REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by
To the Problem of Cosmic Expansion in Massive Gravity
T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper classifies the dynamical flat FLRW backgrounds of dRGT massive gravity by demanding that the square-root tensor itself be homogeneous and isotropic, and shows that on every such background scalar and vector perturbations are…
desk verdict A credible negative result for dRGT flat FLRW cosmologies, held back by a mislabeled appendix and an unproven zero-sound-speed claim that a referee should check. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The carrying object is the square-root tensor $X^\mu{}_\nu = \left(\sqrt{g^{-1}\partial\phi^a\partial\phi^b f_{ab}}\right)^\mu{}_\nu$, the single building block from which every dRGT potential is assembled via $K^\mu{}_\nu=\delta^\mu{}_\nu-X^\mu{}_\nu$. Imposing on it the FLRW form $X^0{}_0=F(t)$, $X^0{}_i=0$, $X^i{}_j=G(t)\delta^i{}_j$ reduces the background dynamics to two time-dependent functions $F$ and $G$ and to the constraint system $F^2=-\dot\phi^a\dot\phi^b f_{ab}$, $0=\dot\phi^a\partial_i\phi^b f_{ab}$, $G^2\delta_{ij}=a^{-2}\partial_i\phi^a\partial_j\phi^b f_{ab}$. The continuity equation for the Stueckelberg sector factorizes into an algebraic branch selector (which fixes $G$ on the $\Lambda$-branch) and the universal factor $\dot{G}+H(G-F)$ that defines the Mixed branch; this factorization is what turns the search for cosmologies into a complete classification.
What would settle it
Find an explicit family of Stueckelberg fields and a reference metric that satisfies Eqs. (3.5) with $G=3/2$ and a Minkowski $f_{ab}=\eta_{ab}$; existence would put the $\Lambda$-branch on a concrete footing, while a no-go proof would empty that branch in the standard setup. Alternatively, compute the cubic action on the Mixed branch: a nonzero cubic vertex would confirm the strong-coupling diagnosis, whereas a vanishing cubic vertex would reopen the question of whether the scalar mode truly fails to propagate.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that requiring the square-root tensor to respect the symmetries of a flat FLRW universe, $X^0{}_0=F(t)$, $X^0{}_i=0$, $X^i{}_j=G(t)\delta^i{}_j$, reorganizes dRGT massive gravity into a two-branch classification. In the $\Lambda$-branch the value of $G$ is fixed (to $3/2$ in the minimal model, or to the roots $G_\pm$ of a quadratic in the full theory), and the Stueckelberg stress-energy tensor becomes a cosmological constant with $w=-1$; in the Mixed branch the relation $\dot{G}+H(G-F)=0$ holds, and for a Minkowski reference metric this leads to solutions with $F=0$, $G=g/a$ (a mixture of fluids with equations of state $w=-1,-2/3,-1/3$, plus $w=0$ in the full theory) and to solutions with $F\neq 0$ in which $H\propto 1/a$ and $\ddot{a}=0$. The fields that realize these backgrounds must be inhomogeneous and/or anisotropic; homogeneous Stueckelberg fields with a Minkowski reference metric return the old no-go $\dot{a}=0$. In the unitary-gauge perturbative expansion on these backgrounds, the quadratic Lagrangian has vanishing kinetic terms for the scalar and vector modes on the $\Lambda$-branch, while on the Mixed branch the vector mode can propagate (subject to positivity and gradient-stability constraints) but the scalar mode has zero speed of sound in the sub-horizon limit; adding matter does not change this qualitative picture.
Load-bearing premise
The classification rests on the assumption that at least one actual choice of reference metric and Stueckelberg-field profile satisfies the consistency constraints (3.5) for each branch; the paper proves the consistency conditions are necessary but does not exhibit a $\Lambda$-branch profile for a Minkowski reference metric, and its Mixed-branch construction assumes the spatial Jacobian $\det(\partial_i\phi^n)$ is nonzero.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- On the $\Lambda$-branch only tensor metric perturbations propagate; scalar and vector modes are frozen at quadratic order, so the self-accelerating background cannot seed structure formation in the standard way.
- On the Mixed branch the scalar mode has vanishing speed of sound on sub-horizon scales, so scalar perturbations do not propagate linearly; vector modes can propagate only if $\dot{H}>0$ and a gradient-stability inequality is satisfied.
- Adding ordinary matter to either background does not cure the scalar/vector pathologies; in the large-$k$ limit the scalar mode still has zero sound speed.
- The full dRGT theory adds a dust-like ($w=0$) component to the Stueckelberg fluid on the Mixed branch, opening a background-level channel for massive-gravity polarizations to mimic dark matter, but the perturbation results block using those backgrounds as a viable cosmological model.
- For any flat FLRW background in this classification, the dRGT theory cannot reproduce the healthy linear perturbation theory of $\Lambda$CDM; this places the cosmologies under strong-coupling control rather than under weak-field perturbative control.
Reading between the lines
- The symmetry-first method is not tied to a particular $f_{ab}$: the same $F,G$ classification could in principle be re-run for non-Minkowski reference metrics, non-flat spatial curvature, or Bianchi-type symmetries, and the paper does not rule out that new branches could appear there.
- The paper gives no explicit Stueckelberg profile realizing the $\Lambda$-branch when the reference metric is Minkowski; closing that gap is the minimal test of whether the self-accelerating branch actually exists in the standard setup.
- A concrete nonlinear test would be to compute the cubic action on the Mixed branch: if the cubic vertices are nonzero, the zero-sound-speed scalar mode is genuinely strongly coupled, and if they vanish the diagnosis would change.
- Because the backgrounds require inhomogeneous Stueckelberg fields, the effective perfect-fluid description hides a large internal configuration space; a natural next step is to check whether those hidden configurations introduce additional light degrees of freedom beyond the metric perturbation analysis.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes a classification of spatially flat FLRW cosmologies in ghost-free (dRGT) massive gravity. The central move is to impose the FLRW symmetries on the building block X^μ_ν = (√(g^{-1}∂φ^a∂φ^b f_ab))^μ_ν rather than on the Stueckelberg fields or the reference metric, assuming X^0_0 = F(t), X^0_i = 0, X^i_j = G(t)δ^i_j (Eq. 3.4). Under this ansatz the Stueckelberg stress-energy tensor is a perfect fluid depending only on F and G, and the continuity equation factorizes so that every solution belongs either to a Λ-branch (G = 3/2 in the minimal model; a quadratic condition in the full theory) or to a Mixed branch (Ġ + H(G−F) = 0). For a Minkowski reference metric, the Mixed branch admits G = g/a solutions whose Stueckelberg sector behaves as a mixture of perfect fluids, and a linearly expanding solution; the Λ-branch acts as a cosmological constant. A unitary-gauge perturbation analysis yields explicit quadratic Lagrangians: on the Λ-branch the scalar and vector kinetic terms vanish, and on the Mixed branch the scalar sound speed vanishes in the large-k limit, i.e., strong coupling at quadratic level in both cases. The whole classification is conditional on the existence of Stueckelberg/reference-metric profiles realizing (3.4); Appendix A constructs explicit profile families for the Minkowski reference metric, and Appendix B extends the stability analysis in the presence of matter.
Significance. If the classification is complete and the profile-existence premise is met, the paper establishes a clean structural result: every flat FLRW-compatible X background in dRGT is strongly coupled in the scalar sector at quadratic level, with only tensor modes propagating on the Λ-branch. The factorization of the continuity equation (3.13)/(3.26) and the explicit quadratic Lagrangians in Sec. 4 are concrete and checkable; the branch conditions are parameter-free in the sense that no fitted constants enter the classification. The authors also deserve credit for flagging the existence assumption in Sec. 2 and the Conclusions and for noting in footnote 6 that the earlier self-accelerating solutions of [18] have non-diagonal X, which sharpens the definition of the ansatz. The confirmatory value is real: the strong coupling of the self-accelerating solution is consistent with refs. [19, 23-26]. The main risk to the paper's significance is that the strongest conclusions (the Λ-branch existence and the exact zero sound speed on the Mixed branch) rest on premises that are partially unproven or only asserted; these are the points addressed in the major comments.
major comments (4)
- [App. A.1; Secs. 3.2.1, 4.2–4.3; Conclusions] The construction in Appendix A.1, despite its title, does not realize the Λ-branch. Equation (A.13) is precisely the Mixed-branch relation (3.18) (with σ = k σ_u/2), so the families (A.15) tie G(t) to a(t) through ∫ F dt′; they do not produce the Λ-branch condition G = 3/2. Inserting G = 3/2 into (A.13) would force a(t) ∝ |k/2 + σ_u∫F dt′|, an additional constraint absent from the Λ-branch background analysis of Sec. 3.2.1, and no alternative profile family with G = 3/2 is exhibited. The Conclusions explicitly state that no simple configuration is provided for Minkowski f_ab. The perturbation results of Secs. 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 (vanishing vector and scalar kinetic terms, strong coupling) concern precisely this branch, so the unproven existence of Λ-branch profiles realizing (3.4) is load-bearing for the central claim. I recommend either constructing such a family explicitly, noting that the known self-accelerating solutions of refs. [20–22] have non-diagonal X as explained in footnote 6, or reframing the Λ-branch claims as explicitly conditional on an existence assumption.
- [Sec. 4.2.2, Eqs. (4.11)–(4.13)] There is a sign error in the vector no-ghost condition. From Eq. (4.12), the large-k kinetic coefficient is K_Êi ≃ −aḢ/2, so requiring K_Êi > 0 implies Ḣ < 0, not "Ḣ must be positive" as stated in the text; the rewritten Lagrangian (4.13) has the same sign structure. The scalar sector gives the same requirement: K_E² from Eq. (4.20) behaves as −(a k²/2)Ḣ at large k, and Sec. 4.3 correctly concludes Ḣ < 0. The manuscript therefore assigns opposite viability conditions to the vector and scalar sectors on the same Mixed-branch background; one of the statements is inconsistent with the displayed formulas. Since the parameter-space constraints (4.15) and the claim that vectors propagate healthily depend on this sign, the authors should correct it and re-state the resulting stability conditions.
- [Sec. 4.3.2, Eqs. (4.22)–(4.24)] The central strong-coupling conclusion on the Mixed branch is the vanishing of the scalar sound speed, which follows from the assertion that the left-hand side of (4.24) is "exactly saturated, with the LHS exactly zero" on this background. The saturation is stated without derivation. Because c_s² = 0 is a main physical output of the paper, the explicit evaluation of (4.24) using the Mixed-branch background equations (3.12), (3.13), and (3.17)–(3.18), together with the full-theory counterparts, should be displayed or the required identities given so that the claimed cancellation is directly checkable by the reader.
- [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.5); Introduction, p. 3; App. A] The Introduction's claim that the existence of the solutions "is actually guaranteed for any possible choice of f_ab and ϕa which satisfy a set of consistency conditions (in the form of complicated partial differential equations)" overstates what is proven. As stated, the sentence is near-tautological: the nontrivial content is that the PDE system (3.5) admits solutions for a useful class of reference metrics. The paper provides such families for f_ab = η_ab in Appendix A under the assumptions φ̇⁰ ≠ 0 and Det[∂_iϕ^n] ≠ 0, but no existence statement or example is given for general f_ab, and the Λ-branch case is not covered even for Minkowski (Major Comment 1). The "similar construction" for arbitrary f_ab announced at the start of Appendix A is not carried out. The authors should qualify the generality claim accordingly, or supply an existence theorem or a detailed sketch for the PDE system.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. 3.2.2, after Eq. (3.20)] The interval in which the Stueckelberg energy density is positive should read g/2 < a < g, since positivity of −(2 − 3G + G²) in (3.16)/(3.20) requires 1 < G < 2 with G = g/a; the printed "g²" appears to be a typo.
- [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.6)–(4.7)] The statement that tensor perturbations impose no constraints on the background addresses only ghost and gradient instabilities. The sign of the tensor mass m²_ĥ in (4.7) can change with the dRGT parameters and the branch, and a negative m²_ĥ corresponds to a tachyonic instability; a comment on the associated parameter constraints (e.g., of the Higuchi type on the Λ-branch) would make the stability discussion complete.
- [Appendix A, Eqs. (A.1)–(A.4)] The derivation leading to (A.3) uses φ̇⁰ ≠ 0 and Det[∂_iϕ^n] ≠ 0, but these assumptions are not stated when the system (A.1) is introduced, and their validity for the constructed families in A.2 (in particular the A² = 1 case) is not checked. Please state the assumptions explicitly and verify them for each displayed family.
- [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and consistency issues: "FLRW" is typeset as "FLR W" in the abstract and several places; the Sec. 3.2.2 heading uses "Mix-Branch" instead of "Mixed Branch"; in Sec. 2 the phrase "condition∂iϕ" is missing "= 0"; the characterization of Ref. [20] in the Introduction as a spherically symmetric Stueckelberg configuration should be checked against the cited paper; and the bibliography contains odd renderings of non-ASCII author names (e.g., refs. [10], [21]). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the classification and strong-coupling results are derived from the dRGT action under an explicitly stated existence assumption, not from fitted inputs or self-citations.
full rationale
The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. It imposes FLRW symmetries on X^mu_nu (Eq. 3.4), derives the Stueckelberg consistency conditions (Eq. 3.5), computes the effective fluid from the dRGT potentials (Eqs. 3.10-3.11), and obtains the branch split from the factorization of the continuity equation (Eqs. 3.13 and 3.26). The Lambda-branch condition G=3/2 (or its full-theory analogue) and the Mixed-branch condition arise algebraically from the equations of motion, not from an ansatz that already contains the branch structure. The perturbation analysis in Sec. 4 is a direct computation from the quadratic Lagrangian, and the strong-coupling conclusions follow from the vanishing kinetic terms (e.g., K_E^2 ∝ dot H on the Lambda-branch). No parameter is fitted to a target prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to an equation that was assumed as an equivalent conclusion. The paper explicitly flags the one external input: the existence of Stueckelberg/reference-metric configurations realizing the X ansatz, stated in Sec. 2 and Sec. 5 ('Assuming there exists at least a choice of f_ab...'), and the Conclusions admit that no simple Lambda-branch profile is provided for Minkowski. Appendix A constructs Mixed-branch profiles under Det[∂i ϕ^n] ≠ 0, but the absence of a general solubility proof is an existence caveat, not a circular reduction: the classification and strong-coupling results do not use the Lambda-branch profile to define the ansatz. There are no self-citations by the present authors, and the cited prior work [18,20] is used for context and comparison, not as an unverified load-bearing premise. Therefore the paper warrants a circularity score of 0.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- lambda_1 =
not fitted
- sigma =
not fitted
- g =
g = +/- |sigma| sqrt(lambda_1), free
- k, k0, sigma_u (profile parameters) =
not fitted
assumptions (5)
- ad hoc to paper There exists at least one choice of reference metric f_ab and Stueckelberg profiles phi^a such that (X^2)^mu_nu is FLRW-compatible, i.e. X^0_0 = F, X^0_i = 0, X^i_j = G delta^i_j.
- domain assumption Det[partial_i phi^n] is nonzero for the Stueckelberg spatial gradients.
- domain assumption The physical metric is spatially flat and isotropic with ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)^2 dx^2.
- domain assumption For the Mixed-branch relation (3.18), the reference metric is Minkowski eta_ab.
- domain assumption The square-root tensor X^mu_nu is symmetric and diagonal on the background.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of To the Problem of Cosmic Expansion in Massive Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTYGORPJ
@misc{pith2026241119873,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: To the Problem of Cosmic Expansion in Massive Gravity},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTYGORPJ}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19873}
}
abstract
We consider evolving, spatially flat isotropic and homogeneous (FLRW) cosmologies in ghost-free (dRGT) massive gravity. In this theory, no dynamical flat FLRW background exists if the reference metric is chosen to be Minkowski and the Stueckelberg fields are homogeneous. Relaxing the assumptions on the Stueckelberg profiles gives access to dynamical backgrounds. We propose a classification of the viable flat FLRW cosmological solutions of dRGT massive gravity. Instead of specifying an initial ansatz for the Stueckelberg fields $\phi^a$ and the reference metric $f_{ab}$, we show that imposing homogeneity and isotropy on the square root tensor $X^{\mu}_{\nu}=\left(\sqrt{g^{-1}\partial\phi^a \partial\phi^bf_{ab}}\right)^{\mu}_{\nu}$ leads to dynamical cosmological solutions, and we characterize their properties. These solutions become dynamical only when the Stueckelberg fields acquire a sufficiently inhomogeneous and/or anisotropic profile. We explore the consequences for the minimal model and the complete dRGT theory, and show that perturbations are strongly coupled, at the quadratic level, on these backgrounds.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Do Pulsar Timing Datasets Favor Massive Gravity?
A one-parameter massive-gravity correlation curve gives lower chi-square than the Hellings-Downs curve for current pulsar-timing data, but the parameter is fitted to the data, so the result is not a prediction.
-
Black hole solutions in theory of ModMax-dRGT-like massive gravity
Purely electric ModMax electrodynamics is just Maxwell with a rescaled coupling, so the reported ModMax-dRGT black holes are known dRGT-like massive gravity solutions with a redefined charge.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[18]
G. D’Amico, C. de Rham, S. Dubovsky, G. Gabadadze, D. Pirtskhalava, and A. J. Tolley, “Massive Cosmologies,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 124046, 1108.5231
arXiv 2011
-
[1]
First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,
Event Horizon T elescopeCollaboration, K. Akiyama et. al. , “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 875 (2019) L1, 1906.11238. 28
arXiv 2019
-
[2]
Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,
LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, B. P. Abbott et. al., “Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (Feb, 2016) 061102
work page 2016
-
[3]
Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,
Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et. al. , “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, 1807.06209. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]
arXiv 2020
-
[4]
Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,
G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, “Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,” Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279–390, hep-ph/0404175
arXiv 2005
-
[5]
Observational Probes of Cosmic Acceleration,
D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hirata, A. G. Riess, and E. Rozo, “Observational Probes of Cosmic Acceleration,” Phys. Rept. 530 (2013) 87–255, 1201.2434
arXiv 2013
-
[6]
E. Abdalla et. al. , “Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,” JHEAp 34 (2022) 49–211, 2203.06142
arXiv 2022
-
[7]
DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,
DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame et. al. , “DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,” 2404.03002
arXiv 2024
Show all 29 references
-
[8]
Modified Gravity and Cosmology,
T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, “Modified Gravity and Cosmology,” Phys. Rept. 513 (2012) 1–189, 1106.2476
2012 arXiv
-
[9]
Testing General Relativity in Cosmology,
M. Ishak, “Testing General Relativity in Cosmology,” Living Rev. Rel. 22 (2019), no. 1 1, 1806.10122
2019 arXiv
-
[10]
Akrami et
CANT A T ACollaboration, Y. Akrami et. al. , Modified Gravity and Cosmology. An Update by the CANTATA Network. Springer, 2021
2021
-
[11]
Generalization of the fierz-pauli action,
C. de Rham and G. Gabadadze, “Generalization of the fierz-pauli action,” Physical Review D 82 (Aug., 2010)
2010
-
[12]
Resummation of Massive Gravity,
C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, “Resummation of Massive Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 231101, 1011.1232
2011 arXiv
- [13]
-
[14]
Theoretical aspects of massive gravity,
K. Hinterbichler, “Theoretical aspects of massive gravity,” Reviews of Modern Physics 84 (May,
-
[15]
Self-accelerating cosmologies and hairy black holes in ghost-free bigravity and massive gravity,
M. S. Volkov, “Self-accelerating cosmologies and hairy black holes in ghost-free bigravity and massive gravity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 30 (Sept., 2013) 184009
2013
-
[16]
Beyond positivity bounds and the fate of massive gravity,
B. Bellazzini, F. Riva, J. Serra, and F. Sgarlata, “Beyond positivity bounds and the fate of massive gravity,” Physical Review Letters 120 (Apr., 2018). 29
2018
-
[17]
Massive gravity is not positive,
B. Bellazzini, G. Isabella, S. Ricossa, and F. Riva, “Massive gravity is not positive,” Physical Review D 109 (Jan., 2024)
2024
-
[19]
Cosmology and perturbations in massive gravity,
G. D’Amico, “Cosmology and perturbations in massive gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 124019, 1206.3617
2012 arXiv
-
[20]
Exact self-accelerating cosmologies in the ghost-free massive gravity – the detailed derivation,
M. S. Volkov, “Exact self-accelerating cosmologies in the ghost-free massive gravity – the detailed derivation,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 104022, 1207.3723
2012 arXiv
-
[21]
Anisotropic friedmann–robertson–walker universe from nonlinear massive gravity,
A. E. G¨ umr¨ uk¸ c¨ uo˘ glu, C. Lin, and S. Mukohyama, “Anisotropic friedmann–robertson–walker universe from nonlinear massive gravity,” Physics Letters B 717 (Oct., 2012) 295–298
2012
-
[22]
Self-accelerating massive gravity: Exact solutions for any isotropic matter distribution,
P. Gratia, W. Hu, and M. Wyman, “Self-accelerating massive gravity: Exact solutions for any isotropic matter distribution,” Physical Review D 86 (Sept., 2012)
2012
-
[23]
Exact solutions in massive gravity,
G. Tasinato, K. Koyama, and G. Niz, “Exact solutions in massive gravity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 30 (Sept., 2013) 184002
2013
-
[24]
Stability of the self-accelerating universe in massive gravity,
N. Khosravi, G. Niz, K. Koyama, and G. Tasinato, “Stability of the self-accelerating universe in massive gravity,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (Aug., 2013) 044–044
2013
-
[25]
Vector instabilities and self-acceleration in the decoupling limit of massive gravity,
G. Tasinato, K. Koyama, and G. Niz, “Vector instabilities and self-acceleration in the decoupling limit of massive gravity,” Physical Review D 87 (Mar., 2013)
2013
-
[26]
Nonlinear stability of cosmological solutions in massive gravity,
A. D. Felice, A. E. G¨ umr¨ uk¸ c¨ uo˘ g, C. Lin, and S. Mukohyama, “Nonlinear stability of cosmological solutions in massive gravity,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (May, 2013) 035–035
2013
-
[27]
Effective matter cosmologies of massive gravity i: non-physical fluids,
N. T. Yılmaz, “Effective matter cosmologies of massive gravity i: non-physical fluids,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (Aug., 2014) 037–037
2014
-
[28]
Solid inflation,
S. Endlich, A. Nicolis, and J. Wang, “Solid inflation,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (Oct., 2013) 011–011
2013
-
[29]
Frw cosmology in ghost free massive gravity from bigravity,
D. Comelli, M. Crisostomi, F. Nesti, and L. Pilo, “Frw cosmology in ghost free massive gravity from bigravity,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (Mar., 2012). 30
2012
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.