Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A generic dynamical system formulation for Bianchi-I cosmology with isotropic fluid in $f(Q)$ gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper provides a generic dynamical-system recipe for Bianchi-I f(Q) cosmologies and shows that Kasner solutions violate f_Q > 0 while stable de Sitter attractors are generic.

desk verdict Useful generic framework for Bianchi-I f(Q) cosmology, but the Kasner stability classifications and the headline f_Q>0 conclusion are not supported by the paper's own quadratic model. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21757 v2 pith:NP3ISGNA submitted 2025-04-30 gr-qc

Ghulam Murtaza , Saikat Chakraborty , Avik De This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords f(Q)gravityBianchi-IcosmologydynamicalsystemsnonmetricityisotropizationKasnersolutionscoincidentgaugedeSitterattractor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to turn the field equations of $f(Q)$ gravity—a modified gravity whose Lagrangian depends on the non-metricity scalar $Q$ rather than curvature—on a Bianchi-I spacetime (anisotropic but homogeneous, filled with a fluid whose pressure is equal in all three directions) into an autonomous dynamical system, starting from any chosen function $f(Q)$. The method is worked out for two connection branches: the coincident gauge $\Gamma_1$ and a non-coincident branch $\Gamma_2$. Applied to four standard $f(Q)$ models, it shows that Kasner vacuum solutions (anisotropic power-law solutions) lie outside the physically viable region where the effective gravitational coupling $f_Q>0$, while a stable de Sitter future attractor is generic except for the monomial model in $\Gamma_1$. It also shows that inflation isotropizes a homogeneously perturbed FLRW universe generically in the coincident gauge, and that pre-bounce ekpyrotic contraction does so in likely but not fully model-independent cases.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hubble-normalized dimensionless phase space. For $\Gamma_1$ the variables are $x_1=\kappa\rho/(6f_Q H^2)$ and $x_3=\sigma^2/(6H^2)$, with the Friedmann constraint fixing the remaining variable; for $\Gamma_2$ a larger set ($x_2,\ldots,x_6$) is used. The identity that makes the construction generic is $Q f_Q/f=(1-x_3)/(2(1-x_1-x_3))$, which, together with $\Gamma=f_Q/(Q f_{QQ})$, converts a chosen $f(Q)$ into a closed autonomous system once it is inverted for $Q$; an analogous inversion is supplied for $\Gamma_2$. The anisotropy variable obeys $\sigma\sim 1/(a^3 f_Q)$, so the sign of $f_Q$ controls whether shear decays or grows; this is why the physical-viability requirement $f_Q>0$ plays a central role in identifying allowed regions of the phase space.

What would settle it

Choose a smooth $f(Q)$ for which $Q f_Q/f$ is not one-to-one on the relevant range—for instance $f(Q)=Q^3-3Q+2$ near a stationary point of $Q f_Q/f$—and attempt to construct the $\Gamma_1$ dynamical system by the paper's prescription; if the system cannot be closed, the unconditional 'given any $f(Q)$' claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Bianchi-I cosmology with an isotropic fluid in $f(Q)$ gravity admits a generic dynamical-system formulation, in both the coincident gauge connection $\Gamma_1$ and one non-coincident branch $\Gamma_2$, without invoking an effective scalar-field description. The construction reduces to a single algebraic step: in $\Gamma_1$, the combination $Q f_Q/f$ equals $(1-x_3)/(2(1-x_1-x_3))$, where $x_1$ and $x_3$ are Hubble-normalized fluid and anisotropy variables; if this relation is inverted to write $Q(x_1,x_3)$, the system closes autonomously, and the analogous step is provided for $\Gamma_2$. Applying this prescription to four representative models—$f(Q)=\alpha(-Q)^n$, $Q+\alpha Q^2$, $Q+\alpha\sqrt{-Q}+\Lambda$, and $Q e^{\lambda Q_0/Q}$—the authors find that the Kasner fixed point falls in the region $f_Q\le 0$ in every model and branch, that a physically viable stable de Sitter attractor appears in all examined cases except the monomial model in $\Gamma_1$, and that in the coincident gauge inflation generically isotropizes a homogeneously perturbed FLRW geometry, while pre-bounce ekpyrotic contraction isotropizes under likely but not fully generic conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the algebraic relation $Q f_Q/f=(1-x_3)/(2(1-x_1-x_3))$—and its $\Gamma_2$ analogue—can be inverted to express $Q$ as a function of the Hubble-normalized variables for the chosen $f(Q)$; the paper states this as a condition but does not prove it holds for all $f(Q)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any $f(Q)$ satisfying the inversion condition, the Bianchi-I field equations with an isotropic fluid reduce to an autonomous system directly, without passing through an effective scalar-field description.
  • In all four models and both connection branches, the Kasner fixed point sits in the $f_Q\le 0$ region, so the classical Kasner vacuum is not a physically viable asymptotic state of these theories.
  • A stable de Sitter attractor is the generic late-time outcome, with $f(Q)\propto (-Q)^n$ in the coincident gauge as the only examined exception.
  • In the coincident gauge, homogeneously perturbed inflating FLRW geometries isotropize independently of the form of $f(Q)$.
  • In the non-coincident gauge $\Gamma_2$, isotropization during inflation and pre-bounce contraction depends on the model through $x_3=-(1/\Gamma)\,\dot{Q}/(QH)$, but a slow enough ekpyrotic contraction isotropizes generically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the promised 'given any $f(Q)$' recipe is conditional on the inversion of $Q f_Q/f=(1-x_3)/(2(1-x_1-x_3))$; for functions where this combination is not one-to-one, the construction needs branch choices or extra variables, a case the paper leaves open.
  • Inference: because $f_Q$ appears in the denominator of the anisotropy law $\sigma\sim 1/(a^3 f_Q)$, the marginal $f_Q=0$ at Kasner points suggests that approach to Kasner is a singular or divergent-coupling phase rather than a smooth asymptotic state; the paper does not analyze that singular flow.
  • Inference: the model-independent isotropization during inflation in $\Gamma_1$ offers a clean discriminator—if future observations of late-time isotropy are interpreted in $f(Q)$ gravity, they constrain the connection branch more than the functional form of $f(Q)$.
  • Inference: for $\Gamma_2$, the dependence on $x_3$ means one could deliberately engineer $f(Q)$ to suppress or enhance anisotropy decay during bouncing scenarios, turning the generic construction into a design tool for nonsingular cosmologies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a generic autonomous dynamical system for Bianchi-I cosmology in f(Q) gravity with an isotropic fluid, for the coincident-gauge connection branch Γ1 and one non-coincident branch Γ2. The construction is applied to four f(Q) models (monomial, quadratic, square-root-plus-cosmological-constant, and exponential), with fixed-point tables, physical-viability regions based on f_Q>0, phase portraits, early-universe isotropization arguments, and a comparison with f(T) gravity. The headline findings are that Kasner solutions marginally violate f_Q>0 in all models, that a stable de Sitter attractor is generic except for the monomial model in the coincident gauge, and that inflationary isotropization in the coincident gauge is model independent.

Significance. If correct, this would be a useful reference for f(Q) Bianchi-I dynamics: it gives a stepwise prescription for building phase spaces, analyzes four concrete models, and emphasizes physically viable regions rather than merely listing formal fixed points. The early-universe isotropization discussion also raises questions that are rarely addressed in f(Q) literature. However, the paper's central stability statements about Kasner fixed points and the claim that Kasner solutions violate f_Q>0 are not supported by the equations as written; these are headline conclusions, so the significance is substantially reduced until they are repaired.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V.B, Tables III–IV] The fixed point S=(0,1) lies on the singular surface x3=1 of the reduced system (44)–(45), where the vector field contains denominators (x3−1)(8x1+3x3−3). Standard Jacobian linearization is not valid at a point where the vector field is undefined, so the quoted eigenvalues (−6, −3(1+ω)) for S are not obtained by a legitimate limiting procedure. The unreduced anisotropy equation (31) gives ∂x3′/∂x3 = 6 at (0,1), indicating an unstable direction with eigenvalue +6, not −6. The stability classification of S and the f(T) comparison in Section IX that relies on it therefore need to be re-derived, either by desingularizing the system (e.g., by a suitable time reparametrization or blow-up) or by restricting statements to the domain where the vector field is regular.
  2. [§X (Conclusion) and Abstract] The claim that Kasner solutions 'marginally violate the f_Q>0 condition' is internally contradicted by Model-II in the coincident gauge. At S=(0,1), Eq. (15) gives Q=−6H^2+σ^2=0, so for f(Q)=Q+αQ^2 one has f_Q=1+2αQ=1>0 directly. The phase-space expression (42), f_Q=(1−x3)/(3−4x1−3x3), is 0/0 at S and its limit is path-dependent, so it cannot be used to infer a marginal violation. The conclusion should be revised to state the actual status of f_Q for each model, evaluated from Q rather than from the singular phase-space coordinate expression.
  3. [§VI, Eq. (74)] The advertised 'given any f(Q)' construction for Γ2 is not closed. The autonomous system (76)–(80) still contains Γ=f_Q/(Q f_QQ), which must be expressed in terms of the phase-space variables by inverting Eq. (74), Q f_Q/f = x2/(x2+x3x4+x5+x6−1). Unlike the Γ1 construction around Eq. (34), no invertibility condition is stated and no general prescription for obtaining Q(x_i) is provided. As written, the system becomes autonomous only after a specific f(Q) is chosen and the inversion is performed case by case. The authors should add the analogous invertibility condition and show how the generic Γ2 system closes in principle.
  4. [§V.B, Eq. (46) and Table IV] The physical viability region (46) for Model-II is defined by strict inequalities that exclude x3=1, yet the text and Table IV classify S=(0,1) as a physically viable Kasner point. The domain of the dynamical system and the status of boundary points such as x3=1 need to be clarified; either the viability region should be extended to include such boundary points with a separate argument, or S should be treated as lying outside the domain and its physical interpretation adjusted accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (28)] The symbol Γ is used both for the connection class (Section II) and for the auxiliary quantity f_Q/(Q f_QQ) in Eq. (28). This is confusing; using a different symbol, such as G, for the latter would improve readability.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors: 'spactime' in the footnote of Section IX, 'does not flare well' in Section V.B, and 'the analysis has been studied in [88]' in Section V.A. These should be corrected.
  3. [§VIII] The early-universe isotropization discussion for the non-coincident gauge is presented as a condition on x3 (e.g., Eq. (121) depends on whether x3<3 or x3>3), but the paper does not provide a fixed-point or stability analysis of x3 itself. A short analysis of the x3 dynamics would strengthen this section.
  4. [§IX] The sentence 'the non-metricity theory with connection class I yields identical dynamics as the metric teleparallel gravity' is a nontrivial equivalence claim that needs a derivation or a reference; as written it appears as an assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dynamical system construction and the four-model fixed-point analyses are derived from the field equations, and the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The generic Γ1 and Γ2 dynamical systems are constructed directly from the Bianchi-I field equations (18)-(20) and (65)-(71), with the phase-space variables defined in (23); no fitted parameter is subsequently renamed as a prediction. The invertibility requirement on Eq. (34) and Eq. (74) is stated explicitly as a condition ('Provided the above equation is invertible to get Q = Q(x1, x3)'), so the advertised 'given any f(Q)' prescription is conditional rather than circular. The four worked models are substituted into the same field equations, and the resulting fixed points, eigenvalues, and cosmologies are computed from those equations rather than assumed. The cited works, including self-citations such as [83], [91], [93], and [100], are used for comparison, context, or as statements of previously known results; the load-bearing steps are re-derived in the text, and the comparisons with [52], [86], and [88] are made after the analysis. The final claims about de Sitter attractors, Kasner points, and isotropization follow from the paper's own phase-space equations, such as x3' = 6x3(x3-1) on the vacuum submanifold for Γ1, which is model-independent by inspection and not by an imported ansatz. There are technical concerns noted in the literature review, notably the evaluation of f_Q at the Kasner fixed point S=(0,1) for Model II where Q=0 makes Eq. (42) indeterminate, but that is a correctness or singularity-handling issue, not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction, and no prediction is statistically forced from fitted data. A minor non-zero score reflects only the presence of several self-citations used as background support; none of them carries the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard dynamical-systems background, the physical viability criterion f_Q>0, the Bianchi-I isotropic-fluid modeling assumption, and an invertibility condition for closure. No invented entities or fitted constants are introduced; model parameters are carried symbolically.

free parameters (5)
  • n
    Exponent in f(Q)=alpha(-Q)^n; stability windows and viability depend on n.
  • alpha (Model I)
    Coupling in the monomial model; sign controls f_Q>0.
  • alpha (Model II)
    Quadratic coefficient; the dynamical system is independent of alpha but the viability region depends on f_Q.
  • alpha, Lambda (Model III)
    Appear only through c=Lambda/alpha^2; reality of Gamma requires -1/4 <= c <= 0.
  • lambda, Q0 (Model IV)
    Parameters of the exponential model; the phase flow is independent of them.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard linear stability analysis applies to the autonomous systems on the physically viable phase space.
    Used extensively in the fixed-point tables for all four models.
  • domain assumption Physical viability requires f_Q>0, the positive effective gravitational coupling condition.
    Invoked to define viable regions, e.g. Eqs. (46), (56), (64), and in the Kasner viability conclusion.
  • domain assumption A Bianchi-I geometry with an isotropic fluid is a physically consistent homogeneous perturbation of FLRW.
    Used throughout; authors justify it in Appendix A only for perturbatively small anisotropy.
  • domain assumption The algebraic relations (34) and (74) are invertible so that Q can be expressed in terms of phase-space variables.
    This is the closure condition for the advertised generic dynamical system; the paper does not characterize it beyond the four models.
  • domain assumption For the Gamma2 branch, gamma is nonzero, so the connection field equation implies dot_f_Q ~ a^{-3}.
    Used to close the Gamma2 autonomous system, Eqs. (70)-(71).
  • standard math Power-law scale factors identify fixed points as Kasner or de Sitter cosmologies.
    Used to assign cosmological labels in Tables II, IV, VI, VIII, X, XII, XIV, XVI.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A generic dynamical system formulation for Bianchi-I cosmology with isotropic fluid in $f(Q)$ gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NP3ISGNA

@misc{pith2026250421757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A generic dynamical system formulation for Bianchi-I cosmology with isotropic fluid in $f(Q)$ gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NP3ISGNA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21757}
}
abstract

In this article, we present a generic dynamical system formulation for Bianchi-I cosmology in the presence of an isotropic fluid within the coincident gauge connection branch and one of the non-coincident gauge connection branches of $f(Q)$ gravity theory. For both the connection branches under consideration, we start from the generic Bianchi-I cosmological field equations in $f(Q)$ and present a prescription of how one can construct an autonomous dynamical system in terms of the standard Hubble-normalized dimensionless dynamical variables once an $f(Q)$ theory is provided. Particular care has been taken to single out the physically viable regions in the phase space for each of the models under consideration. This results in the finding that, for both of the connection branches under consideration, the Kasner solution marginally violates the key physical viability condition of positive effective gravitational coupling ($f_Q>0$) for all the models considered, whereas a physically viable de-Sitter future attractor appears in all the models, except for the very special case of the monomial model within the coincident gauge connection. In the context of the early universe cosmology, we find that isotropization of a homogeneously perturbed inflating FLRW universe is a generic model-independent feature in the coincident gauge, whereas the isotropization of a homogeneously perturbed pre-bounce ekpyrotically contracting FLRW universe is, although not completely generic, but a likely scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21757 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phase Portrait of the model-II with ω = 0. Green region indicates the accelerated phase and the Red region indicates the decelerated phase of the universe. From Fig.1 one can see that, although the late time behaviour shows asymptotic isotropization, the only possible candidate for an intermediate matter-dominated epoch, namely the saddle fixed point P, falls within a region of the phase space that is characterised … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of cosmological phase portraits for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase Portrait for the model-IV with ω = 0. Green region indicates the accelerated phase and Red region indicates the decelerated phase of the universe. From the figure 3 it is clear that there exists asymptotic isotropization in late time cosmology in the model f(Q) = Qeλ Q0 Q . In other words, the model is stable against small homogeneous anisotropic perturbations in the spacetime geometry. Moreover, this conclusi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Averaging Dynamics of Scalar Field-Matter Interacting Models in Anisotropic Universes: The Locally Rotationally Symmetric Bianchi I Spacetime

    gr-qc 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors apply averaging methods to classify late-time attractors for nine interacting dark sector models in Bianchi I cosmology, but the general interaction formula does not match the specific models analyzed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [52]

    Paliathanasis, A. (2024). Dipole cosmology in f Q-gravity. Physics of the Dark Universe, 46, 101585

    work page 2024

  2. [88]

    Rathore, S., & Singh, S. S. (2024). Stability aspects of an LRS Bianchi type-I cosmological model in f (Q) gravity. General Relativity and Gravitation, 56(2), 25

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Di Valentino, E., et al. (2021). In the realm of the Hubble tension-a review of solutions. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38(15), 153001

    2021

  4. [2]

    Akrami, Y., et al. (2020). Planck 2018 results-VII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A7

    2020

  5. [3]

    N., & Krasi´nski, A

    Bolejko, K., C ´el´erier, M. N., & Krasi´nski, A. (2011). Inhomogeneous cosmological models: exact solutions and their applica- tions. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28(16), 164002

    2011

  6. [4]

    The anisotropic fixed point S1 gives a Kasner-like solution. For this model, the future attractor O1 serves as the dark energy dominated epoch whereas P1 is the only saddle point showing the matter-dominated epoch for ω = 0 e.g a∼ t 2 3 , implies the same evolution of the universe as in GR. This model gives asymptotic isotropization in late time cosmology...

  7. [5]

    D., & Dabrowski, M

    Barrow, J. D., & Dabrowski, M. P . (1997). Kantowski-Sachs string cosmologies. Physical Review D, 55(2), 630

    1997

  8. [6]

    Szekeres, P . (1975). Quasispherical gravitational collapse. Physical Review D, 12(10), 2941

    1975

Show all 110 references
  1. [7]

    Adhav, K. S. (2012). LRS Bianchi type-I cosmological model in f (R, T) theory of gravity. Astrophysics and space science, 339, 365-369

    2012

  2. [9]

    Farasat Shamir, M. (2016). Anisotropic cosmological models in f (G) gravity. Astrophysics and Space Science, 361(4), 147

    2016

  3. [10]

    Campanelli, L., Cea, P ., & Tedesco, L. (2007). Cosmic microwave background quadrupole and ellipsoidal universe. Physical Review D-Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 76(6), 063007

    2007

  4. [11]

    R., et al

    Jaffe, T. R., et al. (2005). Evidence of vorticity and shear at large angular scales in the WMAP data: a violation of cosmological isotropy?. The Astrophysical Journal, 629(1), L1

    2005

  5. [12]

    R., et al

    Jaffe, T. R., et al. (2006). Fast and efficient template fitting of deterministic anisotropic cosmological models applied to WMAP data. The Astrophysical Journal, 643(2), 616

    2006

  6. [13]

    R., et al

    Jaffe, T. R., et al. (2006). Bianchi type VIIh models and the WMAP 3-year data. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 460(2), 393-396

    2006

  7. [14]

    Sarmah, P ., & Goswami, U. D. (2022). Bianchi Type I model of universe with customized scale factors. Modern Physics Letters A, 37(21), 2250134. 8 γ = 0 reduces this to the formulation of connection class ΓI 29

    2022

  8. [15]

    Amirhashchi, H., & Amirhashchi, S. (2020). Constraining Bianchi type I universe with type Ia supernova and H(z) data. Physics of the Dark Universe, 29, 100557

    2020

  9. [16]

    Amirhashchi, H. (2017). Viscous dark energy in Bianchi type V spacetime. Physical Review D, 96(12), 123507

    2017

  10. [17]

    Amirhashchi, H. (2018). Probing dark energy in the scope of a Bianchi type I spacetime. Physical Review D, 97(6), 063515

    2018

  11. [18]

    Amirhashchi, H., & Amirhashchi, S. (2019). Current constraints on anisotropic and isotropic dark energy models. Physical Review D, 99(2), 023516

    2019

  12. [19]

    G., et al

    Riess, A. G., et al. (1998). Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. The astronomical journal, 116(3), 1009

    1998

  13. [20]

    Perlmutter, S., et al. (1999). Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal, 517(2), 565

    1999

  14. [21]

    Buchert, T., et al. (2016). Observational challenges for the standard FLRW model. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 25(03), 1630007

    2016

  15. [22]

    Socas-Navarro, H. (2019). Can a negative-mass cosmology explain dark matter and dark energy?. Astronomy & Astro- physics, 626, A5

    2019

  16. [23]

    Helbig, P . (2020). The flatness problem and the age of the Universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495(4), 3571-3575

    2020

  17. [24]

    Rajantie, A. (2012). Magnetic monopoles in field theory and cosmology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370(1981), 5705-5717

    2012

  18. [25]

    Hawking, S. W. (1966). The occurrence of singularities in cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 294(1439), 511-521

    1966

  19. [26]

    Aghanim, N., et al. (2020). Planck 2018 results-VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    2020

  20. [27]

    L., Kovetz, E

    Poulin, V ., Bernal, J. L., Kovetz, E. D., & Kamionkowski, M. (2023). Sigma-8 tension is a drag. Physical Review D, 107(12), 123538

    2023

  21. [28]

    Chudaykin, A., Gorbunov, D., & Nedelko, N. (2021). Exploring an early dark energy solution to the Hubble tension with Planck and SPTPol data. Physical Review D, 103(4), 043529

    2021

  22. [29]

    E., Vom Marttens, R

    Velten, H. E., Vom Marttens, R. F., & Zimdahl, W. (2014). Aspects of the cosmological ”coincidence problem”. The European Physical Journal C, 74, 1-8

    2014

  23. [30]

    Zheng, J., Chen, Y., Xu, T., & Zhu, Z. H. (2021). Diagnosing the cosmic coincidence problem and its evolution with recent observations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08916

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    J., & Goswami, U

    Gogoi, D. J., & Goswami, U. D. (2022). Cosmology with a new f (R) gravity model in Palatini formalism. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 31(06), 2250048

    2022

  25. [32]

    Stachowski, A. (2017). M. Szyd lowski, and A. Borowiec. European Physical Journal C, 77, 406

    2017

  26. [33]

    Li, B., & Barrow, J. D. (2007). Cosmology of f (R) gravity in the metric variational approach. Physical Review D-Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 75(8), 084010

    2007

  27. [34]

    Bahamonde, S., et al. (2023). Teleparallel gravity: from theory to cosmology. Reports on Progress in Physics, 86(2), 026901

    2023

  28. [35]

    Heisenberg, L. (2024). Review on f (Q) gravity. Physics Reports, 1066, 1-78

    2024

  29. [36]

    Lu, J., Zhao, X., & Chee, G. (2019). Cosmology in symmetric teleparallel gravity and its dynamical system. The European Physical Journal C, 79, 1-8

    2019

  30. [37]

    Khyllep, W., Paliathanasis, A., & Dutta, J. (2021). Cosmological solutions and growth index of matter perturbations in f (Q) gravity. Physical Review D, 103(10), 103521

    2021

  31. [38]

    Mandal, S., Wang, D., & Sahoo, P . K. (2020). Cosmography in f (Q) gravity. Physical Review D, 102(12), 124029

    2020

  32. [39]

    Hassan, Z., Mandal, S., & Sahoo, P . K. (2021). Traversable wormhole geometries in gravity. Fortschritte der Physik, 69(6), 2100023

    2021

  33. [40]

    J., Barreiro, T., Koivisto, T., & Nunes, N

    Barros, B. J., Barreiro, T., Koivisto, T., & Nunes, N. J. (2020). Testing F(Q) gravity with redshift space distortions. Physics of the Dark Universe, 30, 100616

    2020

  34. [41]

    K., Basilakos, S., & Saridakis, E

    Anagnostopoulos, F. K., Basilakos, S., & Saridakis, E. N. (2021). First evidence that non-metricity f (Q) gravity could chal- lenge ΛCDM. Physics Letters B, 822, 136634

    2021

  35. [42]

    Atayde, L., & Frusciante, N. (2021). Can f (Q) gravity challenge ΛCDM?. Physical Review D, 104(6), 064052

    2021

  36. [43]

    Koussour, M., & De, A. (2023). Observational constraints on two cosmological models of f (Q) theory. The European Physi- cal Journal C, 83(5), 400

    2023

  37. [44]

    K., & Santos, J

    Mandal, S., Sahoo, P . K., & Santos, J. R. (2020). Energy conditions in f (Q) gravity. Physical Review D, 102(2), 024057

    2020

  38. [45]

    De, A., & How, L. T. (2022). Comment on ”Energy conditions in f (Q) gravity”. Physical Review D, 106(4), 048501

    2022

  39. [46]

    H., & Goh, Y

    Subramaniam, G., De, A., Loo, T. H., & Goh, Y. K. (2023). How Different Connections in Flat FLRW Geometry Impact Energy Conditions in f (Q) f (Q) Theory?. Fortschritte der Physik, 71(8-9), 2300038

    2023

  40. [47]

    H., & Goh, Y

    Subramaniam, G., De, A., Loo, T. H., & Goh, Y. K. (2023). Energy condition bounds on f (Q) model parameters in a curved FLRW Universe. Physics of the Dark Universe, 41, 101243. 30

    2023

  41. [48]

    S., & Frusciante, N

    Albuquerque, I. S., & Frusciante, N. (2022). A designer approach to f (Q) gravity and cosmological implications. Physics of the Dark Universe, 35, 100980

    2022

  42. [49]

    Esposito, F., Carloni, S., Cianci, R., & Vignolo, S. (2022). Reconstructing isotropic and anisotropicf (Q) cosmologies. Physical Review D, 105(8), 084061

    2022

  43. [50]

    De, A., et al. (2022). Isotropization of locally rotationally symmetric Bianchi-I universe in f (Q)-gravity. The European Phys- ical Journal C, 82(1), 72

    2022

  44. [51]

    Sarmah, P ., De, A., & Goswami, U. D. (2023). Anisotropic LRS-BI Universe with f (Q) gravity theory. Physics of the Dark Universe, 40, 101209

    2023

  45. [53]

    Paliathanasis, A., & Leon, G. (2024). Bianchi I spacetimes in f (Q)-gravity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04563

    2024

  46. [54]

    Sharif, M., & Rani, S. (2011). F(T) models within bianchi type-i universe. Modern Physics Letters A, 26(22), 1657-1671

    2011

  47. [55]

    Aslam, A., Jamil, M., & Myrzakulov, R. (2013). Noether gauge symmetry for the Bianchi type I model in f (T) gravity. Physica Scripta, 88(2), 025003

    2013

  48. [56]

    E., Salako, I

    Rodrigues, M. E., Salako, I. G., Houndjo, M. J. S., & Tossa, J. (2014). Locally rotationally symmetric Bianchi type-I cosmo- logical model in f (T) gravity: from early to dark energy dominated universe. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23(01), 1450004

    2014

  49. [57]

    Tretyakov, P . V . (2022). Bianchi I cosmological solutions in teleparallel gravity. Modern Physics Letters A, 37(08), 2250046

    2022

  50. [58]

    A., & van den Hoogen, R

    Coley, A. A., & van den Hoogen, R. J. (2023). Spatially homogeneous teleparallel gravity: Bianchi I. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 64(10)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Aguiar Gomes, D., Beltran Jimenez, J., Jimenez Cano, A., & Koivisto, T. S. (2024). Pathological character of modifications to coincident general relativity: cosmological strong coupling and ghosts in f (Q) theories. Physical Review Letters, 132(14), 141401

    2024

  52. [60]

    I., & Qiu, T

    Hu, K., Yamakoshi, M., Katsuragawa, T., Nojiri, S. I., & Qiu, T. (2023). Nonpropagating ghost in covariant f (Q) gravity. Physical Review D, 108(12), 124030

    2023

  53. [61]

    Wainwright, J., & Ellis, G. F. R. (1997). Dynamical systems in cosmology

    1997

  54. [62]

    Coley, A. A. (2013). Dynamical systems and cosmology (Vol. 291). Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  55. [63]

    Bahamonde, S., et al. (2018). Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity. Physics Reports, 775, 1-122

    2018

  56. [64]

    D., & Oikonomou, V

    Odintsov, S. D., & Oikonomou, V . K. (2017). Autonomous dynamical system approach forf (R) gravity. Physical Review D, 96(10), 104049

    2017

  57. [65]

    Shah, P ., & Samanta, G. C. (2019). Stability analysis for cosmological models in f (R) gravity using dynamical system anal- ysis. The European Physical Journal C, 79, 1-9

    2019

  58. [66]

    D., & Oikonomou, V

    Odintsov, S. D., & Oikonomou, V . K. (2018). Dynamical systems perspective of cosmological finite-time singularities inf (R) gravity and interacting multifluid cosmology. Physical Review D, 98(2), 024013

    2018

  59. [67]

    K., & Macdevette, K

    Chakraborty, S., Dunsby, P . K., & Macdevette, K. (2022). A note on the dynamical system formulations in f (R) gravity. International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 19(08), 2230003

    2022

  60. [68]

    K., Lohakare, S

    Duchaniya, L. K., Lohakare, S. V ., Mishra, B., & Tripathy, S. K. (2022). Dynamical stability analysis of accelerating f (T) gravity models. The European Physical Journal C, 82(5), 448

    2022

  61. [69]

    K., Kadam, S

    Duchaniya, L. K., Kadam, S. A., Said, J. L., & Mishra, B. (2023). Dynamical systems analysis inf (T, ϕ) gravity. The European Physical Journal C, 83(1), 27

    2023

  62. [70]

    Mirza, B., & Oboudiat, F. (2017). Constraining f (T) gravity by dynamical system analysis. Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics, 2017(11), 011

    2017

  63. [71]

    B ¨ohmer, C., Jensko, E., & Lazkoz, R. (2023). Dynamical systems analysis of f (Q) gravity. Universe, 9(4), 166

    2023

  64. [72]

    N., & Yesmakhanova, K

    Khyllep, W., Dutta, J., Saridakis, E. N., & Yesmakhanova, K. (2023). Cosmology in f (Q) gravity: A unified dynamical systems analysis of the background and perturbations. Physical Review D, 107(4), 044022

    2023

  65. [73]

    Vishwakarma, P ., & Shah, P . (2023). Stability analysis off (Q) gravity models using dynamical systems. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 32(11), 2350071

    2023

  66. [74]

    Ghosh, S., Solanki, R., & Sahoo, P . K. (2024). Dynamical system analysis of scalar field cosmology in coincidentf (Q) gravity. Physica Scripta, 99(5), 055021

    2024

  67. [75]

    N., Arora, S., Channuie, P ., & Sahoo, P

    Gadbail, G. N., Arora, S., Channuie, P ., & Sahoo, P . K. (2024). Cosmological Dynamics of Interacting Dark Energy and Dark Matter in f (Q) Gravity. Fortschritte der Physik, 2400205

    2024

  68. [76]

    Ghosh, S., Solanki, R., & Sahoo, P . K. (2024). Dynamical system analysis of Dirac-Born-Infeld scalar field cosmology in coincident f (Q) gravity. Chinese Physics C, 48(9), 095102

    2024

  69. [77]

    Das, S., Mahata, N., & Ray, P . (2024). Cosmological implications of non-minimally coupled f (Q) gravity. Modern Physics Letters A, 39(12), 2450017

    2024

  70. [78]

    A., Singh, S

    Narawade, S. A., Singh, S. P ., & Mishra, B. (2023). Accelerating cosmological models in f (Q) gravity and the phase space analysis. Physics of the Dark Universe, 42, 101282. 31

    2023

  71. [79]

    S., Solanki, R., & Sahoo, P

    Rana, D. S., Solanki, R., & Sahoo, P . K. (2024). Phase-space analysis of the viscous fluid cosmological models in the coincident f (Q) gravity. Physics of the Dark Universe, 43, 101421

    2024

  72. [80]

    S., & Alam, M

    Samaddar, A., Singh, S. S., & Alam, M. K. (2023). Dynamical system approach of interacting dark energy models with minimally coupled scalar field. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 32(09), 2350062

    2023

  73. [81]

    Hohmann, M. (2021). General covariant symmetric teleparallel cosmology. Physical Review D, 104(12), 124077

    2021

  74. [82]

    G., Jensko, E., & Lazkoz, R

    B ¨ohmer, C. G., Jensko, E., & Lazkoz, R. (2022). Cosmological dynamical systems in modified gravity. The European Physical Journal C, 82(6), 500

    2022

  75. [83]

    Paliathanasis, A. (2023). Dynamical analysis of fQ-cosmology. Physics of the Dark Universe, 41, 101255

    2023

  76. [84]

    Shabani, H., De, A., & Loo, T. H. (2023). Phase-space analysis of a novel cosmological model in f (Q) theory. The European Physical Journal C, 83(6), 1-12

    2023

  77. [85]

    H., & Saridakis, E

    Shabani, H., De, A., Loo, T. H., & Saridakis, E. N. (2024). Cosmology of f (Q) gravity in non-flat Universe. The European Physical Journal C, 84(3), 285

    2024

  78. [86]

    Paliathanasis, A. (2025). Testing Non-Coincident f (Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs. Physics of the Dark Universe, 101993

    2025

  79. [87]

    Sarmah, P ., & Goswami, U. D. (2024). Dynamical system analysis of LRS-BI Universe with f (Q) gravity theory. Physics of the Dark Universe, 101556

    2024

  80. [89]

    Fabrizio, E., Sante, C., & Stefano, V . (2022). Bianchi type-I cosmological dynamics in f (Q) gravity: a covariant approach. Class. Quant. Grav., 39

    2022

  81. [90]

    Dimakis, N., Roumeliotis, M., Paliathanasis, A., & Christodoulakis, T. (2023). Anisotropic solutions in symmetric teleparallel f (Q) theory: Kantowski–Sachs and Bianchi III LRS cosmologies. The European Physical Journal C, 83(9), 794

    2023

  82. [91]

    D., Dialektopoulos, K., Dimakis, N., Giacomini, A., Shababi, H., Halder, A., & Paliathanasis, A

    Millano, A. D., Dialektopoulos, K., Dimakis, N., Giacomini, A., Shababi, H., Halder, A., & Paliathanasis, A. (2024). Kantowski-Sachs and Bianchi III dynamics in f (Q) gravity. Physical Review D, 109(12), 124044

    2024

  83. [92]

    Chakraborty, S., Bamba, K., & Saa, A. (2019). Dynamical properties of Bianchi-I spacetimes in f (R) gravity. Physical Review D, 99(6), 064048

    2019

  84. [93]

    B., Heisenberg, L., & Koivisto, T

    Jim ´enez, J. B., Heisenberg, L., & Koivisto, T. (2018). Coincident general relativity. Physical Review D, 98(4), 044048

    2018

  85. [94]

    Arora, S., Mandal, S., Chakraborty, S., Leon, G., & Sahoo, P . K. (2022). Canf (R) gravity isotropise a pre-bounce contracting universe?. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022(09), 042

    2022

  86. [95]

    Bhattacharya, K., & Chakraborty, S. (2019). Nonlinear anisotropy growth in Bianchi-I spacetime in metric f (R) cosmology. Physical Review D, 99(2), 023520

    2019

  87. [96]

    J., J¨arv, L., & Pati, L

    Guzm ´an, M. J., J¨arv, L., & Pati, L. (2024). Exploring the stability off (Q) cosmology near general relativity limit with different connections. Physical Review D, 110(12), 124013

    2024

  88. [97]

    Paliathanasis, A. (2023). The impact of the non-coincidence gauge on the dark energy dynamics in f (Q)-gravity. General Relativity and Gravitation, 55(11), 130

    2023

  89. [98]

    B., Heisenberg, L., Koivisto, T., & Pekar, S

    Jim ´enez, J. B., Heisenberg, L., Koivisto, T., & Pekar, S. (2020). Cosmology in f (Q) geometry. Physical Review D, 101(10), 103507

    2020

  90. [99]

    K., & Myrzakulov, R

    Mandal, S., Myrzakulov, N., Sahoo, P . K., & Myrzakulov, R. (2021). Cosmological bouncing scenarios in symmetric telepar- allel gravity. The European Physical Journal Plus, 136(7), 1-13

    2021

  91. [100]

    N., Mandal, S., & Sahoo, P

    Gadbail, G. N., Mandal, S., & Sahoo, P . K. (2022). Reconstruction ofΛCDM universe in f (Q) gravity. Physics Letters B, 835, 137509

    2022

  92. [101]

    Chakraborty, S., Dutta, J., Gregoris, D., Karwan, K., & Khyllep, W. (2025). Reproducing Λ CDM-like Solutions in f (Q) Gravity: A Comprehensive Study Across All Connection Branches. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15159

    2025 arXiv

  93. [102]

    K., Wesley, D

    Erickson, J. K., Wesley, D. H., Steinhardt, P . J., & Turok, N. (2004). Kasner and mixmaster behavior in universes with equation of state ω≥ 1. Physical Review D, 69(6), 063514

    2004

  94. [103]

    I. S. Albuquerque and N. Frusciante. A designer approach to f(Q) gravity and cosmological implications. Phys. Dark Univ. 35, 100980 (2022)

    2022

  95. [104]

    D., & Ganguly, C

    Barrow, J. D., & Ganguly, C. (2016). Evolution of initially contracting Bianchi Class A models in the presence of an ultra-stiff anisotropic pressure fluid. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(12), 125004

    2016

  96. [105]

    D., & Hervik, S

    Barrow, J. D., & Hervik, S. (2006). Evolution of universes in quadratic theories of gravity. Physical Review D-Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 74(12), 124017

    2006

  97. [106]

    Koussour, M., & Myrzakulov, N. (2024). Bouncing cosmologies and stability analysis in symmetric teleparallelf (Q) gravity. The European Physical Journal Plus, 139(9), 799

    2024

  98. [107]

    Bajardi, F., Vernieri, D., & Capozziello, S. (2020). Bouncing cosmology in f (Q) symmetric teleparallel gravity. The European Physical Journal Plus, 135, 1-14

    2020

  99. [108]

    Linder, E. V . (2010). Einstein’s other gravity and the acceleration of the universe. Physical Review D-Particles, Fields, Grav- itation, and Cosmology, 81(12), 127301. 32

    2010

  100. [109]

    L., & Barrow, J

    Paliathanasis, A., Said, J. L., & Barrow, J. D. (2018). Stability of the Kasner Universe in f (T) Gravity. Physical Review D, 97(4), 044008

    2018

  101. [110]

    A., & Toporensky, A

    Skugoreva, M. A., & Toporensky, A. V . (2018). On Kasner solution in Bianchi I f (T) cosmology. The European Physical Journal C, 78, 1-7

    2018

  102. [111]

    De, A., & Loo, T. H. (2023). On the viability of f (Q) gravity models. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40(11), 115007

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.