Next Article in Journal
The High Mass Accretion in the Innermost Regions of a Viscously Evolved Protoplanetary Disk
Previous Article in Journal
Linear Stability Analysis of Relativistic Magnetized Jets: The Minimalist Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Alleviating the H0 Tension in Scalar–Tensor and Bi-Scalar–Tensor Theories
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Universe
Volume 10
Issue 4
10.3390/universe10040184
universe-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Special Issue on Modified Gravity Approaches to the Tensions of ΛCDM: Goals and Highlights

by
Eleonora Di Valentino
1,
Leandros Perivolaropoulos
2,* and
Jackson Levi Said
3
1
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2AH, UK
2
Department of Physics, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece
3
Institute of Space Sciences and Astronomy, University of Malta, 2080 Msida, Malta
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Universe 2024, 10(4), 184; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe10040184
Submission received: 3 April 2024 / Accepted: 8 April 2024 / Published: 18 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modified Gravity Approaches to the Tensions of ΛCDM)
Versions Notes

1. Introduction

The standard cosmological model, known as Λ CDM, has been remarkably successful in providing a coherent and predictive framework for understanding the Universe’s evolution, its large-scale structure, and cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Central to this model are the cosmological constant Λ , representing dark energy responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe, and cold dark matter (CDM), which accounts for the gravitational scaffolding underlying galaxy formation and evolution. Despite its triumphs, the Λ CDM model is not without its challenges [7,8]. In recent years, high-precision cosmological observations have revealed a series of tensions that question the completeness of the Λ CDM paradigm. These tensions—most notably, the discrepancy in the Hubble constant ( H 0 ) measurements from local and early Universe observations [7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18], the growth rate of cosmic structures [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26], and the scale of cosmological anisotropies [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]—suggest potential shortcomings in our understanding of the fundamental components and laws governing the Universe.
The emergence of these tensions has spurred a vibrant discourse within the cosmological community, giving rise to the motivation behind this Special Issue on “Modified Gravity Approaches to the Tensions of Λ CDM”. These inconsistencies may herald the advent of a new standard cosmological model, one rooted in physics beyond the current paradigm. As we stand on the brink of potentially revolutionary discoveries, it becomes imperative to explore avenues beyond the conventional framework, questioning the validity of general relativity (GR) on cosmological scales and the nature of dark energy and dark matter.
Modified gravity theories offer a well-motivated and generic theoretical framework for extending and potentially supplanting the standard Λ CDM model. These theories, which range from scalar–tensor theories to more exotic formulations such as f ( R , T ) gravity and non-metricity gravity, propose alterations or extensions to GR that can naturally account for the accelerated expansion of the Universe without resorting to the cosmological constant or elucidating the dynamics of cosmic structure formation in novel ways. Their appeal lies not only in their ability to address the existing tensions [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] but also in their potential to enrich our theoretical landscape with new physics that could resolve longstanding puzzles in cosmology [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68].
This Special Issue aims to delve into the heart of these debates, presenting a collection of cutting-edge research that explores the theoretical viability, empirical implications, and observational constraints of modified gravity theories. Through this collective endeavor, we seek to illuminate the pathways toward a deeper understanding of the cosmos, guided by the principle that the resolution of the Λ CDM tensions could unveil new facets of our Universe and lay the groundwork for a new standard model of cosmology.

2. Overview of the Published Articles

Maria Petronikolou and Emmanuel N. Saridakis’s article (contribution 1 [69]) delves into scalar–tensor- and bi-scalar–tensor-modified theories of gravity as potential frameworks for alleviating the Hubble tension. By selecting models with a unique shift-symmetric friction term, their work demonstrates how these theories can significantly mitigate the discrepancy between local and early Universe measurements of the Hubble constant, offering new pathways for resolving this longstanding cosmological puzzle.
Ziad Sakr’s research (contribution 2 [70]) focuses on untangling the σ 8 discomfort by independently analyzing the matter fluctuation parameter σ 8 and the growth index γ . His innovative approach treats σ 8 as a free parameter, distinct from its traditional derivation, revealing how this separation can lead to more accurate constraints on cosmological parameters and offering a novel perspective on the growth tension within the Λ CDM framework.
Joan Solà Peracaula and colleagues (contribution 3 [71]) investigate the Running Vacuum Model (RVM) as a dynamical alternative to the cosmological constant. Their extensive analysis, supported by the latest observational data, showcases the RVM’s ability to provide a compelling fit to cosmic phenomena while potentially resolving both the σ 8 and H 0 tensions, marking a significant step towards a dynamic understanding of dark energy.
Christian Böhmer, Erik Jensko, and Ruth Lazkoz (contribution 4 [72]) employ dynamical systems analysis to explore f ( Q ) gravity’s implications for cosmological evolution. Their study elucidates how modifications in the gravity sector can lead to viable cosmological models that offer new insights into the accelerated expansion of the Universe, challenging the conventional Λ CDM model with a fresh theoretical perspective.
Mayukh R. Gangopadhyay and colleagues (contribution 5 [50]) present a scenario of large-scale modification of gravity without invoking extra degrees of freedom. Their model, incorporating interactions between baryonic and dark matter, offers a unified framework to address both the late-time acceleration of the Universe and the Hubble tension, suggesting a seamless integration of dark sector phenomena within modified gravity theories.
Filippo Bouché, Salvatore Capozziello, and Vincenzo Salzano (contribution 6 [73]) tackle cosmological tensions through the lens of non-local gravity. By revisiting the foundations of gravitational interaction, their work highlights how non-local modifications can reconcile discrepancies in Λ CDM predictions, opening the door to alternative models of dark energy and gravity.
Celia Escamilla-Rivera and Rubén Torres Castillejos (contribution 7 [74]) explore the Hubble tension using supermassive black hole shadows data. Their innovative approach leverages high-resolution astrophysical observations to infer H 0 , demonstrating the potential of black hole shadows as novel probes in cosmology and offering a fresh avenue for resolving observational tensions.
Denitsa Staicova’s contribution (contribution 8 [75]) examines dynamical dark energy models in light of combined H 0 · r d measurements. By analyzing the multiplication of the Hubble parameter and sound horizon scale as a single parameter, Staicova provides new insights into dark energy dynamics, suggesting that dynamical models could offer a resolution to the Hubble tension.
Savvas Nesseris (contribution 9 [76]) reviews the effective fluid approach as a versatile framework for representing a wide array of modified gravity models. By treating modified gravity effects as contributions from an effective dark energy fluid, Nesseris provides a unified analysis tool for comparing theoretical predictions with observational data. This approach not only facilitates the examination of modified gravity’s role in cosmic acceleration but also provides a systematic method for confronting these models with the growth rate of structure and the expansion history of the Universe, offering a bridge between theory and observation.
V. K. Oikonomou, Pyotr Tsyba, and Olga Razina (contribution 10 [77]) offer a novel perspective by exploring how Earth’s geological and climatological history, alongside the shadows of galactic black holes, might reveal insights into our Universe’s evolution. Their interdisciplinary approach highlights potential signatures of past pressure singularities and their implications for the early Universe’s dynamics. This intriguing exploration underscores the untapped potential of combining astrophysical, geological, and climatological data to inform and constrain cosmological models, opening up new avenues for understanding the Universe’s past and the nature of gravity.
Sunny Vagnozzi (contribution 11 [12]) presents a compelling argument that early-time physics modifications alone may be insufficient to resolve the Hubble tension. By synthesizing evidence across seven hints derived from cosmological observations and theoretical considerations, Vagnozzi’s work critically assesses the landscape of proposed solutions to the Hubble tension. This contribution emphasizes the necessity for a comprehensive approach that accounts for both early- and late-time Universe physics, challenging the cosmological community to broaden the scope of theoretical explorations in search of a more complete resolution to one of modern cosmology’s most pressing puzzles.
Together, these eleven contributions exemplify this Special Issue’s commitment to exploring the frontiers of modified gravity theories as viable alternatives or extensions to the Λ CDM model. Each article advances the dialogue within the cosmological community, offering fresh insights, innovative methodologies, and compelling arguments that collectively enrich our understanding of the Universe’s fundamental nature and its governing laws.

3. Conclusions

The Special Issue “Modified Gravity Approaches to the Tensions of Λ CDM” represents a significant stride toward addressing some of the most perplexing challenges in modern cosmology. Through a diverse collection of contributions, this endeavor has not only contributed to the illumination of the intricacies of the tensions within the Λ CDM model, but has also underscored the potential of modified gravity theories to pave the way for groundbreaking discoveries. Each article, in its unique capacity, has contributed to a deeper understanding of the Universe’s fundamental laws, showcasing the richness and vitality of theoretical innovation in the face of empirical puzzles.
The collective progress made through this Special Issue is a testament to the importance of continued exploration and open-mindedness in the scientific quest to understand the cosmos. The detailed examinations of modified gravity theories presented here underscore the necessity of extending our theoretical frameworks beyond the confines of general relativity and the standard cosmological model. These theories offer not just solutions to specific observational tensions, but also a broader perspective on gravity and its role in the evolution of the Universe.
Moreover, this Special Issue stands as a potential milestone in the discovery of new physics. The tensions within the Λ CDM model may indeed signal the limitations of our current understanding, pointing toward an underlying reality that is more complex and nuanced than previously thought. In this context, modified gravity theories emerge not merely as alternatives, but as harbingers of a new standard model of cosmology. They represent the most fundamental approach to addressing the cosmological tensions, weaving together the empirical anomalies with theoretical insights to sketch a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the Universe.
The journey toward resolving the enduring tensions within the Λ CDM model and unveiling the new physics that will undoubtedly reshape our cosmological paradigm is far from over. However, the contributions of this Special Issue mark critical waypoints on this journey. They invite the scientific community to reconsider the foundations of cosmology, to embrace the uncertainties and anomalies, not as mere nuisances, but as beacons guiding us toward a more profound understanding of the Universe.
As we continue to probe the depths of the cosmos with ever more sophisticated tools and technologies, the insights gleaned from modified gravity theories will undoubtedly play a special role. They offer a promising path forward, one that harmonizes the elegance of theoretical physics with the empirical realities of the Universe we strive to understand. In this endeavor, the Special Issue “Modified Gravity Approaches to the Tensions of Λ CDM” stands as both a milestone and a beacon, illuminating the path towards the next standard model of cosmology and the new physics that will underpin it.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aghanim, N. et al. [Planck Collaboration] Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 641, A6, Erratum in Astron. Astrophys. 2021, 652, C4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Qu, F.J.; Sherwin, B.D.; Madhavacheril, M.S.; Han, D.; Crowley, K.T.; Abril-Cabezas, I.; Ade, P.A.R.; Aiola, S.; Alford, T.; Amiri, M.; et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth. Astrophys. J. 2024, 962, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Balkenhol, L. et al. [SPT-3G Collaboration] Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the SPT-3G 2018 TT, TE, and EE dataset. Phys. Rev. D 2023, 108, 023510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alam, S.; Aubert, M.; Avila, S.; Balland, C.; Bautista, J.E.; Bershady, M.A.; Bizyaev, D.; Blanton, M.R.; Bolton, A.S.; Bovy, J.; et al. Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory. Phys. Rev. D 2021, 103, 083533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Asgari, M. et al. [KiDS Collaboration] KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics. Astron. Astrophys. 2021, 645, A104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abbott, T.M.C. et al. [DES Collaboration] Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 105, 023520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Perivolaropoulos, L.; Skara, F. Challenges for ΛCDM: An update. New Astron. Rev. 2022, 95, 101659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abdalla, E.; Abellán, G.F.; Aboubrahim, A.; Agnello, A.; Akarsu, Ö.; Akrami, Y.; Alestas, G.; Aloni, D.; Amendola, L.; Anchordoqui, L.A.; et al. Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies. J. High Energy Astrophys. 2022, 34, 49–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Verde, L.; Treu, T.; Riess, A.G. Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe. Nat. Astron. 2019, 3, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Di Valentino, E.; Anchordoqui, L.A.; Akarsu, Ö.; Ali-Haimoud, Y.; Amendola, L.; Arendse, N.; Asgari, M.; Ballardini, M.; Basilakos, S.; Battistelli, E.; et al. Snowmass2021—Letter of interest cosmology intertwined II: The hubble constant tension. Astropart. Phys. 2021, 131, 102605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Di Valentino, E.; Mena, O.; Pan, S.; Visinelli, L.; Yang, W.; Melchiorri, A.; Mota, D.F.; Riess, A.G.; Silk, J. In the realm of the Hubble tension—A review of solutions. Class. Quant. Grav. 2021, 38, 153001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vagnozzi, S. Seven Hints That Early-Time New Physics Alone Is Not Sufficient to Solve the Hubble Tension. Universe 2023, 9, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dainotti, M.; De Simone, B.; Montani, G.; Schiavone, T.; Lambiase, G. The Hubble constant tension: Current status and future perspectives through new cosmological probes. PoS 2023, CORFU2022, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Akarsu, O.; Colgáin, E.O.; Sen, A.A.; Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M. ΛCDM Tensions: Localising Missing Physics through Consistency Checks. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2402.04767. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kamionkowski, M.; Riess, A.G. The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2023, 73, 153–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dainotti, M.G.; De Simone, B.; Schiavone, T.; Montani, G.; Rinaldi, E.; Lambiase, G. On the Hubble constant tension in the SNe Ia Pantheon sample. Astrophys. J. 2021, 912, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jedamzik, K.; Pogosian, L.; Zhao, G.B. Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon alone can not fully resolve the Hubble tension. Commun. Phys. 2021, 4, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vagnozzi, S.; Pacucci, F.; Loeb, A. Implications for the Hubble tension from the ages of the oldest astrophysical objects. J. High Energy Astrophys. 2022, 36, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Di Valentino, E.; Anchordoqui, L.A.; Akarsu, Ö.; Ali-Haimoud, Y.; Amendola, L.; Arendse, N.; Asgari, M.; Ballardini, M.; Basilakos, S.; Battistelli, E.; et al. Cosmology Intertwined III: fσ8 and S8. Astropart. Phys. 2021, 131, 102604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Philcox, O.H.E.; Ivanov, M.M. BOSS DR12 full-shape cosmology: ΛCDM constraints from the large-scale galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum monopole. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 105, 043517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Heisenberg, L.; Villarrubia-Rojo, H.; Zosso, J. Can late-time extensions solve the H0 and σ8 tensions? Phys. Rev. D 2022, 106, 043503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Benisty, D. Quantifying the S8 tension with the Redshift Space Distortion data set. Phys. Dark Univ. 2021, 31, 100766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abbott, T.M.C. et al. [Dark Energy Survey and Kilo-Degree Survey Collaboration] DES Y3 + KiDS-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys. Open J. Astrophys. 2023, 6, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tröster, T. et al. [KiDS Collaboration] KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Constraints beyond flat ΛCDM. Astron. Astrophys. 2021, 649, A88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Joudaki, S.; Hildebrandt, H.; Traykova, D.; Chisari, N.E.; Heymans, C.; Kannawadi, A.; Kuijken, K.; Wright, A.H.; Asgari, M.; Erben, T.; et al. KiDS+VIKING-450 and DES-Y1 combined: Cosmology with cosmic shear. Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 638, L1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tröster, T.; Sánchez, A.G.; Asgari, M.; Blake, C.; Crocce, M.; Heymans, C.; Hildebrandt, H.; Joachimi, B.; Joudaki, S.; Kannawadi, A.; et al. Cosmology from large-scale structure: Constraining ΛCDM with BOSS. Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 633, L10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aluri, P.K.; Cea, P.; Chingangbam, P.; Chu, M.C.; Clowes, R.G.; Hutsemékers, D.; Kochappan, J.P.; Lopez, A.M.; Liu, L.; Martens, N.C.; et al. Is the observable Universe consistent with the cosmological principle? Class. Quant. Grav. 2023, 40, 094001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Secrest, N.J.; von Hausegger, S.; Rameez, M.; Mohayaee, R.; Sarkar, S.; Colin, J. A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2021, 908, L51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Uzan, J.P.; Clarkson, C.; Ellis, G.F.R. Time drift of cosmological redshifts as a test of the Copernican principle. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 100, 191303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mc Conville, R.; Colgáin, E.O. Anisotropic distance ladder in Pantheon+supernovae. Phys. Rev. D 2023, 108, 123533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Watkins, R.; Allen, T.; Bradford, C.J.; Ramon, A.; Walker, A.; Feldman, H.A.; Cionitti, R.; Al-Shorman, Y.; Kourkchi, E.; Tully, R.B. Analysing the large-scale bulk flow using cosmicflows4: Increasing tension with the standard cosmological model. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 524, 1885–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cowell, J.A.; Dhawan, S.; Macpherson, H.J. Potential signature of a quadrupolar hubble expansion in Pantheon+supernovae. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 526, 1482–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dam, L.; Lewis, G.F.; Brewer, B.J. Testing the cosmological principle with CatWISE quasars: A bayesian analysis of the number-count dipole. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 525, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Krishnan, C.; Mondol, R.; Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M. Dipole cosmology: The Copernican paradigm beyond FLRW. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 07, 020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bengaly, C.A.P.; Pigozzo, C.; Alcaniz, J.S. Testing the isotropy of cosmic acceleration with Pantheon+SH0ES: A cosmographic analysis. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2402.1774. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ebrahimian, E.; Krishnan, C.; Mondol, R.; Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M. Towards A Realistic Dipole Cosmology: The Dipole ΛCDM Model. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2305.16177. [Google Scholar]
  37. Perivolaropoulos, L. Isotropy properties of the absolute luminosity magnitudes of SnIa in the Pantheon+ and SH0ES samples. Phys. Rev. D 2023, 108, 063509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bahamonde, S.; Dialektopoulos, K.F.; Escamilla-Rivera, C.; Farrugia, G.; Gakis, V.; Hendry, M.; Hohmann, M.; Levi Said, J.; Mifsud, J.; Di Valentino, E. Teleparallel gravity: From theory to cosmology. Rept. Prog. Phys. 2023, 86, 026901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Adi, T.; Kovetz, E.D. Can conformally coupled modified gravity solve the Hubble tension? Phys. Rev. D 2021, 103, 023530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Marra, V.; Perivolaropoulos, L. Rapid transition of Geff at zt≃0.01 as a possible solution of the Hubble and growth tensions. Phys. Rev. D 2021, 104, L021303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Odintsov, S.D.; Sáez-Chillón Gómez, D.; Sharov, G.S. Analyzing the H0 tension in F(R) gravity models. Nucl. Phys. B 2021, 966, 115377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ballardini, M.; Braglia, M.; Finelli, F.; Paoletti, D.; Starobinsky, A.A.; Umiltà, C. Scalar-tensor theories of gravity, neutrino physics, and the H0 tension. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 10, 044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, D.; Mota, D. Can f(T) gravity resolve the H0 tension? Phys. Rev. D 2020, 102, 063530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Skara, F.; Perivolaropoulos, L. Tension of the EG statistic and redshift space distortion data with the Planck—ΛCDM model and implications for weakening gravity. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 101, 063521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Escamilla-Rivera, C.; Levi Said, J. Cosmological viable models in f(T,B) theory as solutions to the H0 tension. Class. Quant. Grav. 2020, 37, 165002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cai, Y.F.; Khurshudyan, M.; Saridakis, E.N. Model-independent reconstruction of f(T) gravity from Gaussian Processes. Astrophys. J. 2020, 888, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kazantzidis, L.; Perivolaropoulos, L. σ8 Tension. Is Gravity Getting Weaker at Low z? Observational Evidence and Theoretical Implications. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1907.03176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kazantzidis, L.; Perivolaropoulos, L. Evolution of the fσ8 tension with the Planck15/ΛCDM determination and implications for modified gravity theories. Phys. Rev. D 2018, 97, 103503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nunes, R.C. Structure formation in f(T) gravity and a solution for H0 tension. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2018, 05, 052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gangopadhyay, M.R.; Pacif, S.K.J.; Sami, M.; Sharma, M.K. Generic Modification of Gravity, Late Time Acceleration and Hubble Tension. Universe 2023, 9, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zumalacarregui, M. Gravity in the Era of Equality: Towards solutions to the Hubble problem without fine-tuned initial conditions. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 102, 023523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Benevento, G.; Kable, J.A.; Addison, G.E.; Bennett, C.L. An Exploration of an Early Gravity Transition in Light of Cosmological Tensions. Astrophys. J. 2022, 935, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Braglia, M.; Ballardini, M.; Finelli, F.; Koyama, K. Early modified gravity in light of the H0 tension and LSS data. Phys. Rev. D 2021, 103, 043528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Farhang, M.; Khosravi, N. Phenomenological Gravitational Phase Transition: Reconciliation between the Late and Early Universe. Phys. Rev. D 2021, 103, 083523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Heisenberg, L.; Villarrubia-Rojo, H. Proca in the sky. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2021, 03, 032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ballesteros, G.; Notari, A.; Rompineve, F. The H0 tension: ΔGN vs. ΔNeff. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 11, 024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Franco Abellán, G.; Braglia, M.; Ballardini, M.; Finelli, F.; Poulin, V. Probing early modification of gravity with Planck, ACT and SPT. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 12, 017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Akrami, Y.; Bahamonde, S.; Luis Blázquez-Salcedo, J.; Böhmer, C.; Bonvin, C.; Bouhmadi-López, M.; Brax, P.; Calcagni, G.; Capozziello, S.; Casa, R.; et al. Modified Gravity and Cosmology: An Update by the CANTATA Network; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Langlois, D.; Saito, R.; Yamauchi, D.; Noui, K. Scalar-tensor theories and modified gravity in the wake of GW170817. Phys. Rev. D 2018, 97, 061501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nojiri, S.; Odintsov, S.D.; Oikonomou, V.K. Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution. Phys. Rept. 2017, 692, 1–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Joyce, A.; Lombriser, L.; Schmidt, F. Dark Energy Versus Modified Gravity. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2016, 66, 95–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Joudaki, S.; Ferreira, P.G.; Lima, N.A.; Winther, H.A. Testing gravity on cosmic scales: A case study of Jordan-Brans-Dicke theory. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 105, 043522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Koyama, K. Cosmological Tests of Modified Gravity. Rept. Prog. Phys. 2016, 79, 046902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kobayashi, T. Horndeski theory and beyond: A review. Rept. Prog. Phys. 2019, 82, 086901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ishak, M. Testing General Relativity in Cosmology. Living Rev. Rel. 2019, 22, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sakstein, J.; Jain, B. Implications of the Neutron Star Merger GW170817 for Cosmological Scalar-Tensor Theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 119, 251303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Amendola, L.; Appleby, S.; Avgoustidis, A.; Bacon, D.; Baker, T.; Baldi, M.; Bartolo, N.; Blanchard, A.; Bonvin, C.; Borgani, S.; et al. Cosmology and fundamental physics with the Euclid satellite. Living Rev. Rel. 2018, 21, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Crisostomi, M.; Koyama, K.; Tasinato, G. Extended Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2016, 04, 044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Petronikolou, M.; Saridakis, E.N. Alleviating the H0 Tension in Scalar–Tensor and Bi-Scalar–Tensor Theories. Universe 2023, 9, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sakr, Z. Untying the Growth Index to Relieve the σ8 Discomfort. Universe 2023, 9, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sola Peracaula, J.; Gomez-Valent, A.; de Cruz Perez, J.; Moreno-Pulido, C. Running Vacuum in the Universe: Phenomenological Status in Light of the Latest Observations, and Its Impact on the σ8 and H0 Tensions. Universe 2023, 9, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Boehmer, C.G.; Jensko, E.; Lazkoz, R. Dynamical Systems Analysis of f(Q) Gravity. Universe 2023, 9, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bouchè, F.; Capozziello, S.; Salzano, V. Addressing Cosmological Tensions by Non-Local Gravity. Universe 2023, 9, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Escamilla-Rivera, C.; Torres Castillejos, R. H0 Tension on the Light of Supermassive Black Hole Shadows Data. Universe 2023, 9, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Staicova, D. DE Models with Combined H0 · rd from BAO and CMB Dataset and Friends. Universe 2022, 8, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nesseris, S. The Effective Fluid approach for Modified Gravity and its applications. Universe 2023, 9, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Oikonomou, V.K.; Tsyba, P.; Razina, O. Probing Our Universe’s Past Using Earth’s Geological and Climatological History and Shadows of Galactic Black Holes. Universe 2022, 8, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Di Valentino, E.; Perivolaropoulos, L.; Said, J.L. Special Issue on Modified Gravity Approaches to the Tensions of ΛCDM: Goals and Highlights. Universe 2024, 10, 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe10040184

AMA Style

Di Valentino E, Perivolaropoulos L, Said JL. Special Issue on Modified Gravity Approaches to the Tensions of ΛCDM: Goals and Highlights. Universe. 2024; 10(4):184. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe10040184

Chicago/Turabian Style

Di Valentino, Eleonora, Leandros Perivolaropoulos, and Jackson Levi Said. 2024. "Special Issue on Modified Gravity Approaches to the Tensions of ΛCDM: Goals and Highlights" Universe 10, no. 4: 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe10040184

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop