Exponential $f(R)$ cosmology with massive neutrinos as a dynamical dark energy framework

Sergei Odintsov; Simone D'Onofrio; Tiziano Schiavone

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Exponential $f(R)$ cosmology with massive neutrinos as a dynamical dark energy framework

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that generalized exponential f(R) gravity with massive neutrinos is statistically preferred over ΛCDM when Type Ia supernovae are added to the data, and that it slightly eases both the Hubble-constant tension and the neutri

desk verdict Competent MCMC constraints on an exponential f(R)+neutrinos model, but the headline tension-alleviation claim is softer than it looks and Eq. (37) needs a robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.06924 v2 pith:H6224GOW submitted 2025-11-10 gr-qc

Simone D'Onofrio , Sergei Odintsov , Tiziano Schiavone This is my paper

classification gr-qc PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k

keywords f(R)gravitymodifieddynamicaldarkenergymassiveneutrinosHubbletensionneutrinomasssumcosmologicalparameterconstraintsTypeIasupernovae

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

The paper asks whether a theoretically motivated modification of general relativity—an exponential f(R) correction that switches on only at late times—can do what a cosmological constant does, while also improving agreement with the newest low-redshift observations. Combining cosmic chronometers, BAO distances, a compressed CMB acoustic-scale likelihood, and the Pantheon+ supernova sample, the authors find that the f(R) model is very strongly preferred over flat ΛCDM by the Akaike information criterion (ΔAIC = 20.46). The model infers H0 = 70.89 ± 0.19 km/s/Mpc and a 1σ upper limit Σmν < 0.029 eV, shifting both parameters in the direction that partially relieves the Hubble and neutrino-mass problems, though without fully resolving either. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a physically grounded alternative to purely phenomenological dynamical-dark-energy fits, while the paper itself notes the preference is not present when supernovae are excluded.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized exponential f(R) Lagrangian, f(R) = R − 2Λ(1 − exp[−β(R/2Λ)^α]), whose exponential factor vanishes at high curvature and thereby reproduces ΛCDM at early times while generating a geometric dark-energy-like correction at late times. The quantitative work is carried by the coupled redshift-space equations for the dimensionless Hubble parameter E(z) and Ricci scalar R(z), seeded with ΛCDM initial conditions at an initial redshift zi where the exponential deviation is fixed to ε = 10^-7, together with the numerically integrated Fermi–Dirac integral for the neutrino energy density.

What would settle it

Re-run the same Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis using the full CMB temperature and polarization likelihood instead of the compressed (θ*, ωb, ωcb) vector, and repeat the fits with the initial-deviation parameter ε set to 10^-5 and 10^-9; if the best-fit H0 or Σmν moves by more than the reported 1σ uncertainties, the model's claimed consistency and tension-alleviation are not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the generalized exponential f(R) model, with Lagrangian f(R) = R − 2Λ(1 − exp[−β(R/2Λ)^α]) and three massive neutrinos described by a Fermi–Dirac phase-space density, remains consistent with the joint CC+BAO+CMB+SNe dataset and is very strongly favored over ΛCDM in the AIC comparison when the supernova sample is included. In that full fit the model gives H0 = 70.89 ± 0.19 km/s/Mpc, Ωm = 0.2810, α = 2.00 ± 0.13, β = 0.294, and Σmν < 0.029 eV at 1σ. The authors characterize the result as a partial, not complete, alleviation of the Hubble tension and the neutrino-mass problem, and they report that the f(R) model constrains Σmν more tightly than the w0waCDM parametrizat

Load-bearing premise

The inference relies on the exponential f(R) correction being completely negligible above a hand-chosen initial redshift (ε = 10^-7), so the evolution can be seeded with ΛCDM initial conditions and a compressed CMB likelihood; if the correction is not truly negligible there, the reported H0 and neutrino-mass shifts are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the statistical preference is robust, late-time modified gravity can mimic dynamical dark energy without an explicit cosmological constant, giving a theoretical basis for the dynamics that phenomenological fits like w0waCDM merely parameterize.
The inferred H0 rises from 68.55 (ΛCDM) to 70.89 (f(R)) when supernovae are added, reducing the internal tension between the dataset combinations from 7.5σ to 2.8σ, although the value remains below local distance-ladder measurements.
The 1σ upper bound Σmν < 0.029 eV is tighter than the w0waCDM bound but still below the terrestrial oscillation floor of about 0.06 eV, so the neutrino-mass tension is eased but not solved.
The model's advantage over ΛCDM is entirely driven by the inclusion of the supernova sample; with CC, BAO, and the compressed CMB likelihood alone, ΛCDM has the lower AIC.
The reported non-Gaussian posterior for β and the strong α–β degeneracy imply that late-time probes carry the constraining power, so future low-redshift surveys can sharpen or overturn the preference.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: the compressed CMB likelihood is used precisely because the model is assumed to match ΛCDM at recombination, so the reported consistency is partly built into the analysis; testing with a full CMB likelihood could shift the inferred H0 and Σmν.
My inference: the best-fit α ≈ 2 with β ≈ 0.29 means the late-time correction behaves roughly like a quadratic-curvature term in the relevant regime, so one could directly extract an effective dark-energy equation of state w(z) and compare it with the DESI-inspired w0wa constraints.
My inference: because the model leaves H0 below the local distance-ladder value, a single late-time modified-gravity effect is unlikely to close the Hubble-tension gap; combining this f(R) sector with an early-Universe mechanism is a natural next step that the paper does not explore.
My inference: varying the artificial matching parameter ε (e.g., 10^-5 and 10^-9) would provide a cheap robustness test of the initial-condition assumption; stability of the posteriors under this variation would strengthen the case considerably.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a clean, workmanlike MCMC analysis of a known exponential f(R) model extended with massive neutrinos. The authors integrate the background equations with a proper relativistic neutrino energy density, map to the LambdaCDM parameter set via E(0), and fit to CC, DESI DR2, compressed CMB, and Pantheon+. That is a useful and honestly described piece of work, and the new constraints on alpha, beta, H0, and sum m_nu are the contribution. The AIC comparison across models is also new.

What it does well: the formalism in Secs. II-III is standard and readable; the datasets are public and the likelihoods are described clearly; the comparison with LambdaCDM and w0waCDM is even-handed. The posterior plots look well behaved. The finding that sum m_nu is more tightly constrained than in w0waCDM is real and not obvious.

Where I part ways: the 'Hubble tension alleviation' language. The paper's own numbers show H0 = 70.89 +/- 0.19 with Pantheon+, which is not much closer to SH0ES (73.0) than Planck obtained in LambdaCDM. The 7.5 sigma -> 2.8 sigma reduction is an internal tension between fits with and without SNe Ia, not a resolution of the SH0ES mismatch. That distinction should be stated plainly.

The more technical soft spot is Eq. (37). The inversion for zi assumes non-relativistic neutrinos and fixes epsilon = 10^-7. On the stated prior alpha,beta in [0.01,5], the expression can blow up: alpha = 0.1, beta = 0.01 gives zi far above recombination. In those regions the initial conditions are not the true LambdaCDM values, and the compressed CMB likelihood, which assumes f(R) = LambdaCDM at z* ~ 1089, is invalid. The paper asserts this is safe, but provides no check. This is not necessarily fatal if the chains do not visit that volume, but without code or chains the reader cannot verify. A robustness test (checking E(0) >= 1, sensitivity to epsilon, or excluding samples with zi > z*) should be requested.

Minor: no convergence diagnostics, no released chains, and the AIC 'very strong evidence' claim should be hedged because it depends on the CMB compression approximation. The paper is otherwise coherent and the equations match.

Who it's for: people working on f(R) and dark energy parameter constraints. Worth citing for the neutrino extension, and worth sending to peer review with a request for the robustness checks.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constrains a generalized exponential f(R) gravity model, f(R)=R-2Λ(1-exp[-β(R/2Λ)^α]), together with the total neutrino mass Σmν, using cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 BAO, a compressed Planck CMB likelihood, and Pantheon+ supernovae. The analysis is an MCMC fit over (H0*, α, β, ωb*, ωbc*, ων*), with the f(R) background obtained by integrating Eqs. (32)-(33) from an initial redshift z_i set by the condition ε=exp[-βR(z_i)^α]=10^-7, with ΛCDM initial conditions above z_i. The main results are that, when Pantheon+ is included, the exponential f(R) model fits the joint data with H0=70.89±0.19, Σmν<0.0290 eV (1σ), α=2.00±0.13, β=0.294, and ΔAIC=20.46 over ΛCDM, which the paper interprets as very strong evidence and as a slight alleviation of the Hubble and neutrino-mass tensions. Without Pantheon+, ΛCDM is statistically preferred.

Significance. If the numerical framework is valid for the full explored parameter space, the paper provides a useful, concrete test of a theoretically motivated modified-gravity dark-energy scenario against current cosmological data, with the nontrivial feature that the model is fitted jointly with massive neutrinos and compared against both ΛCDM and the phenomenological w0waCDM model. The use of the exact Fermi-Dirac neutrino density in Eq. (23), the explicit ODE system, and the inclusion of a compressed CMB likelihood are appropriate and move beyond simpler phenomenological parameterizations. The statistical comparison in Table I, especially the AIC values, would be a meaningful contribution if the underlying initial-condition prescription is demonstrated to be valid for all accepted MCMC samples. At present, the significance is conditional because a load-bearing numerical premise—the ΛCDM matching at z_i—is not validated over the sampled prior.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III, Eqs. (34)-(37)] The initial-condition scheme is not valid over the adopted prior. Equation (37) is derived from Eq. (35) under the assumption that neutrinos are already non-relativistic at z_i, and it requires a positive argument for the cube root. For the stated priors α,β∈[0.01,5], this fails badly: for (β=0.01, α=0.5) one obtains z_i≈229, which is above the neutrino transition redshift shown in Fig. 4; for (β=0.01, α=0.1) one obtains z_i≈10^10, far above z*=1089; for (β=5, α=5) the right-hand side of Eq. (37) is negative and no positive z_i exists. In these regions the initial conditions (34)-(35) are not the correct ΛCDM values, the statement that f(R)=ΛCDM for z≥z_i is false, and the compressed-CMB likelihood—which assumes ΛCDM at recombination—cannot be applied. The paper's 'safe assumption' is a posterior check, not a constraint enforced during sampling. The authors should report the posterior di
[Sec. V, Table I and abstract] The claimed 'slight alleviation of the Hubble tension' is not supported by the evidence presented. The paper's 7.5σ→2.8σ reduction is an internal shift between H0 values obtained with and without the Pantheon+ sample for the same model, not the usual SH0ES-versus-CMB Hubble tension. Relative to SH0ES, the full-data f(R) result H0=70.89±0.19 is 2.0σ below 73.04±1.04, whereas the ΛCDM result H0=71.43±0.13 is 1.5σ below; relative to Planck, the f(R) value is 6.2σ away versus 7.3σ for ΛCDM. The reduction in tension is also partly an artifact of the much larger H0 uncertainty in the f(R) fit without SNe (σ=1.28 versus 0.36 for ΛCDM). The abstract and conclusions should be rephrased to state what is actually shown, or the appropriate comparison should be made.
[Sec. V, Table I] The neutrino-mass constraints are quoted as 1σ (68% C.L.) upper limits, e.g., Σmν<0.0290 eV for the f(R) model with Pantheon+. This is nonstandard and undermines the 'neutrino mass problem' comparison. The oscillation lower bound Σmν≥0.06 eV and the DESI/KATRIN bounds are quoted at different confidence levels, so the statement that the model 'slightly alleviates the neutrino mass tension' is not quantitatively established. Please report the 95% C.L. upper limits for all models and dataset combinations, and use those for the comparison.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. III, Eqs. (32)-(35)] The symbol R is used both for the dimensionful Ricci scalar (Sec. II) and for the dimensionless combination R/(2Λ) introduced in Eq. (21). Please introduce a separate notation, e.g., R̄, in Eqs. (32)-(35) to avoid confusion.
[Sec. V] The MCMC setup is described only minimally. Please report the number of walkers, chain length, burn-in, acceptance rate, and a convergence diagnostic such as the Gelman-Rubin statistic. The AIC definition also depends on the total number of data points N, which is never stated; N should be given explicitly for each dataset combination.
[Sec. IV, Eq. (42)] The fitting formula for r_d is taken from DESI and assumes ΛCDM-like early-time physics. This is consistent with the paper's matching assumption only if z_i is below the drag epoch for every accepted sample; this should be checked explicitly rather than assumed.
[Fig. 7 caption] The notation 'Σm*ν=E(0)^2 Σmν' is confusing because the mapping in Eq. (31) applies to density parameters, not directly to the mass. Please clarify the definition of the plotted quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model parameters are fitted to external data and the f(R) ansatz is an input, not a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard Bayesian parameter-estimation exercise. The exponential f(R) form (20) is an input ansatz, taken from the authors' prior work [38] but not justified by any uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation; adopting a model from earlier work is model selection, not circular evidence. Equations (32)-(33) are solved numerically from an initial redshift zi chosen by fixing the deviation ε = exp(-β R(zi)^α) = 10^-7; Eq. (37) simply inverts that definition, and the ΛCDM initial conditions (34)-(35) are a numerical matching device rather than a 'prediction'. The reported constraints on H0, Σmν, α, β, and the ΔAIC values come from external datasets (CC, DESI DR2, compressed Planck CMB, Pantheon+), so the central quantitative claims are not equivalent to the model inputs by construction. The compressed-CMB assumption that f(R)=ΛCDM at recombination is an approximation in the likelihood pipeline, and the reviewer's concern about zi possibly exceeding the neutrino transition or z* is a correctness/robustness issue, not a circularity. The comparisons with the authors' earlier constraints in [38] are consistency checks on fitted parameters, not evidence that the current result is forced by self-citation. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

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

The central fit requires the exponential model parameters (α,β), a set of standard cosmological densities, and several matching/compression assumptions. No new entities are introduced; the strongest unstated inputs are the ΛCDM-matching at z≥z_i and the compressed-CMB/r_s approximation.

free parameters (6)

α = 2.00 ± 0.13 (full data)
Exponent in the exponential f(R) model; fitted to CC+DESI+CMB+Pan+; strongly degenerate with β.
β = 0.294 +0.082/-0.13 (full data)
Exponential suppression scale; fitted; posterior shows non-Gaussianity.
H*_0 = not tabulated; physical H0=70.89±0.19 via H0=H*_0 E(0)
ΛCDM-framed Hubble parameter sampled in MCMC; central to the H0 tension discussion.
ω*_b, ω*_bc = ω_b≈0.0224, ω_cdm≈0.118 (full data, from Fig. 7)
Baryon and CDM density parameters sampled in MCMC; standard but fitted.
ω*_ν = Σmν < 0.0290 eV (1σ, full data)
Present-day neutrino density parameter; mapped to Σmν = 93.14 ω*_ν h^{-2}; drives the neutrino-mass claim.
ε = 10^-7 (fixed by hand)
Hand-chosen deviation used to define the initial redshift z_i; results should be checked for sensitivity to this choice.

assumptions (5)

standard math Metric f(R) field equations (Eq. 2) and stress-energy conservation are the correct gravitational dynamics.
Underpins the entire background evolution; standard in the f(R) literature.
ad hoc to paper The exponential form f(R)=R-2Λ(1-exp(-β(R/2Λ)^α)) (Eq. 20) is the model to be tested.
Taken from the authors' earlier work [38]; no derivation from a more fundamental principle.
domain assumption For z ≥ z_i, f(R) is indistinguishable from ΛCDM; initial conditions are set by ΛCDM formulas (Eqs. 34-35).
Relies on ε=10^-7 and on the exponential term vanishing at high R; used to validate the compressed-CMB interpretation.
domain assumption Neutrinos are non-relativistic at z_i, allowing inversion of Eq. (35) into Eq. (37).
Explicitly stated in Sec. III; safe for the best-fit neutrino masses but not validated across the broad ω*_ν prior.
domain assumption The compressed CMB likelihood on (θ*, ωb, ωcb), with z*=1089 fixed and r* = r_d/1.01841, captures the CMB information for this model.
Assumes f(R) modifies neither recombination nor sound horizon; replaces the full Planck likelihood.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exponential $f(R)$ cosmology with massive neutrinos as a dynamical dark energy framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6224GOW

@misc{pith2026251106924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exponential $f(R)$ cosmology with massive neutrinos as a dynamical dark energy framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6224GOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.06924}
}

abstract

The exponential $f(R)$ gravity model provides a theoretically well-motivated extension of General Relativity, introducing a modified gravitational dynamics at late times consistent with a dynamical dark energy scenario, while recovering the $\Lambda$CDM-like regime at high redshifts with a smooth transition. Using a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis, we constrain the parameters of the exponential $f(R)$ model in combination with the total neutrino mass $\sum m_\nu$, employing the latest measurements from cosmic chronometers, the DESI DR2 BAO data, the CMB acoustic scale, and the Pantheon+ supernovae compilation, comparing the results with the $\Lambda$CDM and the $w_0w_a$CDM models. Our results show that the exponential $f(R)$ model remains consistent with current observations while slightly alleviating the Hubble tension and the neutrino mass problem relative to $\Lambda$CDM, although the constraints on $\sum m_\nu$ are tighter than those obtained for the phenomenological $w_0w_a$CDM scenario. These results indicate that the interplay between modified gravity and neutrino physics in the late Universe may offer a viable framework for further investigation of cosmological tensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.06924 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Corner plot showing the constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Marginalized 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Numerical evaluation of the Fermi-Dirac integral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Corner plot for the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison between the corner plots for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: Values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Gravitational Wave Birefringence in generalized Palatini Chern Simons
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Palatini f(R)+Chern–Simons gravity predicts amplitude and velocity birefringence in GW propagation, with the effect controlled by f_R and, under de-Sitter approximations, growing polynomially with redshift.
Degenerate and connection-dependent cosmological sectors in f(Q,C) gravity
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Connection field equations force a degenerate f(R)-equivalent sector of f(Q,C) cosmology in which three geometric connections coincide, and only nonzero integration constants make the connections physically distinct.
Hubble tension: a short review of theoretical explanations
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

A comprehensive review finds no theoretical Hubble-tension solution yet passes all consistency tests; new early-dark-energy chains reach high H0 only when the SH0ES calibration is added.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 55 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain

Institute of Space Sciences (ICE, CSIC) C. Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
[2]

ICREA, Passeig Luis Companys, 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain
[3]

SISSA-International School for Advanced Studies, Via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy and
[4]

INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Via Valerio 2, I-34127 Trieste, Italy The exponentialf(R) gravity model provides a theoretically well-motivated extension of General Relativity, introducing a modified gravitational dynamics at late times consistent with a dynamical dark energy scenario, while recovering the ΛCDM-like regime at high redshifts with a smooth transi...

arXiv 2025
[5]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

arXiv 2003
[6]

A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, and G. et.al., The Astronomical Journal116, 1009–1038 (1998)

1998
[7]

Perlmutter, G

S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, and F. et.al., The Astrophysical Journal517, 565–586 (1999)

1999
[8]

Trimble, Ann

V. Trimble, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.25, 425 (1987)

1987

Show all 84 references

[9]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

1989
[10]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[11]

Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102605 (2021), arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Di Valentino, O

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro- ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[13]

Bamba, S

K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Astrophys. Space Sci.342, 155 (2012), arXiv:1205.3421 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[14]

Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

E. Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[15]

Aghanim, Y

N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, and R. B. a. Barreiro, Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020)

2020
[16]

E. D. Valentino, J. L. Said,et al., Physics of the Dark Universe , 101965 (2025)

2025
[17]

A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, and M. et.al., The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters934, L7 (2022)

2022
[18]

Scolnicet al., Astrophys

D. Scolnicet al., Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[19]

Brout, D

D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, and H. et.al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022)

2022
[20]

Abdul-Karim, J

DESI, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. A. Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. An- drade, E. Armengaud,et al., Desi dr2 results ii: Mea- surements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmologi- 12 55 60 65 70 H ∗ 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 ∑ m∗ ν 0.0220 0....

1993 arXiv
[21]

Vagnozzi, Phys

S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D102, 023518 (2020), arXiv:1907.07569 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[22]

Capozziello, H

S. Capozziello, H. Chaudhary, G. Mustafa, and S. K. J. Pacif, pre-print (2025), arXiv:2510.21976 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[23]

Chaudhary, V

H. Chaudhary, V. K. Sharma, S. Capozziello, and G. Mustafa, pre-print (2025), arXiv:2510.08339 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[24]

Chaudhary, S

H. Chaudhary, S. Capozziello, S. Praharaj, S. K. J. Pacif, and G. Mustafa, pre-print (2025), arXiv:2509.17124 [gr- qc]

2025
[25]

Y.-S. Song, W. Hu, and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D75, 044004 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0610532

2007 arXiv
[26]

Chevallier and D

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

2001 arXiv
[27]

E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

2003 arXiv
[28]

Giar` e, M

W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035, arXiv:2407.16689 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv
[29]

H. A. Buchdahl, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.150, 1 (1970)

1970
[30]

Hu and I

W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D76, 064004 (2007), arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[31]

T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[32]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept.505, 59 (2011), arXiv:1011.0544 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[33]

Capozziello and M

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509, 167 (2011), arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[34]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept.692, 1 (2017), arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[35]

Bamba, C.-Q

K. Bamba, C.-Q. Geng, and C.-C. Lee, JCAP08, 021, arXiv:1005.4574 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[36]

A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett.86, 157 (2007), arXiv:0706.2041 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[37]

Cognola, E

G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, L. Se- bastiani, and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev. D77, 046009 (2008), arXiv:0712.4017 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[38]

E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D80, 123528 (2009), arXiv:0905.2962 [astro-ph.CO]. 13

2009 arXiv
[39]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev. D83, 086006 (2011), arXiv:1012.2280 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[40]

S. D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, and G. S. Sharov, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101369 (2023), arXiv:2310.20302 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[41]

Chen, C.-Q

Y. Chen, C.-Q. Geng, C.-C. Lee, L.-W. Luo, and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D91, 044019 (2015), arXiv:1407.4303 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[42]

S. D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, and G. S. Sharov, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 862 (2017), arXiv:1709.06800 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[43]

S. D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, and G. S. Sharov, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 298 (2025), arXiv:2412.09409 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[44]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and G. S. Sharov, JHEAp50, 100471 (2026), arXiv:2506.02245 [gr-qc]

2026
[45]

Schiavone, G

T. Schiavone, G. Montani, and F. Bombacigno, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.522, L72 (2023), arXiv:2211.16737 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[46]

S. D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, and G. S. Sharov, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101558 (2024), arXiv:2406.08831 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[47]

M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Mon- tani, E. Rinaldi, and G. Lambiase, ApJ912, 150 (2021), arXiv:2103.02117 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[48]

S. D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, and G. S. Sharov, Nucl. Phys. B966, 115377 (2021), arXiv:2011.03957 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[49]

M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Mon- tani, E. Rinaldi, G. Lambiase, M. Bogdan, and S. Ugale, Galaxies10, 24 (2022), arXiv:2201.09848 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[50]

Montani, M

G. Montani, M. De Angelis, and M. G. Dainotti, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101969 (2025), arXiv:2506.13288 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[51]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Nucl. Phys. B980, 115850 (2022), arXiv:2205.11681 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[52]

Montani, M

G. Montani, M. De Angelis, F. Bombacigno, and N. Car- levaro, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, L156 (2023), arXiv:2306.11101 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[53]

L. A. Escamilla, D. Fiorucci, G. Montani, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101652 (2024), arXiv:2408.04354 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[54]

Montani, N

G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, and M. De Angelis, Entropy 26, 662 (2024), arXiv:2407.12409 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[55]

Froustey, C

J. Froustey, C. Pitrou, and M. C. Volpe, JCAP12, 015, arXiv:2008.01074 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[56]

Lesgourgues and S

J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, New J. Phys.16, 065002 (2014), arXiv:1404.1740 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[57]

Di Valentino, S

E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, pre-print (2024), arXiv:2404.19322 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[58]

P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Mart ´ ınez- Mirav´ e, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP02, 071, arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph]

2006 arXiv
[59]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 12, 216, arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[60]

Elberset al., Phys

W. Elberset al., Phys. Rev. D112, 083513 (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[61]

J. J. Bennett, G. Buldgen, P. F. De Salas, M. Drewes, S. Gariazzo, S. Pastor, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP04, 073, arXiv:2012.02726 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[62]

Drewes, Y

M. Drewes, Y. Georis, M. Klasen, L. P. Wiggering, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP06, 032, arXiv:2402.18481 [hep- ph]

arXiv
[63]

Vagnozzi, E

S. Vagnozzi, E. Giusarma, O. Mena, K. Freese, M. Gerbino, S. Ho, and M. Lattanzi, Phys. Rev. D96, 123503 (2017), arXiv:1701.08172 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[64]

Di Valentino, S

E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D104, 083504 (2021), arXiv:2106.15267 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[65]

Brieden, H

S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, and L. Verde, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2023(04), 023
[66]

Akeret al.(KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

M. Akeret al.(KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

2025
[67]

Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

S. Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[68]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, eConfC0602061, 06 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0601213

2006 arXiv
[69]

The analysis is carried out with the publicly availableemceePython package [70]

using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) ap- proach to obtain the posterior distributions of the cos- mological parameters. The analysis is carried out with the publicly availableemceePython package [70]. As discussed in Sec. III, the cosmological parame- ters are mapped into t...

2025
[70]

Efstathiou and S

G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.496, L91 (2020), arXiv:2002.06892 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[71]

Lemos and A

P. Lemos and A. Lewis, Physical Review D107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.103505 (2023)

2023 doi
[72]

D. J. Fixsen, Astrophys. J.707, 916 (2009), arXiv:0911.1955 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[73]

Hu and N

W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, The Astrophysical Journal471, 542–570 (1996)

1996
[74]

L. E. Padilla, L. O. Tellez, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, Universe7, 213 (2021)

2021
[75]

Foreman-Mackey, W

D. Foreman-Mackey, W. M. Farr, M. Sinha, A. M. Archibald, D. W. Hogg, J. S. Sanders, J. Zuntz, P. K. Williams, A. R. Nelson, M. de Val-Borro,et al. 10.21105/joss.01864 (2019)

2019 doi
[76]

Akaike, IEEE Trans

H. Akaike, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

1974
[77]

A. R. Liddle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.377, L74 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701113

2007 arXiv
[78]

Zhang, H

C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang, and Y.-C. Sun, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics14, 1221 (2014)

2014
[79]

Moresco, L

M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. Tojeiro, and D. Wilkinson, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics05(05), 014
[80]

Simon, L

J. Simon, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, Physical Review D 71, 10.1103/physrevd.71.123001 (2005)

2005 doi
[81]

Stern, R

D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, and S. A. Stanford, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics02(02), 008
[82]

M. M. et.al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics08(08), 006
[83]

Moresco, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters450, L16–L20 (2015)

M. Moresco, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters450, L16–L20 (2015)

2015
[84]

A. L. Ratsimbazafy, S. I. Loubser, S. M. Crawford, C. M. Cress, B. A. Bassett, R. C. Nichol, and P. V¨ ais¨ anen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society467, 3239–3254 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain

Institute of Space Sciences (ICE, CSIC) C. Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain

[2] [2]

ICREA, Passeig Luis Companys, 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain

[3] [3]

SISSA-International School for Advanced Studies, Via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy and

[4] [4]

INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Via Valerio 2, I-34127 Trieste, Italy The exponentialf(R) gravity model provides a theoretically well-motivated extension of General Relativity, introducing a modified gravitational dynamics at late times consistent with a dynamical dark energy scenario, while recovering the ΛCDM-like regime at high redshifts with a smooth transi...

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

arXiv 2003

[6] [6]

A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, and G. et.al., The Astronomical Journal116, 1009–1038 (1998)

1998

[7] [7]

Perlmutter, G

S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, and F. et.al., The Astrophysical Journal517, 565–586 (1999)

1999

[8] [8]

Trimble, Ann

V. Trimble, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.25, 425 (1987)

1987