Why does modified gravity's geometry-based damping remain stable while dark energy's signature shifts across different supernova datasets?

This is an excellent, technical question that cuts to a genuine tension in modern cosmology. Let me unpack what's happening here.

The Core Asymmetry

You've identified something real: modified gravity theories built on geometric principles—particularly those using non-metricity or torsion—produce *stable* damping signatures for gravitational waves, while dark energy models show *dataset-dependent* instability. Here's why.

Modified gravity's geometric anchor:

In $f(Q)$ theory (non-metricity based), the gravitational wave damping parameter $ν$ remains insensitive to which supernova dataset you use—Pantheon+ or DESyr5 [AG-2025.09-201]. This happens because the damping emerges from geometry itself: it's built into how spacetime curvature is constructed, independent of which distant explosions you observe. The effective gravitational coupling $μ$ likewise shows robustness across datasets [AG-2025.09-201]. Think of it like a tuning fork: its frequency is fixed by its physical structure, not by which room you measure it in.

Dark energy's observational sensitivity:

By contrast, dark energy models—even when supplemented with geometric deformation terms like $f(R, \Sigma, T)$ [AG-2025.07-137]—must be *reconstructed* from data. Different supernova compilations imply different expansion histories, which then require different effective dark energy equations of state to fit. The model itself isn't wrong, but it's more like fitting a flexible curve to scatter plots: change the data points, and the curve shifts [AG-2025.09-201]. Dynamical dark energy emerging from massive gravity does show a distinctive evolution, but that evolution is *inferred* from observational tension rather than derived from first principles [AG-2025.05-063].

Why This Matters

This difference suggests a deep asymmetry: geometric modifications to gravity make contact-independent predictions about gravitational physics, while dark energy phenomenology must accommodate whatever the universe hands you. Modified gravity says "here's what gravity looks like"; dark energy says "here's how much extra expansion we need to explain."

The catch—and this is crucial—is that modified gravity theories also struggle with *local* tests. Solar System observations (especially the Eddington parameter from light deflection) severely constrain teleparallel and symmetric teleparallel extensions, forcing them to either abandon cosmological viability or fine-tune their parameters [AG-2025.11-174]. So geometric stability at cosmological scales comes with a price: explaining why gravity behaves so classically nearby.

The Dataset Shift Explained

The recent divergence between Pantheon+ and DESyr5 compilations [AG-2025.09-201] likely reflects genuine calibration improvements or new supernova subtypes in the deeper survey. For dark energy, this ripples backward: a shifted distance ladder implies a different expansion history, which requires a different $w(z)$ [AG-2025.12-258]. For modified gravity, the geometric predictions stay put—but this also means modified gravity *risks* being ruled out if those predictions clash with new data.

The Starobinsky $f(R) = R + \lambda R^2$ model offers a middle path: it produces environment-dependent modifications that can explain localized calibration shifts without invoking separate dark energy, and these shifts emerge naturally from how scalar fields couple to matter density [AG-2025.11-316]. This suggests that some of the "dark energy signature shift" might actually reflect unaccounted geometric effects on photon propagation in underdense regions.

The preprints provided don't directly compare the *physical reasons* for this asymmetry in depth, so a deeper treatment of why non-metricity-based theories decouple from observational datasets while scalar-tensor theories remain coupled would strengthen your picture.