NORDITA-2019-054

Cosmology in f (Q) geometry

Jose Beltrán Jiménez,1, ∗ Lavinia Heisenberg,2, † Tomi Sebastian Koivisto,3, 4, 5, ‡ and Simon Pekar2, §
1
Departamento de Fı́sica Fundamental and IUFFyM,
Universidad de Salamanca, E-37008 Salamanca, Spain.
2
Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 27, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland
3
Nordita, KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University,
Roslagstullsbacken 23, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
4
Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Physics,
University of Tartu, W. Ostwaldi 1, 50411 Tartu, Estonia
5
National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Rävala pst. 10, 10143 Tallinn, Estonia
(Dated: April 13, 2021)
The universal character of the gravitational interaction provided by the equivalence principle mo-
tivates a geometrical description of gravity. The standard formulation of General Relativity à la
Einstein attributes gravity to the spacetime curvature, to which we have grown accustomed. How-
arXiv:1906.10027v2 [gr-qc] 12 Apr 2021

ever, this perception has masked the fact that two alternative, though equivalent, formulations of
General Relativity in flat spacetimes exist, where gravity can be fully ascribed either to torsion or
to non-metricity. The latter allows a simpler geometrical formulation of General Relativity that
is oblivious to the affine spacetime structure. Generalisations along this line permit to generate
teleparallel and symmetric teleparallel theories of gravity with exceptional properties. In this work
we explore modified gravity theories based on non-linear extensions of the non-metricity scalar.
After presenting some general properties and briefly studying some interesting background cosmolo-
gies (including accelerating solutions with relevance for inflation and dark energy), we analyse the
behaviour of the cosmological perturbations. Tensor perturbations feature a re-scaling of the corre-
sponding Newton’s constant, while vector perturbations do not contribute in the absence of vector
sources. In the scalar sector we find two additional propagating modes, hinting that f (Q) theo-
ries introduce, at least, two additional degrees of freedom. These scalar modes disappear around
maximally symmetric backgrounds because of the appearance of an accidental residual gauge sym-
metry corresponding to a restricted diffeomorphism. We finally discuss the potential strong coupling
problems of these maximally symmetric backgrounds caused by the discontinuity in the number of
propagating modes.

I. INTRODUCTION ity is entirely assigned to torsion. A third equivalent

The gravitational phenomena can be interpreted as a
manifestation of having a curved spacetime and this in-
terpretation is possible thanks to the equivalence prin-
ciple. The tremendous implication of this assumption
is that the gravitational interaction is totally oblivious
to the type of matter fields. However, still within the
geometrical framework, the curvature is not the unique
geometrical object to represent the affine properties of a
manifold [1–4]. In fact, besides the curvature, the other
two fundamental objects associated to the connection of
a metric space are torsion and non-metricity. In stan-
dard General Relativity (GR) à la Einstein, both non-
metricity and torsion vanish.
If we embrace the geometrical character of gravity ad-
vocated by the equivalence principle, it is pertinent to
explore in which equivalent manners gravity can be ge-
ometrized. An equivalent representation of GR arises if
one considers a flat spacetime with a metric but asym-
metric connection. In this teleparallel description grav-
∗ jose.beltran@usal.es
† lavinia.heisenberg@phys.ethz.ch
‡ tomik@astro.uio.no
§ simonale@uoguelph.ca
and simpler representation of GR can be constructed on
an equally flat spacetime without torsion, in which grav-
ity is this time ascribed to non-metricity. Hence, the
same underlying physical theory,R √GR, can be described
by the Einstein-Hilbert action R √−gR(g), the action of
Teleparallel
R √Equivalent of GR −gT [5] and Coinci-
dent GR −gQ [6] that rests on a symmetric telepar-
allel geometry [7]. The geometrical trinity of GR and its
concise manifestation in detail can be found in [4].
The fundamental basis of these geometrical interpre-
tations offers a promising road for modified gravity. The
equivalent descriptions of GR with curvature, torsion
and non-metricity represent different alternative starting
points to modified gravity theories once the correspond-
ing scalar quantities are for instance promoted to arbi-
trary functions thereof. Since modified gravity theories
based on f (R) [8–10] and f (T ) [11–13] are widely studied
in the literature, we will focus on the less studied case of
f (Q) theories, which was introduced for the first time in
[6]. Since at the cosmological background level, models
based on f (Q) are indistinguishable from f (T ) models,
we will pay special attention to the study of perturba-
tions and their distinctive properties in f (Q) theories.
Concerning perturbations on top of a FLRW (Friedmann-
Lemaı̂tre-Robertson-Walker) background, models based
on f (T ) seem to suffer from strong coupling problems
 2

because some of the genuine physical degrees of freedom imposed by the field equations. In this framework, our
lose their kinetic term at the quadratic order and, conse- spacetime manifold is endowed with a metric structure
quently, the standard perturbation theory breaks down determined by the metric gµν , while the affine connec-
on these backgrounds [14]. At this stage, the number and tion Γα µν provides the affine structure that stipulates
nature of new propagating degrees of freedom in f (T ) how tensors are transported, thus defining the covariant
models on an arbitrary background is still under investi- derivative. In the class of theories under consideration
gation in the literature, see [15, 16] and related studies in this work, the fundamental object is the non-metricity
[17–19]. In this work, we will investigate whether models tensor defined as Qαµν = ∇α gµν . It manifests the failure
of modified gravity based on f (Q) suffer from a similar of the connection in being metric compatible. From the
strong coupling issue or whether it can be avoided for non-metricity tensor Qαµν , we can derive the disforma-
some interesting FLRW backgrounds relevant for dark tion
energy and inflation. 1 α
Besides the f (Q) models [6], a few other classes of Lα µν = Q µν − Q(µν) α , (1)
2
modified or extended gravity theories have been consid-
ered within the same symmetric teleparallel framework1 . that measures how far from the Levi-Civita connection
The so called Newer GR [6, 29–31]R is the symmetric part of the full connection is. It will also
√ a five-parameter
quadratic extension of the action −gQ, which has be convenient to introduce the non-metricity conjugate
been also considered in the language of differential forms defined as
[32–34] and extended to arbitrary derivative order by in- 1 1 α  1 α
cluding, in the most general case, ten free functions of P α µν = − Lα µν + Q − Q̃α gµν − δ(µ Qν) , (2)
2 4 4
the d’Alembertian operator [35]. Parity-odd quadratic
terms were taken into account in an exhaustive analy- where the two independent traces Qα = g µν Qαµν and
sis of scale-invariant metric-affine theories [36]. Without Q̃α = g µν Qµαν of the non-metricity tensor enter. Let us
the restriction to quadratic terms, cosmological solutions now introduce the non-metricity scalar that will play a
based on Noether symmetries were derived for generic central role in this work
first derivative order non-metric actions [37]. Järv et al
introduced a non-minimal coupling of a scalar field to the Q = −Qαµν P αµν . (3)
Q-invariant [38], which then Rünkla and Vilson gener- One can then see why we call P αµν the non-metricity
alised by coupling the scalar to the five Newer GR terms conjugate because it satisfies
[39]. Nonminimal couplings to matter were also consid-
ered in extended f (Q) models by Harko et al [40, 41]. To 1 ∂Q
P αµν = − . (4)
probe the potential cosmological viability of these and 2 ∂Qαµν
other classes of models, it is natural to begin by uncover-
ing the propagating degrees of freedom of the prototype We can then use the non-metricity scalar to write the
f (Q) models in the FLRW background. action for the theories that we consider as
This paper is structured as follows. After reviewing
4 √
Z  
1
the theory in Section II, we briefly look at the FLRW S = d x −g − f (Q) + LM , (5)
2
background equations in Section III. The main analysis
of the perturbations and the structure formation is found where LM stands for the matter Lagrangian. The moti-
in Section IV. To provide a better understanding and a vation for the particular choice of the non-metricity scalar
more clear interpretation of the perturbations we discuss and the above action is that GR is reproduced (classi-
the gauge transformation properties of the Q-scalar in cally, up to a boundary term) for the choice f = Q/8πG
Section V. Section VI presents a concise summary of our [6], i.e., for this choice we recover the so-called Symmetric
findings and points out the direction for further research Teleparallel Equivalent of GR.
that needs to be carried in order to fully uncover the Before proceeding any further, it will be convenient
cosmological potential of f (Q) gravity. to clarify that the geometrical framework that we use
has a flat and torsion-free connection so that it must
correspond to a pure coordinate transformation from the
II. THE THEORY trivial connection as explained in [6]. More explicitly, the
connection can be parameterised with a set of functions
We will use the so-called Palatini formalism where the ξ α as2
metric and the connection are treated on equal footing ∂xα
so they are independent objects whose relation is only Γα µβ = ∂µ ∂β ξ ρ . (6)
∂ξ ρ

1 2 It must be understood in (6) that ξ α = ξ α (xµ ) is an invertible

Other recent studies into torsion and non-metricity include e.g. α
[20–28]. relation and ∂x
∂ξρ
is the inverse of the corresponding Jacobian.
 3

Therefore, it is always possible to make a coordinate The last term in (12) is

choice so that the connection vanishes (more specifically, ∂Q ∂Q ∂Qαβγ
any coordinates affinely related to ξ α = xα .). We call δζ Γα µν = Lζ Γκ µν
∂Γα µν ∂Qαβγ ∂Γκ µν
these coordinates the coincident gauge and we will de-  
note quantities evaluated in this gauge with a ring over = −2P αβγ −2δαµ δ(βν
gγ)λ (−∇µ ∇ν ζ λ )
the corresponding symbol so, by definition Γ̊α µν = 0.
Thus, in the coincident gauge we will have = −4P αβγ gλ(β ∇γ) ∇α ζ λ , (15)

Q̊αµν = ∂α gµν , (7) It is possible to show that the non-metricity scalar varies
under Diff as
while in an arbitrary gauge we have ∂Q ∂Q
δζ Q = Lζ Qαµν + Lζ gµν = −Lζ Q , (16)
Qαµν = ∂α gµν − 2Γλ α(µ gν)λ ∂Qαµν ∂gµν
∂xλ and thus the action (5) is Diff-invariant. However, when
= Q̊αµν − 2 ∂α ∂(µ ξ ρ gν)λ . (8)
∂ξ ρ fixed to the coincident gauge, the action no longer re-
The metric field equations can be written as mains generally Diff-invariant. One obtains
Z h√
2 √
1 δζ S̊ = −2 d4 xζ λ −g (∂α ∂γ fQ ) P̊ αγ λ
√ ∇α −gfQ P α µν + gµν f
−g 2

 √ i
+fQ Pµαβ Qν − 2Qαβµ P αβ ν = Tµν ,
αβ + 2 ∂(α fQ ∂γ) −g P̊ αγ λ . (17)


(9)
where fQ = ∂f /∂Q. By raising one index this adopts an We have dropped a total derivative and used the identity
even slightly more compact form, √
∂α ∂µ ( −g P̊ αµ ν ) = 0 . (18)
2 √
1
√ ∇α −gfQ P αµ ν + δνµ f + fQ P µαβ Qναβ = T µ ν . Thus, only when fQQ = 0, the action is in general Diff
−g 2
(10) invariant. However, for a generic f there appears a term
The connection equation of motion can be straightfor- which vanishes on-shell as the result of the non-trivial
wardly computed by noticing that the variation of the extra set of equations (11).
connection with respect to ξ α is equivalent to perform-
ing a diffeomorphism so that δξ Γα µβ = −Lξ Γα µβ =
III. COSMOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
−∇µ ∇β ξ α , where we have used that the connection is EVOLUTION
flat and torsion-free. Thus, in the absence of hypermo-
mentum the connection field equations read
√ As we mentioned above, at the cosmological back-
−gfQ P µν α = 0 .


∇ µ ∇ν (11) ground level our model based on (5) does not differ
from the f (T ) models. It also shares similar cosmo-
From the metric and the connection equations one can logical solutions as the vector distortion parametrisation
verify that Dµ T µ ν = 0, where Dµ is the metric-covariant [42, 43]. The background evolution and the different self-
derivative [29], as it should by virtue of diffeomorphism accelerating solutions were briefly discussed in [6]. We
(Diff) invariance. In the most general case with a non- shall only quickly review the background equations of
trivial hypermomentum, one would obtain a relation motion and their defining properties. We will consider
between the divergence of the energy-momentum tensor the FLRW metric
and the hypermomentum [40].
ds2 = −N 2 (t)dt2 + a2 (t)d~x2 , (19)
In order to clarify the conservation in the matter sector
where N (t) and a(t) are the lapse function and the scale
and the Bianchi identities, let us look at the gauge invari-
factor, respectively. From now on and unless otherwise
ance of the theory. Under a Diff given by xµ → xµ + ζ µ ,
stated, we will fix the coincident gauge so the connection
the non-metricity scalar changes as H2
is trivial. The non-metricity scalar is then Q = 6 N 2.
∂Q ∂Q ∂Q Since we have used diffeomorphisms to fix the coincident
δζ Q = δζ gµν,α + δζ gµν + δζ Γα µν .
∂gµν,α ∂gµν ∂Γα µν gauge, one could think that we are not allowed to se-
(12) lect any particular lapse function. However, the special
The first term is case of f (Q) theories does allow so because Q retains
∂Q a residual time-reparameterisation invariance, as already
δζ gµν,α = 2P αµν Lζ Q̊αµν , (13) explained in [6] so we will use this symmetry to set N = 1.
∂gµν,α
The cosmological equations of motion are given by
where 1
6fQ H 2 − f = ρ,
Lζ Q̊αµν = ζ ρ ∂ρ ∂α gµν + ∂α ζ ρ ∂ρ gµν + 2∂α gρ(µ ∂ν) ζ ρ 2
1
+ 2gρ(µ ∂ν) ∂α ζ ρ . 2


(14) 12H fQQ + fQ Ḣ = − (ρ + p) . (20)
2
 4

The standard matter fields satisfy the continuity equa- We have assumed that the total energy density ρ is com-
tion ρ̇ = −3H(ρ + p), that is consistent with the prised by a matter ρm and a radiation ρr component.
above cosmological equations thanks to the time- In terms of the variables the dynamical system takes the
reparameterisation invariance aforementioned. These form
equations are formally the same as those of the f (T )
theories so we refer to [44] for an extensive analysis of x01 = x1 ( − 3) + 3x21 + 4x1 x2
the background cosmology based on those equations. We x02 = x2 ( − 4) + 3x1 x2 + 4x22
will content ourselves with discussing some interesting x03 = (x3 − 1) + 3x1 x3 + 4x2 x3 , (25)
features of the background cosmology for these theories.
There is a particularly interesting class of theories that where  = −Ḣ/H 2 and prime denotes the derivative with
give a background evolution identical to that of General respect to log a. The independent variables can be taken
Relativity. Such a class of models can be easily obtained as {x1 , x2 , }. The Friedmann equation (20) imposes the
Q
by imposing QfQ − 21 f = 16πG whose solution is constraint equation
1  p  x1 + x2 + x3 = 1 . (26)
f= Q+M Q (21)
8πG
One can easily solve the system for its critical points. We
with M some mass scale. Of course, M = 0 corresponds find the following three critical points of the dynamical
to the GR equivalent, but it is remarkable that there system
exists a whole class of theories whose background cos-
mology is the same as in GR for any matter content. I: (x1 = 0, x2 = 0, x3 = 1)
The different values of M could only be discriminated 
1 1

by analysing the evolution of the perturbations and this II : x1 = 1 − , x2 = 0, x3 = 
3 3
property by itself makes this particular choice of f (Q) an  
interesting study case since the evolution of the perturba- 1 1
III : x1 = 0, x2 = 1 − , x3 =  . (27)
tions can be modified while maintaining the background 4 4
oblivious to such modifications.
We can include small perturbations and consider the fol-
On the other hand, the STEGR supplemented with a
lowing linearised system
general power-law term, i.e.
   
1
 
Q
α 
d  δx1 δx 1
f= Q − 6λM 2 (22) δx2  = M δx2  (28)
8πG 6M 2 dt δx δx
3 3
with λ and α dimensionless parameters, gives rise to
branches of solutions applicable either to early universe with the matrix M of the dynamical system given by
cosmology or to dark energy depending on the value of M=
α. For these models, the Friedmann equation modifies 
6x1 + 4x2 +  − 3 3x2 3x3

into  4x1 3x1 + 8x2 +  − 4 4x3 .
0 0 3x1 + 4x2 + 
"  2 α−1 #
2 H 8πG
H 1 + (1 − 2α)λ 2
= ρ. (23) (29)
M 3
The stability analysis of the critical points reveals that
the first critical point I is a stable attractor, the second
Again, for α = 1/2 we recover the aforementioned class
one II is a saddle point and the third one III is an
of theories with the same background evolution as GR,
unstable repeller.
while α = 1 is of course degenerate with the STEGR
In the following we will study two explicit examples
and can be fully absorbed into G. It is then apparent
with some interesting properties.
from the above modified Friedmann equation that the 1
Example 1: 8πGf (Q) = Q − 36 (Q/m)2
corrections to the usual GR evolution will appear at low
In this case, the Friedmann equation in (20) simplifies to
curvatures for α < 1, while for α > 1, the corrections will
be relevant in the high curvatures regime. Thus, theories 
H2

with α > 1 will be relevant for the early universe (with 3H 2 1 − = 8πGρ (30)
2m2
potential applications to inflationary solutions), whereas
theories with α < 1 will give corrections to the late-time which has two branches of cosmological solutions
cosmology, where they can give rise to dark energy.
We would like to bring the equations into an
r !
2 2 16πGρ
autonomous-like form. In order to do that we introduce H± = m 1 ± 1 − . (31)
3m2
the dimensionless variables
ρm ρr f The cosmological background evolution for this example
x1 = , x2 = and x3 = . (24)
QfQ QfQ 2QfQ is formally the same as the one obtained in [43] from
 5

10 M4
GR 1 8πG f (Q) = Q +
1 H+2
Q

0.100 0.01

H2
H2

0.010
H-2 10-4 2
HdS
2
Q
0.001 8πG f (Q) = Q - GR
36 m2 -6
10
0.001 0.010 0.100 1 10 10-8 10-6 10-4 0.01 1
ρ ρ

Figure 1. In these figures we show the Hubble function H 2 as a function of ρ for the two examples discussed in the main text.
We have normalised to the Planck mass and fixed the parameters to m = 0.5MPl in the left panel and M = 10−2 MPl in the
right panel.

a completely different framework based on a generalised corresponding to an asymptotically de Sitter solution, as

Weyl geometry with vector distortion giving both non- shown in the right panel of Fig. 1. This example can
metricity and torsion, first introduced in [42]. Thus, we thus be relevant for dark energy applications since it al-
will limit ourselves to summarise the main properties of lows for solutions that naturally give a transition from
these solutions and we will refer to [43] for a more detailed a matter dominated universe to an accelerating de Sit-
analysis. The most remarkable feature of this cosmology ter universe. However, as we will show in our analysis of
is the existence of a maximum allowed density in the uni- the perturbations in the subsequent sections, this asymp-
verse given by 8πGρmax = 32 m2 , which is enforced by the totically de Sitter solutions are prone to strong coupling
square root in (31)3 . Below the maximum density, we problems in the scalar sector of the perturbations, thus
2 casting doubts on its phenomenological viability.
have two branches: H− that approaches the usual GR
2 Since the f (Q) theories share the background equa-
evolution at low densities and H+ that gives an approx-
imate de Sitter universe with HdS ' 2m2 regardless the
2 tions with the f (T ) theories, we will not investigate fur-
value of ρ (see left panel in Fig. 1). ther the possible background cosmologies and we will now
Example 2: 8πGf (Q) = Q + M 4 /Q turn to the main focus of this paper, i.e., the evolution
The Friedmann equation in this case becomes of the perturbations. Let us finish this brief discussion of
the background cosmological evolution by advancing the
M4
 
2 existence of strong coupling problems at the perturbative
H 1− = 8πGρ (32)
12H 4 level that may cast serious doubts on the viability of the
background cosmologies.
that can be solved for H 2 as
s !
4πG 3M 4 IV. COSMOLOGICAL PERTURBATIONS
2
H± = ρ 1± 1+ . (33)
3 64π 2 G2 ρ2
For the sake of generality, we will study the evolution
The negative branch is not physical because it gives of the cosmological perturbations in the presence of a
2 2
H− < 0, so only the branch H+ is physical. As in K-essence field so our action is
the previous example, this evolution was also obtained Z
√

1

in the framework of generalised Weyl geometries in [43]. SM = d4 x −g − f (Q) + P (X) , (34)
2 2
The physical branch H+ recovers the usual GR Fried-
mann equation for ρ  M 2 MPl 2
, while at low densities where X = −∂µ χ∂ µ χ. The background Friedmann equa-
the Hubble function approaches the constant HdS 2 2
= 2M√3 tions now read
f + P + 12H 2 fQ − 2PX χ̄˙ 2 = 0 (35)
 
PX χ̄˙ 2 + 2Ḣ fQ − 12H 2 fQQ = 0 . (36)
3 The existence of a maximum energy density enforced by
some square root structure is the main motivation behind the On the other hand, the scalar field equation reads
Born-Infeld-inspired theories of gravity (see [45] and references d 3

therein). a PX χ̄˙ = 0 (37)
dt

Since the crucial difference to f (T ) theories will arise at
the level of perturbations, we will investigate in detail
the second order action of cosmological perturbations.
For this purpose, we decompose the metric in terms of
the irreducible representations of the background SO(3)
symmetry expressed in conformal time as follows [46]
2 redressing of the effective Planck mass with fQ . This has
δg00 = −2a φ ,
δg0i = δgi0 = a2 (∂i B + Bi ) ,
   
δ ij k
δgij = 2a2 −ϕδij + ∂i ∂j − ∂ ∂k E + ∂(i Ej) + hij , driving the growth of structures. On the other hand, the
3
with the scalar perturbations φ, B, ϕ and E, the vector
perturbations Bi and Ei satisfying ∂ i Bi = 0 = ∂ i Ei and
the tensor perturbations hij with the properties ∂ i hij =
0 = hi i . Similarly, we decompose the K-essence field into
its background contribution and perturbation
χ(τ, x, y, z) = χ̄(τ ) + δχ(t, x, y, z).
As usual, the different sectors will decouple thanks to the
background symmetries so we can treat them separately.
We shall use conformal time, corresponding to the choice
of lapse N = a in (19), by τ . Derivatives with respect to
the conformal time will be denoted by primes, and thus
the conformal Hubble rate is defined as H = a0 /a = aH.
A word on the choice of time variable is in order before
proceeding. As we have discussed, the background equa-
tions retain time re-parameterisation invariance, so the
choice of time coordinate is irrelevant there. However,
since we are working in the coincident gauge, the pertur-
bations do not enjoy Diffs invariance and the choice of
background time coordinate might lead to different re-
sults. We have checked that all our conclusions below
remain valid regardless the choice of the lapse function.
A. Tensor perturbations
We introduce the tensor perturbations as the trans-
verse traceless part of the metric fluctuations that can
be decomposed into its two helicity modes h(λ) . After
decomposing the tensor field in Fourier modes with re-
spect to the spatial coordinates and using the background
equations of motion, the second order action becomes
Z
(2) 1X h i
Stensor = d3 k dτ a2 fQ (h0(λ) )2 − k 2 h2(λ) .
2
λ
As it becomes clear from the above expression, the ten-
sor perturbations are massless and have the same prop-
agation speed of gravitational waves as in GR [6]. This
was to be expected from the form of the action for the
theories under consideration because all the modifica-
tions to the pure tensor perturbations come from the
term Qαµν Qαµν ∼ ∂α hij ∂ α hij . All the other indepen-
dent scalars constructed out of the non-metricity van-
ish for the quadratic action. It is clear that tensor per-
turbations cannot contribute to the vector traces of the
6
non-metricity at first order. The remaining independent
scalar is Qαµν Qµαν ∼ ∂i hjk ∂ j hik which gives zero in the
quadratic action via integration by parts and recalling
that the background is homogeneous. Thus, our result
is the expected one that the only modification to tensor
perturbations is the appearance of the time-depending
some observational consequences because the coupling
constant of GWs to matter sources will be G/fQ . As
we will see, this is the same effective Newton’s constant
(38) modified coupling constant will also affect the cosmolog-
ical propagation of gravitational waves because the usual
Hubble friction term acquires a fQ -dependent correction.
More explicitly, the propagation of GWs is governed by
the modified equation
 
00 d log fQ
(39) h(λ) + 2H 1 + h0(λ) + k 2 h(λ) = 0. (41)
2Hdη
An immediate consequence is thus a modification on
the luminosity-distance as measured from GWs. Due to
the additional friction introduced by the time-dependent
value of fQ , the amplitude of GWs decays as |h(λ) | ∝
p
1/(a fQ ) instead of the usual 1/a dilution. We can then
obtain constraints on fQ by comparing the luminosity-
distance as measured with GWs and the one inferred
from observing photons, assuming that their propaga-
tion is described by Maxwellian electromagnetism. A
perfect candidate for this is the merger of two neutron
stars as detected by the LIGO collaboration where the
signals in GWs and the electromagnetic counterpart were
measured. This modification on the luminosity-distance
is formally analogous to what happens in models with
extra-dimensions where gravity can leak into the addi-
tional dimensions [47]. The effect on the luminosity-
distance arising from a time-variation of the effective
Planck mass has also been analysed in [48] (see also [49–
51] for the effects on the propagation of GWs arising from
a modified friction term).
B. Vector perturbations
(40) Naively counted there are four vector modes in Ei and
Bi . However, one immediate observation is that the fields
Bi appear in the second order action as non-dynamical
fields and they can be integrated out by means of an al-
gebraic equation. We use their equations of motion in or-
der to remove them from the second order action. Then,
the remaining action solely depends on Ei . Nevertheless,
once the background equations of motion are used, their
contributions trivialize in the sense that the entire second
order action vanishes. This can also be straightforwardly
understood from the field equations directly, which can

be written as
 
k 2 fQ B~ −E
~ 0 = 0, (42)
h  i0
k 2 fQ B ~ −E~0 = 0, (43)
where we have made used of the background equations.
We then see that the first equation is not dynamical and
simply fixes B ~ in terms of E~ 0 . The second equation, be-
ing the derivative of the constraint, does not give new
information. This means that vector perturbations do
not propagate, which coincides with the usual result in
GR in the absence of vector sources. However, while in
GR this is a consequence of diffeomorphisms invariance
and the vector modes can be associated to the Lagrange
multipliers of transverse Diffs, in the f (Q) theories, once
we fix the coincident gauge as we have done here, there
is not, in principle, any symmetry ensuring that the vec-
tor perturbations are Lagrange multipliers and, conse-
quently, one might expect that they become dynamical
in the full theory. There is in fact a simple argument that
clearly shows that at most two vector modes will become
dynamical in the full theory, while the other two vector
modes will remain non-propagating dof’s. The reason is
that, in the coincident gauge, the scalar Q reduces to the
Ricci scalar deprived of the total derivative. If we per-
form an ADM splitting where the metric is decomposed
into the lapse function N , the shift vector Ni and the
spatial metric γij , the non-metricity scalar Q will only
contain time derivatives of γij (see Appendix A for more
details) so that the f (Q) action in the ADM formalism
will have the form
√
Z
1 6fQ +9QfQQ
SADM = − d3 xdtN −γf (γ̇ij , γij , N , Ni ) (44)
2
where we clearly see the non-dynamical character of the
lapse and the shift. This means that only the vector
modes contained within γij can become dynamical, while
those contributing to the shift remain non-dynamical at
the full non-linear level. Thus, the non-dynamical nature
of B~ reflects that the shift is not a propagating dof in
~ it remains to see if it also
the full theory. As for E,
corresponds to a non-dynamical field in the full theory.
~ would represent a mode that
If this was not the case, E
becomes strongly coupled in the highly symmetric FLRW
background.
C. Scalar perturbations
There are four scalar modes {B, φ, ϕ, E} in the met-
ric fluctuations and one in the fluctuation of the matter
field δχ. However, the two scalar perturbations B and
φ are not dynamical and can be immediately integrated
out using their algebraic equations of motion. The non-
dynamical nature of these modes can be understood from
our previous discussion on the ADM decomposition be-
cause B and φ are just the linearised lapse function and
7
the longitudinal part of the perturbed shift, which are
in fact non-dynamical in the full theory. The remaining
second order action depends on the scalar perturbations
{ϕ, E, δχ}. Its cumbersome form will not be necessary
for us here so we will omit it4 . It is interesting however to
give the determinant of the corresponding Hessian, which
is
12k 4 Q2 fQ fQQ
2
(fQ + 2QfQQ )2
, (45)
2 + 2Qf f
12fQ 2 2
Q QQ (9 − 5) − Q fQQ (8 − 3)
where we have introduced  = 1 − H0 /H2 , which is the
usual slow-roll parameter expressed in conformal time
(though we do not assume it to be small here). The
vanishing of the above expression indicates a degenerate
system so that at least one of the remaining three scalar
modes becomes non-dynamical. This is of course the case
when fQQ = 0 as it corresponds to GR (we know that
there will actually be two more non-dynamical modes in
that case owed to Diffs-invariance). Since the determi-
nant is proportional to k 4 , we also see that the system be-
comes degenerate for homogeneous perturbations, which
is a reflection of the additional time reparameterisation
symmetry of the background. Besides these two limit-
ing cases, there is another situation where the Hessian is
degenerate, which corresponds to background solutions
with  = 0. These solutions describe maximally sym-
metric backgrounds, i.e., Minkowski and (anti-)de Sitter.
The Hessian for these backgrounds reduces to the simple
form
0 0 0
 
4
 0 − 2k QfQ fQQ 0 
0 0 1
that clearly shows how one of the scalar modes loses its
kinetic term and becomes non-dynamical. Furthermore,
it is not difficult to show that, after integrating out this
new non-dynamical mode, the equation for the remain-
ing scalar mode of the gravitational sector trivialises so
that the full scalar sector disappears (assuming that the
matter sector is simply given by an exact cosmological
constant). More explicitly, the equations for ϕ and E in
the presence of a cosmological constant and after inte-
grating out the non-dynamical modes φ and B are given
by
k 4 QfQ fQQ 
0 2

3HE + k E − 3ϕ = 0, (46)
H 2 (2fQ + 3QfQ )
k 4 QfQ fQQ h
E 00 + 18H 3 E 0 + k 2 (3H 2 − k 2 )E
H 2 (2fQ + 3QfQ )
i
− 9Hϕ0 + 3(k 2 − 3H 2 )ϕ = 0. (47)
4
The full Hessian is reported in Eq. (B1). We give the corre-
sponding equations of motion in Sec. IV D.
 8

We can see that ϕ is not-dynamical and can be solved for constant for  = 0. However, we encounter that a second
from the first equation. We can then plug the solution scalar mode also disappears and this mode is expected to
into the second equation and corroborate that it is indeed be part of the dynamical degrees of freedom of the f (Q)
identically satisfied, thus leaving a trivial scalar sector. theories so its disappearance in fact signals that it be-
The loss of kinetic terms might signal the presence comes strongly coupled. We will return to this point be-
of a strong coupling problem because, as we go arbi- low where we will relate these evanescent modes around
trarily close to those maximally symmetric backgrounds, maximally symmetric backgrounds with the appearance
the canonically normalised mode becomes arbitrarily of a gauge symmetry. Let us nevertheless finalise this
strongly coupled (either to itself or to other modes). It brief comparison with usual inflationary perturbations by
is interesting to notice that these background configura- saying that very small values of the slow roll parameter
tions are in fact the expected solutions in vacuum, since can in fact incur strong coupling issues. As a matter of
deviations from  = 0 will require a non-trivial back- fact, going through a phase where the slow roll parameter
ground profile for the scalar field. For a general FLRW decreases for a few e-folds after the CMB scales have ex-
background, however, all three scalar modes propagate. ited the horizon and before the end of inflation originates
In other words, in the absence of the matter fields, the a peak in the power spectrum (that could eventually form
disappearance of the scalar modes signals towards a po- primordial black holes). If  becomes sufficiently small,
tential strong coupling problem. At a more practical the peak in the power spectrum can be so large that per-
level, these findings suggest the existence of a low strong turbation theory breaks down.
coupling scale, but it remains to compute it explicitly
to see if it leaves room for non-trivial phenomenologies
since, at the strong coupling scale, the perturbation the- D. Field equations
ory breaks down and we cannot make any reliable state-
ment. Nevertheless, the situation is better than in f (T ) In the following we will consider a perfect fluid for the
theories since there the strong coupling problem appears matter field instead of a K-essence field and explicitly
for general FLRW backgrounds, i.e., regardless the pres- show the dependence of background variables in the per-
ence or type of matter fields. Here, we encounter this turbations equations of motion. The perturbed line el-
problem only for (anti-)de Sitter/Minkowski backgrounds ement will be explicitly given in (51). It is sometimes
and the presence of matter fields can crucially help to convenient to introduce the Bardeen potential ψ with
raise the strong coupling scale. the purely temporal transformation
It is interesting to compare our results for the per-
ψ → ψ + Hζ 0 , (49)
turbations in f (Q) theories with what happens in single
field inflation. Let us recall that the curvature perturba- by combining the trace of the shear perturbation E with
tion5 R for a single field inflationary model features the the ϕ on the spatial diagonal as
following quadratic action 1
ψ = ϕ + δ ij E,ij , (50)
Z
a2  h i 3
2
SR = MPl dτ d3 x 2 Ṙ2 − c2s |∇R|2 , (48) so that
cs
ds2
where c2s stands for the propagation speed of the scalar = − (1 + 2φ) dτ 2 + 2 (B,i + Bi ) dτ dxi
a2 (τ )
perturbations. In this action we encounter something h i
similar to our f (Q) theories in that the limit  → 0 seems + (1 − 2ψ) δij + 2E,ij + 2E(i,j) + 2hij dxi dxj .
to lead to a strong coupling issue because the scalar per- (51)
turbation loses its kinetic term. This is in fact true. How-
ever, in the strict limit  = 0, we recover that the matter The matter energy momentum tensor we parameterise
sector is a cosmological constant and the disappearance in the fluid form,
of the scalar mode is associated to the fact that a cosmo- T 0 0 = −ρ (1 + δ) , (52)
logical constant does not fluctuate, so in this particular T 0 i = − (ρ + p) (∂i v + Vi ) , (53)
case there is no onus. The case of the f (Q) theories i
 i i i

T 0 = (ρ + p) ∂ (v − B) + V − B , (54)
is more problematic because we have the disappearance
of two scalar modes. The disappearance of one of the 1
T i j = (p + δp) δji + ∂ i ∂j π − δji ∇2 π + Πi j . (55)
modes could have been expected on the grounds that the 3
matter sector reduces to a non-fluctuating cosmological Here ρ and p are the background energy density and pres-
sure. Denoting w = p/ρ, c2s = p0 /ρ0 , the continuity and
Euler equations are
 
0 2 2 0

δp
5 Let us stress that R denotes the scalar perturbation and not the δ = (1 + w) −k v − k B + 3ϕ + 3H wρ − (56)
,
Ricci scalar. Since this is standard notation and there is no risk ρ
of confusion, we prefer to stick to the general notation within the δp 2 w
v 0 = −H 1 − c2s v + k 2 π + φ . (57)


inflationary literature. −
ρ+p 31+w
 9

Similarly, the energy constraint can be expressed in a The pressure equation is a little bit more cumbersome
compact form as but can be expressed as
−a2 δρ = 6 fQ + 12a−2 H2 fQQ H (Hφ + ϕ0 ) + 2fQ k 2 ψ

−2 fQ + 3a−2 fQQ H0 + H2 Hk 2 B .


(58)
The velocity propagation can be withdrawn from
1 2
a (ρ + p) v = fQ + 3a−2 fQQ H0 + H2 Hφ


2
+6a−2 fQQ H2 ϕ0 − 9a−2 fQQ H0 − H2 Hϕ

+fQ ψ 0 − a−2 fQQ H2 k 2 B . (59)

   
1 2 1 dfQQ 3
a δp = fQ + 12a−2 fQQ H2 (Hφ0 + ϕ00 ) + fQ H0 + 2H2 − k 2 + 12a−2 fQQ H2 4H0 − H2 + 12a−2



H φ
2 3 dτ
 
dfQQ 1
+ 2 fQ + 6a−2 fQQ 3H0 − H2 + 6a−2 H Hϕ0 + fQ k 2 ψ


dτ 3
 
1 1 dfQQ
fQ + 6a−2 fQQ H2 k 2 B 0 − 2fQ + 3a−2 fQQ 5H − H2 + 6a−2 H Hk 2 B .



− (60)
3 3 dτ

In the presence of anisotropic stress in T i j , we can simi- dent connection field equations from (11) are
larly follow the shear propagation via the equation
− fQQ H 2Hϕ0 + H0 + H2 φ + H0 − H2 (ψ − B 0 )



h
i
pa2 π = −2 fQ + 6a−2 fQQ H0 − H2 HB h 
1

− fQQ H02 + HH00 − 3H2 H0 − H2 k 2
+2 fQ + 6a−2 fQQ H0 − H2 HE 0


3
fQ (ψ − φ) + fQ E 00 − fQ B 0 . (61) dfQQ 0 i
+ (H − H2 )H B = 0 , (62)
dτ
Last but not least, we also have the contributions coming
from the connection field equations. The two indepen- and

 
0 2

0 00 02 0 2

dfQQ 0 2


− fQQ H − 3H Hφ − fQQ H H + H − 9H H − H − 3H H φ
dτ
   
2 00 0 2

dfQQ 0 02 00 0 2

dfQQ 0 2


+ 2fQQ H ϕ + fQQ H + 3H + 2 H Hϕ − 3 fQQ H + H H − 3H H + H −H H ϕ
dτ dτ
 
1 1
dfQQ
− fQQ H2 k 2 B 0 + fQQ H0 − 3H2 − H Hk 2 B = 0 . (63)
3 3 dτ

In terms of the gauge-invariant vector perturbations E. Growth of matter perturbations

B̂ i = (B − E 0 )i , the vector equations satisfy
1 2 i
(ρ + p) V i = k B̂ , (64)
2  
pΠi = fQ B̂ i0 + 2HB̂ i
+6a−2 fQQ H H0 − H2 B̂ i .


(65)
Equipped with these equations of motion of the pertur-
bations we can derive the effects in the cosmological ob-
servables, one of the important ones being the change in We have two extra perturbation variables in the metric
the growth of structures. compared to the usual case. We also have two extra

equations. At small scales, we have from (62) that6
k 2 B = 3H−1 2Hϕ0 + H0 + H2 φ + H0 − H2 ψ .



(66)
Let us consider dust, w = c2s = 0. In the quasi-static
limit7 (which is just the small scale approximation), the
energy constraint (58) yields the usual Poisson equation
with a modulated Newton’s constant,
4πGρδ
ψ=− , (67)
k 2 fQ
where the Newton’s constant is explicitly restored (fQ →
fQ /8πG). Both the equations of the spatial diagonal (60)
and (61) both imply at the quasi-static limit that
φ = ψ. (68)
The connection equation (66) then further simplifies to
H0
 
6 0
B= 2 ϕ + φ . (69)
k H
On the other hand, the continuity equation (62) implies
for dust that
δ 00 = −k 2 (v 0 + B 0 ) + 3ϕ00 , (70)
which, by using the Euler equation (63) and then again
(62) becomes
δ 00 + Hδ 0 + k 2 φ = 3 (ϕ00 + Hϕ0 ) − k 2 (B 0 + H0 B) . (71)
Consistently with (67) and (69), the right hand side of
this equation can be neglected at the quasi-static limit.
We thus end up with the simple evolution equation for
the overdensity δ,
4πGρ
δ 00 + Hδ 0 = δ, (72)
fQ
where the modification with respect to the standard
equation is that the effective gravitational constant is
modulated by the time-dependent background function
fQ such that G → G/fQ . This is essentially the same
equation that governs the growth of structures in the
quasi-static limit of f (T ) cosmology [14].
6
A similar relation is found for the extra perturbation ζ in the
f (T ) models, which however is exact [14], whereas the equation
(66) applies only at the limit k  H.
7 Let us stress that the strict quasi-static limit is not well-defined
within these theories because, as we have seen and we will dis-
cuss in more depth below, the scalar sector becomes strongly cou-
pled around maximally symmetric backgrounds. Since the quasi-
static limit essentially amounts to considering a static back-
ground, it is likely that the strong coupling scale is reached before
the quasi-static regime. The reason to proceed as we do in this
section is to give a comparison with the results in f (T ) theories
and explicitly show that the perturbations evolve differently even
though the background evolutions are formally identical in both
families of theories. It is important to notice that the quasi-static
limit is even more ill-defined in the f (T ) theories due to the more
severe strong coupling problems of those theories.
10
V. GAUGE TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE
PERTURBATIONS
In order to appreciate better the involved symmetries,
we will consider gauge transformations of the cosmologi-
cal perturbations in this section. We shall again consider
the generally perturbed flat FLRW line element in equa-
tion (38). We can derive the gauge transformations of
the metric potentials under an infinitesimal coordinate
change xµ → xµ + ζ µ , whose scalar sector is given by ζ 0
and ζ i = δ ij ∂j ζ and vector sector by a transverse ζ̂ i . The
result for the vectors is
B i → B i − ζ̂ i0 ,
E i → E i − ζ̂ i , (73)
and for the scalars
0
φ → φ − ζ 0 − Hζ 0 ,
B → B − ζ0 + ζ0 ,
1
ϕ → ϕ − k 2 ζ + Hζ 0 ,
3
E →E−ζ. (74)
As we have explained in several occasions above, the use
of the coincident gauge exhausted the freedom allowed
by Diff-invariance. This is crucially different from other
Diff-invariant theories (as e.g. GR and many other ex-
tensions based on its curvature formulation), but it is
somewhat similar to what happens for massive gravity
theories where the mass term breaks Diffs invariance and
it is not legitimate to fix any of the gravitational poten-
tials (some of which remain non-dynamical like in our
case). The analogy with massive gravity also extends
to the Diffs-restored versions of the theories. In massive
gravity it is possible to resort to the Stueckelberg trick
and restore Diff-invariance by the introduction of a set
of four compensating fields with appropriate transforma-
tion properties (under both Lorentz and diffeomorphisms
transformations), while in symmetric teleparallel theories
the connection naturally acquires the form of an inertial
connection given in terms of compensating Stueckelberg
fields, the ξ 0 s, and the coincident gauge is nothing but the
corresponding unitary gauge. It will be instructive to ex-
plicitly see how the form of the inertial connection indeed
restores the scalar character of the non-metricity scalar
in the cosmological framework. This will also permit us
to gain a better understanding of the disappearance of
scalar modes around maximally symmetric backgrounds
obtained above as a consequence of the emergence of a
constrained Diff symmetry for such backgrounds.
The non-metricity scalar in the coincident gauge for
our perturbed metric at first order is8
a2 Q̊ = 6H2 − 2H 6 (Hφ + ϕ0 ) − k 2 B ,
 
(75)
8 We will restore the notation of denoting a quantity in the coin-
cident gauge with a ring over for clarity.

Notice that vector perturbations do not contribute at this
order, so we will not consider them for now, but we will
come back to them later when discussing the invariance
of the field equations.
The transformation of the non-metricity perturbation
in the coincident gauge can then be easily computed as9
2H h
i
∆ζ δ Q̊ = 2 6 H2 − H0 ζ 0 + k 2 ζ 0 + ζ 0 . (76)


a it is just an accidental gauge symmetry of those back-
As expected, Q̊ does not transform as a scalar but it
features an additional term. It is interesting however,
that the failure to transform as a scalar is
k2 0
ζ + ζ0


∆ζ δ Q̊ + Lζ Q̊ = 2H 2
(77)
a background. This is precisely the origin of the afore-
which shows three remarkable properties. Firstly, Q̊ does
transform as a scalar for large gauge transformations
with zero momentum and this can have interesting con-
sequences for adiabatic modes. Secondly, non-zero mo-
mentum gauge transformations still realise a restricted
Diff symmetry provided the gauge parameters satisfy
ζ 0 = −ζ 0 . Notice however that this does not mean the
existence of a gauge symmetry in the theory. Finally, the
Minkowski background with H = 0 also makes δ Q̊ trans-
form as a scalar. This already suggests that Minkowski
is a special background as we will confirm in the follow-
ing. In order to elucidate more clearly the role of the
gauge transformations on the dynamics, let us see how
the equations for the perturbations behave under Diffs.
We do not need the specific form of the equations, but
only how they change under a Diffs transformation. As
above, we will use a scalar field as a proxy for the mat-
ter sector. Since this matter sector is Diff-invariant, its
equation of motion will be gauge invariant so we do not
need to consider it and we can only focus on the gravita-
tional equations for the perturbations, which correspond
to the Diff-breaking sector. These equations change as:
∆ζ Eϕ = − 2k 2 Q̄fQQ (ζ 0 + ζ 0 )0 + k 2 HQ̄fQQ (5ζ 0 + 7ζ 0 )
+ 4k 2 HQ̄2 fQQQ ( − 1)(ζ 0 + ζ 0 ) ,
h i
∆ζ Eφ =k 2 HQ̄fQQ 2(ζ 0 + ζ 0 ) + (ζ 0 − ζ 0 ) ,
1 h  0 
i
∆ζ EB = k 2 Q̄fQQ 3H ζ 0 + k 2 ζ − k 2 ζ 0 + ζ 0 ,
3
4
∆ζ EE = − k 4 HQ̄fQQ ζ 0 . (78)
3
From these equations we can see that, as expected, the
STEGR where f (Q) is a linear function of Q the equa-
tions are gauge invariant. However, we can also see that
background solutions with  = 0 also have perturbations
equations that are invariant under the restricted Diffs
9 In this section we will use ∆ζ to denote the variation under a
Diff, while δ will be used to denote the first order perturbation
of a given quantity.
11
with ζ 0 = −ζ 0 , which is the same subset of Diffs that
make δ Q̊ transform as a scalar. This feature also allows
to explain the disappearance of the scalar modes dis-
cussed above around maximally symmetric backgrounds.
We can now understand that these backgrounds enjoy
an additional gauge symmetry so that one scalar per-
turbation becomes a gauge mode. However, since this
symmetry is not in the full theory, we can conclude that
grounds. The accidental nature of this symmetry is in
fact corroborated by the fact that more general cosmolog-
ical backgrounds do not have it, which can be easily un-
derstood by noticing that there is no relation between ζ 0
and ζ that make the RHS in (78) vanish for an arbitrary
mentioned strong coupling problem of the scalar pertur-
bations around maximally symmetric backgrounds. On
the other hand, the fact that Minkowski exhibits this en-
hanced symmetry also explains that the very sub-horizon
modes realise the symmetry up to corrections suppressed
by H2 /k 2 .
Let us now turn to the vector sector whose equations
we gave in (43). From there, it is obvious to see that
they do retain the gauge invariance of GR for an arbitrary
purely vector Diff. Whether this symmetry is maintained
at higher order is not clear. If they do, the non-dynamical
nature of the vector modes would extend to the full non-
linear order. If a completion of this linear symmetry
is not present, then vector modes would exhibit strong
coupling problems more severe than those of the scalar
perturbations.
To end this section, it is instructive to see how the
above gauge transformations relate to the choice of con-
nection. At the background order the non-metricity can
be written as
Qαµν = 2Hδα0 gµν , Qα = 8Hδα0 , Q̃α = 2Hδα0 , (79)
and for its conjugate we obtain
h i
j 0
Pαµν = H δα0 δµi δνj − δαi δ(µ δν) gij . (80)
If we transform the connection away from the coinci-
dent gauge by the same ζ µ as in (74), up to the lin-
ear order we have δQαµν = −2gβ(µ ∂ν) ∂α ζ β and then,
from Q = −Pαµν Qαµν we
obtain, by using (80), that
δQ = −2H ζ 0 ,ij + ζi,(j0) g ij . Thus the variation of Q
due to the change of the connection is given by
δQ = 2a−2 Hk 2 ζ 0 + ζ 0 ,


(81)
which precisely cancels the non-scalar variation in (76)
and we obtain ∆ζ δQ = −Lζ Q, i.e., it does transform as
a scalar.
Any other contraction of the non-metricity, besides Q,
will be a scalar too. Let us check for example the term
a2 Q1 ≡ a2 Qαµν Qαµν = −16H2 + 8H (4Hφ − φ0 + 3ϕ0 ) ,
(82)

which under (74) transforms in the coincident gauge as
Q1 → Q1 + 8Ha−2 ζ 000 + 4 H0 − H2 ζ 0 − k 2 ζ 0 (83)


In this case we immediately see from (79) that the ac-
companying change of the connection away from the co-
incidence gauge gives
δQ1 = 2Qαµν 2gβ(µ ∂ν) ∂α ζ β = −8Ha−2 ζ 000 − k 2 ζ 0 ,


(84)
so the total change given by the sum of the above two
contributions (i.e. the change in the coincident gauge
plus the change of the connection) is
32
∆ζ Q1 = H(H0 − H2 )ζ 0 (85)
a2
which is nothing but ∆ζ Q1 = −ζ0 Q̄01 = −Lζ Q̄1 as it
should for a scalar. It is straightforward to show that any
other contraction also transforms as a scalar when the
change in the connection is properly taken into account.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this work we have studied the cosmological impli-
cations of the new type of modified gravity theories that
originate from the equivalent formulation of GR based
on non-metricity, namely: The Symmetric Teleparallel
Equivalent of GR. Models of general functions of the
Ricci or torsion scalar have already been extensively stud-
ied in the literature. The cosmological realisation of f (R)
theories tends to force to remain close to GR, whereas
models based on f (T ) suffer from strong coupling prob-
lems on general FLRW backgrounds. The third equiva-
lent formulation of GR by means of the Q-scalar moti-
vates novel ways of modifying gravity, one of such exam-
ples being the f (Q) theories. Even if these models are
indistinguishable from f (T ) theories at the background
level, crucial differences arise at the level of cosmological
perturbations, which has been the aim of this work. Spe-
cially, we have shown that the strong coupling problems
possibly encountered in f (T ) theories are absent in f (Q)
models on general FLRW backgrounds. However, they
do appear on maximally symmetric backgrounds such as
Minkowski and de Sitter. Although these highly symmet-
ric backgrounds might suffer from such strong coupling
problems, they are less severe than the ones exhibited by
f (T ) theories and, given that less symmetric cosmologies
do not suffer from these problems, there can be room for
interesting phenomenologies. We have also shown that
at the small-scale quasi-static limit the predictions of the
f (Q) and the f (T ) models coincide, but at larger scales
the f (Q) models generically propagate two scalar degrees
of freedom that are absent in the case of f (T ). These two
degrees of freedom are the ones that disappear around
maximally symmetric backgrounds and, thus, cause the
discussed strong coupling problem.
Since the f (Q) theories in the coincident gauge do not
have the usual gauge invariance of cosmological pertur-
bations, we have performed a detailed analysis of the
12
behaviour of the equations under Diffs transformation.
Since the theory is no longer Diff-invariant, the equations
do change under a Diff. Remarkably, we have found that
maximally symmetric backgrounds retain a gauge sym-
metry given by a restricted Diff. These findings allowed
us to give a better understanding on the disappearance of
degrees of freedom around these backgrounds as a conse-
quence of the appearance of a residual gauge symmetry,
which then roots the strong coupling problems.
There is an important caveat that has to be taken
into account before drawing conclusions about the
viability of f (Q) cosmology. Because in this framework
the connection is an independent fundamental degree
of freedom besides the metric, the space of solutions is
richer than in purely metric gravity. In particular, there
exists physically inequivalent cosmological solutions that
respect the FLRW symmetry at the background level,
but whose perturbations may behave differently10 . In
the case f (Q) = Q the dynamics are frame-independent,
but once fQQ (Q) 6= 0 an ambiguity arises. Recently, we
have put forward the conjecture that in the canonical
frame the energy-momentum of the metric field is van-
ishing [52]. This is a covariant criterion that eliminates
the ambiguity in the predictions of the modified models.
The question arises whether the strong coupling issue
on Minkowski and de Sitter backgrounds could be
avoided by the more judicious choice of the background
solution for the metric and the connection. This calls
for reconsideration of the f (Q) cosmology in the canoni-
cal frame, a task we plan to undertake in the near future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
JBJ acknowledges support from the Atracción del
Talento Cientı́fico en Salamanca programme and the
MINECO’s projects FIS2014-52837-P and FIS2016-
78859-P (AEI/FEDER). LH is supported by funding
from the European Research Council (ERC) under the
European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme grant agreement No 801781 and by the Swiss
National Science Foundation grant 179740. TK acknowl-
edges support from the Estonian Research Council grant
PRG356 “Gauge Gravity” and the European Regional
Development Fund through the Center of Excellence
TK133 “The Dark Side of the Universe”. This research
is based upon work from COST Action CA15117 CAN-
TATA, supported by the European Cooperation in Sci-
ence and Technology.
10 An analogous issue has been recently pointed out concerning the
f (T ) and other modified teleparallel gravity models. There the
number and the nature of the degrees of freedom can depend on
the Lorentz frame wherein one chooses to introduce the fluctua-
tions [14, 17].
 13

Appendix A: Upper bound on the dynamical Appendix B: Full Hessian for the scalar sector
degrees of freedom
For completeness, in this appendix we will give the
In this appendix we will elaborate on the argument full expression for the Hessian of the scalar perturba-
that establishes a maximum of six propagating modes in tions. Having a positive definite Hessian will be required
the full f (Q) theories. For that we will resort to the ADM to guarantee the absence of ghost-like degrees of freedom
analysis that is based on the following decomposition of in the scalar sector and this will impose additional sta-
the metric bility constraints. The expression for the Hessian after
integrating out the non-dynamical scalar modes is given
ds2 = − N 2 − Ni N i dt2 + 2Ni dxi dt + γij dxi dxj (A1)


by
where N is the lapse function, Ni is the shift vector and  
1 a b c
γij is the spatial metric, which is in turn used to lower
H= b d e , (B1)
and raise spatial indices. It will be convenient to work in g c e f −g
the coincident gauge where the full connection vanishes
and the non-metricity scalar can be written in terms of where
the Christoffel symbols of the metric as follows:
2 2
 α β  g = 12fQ + 2 (2 − 5) fQ QfQQ −  (8 − 3) QfQQ ,
Q = g µν αβ α
β
νµ − νβ αµ . (A2)
and
The crucial point now is to realise that (A2) is precisely 2 2


a = −6 (fQ + 2QfQQ ) 4fQ + 6fQ QfQQ − 3QfQQ ,
the so-called ΓΓ part of the metric Ricci scalar as can be
easily identified from the general expression b = 4k 2 fQ (2fQ − QFQQ ) (fQ + 2QFQQ ) ,
q  2 2

  c = −6 2 (fQ + 2QfQQ ) 2fQ + (3 − ) fQ QfQQ − QfQ ,
R = g µν ∂α Γα νµ − ∂ν Γα αµ + Γα αβ Γβ νµ − Γα νβ Γβ αµ
2
d = k 4 fQ 2 (3 + ) fQ QfQQ + (8 − 3) QFQQ 2 2
 
(A3) − 4fQ ,
so we can utilise the usual results from the ADM analysis 3 q
of GR by simply dropping the terms containing second e = 2k 2 fQ 2 (fQ + 2QfQQ ) [2fQ + (2 − ) QfQQ ] ,
derivatives that originate from the piece ∂Γ in the Ricci
scalar. To be explicit, let us take the general ADM de- f = 2QfQQ (fQ + 2QfQQ ) .
composition of the Ricci scalar There is no simple statement about the stability that can
(3) ij 2 be extracted from this, unless some special limits and/or
R(g) = R + Kij K + K
functions are taken. The determinant is given by (45).
2 i
K̇ i − N i (3) ∇i K + (3) ∇2 N


− (A4)
N
  Appendix C: Bianchi I universe
with Kij = − 12 N −1 γ̇ij − 2 (3) ∇(i Nj) the extrinsic cur-
vature, K its trace and (3) R the Ricci scalar of γij . Thus, In this appendix we will briefly discuss the cosmology
we can straightforwardly obtain the ADM decomposition of the f (Q) theories for anisotropic universes in order
of Q as to explicitly show that universes close to isotropic solu-
  tions will isotropize as in more conventional cases. This
Q = Kij K ij + K 2 + γ kl Γi ij Γj lk − Γi lj Γj ik . (A5) will show that the pathological behaviour of the pertur-
bations is not captured by simple deformations of the
Since the only time derivatives in Q come from γ̇ij in FLRW universes. The Bianchi I metric is described by
Kij , we can directly conclude that N and Ni will be the line element
non-dynamical fields in the full f (Q) theories and, as a
consequence, these theories can only have up to six dy- ds2 = −N 2 (t)dt2 + a21 (t)dx2 + a22 (t)dy 2 + a23 (t)dz (C1)
namical modes corresponding to the six components of
with ai (t) the scale factors along the three spatial di-
γij . To unveil the full dynamical content of the theories,
rections. We will introduced the isotropic scale factor
a complete Hamiltonian analysis would be necessary and
defined as a3 ≡ a1 a2 a3 and the corresponding expansion
the number of propagating modes will depend on the spe-
rates
cific function form of f . For instance, for constant fQ we
will recover that the shift and the lapse enforce the first a˙i ȧ
Hi = , H= . (C2)
class constraints associated to diffeomorphisms. More- ai a
over, the Poisson algebra will also exhibit singular points
The action in the corresponding mini-superspace is given
for some background configurations that will feature ac-
by
cidental gauge symmetries as it occurs for the maximally Z
symmetric configurations considered in this work. A sim- 1
ilar feature appears in f (T ) theories [53]. S=− dt N a3 f (Q) (C3)
2

where the non-metricity scalar reads
H1 (H2 + H3 ) + H2 H3
Q=2 . (C4)
N2
It is easy to see that the Bianchi I Ansatz retains the
time-reparameterisation invariance so we will set the
lapse N = 1 after having obtained the field equations.
The full set of equations can be easily obtained from
(C3). However, since we are only interested in study-
ing perturbations around the isotropic case, we will only
need the combinations
δS δS δS δS
− = 0, − =0 (C5)
δa1 δa3 δa2 δa3
that describe the evolution of the anisotropy. Notice
that, provided the matter sector does not contain any
anisotropic stresses, these equations are not sourced.
Furthermore, it will be sufficient for us to consider small
perturbations so we will parametrise the small deforma-
tion of the FLRW metric as follows
H1 = H + 2δ1 − δ2 (C6)
H2 = H − δ1 + 2δ2 (C7)
H3 = H − δ1 − δ2 (C8)
[1] E. Schrödinger, E. Schrödinger, and E. Dinger, Space-
Time Structure, Cambridge Science Classics (Cambridge
University Press, 1985).
[2] G. J. Olmo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20, 413 (2011),
arXiv:1101.3864 [gr-qc].
[3] L. Heisenberg, Phys. Rept. 796, 1 (2019),
arXiv:1807.01725 [gr-qc].
[4] J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto,
Universe 5, 173 (2019), arXiv:1903.06830 [hep-th].
[5] R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, Teleparallel Gravity,
Vol. 173 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2013).
[6] J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto,
Phys. Rev. D98, 044048 (2018), arXiv:1710.03116 [gr-
qc].
[7] J. M. Nester and H.-J. Yo, Chin. J. Phys. 37, 113 (1999),
arXiv:gr-qc/9809049 [gr-qc].
[8] A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 86, 157 (2007),
arXiv:0706.2041 [astro-ph].
[9] L. Amendola, K. Enqvist, and T. Koivisto, Phys. Rev.
D83, 044016 (2011), arXiv:1010.4776 [gr-qc].
[10] S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509,
167 (2011), arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc].
[11] R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. D75, 084031
(2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610067 [gr-qc].
[12] R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Phys. Lett. B702, 75 (2011),
arXiv:1103.0824 [gr-qc].
[13] M. Hohmann, L. Järv, M. Krššák, and C. Pfeifer, Phys.
Rev. D100, 084002 (2019), arXiv:1901.05472 [gr-qc].
[14] A. Golovnev and T. Koivisto, JCAP 1811, 012 (2018),
arXiv:1808.05565 [gr-qc].
[15] R. Ferraro and M. J. Guzmán, Phys. Rev. D98, 124037
(2018), arXiv:1810.07171 [gr-qc].
14
where δ1 and δ2 describe the two independent
anisotropies of the Bianchi universe and the parameteri-
sation has been chosen for convenience and to guarantee
that 3H = H1 + H2 + H3 . When plugged into (C5) and
expanded to first order in δ1,2 , we obtain the equations
!
4ḢfQQ
δ̇i + 3H 1 + δi = 0, i = 1, 2. (C9)
fQ
This equation shows that an expanding universe will
4Ḣf
isotropize provided 1 + fQQQ > 0. We can do better
by noticing that the above equation can be rearranged
into the form
d 3

a fQ δ i = 0 (C10)
dt
so the stability is entirely determined by the behaviour
of fQ . This result is the expected one because a Bianchi
I universe describing a small anisotropic deformation of
FLRW can be associated to a long wave-length GW and,
as we discussed in IV A, there is no pathological be-
haviour in that sector as long as fQ > 0. In fact, what
we have obtained in C10 is nothing but the equation for
the GWs in the limit k → 0, as it should be.
[16] R. Ferraro and M. J. Guzmán, Phys. Rev. D97, 104028
(2018), arXiv:1802.02130 [gr-qc].
[17] T. Koivisto and G. Tsimperis, Universe 5(3) 80 (2018),
10.3390/universe5030080, arXiv:1810.11847 [gr-qc].
[18] D. Blixt, M. Hohmann, and C. Pfeifer, Phys. Rev. D99,
084025 (2019), arXiv:1811.11137 [gr-qc].
[19] D. Blixt, M. Hohmann, M. Krššák, and C. Pfeifer,
in 15th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Develop-
ments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativ-
ity, Astrophysics, and Relativistic Field Theories (MG15)
Rome, Italy, July 1-7, 2018 (2019) arXiv:1905.11919 [gr-
qc].
[20] D. Klemm and L. Ravera, (2018), arXiv:1811.11458 [gr-
qc].
[21] S. Rasanen, The Open Journal of Astrophysics (2018),
10.21105/astro.1811.09514, arXiv:1811.09514 [gr-qc].
[22] K. Shimada, K. Aoki, and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D99,
104020 (2019), arXiv:1812.03420 [gr-qc].
[23] M. Krssak, R. J. van den Hoogen, J. G. Pereira, C. G.
Böhmer, and A. A. Coley, Class. Quant. Grav. 36,
183001 (2019), arXiv:1810.12932 [gr-qc].
[24] B. Janssen and A. Jimenez-Cano, Phys. Lett. B786, 462
(2018), arXiv:1807.10168 [gr-qc].
[25] D. Iosifidis, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 085001 (2019),
arXiv:1812.04031 [gr-qc].
[26] V. A. Penas, Fortsch. Phys. 67, 030077 (2019),
arXiv:1807.01144 [hep-th].
[27] D. Iosifidis, Metric-Affine Gravity and Cosmol-
ogy/Aspects of Torsion and non-Metricity in Grav-
ity Theories, Ph.D. thesis, Thessaloniki U. (2019),
arXiv:1902.09643 [gr-qc].

[28] B. Janssen, A. Jiménez-Cano, and J. A. Orejuela, Phys.
Lett. B795, 42 (2019), arXiv:1903.00280 [gr-qc].
[29] J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto,
JCAP 1808, 039 (2018), arXiv:1803.10185 [gr-qc].
[30] M. Hohmann, C. Pfeifer, J. L. Said, and U. Ualikhanova,
Phys. Rev. D99, 024009 (2019), arXiv:1808.02894 [gr-
qc].
[31] I. Soudi, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, J. Levi Said, and
E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D100, 044008 (2019),
arXiv:1810.08220 [gr-qc].
[32] M. Adak, M. Kalay, and O. Sert, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
D15, 619 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0505025 [gr-qc].
[33] M. Adak, Ö. Sert, M. Kalay, and M. Sari, Int. J. Mod.
Phys. A28, 1350167 (2013), arXiv:0810.2388 [gr-qc].
[34] T. Koivisto, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 15, 1840006
(2018), arXiv:1802.00650 [gr-qc].
[35] A. Conroy and T. Koivisto, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 923
(2018), arXiv:1710.05708 [gr-qc].
[36] D. Iosifidis and T. Koivisto, Universe 5(3) 82 (2018),
10.3390/universe5030082, arXiv:1810.12276 [gr-qc].
[37] K. F. Dialektopoulos, T. S. Koivisto, and S. Capozziello,
Eur. Phys. J. C79, 606 (2019), arXiv:1905.09019 [gr-qc].
[38] L. Järv, M. Rünkla, M. Saal, and O. Vilson, Phys. Rev.
D97, 124025 (2018), arXiv:1802.00492 [gr-qc].
[39] M. Rünkla and O. Vilson, Phys. Rev. D98, 084034
(2018), arXiv:1805.12197 [gr-qc].
[40] T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo, G. J. Olmo,
and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D98, 084043 (2018),
arXiv:1806.10437 [gr-qc].
[41] T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, G. J. Olmo, F. S. N. Lobo,
and D. Rubiera-Garcia, in 15th Marcel Grossmann Meet-
ing on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experi-
15
mental General Relativity, Astrophysics, and Relativis-
tic Field Theories (MG15) Rome, Italy, July 1-7, 2018
(2019) arXiv:1901.00805 [gr-qc].
[42] J. Beltran Jimenez and T. S. Koivisto, Phys. Lett. B756,
400 (2016), arXiv:1509.02476 [gr-qc].
[43] J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto,
JCAP 1604, 046 (2016), arXiv:1602.07287 [hep-th].
[44] M. Hohmann, L. Jarv, and U. Ualikhanova, Phys. Rev.
D96, 043508 (2017), arXiv:1706.02376 [gr-qc].
[45] J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, G. J. Olmo,
and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rept. 727, 1 (2018),
arXiv:1704.03351 [gr-qc].
[46] V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Branden-
berger, Phys. Rept. 215, 203 (1992).
[47] C. Deffayet and K. Menou, Astrophys. J. 668, L143
(2007), arXiv:0709.0003 [astro-ph].
[48] L. Amendola, I. Sawicki, M. Kunz, and I. D.
Saltas, JCAP 1808, 030 (2018), arXiv:1712.08623 [astro-
ph.CO].
[49] A. Nishizawa, Phys. Rev. D97, 104037 (2018),
arXiv:1710.04825 [gr-qc].
[50] E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore,
Phys. Rev. D97, 104066 (2018), arXiv:1712.08108 [astro-
ph.CO].
[51] J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalacárregui, Front. Astron.
Space Sci. 5, 44 (2018), arXiv:1807.09241 [astro-ph.CO].
[52] J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S.
Koivisto, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28, 1944012 (2019),
arXiv:1903.12072 [gr-qc].
[53] R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. D91, 064019
(2015), arXiv:1412.3424 [gr-qc].