Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

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

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:09 UTC pith:H6224GOW

load-bearing objection Competent MCMC constraints on an exponential f(R)+neutrinos model, but the headline tension-alleviation claim is softer than it looks and Eq. (37) needs a robustness check. the 3 major comments →

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

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

Simone D'Onofrio , Sergei Odintsov , Tiziano Schiavone This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords f(R) gravitymodified gravitydynamical dark energymassive neutrinosHubble tensionneutrino mass sumcosmological parameter constraintsType Ia supernovae
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

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

Core claim

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

What carries the argument

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

Load-bearing premise

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

What would settle it

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

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

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

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

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

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

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (34)-(37)] The initial-condition scheme is not valid over the adopted prior. Equation (37) is derived from Eq. (35) under the assumption that neutrinos are already non-relativistic at z_i, and it requires a positive argument for the cube root. For the stated priors α,β∈[0.01,5], this fails badly: for (β=0.01, α=0.5) one obtains z_i≈229, which is above the neutrino transition redshift shown in Fig. 4; for (β=0.01, α=0.1) one obtains z_i≈10^10, far above z*=1089; for (β=5, α=5) the right-hand side of Eq. (37) is negative and no positive z_i exists. In these regions the initial conditions (34)-(35) are not the correct ΛCDM values, the statement that f(R)=ΛCDM for z≥z_i is false, and the compressed-CMB likelihood—which assumes ΛCDM at recombination—cannot be applied. The paper's 'safe assumption' is a posterior check, not a constraint enforced during sampling. The authors should report the posterior di
  2. [Sec. V, Table I and abstract] The claimed 'slight alleviation of the Hubble tension' is not supported by the evidence presented. The paper's 7.5σ→2.8σ reduction is an internal shift between H0 values obtained with and without the Pantheon+ sample for the same model, not the usual SH0ES-versus-CMB Hubble tension. Relative to SH0ES, the full-data f(R) result H0=70.89±0.19 is 2.0σ below 73.04±1.04, whereas the ΛCDM result H0=71.43±0.13 is 1.5σ below; relative to Planck, the f(R) value is 6.2σ away versus 7.3σ for ΛCDM. The reduction in tension is also partly an artifact of the much larger H0 uncertainty in the f(R) fit without SNe (σ=1.28 versus 0.36 for ΛCDM). The abstract and conclusions should be rephrased to state what is actually shown, or the appropriate comparison should be made.
  3. [Sec. V, Table I] The neutrino-mass constraints are quoted as 1σ (68% C.L.) upper limits, e.g., Σmν<0.0290 eV for the f(R) model with Pantheon+. This is nonstandard and undermines the 'neutrino mass problem' comparison. The oscillation lower bound Σmν≥0.06 eV and the DESI/KATRIN bounds are quoted at different confidence levels, so the statement that the model 'slightly alleviates the neutrino mass tension' is not quantitatively established. Please report the 95% C.L. upper limits for all models and dataset combinations, and use those for the comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (32)-(35)] The symbol R is used both for the dimensionful Ricci scalar (Sec. II) and for the dimensionless combination R/(2Λ) introduced in Eq. (21). Please introduce a separate notation, e.g., R̄, in Eqs. (32)-(35) to avoid confusion.
  2. [Sec. V] The MCMC setup is described only minimally. Please report the number of walkers, chain length, burn-in, acceptance rate, and a convergence diagnostic such as the Gelman-Rubin statistic. The AIC definition also depends on the total number of data points N, which is never stated; N should be given explicitly for each dataset combination.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (42)] The fitting formula for r_d is taken from DESI and assumes ΛCDM-like early-time physics. This is consistent with the paper's matching assumption only if z_i is below the drag epoch for every accepted sample; this should be checked explicitly rather than assumed.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The notation 'Σm*ν=E(0)^2 Σmν' is confusing because the mapping in Eq. (31) applies to density parameters, not directly to the mass. Please clarify the definition of the plotted quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

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

full rationale

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

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

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

free parameters (6)
  • α = 2.00 ± 0.13 (full data)
    Exponent in the exponential f(R) model; fitted to CC+DESI+CMB+Pan+; strongly degenerate with β.
  • β = 0.294 +0.082/-0.13 (full data)
    Exponential suppression scale; fitted; posterior shows non-Gaussianity.
  • H*_0 = not tabulated; physical H0=70.89±0.19 via H0=H*_0 E(0)
    ΛCDM-framed Hubble parameter sampled in MCMC; central to the H0 tension discussion.
  • ω*_b, ω*_bc = ω_b≈0.0224, ω_cdm≈0.118 (full data, from Fig. 7)
    Baryon and CDM density parameters sampled in MCMC; standard but fitted.
  • ω*_ν = Σmν < 0.0290 eV (1σ, full data)
    Present-day neutrino density parameter; mapped to Σmν = 93.14 ω*_ν h^{-2}; drives the neutrino-mass claim.
  • ε = 10^-7 (fixed by hand)
    Hand-chosen deviation used to define the initial redshift z_i; results should be checked for sensitivity to this choice.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Metric f(R) field equations (Eq. 2) and stress-energy conservation are the correct gravitational dynamics.
    Underpins the entire background evolution; standard in the f(R) literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The exponential form f(R)=R-2Λ(1-exp(-β(R/2Λ)^α)) (Eq. 20) is the model to be tested.
    Taken from the authors' earlier work [38]; no derivation from a more fundamental principle.
  • domain assumption For z ≥ z_i, f(R) is indistinguishable from ΛCDM; initial conditions are set by ΛCDM formulas (Eqs. 34-35).
    Relies on ε=10^-7 and on the exponential term vanishing at high R; used to validate the compressed-CMB interpretation.
  • domain assumption Neutrinos are non-relativistic at z_i, allowing inversion of Eq. (35) into Eq. (37).
    Explicitly stated in Sec. III; safe for the best-fit neutrino masses but not validated across the broad ω*_ν prior.
  • domain assumption The compressed CMB likelihood on (θ*, ωb, ωcb), with z*=1089 fixed and r* = r_d/1.01841, captures the CMB information for this model.
    Assumes f(R) modifies neither recombination nor sound horizon; replaces the full Planck likelihood.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18932 in / 18320 out tokens · 188624 ms · 2026-08-03T23:09:33.661771+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

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

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.06924 by Sergei Odintsov, Simone D'Onofrio, Tiziano Schiavone.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Plot of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Corner plot showing the constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Marginalized 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Numerical evaluation of the Fermi-Dirac integral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Corner plot for the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison between the corner plots for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational Wave Birefringence in generalized Palatini Chern Simons

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Palatini f(R)+Chern–Simons gravity predicts amplitude and velocity birefringence in GW propagation, with the effect controlled by f_R and, under de-Sitter approximations, growing polynomially with redshift.

  2. Degenerate and connection-dependent cosmological sectors in f(Q,C) gravity

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Connection field equations force a degenerate f(R)-equivalent sector of f(Q,C) cosmology in which three geometric connections coincide, and only nonzero integration constants make the connections physically distinct.

  3. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.

  4. Revisiting the Matter Creation Process: Observational Constraints on Gravitationally Induced Dark Energy and the Hubble Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0

    Gravitationally induced particle creation models fit cosmological data as well as ΛCDM and reduce the Hubble tension from 4.3σ to 2.4–3σ.

  5. Hubble tension: a short review of theoretical explanations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0

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

  6. Neutrino mass constraints in interacting dark energy models after DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Upper bounds on total neutrino mass in four phenomenological interacting dark energy models are derived from DESI DR2 BAO plus CMB and SNIa data, showing strong dependence on the interaction term form and statistical ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 55 linked inside Pith · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain

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

  2. [2]

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

  3. [3]

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

  4. [4]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

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

    1998

  7. [7]

    Perlmutter, G

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

    1999

  8. [8]

    Trimble, Ann

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

    1987

  9. [9]

    Weinberg, Rev

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

    1989

  10. [10]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Di Valentino, O

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Bamba, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Aghanim, Y

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

    2020

  16. [16]

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

    2025

  17. [17]

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

    2022

  18. [18]

    Scolnicet al., Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Brout, D

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

    2022

  20. [20]

    Abdul-Karim, J

    DESI, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. A. Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. An- drade, E. Armengaud,et al., Desi dr2 results ii: Mea- surements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmologi- 12 55 60 65 70 H ∗ 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 ∑ m∗ ν 0.0220 0.0222 0.0224 0.0226 ω ∗ b 0.116 0.118 0.120 ω ∗ cdm 1 2 3 4β 1 2 3 4α 1 2 3 4 α 1...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  21. [21]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Capozziello, H

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Chaudhary, V

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Chaudhary, S

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

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  26. [26]

    Chevallier and D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  27. [27]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  28. [28]

    Giar` e, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

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

    1970

  30. [30]

    Hu and I

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  31. [31]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  32. [32]

    Nojiri and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [33]

    Capozziello and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    Nojiri, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Bamba, C.-Q

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  37. [37]

    Cognola, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [39]

    Elizalde, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  40. [40]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Chen, C.-Q

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

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

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Schiavone, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Montani, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Nojiri, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Montani, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Montani, N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Froustey, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Lesgourgues and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    Di Valentino, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  59. [59]

    Esteban, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    Elberset al., Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  62. [62]

    Drewes, Y

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    Vagnozzi, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Di Valentino, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    Brieden, H

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

  66. [66]

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

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

    arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Nojiri and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  69. [69]

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

    using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) ap- proach to obtain the posterior distributions of the cos- mological parameters. The analysis is carried out with the publicly availableemceePython package [70]. As discussed in Sec. III, the cosmological parame- ters are mapped into the equivalent ΛCDM quantities through the relations in Eq. (31), ensuring also t...

    2025

  70. [70]

    Efstathiou and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    Lemos and A

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.103505 2023

  72. [72]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  73. [73]

    Hu and N

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

    1996

  74. [74]

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

    2021

  75. [75]

    Foreman-Mackey, W

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

    doi:10.21105/joss.01864 2019

  76. [76]

    Akaike, IEEE Trans

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

    1974

  77. [77]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  78. [78]

    Zhang, H

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

    2014

  79. [79]

    Moresco, L

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

  80. [80]

    Simon, L

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.123001 2005

Showing first 80 references.