pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23631 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

CLASH-VLT: The Fifth Force in Chameleon Gravity from Joint Lensing and Kinematics Cluster Mass Profiles

Lorenzo Pizzuti , Federico Rivano , Keiichi Umetsu , Andrea Biviano
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 05:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords chameleon gravitymodified gravitygalaxy clustersgravitational lensingstellar kinematicsf(R) gravity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Joint lensing and kinematic data from nine galaxy clusters are consistent with general relativity in chameleon gravity when cuspy mass profiles are used.

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

The paper tests chameleon screening models of gravity, including the f(R) subclass, by combining gravitational lensing and galaxy kinematics measurements for nine massive clusters. It shows that the outcome depends strongly on the assumed shape of the total mass distribution. When cuspy profiles such as NFW or Hernquist are adopted, the combined data fully agree with general relativity and exclude wide ranges of the coupling constant and background field values. This supplies some of the strongest cluster-scale limits on these models. The cored Burkert profile produces a mild apparent departure from general relativity but is disfavored by the lensing observations themselves.

Core claim

In the general chameleon framework with cuspy mass models (NFW or Hernquist), the joint constraints from the nine massive galaxy clusters are fully consistent with general relativity, excluding large regions of the modified-gravity parameter space defined by the coupling constant Q and the background chameleon field phi_infty. This provides one of the tightest bounds on general chameleon models derived from cluster data. For the f(R) sub-case, the bound on the background scalaron field is |f_R| ≲ 2-5 × 10^{-5} at 95% confidence level.

What carries the argument

The joint gravitational-lensing and kinematic analysis inside the chameleon gravity framework, applied to three alternative parametric total-mass profiles (NFW, Hernquist, Burkert) that describe the cluster mass distribution.

If this is right

  • Cuspy mass profiles rule out large regions of the (Q, phi_infty) parameter space in favor of general relativity.
  • The f(R) subclass is limited to background scalaron values |f_R| below a few times 10^{-5} at 95 percent .
  • The Burkert profile produces a mild deviation from general relativity but is disfavored by lensing data alone.
  • Removing clusters that show clear dynamical disturbance reduces any residual tension with general relativity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If future observations establish that cluster mass profiles are predominantly cored, the mild deviation seen with Burkert models could become a signal of modified gravity rather than a modeling artifact.
  • Independent mass-profile reconstructions that do not assume any of the three parametric forms could provide a direct test of whether the current consistency with general relativity holds.
  • The strong dependence on mass-profile choice indicates that similar joint analyses on larger samples will need robust, profile-independent mass measurements to deliver decisive constraints.

Load-bearing premise

One of the three parametric forms (NFW, Hernquist or Burkert) accurately represents the true total mass distribution in these galaxy clusters.

What would settle it

A high-resolution mass profile measurement for any of the clusters that cannot be described by NFW, Hernquist or Burkert shapes even after allowing chameleon modifications would falsify the derived parameter bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23631 by Andrea Biviano, Federico Rivano, Keiichi Umetsu, Lorenzo Pizzuti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two-dimensional allowed regions at 1σ (darker areas) and 2σ (lighter areas) in the Q2, ϕ2 plane from the MG-MAMPOSST analysis of A209. (Left): NFW mass profile. (Center): Burkert profile. (Right): Hernquist profile. All the three posterior distributions in view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior distributions of the screening radius S obtained from the analysis of the individual clusters. An NFW has been assumed to model the mass distribution. In principle, the background chameleon field evolves with cosmological time (i.e.,: ϕ∞ = ϕ∞(z)); this evolution is driven by the parameters characterizing the field potential (e.g., [31,88,89]); however, given the limited redshift range (0.19–0.45)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two-dimensional 1σ (darker areas) and 2σ (lighter areas) allowed regions in the parameter space Q2, ϕ2 from the joint nine-clusters marginalized distribution. (Left): NFW. (Central): Burkert. (Right): Hernquist. The vertical dashed lines refer to Q = 1/ √ 6 (i.e., the sub-case of chameleon f(R)). The NFW and Hernquist models show full agreement with GR, further providing strong bounds on the allowed parame… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Marginalized distributions of the fR background field from the MG-MAMPOSST kinematic + lensing analysis of the nine clusters in our sample. (Left): NFW. (Central): Hernquist. (Right): Burkert. The solid blue lines correspond to the joint distributions obtained considering all the clusters, while the dashed black lines refer to the case where disturbed clusters are excluded. Similarly to what found for the … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginalized one-dimensional (darker filled regions) and two-dimensional (lighter filled regions) distributions of free parameters in the MG-MAMPOSST kinematic + lensing analysis of A209 in f(R) gravity. The Hernquist model has been assumed for the total mass profile. The A 2 parameter measures departures from Gaussianity in the velocity distribution and has been shown to correlate strongly with the likeli… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a high-precision joint gravitational-lensing and kinematic analysis of nine massive galaxy clusters from the CLASH and CLASH-VLT surveys to test chameleon screening gravity and its $f(R)$ sub-class at Mpc scales. We investigate the dependence on the assumed parametrization of the total cluster mass profile by adopting three models, namely Navarro--Frenk--White (NFW), Burkert, and Hernquist. When cuspy models (NFW or Hernquist) are assumed in the general chameleon framework, the combined constraints from the nine clusters are fully consistent with General Relativity (GR), excluding large regions of the modified-gravity parameter space (the coupling constant $\mathcal{Q}$ and the background chameleon field $ \phi_\infty$), providing one of the tightest bounds on general chameleon models with clusters to date. In contrast, adopting a Burkert profile -- disfavored by lensing data -- leads to a mild ($\sim 2\sigma$) departure from the GR expectation in joint analysis. When considering the $f(R)$ sub-case, we obtain a bound on the background scalaron field of $|f_R| \lesssim \mathrm{2-5}\times 10^{-5}$ (95\% C.L.) for NFW and Hernquist models, in agreement with current constraints at cosmological scales, and an apparent deviation from standard gravity of $\log_{10}|f_R| = -4.7 \pm 1.2$ for the Burkert case. We investigate the impact of systematics in the kinematical analysis, showing that the tension is mitigated when clusters exhibiting clear dynamical disturbance are excluded from the sample. [...[ The upcoming generation of wide-field lensing surveys and spectroscopic follow-up programs will enable similar analyses on substantially larger samples, offering the prospect of tightening cluster-based constraints on gravity and the dark sector.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper performs a joint gravitational lensing and kinematic analysis of nine massive clusters from CLASH/CLASH-VLT to constrain chameleon gravity (and its f(R) subclass) at Mpc scales. Three parametric mass profiles (NFW, Burkert, Hernquist) are adopted; for cuspy profiles the combined constraints are reported as fully consistent with GR, excluding large regions of the (Q, phi_infty) space and yielding |f_R| ≲ 2-5×10^{-5} (95% C.L.), while Burkert produces mild (~2σ) tension but is stated to be disfavored by lensing data. The impact of dynamical disturbance is examined by excluding affected clusters.

Significance. If the central assumptions hold, the work supplies one of the tightest cluster-based bounds on general chameleon models to date and demonstrates the value of joint lensing+kinematics on a homogeneous sample. Credit is due for explicitly mapping the dependence on mass-profile choice, for showing that the Burkert tension is mitigated by removing dynamically disturbed systems, and for providing falsifiable forecasts for upcoming wide-field surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results section] Abstract and results section: the assertion that the Burkert profile is 'disfavored by lensing data' (leading to the preference for cuspy models and the GR-consistent bounds) must be shown to be independent of the chameleon parameters. Lensing observables depend on the scalar-field configuration and therefore on Q and phi_infty; if the lensing likelihood was evaluated under GR (or with phi_infty fixed to zero), the reported profile ranking is not guaranteed to survive when those parameters are free, which would undermine the claim that cuspy models alone yield robust bounds.
  2. [Joint-analysis section] Joint-analysis section (presumably §5): the combined nine-cluster constraints for NFW/Hernquist are presented as the primary result, yet the manuscript does not quantify how the posterior on (Q, phi_infty) changes when the profile choice is treated as a discrete nuisance parameter or when a profile-selection criterion (e.g., Bayesian evidence) is computed jointly with the modified-gravity parameters.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The notation for the coupling constant Q and background field phi_infty should be defined explicitly in the methods (with reference to the governing equations) rather than assumed from prior literature.
  2. [Figures and tables] Figure captions and Table 1 should state the exact priors adopted for Q, phi_infty and the mass-profile parameters so that the reported 95% C.L. bounds can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work and for the detailed, constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications based on the analysis performed and indicating the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and results section] Abstract and results section: the assertion that the Burkert profile is 'disfavored by lensing data' (leading to the preference for cuspy models and the GR-consistent bounds) must be shown to be independent of the chameleon parameters. Lensing observables depend on the scalar-field configuration and therefore on Q and phi_infty; if the lensing likelihood was evaluated under GR (or with phi_infty fixed to zero), the reported profile ranking is not guaranteed to survive when those parameters are free, which would undermine the claim that cuspy models alone yield robust bounds.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to this potential dependence. In the chameleon framework used here, the lensing observables (convergence and shear) are computed with the standard GR lensing kernel. This is because the scalar field does not couple directly to photons, so light deflection follows null geodesics determined by the metric potentials in a manner consistent with GR at the level relevant for our analysis; the chameleon modifications primarily affect the motion of massive tracers (kinematics). Consequently, the lensing-based ranking of mass profiles is independent of Q and phi_infty. We will revise the abstract and results section to explicitly state this justification and confirm that the disfavoring of the Burkert profile by lensing data holds in the modified-gravity context. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Joint-analysis section] Joint-analysis section (presumably §5): the combined nine-cluster constraints for NFW/Hernquist are presented as the primary result, yet the manuscript does not quantify how the posterior on (Q, phi_infty) changes when the profile choice is treated as a discrete nuisance parameter or when a profile-selection criterion (e.g., Bayesian evidence) is computed jointly with the modified-gravity parameters.

    Authors: We agree that marginalizing over the discrete mass-profile choice or reporting joint Bayesian evidences would offer a more unified view. Because the three profiles are distinct functional forms and the lensing data independently and strongly disfavors Burkert (as clarified above), we presented separate constraints to transparently illustrate the sensitivity to this modeling assumption. A full re-computation of evidences within the chameleon parameter space is computationally intensive and was not performed in the original analysis. We will add a dedicated paragraph in the joint-analysis section discussing model selection, including approximate evidence ratios based on the existing likelihoods, and will note that the cuspy profiles are preferred at high significance. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper conducts a joint likelihood analysis of external lensing and kinematic observations from the CLASH surveys, fitting them to three parametric mass profiles (NFW, Hernquist, Burkert) inside the chameleon gravity model with free parameters Q and phi_infty. The central result—GR consistency and bounds on the modified-gravity parameters for cuspy profiles—is the direct posterior outcome of this fit to independent data. Results are reported separately for each profile choice, with explicit discussion of how the Burkert case differs. No equation or step reduces by construction to a fitted quantity, self-citation, or ansatz imported from prior work by the same authors. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not rely on internal redefinitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cluster mass-modeling assumptions and the chameleon parametrization; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Q
    Coupling constant of the chameleon field, constrained by the joint fit.
  • phi_infty
    Background value of the chameleon scalar field, constrained by the joint fit.
  • f_R
    Background scalaron field amplitude in the f(R) subclass, constrained by the joint fit.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Clusters are in dynamical equilibrium so that kinematic velocity dispersion traces the gravitational potential.
    Invoked for the kinematic mass-profile derivation.
  • domain assumption One of the three analytic mass profiles (NFW, Hernquist, Burkert) adequately represents the true total mass distribution.
    Central modeling choice; results shown to depend strongly on it.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5661 in / 1513 out tokens · 70050 ms · 2026-05-08T05:23:20.498636+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2016, , 833, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/833/2/L30

    Rubin, D.; Hayden, B. Is the Expansion of the Universe Accelerating? All Signs Point to Yes.Astrophys. J. Lett.2016,833, L30. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/833/2/L30

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/833/2/l30 2016

  2. [2]

    Observational evidence of the accelerated expansion of the universe.Comptes Rendus Phys.2012,13, 521–538

    Astier, P .; Pain, R. Observational evidence of the accelerated expansion of the universe.Comptes Rendus Phys.2012,13, 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.009 2012

  3. [3]

    Everything you always wanted to know about the cosmological constant problem (but were afraid to ask).Comptes Rendus Phys.2012,13, 566–665

    Martin, J. Everything you always wanted to know about the cosmological constant problem (but were afraid to ask).Comptes Rendus Phys.2012,13, 566–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.008 2012

  4. [4]

    Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem.arXiv2015, arXiv:1502.05296

    Padilla, A. Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem.arXiv2015, arXiv:1502.05296. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1502.0 5296

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.0

  5. [5]

    Aghanim, N. et al. [Planck Collaboration] Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck.Astron. Astrophys.2020,641, A1. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 2018

  6. [6]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61187-2

    New Frontiers in Science in the Era of AI; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61187-2. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe1010000 Universe2026,1, 0 20 of 24

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61187-2 2024

  7. [7]

    An improved NExT-DMD for efficient automated operational modal analysis.Applied Mathematical Modelling2026,156, 116823

    Perivolaropoulos, L.; Skara, F. Challenges for ΛCDM: An update.New Astron. Rev.2022,95, 101659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. newar.2022.101659

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2022

  8. [8]

    Abbott, T. et al. [DES Collaboration] Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing.Phys. Rev. D2022,105, 023520. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.105.023520

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520

  9. [9]

    Wang, The Self-Consistency of DESI Analysis and Comment on ”Does DESI 2024 Confirm ΛCDM?”, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.13833 [ 2404.13833]

    Wang, D. The Self-Consistency of DESI Analysis and Comment on ”Does DESI 2024 Confirm ΛCDM?”.arXiv2024, arXiv:2404.13833. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.13833

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.13833 2024

  10. [10]

    The Bayesian view of DESI DR2: Evidence and tension in a combined analysis with CMB and supernovae across cosmological models,

    Ong, D.D.Y.; Yallup, D.; Handley, W. The Bayesian view of DESI DR2: Evidence and tension in a combined analysis with CMB and supernovae across cosmological models.arXiv2026, arXiv:2603.05472. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.05472

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05472

  11. [11]

    Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future

    Everitt, C.W.F. Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future. InPhysics and Contemporary Needs: Volume 4; Riazuddin, Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1980; pp. 529–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7624-8_16

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7624-8_16 1980

  12. [12]

    Tests of general relativity: A review.arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04397, 2017

    Asmodelle, E. Tests of General Relativity: A Review.arXiv2017, arXiv:1705.04397. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.04397

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.04397

  13. [13]

    The General Theory of Relativity and Its Tests in the Solar System

    Ciufolini, I. The General Theory of Relativity and Its Tests in the Solar System. InRecent Progress on Gravity Tests: Challenges and Future Perspectives; Bambi, C., Cárdenas-Avendaño, A., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 27–59. https://doi.org/10.100 7/978-981-97-2871-8_2

    2024

  14. [14]

    Astrophysical Probes of the Vainshtein Mechanism: Stars and Galaxies.Phys

    Koyama, K.; Sakstein, J. Astrophysical Probes of the Vainshtein Mechanism: Stars and Galaxies.Phys. Rev. D2015,D91, 124066. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.124066

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.124066

  15. [15]

    2021, Modified Gravity and Cosmology

    Saridakis, E.N.; Lazkoz, R.; Salzano, V .; Moniz, P .V .; Capozziello, S.; Jiménez, J.B.; De Laurentis, M.; Olmo, G.J.Modified Gravity and Cosmology. An Update by the CANTATA Network; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83715-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-83715-0 2021

  16. [16]

    Constraining Cosmological Parameters Using the Splashback Radius of Galaxy Clusters.Astrophys

    Haggar, R.; Amoura, Y.; Mpetha, C.T.; Taylor, J.E.; Walker, K.; Power, C. Constraining Cosmological Parameters Using the Splashback Radius of Galaxy Clusters.Astrophys. J.2024,972, 28. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cee 2024

  17. [17]

    Testing Gravity Using Dwarf Stars.Phys

    Sakstein, J. Testing Gravity Using Dwarf Stars.Phys. Rev. D2015,D92, 124045. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124045

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.124045

  18. [18]

    CLASH-VLT: Constraints on f(R) gravity models with galaxy clusters using lensing and kinematic analyses.J

    Pizzuti, L.; Sartoris, B.; Amendola, L.; Borgani, S.; Biviano, A.; Umetsu, K.; Mercurio, A.; Rosati, P .; Balestra, I.; Caminha, G.B.; et al. CLASH-VLT: Constraints on f(R) gravity models with galaxy clusters using lensing and kinematic analyses.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2017,7, 023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/07/023

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/07/023 2017

  19. [19]

    The SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey: Constraints on the structure growth from cluster number counts.Astron

    Artis, E.; Bulbul, E.; Grandis, S.; Ghirardini, V .; Clerc, N.; Seppi, R.; Comparat, J.; Cataneo, M.; von der Linden, A.; Bahar, Y.E.; et al. The SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey: Constraints on the structure growth from cluster number counts.Astron. Astrophys. 2025,696, A5. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452584

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452584 2025

  20. [20]

    Formation of Galaxy Clusters.Annu

    Kravtsov, A.V .; Borgani, S. Formation of Galaxy Clusters.Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.2012,50, 353–409. https://doi.org/10.1 146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    2012

  21. [21]

    Halo velocity profiles in screened modified gravity theories.Mon

    Gronke, M.; Llinares, C.; Mota, D.F.; Winther, H.A. Halo velocity profiles in screened modified gravity theories.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.2015,449, 2837–2844. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv496

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv496 2015

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

    Bílek, M. Peculiar dark matter halos inferred from gravitational lensing as a manifestation of modified gravity.Astron. Astrophys. 2024,690, A364. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450154

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450154 2024

  23. [23]

    2013, SSRv, 177, 75, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-9978-5

    Hoekstra, H.; Bartelmann, M.; Dahle, H.; Israel, H.; Limousin, M.; Meneghetti, M. Masses of Galaxy Clusters from Gravitational Lensing.Space Sci. Rev.2013,177, 75–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-013-9978-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-013-9978-5 2013

  24. [24]

    CLASH-VLT: The mass, velocity-anisotropy, and pseudo-phase-space density profiles of the z = 0.44 galaxy cluster MACS J1206.2-0847.Astron

    Biviano, A.; Rosati, P .; Balestra, I.; Mercurio, A.; Girardi, M.; Nonino, M.; Grillo, C.; Scodeggio, M.; Lemze, D.; Kelson, D.; et al. CLASH-VLT: The mass, velocity-anisotropy, and pseudo-phase-space density profiles of the z = 0.44 galaxy cluster MACS J1206.2-0847.Astron. Astrophys.2013,558, A1. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321955

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321955 2013

  25. [25]

    Primordial black hole formation in the early universe: critical behaviour and self- similarity.Class

    Brax, P . Screening mechanisms in modified gravity.Class. Quantum Gravity2013,30, 214005. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-938 1/30/21/214005

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-938

  26. [26]

    Cosmological tests of modified gravity.Rep

    Koyama, K. Cosmological tests of modified gravity.Rep. Prog. Phys.2016,79, 046902. https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/4 /046902

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/4 2016

  27. [27]

    Testing Screened Modified Gravity.Universe2021,8, 11

    Brax, P .; Casas, S.; Desmond, H.; Elder, B. Testing Screened Modified Gravity.Universe2021,8, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ universe8010011

  28. [28]

    Testing Screening Mechanisms with Mass Profiles of Galaxy Clusters.Universe2022,8, 157

    Pizzuti, L. Testing Screening Mechanisms with Mass Profiles of Galaxy Clusters.Universe2022,8, 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/ universe8030157

  29. [29]

    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. https://doi.org/10.1103/ physrevlett.93.171104

    2004

  30. [30]

    Dilaton and modified gravity.Phys

    Brax, P .; van de Bruck, C.; Davis, A.C.; Shaw, D. Dilaton and modified gravity.Phys. Rev. D2010,82, 063519. https: //doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.82.063519

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.063519

  31. [31]

    The shape dependence of chameleon screening.J

    Burrage, C.; Copeland, E.J.; Moss, A.; Stevenson, J.A. The shape dependence of chameleon screening.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2018,1, 056. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/01/056

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/01/056 2018

  32. [32]

    Extra force in f(R) modified theories of gravity.Phys

    Bertolami, O.; Böhmer, C.G.; Harko, T.; Lobo, F.S.N. Extra force in f(R) modified theories of gravity.Phys. Rev. D2007,75, 104016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.104016. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe1010000 Universe2026,1, 0 21 of 24

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.104016

  33. [33]

    Can f(R) modified gravity theories mimic a ΛCDM cosmology?Phys

    Fay, S.; Nesseris, S.; Perivolaropoulos, L. Can f(R) modified gravity theories mimic a ΛCDM cosmology?Phys. Rev. D2007, 76, 063504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.063504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.063504

  34. [34]

    A compendium of chameleon constraints.J

    Burrage, C.; Sakstein, J. A compendium of chameleon constraints.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2016,2016, 045. https: //doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/11/045

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/11/045 2016

  35. [35]

    Tests of chameleon gravity.Living Rev

    Burrage, C.; Sakstein, J. Tests of chameleon gravity.Living Rev. Relativ.2018,21, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-018-0011-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-018-0011-x 2018

  36. [36]

    Galaxy morphology rules out astrophysically relevant Hu-Sawicki f (R ) gravity.Phys

    Desmond, H.; Ferreira, P .G. Galaxy morphology rules out astrophysically relevant Hu-Sawicki f (R ) gravity.Phys. Rev. D2020, 102, 104060. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.104060

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.104060

  37. [37]

    Stringent pulsar timing bounds on light scalar couplings to matter.Phys

    Benisty, D.; Brax, P .; Davis, A.C. Stringent pulsar timing bounds on light scalar couplings to matter.Phys. Rev. D2023,107, 064049. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.107.064049

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.064049

  38. [38]

    The XMM Cluster Survey: Testing chameleon gravity using the profiles of clusters.Mon

    Wilcox, H.; Bacon, D.; Nichol, R.C.; Rooney, P .J.; Terukina, A.; Romer, A.K.; Koyama, K.; Zhao, Go.; Hood, R.; Mann, R.G.; et al. The XMM Cluster Survey: Testing chameleon gravity using the profiles of clusters.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.2015, 452, 1171–1183. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1366

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1366 2015

  39. [39]

    Cluster abundance in chameleonf(R) gravity I: Toward an accurate halo mass function prediction.J

    Cataneo, M.; Rapetti, D.; Lombriser, L.; Li, B. Cluster abundance in chameleonf(R) gravity I: Toward an accurate halo mass function prediction.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2016,2016, 024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/12/024

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/12/024 2016

  40. [40]

    Chameleon screening depends on the shape and structure of NFW halos.J

    Tamosiunas, A.; Briddon, C.; Burrage, C.; Cui, W.; Moss, A. Chameleon screening depends on the shape and structure of NFW halos.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2022,2022, 047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/047

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/047 2022

  41. [41]

    Cosmic time slip: Testing gravity on supergalactic scales with strong-lensing time delays.Phys

    Jyoti, D.; Muñoz, J.B.; Caldwell, R.R.; Kamionkowski, M. Cosmic time slip: Testing gravity on supergalactic scales with strong-lensing time delays.Phys. Rev. D2019,100, 043031. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043031

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.043031

  42. [42]

    Direct Tests of General Relativity under Screening Effect with Galaxy-scale Strong Lensing Systems.Astrophys

    Lian, Y.; Cao, S.; Liu, T.; Biesiada, M.; Zhu, Z.H. Direct Tests of General Relativity under Screening Effect with Galaxy-scale Strong Lensing Systems.Astrophys. J.2022,941, 16. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d36

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d36 2022

  43. [43]

    Testing Screened Modified Gravity with Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves.arXiv2026, arXiv:2603.09340

    Mu, C.; Cao, S.; Tian, S.; Jiang, X.; Zheng, C.; Cheng, D. Testing Screened Modified Gravity with Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves.arXiv2026, arXiv:2603.09340. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.09340

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.09340

  44. [44]

    2012, , 199, 25, 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25

    Postman, M.; Coe, D.; Benítez, N.; Bradley, L.; Broadhurst, T.; Donahue, M.; Ford, H.; Graur, O.; Graves, G.; Jouvel, S.; et al. The Cluster Lensing and Supernova Survey with Hubble: An Overview.Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.2012,199, 25. https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25 2012

  45. [45]

    Rosati, P . et al. [Clash-VLT Team] CLASH-VLT: A VIMOS Large Programme to Map the Dark Matter Mass Distribution in Galaxy Clusters and Probe Distant Lensed Galaxies.Messenger2014,158, 48–53

  46. [46]

    MG-MAMPOSST: A code to test modifications of gravity with internal kinematics and lensing analyses of galaxy clusters.Mon

    Pizzuti, L.; Saltas, I.D.; Amendola, L. MG-MAMPOSST: A code to test modifications of gravity with internal kinematics and lensing analyses of galaxy clusters.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.2021,506, 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1727

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1727 2021

  47. [47]

    Mass Modeling and Kinematics of Galaxy Clusters in Modified Gravity.arXiv2024, arXiv:2407.08778

    Pizzuti, L.; Boumechta, Y.; Haridasu, S.; Pombo, A.M.; Dossena, S.; Butt, M.A.; Benetti, F.; Baccigalupi, C.; Lapi, A. Mass Modeling and Kinematics of Galaxy Clusters in Modified Gravity.arXiv2024, arXiv:2407.08778. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.08778

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.08778

  48. [48]

    Caustic and hydrostatic mass bias: Implications for modified gravity.arXiv2024, arXiv:2401.04698

    Butt, M.A.; Haridasu, B.S.; Boumechta, Y.; Benetti, F.; Pizzuti, L.; Baccigalupi, C.; Lapi, A. Caustic and hydrostatic mass bias: Implications for modified gravity.arXiv2024, arXiv:2401.04698. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.04698

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.04698

  49. [49]

    Disappearing cosmological constant in f (R) gravity.JETP Lett.2007,86, 157–163

    Starobinsky, A.A. Disappearing cosmological constant in f (R) gravity.JETP Lett.2007,86, 157–163

    2007

  50. [50]

    Nonlinear evolution of f (R) cosmologies

    Oyaizu, H.; Lima, M.; Hu, W. Nonlinear evolution of f (R) cosmologies. II. Power spectrum.Phys. Rev. D2008,78, 123524

  51. [51]

    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. D2008,78, 104021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.104021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.104021

  52. [52]

    Probing dark energy with atom interferometry.J

    Burrage, C.; Copeland, E.J.; Hinds, E. Probing dark energy with atom interferometry.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2015,2015, 042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/042

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/042 2015

  53. [53]

    Constraining the scalar-tensor gravity theories with and without screening mechanisms by combined observations.Phys

    Zhang, X.; Niu, R.; Zhao, W. Constraining the scalar-tensor gravity theories with and without screening mechanisms by combined observations.Phys. Rev. D2019,100, 024038. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024038

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.024038

  54. [54]

    Constraining chameleon screening using galaxy cluster dynamics.Phys

    Boumechta, Y.; Haridasu, B.S.; Pizzuti, L.; Butt, M.A.; Baccigalupi, C.; Lapi, A. Constraining chameleon screening using galaxy cluster dynamics.Phys. Rev. D2023,108, 044007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.044007

  55. [55]

    Gas Density Profile in Dark Matter Halo in Chameleon Cosmology.Phys

    Terukina, A.; Yamamoto, K. Gas Density Profile in Dark Matter Halo in Chameleon Cosmology.Phys. Rev. D2012,86, 103503. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.103503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.103503

  56. [56]

    Physical properties of the X-ray gas as a dynamical diagnosis for galaxy clusters.Mon

    Laganá, T.F.; Durret, F.; Lopes, P .A.A. Physical properties of the X-ray gas as a dynamical diagnosis for galaxy clusters.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.2019,484, 2807–2830. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz148

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz148 2019

  57. [57]

    CLASH-VLT: The Inner Slope of the MACS J1206.2-0847 Dark Matter Density Profile.Astrophys

    Biviano, A.; Pizzuti, L.; Mercurio, A.; Sartoris, B.; Rosati, P .; Ettori, S.; Girardi, M.; Grillo, C.; Caminha, G.B.; Nonino, M. CLASH-VLT: The Inner Slope of the MACS J1206.2-0847 Dark Matter Density Profile.Astrophys. J.2023,958, 148. https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acf832

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf832 2023

  58. [58]

    Testing chameleon gravity with the Coma cluster,

    Terukina, A.; Lombriser, L.; Yamamoto, K.; Bacon, D.; Koyama, K.; Nichol, R.C. Testing chameleon gravity with the Coma cluster. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2014,4, 013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2014/04/013

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/04/013 2014

  59. [59]

    Simulation tests of galaxy cluster constraints on chameleon gravity.Mon

    Wilcox, H.; Nichol, R.C.; Zhao, G.B.; Bacon, D.; Koyama, K.; Romer, A.K. Simulation tests of galaxy cluster constraints on chameleon gravity.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.2016,462, 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1617. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe1010000 Universe2026,1, 0 22 of 24

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1617 2016

  60. [60]

    The Shape of the Chameleon Fifth-Force on the Mass Components of Galaxy Clusters.Universe2024,10, 443

    Pizzuti, L.; Amatori, V .; Pombo, A.M.; Haridasu, S. The Shape of the Chameleon Fifth-Force on the Mass Components of Galaxy Clusters.Universe2024,10, 443. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe10120443

    work page doi:10.3390/universe10120443

  61. [61]

    CLASH-VLT: Constraining deviation from GR with the mass profiles of nine massive galaxy clusters.arXiv2025, arXiv:2509.16317

    Pizzuti, L.; Biviano, A.; Umetsu, K.; Agostoni, E.; Autorino, A.; Pombo, A.M.; Mercurio, A.; D’Addona, M. CLASH-VLT: Constraining deviation from GR with the mass profiles of nine massive galaxy clusters.arXiv2025, arXiv:2509.16317. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.16317

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.16317

  62. [62]

    CLASH: Joint Analysis of Strong-Lensing, Weak-Lensing Shear and Magnification Data for 20 Galaxy Clusters.Astrophys

    Umetsu, K.; Zitrin, A.; Gruen, D.; Merten, J.; Donahue, M.; Postman, M. CLASH: Joint Analysis of Strong-Lensing, Weak-Lensing Shear and Magnification Data for 20 Galaxy Clusters.Astrophys. J.2016,821, 116. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/116

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/116 2016

  63. [63]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J.F.; Frenk, C.S.; White, S.D.M. The Structure of cold dark matter halos.Astrophys. J.1996,462, 563–575. https: //doi.org/10.1086/177173

    work page doi:10.1086/177173 1996

  64. [64]

    The Structure and evolution of weakly selfinteracting cold dark matter halos.Astrophys

    Burkert, A. The Structure and evolution of weakly selfinteracting cold dark matter halos.Astrophys. J. Lett.2000,534, L143–L146. https://doi.org/10.1086/312674

    work page doi:10.1086/312674 2000

  65. [65]

    An Analytical Model for Spherical Galaxies and Bulges.Astrophys

    Hernquist, L. An Analytical Model for Spherical Galaxies and Bulges.Astrophys. J.1990,356, 359. https://doi.org/10.1086/1688 45

    work page doi:10.1086/1688 1990

  66. [66]

    CLASH-VLT: A full dynamical reconstruction of the mass profile of Abell S1063 from 1 kpc out to the virial radius.Astron

    Sartoris, B.; Biviano, A.; Rosati, P .; Mercurio, A.; Grillo, C.; Ettori, S.; Nonino, M.; Umetsu, K.; Bergamini, P .; Caminha, G.B.; et al. CLASH-VLT: A full dynamical reconstruction of the mass profile of Abell S1063 from 1 kpc out to the virial radius.Astron. Astrophys.2020,637, A34. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202037521

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037521 2020

  67. [67]

    A state-of-the-art strong-lensing model of MACS J0416.1-2403 with the largest sample of spectroscopic multiple images

    Bergamini, P .; Grillo, C.; Rosati, P .; Vanzella, E.; Meštri´ c, U.; Mercurio, A.; Acebron, A.; Caminha, G.B.; Granata, G.; Meneghetti, M.; et al. A state-of-the-art strong-lensing model of MACS J0416.1-2403 with the largest sample of spectroscopic multiple images. Astron. Astrophys.2023,674, A79. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202244834

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244834 2023

  68. [68]

    CLASH-VLT: Substructure in the galaxy cluster MACS J1206.2-0847 from kinematics of galaxy populations.Astron

    Girardi, M.; Mercurio, A.; Balestra, I.; Nonino, M.; Biviano, A.; Grillo, C.; Rosati, P .; Annunziatella, M.; Demarco, R.; Fritz, A.; et al. CLASH-VLT: Substructure in the galaxy cluster MACS J1206.2-0847 from kinematics of galaxy populations.Astron. Astrophys. 2015,579, A4. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201425599

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425599 2015

  69. [69]

    The Morphologies and Alignments of Gas, Mass, and the Central Galaxies of Clash Clusters Of Galaxies.Astrophys

    Donahue, M.; Ettori, S.; Rasia, E.; Sayers, J.; Zitrin, A.; Meneghetti, M.; Voit, G.M.; Golwala, S.; Czakon, N.; Yepes, G.; et al. The Morphologies and Alignments of Gas, Mass, and the Central Galaxies of Clash Clusters Of Galaxies.Astrophys. J.2016,819, 36. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/36

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/36 2016

  70. [70]

    Unveiling the Dynamical State of Massive Clusters through the ICL Fraction.Astrophys

    Jiménez-Teja, Y.; Dupke, R.; Benítez, N.; Koekemoer, A.M.; Zitrin, A.; Umetsu, K.; Ziegler, B.L.; Frye, B.L.; Ford, H.; Bouwens, R.J.; et al. Unveiling the Dynamical State of Massive Clusters through the ICL Fraction.Astrophys. J.2018,857, 79. https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab70f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab70f 2018

  71. [71]

    The Projected Dark and Baryonic Ellipsoidal Structure of 20 CLASH Galaxy Clusters.Astrophys

    Umetsu, K.; Sereno, M.; Tam, S.I.; Chiu, I.N.; Fan, Z.; Ettori, S.; Gruen, D.; Okumura, T.; Medezinski, E.; Donahue, M.; et al. The Projected Dark and Baryonic Ellipsoidal Structure of 20 CLASH Galaxy Clusters.Astrophys. J.2018,860, 104. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aac3d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac3d9 2018

  72. [72]

    CLASH-VLT: Abell S1063: Cluster assembly history and spectroscopic catalogue.Astron

    Mercurio, A.; Rosati, P .; Biviano, A.; Annunziatella, M.; Girardi, M.; Sartoris, B.; Nonino, M.; Brescia, M.; Riccio, G.; Grillo, C.; et al. CLASH-VLT: Abell S1063: Cluster assembly history and spectroscopic catalogue.Astron. Astrophys.2021,656, A147. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202142168

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142168 2021

  73. [73]

    CLASH-VLT: Galaxy cluster MACS J0329–0211 and its surroundings using galaxies as kinematic tracers.Astron

    Girardi, M.; Boschin, W.; Mercurio, A.; Nocerino, N.; Nonino, M.; Rosati, P .; Biviano, A.; Demarco, R.; Grillo, C.; Sartoris, B.; et al. CLASH-VLT: Galaxy cluster MACS J0329–0211 and its surroundings using galaxies as kinematic tracers.Astron. Astrophys.2024, 692, A175. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451286

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451286 2024

  74. [74]

    CLASH-VLT: The variance in the velocity anisotropy profiles of galaxy clusters.Astron

    Biviano, A.; Maraboli, E.A.; Pizzuti, L.; Rosati, P .; Mercurio, A.; De Lucia, G.; Ragone-Figueroa, C.; Grillo, C.; Granato, G.L.; Girardi, M.; et al. CLASH-VLT: The variance in the velocity anisotropy profiles of galaxy clusters.Astron. Astrophys.2026, 707, A153. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202555439

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555439 2026

  75. [75]

    CLASH-VLT velocity anisotropy profiles in a stack of massive galaxy clusters

    Maraboli, E.; Biviano, A.; Grillo, C.; Mercurio, A.; Pizzuti, L.; Rosati, P .; D’Addona, M. CLASH-VLT velocity anisotropy profiles in a stack of massive galaxy clusters.arXiv2026, arXiv:2602.15934. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.15934

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.15934

  76. [76]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/127

    Umetsu, K.; Broadhurst, T.; Zitrin, A.; Medezinski, E.; Hsu, L.Y. Cluster Mass Profiles from a Bayesian Analysis of Weak- lensing Distortion and Magnification Measurements: Applications to Subaru Data.Astrophys. J.2011,729, 127. https: //doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/2/127 2011

  77. [77]

    Model-free Multi-probe Lensing Reconstruction of Cluster Mass Profiles.Astrophys

    Umetsu, K. Model-free Multi-probe Lensing Reconstruction of Cluster Mass Profiles.Astrophys. J.2013,769, 13. https: //doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/13 2013

  78. [78]

    2015, ApJ, 801, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/44

    Zitrin, A.; Fabris, A.; Merten, J.; Melchior, P .; Meneghetti, M.; Koekemoer, A.; Coe, D.; Maturi, M.; Bartelmann, M.; Postman, M.; et al. Hubble Space Telescope Combined Strong and Weak Lensing Analysis of the CLASH Sample: Mass and Magnification Models and Systematic Uncertainties.Astrophys. J.2015,801, 44. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/44 2015

  79. [79]

    CLASH: Weak-lensing Shear-and-magnification Analysis of 20 Galaxy Clusters.Astrophys

    Umetsu, K.; Medezinski, E.; Nonino, M.; Merten, J.; Postman, M.; Meneghetti, M.; Donahue, M.; Czakon, N.; Molino, A.; Seitz, S.; et al. CLASH: Weak-lensing Shear-and-magnification Analysis of 20 Galaxy Clusters.Astrophys. J.2014,795, 163. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/163. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe1010000 Universe2026,1, 0 23 of 24

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/163 2014

  80. [80]

    The GOGREEN survey: Internal dynamics of clusters of galaxies at redshift 0.9–1.4.Astron

    Biviano, A.; van der Burg, R.F.J.; Balogh, M.L.; Munari, E.; Cooper, M.C.; De Lucia, G.; Demarco, R.; Jablonka, P .; Muzzin, A.; Nantais, J.; et al. The GOGREEN survey: Internal dynamics of clusters of galaxies at redshift 0.9–1.4.Astron. Astrophys.2021, 650, A105. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202140564

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140564 2021

Showing first 80 references.