Conditions for the cosmological viability of f(R) dark energy models
Luca Amendola, Radouane Gannouji, David Polarski, Shinji Tsujikawa

TL;DR
This paper establishes the conditions under which f(R) gravity models can produce a realistic cosmological evolution, including a matter-dominated era followed by late-time acceleration, by analyzing the geometric properties of the models in the (r, m) plane.
Contribution
It introduces a geometrical classification of f(R) models based on the m(r) curve, identifying criteria for their cosmological viability and ruling out certain popular models.
Findings
Viable f(R) models must have m(r) curves connecting matter and acceleration regions.
Models like f(R)=alpha R^{-n} are not cosmologically acceptable for positive or negative n.
Most f(R) models tend to replace matter era with a t^{1/2} expansion, and phantom attractors are incompatible with matter epochs.
Abstract
We derive the conditions under which dark energy models whose Lagrangian densities f are written in terms of the Ricci scalar R are cosmologically viable. We show that the cosmological behavior of f(R) models can be understood by a geometrical approach consisting in studying the m(r) curve on the (r, m) plane, where m=Rf_{,RR}/f_{,R} and r=-Rf_{,R}/f with f_{,R}=df/dR. This allows us to classify the f(R) models into four general classes, depending on the existence of a standard matter epoch and on the final accelerated stage. The existence of a viable matter dominated epoch prior to a late-time acceleration requires that the variable m satisfies the conditions m(r) approx+0 and dm/dr>-1 at r approx-1. For the existence of a viable late-time acceleration we require instead either (i) m=-r-1, (sqrt{3}-1)/2<m<1 and dm/dr<-1 or (ii) 0<m<1 at r=-2. These conditions identify two regions in…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
