Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Unveiling the Effects of Coupling Extended Proca-Nuevo Gravity on Cosmic Expansion with Recent Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A modified gravity model with a massive spin-1 field fits the latest cosmic expansion data at up to 3-sigma.

desk verdict Workmanlike extension of existing CEPN constraints to DESI/GRB data; the key theoretical reduction is cited, not derived, and the statistics are rougher than the tables suggest, but the central fit is plausible. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02707 v1 pith:IOXMYR62 submitted 2024-11-26 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

L. Sudharani , N. S. Kavya , V. Venkatesha This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Es04.50.Kd
keywords CouplingExtendedProca-Nuevogravitymassivespin-1fielddarkenergyHubbletensionDESIBAOcosmicchronometergamma-rayburstPantheon+supernovae
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that Covariant Extended Proca-Nuevo (CEPN) gravity, a non-linear theory of a massive spin-1 field extending dRGT massive gravity, can produce the late-time acceleration of the Universe without a cosmological constant. After reducing the cosmological background to a single algebraic Friedmann equation in the Hubble rate, the paper fits that equation to DESI BAO, cosmic chronometer, gamma-ray burst, and Pantheon+ supernova data and reports statistical compatibility at up to 3-$\sigma$. The full combined fit yields $\Omega_{m0} = 0.317 \pm 0.011$, $H_0 = 73.89 \pm 0.19$ km/s/Mpc, a present deceleration parameter around $-0.575$, and a transition redshift near $0.60$, which the authors read as quintessence-like behavior. The reason to care is that this is a concrete test of whether a theoretically motivated massive-vector-field theory can accommodate the expansion data and speak to the Hubble tension.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified Friedmann equation obtained after the vector-field constraint is solved and constants eliminated: $H^2 = H_0^2 \Omega_{m0}(1+z)^3 + (1-\Omega_{m0})H_0^{8/3}H^{-2/3}$. This single algebraic equation encodes the entire CEPN dark-energy sector for the background, and it is the expression the MCMC code feeds into the likelihood to produce theoretical Hubble parameters, distance moduli, and BAO distances. Its distinctive feature is the fractional-power term $H^{-2/3}$: it is subdominant at high redshift, reproduces $\Lambda$CDM-like behavior today, and produces a small but detectable deviation at intermediate redshifts, which is exactly where the data in this paper have constraining power.

What would settle it

High-precision measurements of the Hubble parameter in the redshift window $0.5 \lesssim z \lesssim 1.5$ could settle the claim, because that is where the $H^{-2/3}$ term departs most from $\Lambda$CDM; if those measurements trace the $\Lambda$CDM curve within about one percent while the CEPN best fit requires a several-percent deviation, the model's central claim fails. A second decisive check is to compute the sound horizon $r_d$ from the CEPN background at early times and compare it with the DESI-inferred value, since the paper fixes $r_d$ from the fit rather than deriving it from the model itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the CEPN background Friedmann equation, with its distinctive $H^{-2/3}$ dark-energy term, is compatible with the current generation of expansion-rate and distance data. The fit to the DESI+GRBs+CCh+SNeIa combination gives $H_0 = 73.89 \pm 0.19$ km/s/Mpc and $\Omega_{m0} = 0.317^{+0.011}_{-0.012}$, with the deceleration parameter $q_0$ near $-0.575$ and the transition from deceleration to acceleration near $z_t \approx 0.60$. The paper argues that the information-criteria comparison shows the CEPN model is statistically compatible with $\Lambda$CDM for most dataset combinations, and that the current accelerated expansion is quintessential. It does not claim the model replaces $\Lambda$CDM; it claims the model is a viable ghost-free alternative whose extra term becomes significant at intermediate redshifts.

Load-bearing premise

The entire fit relies on the prior derivation that the full CEPN Lagrangian, with its arbitrary functions, collapses to the simple $H^{-2/3}$ dark-energy density, a reduction the paper takes from earlier work and does not re-derive, so a failure or heavy fine-tuning in that reduction would invalidate all the reported constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The CEPN model provides a background-level dark-energy extension with no extra free parameters beyond $\Omega_{m0}$ and $H_0$, so future expansion-rate surveys can directly test its distinctive $H^{-2/3}$ signature.
  • DESI BAO data alone put a tighter constraint on $H_0$ than the older WiggleZ sample, and the paper argues this stronger constraining power can help in addressing the Hubble tension.
  • When Pantheon+ Cepheid distances are included, the combined fit returns $H_0$ on the higher side, $73.89$ km/s/Mpc, so the model does not eliminate the discrepancy with the lower Planck value; it shifts toward the local measurement.
  • The information-criteria analysis shows the CEPN model and $\Lambda$CDM are statistically indistinguishable for the DESI, DESI+GRBs, and DESI+GRBs+CCh combinations, meaning the CEPN term is a viable alternative rather than a disfavoured one.
  • The derived $q_0$ and $z_t$ values place the model in the quintessence camp, which is a concrete, falsifiable prediction about the equation of state of the dark-energy sector.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step the paper leaves implicit is a joint fit that includes the CMB, since the model's early-time sound horizon is not fixed by the background fit; such a fit would either validate or expose the $H^{-2/3}$ term at recombination.
  • The fractional-power $H^{-2/3}$ dependence is an unusual prediction: it implies the dark-energy density grows relative to matter as the Universe expands into the far future, unlike a cosmological constant, a difference that upcoming deep surveys could in principle observe.
  • Because the paper fixes $r_d$ rather than computing it, the quoted $H_0$ constraint inherits the DESI sound-horizon calibration; a self-consistent computation would propagate that uncertainty into $H_0$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies Covariant Extended Proca-Nuevo (CEPN) gravity, a non-linear spin-1 extension of dRGT massive gravity, and fits its background cosmological solutions to DESI BAO, Cosmic Chronometer (CCh), Gamma-Ray Burst (GRB), and Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova data. The central phenomenological input is the Friedmann equation H^2 = H0^2 Ω_m0 (1+z)^3 + (1-Ω_m0) H0^{8/3} H^{-2/3} (Eq. 27), obtained after eliminating the vector field. The authors report constraints on Ω_m0 and H0 (and r_d for DESI), the present-day deceleration parameter q0, the transition redshift z_t, and information criteria comparing the model with ΛCDM. They conclude that the CEPN model is statistically compatible with the data and that the late-time acceleration is quintessence-like.

Significance. If the background reduction underlying Eq. (27) is valid, the paper provides a simple two-parameter dark-energy model that is competitive with ΛCDM on multiple modern datasets, and the reported H0 ≈ 73.9 km/s/Mpc for the full combination is relevant to the current Hubble tension. The paper has several strengths: it uses the recent DESI DR1 BAO sample, it compares the model against ΛCDM with AIC/BIC/DIC, it gives the explicit fitted Friedmann equation, and it presents derived cosmographic quantities. The fitted parameters are genuinely free and constrained by the data, so the central constraints are not an example of prediction-as-fit circularity. The main limitations are that the phenomenological density (26) is assumed from prior derivations rather than re-derived in the manuscript, and the likelihood ignores covariance information; these issues must be resolved before the observational claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (10)-(15) and (20)] The vector-field constraint (20) is the load-bearing step, but it is stated without derivation from the action (10)-(15). The Lagrangian contains non-minimal couplings in L2 and L3 (Eqs. (14)-(15)) with arbitrary functions α2(X), d2(X), α3(X), d3(X); varying with respect to φ(t) generically produces terms proportional to R and G_00 (and their derivatives) that are not visible in (20). If such terms do not cancel, Eqs. (23)-(26) do not follow, and the fitted H(z) of Eq. (27) is not the generic CEPN background. The manuscript cites de Rham et al. (2022a) and Anagnostopoulos & Saridakis (2024) but does not reproduce the computation. Because every reported constraint depends on Eq. (27), please provide a self-contained derivation of (20) (or an explicit statement of the exact assumptions under which it holds), or alternatively demonstrate that the non-minimal terms' contributions vanish identically on the FLRW ansatz.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (35)] The likelihood is written as a sum of independent per-point chi-squared terms. This neglects the covariance matrices of the DESI BAO observables (D_M/r_d, D_H/r_d, D_V/r_d in Figure 3) and of the GRB distance moduli, which are correlated quantities. Using only diagonal errors can bias the best-fit values and under- or over-estimate the quoted uncertainties, and it directly affects the ΔAIC/ΔBIC values in Table 3. Please include the full covariance matrices for the BAO and GRB data, or state and justify the assumption that off-diagonal correlations are negligible.
  3. [Section 4 and Table 1] The MCMC analysis is not fully reproducible: the manuscript does not report the prior distributions used, the chain length, the burn-in period, acceptance rates, or any convergence diagnostics (e.g., Gelman-Rubin). These details are necessary to assess whether the 1σ intervals in Table 1 and Figure 1 are stable and to allow independent verification. Please add them.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] The values of q_CEPN,0 and z_t are quoted without uncertainties, so the claim of 'up to 3σ confidence' is not supported for these derived quantities; please propagate the parameter errors.
  2. [Table 1] In the DESI row, Ω_m0 is reported as 0.298^{+0.034}_{-0.20}; the lower error bar is implausibly large compared with the upper one and is likely a typographical error. Please check.
  3. [Figure 2] The legend in the first-column panels reads 'CDM model' where the red curve is the CEPN model; the caption should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 3.2] The CCh data are said to be taken from Table 1 of Sudharani et al. (2024a); for reproducibility, please include the actual data points or the table in an appendix, or provide a public link.
  5. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract and conclusion state that the theory 'is shown to yield reliable, ghost-free cosmological solutions,' but this manuscript only fits the background equations; the ghost-free and stability claims are inherited from prior work and should be flagged as such rather than presented as results of this paper.
  6. [Figure 4] The histograms lack axis labels with units; please clarify that the horizontal axis is H0 in km/s/Mpc and label the vertical axis as counts or probability density.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CEPN background is fitted to external datasets; derived quantities like q0 and z_t are post-fit summaries, not predictions that reduce to the data by construction.

full rationale

The central model equation (27) is used as the theoretical H(z) in the chi-square likelihoods (35)-(36), with free parameters Omega_m0 and H0 constrained by DESI, CCh, GRB, and SNeIa data. The fitted parameters are genuinely fit to the data, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction loop. The dark-energy density rho_EPN proportional to H^{-2/3} (Eq. 26) is not invented from the data; it is quoted from the external EPN background reduction of de Rham et al. (2022a) and Anagnostopoulos & Saridakis (2024), neither of which shares authors with this paper. Equation (25) fixes the coefficient of rho_EPN using the present-day closure relation at z=0, which is a standard normalization: it makes (27) an identity at z=0 but leaves the redshift dependence of the model to be tested against data. The derived quantities q0 and z_t (Table 2) are functions of the best-fit background, not independently fitted targets, so they are not circular predictions. The only self-citations are a CCh data table (Sudharani et al. 2024a) and introductory technical references; the CCh data themselves are external model-independent Hubble measurements, and the cited data table is not the load-bearing theoretical argument. A real caveat is that the reduction from the action (10)-(15) to the constraint (20) and density (23)-(24) is not re-derived in this manuscript, so an omitted proof or hidden fine-tuning would affect correctness; that is a derivation-gap risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All fitted numbers are standard cosmological parameters plus the BAO sound horizon. The CEPN vector field and the arbitrary functions are introduced in prior literature, not by this paper, so no new entity is invented here.

free parameters (3)
  • Omega_m0 (matter density parameter) = 0.298+0.034/-0.20 (DESI), 0.344+0.030/-0.027 (DESI+GRBs), 0.336+/-0.026 (DESI+GRBs+CCh), 0.317+/-0.011 (all data)
    Fitted to all datasets via MCMC; the central expansion history depends on it.
  • H0 (Hubble constant) = 72.0+1.50/-0.93 (DESI), 71.1+1.1/-1.2 (DESI+GRBs), 71.3+/-1.1 (DESI+GRBs+CCh), 73.89+/-0.19 km/s/Mpc (all data)
    Fitted to all datasets; the paper's comparison with WiggleZ and the H0 tension discussion hinge on this value.
  • r_d (sound horizon at drag epoch) = 144.0+1.9/-2.7 Mpc (DESI-only fit)
    Nuisance parameter in the DESI BAO likelihood; fixed to the DESI-mean value in combined analyses.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CEPN action is ghost-free and produces the background Friedmann equation (27).
    The paper cites de Rham et al. (2022a) and Anagnostopoulos and Saridakis (2024) and does not re-derive the constraint structure or stability conditions. Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption The universe is described by a flat FLRW metric and the vector field profile V_mu = -phi(t) dt.
    Required to reduce the action to Eqs. (18)-(27). Section 2.2, Eqs. (16)-(17).
  • ad hoc to paper The theory parameters combine so that the effective dark energy density takes the form (26) after setting c_m around 1 and eliminating constants via Eq. (25).
    This specific H^{-2/3} scaling is imported from prior work; the paper does not justify why the arbitrary functions alpha_n(X) and d_n(X) produce this form.
  • ad hoc to paper The likelihood can be written as a sum of independent per-point chi-square terms with no covariance matrices.
    The analysis treats DESI BAO and GRB measurements as independent with diagonal errors; correlated data may require covariance handling. Section 4, Eqs. (35)-(36).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Effects of Coupling Extended Proca-Nuevo Gravity on Cosmic Expansion with Recent Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOXMYR62

@misc{pith2026241202707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Effects of Coupling Extended Proca-Nuevo Gravity on Cosmic Expansion with Recent Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOXMYR62}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02707}
}
abstract

We study Coupling Extended Proca-Nuevo gravity, a non-linear theory extending from dRGT massive gravity with a spin-1 field. This theory is shown to yield reliable, ghost-free cosmological solutions, modeling both the Universe's thermal history and late-time acceleration. By analyzing data from Dark energy spectroscopic instruments (DESI), Cosmic Chronometer (CCh), Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs), and Type Ia Supernova (SNeIa), we derive parameter constraints with up to 3$\sigma$ confidence, demonstrating good agreement with observations. Our comparison of $BAO$ data from $WiggleZ$ and $DESI$ highlights its constraining power on the Hubble constant. The analysis of the cosmographic parameter, $q$ shows the statistical compatibility with the recent data. Further, this indicates that Universe's current accelerated expansion aligns with quintessential behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02707 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The contour plot for DESI data illustrating the constraints on the Hubble parameter 𝐻0, the sound horizon 𝑟𝑑, and Ω𝑚0 . Right: A contour plot showing the model parameters 𝐻0 and Ω𝑚0 obtained through 𝜒 2 analysis for the current model. This plot illustrates the results of a combined analysis of various datasets, with confidence levels up to 3𝜎. For DESI data, 𝑟𝑑 is fixed which is the mean value obtained in the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cosmographic parameter analysis: The first column displays 𝐻 (𝑧) data with theoretical predictions (red line) and shaded confidence regions. The second column, with high-confidence error bars, shows the distance modulus 𝜇(𝑧) for the 1701 SNeIa and 162 GRBs data points. The third column illustrates the deceleration parameter 𝑞. Possible transitions between the states are specified by this tran￾sition matrix. A Markov… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cosmographic parameter analysis: The plot features mean curves for the comoving angular diameter distance 𝐷𝑀, Hubble distance 𝐷𝐻, and volume distance 𝐷𝑉 , normalized by the sound horizon parameter 𝑟𝑑 and plotted against redshift. The red lines representing theoretical predictions from the CEPN model align closely with the 𝐷𝐸𝑆𝐼 data error bars, highlighting the model’s accuracy and consistency with observational data… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the constraining power of 𝐵𝐴𝑂 data on the model parameter 𝐻0 from the 𝑊 𝑖𝑔𝑔𝑙𝑒𝑍 and 𝐷𝐸𝑆𝐼 surveys, based on the distribution of the curves. individual 𝜒 2 functions for each data set: 𝜒 2 𝑇𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑙(Θ) = ∑︁ 𝑁 𝑖=1 𝜒 2 𝐷𝑖 . (36) Here, 𝐷𝑖 denotes the different dat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A contour plot showing the model parameters 𝐻0 and Ω𝑚0 obtained through 𝜒 2 analysis for the current model. This plot illustrates the results of a combined analysis of CCh and SNeIa P18 data that consists of 1048 data points. without breaking the fundamental primary co…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cosmological tensions in Proca-Nuevo theory

    hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fitting a one-parameter vector-tensor dark energy model to CMB, BAO, and supernova data reduces the Hubble tension to about 1.5–2σ, but the preference over ΛCDM is weak and disappears once full perturbations are included.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., et al

    Adame, A. G., et al. 2024 a . 2404.03000

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    ---. 2024 b . 2404.03001

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    2020, Astron

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  4. [4]

    1974, A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification, 1st edn

    Akaike, H. 1974, A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification, 1st edn. (Springer, New York, NY), 215–222

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    2017, Mon

    Alam, S., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 470, 2617, 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 2017

  6. [6]

    2016, JCAP, 02, 004, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/004

    Allys, E., Peter, P., & Rodriguez, Y. 2016, JCAP, 02, 004, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/004

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/004 2016

  7. [7]

    K., Basilakos, S., & Saridakis, E

    Anagnostopoulos, F. K., Basilakos, S., & Saridakis, E. N. 2021, Phys. Lett. B, 822, 136634, 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136634

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    K., & Saridakis, E

    Anagnostopoulos, F. K., & Saridakis, E. N. 2024, JCAP, 04, 051, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/051

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/051 2024

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Bamba, K., Capozziello, S., Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S. D. 2012, Astrophys. Space Sci., 342, 155, 10.1007/s10509-012-1181-8

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Banerjee, S., Petronikolou, M., & Saridakis, E. N. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 024012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.024012

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Basilakos, S., Lymperis, A., Petronikolou, M., & Saridakis, E. N. 2024, Eur. Phys. J. C, 84, 297, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12573-4

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, Phys

    Beltran Jimenez, J., & Heisenberg, L. 2017, Phys. Lett. B, 770, 16, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.03.002

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2011, Mon

    Blake, C., et al. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 418, 1707, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19592.x

    2011

  6. [14]

    Cai, Y.-F., Capozziello, S., De Laurentis, M., & Saridakis, E. N. 2016, Rept. Prog. Phys., 79, 106901, 10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106901

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    N., Setare, M

    Cai, Y.-F., Saridakis, E. N., Setare, M. R., & Xia, J.-Q. 2010, Phys. Rept., 493, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.04.001

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    2011, Phys

    Capozziello, S., & De Laurentis, M. 2011, Phys. Rept., 509, 167, 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Sami, M., & Tsujikawa, S

    Copeland, E. J., Sami, M., & Tsujikawa, S. 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 1753, 10.1142/S021827180600942X

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    2011, Astrophys

    Cucchiara, A., et al. 2011, Astrophys. J., 736, 7, 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/7

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    G., & Amati, L

    Dainotti, M. G., & Amati, L. 2018, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 130, 051001, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa8d7

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    G., Bardiacchi, G., Lenart, A

    Dainotti, M. G., Bardiacchi, G., Lenart, A. L., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 931, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6593

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Bargiacchi, G., Bogdan, M., et al

    Dainotti, M. G., Bargiacchi, G., Bogdan, M., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 951, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd63f

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Hernandez, X., Postnikov, S., et al

    Dainotti, M. G., Hernandez, X., Postnikov, S., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a6b

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    C., & Yin, L

    De Felice, A., Geng, C.-Q., Pookkillath, M. C., & Yin, L. 2020, JCAP, 08, 038, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/038

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2016 a , JCAP, 06, 048, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/06/048

    De Felice, A., Heisenberg, L., Kase, R., et al. 2016 a , JCAP, 06, 048, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/06/048

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2016 b , Phys

    ---. 2016 b , Phys. Rev. D, 94, 044024, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044024

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, Phys

    de Felice, A., Heisenberg, L., & Tsujikawa, S. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 123540, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.123540

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2014, Living Rev

    de Rham, C. 2014, Living Rev. Rel., 17, 7, 10.12942/lrr-2014-7

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    de Rham, C., Gabadadze, G., & Tolley, A. J. 2011 a , Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 231101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.231101

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    2011 b , JHEP, 11, 093, 10.1007/JHEP11(2011)093

    ---. 2011 b , JHEP, 11, 093, 10.1007/JHEP11(2011)093

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    2022 a , JCAP, 03, 053, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/03/053

    de Rham, C., Garcia-Saenz, S., Heisenberg, L., & Pozsgay, V. 2022 a , JCAP, 03, 053, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/03/053

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, JHEP, 06, 088, 10.1007/JHEP06(2023)088

    de Rham, C., Garcia-Saenz, S., Heisenberg, L., Pozsgay, V., & Wang, X. 2023, JHEP, 06, 088, 10.1007/JHEP06(2023)088

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2022 b , Phys

    de Rham, C., Heisenberg, L., Kumar, A., & Zosso, J. 2022 b , Phys. Rev. D, 105, 024033, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.024033

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2020, Phys

    de Rham, C., & Pozsgay, V. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 083508, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083508

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, Astron

    Demianski, M., Piedipalumbo, E., Sawant, D., & Amati, L. 2017, Astron. Astrophys., 598, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628909

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, Astropart

    Di Valentino, E., et al. 2021, Astropart. Phys., 131, 102604, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102604

    2021

  28. [36]

    Erices, C., Papantonopoulos, E., & Saridakis, E. N. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 123527, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123527

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Errasti D\' ez, V., Maier, M., & M\'endez-Zavaleta, J. A. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 025010, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.025010

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, Phys

    Geng, C.-Q., Hsu, Y.-T., Lu, J.-R., & Yin, L. 2021, Phys. Dark Univ., 32, 100819, 10.1016/j.dark.2021.100819

    2021

  32. [40]

    N., & Sen, A

    Gupta, G., Saridakis, E. N., & Sen, A. A. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 123013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.123013

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, Phys

    Heisenberg, L. 2024, Phys. Rept., 1066, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2024.02.001

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2016, Phys

    Heisenberg, L., Kase, R., & Tsujikawa, S. 2016, Phys. Lett. B, 760, 617, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.052

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, JHEP, 01, 141, 10.1007/JHEP01(2021)141

    Ilyas, A., Zhu, M., Zheng, Y., & Cai, Y.-F. 2021, JHEP, 01, 141, 10.1007/JHEP01(2021)141

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    1998, (Clarendon Press, Oxford,

    Jeffreys, H. 1998, (Clarendon Press, Oxford,

    1998

  37. [45]

    2002, Astrophys

    Jimenez, R., & Loeb, A. 2002, Astrophys. J., 573, 37, 10.1086/340549

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, J. Am. Statist. Assoc., 90, 773, 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    1995

  39. [47]

    S., Mishra, S

    Kavya, N. S., Mishra, S. S., Sahoo, P. K., & Venkatesha, V. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 532, 3126, 10.1093/mnras/stae1723

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    W., Strong, I

    Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B., & Olson, R. A. 1973, Astrophys. J. Lett., 182, L85, 10.1086/181225

    1973 doi

  41. [49]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 377, L74, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x

    2007

  42. [50]

    Lovelock, D. 1971, J. Math. Phys., 12, 498, 10.1063/1.1665613

    1971 doi

  43. [51]

    2016, Phys

    Minamitsuji, M. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 084039, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084039

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    S., Kavya, N

    Mishra, S. S., Kavya, N. S., Sahoo, P. K., & Venkatesha, V. 2024, Astrophys. J., 970, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5555

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, Astrophys

    Moresco, M., Jimenez, R., Verde, L., Cimatti, A., & Pozzetti, L. 2020, Astrophys. J., 898, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9eb0

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Kavya, N

    Naik, D. M., Kavya, N. S., Sudharani, L., & Venkatesha, V. 2023, Eur. Phys. J. C, 83, 840, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12029-1

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    A., & Tolley, A

    Ondo, N. A., & Tolley, A. J. 2013, JHEP, 11, 059, 10.1007/JHEP11(2013)059

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    N., & Chakraborty, S

    Pan, S., Yang, W., Di Valentino, E., Saridakis, E. N., & Chakraborty, S. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 103520, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103520

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    2020, Mon

    Pan, S., Yang, W., & Paliathanasis, A. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 493, 3114, 10.1093/mnras/staa213

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Petronikolou, M., Basilakos, S., & Saridakis, E. N. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 124051, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.124051

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Petronikolou, M., & Saridakis, E. N. 2023, Universe, 9, 397, 10.3390/universe9090397

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Pourojaghi, S., Malekjani, M., & Davari, Z. 2024. 2407.09767

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ren, X., Yan, S.-F., Zhao, Y., Cai, Y.-F., & Saridakis, E. N. 2022, Astrophys. J., 932, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ba5

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., & Scolnic, D. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    Saridakis, E. N. 2021, Phys. Lett. B, 822, 136649, 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136649

    2021

  56. [64]

    N., Yang, W., Pan, S., Anagnostopoulos, F

    Saridakis, E. N., Yang, W., Pan, S., Anagnostopoulos, F. K., & Basilakos, S. 2023, Nucl. Phys. B, 986, 116042, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2022.116042

    2023

  57. [65]

    1978, Annals Statist., 6, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals Statist., 6, 461

    1978

  58. [66]

    2022, Astrophys

    Scolnic, D., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 938, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    M., et al

    Scolnic, D. M., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 859, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Saridakis, E

    Skugoreva, M. A., Saridakis, E. N., & Toporensky, A. V. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 044023, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.044023

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Best, N

    Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & van der Linde, A. 2002, J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B, 64, 583, 10.1111/1467-9868.00353

    2002

  62. [70]

    Starobinsky, A. A. 1980, Phys. Lett. B, 91, 99, 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

    1980 doi

  63. [71]

    S., & Venkatesha, V

    Sudharani, L., Bamba, K., Kavya, N. S., & Venkatesha, V. 2024 a , Phys. Dark Univ., 45, 101522, 10.1016/j.dark.2024.101522

    2024

  64. [72]

    S., Naik, D

    Sudharani, L., Kavya, N. S., Naik, D. M., & Venkatesha, V. 2024 b , Nucl. Phys. B, 998, 116410, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116410

    2024

  65. [73]

    R., et al

    Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2009. 0906.1577

    2009 arXiv

  66. [74]

    2020, Phys

    Vagnozzi, S. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023518, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023518

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    C., et al

    Wong, K. C., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 498, 1420, 10.1093/mnras/stz3094

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.stat...

  69. [77]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.d...

  70. [78]

    Extended Proca-Nuevo

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' en...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.