [References] References [9] and [10] are the same paper (Beltrán Jiménez et al., Universe 5, 173 (2019)). They should be merged or distinguished.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the μ/ν predictions are genuine model outputs from background-fitted parameters, and the gLog/iLog complementarity is an explicitly stated ansatz property rather than a hidden circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for the purposes of a circularity check. Model parameters (Ωm0, H0, ξ, rd, σ8) are constrained with DESI BAO, Pantheon+, Planck priors, and RSD fσ8 data. The perturbative quantities μ = 1/f_Q (Eq. 21) and ν = 12 Hdot F_QQ/f_Q (Eq. 25) are then computed from the same f(Q) action and the fitted background evolution. These are model outputs, not quantities fitted to the same observables: no μ or ν measurement enters the likelihood, and the RSD likelihood uses fσ8 rather than μ itself. The fact that μ and ν are functions of background-fitted parameters is the normal status of a model prediction, not a fitted-input-called-prediction reduction. The 'complementary' sign difference between gLog and iLog is not derived from data; the Introduction explicitly states that the iLog model 'is designed to yield perturbative behavior opposite to that of gLog case.' That is an ansatz property, and the paper presents it as a testable prediction rather than as validation from the target data. The acknowledged strong-coupling obstruction (Sec. I, citing [69–71]) is a real physical limitation on the quasi-static linear equations, but it is a correctness/truncation risk, not circularity: the perturbation equations are not assumed because of the conclusions drawn. No load-bearing self-citations were found; author-involved references such as [80], [86], and [91] are standard external parameterizations and methods. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The new models introduce one free parameter ξ beyond the standard cosmological parameters. Γ is fixed by the flatness/closure condition, so it is not free. The models introduce no new physical entities; they are new functional forms of f(Q).

free parameters (6)
  • ξ (log10 ξ) = gLog: >0.918 (68% lower limit, log10 scale); iLog: 1.09+0.34-0.56 (68%) for DESI+Pan+rd
    New parameter in the generalized and inverse logarithmic models; controls the scale of the log argument and the perturbative predictions; constrained by background data.
  • Ωm0 = 0.3039 ± 0.0079 (gLog, DESI+Pan+rd)
    Matter density parameter, standard fit parameter.
  • H0 = 68.79 ± 0.50 (gLog, DESI+Pan+rd)
    Hubble constant, standard fit parameter.
  • Mb = -19.400 ± 0.014
    SNe absolute magnitude nuisance parameter.
  • rd = 147.24 ± 0.31
    Sound horizon at drag epoch, nuisance parameter in inverse distance ladder.
  • σ8 = 0.740 ± 0.023 (gLog, with RSD)
    Amplitude of matter fluctuations, constrained with RSD data.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Coordinate choice Q = 6H^2
    Assumed throughout the paper to express all f(Q) equations in terms of the Hubble rate; stated in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption Coincident gauge (vanishing affine connection)
    Restricts to the simplest connection; stated in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static approximation for scalar perturbations
    Used to derive μ = 1/f_Q in Eq. (21), valid on sub-horizon scales.
  • domain assumption Stability of the cosmological branch despite strong coupling
    The paper cites [69-71] noting f(Q) models are strongly coupled, but assumes the cosmological branch is free of explicit instabilities at background and linear order.
  • domain assumption Flatness of the universe
    Assumed in Eq. (15) and supported by CMB observations.
  • domain assumption Planck 2018 priors on rd and Hrec
    Used as external early-universe priors in the inverse distance ladder.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on Logarithmic Model Extensions of Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DBZOCO5E

@misc{pith2026250821054,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on Logarithmic Model Extensions of Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DBZOCO5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21054}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We address various cosmological phenomenologies in the symmetric teleparallel framework both in background and perturbation such as cosmic expansion, gravitational coupling constant, gravitational waves propagation. Focusing on logarithmic extensions of $f(Q)$ models, we performed Bayesian analysis using the most-recent cosmological data, DESI DR2, Pantheon+. We also utilized a compilation of redshift space distortions ($f \sigma_8$) dataset to constrain the growth of structures in each of the models modulated by the effective gravitational coupling. We find that our extended Logarithmic $f(Q)$ models are well-constrained by the current cosmological data and are able to describe the late-time cosmic acceleration. The inverse Logarithmic model we introduce is also able to accommodate a phantom-like dark energy equation of state at late times, which is consistent with the recent DESI DR2 observations. We report explicitly predictions for the effective gravitational coupling ($\mu$), and the amplitude damping parameter of gravitational wave ($\nu$) solely based on the background data, which can be tested against future observations. While the two Log-based extensions we have introduced here perform equivalently on the background level, they provide contrasting predictions for the evolution of effective Gravitational constant and propagation of gravitational waves, which should be constrained against the future perturbation data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21054 by Atsushi Nishizawa, Purnendu Karmakar, Sandeep Haridasu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Contours showing the 68% and 95% confidence levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Contours showing the 68% and 95% confidence levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Evolution of the dark energy equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Contours showing the 68% and 95% confidence levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dynamical Dark Energy or Modified Gravity? Signatures in Gravitational Wave Propagation

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0

    Reconstructing the dark energy density from DESI BAO and DESyr5 supernovae, then recasting it as f(Q) gravity, predicts a low-redshift gravitational wave damping ν≈0.18 (≳2σ from GR) only for the DESyr5 dataset.

  2. Polytropic $f(Q)$ cosmology and its implications for the $H_0$ tension

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Polytropic f(Q) cosmology with power-law f(Q) produces exact solutions whose Bayesian fits to data yield a specific status for the H0 tension.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Scolnic et al., Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Di Valentino et al

    E. Di Valentino et al. (CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Perivolaropoulos, Phys

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123518 (2024), arXiv:2408.11031 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [10]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, Universe 5, 173 (2019), arXiv:1903.06830 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [11]

    J. M. Nester and H.-J. Yo, Chin. J. Phys.37, 113 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9809049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  11. [12]

    Bahamonde, K

    S. Bahamonde, K. F. Dialektopoulos, C. Escamilla- Rivera, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, M. Hendry, M. Hohmann, J. Levi Said, J. Mifsud, and 12 E. Di Valentino, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, 026901 (2023), arXiv:2106.13793 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [13]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, T. S. Koivisto, and S. Pekar, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103507 (2020), arXiv:1906.10027 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [14]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010), arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [15]

    Ferreira, T

    J. Ferreira, T. Barreiro, J. Mimoso, and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123531 (2022), arXiv:2203.13788 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [16]

    Ferreira, (2023), arXiv:2303.12674 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Ferreira, (2023), arXiv:2303.12674 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [17]

    F. K. Anagnostopoulos, V. Gakis, E. N. Saridakis, and S. Basilakos, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 58 (2023), arXiv:2205.11445 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [18]

    Y. Yang, X. Ren, B. Wang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Sari- dakis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533, 2232 (2024), arXiv:2404.12140 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [19]

    G. N. Gadbail and P. K. Sahoo, Chin. J. Phys. 89, 1754 (2024), arXiv:2405.01594 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [20]

    X. Su, D. He, and Y. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 358 (2025), arXiv:2408.03725 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [21]

    G. N. Gadbail, S. Mandal, and P. K. Sahoo, Astrophys. J. 972, 174 (2024), arXiv:2404.13095 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [22]

    Mhamdi, F

    D. Mhamdi, F. Bargach, S. Dahmani, A. Bouali, and T. Ouali, Phys. Lett. B 859, 139113 (2024), arXiv:2410.10480 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [23]

    I. R. Vasquez and A. Oliveros, Gen. Rel. Grav. 57, 67 (2025), arXiv:2501.12585 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [24]

    Ayuso, M

    I. Ayuso, M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, C.-Y. Chen, X. Y. Chew, K. Dialektopoulos, and Y. C. Ong, (2025), arXiv:2506.03506 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [25]

    B. C. Roy, A. Beesham, and B. C. Paul, (2025), arXiv:2504.15680 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [26]

    C. G. Boiza, M. Petronikolou, M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, and E. N. Saridakis, (2025), arXiv:2505.18264 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Frusciante, Phys

    N. Frusciante, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044021 (2021), arXiv:2101.09242 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [28]

    V. K. Bhardwaj, P. Garg, and S. Prakash, Astrophys. Space Sci. 369, 50 (2024)

    2024

  28. [29]

    Sahlu, ´A

    S. Sahlu, ´A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, and A. Abebe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 539, 690 (2025), arXiv:2405.07361 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    Enkhili, S

    O. Enkhili, S. Dahmani, D. Mhamdi, T. Ouali, and A. Errahmani, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 806 (2024), arXiv:2407.12236 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [31]

    Kolhatkar, S

    A. Kolhatkar, S. S. Mishra, and P. K. Sahoo, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 888 (2024), arXiv:2409.01538 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [32]

    Sakr and L

    Z. Sakr and L. Schey, JCAP 10, 052 (2024), arXiv:2405.03627 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [33]

    Q. Wang, X. Ren, Y.-F. Cai, W. Luo, and E. N. Sari- dakis, Astrophys. J. 974, 7 (2024), arXiv:2406.00242 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101993 (2025), arXiv:2504.11132 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    D’Agostino and R

    R. D’Agostino and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124053 (2022), arXiv:2210.11935 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [36]

    J. A. N´ ajera, C. A. Alvarado, and C. Escamilla- Rivera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 5280 (2023), arXiv:2304.12601 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [37]

    F. K. Anagnostopoulos, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B 822, 136634 (2021), arXiv:2104.15123 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [38]

    T. B. Gon¸ calves, L. Atayde, and N. Frusciante, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084003 (2024), arXiv:2404.01742 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [39]

    Jarv and L

    L. Jarv and L. Pati, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064069 (2024), arXiv:2309.04262 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [40]

    Bahamonde and L

    S. Bahamonde and L. J¨ arv, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 963 (2022), arXiv:2208.01872 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [41]

    Heisenberg, Phys

    L. Heisenberg, Phys. Rept. 1066, 1 (2024), arXiv:2309.15958 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [43]

    Nesseris, G

    S. Nesseris, G. Pantazis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 96, 023542 (2017), arXiv:1703.10538 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [44]

    A. Kar, S. Sadhukhan, and U. Debnath, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 37, 2250183 (2022), arXiv:2109.10906 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [45]

    Capozziello and R

    S. Capozziello and R. D’Agostino, Phys. Lett. B 832, 137229 (2022), arXiv:2204.01015 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [46]

    G. N. Gadbail, S. Mandal, and P. K. Sahoo, Phys. Lett. B 835, 137509 (2022), arXiv:2210.09237 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [47]

    G. N. Gadbail, S. Arora, and P. K. Sahoo, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137710 (2023), arXiv:2301.08876 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [48]

    D. M. Naik, N. S. Kavya, L. Sudharani, and V. Venkate- sha, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 840 (2023)

    2023

  48. [49]

    Mahmood, H

    I. Mahmood, H. Sohail, A. Ditta, S. H. Shekh, and A. K. Yadav, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 21, 2450204 (2024), arXiv:2311.16527 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [50]

    G. N. Gadbail, A. De, and P. K. Sahoo, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1099 (2023), arXiv:2312.02492 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [51]

    A. Z. Kaczmarek, Nucl. Phys. B 1007, 116677 (2024), arXiv:2401.04084 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    A. Z. Kaczmarek, J. L. Rosa, and D. Szcz¸ e´ sniak, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 203 (2025), arXiv:2410.00707 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    G. N. Gadbail, S. Mandal, P. K. Sahoo, and K. Bamba, Phys. Lett. B 860, 139232 (2025), arXiv:2411.00051 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [54]

    El Ouardi, A

    R. El Ouardi, A. Bouali, S. Dahmani, A. Errahmani, and T. Ouali, Phys. Lett. B 863, 139374 (2025)

    2025

  54. [55]

    A. K. Yadav, S. R. Bhoyar, M. C. Dhabe, S. H. Shekh, and N. Ahmad, JHEAp 43, 114 (2024)

    2024

  55. [56]

    D. Saha, M. Chakrabortty, and A. K. Sanyal, Universe 10, 44 (2024), arXiv:2401.11226 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [57]

    Esposito, S

    F. Esposito, S. Carloni, R. Cianci, and S. Vignolo, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084061 (2022), arXiv:2107.14522 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [58]

    Kang, Phys

    J. Kang, Phys. Dark Univ. 31, 100784 (2021), arXiv:2102.04232 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [59]

    I. S. Albuquerque and N. Frusciante, Phys. Dark Univ. 35, 100980 (2022), arXiv:2202.04637 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [60]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [61]

    Basilakos, A

    S. Basilakos, A. Paliathanasis, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139658 (2025), arXiv:2503.19864 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    Late-time cosmology with phantom dark-energy in $f(Q)$ gravity

    A. Lymperis, JCAP 11, 018 (2022), arXiv:2207.10997 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [63]

    S. A. Narawade and B. Mishra, Annalen Phys. 535, 2200626 (2023), arXiv:2211.09701 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [64]

    Arora and P

    S. Arora and P. K. Sahoo, Annalen Phys. 534, 2200233 (2022), arXiv:2206.05110 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [65]

    K. Hu, T. Katsuragawa, and T. Qiu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044025 (2022), arXiv:2204.12826 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [66]

    D’Ambrosio, L

    F. D’Ambrosio, L. Heisenberg, and S. Zentarra, Fortsch. Phys. 71, 2300185 (2023), arXiv:2308.02250 13 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [67]

    Tomonari and S

    K. Tomonari and S. Bahamonde, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 349 (2024), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 508 (2024)], arXiv:2308.06469 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [68]

    Guzman, (2023), arXiv:2311.01424 [gr-qc]

    M.-J. Guzman, (2023), arXiv:2311.01424 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  68. [69]

    D. A. Gomes, J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, A. J. Cano, and T. S. Koivisto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 141401 (2024), arXiv:2311.04201 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [70]

    Moreover, a possible ghost-free class of symmetric teleparallel the- ories based on a symmetry under transverse diffeomor- phisms has recently been proposed [71]

    show that for the simple connection set (which we adopt here) exhibit stable behaviour throughout all evo- lutionary epochs in the GR regime, and the general con- ditions for the physically viable f(Q) models. Moreover, a possible ghost-free class of symmetric teleparallel the- ories based on a symmetry under transverse diffeomor- phisms has recently been...

    2018

  70. [71]

    Guzm´ an, L

    M.-J. Guzm´ an, L. J¨ arv, and L. Pati, Phys. Rev. D110, 124013 (2024), arXiv:2406.11621 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [72]

    A. G. Bello-Morales, J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, A. Jim´ enez Cano, T. S. Koivisto, and A. L. Maroto, JHEP 12, 146 (2024), arXiv:2406.19355 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [73]

    Dutta, W

    J. Dutta, W. Khyllep, S. Chakraborty, D. Gregoris, and K. Karwan, (2025), arXiv:2508.09530 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  73. [74]

    Khyllep, J

    W. Khyllep, J. Dutta, E. N. Saridakis, and K. Yesmakhanova, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044022 (2023), arXiv:2207.02610 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [75]

    S. A. Narawade, L. Pati, B. Mishra, and S. K. Tripathy, Phys. Dark Univ. 36, 101020 (2022), arXiv:2203.14121 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [76]

    Revisiting Coincident GR in Internal STEGR Formulation

    K. Tomonari, T. Katsuragawa, and S. Nojiri, (2025), arXiv:2506.22158 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [77]

    S. R. Green and R. M. Wald, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 234003 (2014), arXiv:1407.8084 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  77. [78]

    We assume that the matter, i.e., baryons and CDMis pressureless (pm = 0) dust

  78. [79]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [80]

    Amendola, M

    L. Amendola, M. Kunz, and D. Sapone, JCAP 04, 013 (2008), arXiv:0704.2421 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  80. [81]

    Nishizawa, Phys

    A. Nishizawa, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104037 (2018), arXiv:1710.04825 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.