Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Cosmological framework for renormalization group extended gravity at the action level

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that infrared renormalization-group corrections can be placed in the action so that the cosmological background stays exactly ΛCDM while a single parameter ν creates a constant gravitational slip and a low-redshift…

desk verdict A carefully built action-level RG cosmology with one new parameter, a constant slip, and a LambdaCDM background—worth refereeing, but the fsigma8 window is statistically marginal and the scale setting is a stated postulate. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03960 v3 pith:LMOZQCF5 submitted 2019-08-11 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Nicolas R. Bertini , Wiliam S. Hipolito-Ricaldi , Felipe de Melo-Santos , Davi C. Rodrigues This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords renormalizationgroupscale-dependentgravitationalcouplingmodifiedgravitycosmologicalperturbationsslipfsigma8LambdaCDMbackgroundeffectiveaction
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

Renormalization-group corrections to gravity are usually imagined to change the cosmological background, for example by making $G$ or $\Lambda$ run with cosmic time. This paper argues that if the running is instead driven by the metric perturbation through the scalar $W=-2\psi$, the background remains exactly $\Lambda$CDM while linear structure formation is modified by a single dimensionless parameter $\nu$. To first order the gravitational slip is the constant $\phi/\psi = 1 - 2\nu$, and the same $\nu$ suppresses $f\sigma_8$ at low redshift ($z \lesssim 1.5$) for negative values without changing high-redshift growth. If right, the framework offers a lever on the low-redshift growth tension that leaves the expansion history untouched, and it makes specific testable predictions: current slip data give $|\nu| \lesssim 0.30$, with future measurements potentially reaching $|\nu| \lesssim 0.04$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the covariant scale $W$ of Eqs. (16)-(20), built from the fluid four-velocity and the difference between the metric and a reference tensor $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ that is here taken to be the background metric, so that $W=-2\psi$ in the comoving frame. The scale is inserted into the action through Lagrange multipliers, so the full variation, including the scale setting, is part of the dynamics. Linearising $G_0/G(W)$ about $W=0$ with the single constant $\nu$ is what transfers the running into the perturbation equations: because $W$ is first order, the background is untouched, and because the non-diagonal spatial equation is linear in $\psi$, it immediately gives the constant slip $\phi/\psi = 1-2\nu$. The dynamical consistency requirement that $\Lambda$ be a function only of the scales forces a second scale $\mu_2=f_2(\xi)$ with $\xi = \Lambda_0 - 4\pi G_0\,{}^{(0)}T$, whose Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_2$ generates a mild, first-order violation of energy-momentum conservation.

What would settle it

A combined measurement of the gravitational slip from cluster dynamics and lensing that constrains $|1-\phi/\psi| \le 0.09$ at $2\sigma$ would push $|\nu| \le 0.04$ and exclude the value $\nu \approx -0.17$ that gives the $f\sigma_8$ improvement in the paper's fit. A precise growth-rate measurement at $z<1.5$ that is fully compatible with $\Lambda$CDM, combined with a slip bound forcing $\nu\to 0$, would falsify the proposed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's own claim is that infrared renormalization-group effects in gravity can be fully encoded in a classical action whose main scale is the covariant scalar $W = U^\alpha U^\beta (g_{\alpha\beta} - \gamma_{\alpha\beta})$, with $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ fixed to the cosmological background metric. In a comoving frame this gives $W = -2\psi$, so the couplings run with the Newtonian-potential perturbation rather than with cosmic time or wavenumber. Since $W=0$ at the background, the Friedmann equations are those of $\Lambda$CDM with constant $G_0$ and $\Lambda_0$; since $W$ is first order, the running enters only the linear perturbation equations. Expanding $G_0/G(W) = 1 + \nu W + O(W^2)$ yields a constant slip $\phi/\psi = 1 - 2\nu$ and a subhorizon effective gravitational coupling $(1-\nu)^{-1}$, and the same $\nu$ controls a low-redshift reduction of $f\sigma_8$ for negative values. A second RG scale, determined by consistency to be a function of the trace of the background energy-momentum tensor, closes the action.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the infrared running scale is tied to the metric potential perturbation $\psi$ (through $W=-2\psi$) rather than to cosmic time or wavenumber; if the true RG scale is, say, the Hubble rate, the background would no longer be $\Lambda$CDM and the derived slip and $f\sigma_8$ results would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The background expansion is identical to $\Lambda$CDM, so background-only probes of distances and expansion history do not constrain $\nu$; constraints come from perturbation observables.
  • To first order the gravitational slip is the constant $1-2\nu$, a signature that distinguishes this framework from $f(R)$ and scalar-tensor theories, whose slip is generally scale- or time-dependent.
  • For negative $\nu$, $f\sigma_8$ at $z \lesssim 1.5$ is reduced relative to $\Lambda$CDM while high-redshift $f\sigma_8$ is essentially unchanged, which can alleviate the low-redshift growth tension.
  • Current cluster-lensing slip bounds give $|\nu| \lesssim 0.30$ at $2\sigma$, and the forecast from future surveys is $|\nu| \lesssim 0.04$; within the current bound, fitting $f\sigma_8$ data with $\nu$ alone reproduces the quality of a $\Lambda$CDM fit with $\Omega_{m0}$ and $\sigma_8$ free.
  • The framework does not remove the need for dark matter or dark energy, but it rescales the effective gravitational force and the Jeans length, so it can shift the inferred dark-matter content by about ten percent at current bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the same one-parameter machinery were paired with full CMB temperature and lensing data, the constant slip would leave a characteristic signature in late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe and lensing spectra; a bound much tighter than $|\nu| \lesssim 0.04$ would make the low-redshift $f\sigma_8$ effect too small to matter.
  • Editorial extension: the chosen scale $W=-2\psi$ is the linchpin; a time-based scale such as the Hubble rate or a curvature-based scale would move the modification into the background equations and destroy the exact-$\Lambda$CDM property, so the framework's observational signature is directly a test of whether the infrared RG scale in cosmology is set by perturbation potentials rather than by expa
  • Editorial extension: because the slip is constant and the growth-rate rescaling is effectively $1/(1-\nu)$, the subhorizon behaviour resembles certain scalar-tensor limits even though the background is exactly $\Lambda$CDM; comparing growth-rate and lensing measurements at the same redshift could isolate $\nu$ without relying on the absolute normalization $\sigma_8$.
  • Editorial extension: a natural next step is to include higher-order terms in $G(W)$, which would introduce a scale-dependent slip and a wavenumber dependence in the modified-gravity parameters already at first order; measuring any scale dependence of the slip would discriminate the linear approximation from the full running.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an action-level implementation of renormalization-group (RG) extended gravity in cosmology, building on prior work by Rodrigues et al. The central idea is to introduce a covariant RG scale mu1 = f1(W) with W = U^alpha U^beta (g_alpha beta - gamma_alpha beta), and to choose gamma_alpha beta equal to the cosmological background metric so that W = -2 psi in the Newtonian gauge. Since W vanishes at the background level, the Friedmann equations are exactly LambdaCDM, while linear perturbations are modified by a single dimensionless parameter nu, defined through G0 G^{-1}(W) = 1 + nu W + O(W^2). The authors derive the complete set of perturbed field equations, show that a second RG scale mu2 = f2(xi) is required for consistency, obtain exact analytical solutions for dust and radiation (e.g., eqs. 72 and 77), and express the results in the standard modified-gravity parametrizations slip, Q, Y, and Sigma (eqs. 66, 88, 92, 93). They then use existing bounds on the gravitational slip to constrain |nu| <= 0.30 (eq. 94) and present an f sigma8 analysis (Sec. 4.7) suggesting that nu reduces f sigma8 at low redshifts, possibly alleviating the sigma8 tension.

Significance. The framework is original and potentially important: it offers a fully action-based formulation of RG scale-setting in which the background is protected, and it yields a constant gravitational slip that is qualitatively different from f(R) and scalar-tensor theories. The paper provides numerous analytical results, including exact-on-nu solutions for dust (eqs. 72 and 77) and closed-form expressions for the modified-gravity parameters (eqs. 88-93). The authors are transparent about their main assumption, and the internal derivation appears consistent. However, the physical uniqueness of the scale-setting is not established, and the f sigma8 'window' is based on a statistically negligible improvement over LambdaCDM, so the phenomenological claims need substantial qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, eqs. (16)-(20)] The distinctive predictions of the framework—exact LambdaCDM background, perturbative-only RG effects, the constant slip phi/psi = 1 - 2 nu (eq. 66), and the low-redshift f sigma8 modification (Sec. 4.7)—all rest on the identification of the main RG scale as mu1 = f1(W) with W = -2 psi, where gamma_alpha beta is chosen to be the cosmological background metric (eqs. 16-20). The abstract and Sec. 3.2 state that this is 'our main assumption', but no argument is given for why the infrared RG scale in cosmology should be the gravitational potential perturbation rather than a time-based scale (e.g., mu = H) or a curvature-based scale (e.g., mu = R), both of which appear in the cited RG literature. If the physical scale-setting differs, the background would be modified, the constant slip would not be obtained, and the f sigma8 window would not follow. Please add either a physical derivation or a concrete robustness test: for example, repeat the derivation with mu = H (or mu = R) and show how the predictions change, or provide an observational discriminant between the W-based scale and these alternatives.
  2. [Sec. 4.7, Table 1] Table 1 does not support the claim that the framework 'can improve LambdaCDM' or 'alleviate' the sigma8 tension. With nu as the only fitted parameter, LambdaCDM+RG reaches chi^2_min = 32.42, which is worse than the LambdaCDM best fit with Omega_m0 and sigma8 free (chi^2_min = 32.40). The constrained best fit with |nu| <= 0.3 gives chi^2_min = 32.14, an improvement of only 0.26 for one additional parameter, and the unconstrained best fit (chi^2_min = 32.04) uses nu = -0.769, which lies outside the bound (94) and is not a valid representative of the constrained framework. Since nu is fitted to the very same f sigma8 data used to claim the effect, the analysis does not demonstrate an alleviation of the tension; it merely shows consistency. The manuscript should report the number of data points, the degrees of freedom, and a model-comparison statistic such as AIC, and should soften the abstract and conclusion statements accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 4.5, eqs. (94)-(95)] The use of the cluster bounds from refs. [48, 54] is not straightforward because those bounds were derived under specific assumptions about the time and scale dependence of the gravitational slip. The present model predicts a strictly constant slip phi/psi = 1 - 2 nu, and the paper itself acknowledges in Sec. 4.5 (item i) that the literature constraints assume different dependencies. Yet the bounds are applied as if they directly imply |nu| <= 0.30 and |nu| <= 0.04 without a careful mapping. This matters because the f sigma8 analysis in Table 1 uses the |nu| <= 0.30 constraint to select the presented models. Please provide a justification that the constant-slip bound is correctly translated, or present a dedicated forecast for the constant-slip case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (8)] The notation 'G2G−1gαβ' in the definition of the modified Einstein tensor is unclear; please rewrite it with standard differential operators, e.g., (gαβ□ - ∇α∇β)G^{-1} or the appropriate expression, and define all symbols.
  2. [§3.7 and Sec. 4] Since the framework works with the effective pressure peff (eq. 48) and defines dust as peff = 0, please state explicitly in Secs. 4.2-4.7 that 'dust' and 'pressure' refer to effective quantities, to avoid ambiguity in the exact solutions and in the f sigma8 analysis.
  3. [Eq. (73) and throughout] The symbol ˜ν (nu with a tilde) is easily confused with a spatial average or an auxiliary field; please choose a different notation, such as alpha or lambda, and define it at first use.
  4. [Sec. 4.7] There are typos in the text, including 'dada' for 'data' and 'latter' where 'later' is intended; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [Fig. 1 and Table 1] Please add a clear legend or enumeration of the curves in Fig. 1, and include the number of data points and reduced chi-square (or AIC) in Table 1 to allow a fair model comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

fσ8 'window' is an in-sample fit of ν; the action-level derivation itself is self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.7 (Consequences for fσ8), Table 1 and Fig. 1; eqs. (96)-(101)]
    "The simplest case here considered is that of ΛCDM with parameters Ωm0 and σ8 fixed from the CMB [55], while ν is allowed to vary to better accommodate the model within the f σ8 data (the third line in Table 1). Clearly, ν has a relevant impact on this fit and the result is as good as (considering the value of χ2min) the case in which both Ωm0 and σ8 are allowed to vary within ΛCDM."

    The low-redshift fσ8 reduction is not a parameter-free prediction: ν is fitted to the same fσ8 dataset (Table 1, line 'ΛCDM+RG Only ν is fitted', χ2min=32.42 with Ωm0 and σ8 fixed at Planck values), and the paper then reports that negative ν reduces fσ8 at z<1.5. The improvement over ΛCDM with Ωm0 and σ8 free is Δχ2min≈0.02, so the claimed 'window to alleviate' the σ8 tension is the fitted parameter absorbing the mismatch rather than an independent prediction. The high-z insensitivity is a structural property of the equations, but the headline low-z effect is in-sample.

full rationale

The core derivation from the action to the field equations, the LambdaCDM background, the constant slip phi/psi = 1-2nu, and the modified-gravity parametrizations is self-contained and not circular: nu appears as the linear coefficient in the assumed expansion G0/G = 1 + nu W, and the slip follows from the non-diagonal field equations rather than being inserted. The scale-setting choice W = -2psi (eqs. 16-20) is openly declared as the main assumption, and it is a physical postulate rather than a disguised restatement of the results, so its contingency should be scored as model risk, not circularity. The citations to the authors' earlier work (refs. 13, 14) supply the covariant scale and action form, but the present derivation does not hide the dependency: the scale is presented explicitly and the rest is derived. The one genuine circular step is the fσ8 claim, where nu is fitted to the same fσ8 data that the model is then said to improve at low redshift. The high-redshift behavior is a more independent structural feature, which prevents the circularity from being total. Overall score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on one new free parameter (nu), four modeling assumptions about the effective action and scale setting, and one invented auxiliary field (the second RG scale). The framework itself is derived from the action, but the scale-setting choice and the linear expansion of G(W) are postulates. The second scale is fixed by consistency, so it does not add a free parameter. The f sigma8 constraints are fits, not parameter-free predictions.

free parameters (1)
  • nu = -0.167 (fitted to f sigma8 only), -0.769 (unconstrained), -0.300 (with |nu|<=0.3)
    Dimensionless parameter in the linear expansion G_0 G^{-1}(W) = 1 + nu W (eq. 57). It is not fixed by the theory; it is constrained by external gravitational slip bounds (|nu|<=0.30) and fitted to f sigma8 data in Sec. 4.7.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption There exists a complete classical action encoding all large-scale RG effects (eq. 3), with G and Lambda as functions of auxiliary RG scales.
    Foundational hypothesis of the framework, stated in Sec. 2 and the Introduction; it is not derived from an underlying quantum gravity theory.
  • ad hoc to paper The main RG scale is set to mu1 = f1(W) with W = U^alpha U^beta (g_alpha beta - gamma_alpha beta), and gamma_alpha beta is chosen as the background metric in cosmology, giving W = -2 psi (eqs. 16-20).
    Scale-setting postulate inherited from ref. [14] and first applied to cosmology here. The physical correctness of this choice is assumed, not derived.
  • domain assumption G(W) is analytic near W=0 and can be expanded as G_0 G^{-1}(W) = 1 + nu W + O(W^2) (eq. 57).
    A Taylor expansion assumption about the beta-functions. It covers some logarithmic runnings with a specific scale choice but excludes non-analytic behaviors.
  • ad hoc to paper The tensor gamma_alpha beta appears only inside W and has no kinetic term, which forces lambda1 = 0 (eqs. 22-23).
    A structural assumption on the action inherited from ref. [14] that prevents the RG scale from becoming a dynamical field.
invented entities (1)
  • Second RG scale mu2 = f2(xi) with xi = Lambda_0 - 4 pi G_0 T^(0), together with its Lagrange multiplier lambda2
    purpose: Introduced to maintain consistency of Lambda(mu) with the action in the presence of matter; the background energy-momentum trace sets this scale.
    New in this paper: a second RG scale is required for the cosmological case (Sec. 3.5). It is an auxiliary field with no independent observational handle. It is fixed by internal consistency, not by data or external benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological framework for renormalization group extended gravity at the action level." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LMOZQCF5

@misc{pith2026190803960,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological framework for renormalization group extended gravity at the action level},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LMOZQCF5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03960}
}
abstract

General relativity (GR) extensions based on renormalization group (RG) flows may lead to scale-dependent couplings with nontrivial effects at large distance scales. Here we develop further the approach in which RG effects at large distance scales are fully encoded in an effective action and we apply it to cosmology. In order to evaluate the cosmological consequences, our main assumption is the use of a RG scale such that the (infrared) RG effects only appear at perturbative order (not at the background level). The emphasis here is on analytical results and qualitative understanding of the implied cosmology. We employ commonly used parametrizations for describing modified gravity in cosmology (as the slip parameter). From them, we describe the dynamics of the first order perturbations and estimate bounds on the single dimensionless parameter ($\nu$) introduced by this framework. Possible impacts on dark matter and dark energy are discussed. It is also shown here that the $\nu$ parameter effects to $f\sigma_8$ are stronger at low redshifts ($z<1.5$), while different values for $\nu$ do not appreciably change $f\sigma_8$ at higher redshifts, thus opening a window to alleviate an issue that is currently faced by $\Lambda$CDM.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Bonanno, M

    A. Bonanno, M. Reuter, Phys.Lett. B527, 9 (2002), arXiv: astro-ph/0106468

    arXiv 2002

  2. [3]

    Reuter, H

    M. Reuter, H. Weyer, Phys. Rev. D69, 104022 (2004), arXiv: hep-th/0311196

    arXiv 2004

  3. [4]

    Shapiro, J

    I.L. Shapiro, J. Sola, H. Stefancic, JCAP 0501, 012 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0410095

    arXiv 2005

  4. [5]

    Borges, S

    H. Borges, S. Carneiro, J. Fabris, C. Pigozzo, Phys.Rev. D77, 043513 (2008), arXiv: 0711.2689

    arXiv 2008

  5. [6]

    On the Possibility of Quantum Gravity Effects at Astrophysical Scales

    M. Reuter, H. Weyer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 2011 (2006), arXiv: hep-th/0702051

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  6. [7]

    Shapiro, Class

    I.L. Shapiro, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 103001 (2008), arXiv: 0801.0216

    arXiv 2008

  7. [8]

    Shapiro, J

    I.L. Shapiro, J. Sola, Phys. Lett. B682, 105 (2009), arXiv: 0910.4925

    arXiv 2009

  8. [9]

    S. Nagy, J. Krizsan, K. Sailer, JHEP 07, 102 (2012), arXiv: 1203.6564

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 72 references
  1. [10]

    Wetterich, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B773, 6 (2017), arXiv: 1704.08040

    2017 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Eichhorn, Front

    A. Eichhorn, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 5, 47 (2019), arXiv: 1810.07615

    2019 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Solà, J.Phys.Conf.Ser

    J. Solà, J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 453, 012015 (2013), DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/453/1/012015

    2013 doi

  4. [13]

    Rodrigues, P.S

    D.C. Rodrigues, P.S. Letelier, I.L. Shapiro, JCAP 1004, 020 (2010), arXiv: 0911.4967

    2010 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Rodrigues, B

    D.C. Rodrigues, B. Chauvineau, O.F. Piattella, JCAP 1509(09), 009 (2015), arXiv: 1504.05119. 15

    2015 arXiv

  6. [15]

    J. Solà, A. Gómez-Valent, J. de Cruz Pérez, Astrophys. J. 836(1), 43 (2017), arXiv: 1602.02103

    2017 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Gómez-Valent, J

    A. Gómez-Valent, J. Solà Peracaula, MNRAS 478(1), 126 (2018), arXiv: 1801.08501

    2018 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Canales, B

    F. Canales, B. Koch, C. Laporte, A. Rincon, JCAP 2001(01), 021 (2020), arXiv: 1812.10526

    2020 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Gorbar, I.L

    E.V . Gorbar, I.L. Shapiro, JHEP 02, 021 (2003), arXiv: hep-ph/0210388

    2003 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Gorbar, I.L

    E.V . Gorbar, I.L. Shapiro, JHEP 06, 004 (2003), arXiv: hep-ph/0303124

    2003 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Gonçalves, G

    B. Gonçalves, G. de Berredo-Peixoto, I.L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D80, 104013 (2009), arXiv: 0906.3837

    2009 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Anastasi, et al., Phys

    A. Anastasi, et al., Phys. Lett. B767, 485 (2017), arXiv: 1609.06631

    2017 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Babic, B

    A. Babic, B. Guberina, R. Horvat, H. Stefan- cic, Phys.Rev. D71, 124041 (2005), arXiv: astro- ph/0407572

    2005

  14. [23]

    B. Koch, I. Ramirez, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 055008 (2011), arXiv: 1010.2799

    2011 arXiv

  15. [24]

    B. Koch, P. Rioseco, C. Contreras, Phys. Rev. D91(2), 025009 (2015), arXiv: 1409.4443

    2015 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Bertolami, J.M

    O. Bertolami, J.M. Mourao, J. Perez-Mercader, Phys. Lett. B311, 27 (1993), DOI 10.1016/0370- 2693(93)90528-P

    1993 doi

  17. [26]

    Grande, J

    J. Grande, J. Solà, J.C. Fabris, I.L. Shapiro, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 105004 (2010), arXiv: 1001.0259

    2010 arXiv

  18. [27]

    J. Solà, J. Phys. A41, 164066 (2008), arXiv: 0710.4151

    2008 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Domazet, H

    S. Domazet, H. Stefancic, Phys. Lett. B703, 1 (2011), arXiv: 1010.3585

    2011 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Shapiro, J

    I.L. Shapiro, J. Solà, JHEP 02, 006 (2002), arXiv: hep- th/0012227

    2002

  21. [30]

    Rezaei, M

    M. Rezaei, M. Malekjani, J. Solà, Phys. Rev. D100(2), 023539 (2019), arXiv: 1905.00100

    2019 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Hindmarsh, I.D

    M. Hindmarsh, I.D. Saltas, Phys.Rev. D86, 064029 (2012), arXiv: 1203.3957

    2012 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Einhorn, D.R.T

    M.B. Einhorn, D.R.T. Jones, Nucl. Phys. B230, 261 (1984), DOI 10.1016/0550-3213(84)90127-5

    1984 doi

  24. [33]

    C. Ford, C. Wiesendanger, Phys. Lett. B398, 342 (1997), arXiv: hep-th/9612193

    1997 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Steele, Z.W

    T.G. Steele, Z.W. Wang, D.G.C. McKeon, Phys. Rev. D90(10), 105012 (2014), arXiv: 1409.3489

    2014 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Reuter, H

    M. Reuter, H. Weyer, JCAP 0412, 001 (2004), arXiv: hep-th/0410119

    2004 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Reuter, H

    M. Reuter, H. Weyer, Phys. Rev. D70, 124028 (2004), arXiv: hep-th/0410117

    2004 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Wald, General Relativity (Chicago, USA: Univ

    R.M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago, USA: Univ. Pr., 1984), DOI 10.7208/chicago/9780226870373.001.0001

    1984

  29. [38]

    Farina, W

    C. Farina, W. Kort-Kamp, S. Mauro, I.L. Shapiro, Phys.Rev. D83, 124037 (2011), arXiv: 1101.5611

    2011 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Rodrigues, JCAP 1209, 031 (2012), arXiv: 1203.2286

    D.C. Rodrigues, JCAP 1209, 031 (2012), arXiv: 1203.2286

    2012 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Toniato, D.C

    J.D. Toniato, D.C. Rodrigues, Á.O. de Almeida, N. Bertini, Phys. Rev. D96(6), 064034 (2017), arXiv: 1706.09032

    2017 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Bonanno, F

    A. Bonanno, F. Saueressig, Comptes Rendus Physique 18, 254 (2017), arXiv: 1702.04137

    2017 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Ray, Journal of Mathematical Physics 13, 1451 (1972), DOI 10.1063/1.1665861

    J.R. Ray, Journal of Mathematical Physics 13, 1451 (1972), DOI 10.1063/1.1665861

    1972 doi

  34. [43]

    Fradkin, A.A

    E. Fradkin, A.A. Tseytlin, Nucl.Phys. B201, 469 (1982), DOI 10.1016/0550-3213(82)90444-8

    1982 doi

  35. [44]

    Nelson, P

    B. Nelson, P. Panangaden, Phys.Rev. D25, 1019 (1982), DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.25.1019

    1982 doi

  36. [45]

    Bauer, Class.Quant.Grav

    F. Bauer, Class.Quant.Grav. 22, 3533 (2005), arXiv: gr- qc/0501078

    2005

  37. [46]

    Rodrigues, S

    D.C. Rodrigues, S. Mauro, Á.O.F. de Almeida, Phys. Rev. D94(8), 084036 (2016), arXiv: 1609.03613

    2016 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Amendola, et al., Living Rev

    L. Amendola, et al., Living Rev. Rel. 21(1), 2 (2018), arXiv: 1606.00180

    2018 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Pizzuti, I.D

    L. Pizzuti, I.D. Saltas, S. Casas, L. Amendola, A. Bi- viano, MNRAS486(1), 596 (2019), arXiv: 1901.01961

    2019 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Ishak, Living Rev

    M. Ishak, Living Rev. Rel. 22(1), 1 (2019), arXiv: 1806.10122

    2019 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Mukhanov, Physical foundations of cosmology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK New York, 2005)

    V .F. Mukhanov, Physical foundations of cosmology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK New York, 2005)

    2005

  42. [51]

    Amendola, S

    L. Amendola, S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Observations (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  43. [52]

    Clifton, P.G

    T. Clifton, P.G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, C. Skordis, Phys.Rept. 513, 1 (2012), arXiv: 1106.2476

    2012 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Amendola, et al., Living Rev

    L. Amendola, et al., Living Rev. Rel. 16, 6 (2013), arXiv: 1206.1225

    2013 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Pizzuti, et al., JCAP 1604(04), 023 (2016), arXiv: 1602.03385

    L. Pizzuti, et al., JCAP 1604(04), 023 (2016), arXiv: 1602.03385

    2016 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Aghanim, et al., (2018), arXiv: 1807.06209

    N. Aghanim, et al., (2018), arXiv: 1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Abbott, et al., Phys

    T.M.C. Abbott, et al., Phys. Rev. D99(12), 123505 (2019), arXiv: 1810.02499

    2019 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Riess, S

    A.G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri, D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. 876(1), 85 (2019), arXiv: 1903.07603

    2019 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, J. Silk, JCAP 2001(01), 013 (2020), arXiv: 1908.01391

    2020 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Camarena, V

    D. Camarena, V . Marra, Phys. Rev. Research.2, 013028 (2020), arXiv: 1906.11814

    2020 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Macaulay, I.K

    E. Macaulay, I.K. Wehus, H.K. Eriksen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111(16), 161301 (2013), arXiv: 1303.6583

    2013 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Barros, L

    B.J. Barros, L. Amendola, T. Barreiro, N.J. Nunes, JCAP 01, 007 (2019), arXiv: 1802.09216

    2019 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Skara, L

    F. Skara, L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D101(6), 063521 (2020), arXiv: 1911.10609

    2020 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Esposito-Farese, D

    G. Esposito-Farese, D. Polarski, Phys. Rev. D63, 063504 (2001), arXiv: gr-qc/0009034

    2001 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Nesseris, G

    S. Nesseris, G. Pantazis, L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 96(2), 023542 (2017), arXiv: 1703.10538. 16

    2017 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Solà Peracaula, A

    J. Solà Peracaula, A. Gomez-Valent, J. de Cruz Pérez, C. Moreno-Pulido, Astrophys. J. 886(1), L6 (2019), arXiv: 1909.02554

    2019 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Solà Peracaula, Int

    J. Solà Peracaula, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27(14), 1847029 (2018), arXiv: 1805.09810

    2018 arXiv

  58. [67]

    de Cruz Pérez, J

    J. de Cruz Pérez, J. Solà Peracaula, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 33(38), 1850228 (2018), arXiv: 1809.03329

    2018 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Bentivegna, A

    E. Bentivegna, A. Bonanno, M. Reuter, JCAP0401, 001 (2004), arXiv: astro-ph/0303150

    2004 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Bonanno, G

    A. Bonanno, G. Esposito, C. Rubano, Class.Quant.Grav. 21, 5005 (2004), arXiv: gr- qc/0403115

    2004

  61. [70]

    Rodrigues, M

    D.C. Rodrigues, M. Galvão, N. Pinto-Neto, Phys. Rev. D98(10), 104019 (2018), arXiv: 1808.06751

    2018 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Hernández-Arboleda, Á

    A. Hernández-Arboleda, Á. Rincón, B. Koch, E. Contr- eras, P. Bargueño, (2018), arXiv: 1802.05288

    2018 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Agudelo Ruiz, T

    J.A. Agudelo Ruiz, T. de Paula Netto, J.C. Fabris, I.L. Shapiro, (2019), arXiv: 1911.06315

    2019 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Basilakos, N.E

    S. Basilakos, N.E. Mavromatos, J. Solà Peracaula, Phys. Lett. B803, 135342 (2020), arXiv: 2001.03465

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.