arxiv: 2604.16226 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

Post-Newtonian Constraints on Scalar-Tensor Gravity

Alexandros Karam , Samuel S\'anchez L\'opez , Jos\'e Jaime Terente D\'iaz

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

keywords scalar-tensor gravitypost-Newtonian formalismmetric formalismPalatini formalismSolar-System constraintsYukawa suppressionf(R) gravityPPN parameters

0 comments

The pith

The variational principle in scalar-tensor gravity determines whether generic non-minimal couplings survive Solar-System tests through differences in Yukawa suppression.

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

The paper develops a unified post-Newtonian framework for scalar-tensor theories that include arbitrary non-minimal coupling, non-canonical kinetics, and a potential, treating both the metric and Palatini variational principles on equal footing. It derives explicit expressions for the effective scalar mass, gravitational coupling strength, and the PPN parameters gamma and beta, then compares these predictions to Cassini data on gamma. The central result is that the formalism choice produces strongly model-dependent outcomes: Palatini versions often suppress scalar effects more effectively, allowing wider parameter ranges to remain consistent with observations, while metric versions impose tighter restrictions. For the special case of f(R) with point-particle sources, only the Palatini version recovers the exact general-relativistic exterior limit.

Core claim

A unified post-Newtonian treatment yields analytical expressions for the effective scalar mass, the effective gravitational coupling, and the PPN parameters gamma and beta in a general scalar-tensor theory. The results show explicitly how the choice of variational principle affects the weak-field phenomenology. Generic non-minimally coupled scalar fields may satisfy significantly weaker local bounds in the Palatini case because of stronger Yukawa suppression, whereas in Brans-Dicke gravity the differences are typically small and become appreciable only in restricted regions of parameter space. For the point-particle source considered here, Palatini f(R) gravity reproduces the general-relativ

What carries the argument

Unified post-Newtonian treatment that produces closed-form expressions for effective scalar mass, effective gravitational coupling, and the PPN parameters gamma and beta under both metric and Palatini variational principles.

If this is right

Palatini versions of generic non-minimally coupled scalar-tensor theories can remain compatible with Solar-System data for coupling strengths that would be excluded in the metric formalism.
In Brans-Dicke gravity the metric and Palatini predictions differ only modestly except inside limited regions of parameter space.
Palatini f(R) gravity exactly recovers the general-relativistic exterior post-Newtonian limit for point-particle sources, while metric f(R) does not.
The strength of Yukawa suppression, and therefore the tightness of observational bounds, depends directly on which variational principle is adopted.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The model dependence suggests that cosmological evolution equations derived from the same action may need separate treatment in each formalism to check consistency with both local and large-scale observations.
Binary-pulsar timing or future gravitational-wave observations involving extended bodies could serve as a direct test of whether the point-particle equivalence to general relativity in Palatini f(R) persists at higher orders or for distributed sources.
Screening mechanisms invoked for other modified-gravity models may need to be re-derived once the variational principle is fixed, because the effective scalar mass and coupling range change.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes a point-particle source together with the validity of the post-Newtonian expansion in the weak-field regime.

What would settle it

A precision measurement of the PPN parameter gamma around an extended mass distribution, such as a star or planet, that deviates from the general-relativistic value in a manner matching the metric f(R) prediction but not the Palatini one.

read the original abstract

Solar-System constraints on a general scalar-tensor theory with generic non-minimal coupling function, non-canonical kinetic function, and scalar potential, are investigated in both the metric and Palatini formalisms. A unified post-Newtonian treatment is developed, yielding analytical expressions for the effective scalar mass, the effective gravitational coupling, and the parametrised post-Newtonian parameters $\gamma$ and $\beta$. The results show explicitly how the choice of variational principle affects the weak-field phenomenology. Comparison with Solar-System observations, primarily the Cassini bound on $\gamma$, indicates that the observational impact of the formalism is strongly model dependent. Generic non-minimally coupled scalar fields may satisfy significantly weaker local bounds in the Palatini case because of stronger Yukawa suppression, whereas in Brans-Dicke gravity the differences are typically small and become appreciable only in restricted regions of parameter space. For the point-particle source considered here, Palatini $f(\hat{R})$ gravity reproduces the general-relativistic exterior post-Newtonian limit, unlike metric $f(R)$ gravity.

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 gives a unified analytic treatment of post-Newtonian parameters for generic scalar-tensor theories in both metric and Palatini versions, with explicit model-dependent Solar-System bounds.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work derives closed-form expressions for the effective scalar mass, G_eff, and the PPN parameters γ and β across a wide family of scalar-tensor actions, then shows how those expressions produce different constraints once compared to Cassini data depending on whether one uses the metric or Palatini variational principle. For point-particle sources, Palatini f(R) recovers the GR exterior solution while metric f(R) does not, and the Yukawa suppression can relax bounds in some Palatini cases but not others. That model dependence is the concrete new result. It extends cleanly beyond the Brans-Dicke or pure f(R) cases that dominated earlier literature. The derivations follow standard weak-field expansions of the action without obvious ad-hoc choices, and the comparison to observations is presented as a straightforward constraint exercise rather than a redefinition of parameters. The scoping to leading-order exterior solutions for point sources is stated up front, which keeps the claims honest. The soft spot is that everything rests on the point-particle and weak-field assumptions. Real extended bodies, higher post-Newtonian orders, or instabilities triggered by the generic functions could shift the phenomenology, though the paper does not claim otherwise. No internal contradictions or hidden fitting appear in the stated results. This is useful reading for anyone working on scalar-tensor phenomenology or Solar-System tests of modified gravity. The analytic expressions and side-by-side formalism comparison give a practical tool that prior papers lacked. It shows clear, reproducible technical work and engages the existing literature directly, so it deserves a serious referee. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a unified post-Newtonian framework for scalar-tensor theories with generic non-minimal coupling, non-canonical kinetic term, and scalar potential, treated in both metric and Palatini formalisms. It derives analytical expressions for the effective scalar mass, effective gravitational coupling, and the PPN parameters γ and β. The central results are that, for a point-particle source, Palatini f(R) gravity recovers the general-relativistic exterior post-Newtonian limit while metric f(R) does not, and that Solar-System constraints (primarily the Cassini bound on γ) are strongly model-dependent because of differing Yukawa suppression factors between the two formalisms.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work is significant because it supplies explicit, comparable analytic expressions rather than numerical fits, making the dependence on the variational principle transparent. The careful scoping to point-particle sources and leading-order exterior PN expansion, together with direct comparison to the Cassini datum, provides a concrete illustration of how generic scalar-tensor models can evade local bounds more easily in the Palatini case. This is a useful contribution for assessing the viability of modified-gravity scenarios in the weak-field regime.

major comments (2)

[§4.2, Eq. (22)] §4.2, Eq. (22): the analytic expression for the effective mass m_φ in the Palatini case is obtained after integrating out the auxiliary field; however, the subsequent claim that γ → 1 exactly when the source is a point particle relies on the Yukawa term being exponentially suppressed at Solar-System scales. An explicit check that this suppression survives for the generic potential V(φ) (rather than only for quadratic V) would strengthen the GR-recovery statement.
[§5.3, paragraph following Eq. (31)] §5.3, paragraph following Eq. (31): the assertion that 'the observational impact of the formalism is strongly model-dependent' is illustrated by the differing exponents in the Yukawa factors, but the quantitative difference is shown only for a restricted class of coupling functions. Adding one concrete, non-trivial example (e.g., f(R) = R + α R² with explicit numerical evaluation of the resulting γ bound) would make the 'strongly' qualifier load-bearing rather than qualitative.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'parametrised post-Newtonian parameters' is spelled with 's' (British) while the body uses 'parameterized' in some places; a single consistent spelling should be adopted throughout.
[§2] §2: the definition of the effective coupling G_eff is introduced before the post-Newtonian expansion is performed; a forward reference to the later equation where it is evaluated would improve readability.
[Table 1] Table 1: the column headers for the metric and Palatini cases are clear, but the caption should explicitly state that all entries assume the leading-order exterior solution for a point particle.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation and the helpful comments. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested clarifications and example into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4.2, Eq. (22)] the analytic expression for the effective mass m_φ in the Palatini case is obtained after integrating out the auxiliary field; however, the subsequent claim that γ → 1 exactly when the source is a point particle relies on the Yukawa term being exponentially suppressed at Solar-System scales. An explicit check that this suppression survives for the generic potential V(φ) (rather than only for quadratic V) would strengthen the GR-recovery statement.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The effective mass m_φ arises from the second derivative of the potential after auxiliary-field elimination and enters the Yukawa factor as exp(−m_φ r). For any V(φ) possessing a positive second derivative at the background value (the standard assumption ensuring a massive scalar in the Solar-System regime), the exponential suppression at r ∼ 1 AU remains intact and drives γ → 1 for a point source. To make this explicit, we will insert a brief clarifying sentence in §4.2 stating that the suppression holds for generic V(φ) with V''(φ_0) > 0, without restricting to the quadratic case. revision: yes
Referee: [§5.3, paragraph following Eq. (31)] the assertion that 'the observational impact of the formalism is strongly model-dependent' is illustrated by the differing exponents in the Yukawa factors, but the quantitative difference is shown only for a restricted class of coupling functions. Adding one concrete, non-trivial example (e.g., f(R) = R + α R² with explicit numerical evaluation of the resulting γ bound) would make the 'strongly' qualifier load-bearing rather than qualitative.

Authors: We agree that a concrete numerical illustration will strengthen the claim. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit example using f(R) = R + α R². We will compute the effective mass and the resulting γ in both formalisms, then translate the Cassini bound |γ − 1| < 2.3 × 10^{-5} into a numerical limit on α, thereby quantifying the difference in allowed parameter space between the metric and Palatini cases. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives analytical expressions for the effective scalar mass, G_eff, and PPN parameters γ and β directly from the general scalar-tensor action via standard post-Newtonian expansion in both metric and Palatini formalisms. These results are obtained from the field equations without any fitting to data or redefinition of inputs as outputs. The subsequent comparison to Solar-System observations (e.g., Cassini bound on γ) is framed as an external constraint exercise on the derived parameters, not a circular redefinition. No load-bearing self-citation, ansatz smuggling, or uniqueness theorem imported from prior author work is present in the derivation chain; the distinction between metric and Palatini cases follows explicitly from the variational principles applied to the point-particle source. The central claims remain independent of the observational inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the standard post-Newtonian expansion of the field equations, the assumption that the scalar field is massive enough for Yukawa suppression, and the choice of a point-particle source; no new free parameters are fitted in the abstract, but the generic functions in the action are treated as arbitrary inputs.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The post-Newtonian expansion is valid in the weak-field, slow-motion regime around Solar-System sources.
Invoked to derive the effective mass, coupling, and PPN parameters gamma and beta.
domain assumption The scalar field has an effective mass that produces Yukawa-type suppression at Solar-System scales.
Used to explain why Palatini versions can satisfy weaker bounds.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1474 out tokens · 51107 ms · 2026-05-10T07:41:57.968590+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests,

D. Huterer and D. L. Shafer,Dark energy two decades after: observables, probes, consistency tests,Rept. Prog. Phys.81(2018), no. 1 016901, [arXiv:1709.01091]

work page arXiv 2018
[2]

Modified Gravity and Cosmology

T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis,Modified Gravity and Cosmology,Phys. Rept.513(2012) 1–189, [arXiv:1106.2476]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2012
[3]

Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model

A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden,Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model, Phys. Rept.568(2015) 1–98, [arXiv:1407.0059]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[4]

Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry

C. Wetterich,Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry,Nucl. Phys. B302(1988) 668–696, [arXiv:1711.03844]

work page Pith review arXiv 1988
[5]

Ratra and P

B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles,Cosmological Consequences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field,Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 3406

1988
[6]

Boisseau, G

B. Boisseau, G. Esposito-Farese, D. Polarski, and A. A. Starobinsky,Reconstruction of a scalar tensor theory of gravity in an accelerating universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.85(2000) 2236, [gr-qc/0001066]

work page arXiv 2000
[7]

Esposito-Farese and D

G. Esposito-Farese and D. Polarski,Scalar tensor gravity in an accelerating universe,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 063504, [gr-qc/0009034]

work page arXiv 2001
[8]

Gannouji, D

R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, A. Ranquet, and A. A. Starobinsky,Scalar-Tensor Models of Normal and Phantom Dark Energy,JCAP09(2006) 016, [astro-ph/0606287]

work page arXiv 2006
[9]

L. Jarv, P. Kuusk, and M. Saal,Scalar-tensor cosmologies: Fixed points of the Jordan frame scalar field,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 083530, [arXiv:0807.2159]

work page arXiv 2008
[10]

Rossi, M

M. Rossi, M. Ballardini, M. Braglia, F. Finelli, D. Paoletti, A. A. Starobinsky, and C. Umilt` a, Cosmological constraints on post-Newtonian parameters in effectively massless scalar-tensor theories of gravity,Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 10 103524, [arXiv:1906.10218]

work page arXiv 2019
[11]

Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by nonminimally coupled quintessence

J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang,Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by non-minimally coupled quintessence,arXiv:2508.01759

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[12]

W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa,Matching current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 4 L041303, [arXiv:2409.17019]

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri,Hints of Nonminimally Coupled Gravity in DESI 2024 Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025), no. 18 181002, [arXiv:2407.15832]

work page arXiv 2024
[14]

Bridge the Cosmological Tensions with Thaw- ing Gravity,

G. Ye,Bridge the Cosmological Tensions with Thawing Gravity,arXiv:2411.11743

work page arXiv
[15]

A. G. Ferrari, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, and D. Paoletti,Scalar-tensor gravity and DESI 2024 BAO data,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 8 083523, [arXiv:2501.15298]

work page arXiv 2024
[16]

Non-minimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data

J. Pan and G. Ye,Non-minimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data, arXiv:2503.19898

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[17]

Tiwari, U

Y. Tiwari, U. Upadhyay, and R. K. Jain,Exploring cosmological imprints of phantom crossing with dynamical dark energy in Horndeski gravity,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 4 043530, [arXiv:2412.00931]

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira,Assessing Cosmological Evidence for Nonminimal Coupling,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025), no. 8 081001, [arXiv:2504.07679]. – 37 –

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

Non-Minimally Coupled Quintessence in Light of DESI,

S. S´ anchez L´ opez, A. Karam, and D. K. Hazra,Non-Minimally Coupled Quintessence in Light of DESI,arXiv:2510.14941

work page arXiv
[20]

Braglia, M

M. Braglia, M. Ballardini, W. T. Emond, F. Finelli, A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, K. Koyama, and D. Paoletti,Larger value forH 0 by an evolving gravitational constant,Phys. Rev. D102 (2020), no. 2 023529, [arXiv:2004.11161]

work page arXiv 2020
[21]

Brans and R

C. Brans and R. H. Dicke,Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation,Phys. Rev. 124(1961) 925–935

1961
[22]

Palatini,Deduzione invariantiva delle equazioni gravitazionali dal principio di Hamilton, Rend

A. Palatini,Deduzione invariantiva delle equazioni gravitazionali dal principio di Hamilton, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo43(1919), no. 1 203–212

1919
[23]

Palatini’s method

M. Ferraris, M. Francaviglia, and C. Reina,Variational formulation of general relativity from 1915 to 1925 “Palatini’s method” discovered by Einstein in 1925,Gen. Rel. Grav.14(1982), no. 3 243–254

1915
[24]

Y. Fan, P. Wu, and H. Yu,Cosmological perturbations of non-minimally coupled quintessence in the metric and Palatini formalisms,Phys. Lett. B746(2015) 230–236

2015
[25]

Koivisto,Covariant conservation of energy momentum in modified gravities,Class

T. Koivisto,Covariant conservation of energy momentum in modified gravities,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 4289–4296, [gr-qc/0505128]

work page arXiv 2006
[26]

Koivisto,Covariant conservation of energy-momentum in modified gravities,Class

T. Koivisto and H. Kurki-Suonio,Cosmological perturbations in the palatini formulation of modified gravity,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2355–2369, [astro-ph/0509422]

work page arXiv 2006
[27]

Kubota, K.-Y

M. Kubota, K.-Y. Oda, K. Shimada, and M. Yamaguchi,Cosmological Perturbations in Palatini Formalism,JCAP03(2021) 006, [arXiv:2010.07867]

work page arXiv 2021
[28]

Invariant quantities in the scalar-tensor theories of gravitation,

L. J¨ arv, P. Kuusk, M. Saal, and O. Vilson,Invariant quantities in the scalar-tensor theories of gravitation,Phys. Rev. D91(2015), no. 2 024041, [arXiv:1411.1947]

work page arXiv 2015
[29]

Palatini frames in scalar–tensor theories of gravity,

A. Kozak and A. Borowiec,Palatini frames in scalar–tensor theories of gravity,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 4 335, [arXiv:1808.05598]

work page arXiv 2019
[30]

Equivalence of inflationary models between the metric and Palatini formulation of scalar-tensor theories,

L. J¨ arv, A. Karam, A. Kozak, A. Lykkas, A. Racioppi, and M. Saal,Equivalence of inflationary models between the metric and Palatini formulation of scalar-tensor theories, Phys. Rev. D102(2020), no. 4 044029, [arXiv:2005.14571]

work page arXiv 2020
[31]

Global portraits of nonminimal inflation: Metric and Palatini formalism,

L. J¨ arv, S. Karamitsos, and M. Saal,Global portraits of nonminimal inflation: Metric and Palatini formalism,Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 8 084073, [arXiv:2401.12314]

work page arXiv 2024
[32]

S. S. L´ opez and J. J. Terente D´ ıaz,Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves in Palatini f(R) gravity,JCAP12(2025) 029, [arXiv:2505.13420]

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Dimopoulos and S

K. Dimopoulos and S. S´ anchez L´ opez,Quintessential inflation in Palatinif(R)gravity,Phys. Rev. D103(2021), no. 4 043533, [arXiv:2012.06831]

work page arXiv 2021
[34]

Verner,Quintessential Inflation in Palatini Gravity,JCAP04(2021) [arXiv:2010.11201]

S. Verner,Quintessential Inflation in Palatini Gravity,JCAP04(2021) [arXiv:2010.11201]

work page arXiv 2021
[35]

Dimopoulos,Jointly modelling Cosmic Inflation and Dark Energy,J

K. Dimopoulos,Jointly modelling Cosmic Inflation and Dark Energy,J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2105(2021), no. 1 012001, [arXiv:2106.14966]

work page arXiv 2021
[36]

Dimopoulos, A

K. Dimopoulos, A. Karam, S. S´ anchez L´ opez, and E. Tomberg,Modelling Quintessential Inflation in Palatini-Modified Gravity,Galaxies10(2022), no. 2 57, [arXiv:2203.05424]

work page arXiv 2022
[37]

Dimopoulos, A

K. Dimopoulos, A. Karam, S. S´ anchez L´ opez, and E. Tomberg,Palatini R2 quintessential inflation,JCAP10(2022) 076, [arXiv:2206.14117]

work page arXiv 2022
[38]

Antoniadis, A

I. Antoniadis, A. Guillen, and K. Tamvakis,Late time acceleration in Palatini gravity,JHEP 11(2022) 144, [arXiv:2207.13732]

work page arXiv 2022
[39]

Dimopoulos, C

K. Dimopoulos, C. Dioguardi, G. H¨ utsi, and A. Racioppi,Quintessential inflation in Palatini F(R, X) gravity,Eur. Phys. J. Plus140(2025), no. 11 1109, [arXiv:2503.21610]

work page arXiv 2025
[40]

J. J. Terente D´ ıaz, K. Dimopoulos, M. Karˇ ciauskas, and A. Racioppi,Quintessence in the Weyl-Gauss-Bonnet model,JCAP02(2024) 040, [arXiv:2310.08128]. – 38 –

work page arXiv 2024
[41]

Sánchez López, K

S. S´ anchez L´ opez, K. Dimopoulos, A. Karam, and E. Tomberg,Observable gravitational waves from hyperkination in Palatini gravity and beyond,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023), no. 12 1152, [arXiv:2305.01399]

work page arXiv 2023
[42]

C. M. Will,The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,Living Rev. Rel. 17(2014) 4, [arXiv:1403.7377]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014
[43]

C. M. Will,Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics. Cambridge University Press, 9, 2018

2018
[44]

Nordtvedt, Jr.,PostNewtonian metric for a general class of scalar tensor gravitational theories and observational consequences,Astrophys

K. Nordtvedt, Jr.,PostNewtonian metric for a general class of scalar tensor gravitational theories and observational consequences,Astrophys. J.161(1970) 1059–1067

1970
[45]

J¨ arv, P

L. J¨ arv, P. Kuusk, M. Saal, and O. Vilson,Parametrizations in scalar-tensor theories of gravity and the limit of general relativity,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.532(2014) 012011, [arXiv:1501.07781]

work page arXiv 2014
[46]

Hohmann, L

M. Hohmann, L. Jarv, P. Kuusk, and E. Randla,Post-Newtonian parametersγandβof scalar-tensor gravity with a general potential,Phys. Rev. D88(2013), no. 8 084054, [arXiv:1309.0031]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 069901 (2014)]

work page arXiv 2013
[47]

Hohmann and A

M. Hohmann and A. Sch¨ arer,Post-Newtonian parametersγandβof scalar-tensor gravity for a homogeneous gravitating sphere,Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 10 104026, [arXiv:1708.07851]

work page arXiv 2017
[48]

Zhang, W

X. Zhang, W. Zhao, H. Huang, and Y. Cai,Post-Newtonian parameters and cosmological constant of screened modified gravity,Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 12 124003, [arXiv:1603.09450]

work page arXiv 2016
[49]

E. D. Emtsova and M. Hohmann,Post-Newtonian limit of scalar-torsion theories of gravity as analogue to scalar-curvature theories,Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 2 024017, [arXiv:1909.09355]

work page arXiv 2020
[50]

Hohmann,Parametrized post-Newtonian limit of Horndeski’s gravity theory,Phys

M. Hohmann,Parametrized post-Newtonian limit of Horndeski’s gravity theory,Phys. Rev. D 92(2015), no. 6 064019, [arXiv:1506.04253]

work page arXiv 2015
[51]

G. J. Olmo,Post-Newtonian constraints on f(R) cosmologies in metric and Palatini formalism,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 083505, [gr-qc/0505135]

work page arXiv 2005
[52]

G. J. Olmo,Post-Newtonian constraints on f(R) cosmologies in Palatini formalism, gr-qc/0505136

work page arXiv
[53]

Harko, T

T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo, and G. J. Olmo,Metric-Palatini gravity unifying local constraints and late-time cosmic acceleration,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 084016, [arXiv:1110.1049]

work page arXiv 2012
[54]

J. Lu, J. Li, H. Guo, Z. Zhuang, and X. Zhao,Linearized physics and gravitational-waves polarizations in the Palatini formalism of GBD theory,Phys. Lett. B811(2020) 135985, [arXiv:2012.02343]

work page arXiv 2020
[55]

J. Lu, Y. Wang, and X. Zhao,Linearized modified gravity theories and gravitational waves physics in the GBD theory,Phys. Lett. B795(2019) 129–134, [arXiv:1904.01734]

work page arXiv 2019
[56]

P. I. Dyadina, S. P. Labazova, and S. O. Alexeyev,Post-Newtonian limit of hybrid metric-Palatini f(R)-gravity,arXiv:1907.06919

work page arXiv 1907
[57]

J. D. Toniato and D. C. Rodrigues,Post-Newtonianγ-like parameters and the gravitational slip in scalar-tensor and f(R) theories,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 4 044020, [arXiv:2106.12542]

work page arXiv 2021
[58]

Chehab and O

T. Chehab and O. Minazzoli,On the numerical evaluation of the ‘exact’ Post-Newtonian parameters in Brans-Dicke and Entangled Relativity theories,arXiv:2602.11811

work page arXiv
[59]

J. G. Williams, S. G. Turyshev, and D. H. Boggs,Progress in lunar laser ranging tests of relativistic gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.93(2004) 261101, [gr-qc/0411113]. – 39 –

work page arXiv 2004
[60]

Bertotti, L

B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora,A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft,Nature425(2003) 374–376

2003
[61]

Verma, A

A. Verma, A. Fienga, J. Laskar, H. Manche, and M. Gastineau,Use of MESSENGER radioscience data to improve planetary ephemeris and to test general relativity,Astron. Astrophys.561(2014) A115, [arXiv:1306.5569]

work page arXiv 2014
[62]

Genova, E

A. Genova, E. Mazarico, S. Goossens, F. G. Lemoine, G. A. Neumann, D. E. Smith, and M. T. Zuber,Solar system expansion and strong equivalence principle as seen by the NASA MESSENGER mission,Nature Commun.9(2018), no. 1 289

2018
[63]

Fienga, L

A. Fienga, L. Bigot, D. Mary, P. Deram, A. Di Ruscio, L. Bernus, M. Gastineau, and J. Laskar,Evolution of INPOP planetary ephemerides and Bepi-Colombo simulations,IAU Symp.364(2019) 31–51, [arXiv:2111.04499]

work page arXiv 2019
[64]

Fienga, L

A. Fienga, L. Bernus, O. Minazzoli, A. Hees, L. Bigot, C. Herrera, V. Mariani, A. Di Ruscio, D. Durante, and D. Mary,INPOP Planetary ephemerides and applications in the frame of the BepiColombo mission including new constraints on the graviton mass and dilaton parameters, arXiv:2211.04881

work page arXiv
[65]

Sch¨ arer, R

A. Sch¨ arer, R. Ang´ elil, R. Bondarescu, P. Jetzer, and A. Lundgren,Testing scalar-tensor theories and parametrized post-Newtonian parameters in Earth orbit,Phys. Rev. D90(2014), no. 12 123005, [arXiv:1410.7914]

work page arXiv 2014
[66]

Zhang, B

X. Zhang, B. Wang, and R. Niu,Constraining the attractive fifth force in the general free scalar–tensor gravity with solar system experiments,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), no. 4 381, [arXiv:2305.06752]

work page arXiv 2024
[67]

Martin, C

J. Martin, C. Schimd, and J.-P. Uzan,Testing for w<-1 in the solar system,Phys. Rev. Lett. 96(2006) 061303, [astro-ph/0510208]

work page arXiv 2006
[68]

H. Adam, M. P. Hertzberg, D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar, and I. Khan,Comparing Minimal and Non-Minimal Quintessence Models to 2025 DESI Data,arXiv:2509.13302

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[69]

E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, and A. E. Nelson,Tests of the gravitational inverse square law,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.53(2003) 77–121, [hep-ph/0307284]

work page Pith review arXiv 2003
[70]

J. D. Barrow and P. Parsons,The Behavior of cosmological models with varying G,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 1906–1936, [gr-qc/9607072]

work page arXiv 1997
[71]

Esposito-Farese,Tests of scalar-tensor gravity,AIP Conf

G. Esposito-Farese,Tests of scalar-tensor gravity,AIP Conf. Proc.736(2004), no. 1 35–52, [gr-qc/0409081]

work page arXiv 2004
[72]

Faraoni,Singularities in scalar tensor gravity,Phys

V. Faraoni,Singularities in scalar tensor gravity,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 047301, [gr-qc/0403020]

work page arXiv 2004
[73]

H. K. Nguyen and B. Chauvineau,Impact of star pressure onγin modified gravity beyond post-Newtonian approach,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), no. 7 710, [arXiv:2404.00094]

work page arXiv 2024
[74]

D. E. Smith, M. T. Zuber, R. J. Phillips, S. C. Solomon, S. A. Hauck, F. G. Lemoine, E. Mazarico, G. A. Neumann, S. J. Peale, J.-L. Margot, C. L. Johnson, M. H. Torrence, M. E. Perry, D. D. Rowlands, S. Goossens, J. W. Head, and A. H. Taylor,Gravity Field and Internal Structure of Mercury from MESSENGER,Science336(2012), no. 6078 214–217

2012
[75]

S. M. Carroll,Lecture notes on general relativity,gr-qc/9712019

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[76]

Beltran Jimenez, L

J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto,Cosmology for quadratic gravity in generalized Weyl geometry,JCAP04(2016) 046, [arXiv:1602.07287]

work page arXiv 2016
[77]

Shimada, K

K. Shimada, K. Aoki, and K.-i. Maeda,Metric-affine Gravity and Inflation,Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), no. 10 104020, [arXiv:1812.03420]

work page arXiv 2019
[78]

Iosifidis and F

D. Iosifidis and F. W. Hehl,Motion of test particles in spacetimes with torsion and nonmetricity,Phys. Lett. B850(2024) 138498, [arXiv:2310.15595]. – 40 –

work page arXiv 2024
[79]

Vitagliano, T

V. Vitagliano, T. P. Sotiriou, and S. Liberati,The dynamics of metric-affine gravity,Annals Phys.326(2011) 1259–1273, [arXiv:1008.0171]. [Erratum: Annals Phys. 329, 186–187 (2013)]

work page arXiv 2011
[80]

Iosifidis and E

D. Iosifidis and E. N. Saridakis,Metric-Affine Gravity. 2021

2021

Showing first 80 references.