arxiv: 2603.02124 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-02 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: no theorem link

On the Physical Nature of the Scalar Mode Mass in the Jordan frame of a Metric f(R) gravity

Giovanni Montani , Andrea Valletta

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 16:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc

keywords f(R) gravityJordan framescalar modeHubble scaleNewton's constant variationadiabatic separationcosmological perturbationsmetric gravity

0 comments

The pith

Metric f(R) gravity requires its scalar mode to have a mass several orders of magnitude above the Hubble scale.

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

The paper analyzes the Taylor expansion of metric f(R) gravity around the General Relativity limit in the Jordan frame. Relating this expansion to the scalar-tensor equivalent yields constraints from the present-day ΛCDM deceleration parameter and from bounds on the time variation of Newton's constant. These constraints force the scalar degree of freedom to carry a mass much larger than the current Hubble rate. The result questions the viability of light scalars for driving late-time acceleration. The hierarchy follows once the scalar mass is defined through an adiabatic separation of background evolution from perturbations.

Core claim

We analyze the Taylor expansion of metric f(R) gravity in the Jordan frame around the General Relativity limit. By relating the scalar-tensor representation to the original f(R) formulation, we derive constraints on the expansion parameters from the observed value of the present-day ΛCDM deceleration parameter and from cosmological bounds on the variation of Newton's constant. We show that these requirements imply that the scalar degree of freedom must have a mass exceeding the Hubble scale by several orders of magnitude. This result challenges the common assumption that the scalar mode can drive cosmological dynamics with a mass of order H0. We provide a dynamical interpretation of this by

What carries the argument

The adiabatic separation between background evolution and perturbations that defines the physical mass of the scalar degree of freedom in the Jordan-frame scalar-tensor representation.

If this is right

The scalar mode cannot drive late-time cosmic acceleration at a mass scale set by H0.
Expansion parameters of f(R) around GR are bounded tightly enough to produce a super-Hubble mass.
Common scalar-tensor models with light scalars conflict with the required adiabatic mass definition.
Cosmological bounds on Newton's constant variation become stricter once the mass hierarchy is imposed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The mass requirement may push viable f(R) explanations of dark energy toward additional mechanisms or fine-tuning.
Analogous hierarchies could constrain light scalars in other modified-gravity frameworks when the same adiabatic definition is applied.
Precision measurements of G-dot at higher redshift could test whether the separation assumption holds or needs revision.

Load-bearing premise

A proper definition of the scalar mass requires an adiabatic separation between background evolution and perturbations.

What would settle it

A cosmological or gravitational-wave observation that measures a scalar mode mass of order H0 while the deceleration parameter stays consistent with ΛCDM and Newton's constant shows no excessive variation would falsify the mass hierarchy.

read the original abstract

We analyze the Taylor expansion of metric $f(R)$ gravity in the Jordan frame around the General Relativity limit. By relating the scalar--tensor representation to the original $f(R)$ formulation, we derive constraints on the expansion parameters from the observed value of the present-day $\Lambda$CDM deceleration parameter and from cosmological bounds on the variation of Newton's constant. We show that these requirements imply that the scalar degree of freedom must have a mass exceeding the Hubble scale by several orders of magnitude. This result challenges the common assumption that the scalar mode can drive cosmological dynamics with a mass of order $H_0$. We provide a dynamical interpretation of this hierarchy by emphasizing that a proper definition of the scalar mass, in a field-theoretical sense, requires an adiabatic separation between background evolution and perturbations, which naturally leads to a super-Hubble mass scale.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper claims f(R) scalars must be much heavier than H0 to fit data, but this rests on an unchecked adiabatic separation.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this paper derives a strong mass hierarchy for the scalar mode in metric f(R) gravity: to match the observed deceleration parameter q0 and bounds on Ġ/G, the Taylor coefficients around the GR limit force m >> H0 by several orders. They interpret this via the need for adiabatic separation between background evolution and perturbations to define the mass in a field-theoretic sense. That challenges the usual picture of light scalars driving late-time acceleration in the Jordan frame.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the Taylor expansion of metric f(R) gravity around the GR limit in the Jordan frame, relates it to the scalar-tensor representation, and derives constraints on the expansion coefficients from the observed present-day deceleration parameter q0 and cosmological bounds on Ġ/G. It concludes that these constraints force the scalar degree of freedom to have a mass exceeding the Hubble scale by several orders of magnitude, challenging the viability of light scalars (m ~ H0) for driving late-time cosmology, and interprets this hierarchy via the requirement of an adiabatic separation between background evolution and perturbations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result would tighten the parameter space for viable f(R) models by showing that observationally consistent Taylor coefficients around GR cannot support a light scalar mode capable of affecting cosmological dynamics. The strength lies in grounding the mass bound directly in external data (q0 and Ġ/G) rather than free parameters, though the mapping to super-Hubble mass rests on the adiabaticity assumption.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and the mapping from Taylor coefficients to scalar mass] The central claim that the scalar mass exceeds the Hubble scale by several orders of magnitude (abstract and main derivation) is obtained only after invoking an adiabatic separation between background and perturbations to define the mass via m² ∝ 1/f''(R). The manuscript supplies no explicit verification that the derived parameters satisfy the adiabaticity condition (Compton wavelength ≪ Hubble radius) across the epochs where the q0 and Ġ/G bounds apply; without this check the same coefficients could permit an effective mass of order H0 while remaining consistent with the background constraints.
[Section deriving the constraints from q0 and Ġ/G bounds] The constraints on the Taylor expansion coefficients are taken from external cosmological data rather than derived internally from the f(R) field equations; the paper should demonstrate that the resulting mass hierarchy remains stable when the same coefficients are inserted back into the full perturbation equations without presupposing the separation.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction and §2] The notation for the Taylor coefficients (e.g., the precise definition of the first and second derivatives of f(R) at the GR point) should be introduced with an explicit equation early in the text to avoid ambiguity when mapping to the scalar mass.
[Results section] A brief comparison table or numerical example showing the orders-of-magnitude gap between the derived mass and H0 would improve clarity of the hierarchy result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and the mapping from Taylor coefficients to scalar mass] The central claim that the scalar mass exceeds the Hubble scale by several orders of magnitude (abstract and main derivation) is obtained only after invoking an adiabatic separation between background and perturbations to define the mass via m² ∝ 1/f''(R). The manuscript supplies no explicit verification that the derived parameters satisfy the adiabaticity condition (Compton wavelength ≪ Hubble radius) across the epochs where the q0 and Ġ/G bounds apply; without this check the same coefficients could permit an effective mass of order H0 while remaining consistent with the background constraints.

Authors: We agree that an explicit verification of the adiabaticity condition for the constrained coefficients is not provided in the current manuscript. In the revised version we will add a dedicated calculation (new subsection) that inserts the observationally allowed Taylor coefficients into the expression for the Compton wavelength and confirms it remains ≪ Hubble radius at the present epoch and at the redshifts relevant to the Ġ/G bounds. This will make the consistency of the adiabatic separation explicit. revision: yes
Referee: [Section deriving the constraints from q0 and Ġ/G bounds] The constraints on the Taylor expansion coefficients are taken from external cosmological data rather than derived internally from the f(R) field equations; the paper should demonstrate that the resulting mass hierarchy remains stable when the same coefficients are inserted back into the full perturbation equations without presupposing the separation.

Authors: The q0 and Ġ/G constraints are indeed taken from external data, as they are observational. The scalar mass is defined directly from f''(R) in the Jordan-frame formulation; this definition is field-theoretical and requires the adiabatic separation to be meaningful. We will add a short discussion (and, if space permits, a brief appendix) that substitutes the constrained coefficients into the linearized perturbation equations and shows that a light scalar (m ∼ H0) produces either ghost-like behavior or violates the background evolution already fixed by q0. This demonstrates the stability of the hierarchy without presupposing adiabaticity from the outset. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: external data constraints and standard mapping yield the mass hierarchy independently

full rationale

The derivation constrains Taylor coefficients of the f(R) expansion around the GR limit using the externally observed present-day deceleration parameter q0 and independent cosmological bounds on Ġ/G. These inputs are not fitted internally or adjusted to produce the target mass scale. The scalar mass follows from the standard scalar-tensor equivalence relation m² ∝ 1/f''(R), which is a direct algebraic consequence of the constrained coefficients rather than a redefinition or self-referential loop. The adiabatic separation between background and perturbations is invoked only for interpretive justification of the field-theoretical mass definition and does not alter the numerical hierarchy obtained from the data constraints. No self-citation, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results appears in the load-bearing steps, and the central claim remains directly falsifiable against the cited external observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of a Taylor expansion around GR, the equivalence between f(R) and scalar-tensor formulations, and the use of external cosmological observables to constrain parameters.

free parameters (1)

Taylor expansion coefficients of f(R)
These coefficients are constrained by matching to the observed deceleration parameter and G variation bounds.

axioms (2)

standard math Metric f(R) gravity can be rewritten as a scalar-tensor theory in the Jordan frame
Standard equivalence used throughout the derivation.
domain assumption Adiabatic separation between background evolution and perturbations is required for a field-theoretic mass definition
Invoked to interpret the derived mass hierarchy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5445 in / 1208 out tokens · 36895 ms · 2026-05-15T16:49:35.488307+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni

Sotiriou, T.P.; Faraoni, V. f(R) Theories of Gravity.Rev. Mod. Phys. 2010,82, 451–497.https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.451 2010
[2]

Observational constraints on dark energy with generalized equations of state.Phys

Capozziello, S.; Cardone, V.F.; Elizalde, E.; Nojiri, S.; Odintsov, S.D. Observational constraints on dark energy with generalized equations of state.Phys. Rev. D—Part. Fields Gravit. Cosmol.2006,73, 043512

work page 2006
[3]

Analyzing the H0 tension inF(R)gravity models.Nucl

Odintsov, S.D.; Sáez-Chillón Gómez, D.; Sharov, G.S. Analyzing the H0 tension inF(R)gravity models.Nucl. Phys. B2021,966, 115377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115377

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115377 2021
[4]

Early dark energy with power-law F(R) gravity.Phys

Odintsov, S.D.; Oikonomou, V.K.; Sharov, G.S. Early dark energy with power-law F(R) gravity.Phys. Lett. B2023,843, 137988.https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137988. 14

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137988 2023
[5]

Metric f (R) gravity with dynamical dark energy as a scenario for the Hubble tension.Mon

Montani, G.; De Angelis, M.; Bombacigno, F.; Carlevaro, N. Metric f (R) gravity with dynamical dark energy as a scenario for the Hubble tension.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.2024,527, L156–L161

work page 2024
[6]

On the Metric $f(R)$ gravity Viability in Accounting for the Binned Supernovae Data

Valletta, A.; Montani, G.; Dainotti, M.G.; Fazzari, E. On the Metric f(R)gravity Viability in Accounting for the Binned Supernovae Data. arXiv2025, arXiv:2512.19568

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[7]

f(R)gravityintheJordan frame as a paradigm for the Hubble tension.Mon

Schiavone, T.; Montani, G.; Bombacigno, F. f(R)gravityintheJordan frame as a paradigm for the Hubble tension.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.2023,522, L72–L77

work page 2023
[8]

Running Hubble Constant: Evolutionary Dark Energy.Phys

Montani, G.; Carlevaro, N.; Dainotti, M.G. Running Hubble Constant: Evolutionary Dark Energy.Phys. Dark Universe2025,48, 101847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.101847

work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101847 2025
[9]

The Gravity Lagrangian according to solar system exper- iments.Phys

Olmo, G.J. The Gravity Lagrangian according to solar system exper- iments.Phys. Rev. Lett.2005,95, 261102

work page 2005
[10]

Extended theories of gravity.Phys

Capozziello, S.; De Laurentis, M. Extended theories of gravity.Phys. Rep.2011,509, 167–321

work page 2011
[11]

A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity.Phys

Starobinsky, A.A. A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity.Phys. Lett. B1980,91, 99–102

work page
[12]

Non- singular exponential gravity: A simple theory for early- and late-time accelerated expansion.Phys

Elizalde, E.; Nojiri, S.; Odintsov, S.; Sebastiani, L.; Zerbini, S. Non- singular exponential gravity: A simple theory for early- and late-time accelerated expansion.Phys. Rev. D—Part. Fields Gravit. Cosmol. 2011,83, 086006

work page 2011
[13]

Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universeandacosmologicalconstant.Astron

Riess, A.G.; Filippenko, A.V.; Challis, P.; Clocchiatti, A.; Diercks, A.; Garnavich, P.M.; Gilliland, R.L.; Hogan, C.J.; Jha, S.; Kirshner, R.P.; et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universeandacosmologicalconstant.Astron. J.1998,116,1009–1038

work page 1998
[14]

Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 high-redshift supernovae.Astrophys

Perlmutter, S.; Aldering, G.; Goldhaber, G.; Knop, R.A.; Nugent, P.; Castro, P.G.; Deustua, S.; Fabbro, S.; Goobar, A.; Groom, D.E.; et al. Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 high-redshift supernovae.Astrophys. J.1999,517, 565–586

work page 1999
[15]

Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: From F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models.Phys

Nojiri, S.; Odintsov, S.D. Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: From F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models.Phys. Rept.2011, 505, 59–144.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001. 15

work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001 2011
[16]

Palatini approach to modified gravity: F (R) theories and beyond.Int

Olmo, G.J. Palatini approach to modified gravity: F (R) theories and beyond.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D2011,20, 413–462

work page
[17]

Big bounce and future time singularity resolution in Bianchi I cosmologies: The projective invariant Nieh-Yan case.Phys

Bombacigno, F.; Boudet, S.; Olmo, G.J.; Montani, G. Big bounce and future time singularity resolution in Bianchi I cosmologies: The projective invariant Nieh-Yan case.Phys. Rev. D2021,103, 124031

work page
[18]

On the degrees of freedom of R2 gravity in flat spacetime.JHEP2024,2, 39.https://doi.org/10

Hell, A.; Lust, D.; Zoupanos, G. On the degrees of freedom of R2 gravity in flat spacetime.JHEP2024,2, 39.https://doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP02(2024)039

work page 2024
[19]

Conformal and pure scale-invariant gravities in d dimensions.JHEP2025,9, 202.https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP09(2025)202

Hell, A.; Lust, D. Conformal and pure scale-invariant gravities in d dimensions.JHEP2025,9, 202.https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP09(2025)202

work page 2025
[20]

The recipe for the degrees of freedom.arXiv2026, arXiv:2601.10288

Hell, A.; Ferreira, E.G.M.; Lust, D.; Sasaki, M. The recipe for the degrees of freedom.arXiv2026, arXiv:2601.10288

work page arXiv
[21]

On a general vacuum solution of fourth- order gravity.Class

Starobinsky, A.; Schmidt, H.J. On a general vacuum solution of fourth- order gravity.Class. Quantum Gravity1987,4, 695

work page
[22]

The stability of general relativistic cos- mological theory.J

Barrow, J.D.; Ottewill, A.C. The stability of general relativistic cos- mological theory.J. Phys. A Math. Gen.1983,16, 2757

work page 1983
[23]

Models of f (R) cosmic acceleration that evade solar system tests.Phys

Hu, W.; Sawicki, I. Models of f (R) cosmic acceleration that evade solar system tests.Phys. Rev. D—Part. Fields Gravit. Cosmol.2007, 76, 064004

work page 2007
[24]

ACom- prehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team.Astrophys

Riess, A.G.; Yuan, W.; Macri, L.M.; Scolnic, D.; Brout, D.; Casertano, S.; Jones, D.O.; Murakami, Y.; Anand, G.S.; Breuval, L.; etal. ACom- prehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team.Astrophys. J. Lett.2022,934, L7

work page 2022
[25]

Planck 2018 results

Collaboration, P. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. A&A2018,641, A6

work page 2018
[26]

In the realm of the Hubble ten- sion—Areviewofsolutions.Class

Di Valentino, E.; Mena, O.; Pan, S.; Visinelli, L.; Yang, W.; Melchiorri, A.; Mota, D.F.; Riess, A.G.; Silk, J. In the realm of the Hubble ten- sion—Areviewofsolutions.Class. Quantum Gravity2021,38,153001

work page
[27]

Abdalla, E.; et al. Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies.JHEAp2022,34, 49–211.https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002. 16

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022
[28]

Decay of dark energy into dark matter in a metric f (R) gravity: Effective running Hubble constant.Phys

Montani, G.; De Angelis, M.; Dainotti, M.G. Decay of dark energy into dark matter in a metric f (R) gravity: Effective running Hubble constant.Phys. Dark Universe2025,49, 101969

work page
[29]

Modified gravity in the presence of matter creation: Scenario for the late Universe.Entropy 2024,26, 662

Montani, G.; Carlevaro, N.; De Angelis, M. Modified gravity in the presence of matter creation: Scenario for the late Universe.Entropy 2024,26, 662

work page 2024
[30]

On the Hubble constant tension in the SNe Ia Pan- theon sample.Astrophys

Dainotti, M.G.; De Simone, B.; Schiavone, T.; Montani, G.; Rinaldi, E.; Lambiase, G. On the Hubble constant tension in the SNe Ia Pan- theon sample.Astrophys. J.2021,912, 150

work page 2021
[31]

Updated analysis of Hubble constant evolution using expanded Pantheon-like samples.Galaxies 2022,10, 24.https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies10010024

Dainotti, M.G.; De Simone, B.; Schiavone, T.; Montani, G.; Rinaldi, E.; Lambiase, G.; Bogdan, M.; Ugale, S. Updated analysis of Hubble constant evolution using expanded Pantheon-like samples.Galaxies 2022,10, 24.https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies10010024

work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10010024 2022
[32]

Integral F(R) gravity and saddle point condition as a remedy for the H0-tension.Nucl

Nojiri, S.; Odintsov, S.D.; Oikonomou, V.K. Integral F(R) gravity and saddle point condition as a remedy for the H0-tension.Nucl. Phys. B 2022,980, 115850.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2022. 115850

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2022 2022
[33]

De Simone, M

Simone, B.D.; van Putten, M.H.P.M.; Dainotti, M.G.; Lambiase, G. A doublet of cosmological models to challenge the H0 tension in the Pantheon Supernovae Ia catalog.arXiv2024, arXiv:2411.05744

work page arXiv
[34]

A new binning method to choose a standard set of Quasars.Phys

Dainotti, M.G.; Lenart, A.L.; Yengejeh, M.G.; Chakraborty, S.; Fraija, N.; Di Valentino, E.; Montani, G. A new binning method to choose a standard set of Quasars.Phys. Dark Univ.2024,44, 101428.https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2024.101428

work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101428 2024
[35]

Measurements of the gravitational constant using two independent methods.Nature2018, 560, 582–588

Li, Q.; Xue, C.; Liu, J.P.; Wu, J.F.; Yang, S.Q.; Shao, C.G.; Quan, L.D.; Tan, W.H.; Tu, L.C.; Liu, Q.; et al. Measurements of the gravitational constant using two independent methods.Nature2018, 560, 582–588

work page
[36]

Measurement of Newton’s constant using a torsion balance with angular acceleration feedback.Phys

Gundlach, J.H.; Merkowitz, S.M. Measurement of Newton’s constant using a torsion balance with angular acceleration feedback.Phys. Rev. Lett.2000,85, 2869

work page 2000
[37]

Constraints on Newton’s constant from cosmolog- ical observations.Eur

Wang, K.; Chen, L. Constraints on Newton’s constant from cosmolog- ical observations.Eur. Phys. J. C2020,80, 570. 17

work page
[38]

Weinberg, S.Cosmology; OUP Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2008

work page 2008
[39]

Chameleon cosmology.Phys

Khoury, J.; Weltman, A. Chameleon cosmology.Phys. Rev. D2004, 69, 044026

work page
[40]

Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space.Phys

Khoury, J.; Weltman, A. Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space.Phys. Rev. Lett.2004,93, 171104

work page 2004
[41]

Quintessence and the Rest of the World

Carroll, S.M. Quintessence and the rest of the world.arXiv1998, arXiv:astro-ph/9806099

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[42]

The Chameleon Effect in the Jordan Frame of the Brans--Dicke Theory

Quiros, I.; Garcia-Salcedo, R.; Gonzalez, T.; Horta-Rangel, F.A. The Chameleon Effect in the Jordan Frame of the Brans–Dicke Theory. arXiv2015, arXiv:1506.05420

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[43]

f (R) gravity and chameleon theories.Phys

Brax, P.; van de Bruck, C.; Davis, A.C.; Shaw, D.J. f (R) gravity and chameleon theories.Phys. Rev. D—Part. Fields Gravit. Cosmol. 2008,78, 104021

work page 2008
[44]

Solar system and equivalence principle constraints onf(R)gravity by the chameleon approach.Phys

Capozziello, S.; Tsujikawa, S. Solar system and equivalence principle constraints onf(R)gravity by the chameleon approach.Phys. Rev. D 2008,77, 107501.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.107501

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.107501 2008
[45]

Constraining f(R)gravityin solarsystem, cosmology and binary pulsar systems.Phys

Liu, T.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, W. Constraining f(R)gravityin solarsystem, cosmology and binary pulsar systems.Phys. Lett. B2018,777, 286– 293.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.051

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.051 2017
[46]

Marked clustering statis- tics in f(R) gravity cosmologies.Mon

Hernández-Aguayo, C.; Baugh, C.M.; Li, B. Marked clustering statis- tics in f(R) gravity cosmologies.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.2018, 479, 4824–4835.https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1822

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1822 2018
[47]

Conditions for the cosmological viability of f (R) dark energy models.Phys

Amendola, L.; Gannouji, R.; Polarski, D.; Tsujikawa, S. Conditions for the cosmological viability of f (R) dark energy models.Phys. Rev. D—Part. Fields Gravit. Cosmol.2007,75, 083504

work page 2007
[48]

Mandl, F.; Shaw, G.Quantum Field Theory; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013

work page 2013
[49]

Über die krümmung des raumes.Z

Friedman, A. Über die krümmung des raumes.Z. Phys.1922,10, 377– 386

work page 1922
[50]

Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra- galactiques.Ann

Lemaître, G. Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra- galactiques.Ann. Société Sci. Brux.1927,47, 49–59. 18

work page 1927
[51]

Kinematics and world-structure.Astrophys

Robertson, H.P. Kinematics and world-structure.Astrophys. J.1935, 82, 284

work page 1935
[52]

On Milne’s theory of world-structure.Proc

Walker, A.G. On Milne’s theory of world-structure.Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.1937,2, 90–127

work page 1937
[53]

The evidence for a spatially flat Universe

Efstathiou, G.; Gratton, S. The evidence for a spatially flat Universe. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.2020,496, L91–L95

work page 2020
[54]

TheCosmoVerseWhitePaper: Addressingobservationaltensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics.Phys

Di Valentino, E.; Said, J.L.; Riess, A.; Pollo, A.; Poulin, V.; Gómez- Valent, A.; Weltman, A.; Palmese, A.; Huang, C.D.; van de Bruck, C.; etal. TheCosmoVerseWhitePaper: Addressingobservationaltensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics.Phys. Dark Universe2025,49, 101965

work page
[55]

Navone, M

Navonea, I.; Dainotti, M.G.; Fazzari, E.; Montani, G.; Maki, N. Cre- ation of Viscous Dark Energy by the Hubble Flow: Comparison with SNe Ia Master Sample Binned Data.arXiv2025, arXiv:2511.16130

work page arXiv
[56]

Fazzari, M

Fazzari, E.; Dainotti, M.; Montani, G.; Melchiorri, A. The effective running Hubble constant in SNe Ia as a marker for the dark energy nature.arXiv2025, arXiv:2506.04162

work page arXiv
[57]

Violation of the equivalence principle in modified theories of gravity.Phys

Olmo, G.J. Violation of the equivalence principle in modified theories of gravity.Phys. Rev. Lett.2007,98, 061101

work page 2007
[58]

Cosmic dynamics in chameleon cosmology

Farajollahi, H.; Salehi, A. Cosmic dynamics in chameleon cosmology. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D2010,19, 621–633

work page
[59]

Montani, L

Montani, G.; Escamilla, L.A.; Carlevaro, N.; Di Valentino, E. Decay of f(R)quintessence into dark matter: Mitigating the Hubble tension? arXiv2025, arXiv:2512.20193

work page arXiv
[60]

Logarithmic gravity model.Int

Kruglov, S. Logarithmic gravity model.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D2023, 32, 2350037

work page
[61]

Implications of non-analytic gravity at solar system scales.Class

Lecian, O.M.; Montani, G. Implications of non-analytic gravity at solar system scales.Class. Quantum Gravity2009,26, 045014

work page
[62]

Non-analytical power-law correction to the Einstein–Hilbert action: Gravitational wave propa- gation.Mod

Fiorucci, D.; Lecian, O.M.; Montani, G. Non-analytical power-law correction to the Einstein–Hilbert action: Gravitational wave propa- gation.Mod. Phys. Lett. A2014,29, 1450178. 19

work page
[63]

Cosmological implications of a viable non-analytical f(R) model

Capozziello, S.; Carlevaro, N.; De Laurentis, M.; Lattanzi, M.; Mon- tani, G. Cosmological implications of a viable non-analytical f(R)- gravity model.arXiv2011, arXiv:1104.2169

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[64]

Cosmological implications of a viable non-analytical f(R) model.Eur

Capozziello, S.; Carlevaro, N.; De Laurentis, M.; Lattanzi, M.; Mon- tani, G. Cosmological implications of a viable non-analytical f(R) model.Eur. Phys. J. Plus2013,128, 155. 20

work page