Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Preventing Curvature Singularities in $f(R)$ Dark Energy Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding inflationary higher-curvature terms to f(R) dark energy models can prevent the curvature singularities that otherwise appear in dense environments.

desk verdict The paper's central singularity-cure claim is invalidated by a wrong trace equation (extra -R) and an internal numerical contradiction; the advertised consistency with inflation is not supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20430 v2 pith:RHT5GDRV submitted 2025-08-28 gr-qc

Romy Hanang Setya Budhi , Nehla Shobcha , Norma Sidik Risdianto This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords f(R)gravitydarkenergycurvaturesingularityStarobinskyinflationR^2correctionalpha-attractormodelstraceequationmodified
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

f(R) gravity models of dark energy that mimic $\Lambda$CDM at late times carry a known pathology: in dense environments the Ricci scalar $R$ can diverge in finite time. This paper argues that adding higher-curvature corrections borrowed from inflation—the Starobinsky $R^2$ term, the generalized $R^{(m+2)/(m+1)}$ term, and $\alpha$-attractor polynomials—cures that pathology while leaving the same $f(R)$ model able to describe both inflation and late-time acceleration. The claim is quantitative: in the rescaled variable $y \propto R_{\rm ch}/R$, a singularity is a crossing of $y=0$, and the corrections prevent that crossing once a dimensionless coupling ($g_{pI}$, $g_{eI}$, $g_{pII}$, $g_{eII}$, or the $\alpha$-attractor combinations) exceeds a threshold near one. If correct, this gives a concrete recipe for building singularity-free $f(R)$ dark energy models that remain compatible with inflationary observables.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced trace equation, obtained by contracting the $f(R)$ field equations and replacing the wave operator $\Box f_R$ with $-\partial_t^2 f_R$ in a weak-field, homogeneous region where the matter trace is $T(t) = -T_0(1+t/t_{\rm ch})$. In the rescaled variable $y = \beta R_{\rm ch}/R$ with $\beta \gg 1$, this becomes a nonlinear oscillator for $y$, and a curvature singularity is exactly the event $y \to 0$. The corrections enter as feedback terms—for the power-law model, $g_{pI} y^{-(2n+2)}(y'' - 2y'^2/y)$, with analogous exponential and $\alpha$-attractor forms—whose negative powers or exponential prefactors make them grow near $y=0$ and deflect the trajectory away from the singular crossing. The threshold conditions on the $g$ parameters are the quantitative claim that carries the argument.

What would settle it

Run full 3+1 numerical relativity simulations of spherical dust collapse in the corrected $f(R)$ models with, say, $n=2$ and the $R^2$ term at the required $m_R$ so that $g_{pI}>1$, and track $y=\beta R_{\rm ch}/R$ at the center; if $y$ crosses zero before the collapse stalls, the cure is an artifact of the homogeneous reduction. A simpler check is to include spatial gradients in the trace equation for the same initial data and see whether the singularity time or the threshold $g>1$ shifts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the curvature singularity found in power-law and exponential $f(R)$ dark energy models is not intrinsic to those models: it can be removed by the same higher-order curvature terms that drive inflation. Starting from the trace equation of $f(R)$ gravity in a homogeneous high-density region, the authors encode the Ricci scalar through $y=\beta R_{\rm ch}/R$ and show numerically that $y$ oscillates toward $y=0$ unless a correction is present. Adding $R^2/M^2$, $\Gamma R^{(m+2)/(m+1)}$, or the $\alpha$-attractor combination $R^{\zeta+1}+R^2$ introduces a feedback term with a negative power of $y$ (or an exponential prefactor) that dominates precisely where $y$ is small. For couplings above roughly unity—$g_{pI}, g_{eI}, g_{pII}, g_{eII} \ge 1$, $g_{pIIIb} \approx 1$, $g_{eIIIa} \lesssim 1$ with $g_{eIIIb} > 10^2$—the oscillations damp onto the equilibrium curve $y = 1/(1+\tau/\tau_{\rm ch})$ and $y$ never reaches zero, so $R$ stays finite. The authors conclude that inflation-motivated corrections can make these dark energy models consistent across both early and late cosmological scales.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that throughout the collapse the region stays homogeneous and weakly curved enough that the wave operator can be treated as a pure second time derivative, and the matter trace grows linearly in time, all the way to the would-be singularity $R\to\infty$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the power-law model, the $R^2$ correction removes the finite-time singularity once $g_{pI}>1$, with the required mass scale $m_R$ far below the Starobinsky inflationary scale (about $10^{-27}M_{\rm Pl}$ for $n=2$).
  • In the exponential model, the $R^2$ correction suppresses singularities once $g_{eI}\ge 1$, but the required mass scale is near $10^{-38}M_{\rm Pl}$, roughly 33 orders below the inflationary scale.
  • The generalized correction $R^{(m+2)/(m+1)}$ reduces to the $R^2$ case as $m\to 0$ and prevents singularities for $g_{pII}, g_{eII}\ge 1$, with $m$ itself having only a weak effect on the cure.
  • The $\alpha$-attractor polynomial $R^{\zeta+1}+R^2$ regularizes both model classes for $0<\zeta<1$, and values $\zeta\gtrsim 0.3$ already damp curvature fluctuations strongly in the power-law case.
  • All three corrections preserve Starobinsky-like inflationary predictions for e-folding numbers near $N\approx 50$-$60$, consistent with Planck and ACT data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication left implicit is that singularity avoidance is essentially a domination condition: the correction term must outgrow the original restoring force as $y\to 0$, so the thresholds probably follow from a local expansion around $y=0$ rather than requiring full numerical integration.
  • Because the required mass scales sit so far below the Starobinsky inflationary scale, a single unified action may need two separate mass scales or a running coupling; the paper notes the discrepancy but does not construct such an action.
  • A natural testable extension is to repeat the analysis with a realistic collapse profile, such as neutron-star densities or a Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff interior, to see whether the $g>1$ thresholds survive when the homogeneous, linear-$T(t)$ approximation is relaxed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the appearance of curvature singularities in two classes of f(R) dark energy models (power-law and exponential) in high-density environments, using a trace-equation toy model. It proposes adding higher-curvature corrections motivated by inflation—an R^2 term, an R^{(m+2)/(m+1)} term, and α-attractor polynomial terms—and claims, on the basis of numerical solutions of derived ODEs, that singularities are prevented when certain dimensionless couplings exceed unity. The authors also translate these thresholds into constraints on mass scales and conclude that the corrected models can unify inflation and dark energy.

Significance. If the central derivation were sound, the paper would provide a concrete mechanism for curing f(R) dark energy singularities and a bridge to inflationary models. The paper is transparent about the toy-model assumptions and gives numerical support for a threshold effect. It also engages with recent ACT/DESI constraints on inflationary observables. However, because the trace equation at the base of the analysis is incorrect, the significance is currently not established. The work could still serve as a starting point for a corrected analysis if the fundamental issues are resolved.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3, Eq. (14)] The trace equation stated as R f_R - 2f - R + 3□f_R = κ²T is incorrect. Contracting Eq. (2) with g^{μν} gives f_R R - 2f + 3□f_R = κ²T. The spurious -R term propagates into Eq. (16) and into every ODE derived from it (Eqs. (17), (20), (26), (29), (35), (38), (44), (48)). For f(R)=R, Eq. (14) yields -2R = κ²T instead of the GR result -R = κ²T, and the claim that Eq. (14) reduces to GR when f(R)=0 is also incorrect (the GR limit is f(R)=R). Since the equilibrium curve, singularity times, and thresholds g_{pI,eI,II,III} ≥ 1 are all derived from this modified trace equation, the central results of the paper are not established for the f(R) actions defined by Eq. (1).
  2. [§6, Eq. (43)] The power-law α-attractor model is written as f(R) ≃ -λ R_ch [1 - (R_ch/R)^{2n}] + ... with no linear R term. All other power-law models in the paper, e.g. Eqs. (25) and (33), include the R term. Omitting it changes f and f_R in the trace equation (16), so Eq. (44) is not the curvature-fluctuation equation for the model defined by Eq. (43). This must be corrected and the ODE re-derived.
  3. [§6, Eq. (50) and Fig. 8] The text states that g_eIIIa = 10^{-320} corresponds to g_eIIIb values between 10^2 and 10^4, but this is inconsistent with Eq. (50) for typical ζ values. For example, with ζ = 0.5 and β ≈ 17, (g_eIIIa)^ζ = 10^{-160} and (λβ/e^β)^{ζ-1} ≈ 10^3, giving g_eIIIb ≈ 10^{-157}. The ζ values used for panels (c) and (f) are not reported, so the correspondence cannot be checked. The numerical evidence for the α-attractor exponential case needs to be re-presented with explicit parameters.
  4. [Abstract vs. §7] The abstract's claim that the corrections 'ensure their consistency across both inflationary and late-time cosmological scales' is not supported by the paper's own conclusions. Section 7 states that the R^2 mass scale must be about 33 orders of magnitude below the Starobinsky scale to suppress singularities, meaning the Starobinsky R^2 term with its inflationary mass does not cure the singularities. The single-model unification claimed in the abstract therefore does not follow from the analysis.
  5. [§3, Eqs. (15)-(16)] The singularity analysis relies on a toy model in which the d'Alembertian is replaced by -∂_t^2 and the matter trace is linear, T(t) = -T0(1+t/tch). This homogeneous, weak-field approximation is applied all the way to the singular limit R→∞, where spatial gradients and backreaction should become important. The paper does not discuss how these effects would modify the singularities or the stabilization thresholds. The results should therefore be framed as indicative of a possible mechanism, not as a rigorous cure, even after correcting the trace equation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, Eq. (16)] The sign convention for the metric and d'Alembertian is not specified; the equality □f_R = -∂_t^2 f_R in Eq. (16) depends on that convention and should be stated explicitly.
  2. [§6, Eq. (43)] Equation (43) is missing the linear R term (see major comment 2); if this is a typographical omission, it should be fixed in the typeset equations.
  3. [§2.2 and references] The reference placeholder '?,' in §2.2 and the citation of [20] as a master's thesis in preparation should be completed or removed.
  4. [Throughout] The notation is inconsistent between f(R) and F(R) in Eq. (47), and the subscripts on y and γ are sometimes omitted in the text; a consistent notation table would improve readability.
  5. [§4, Fig. 3] The figures are not all fully described; for example, in Fig. 3 the authors report singularity times for g_pI = 10^{-4}, 10^{-8}, 10^{-12}, but it is not clear why the singularity time increases by orders of magnitude over a small range of g_pI; a brief explanation or zoomed plot would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

α-attractor mass is fitted to the local density, so the claimed cure reduces to an input condition.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6, immediately after Eq. (46)]
    "The condition gpIIIb ≃ 1 emerges as crucial for avoiding curvature singularities at arbitrary β≫ 1, allowing us to express the mass parameter as M 2 α/Rc =f(β,ζ,n,λ ). This dependence makes M 2 α particularly sensitive to the local density parameter β, resulting in values distinct from those constrained purely by inflationary considerations."

    Equation (46) defines gpIIIb in terms of M_α, β, ζ, n, and λ. The numerical study identifies gpIIIb≈1 as the stability threshold, and the paper then solves gpIIIb≈1 for M_α^2, explicitly writing M_α^2/Rc as a function of the local density β. Thus the 'mass parameter' is not predicted by the model; it is constructed to satisfy the desired singularity-free condition. Since β changes from one environment to another, the α-attractor correction must be re-tuned for every density. The later conclusion that α-attractor modifications prevent singularities when gpIIIb≈1 is therefore true by construction of M_α, not an independent consequence of the f(R) action in Eq. (1).

full rationale

Sections 3–5 present a self-contained numerical analysis of a trace-equation ODE; the R^2 and R^{(m+2)/(m+1)} stabilization thresholds (g>1) emerge from the dynamics of those ODEs and are not circular, and no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used. The circularity is localized to Section 6: the paper reads the gpIIIb≈1 condition from its own numerics and then inverts Eq. (46) to define M_α^2 as a function of the local density parameter β. This makes the α-attractor cure an environment-dependent fitted input rather than a prediction, so the central claim for that model reduces to the input condition. Separately, the trace equation (14) appears to contain an extra −R term compared with the contraction of Eq. (2); that is a correctness concern outside the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central singularity-cure result rests on the trace-equation toy model (Eqs. 15-16), on the imported high-curvature DE forms, and on two correction mass scales (m_R, M_α) that are tuned until the dimensionless couplings pass numerically determined thresholds. The α-attractor mass is allowed to depend on local density, which is a strong sign that the cure is being fitted rather than predicted. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (8)
  • m_R (R² correction mass scale) = 1.28e-27 M_Pl (n=2); 1.26e-22 M_Pl (n=3); 1.37e-17 M_Pl (n=4); ~1e-38 M_Pl (exponential)
    Introduced ad hoc and tuned so that g_pI or g_eI exceeds unity, the numerical threshold at which singularities vanish in Secs. 4 and 5.
  • M_α (α-attractor mass scale) = Not fixed; M_α²/Rc = f(β,ζ,n,λ), density-dependent
    Tuned to satisfy g_pIIIb ≃ 1 or g_eIIIa ≃ 1; Sec. 6 admits the required value depends on the local density β, so it is effectively fitted per environment.
  • β (local density parameter) = 1.67e5 in estimates; 10-20 and 17-30 in exponential panels
    Chosen by hand to model high-density environments; enters all threshold conditions and mass-scale estimates.
  • τch (rescaled collapse timescale) = 20, 80 (power-law); 0.05, 0.1, 0.5 (exponential)
    Hand-picked for the figures; singularity onset times quoted in Sec. 3 depend strongly on it.
  • m (generalized correction exponent) = 0.1 and 10 in figures
    Called arbitrary positive real in Sec. 5; the dynamics depend weakly on it but it is still scanned.
  • γ (amplitude in R^{(m+2)/(m+1)} model) = ~1e-11 M_Pl²
    Imported from the inflationary analysis of Ref. [13] to set Γ in Eq. (34).
  • n (power-law model index) = 2, 3, 4 in estimates; n=2 in most figures
    Free index of the base DE model; the required correction mass changes by orders of magnitude with n.
  • λ (dimensionless correction amplitude) = ≈1 in estimates
    Amplitude of the DE correction; set to order unity following the model convention.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The matter trace in a collapsing high-density region follows T(t) = -T0(1 + t/tch), Eq. (15)
    Introduced in Sec. 3; generates the entire singularity phenomenon. Taken from Refs. [10,14] without derivation from a collapse solution.
  • domain assumption The weak-field flat-space reduction □f_R ≈ -∂²_t f_R, Eq. (16), remains valid up to the singular limit R→∞
    Converts the trace equation into an ODE; the flat-space approximation is hardest to trust precisely where the curvature diverges.
  • domain assumption The simplified high-curvature forms Eqs. (12) and (13) describe the dark energy models in the singularity regime
    All derivations use the R >> Rch expansions of f_p and f_e; corrections are added in the same limit.
  • standard math The stated nonlinear ODEs have unique solutions and the numerical integrations are accurate
    No numerical method, step size, or tolerance is reported; the paper assumes the figures are faithful.
  • domain assumption The α-attractor polynomial representation Eq. (41) from Ref. [55] is correct
    The paper imports this form without derivation and builds Sec. 6 on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Preventing Curvature Singularities in $f(R)$ Dark Energy Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHT5GDRV

@misc{pith2026250820430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Preventing Curvature Singularities in $f(R)$ Dark Energy Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHT5GDRV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20430}
}
abstract

The curvature singularity problem in $f(R)$ dark energy models poses a significant challenge to their viability as alternatives to the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm. In this work, we investigate the possibility of resolving this issue by incorporating higher-order corrections that are compatible with the inflationary phase. We analyze the effects of adding $R^2$, $R^{\frac{m+2}{m+1}}$ and $\alpha$-attractor representation in $f(R)$ gravity terms to types of dark energy $f(R)$ models, focusing on their ability to prevent singularities in high-density environments. Our results demonstrate that these corrections can effectively stabilize the models, ensuring their consistency across both inflationary and late-time cosmological scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20430 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Oscillations of yp(τ ) in the power-law dark energy model for various values of n and τch in dense area (β ≫ 1). where τch = γ −1 p tch represents the rescaled characteristic timescale. The parameter β is chosen to satisfy β = κ 2T0/Rch ≃ ρm/ρc ≫ 1, ensuring that y remains finite and physically meaningful in high-density environments. For instance, for a matter density of ρm ∼ 10−24 g/cm3 and a characteristic curvat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Oscillations of ye(τ ) in the exponential-law dark energy model for various values of β and τch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Oscillations of yp(τ ) in the power-law dark energy model with R2 correction in dense area (β ≫ 1) for various values of gpI . In the high-curvature regime R ≫ Rch, the power-law f(R) dark energy model with Starobinsky correction becomes: f(R) = R − λRch " 1 −  Rch R 2n # + R2 6m2 R , (25) where mR represents an adjustable mass scale. The corresponding differential equa￾tion derived from Eq. 14 is: y ′′ p + 2n y ′… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Oscillations of ye(τ ) in the exponential-law dark energy model with R2 correction for various values geI . In the regime where R ≥ Rch, the exponential-law model takes the form f(R) = R − λRch  1 − e −R/Rch  + R2 6m2 R , (28) where the final term represents the R2 c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Oscillations of yp(τ ) in the power-law dark energy model with R m+2 m+1 correc￾tion for various values gpII . For the power-law f(R) dark energy model with R m+2 m+1 correction in the limit R ≫ Rch, we obtain: f(R) = R − λRch " 1 −  Rch R 2n # + ΓR m+2 m+1 , (33) wh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Oscillations of ye(τ ) in the exponential-law dark energy model with R m+2 m+1 correction for various values geII . The exponential-law f(R) dark energy model incorporating an R m+2 m+1 correction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Oscillations of yp(τ ) in the power-law dark energy model with α-attractor correction . Within f(R) gravity, the α-attractor model corresponds to a polynomial modi￾fication of the Starobinsky model in the high-curvature regime:55 f(R) = R +  (1 − ζ) 2 3M2 α ζ R ζ+1 +…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Oscillations of ye(τ ) in the exponential-law dark energy model with α￾attractor correction. Similar to the power-law dark energy case with α-attractor corrections, the exponential-law dark energy model exhibits modifications to curvature oscillations through the geIII…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akrami et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 641, A10 (2020), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833887

    Y. Akrami et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 641, A10 (2020), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833887

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2020

  2. [2]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. Polarski and S. Tsujikawa, Physical Review Letters98, 131302 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.131302

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.131302 2007

  3. [3]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, arXiv preprint:0807.0685 (2008), doi:10.48550/arXiv. 0807.06852

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0807.0685 2008

  4. [4]

    Tsujikawa, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023507 (2008), arXiv:0709.1391 [astro-ph] , doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023507

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Chiral Algebras of (0,2) Models

    K. Bamba and S. D. Odintsov, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2010, 008 (2010), arXiv:1001.0118 [hep-th] , doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/04/008

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Reviews in Relativity 13, 3 (2010), doi:10. 12942/lrr-2010-3

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 451 (2010), Preventing Curvature Singularities in f(R) Dark Energy Models 23 arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc] , doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Physical Review D 76, 064004 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 76.064004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd 2007

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 86, 157 (2007), arXiv:0706.2041 [astro-ph] , doi: 10.1134/S0021364007150027

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lee, C.-Q

    C.-C. Lee, C.-Q. Geng and L. Yang, Progress of Theoretical Physics 128, 415 (Jan 2012), arXiv:1201.4546, doi:10.1143/PTP.128.415

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Physics Letters B 698, 451 (2011), doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.03.038

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 06, 005 (2010), arXiv:0909.1737 [astro-ph.CO] , doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/06/005

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Sebastiani, G

    L. Sebastiani, G. Cognola, R. Myrzakulov, S. D. Odintsov and S. Zerbini, Phys- ical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology 89, 1 (Nov 2013), arXiv:1311.0744, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023518

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dutta, S

    K. Dutta, S. Panda and A. Patel, Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology 92, 1 (2015), arXiv:1504.05790, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.063503

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Geng, C.-C

    C.-Q. Geng, C.-C. Lee and S. Lin, Astrophysics and Space Science 360, 1 (2015), doi:10.1007/s10509-015-2535-9

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Cognola, E

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev. D 77, 046009 (2008), arXiv:0712.4017 [hep-th] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77. 046009

    2008 arXiv

  9. [17]

    V. K. Oikonomou, Modern Physics Letters A 32, 1750172 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732317501723, doi: 10.1142/S0217732317501723

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    R. H. S. Budhi and D. N. I. Syamputra, Revista Mexicana de F´ ısica71, 020702 1– (Mar. 2025), doi:10.31349/RevMexFis.71.020702

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    R. H. S. Budhi and D. A. Allaudza’i, Physica Scripta 100, 015304 (2024), doi:110. 1088/1402-4896/ad95c6

    2024

  12. [20]

    Shobcha, On low-curvature singularities in f(r) gravity (in preparation), master’s thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada (2025)

    N. Shobcha, On low-curvature singularities in f(r) gravity (in preparation), master’s thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (Jan 1981), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347

    1981 doi

  14. [22]

    Starobinsky, Physics Letters B 91, 99 (1980), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0370-2693(80)90670-X

    A. Starobinsky, Physics Letters B 91, 99 (1980), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0370-2693(80)90670-X

    1980

  15. [23]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Physics Reports 505, 59 (2011), doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001

    2011

  16. [24]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010), arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc], doi:10.12942/lrr-2010-3

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kuiroukidis, International Journal of Modern Physics A 32, 1 (2017), doi:10.1142/ S0217751X17501524

    A. Kuiroukidis, International Journal of Modern Physics A 32, 1 (2017), doi:10.1142/ S0217751X17501524

    2017

  18. [26]

    Kaneda, S

    S. Kaneda, S. V. Ketov and N. Watanabe, Modern Physics Letters A 25, 2753 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732310033918, doi:10.1142/S0217732310033918

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    Magnano and L

    G. Magnano and L. M. Soko lowski, Phys. Rev. D 50, 5039 (Oct 1994), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.50.5039

    1994

  20. [28]

    Faraoni and S

    V. Faraoni and S. Nadeau, Phys. Rev. D 75, 023501 (Jan 2007), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.75.023501

    2007

  21. [29]

    Linde, Physics Letters B 108, 389 (1982), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0370-2693(82)91219-9

    A. Linde, Physics Letters B 108, 389 (1982), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0370-2693(82)91219-9

    1982

  22. [30]

    D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Physics Reports 314, 1 (1999), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0370-1573(98)00128-8

    1999

  23. [31]

    Louis, A

    T. Louis, A. La Posta, Z. Atkins, H. T. Jense, I. Abril-Cabezas, G. E. Addison, P. A. 24 Romy H.S.Budhi et al. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Alford, D. Alonso et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14452 (2025), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.14452

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Calabrese, J

    E. Calabrese, J. C. Hill, H. T. Jense, A. La Posta, I. Abril-Cabezas, G. E. Addison, P. A. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Alford, D. Alonso et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14454 (2025), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.14454

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Observations (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Zhang, Phys

    P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 73, 123504 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0511218, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.73.123504

    2006 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 80, 123528 (2009), arXiv:0905.2962 [astro-ph.CO] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.123528

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chen, C.-Q

    Y.-C. Chen, C.-Q. Geng, C.-C. Lee and H. Yu, The European Physical Journal C 79, 93 (Feb 2019), arXiv:1901.06747, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6613-y

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064004 (2007), arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064004

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bamba, C.-Q

    K. Bamba, C.-Q. Geng and C.-C. Lee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20, 1339 (2011), arXiv:1108.2557 [gr-qc] , doi:10.1142/S0218271811019544

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    S. A. Appleby and R. A. Battye, Phys. Lett. B 654, 7 (2007), arXiv:0705.3199 [astro-ph], doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.08.037

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Barrow and S

    J. Barrow and S. Cotsakis, Phys. Lett. B 214, 515 (1988), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88) 90110-4

    1988 doi

  33. [41]

    A. L. Berkin and K. ichi Maeda, Physics Letters B 245, 348 (1990), doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/0370-2693(90)90657-R

    1990 doi

  34. [42]

    Saidov and A

    T. Saidov and A. Zhuk, Phys. Rev. D 81, 124002 (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81. 124002

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    Huang, J

    Q. Huang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2, 035 (2014), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/ 02/035

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Motohashi, Phys

    H. Motohashi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064016 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064016

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    B. Broy, F. Pedro and A. Westphal, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 3, 029 (2015), doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/029

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    Berera, S

    A. Berera, S. Brahma, Z. Qiu, R. Ramos and G. Rodrigues, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02655 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.02655

    doi

  39. [47]

    Dioguardi, A

    C. Dioguardi, A. J. Iovino and A. Racioppi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02809 (2025), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.02809

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    Salvio, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10488 (2025), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.10488

    A. Salvio, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10488 (2025), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.10488

    2025 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    Q. Gao, Y. Gong, Z. Yi and F. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15218 (2025), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.152188

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    Drees and Y

    M. Drees and Y. Xu, Physics Letters B 867, 139612 (2025), doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.physletb.2025.139612

    2025

  43. [51]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (2013), arXiv:1306.5220, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/07/002

    2013 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (2013), arXiv:1309.2015, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/12/006

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cos- mology 91, 1 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.083528

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Galante, R

    M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest, 2, 1 (2014), arXiv:1412.3797, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.141302

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Miranda, J

    T. Miranda, J. C. Fabris and O. F. Piattella, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017, 0 (Jul 2017), arXiv:1707.06457, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/09/041

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergenov and S. V. Ketov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10305 (2025), Preventing Curvature Singularities in f(R) Dark Energy Models 25 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.10305

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.