Cited by 46Relativity and Gravitational TheoryCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research

Testing theories of gravity with planetary ephemerides

Open access
Fienga, Agnès, Minazzoli, Olivier·2024·Living Reviews in Relativity

Abstract

Abstract We describe here how planetary ephemerides are built in the framework of General Relativity and how they can be used to test alternative theories. We focus on the definition of the reference frame (space and time) in which the planetary ephemeris is described, the equations of motion that govern the orbits of solar system bodies and electromagnetic waves. After a review on the existing planetary and lunar ephemerides, we summarize the results obtained considering full modifications of the ephemeris framework with direct comparisons with the observations of planetary systems, with a specific attention for the PPN formalism. We then discuss other formalisms such as Einstein-dilaton theories, the massless graviton and MOND. The paper finally concludes on some comments and recommendations regarding misinterpreted measurements of the advance of perihelia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s41114-023-00047-0

Cites

212 of 212 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If the distant perturber's signal is not explicitly modeled, it may be partially or totally removed, being absorbed in values of solved-for parameters, resulting in overly optimistic tight constraints.

    “Otherwise, its signal, if real, may in principle be partially or totally removed, being absorbed in values of the solved-for parameters that are estimated in the data reduction procedure, thus resulting in overly optimistic tight constraints [35].”

    From Has Kronos Devoured Planet Nine and Its Epigones? (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fienga, A., & Minazzoli, O.
Affiliations
  • Observatoire de Paris (FR)
  • Astrophysique Relativiste, Théories, Expériences, Métrologie, Instrumentation, Signaux (FR)
Corresponding author
Fienga, Agnès
Venue
Living Reviews in Relativity
Published
2024-01-29
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
1
ISSN
1433-8351 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391322514
Cited by
45
References
212
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 1
FWCI
8.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Living Reviews in Relativity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Relativity and Gravitational Theory
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Pulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Keywords
planetary ephemerides, modified gravity, general relativity, perihelion precession, PPN formalism, lunar ephemeris, massless graviton, MOND, solar system tests of gravity, reference frames, equations of motion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review