Late-time dark energy dynamics in $f(Q)$ gravity: A data-driven analysis

Kangujam Priyokumar Singh; Kshetrimayum Govind Singh

REVIEW

Late-time dark energy dynamics in $f(Q)$ gravity: A data-driven analysis

Kshetrimayum Govind Singh, Kangujam Priyokumar Singh

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology · Submitted 30 Aug 2026 · 80 references

Pith's verdict: Competent phenomenological fit of f(Q) gravity, but most headline qualitative results follow from the EoS ansatz, not independent tests of the theory.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on September 9, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2609.01650 (version 1)

Pith IDLC3XCM6U, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationKangujam Priyokumar Singh, Kshetrimayum Govind Singh. "Late-time dark energy dynamics in $f(Q)$ gravity: A data-driven analysis." arXiv:2609.01650 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LC3XCM6U

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Here's my take on the f(Q) paper. The posterior constraints on (H0, m, n, γ, rd) from CC+DESI DR2+three SN compilations are genuinely new for this model, and the statistical reporting is honest—they give AIC and BIC and note that BIC favors ΛCDM for two of three combinations. The paper is internally consistent and the fits look fine.

That said, the stress-test concern lands. The EoS ansatz ω(z) = -1/(1+γ(1+z)^n) restricts the effective EoS to (-1,0) for all z, so the 'reconstructed' quintessence-like behavior, deceleration-acceleration transition, decreasing Om(z), and statefinder trajectories are consequences of that choice, not independent validations of f(Q) gravity. The paper implicitly concedes this in Section 3 but later presents those as separate findings. That's a presentation issue more than a technical error, but it inflates the apparent support for the model.

Other soft spots: parameter correlations are high (0.86–0.93 among m, n, γ), so the model may be overparameterized for these datasets. The nested nature of ΛCDM (m=0, n=3, γ = Ω_m/(1-Ω_m)) is not emphasized—BIC is the decisive statistic, and the paper's BIC results favor ΛCDM for the two largest datasets. No code or MCMC chains are provided. The BAO description is slightly ambiguous about Lyman-α points.

Overall, this is a solid, honest phenomenological analysis that adds one more modified-gravity model to the catalog of frameworks consistent with late-time background data. It doesn't resolve tensions or break new ground theoretically, but it's competently done.

Recommendation: Send to peer review. A good referee can push for more careful framing and uncertainty reporting on derived quantities, but the paper deserves a hearing.

Referee report

Significance

If the central claim were true—that the observed expansion history genuinely tests and supports f(Q) gravity over ΛCDM—this would be a noteworthy contribution to modified gravity cosmology, especially given the inclusion of DESI DR2 BAO. However, the significance is substantially undermined because the key qualitative results are enforced by the assumed EoS parametrization (Eq. 3.1), not by the f(Q) structure. The analysis is technically competent: the MCMC chain is well-conducted, the χ² and information criteria values are internally consistent, and the paper is clearly written. The strongest positive aspect is the demonstration that a particular EoS parametrization fits the data well, but this does not constitute a test of f(Q) gravity beyond what a generic quintessence model would provide.

Major objections (3)

[Section 3, Eq. (3.1), and Section 7] The central qualitative results—quintessence-like EoS, deceleration-acceleration transition near z~0.7, decreasing Om(z), Statefinder trajectories in the quintessence region—are all direct consequences of the assumed functional form ω(z) = -1/[1+γ(1+z)^n] (Eq. 3.1), which restricts ω to (-1,0) at all redshifts. The paper itself states in Section 3 that this form 'remains bounded within the interval -1<ω<0 ... implying the model remains in the quintessence regime' and then later (Section 7) presents the same behavior as an empirical finding supporting f(Q) gravity. This circular reasoning invalidates the claim that the f(Q) model is genuinely tested. The data are only constraining the parameters of the EoS ansatz; the f(Q) gravity has no independent observable signature at the background level because H(z) in Eq. (3.8) is simply the functional form of that EoS integrated. The paper should either reframe the analysis as a test of the EoS parametrization with a specific mapping to f(Q) parameters, or include a direct reconstruction from the f(Q) field equations without imposing the effective EoS ansatz.
[Section 2, Eq. (2.16) and Section 3, Eq. (3.6)] The derivation from the f(Q) field equations to the effective EoS in Eq. (3.6) uses the power-law form f(Q)=βQ^{m+1}. Crucially, the parameter β cancels out of the expression for ω (Eq. 3.6) and therefore does not appear in the Hubble parameter (Eq. 3.8) or any observational prediction. The only free parameters from the f(Q) sector that affect the expansion history are m, n, and γ (via Eq. 3.8). This means the background analysis is insensitive to the overall amplitude β; the model cannot be tested at the background level beyond the chosen EoS parametrization. This should be explicitly acknowledged, and the role of β clarified (it is not a free parameter for background observations).
[Table 3 and Section 4.6] The statistical model comparison shows that the f(Q) model is favored by AIC but not by BIC for the two largest datasets (Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR), with ΔBIC = +9.07 and +3.14 respectively. Given that the f(Q) model adds at most one effective free parameter (the EoS shape parameters n and γ, as m is degenerate with the combination), the BIC penalty is appropriate. The paper correctly reports this, but the abstract and conclusion overstate the support by emphasizing only the AIC result. The manuscript should include a balanced discussion that the BIC, which is more conservative for large N, does not prefer the f(Q) model, and that the comparison is essentially a test of the EoS parametrization rather than a test of f(Q) gravity.

Minor objections (6)

[Section 2, Eq. (2.10)] The non-metricity scalar for FLRW is given as Q=6H^2. Please verify the sign convention and reference to the literature, as different sign conventions exist.
[Section 4.3, Pantheon+ description] The paper states that 77 SH0ES Cepheid-calibrator supernovae are excluded, leaving 1624 non-calibrator SNe Ia. Please confirm the exact number after exclusion, as the original Pantheon+ sample contains 1701 light curves, and 1624 is plausible. A brief justification for the exclusion would be helpful.
[Figure 4 and Figure 5] The axes labels for H(z) difference in Figure 5 have units [km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}]; this is correct but the labels are slightly cramped. Consider adding a small gap. Also, the ΛCDM reference line in Figure 5 is a solid black curve at zero; it would be clearer to use a dashed or dotted line to distinguish from the data-dependent curves.
[Section 4.5, Eq. (4.13)-(4.14)] The expressions for energy density and pressure contain β, but β cancels in the EoS ratio. Since β is not constrained by the likelihood (it only appears as a multiplicative factor), it would be clearer to note that the absolute values of ρ and p are not determined by the background data; only the ratio matters. The figures (7,8) show qualitative behavior but the vertical scale is arbitrary unless β is fixed.
[General] There are several minor typographical issues: in the abstract, 'km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}' appears without a multiplication dot; in the text, '1σ' should be written as '1σ' consistently (the Greek letter sigma appears correctly in most places but check PDF rendering). Also, 'Statefinder' is capitalized inconsistently (e.g., 'statefinder' in some places).
[Table 1] The units for H(z) are given as km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, which is standard. However, the column header could be cleaner: perhaps 'H(z) [km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}]' to match the main text.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A data-driven analysis shows that a power-law f(Q) gravity model provides a viable and competitive description of late-time cosmic acceleration, yielding H0 values consistent across supernova compilations and quintessence-like behavior.

The reading

This paper tests whether symmetric teleparallel f(Q) gravity, with a power-law form f(Q)=$βQ^{{m+1}}$, can describe the late-time accelerated expansion of the universe. The authors characterize the cosmic fluid through a two-parameter effective equation of state ω(z) = -1/(1+γ(1+z)^n) and constrain the model using cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, and three independent Type Ia supernova compilations. They find that the model fits the data competitively with flat ΛCDM: it yields lower χ²_min and is favored by the AIC for all dataset combinations, while the BIC favors ΛCDM for the larger datasets and shows no preference for the smaller Union3 combination. The inferred Hubble constant values are mutually consistent and compatible with Planck 2018, and the reconstructed expansion history shows quintessence-like dark energy with a deceleration-to-acceleration transition at z≈0.7. The paper establishes that the proposed f(Q) model is an observationally viable and statistically competitive alternative to the standard cosmological model at the background level.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the power-law f(Q) gravity model f(Q)=$βQ^{{m+1}}$ combined with the effective equation-of-state parametrization ω(z) = -1/(1+γ(1+z)^n). The Hubble parameter derived from these two choices is H(z) = H0 [(1+γ(1+z)^n)/(1+γ)]^{3/[2n(m+1)]}, which directly links the free parameters (m, γ, n) to the observable expansion history. The analysis uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to fit this H(z) to cosmic chronometer, DESI DR2 BAO, and Type Ia supernova data, producing posterior constraints and model comparison metrics (χ²_min, AIC, BIC).

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the power-law f(Q) gravity model, when fitted via the phenomenological EoS parametrization ω(z) = -1/(1+γ(1+z)^n, provides an observationally viable and competitive description of late-time cosmic acceleration. Using combined datasets (CC + DESI DR2 BAO + Pantheon+/DES-SN5YR/Union3), the model obtains H0 ≈ 67–68 km/s/Mpc, consistent with Planck 2018, and produces a present-day effective EoS ω0 between –0.68 and –0.77 (quintessence-like), a deceleration parameter q0 ≈ –0.4, and a transition redshift z_t ≈ 0.68–0.74. Statistically, the model yields lower χ²_min values than flat ΛCDM and is preferred by AIC (ΔAIC from –1.8 to –7.9), whereas BIC (ΔBIC from +0.2 to +9.1) favors ΛCDM for the two larger datasets, indicating that the improved fit does not always compensate for the extra parameters. The Statefinder and Om(z) diagnostics support quintessence-like behavior and approach the ΛCDM fixed point in the far future. The authors conclude that the power-law f(Q) model is a viable and competitive alternative to ΛCDM for describing late-time cosmic acceleration.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes a fixed two-parameter form for the effective equation of state, ω(z) = -1/(1+γ(1+z)^n) with γ>0 and n>0, which confines the effective EoS to the range (-1,0) at all redshifts and forces a smooth matter-to-quintessence transition—if the true cosmic dynamics involve phantom behavior (ω< -1) or a different transition shape, the pipeline cannot detect it and the recovered parameters would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, the power-law f(Q) model provides a viable geometric alternative to dark energy for explaining cosmic acceleration at the background level, without requiring a cosmological constant.
The inferred H0 values (~67–68 km/s/Mpc) are consistent with Planck 2018 and do not exacerbate the Hubble tension; they lie between early- and late-time estimates.
The robust deceleration-to-acceleration transition redshift (0.68 ≤ z_t ≤ 0.745) across three independent SN compilations suggests a model-independent feature of the late-time expansion history.
Higher-order cosmographic parameters (j0 < 1) and Statefinder trajectories indicate that the model departs from ΛCDM kinematically while still evolving toward the ΛCDM fixed point in the far future—this offers testable predictions for future surveys like Euclid and the Vera Rubin Observatory.

Reading between the lines

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

The analysis only tests background expansion; the model's viability at the perturbation level (e.g., growth of structure, redshift-space distortions) remains unaddressed and is the next logical step to discriminate between f(Q) and ΛCDM.
The strong correlation between parameters m, n, and γ (correlation coefficients ~0.9) suggests that the effective EoS form may be over-parameterized for the current data; a model with fewer degrees of freedom might yield a clearer statistical comparison.
The BIC preference for ΛCDM in the larger datasets implies that future data with even larger sample sizes will likely penalize the extra parameters further, unless the f(Q) model provides a better fit that outpaces the penalty—this can be tested with next-generation BAO and supernova surveys.
The assumed ω(z) form is bounded to the interval (-1,0) and cannot produce a phantom crossing; if future data show evidence for w < -1 at any redshift, this specific parametrization would be ruled out, but alternative f(Q) models (e.g., with a different f(Q) or different EoS) could still be considered.

Original abstract

The increasing precision and complementarity of late-time cosmological observations provide new opportunities to test modified gravity against the observed expansion history of the universe. The combination of DESI DR2 BAO measurements with cosmic chronometers (CC) and independent Type Ia supernova compilations provides a data-driven test of cosmic acceleration. Motivated by this progress, we investigate late-time dark energy dynamics in symmetric teleparallel $f(Q)$ gravity by adopting the power-law form $f(Q)=\beta Q^{m+1}$ and characterizing cosmic evolution through the effective equation of state (EoS) parameter. The model is constrained using CC, DESI DR2 BAO and three independent Type Ia supernova compilations, namely Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3. The inferred Hubble constant values are mutually consistent, yielding $H_0=67.60^{+1.60}_{-1.66}$, $67.08^{+1.66}_{-1.61}$ and $68.16^{+1.46}_{-1.43}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, respectively. Statistically, the proposed $f(Q)$ model yields lower $\chi^2_{\min}$ values and is favored by the AIC for all dataset combinations, whereas the BIC favors $\Lambda$CDM for the CC + DESI DR2 + Pantheon+ and CC + DESI DR2 + DES-SN5YR combinations and indicates no meaningful preference between the two models for the CC + DESI DR2 + Union3 dataset combinations. The reconstructed EoS indicates quintessence-like behavior, while the negative deceleration parameter confirms the current accelerated expansion. The transition from deceleration to acceleration occurs within $0.680\leq z_t\leq0.745$. Higher-order cosmographic parameters and the Statefinder and $Om(z)$ diagnostics consistently support this quintessence-like behavior, with the Statefinder trajectories approaching the $\Lambda$CDM fixed point in the far future. Overall, the power-law $f(Q)$ model provides a viable and competitive description of late-time cosmic acceleration.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 8,077 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.50 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.53 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.90 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

The increasing precision and complementarity of late-time cosmological observations provide new opportunities to test modified gravity against the observed expansion history of the universe. The combination of DESI DR2 BAO measurements with cosmic chronometers (CC) and independent Type Ia supernova compilations provides a data-driven test of cosmic acceleration. Motivated by this progress, we investigate late-time dark energy dynamics in symmetric teleparallel $f(Q)$ gravity by adopting the power-law form $f(Q)=\beta Q^{m+1}$ and characterizing cosmic evolution through the effective equation of state (EoS) parameter. The model is constrained using CC, DESI DR2 BAO and three independent Type Ia supernova compilations, namely Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3. The inferred Hubble constant values are mutually consistent, yielding $H_0=67.60^{+1.60}_{-1.66}$, $67.08^{+1.66}_{-1.61}$ and $68.16^{+1.46}_{-1.43}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, respectively. Statistically, the proposed $f(Q)$ model yields lower $\chi^2_{\min}$ values and is favored by the AIC for all dataset combinations, whereas the BIC favors $\Lambda$CDM for the CC + DESI DR2 + Pantheon+ and CC + DESI DR2 + DES-SN5YR combinations and indicates no meaningful preference between the two models for the CC + DESI DR2 + Union3 dataset combinations. The reconstructed EoS indicates quintessence-like behavior, while the negative deceleration parameter confirms the current accelerated expansion. The transition from deceleration to acceleration occurs within $0.680\leq z_t\leq0.745$. Higher-order cosmographic parameters and the Statefinder and $Om(z)$ diagnostics consistently support this quintessence-like behavior, with the Statefinder trajectories approaching the $\Lambda$CDM fixed point in the far future. Overall, the power-law $f(Q)$ model provides a viable and competitive description of late-time cosmic acceleration.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	The increasing precision and complementarity of late-time cosmological observations provide new opportunities to test modified gravity against the observed expansion history of the universe.	background 1.00	0.05	0.02	asserted 0.81
s1	The combination of DESI DR2 BAO measurements with cosmic chronometers (CC) and independent Type Ia supernova compilations provides a data-driven test of cosmic acceleration.	method 0.59	0.28	0.03	asserted 0.99
s2	Motivated by this progress, we investigate late-time dark energy dynamics in symmetric teleparallel $f(Q)$ gravity by adopting the power-law form $f(Q)=\beta Q^{m+1}$ and characterizing cosmic evolution through the effective equation of state (EoS) parameter.	contribution 0.86	0.86	0.04	asserted 0.92
s3	The model is constrained using CC, DESI DR2 BAO and three independent Type Ia supernova compilations, namely Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3.	method 0.99	0.85	0.02	asserted 1.00
s4	The inferred Hubble constant values are mutually consistent, yielding $H_0=67.60^{+1.60}_{-1.66}$, $67.08^{+1.66}_{-1.61}$ and $68.16^{+1.46}_{-1.43}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, respectively.	result 1.00	0.93	0.04	asserted 1.00
s5	Statistically, the proposed $f(Q)$ model yields lower $\chi^2_{\min}$ values and is favored by the AIC for all dataset combinations, whereas the BIC favors $\Lambda$CDM for the CC + DESI DR2 + Pantheon+ and CC + DESI DR2 + DES-SN5YR combinations and indicates no meaningful preference between the two models for the CC + DESI DR2 + Union3 dataset combinations.	result 0.97	0.95	0.16	asserted 0.99
s6	The reconstructed EoS indicates quintessence-like behavior, while the negative deceleration parameter confirms the current accelerated expansion.	result 0.72	0.92	0.12	asserted 0.70
s7	The transition from deceleration to acceleration occurs within $0.680\leq z_t\leq0.745$.	result 1.00	0.92	0.04	asserted 1.00
s8	Higher-order cosmographic parameters and the Statefinder and $Om(z)$ diagnostics consistently support this quintessence-like behavior, with the Statefinder trajectories approaching the $\Lambda$CDM fixed point in the far future.	result 0.90	0.91	0.07	asserted 0.99
s9	Overall, the power-law $f(Q)$ model provides a viable and competitive description of late-time cosmic acceleration.	interpretation 0.95	0.83	0.93	asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 0.60 · evidence from analysis of existing data 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (80)

[1]

A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M. Garnavich et al., Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,The Astronomical Journal116(1998) 1009

View on Pith 1998
[2]

S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop, P. Nugent, P.G. Castro et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,The Astrophysical Journal517 (1999) 565

View on Pith 1999
[3]

A.G. Riess, L.-G. Strolger, J. Tonry, S. Casertano, H.C. Ferguson, B. Mobasher et al.,Type Ia Supernova Discoveries atz >1from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution,The Astrophysical Journal607(2004) 665

View on Pith 2004
[4]

R.R. Caldwell and M. Doran,Cosmic microwave background and supernova constraints on quintessence: Concordance regions and target models,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 103517

View on Pith 2004
[5]

D.J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D.W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro, M.R. Blanton, R.C. Nichol et al., Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal633(2005) 560

View on Pith 2005
[6]

W.J. Percival, B.A. Reid, D.J. Eisenstein, N.A. Bahcall, T. Budavari, J.A. Frieman et al., Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sample, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society401(2010) 2148

View on Pith 2010
[7]

T. Koivisto and D.F. Mota,Dark energy anisotropic stress and large scale structure formation, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 083502

View on Pith 2006
[8]

S.F. Daniel, R.R. Caldwell, A. Cooray and A. Melchiorri,Large scale structure as a probe of gravitational slip,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 103513

View on Pith 2008
[9]

D.N. Spergel, L. Verde, H.V. Peiris, E. Komatsu, M.R. Nolta, C.L. Bennett et al.,First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series148(2003) 175. – 27 –

View on Pith 2003
[10]

M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C.A. Prieto et al.,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D 112(2025) 083515

View on Pith 2025
[11]

A. Einstein,Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,Annalen der Physik354(1916) 769

View on Pith 1916
[12]

S. Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem,Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989) 1

View on Pith 1989
[13]

N. Dalal, K. Abazajian, E. Jenkins and A.V. Manohar,Testing the Cosmic Coincidence Problem and the Nature of Dark Energy,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 141302

View on Pith 2001
[14]

L. Verde, T. Treu and A.G. Riess,Tensions between the early and late Universe,Nature Astronomy3(2019) 891

View on Pith 2019
[15]

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri et al.,In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,Classical and Quantum Gravity38(2021) 153001

View on Pith 2021
[16]

E.J. COPELAND, M. SAMI and S. TSUJIKAWA,DYNAMICS OF DARK ENERGY, International Journal of Modern Physics D15(2006) 1753

View on Pith 2006
[17]

C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov and P.J. Steinhardt,Essentials of k-essence,Phys. Rev. D 63(2001) 103510

View on Pith 2001
[18]

J.S. Bagla, H.K. Jassal and T. Padmanabhan,Cosmology with tachyon field as dark energy, Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 063504

View on Pith 2003
[19]

M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A.A. Sen,Generalized Chaplygin gas, accelerated expansion, and dark-energy-matter unification,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 043507

View on Pith 2002
[20]

U. Debnath, A. Banerjee and S. Chakraborty,Role of modified Chaplygin gas in accelerated universe,Classical and Quantum Gravity21(2004) 5609

View on Pith 2004
[21]

H.A. Buchdahl,Non-Linear Lagrangians and Cosmological Theory,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society150(1970) 1

View on Pith 1970
[22]

A. Starobinsky,A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,Physics Letters B91(1980) 99

View on Pith 1980
[23]

T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov,f(R,T)gravity,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 024020

View on Pith 2011
[24]

T. Harko and F.S. Lobo,f(R,Lm)gravity,The European Physical Journal C70(2010) 373

View on Pith 2010
[25]

R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini,Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without an inflaton,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 084031

View on Pith 2007
[26]

J.B. Jiménez, L. Heisenberg and T. Koivisto,Coincident general relativity,Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 044048

View on Pith 2018
[27]

L. Heisenberg,Review onf(Q)gravity,Physics Reports1066(2024) 1

View on Pith 2024
[28]

H. Shabani, A. De, T.-H. Loo and E.N. Saridakis,Cosmology off(Q)gravity in non-flat Universe,The European Physical Journal C84(2024) 285

View on Pith 2024
[29]

S. Mandal, P.K. Sahoo and J.R.L. Santos,Energy conditions inf(Q)gravity,Phys. Rev. D 102(2020) 024057

View on Pith 2020
[30]

R. Solanki, S. Pacif, A. Parida and P. Sahoo,Cosmic acceleration with bulk viscosity in modifiedf(Q)gravity,Physics of the Dark Universe32(2021) 100820

View on Pith 2021
[31]

K.G. Singh and K.P. Singh,Observational constraints on cosmic evolution inf(Q)gravity using logarithmicOm(z)parametrization,The European Physical Journal Plus141(2026) 971

View on Pith 2026
[32]

S. Arora and M. Patel,Bayesian and machine-learning analyses of nonminimalf(Q)gravity and H0 tension,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics54(2026) 100682. – 28 –

View on Pith 2026
[33]

G. Nashed, P. Tretyakov and A. Eid,Late-time cosmology and structure formation in quadratic f(Q)gravity,Physics Letters B878(2026) 140575

View on Pith 2026
[34]

A. Paliathanasis,Observational constraints on noncoincidentf(Q)-gravity with matter-gravity coupling,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics53(2026) 100609

View on Pith 2026
[35]

A. Kolhatkar and P. Sahoo,Beyond the cosmological constant: Breaking the geometric degeneracy off(Q)cosmology via redshift-space distortions,Physics Letters B879(2026) 140709

View on Pith 2026
[36]

R. Mazumdar, K. Malakar and K. Bhuyan,Fractional holographic dark energy driven reconstruction off(Q)gravity and its cosmological implications,Classical and Quantum Gravity43(2026) 085004

View on Pith 2026
[37]

S. Chakraborty, J. Dutta, D. Gregoris, K. Karwan and W. Khyllep,ReproducingΛCDM-like solutions inf(Q)gravity: a comprehensive study across all connection branches,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(2025) 098

View on Pith 2025
[38]

V.C. Dubey, U.K. Sharma, S. Ray and A. Sanyal,Study of cosmological dark energy models underf(Q)gravity,Physics of the Dark Universe47(2025) 101736

View on Pith 2025
[39]

A.K. Yadav, S. Bhoyar, M. Dhabe, S. Shekh and N. Ahmad,Reconstructingf(Q)gravity from parameterization of the Hubble parameter and observational constraints,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics43(2024) 114

View on Pith 2024
[40]

S. Narawade, S.P. Singh and B. Mishra,Accelerating cosmological models inf(Q)gravity and the phase space analysis,Physics of the Dark Universe42(2023) 101282

View on Pith 2023
[41]

M. Koussour, S. Shekh and M. Bennai,Cosmic acceleration and energy conditions in symmetric teleparallelf(Q)gravity,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics35(2022) 43

View on Pith 2022
[42]

A. Lymperis,Late-time cosmology with phantom dark-energy inf(Q)gravity,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(2022) 018

View on Pith 2022
[43]

R. Lazkoz, F.S.N. Lobo, M. Ortiz-Baños and V. Salzano,Observational constraints off(Q) gravity,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 104027

View on Pith 2019
[44]

A. Mukherjee,Acceleration of the universe: a reconstruction of the effective equation of state, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460(2016) 273

View on Pith 2016
[45]

K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W.L. Matthewson, A. Shafieloo, M. Ishak, J. Pan et al.,Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083511

View on Pith 2025
[46]

D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,The Astrophysical Journal938(2022) 110

View on Pith 2022
[47]

D.C.T.M.C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves et al.,The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,The Astrophysical Journal Letters973(2024) L14

View on Pith 2024
[48]

D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A.G. Kim et al.,Union through UNITY: Cosmology with 2000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,The Astrophysical Journal986(2025) 231

View on Pith 2025
[49]

D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125(2013) 306

View on Pith 2013
[50]

B. Ryden,Introduction to Cosmology Addison Wesley,San Francisco, USA(2003)

View on Pith 2003
[51]

M. CHEVALLIER and D. POLARSKI,ACCELERATING UNIVERSES WITH SCALING DARK MATTER,International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2001) 213

View on Pith 2001
[52]

E.V. Linder,Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 091301. – 29 –

View on Pith 2003
[53]

J. Weller and A. Albrecht,Future supernovae observations as a probe of dark energy,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 103512

View on Pith 2002
[54]

G. Efstathiou,Constraining the equation of state of the Universe from distant Type Ia supernovae and cosmic microwave background anisotropies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society310(1999) 842

View on Pith 1999
[55]

H.K. Jassal, J.S. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan,Observational constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy: How consistent are different observations?,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 103503

View on Pith 2005
[56]

E. Barboza and J. Alcaniz,A parametric model for dark energy,Physics Letters B666(2008) 415

View on Pith 2008
[57]

T. Harko, T.S. Koivisto, F.S.N. Lobo, G.J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia,Coupling matter in modifiedQgravity,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 084043

View on Pith 2018
[58]

R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining Cosmological Parameters Based on Relative Galaxy Ages,The Astrophysical Journal573(2002) 37

View on Pith 2002
[59]

C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang and Y.-C. Sun,Four new observationalH(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release seven,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics14(2014) 1221

View on Pith 2014
[60]

M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde et al.,A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z∼0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016(2016) 014

View on Pith 2016
[61]

J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez,Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 123001

View on Pith 2005
[62]

D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski and S.A. Stanford,Cosmic chronometers: constraining the equation of state of dark energy. I:H(z)measurements,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2010(2010) 008

View on Pith 2010
[63]

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,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(2012) 006

View on Pith 2012
[64]

M. Moresco,Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼2,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters450(2015) L16

View on Pith 2015
[65]

A.L. Ratsimbazafy, S.I. Loubser, S.M. Crawford, C.M. Cress, B.A. Bassett, R.C. Nichol et al., Age-dating luminous red galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society467(2017) 3239

View on Pith 2017
[66]

D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A.G. Riess, T.M. Davis, A. Dwomoh et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,The Astrophysical Journal938(2022) 113

View on Pith 2022
[67]

N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al.,Planck 2018 results - VI. Cosmological parameters,A& A641(2020) A6

View on Pith 2020
[68]

H. Akaike,A new look at the statistical model identification,IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19(1974) 716

View on Pith 1974
[69]

G. Schwarz,Estimating the Dimension of a Model,The Annals of Statistics6(1978) 461

View on Pith 1978
[70]

M. Rezaei and M. Malekjani,Comparison between different methods of model selection in cosmology,The European Physical Journal Plus136(2021) 219

View on Pith 2021
[71]

K.P. Burnham and D.R. Anderson,Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection,Sociological Methods & Research33(2004) 261. – 30 –

View on Pith 2004
[72]

R.E. Kass and A.E. Raftery,Bayes Factors,Journal of the American Statistical Association90 (1995) 773

View on Pith 1995
[73]

M. Visser,Jerk, snap and the cosmological equation of state,Classical and Quantum Gravity 21(2004) 2603

View on Pith 2004
[74]

R. Bhagat, S.V. Lohakare and B. Mishra,Exploring the viability off(Q,T)gravity: Constraining parameters with cosmological observations,Physics of the Dark Universe49 (2025) 102048

View on Pith 2025
[75]

S.S. Mishra, N.S. Kavya, P.K. Sahoo and T. Harko,Padé cosmography and its insights into teleparallel gravity,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society543(2025) 2816

View on Pith 2025
[76]

S. Pourojaghi, M. Malekjani and Z. Davari,ΛCDM model against cosmography: a possible deviation after DESI 2024,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society537(2025) 436

View on Pith 2025
[77]

K.G. Singh and K.P. Singh,Exploring late-time cosmic acceleration through parametrized deceleration parameter inf(Q,L m)gravity,International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics0(2026) 2650203

View on Pith 2026
[78]

V. Sahni, T.D. Saini, A.A. Starobinsky and U. Alam,Statefinder—a new geometrical diagnostic of dark energy,Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters77(2003) 201

View on Pith 2003
[79]

U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. Deep Saini and A.A. Starobinsky,Exploring the expanding Universe and dark energy using the statefinder diagnostic,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 344(2003) 1057

View on Pith 2003
[80]

V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo and A.A. Starobinsky,Two new diagnostics of dark energy,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 103502. – 31 –

View on Pith 2008

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M. Garnavich et al., Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,The Astronomical Journal116(1998) 1009

View on Pith 1998

[2] [2]

S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop, P. Nugent, P.G. Castro et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,The Astrophysical Journal517 (1999) 565

View on Pith 1999

[3] [3]

A.G. Riess, L.-G. Strolger, J. Tonry, S. Casertano, H.C. Ferguson, B. Mobasher et al.,Type Ia Supernova Discoveries atz >1from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution,The Astrophysical Journal607(2004) 665

View on Pith 2004

[4] [4]

R.R. Caldwell and M. Doran,Cosmic microwave background and supernova constraints on quintessence: Concordance regions and target models,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 103517

View on Pith 2004

[5] [5]

D.J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D.W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro, M.R. Blanton, R.C. Nichol et al., Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal633(2005) 560

View on Pith 2005

[6] [6]

W.J. Percival, B.A. Reid, D.J. Eisenstein, N.A. Bahcall, T. Budavari, J.A. Frieman et al., Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sample, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society401(2010) 2148

View on Pith 2010

[7] [7]

T. Koivisto and D.F. Mota,Dark energy anisotropic stress and large scale structure formation, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 083502

View on Pith 2006

[8] [8]

S.F. Daniel, R.R. Caldwell, A. Cooray and A. Melchiorri,Large scale structure as a probe of gravitational slip,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 103513

View on Pith 2008

[9] [9]

D.N. Spergel, L. Verde, H.V. Peiris, E. Komatsu, M.R. Nolta, C.L. Bennett et al.,First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series148(2003) 175. – 27 –

View on Pith 2003

[10] [10]

M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C.A. Prieto et al.,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D 112(2025) 083515

View on Pith 2025

[11] [11]

A. Einstein,Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,Annalen der Physik354(1916) 769

View on Pith 1916

[12] [12]

S. Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem,Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989) 1

View on Pith 1989

[13] [13]

N. Dalal, K. Abazajian, E. Jenkins and A.V. Manohar,Testing the Cosmic Coincidence Problem and the Nature of Dark Energy,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 141302

View on Pith 2001

[14] [14]

L. Verde, T. Treu and A.G. Riess,Tensions between the early and late Universe,Nature Astronomy3(2019) 891

View on Pith 2019

[15] [15]

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri et al.,In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,Classical and Quantum Gravity38(2021) 153001

View on Pith 2021

[16] [16]

E.J. COPELAND, M. SAMI and S. TSUJIKAWA,DYNAMICS OF DARK ENERGY, International Journal of Modern Physics D15(2006) 1753

View on Pith 2006

[17] [17]

C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov and P.J. Steinhardt,Essentials of k-essence,Phys. Rev. D 63(2001) 103510

View on Pith 2001

[18] [18]

J.S. Bagla, H.K. Jassal and T. Padmanabhan,Cosmology with tachyon field as dark energy, Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 063504

View on Pith 2003

[19] [19]

M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A.A. Sen,Generalized Chaplygin gas, accelerated expansion, and dark-energy-matter unification,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 043507

View on Pith 2002

[20] [20]

U. Debnath, A. Banerjee and S. Chakraborty,Role of modified Chaplygin gas in accelerated universe,Classical and Quantum Gravity21(2004) 5609

View on Pith 2004

[21] [21]

H.A. Buchdahl,Non-Linear Lagrangians and Cosmological Theory,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society150(1970) 1

View on Pith 1970

[22] [22]

A. Starobinsky,A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,Physics Letters B91(1980) 99

View on Pith 1980

[23] [23]

T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov,f(R,T)gravity,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 024020

View on Pith 2011

[24] [24]

T. Harko and F.S. Lobo,f(R,Lm)gravity,The European Physical Journal C70(2010) 373

View on Pith 2010

[25] [25]

R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini,Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without an inflaton,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 084031

View on Pith 2007

[26] [26]

J.B. Jiménez, L. Heisenberg and T. Koivisto,Coincident general relativity,Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 044048

View on Pith 2018

[27] [27]

L. Heisenberg,Review onf(Q)gravity,Physics Reports1066(2024) 1

View on Pith 2024

[28] [28]

H. Shabani, A. De, T.-H. Loo and E.N. Saridakis,Cosmology off(Q)gravity in non-flat Universe,The European Physical Journal C84(2024) 285

View on Pith 2024

[29] [29]

S. Mandal, P.K. Sahoo and J.R.L. Santos,Energy conditions inf(Q)gravity,Phys. Rev. D 102(2020) 024057

View on Pith 2020

[30] [30]

R. Solanki, S. Pacif, A. Parida and P. Sahoo,Cosmic acceleration with bulk viscosity in modifiedf(Q)gravity,Physics of the Dark Universe32(2021) 100820

View on Pith 2021

[31] [31]

K.G. Singh and K.P. Singh,Observational constraints on cosmic evolution inf(Q)gravity using logarithmicOm(z)parametrization,The European Physical Journal Plus141(2026) 971

View on Pith 2026

[32] [32]

S. Arora and M. Patel,Bayesian and machine-learning analyses of nonminimalf(Q)gravity and H0 tension,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics54(2026) 100682. – 28 –

View on Pith 2026

[33] [33]

G. Nashed, P. Tretyakov and A. Eid,Late-time cosmology and structure formation in quadratic f(Q)gravity,Physics Letters B878(2026) 140575

View on Pith 2026

[34] [34]

A. Paliathanasis,Observational constraints on noncoincidentf(Q)-gravity with matter-gravity coupling,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics53(2026) 100609

View on Pith 2026

[35] [35]

A. Kolhatkar and P. Sahoo,Beyond the cosmological constant: Breaking the geometric degeneracy off(Q)cosmology via redshift-space distortions,Physics Letters B879(2026) 140709

View on Pith 2026

[36] [36]

R. Mazumdar, K. Malakar and K. Bhuyan,Fractional holographic dark energy driven reconstruction off(Q)gravity and its cosmological implications,Classical and Quantum Gravity43(2026) 085004

View on Pith 2026

[37] [37]

S. Chakraborty, J. Dutta, D. Gregoris, K. Karwan and W. Khyllep,ReproducingΛCDM-like solutions inf(Q)gravity: a comprehensive study across all connection branches,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(2025) 098

View on Pith 2025

[38] [38]

V.C. Dubey, U.K. Sharma, S. Ray and A. Sanyal,Study of cosmological dark energy models underf(Q)gravity,Physics of the Dark Universe47(2025) 101736

View on Pith 2025

[39] [39]

A.K. Yadav, S. Bhoyar, M. Dhabe, S. Shekh and N. Ahmad,Reconstructingf(Q)gravity from parameterization of the Hubble parameter and observational constraints,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics43(2024) 114

View on Pith 2024

[40] [40]

S. Narawade, S.P. Singh and B. Mishra,Accelerating cosmological models inf(Q)gravity and the phase space analysis,Physics of the Dark Universe42(2023) 101282

View on Pith 2023

[41] [41]

M. Koussour, S. Shekh and M. Bennai,Cosmic acceleration and energy conditions in symmetric teleparallelf(Q)gravity,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics35(2022) 43

View on Pith 2022

[42] [42]

A. Lymperis,Late-time cosmology with phantom dark-energy inf(Q)gravity,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(2022) 018

View on Pith 2022

[43] [43]

R. Lazkoz, F.S.N. Lobo, M. Ortiz-Baños and V. Salzano,Observational constraints off(Q) gravity,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 104027

View on Pith 2019

[44] [44]

A. Mukherjee,Acceleration of the universe: a reconstruction of the effective equation of state, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460(2016) 273

View on Pith 2016

[45] [45]

K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W.L. Matthewson, A. Shafieloo, M. Ishak, J. Pan et al.,Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083511

View on Pith 2025

[46] [46]

D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,The Astrophysical Journal938(2022) 110

View on Pith 2022

[47] [47]

D.C.T.M.C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves et al.,The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,The Astrophysical Journal Letters973(2024) L14

View on Pith 2024

[48] [48]

D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A.G. Kim et al.,Union through UNITY: Cosmology with 2000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,The Astrophysical Journal986(2025) 231

View on Pith 2025

[49] [49]

D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125(2013) 306

View on Pith 2013

[50] [50]

B. Ryden,Introduction to Cosmology Addison Wesley,San Francisco, USA(2003)

View on Pith 2003

[51] [51]

M. CHEVALLIER and D. POLARSKI,ACCELERATING UNIVERSES WITH SCALING DARK MATTER,International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2001) 213

View on Pith 2001

[52] [52]

E.V. Linder,Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 091301. – 29 –

View on Pith 2003

[53] [53]

J. Weller and A. Albrecht,Future supernovae observations as a probe of dark energy,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 103512

View on Pith 2002

[54] [54]

G. Efstathiou,Constraining the equation of state of the Universe from distant Type Ia supernovae and cosmic microwave background anisotropies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society310(1999) 842

View on Pith 1999

[55] [55]

H.K. Jassal, J.S. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan,Observational constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy: How consistent are different observations?,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 103503

View on Pith 2005

[56] [56]

E. Barboza and J. Alcaniz,A parametric model for dark energy,Physics Letters B666(2008) 415

View on Pith 2008

[57] [57]

T. Harko, T.S. Koivisto, F.S.N. Lobo, G.J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia,Coupling matter in modifiedQgravity,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 084043

View on Pith 2018

[58] [58]

R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining Cosmological Parameters Based on Relative Galaxy Ages,The Astrophysical Journal573(2002) 37

View on Pith 2002

[59] [59]

C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang and Y.-C. Sun,Four new observationalH(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release seven,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics14(2014) 1221

View on Pith 2014

[60] [60]

M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde et al.,A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z∼0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016(2016) 014

View on Pith 2016

[61] [61]

J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez,Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 123001

View on Pith 2005

[62] [62]

D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski and S.A. Stanford,Cosmic chronometers: constraining the equation of state of dark energy. I:H(z)measurements,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2010(2010) 008

View on Pith 2010

[63] [63]

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,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(2012) 006

View on Pith 2012

[64] [64]

M. Moresco,Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼2,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters450(2015) L16

View on Pith 2015

[65] [65]

A.L. Ratsimbazafy, S.I. Loubser, S.M. Crawford, C.M. Cress, B.A. Bassett, R.C. Nichol et al., Age-dating luminous red galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society467(2017) 3239

View on Pith 2017

[66] [66]

D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A.G. Riess, T.M. Davis, A. Dwomoh et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,The Astrophysical Journal938(2022) 113

View on Pith 2022

[67] [67]

N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al.,Planck 2018 results - VI. Cosmological parameters,A& A641(2020) A6

View on Pith 2020

[68] [68]

H. Akaike,A new look at the statistical model identification,IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19(1974) 716

View on Pith 1974

[69] [69]

G. Schwarz,Estimating the Dimension of a Model,The Annals of Statistics6(1978) 461

View on Pith 1978

[70] [70]

M. Rezaei and M. Malekjani,Comparison between different methods of model selection in cosmology,The European Physical Journal Plus136(2021) 219

View on Pith 2021

[71] [71]

K.P. Burnham and D.R. Anderson,Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection,Sociological Methods & Research33(2004) 261. – 30 –

View on Pith 2004

[72] [72]

R.E. Kass and A.E. Raftery,Bayes Factors,Journal of the American Statistical Association90 (1995) 773

View on Pith 1995

[73] [73]

M. Visser,Jerk, snap and the cosmological equation of state,Classical and Quantum Gravity 21(2004) 2603

View on Pith 2004

[74] [74]

R. Bhagat, S.V. Lohakare and B. Mishra,Exploring the viability off(Q,T)gravity: Constraining parameters with cosmological observations,Physics of the Dark Universe49 (2025) 102048

View on Pith 2025

[75] [75]

S.S. Mishra, N.S. Kavya, P.K. Sahoo and T. Harko,Padé cosmography and its insights into teleparallel gravity,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society543(2025) 2816

View on Pith 2025

[76] [76]

S. Pourojaghi, M. Malekjani and Z. Davari,ΛCDM model against cosmography: a possible deviation after DESI 2024,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society537(2025) 436

View on Pith 2025

[77] [77]

K.G. Singh and K.P. Singh,Exploring late-time cosmic acceleration through parametrized deceleration parameter inf(Q,L m)gravity,International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics0(2026) 2650203

View on Pith 2026

[78] [78]

V. Sahni, T.D. Saini, A.A. Starobinsky and U. Alam,Statefinder—a new geometrical diagnostic of dark energy,Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters77(2003) 201

View on Pith 2003

[79] [79]

U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. Deep Saini and A.A. Starobinsky,Exploring the expanding Universe and dark energy using the statefinder diagnostic,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 344(2003) 1057

View on Pith 2003

[80] [80]

V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo and A.A. Starobinsky,Two new diagnostics of dark energy,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 103502. – 31 –

View on Pith 2008