Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Solar system experiments do not yet veto modified gravity models

Open access
Faraoni, Valerio·2006·Physical Review D

Abstract

The dynamical equivalence between modified and scalar-tensor gravity theories is revisited and it is concluded that it breaks down in the limit to general relativity. A gauge-independent analysis of cosmological perturbations in both classes of theories lends independent support to this conclusion. As a consequence, the PPN formalism of scalar-tensor gravity and Solar System experiments do not veto modified gravity, as previously thought.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.74.023529

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Faraoni, V.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2006-07-27
Volume
74
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W2072524000
Cited by
191
References
11
FWCI
13.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Solar system experiments do not yet veto modified gravity models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physrevd.74.023529
The paper
Faraoni, V. (2006). Solar system experiments do not yet veto modified gravity models. Physical Review D. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.74.023529

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.