pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.04349 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-04 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Cosmological implications of Bumblebee theory on an FLRW background

Manuel Gonzalez-Espinoza , Grigorios Panotopoulos , Francisco Tello-Ortiz
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 02:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords Bumblebee modelFLRW cosmologydynamical systemssupernova fittingdark energy equation of statedeceleration parameterstatefinder diagnosticsLambda-CDM comparison
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Bumblebee model on an FLRW background has one free parameter fixed by supernova data to determine its expansion history and compare to Lambda-CDM.

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

The authors examine the Bumblebee theory, which introduces a vector field that violates Lorentz symmetry, as a source for late-time cosmic acceleration on the standard FLRW geometry. They apply dynamical systems techniques to map the phase space, locate critical points, and assess their stability. Fitting the model's single free parameter to supernova observations then yields concrete predictions for the deceleration parameter, the dark energy equation of state, statefinder diagnostics, and the age of the universe, all plotted against redshift and contrasted with the standard cosmological model. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach shows how a minimal extension beyond general relativity can reproduce observed acceleration while remaining testable against existing and future background data.

Core claim

On an FLRW background the Bumblebee model admits a consistent cosmological solution whose unique free parameter is fixed by a fit to supernova data; the resulting dynamical system possesses stable critical points that govern the evolution of the deceleration parameter, dark energy equation of state, statefinders, and cosmic age, all of which can be compared directly to the Lambda-CDM benchmark.

What carries the argument

The phase-space analysis of the modified FLRW equations that include the Bumblebee vector field, which reduces the cosmology to a one-parameter dynamical system whose attractors fix the late-time behavior.

If this is right

  • The best-fit parameter produces a transition from deceleration to acceleration at a definite redshift.
  • The dark energy equation of state evolves toward negative values but remains distinguishable from a pure cosmological constant.
  • Statefinder trajectories and the computed age of the universe supply additional observables for direct comparison with Lambda-CDM.
  • The stability of the late-time critical point implies that the acceleration phase is an attractor for a range of initial conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the background fit holds, growth-rate measurements from galaxy surveys could reveal whether the Bumblebee vector field alters structure formation relative to standard dark energy.
  • The same dynamical-system reduction could be applied to other vector-tensor theories to test whether a single-parameter family suffices for late-time cosmology.
  • Extending the model to include early-universe epochs might constrain the same parameter using CMB data and check consistency across cosmic history.

Load-bearing premise

The Bumblebee model admits an FLRW solution whose single free parameter can be uniquely fixed by background supernova data without destroying the structure of the dynamical system.

What would settle it

A precise independent measurement of the present-day deceleration parameter or the age of the universe that lies outside the range predicted by the best-fit parameter value obtained from supernova data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.04349 by Francisco Tello-Ortiz, Grigorios Panotopoulos, Manuel Gonzalez-Espinoza.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Distance modulus versus red-shift. Shown are: Data points, Bumblebee model (solid curve) and Λ-CDM model (dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Deceleration parameter (left panel) and dark energy equation-of-state parameter (right panel) versus red-shift. In both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Statefinder diagnostic parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Parametric plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate some cosmological implications at background level of the Bumblebee model. The phase-space, the critical points and their stability are analyzed in detail applying well-established dynamical system techniques. What is more, upon comparison to available supernovae data, the best fit numerical value of the unique free parameter of the model is determined. We show graphically all the cosmological quantities of interest versus red-shift, such as the deceleration parameter, dark energy equation of state parameter, etc. The statefinders and the age of the Universe are also computed. Finally, a comparison to the $\Lambda$-CDM model is made as well.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the background cosmology of the Bumblebee vector-tensor model on a flat FLRW spacetime. It applies standard dynamical-systems methods to reduce the system, identifies critical points and assesses their stability, determines the best-fit value of the model's single free parameter by comparison with Type Ia supernovae luminosity-distance data, and presents numerical plots of the deceleration parameter, dark-energy equation-of-state, statefinder diagnostics, and cosmic age as functions of redshift, together with a direct comparison to the ΛCDM model.

Significance. If the central claims are confirmed, the work supplies a concrete, numerically constrained example of Bumblebee gravity as a single-parameter alternative to dark energy at the background level. The phase-space analysis and explicit data fit constitute reproducible steps that could serve as a template for other vector-tensor models; the graphical comparisons and statefinder results add concrete diagnostic content. The overall advance is incremental rather than transformative, as the pipeline follows conventional modified-gravity practice.

major comments (2)
  1. [Parameter-fitting section] Parameter-fitting section: the manuscript states that the unique free parameter is fixed by supernovae data, yet provides neither the explicit χ² expression, the precise dataset (Pantheon, Union2.1, etc.), nor the resulting 1σ uncertainties. Without these, the claim that the parameter is “uniquely determined” while preserving a consistent isotropic FLRW solution cannot be verified and weakens the subsequent viability statements.
  2. [Dynamical-system analysis] Dynamical-system analysis: the reduction to a single free parameter and the reported critical-point structure are asserted to remain intact after the fit, but the manuscript does not show the explicit substitution of the best-fit value back into the autonomous system or verify that the fixed point remains hyperbolic and stable for that numerical value.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions for the redshift plots should explicitly label the curves corresponding to the best-fit Bumblebee model versus ΛCDM and state the adopted value of the fitted parameter.
  2. [Age computation] The age-of-the-universe calculation should include a brief statement of the integration limits and the Hubble-constant prior employed.
  3. [Results] A short table summarizing the best-fit parameter, χ²/dof, and comparison metrics with ΛCDM would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating the changes we plan to implement in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Parameter-fitting section] Parameter-fitting section: the manuscript states that the unique free parameter is fixed by supernovae data, yet provides neither the explicit χ² expression, the precise dataset (Pantheon, Union2.1, etc.), nor the resulting 1σ uncertainties. Without these, the claim that the parameter is “uniquely determined” while preserving a consistent isotropic FLRW solution cannot be verified and weakens the subsequent viability statements.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that additional details on the parameter fitting are necessary for full reproducibility and verification. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will explicitly provide the χ² expression employed, specify the supernova dataset used (e.g., Pantheon or Union2.1), and report the best-fit value of the free parameter together with its 1σ uncertainties. This will substantiate the claim that the parameter is uniquely determined and support the viability statements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Dynamical-system analysis] Dynamical-system analysis: the reduction to a single free parameter and the reported critical-point structure are asserted to remain intact after the fit, but the manuscript does not show the explicit substitution of the best-fit value back into the autonomous system or verify that the fixed point remains hyperbolic and stable for that numerical value.

    Authors: We concur that demonstrating the effect of the best-fit parameter value on the dynamical system would strengthen the analysis. In the revision, we will substitute the numerical best-fit value into the autonomous equations, present the resulting critical points, and verify their hyperbolicity and stability. This can be included in the main text or as supplementary material to confirm that the structure remains intact. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard fitting and illustration pipeline

full rationale

The paper reduces the Bumblebee vector-tensor action on an FLRW background using standard dynamical-systems methods, identifies critical points and stability, constrains the single free parameter via direct comparison to supernova luminosity-distance data, and then plots derived quantities (deceleration parameter, equation-of-state, statefinders, age) at the best-fit value while comparing to Λ-CDM. This is a conventional, externally benchmarked procedure with no self-definitional reductions, no fitted inputs relabeled as independent predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The fitting step constrains the model against external data; the subsequent plots are post-fit illustrations rather than claimed forecasts that reduce by construction to the input data. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model rests on one free parameter fitted to supernova data, the assumption that an FLRW background remains valid, and standard dynamical-systems stability criteria; no independent evidence is given for the Bumblebee vector field itself.

free parameters (1)
  • unique free parameter of the Bumblebee model
    Determined by best-fit comparison to available supernovae data
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption FLRW metric provides a valid homogeneous isotropic background for the Bumblebee field
    Invoked throughout the phase-space analysis on an FLRW background
  • standard math Dynamical systems techniques can be applied directly to the background equations
    Used to locate critical points and assess stability
invented entities (1)
  • Bumblebee vector field no independent evidence
    purpose: Introduce spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking in gravity
    Postulated as the central new ingredient of the model; no independent falsifiable evidence supplied in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5403 in / 1500 out tokens · 85811 ms · 2026-05-17T02:30:09.455686+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 52 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    It is important to note that at the critical pointa R, the conditions are such that Ωr = 1 and Ωde = 0

    The positive value of the deceleration parameter confirms that this point denotes a decelerating phase in cosmic evolution. It is important to note that at the critical pointa R, the conditions are such that Ωr = 1 and Ωde = 0. This means that if our universe begins ata R, it automatically satisfies the nucleosynthesis constraint Ω de <0.045 [78]. This co...

    work page

  2. [2]

    S. P. et al., Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    A. G. R. et al., Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D39, 683 (1989)

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D40, 1886 (1989)

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    Bluhm and V

    R. Bluhm and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D71, 065008 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Spontaneous Lorentz Violation, Nambu-Goldstone Modes, and Gravity

    R. Bluhm and V. A. Kostelecky, Physical Review D71, 065008 (2005), hep-th/0412320

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Overview of the SME: Implications and Phenomenology of Lorentz Violation

    R. Bluhm, Lect. Notes Phys.702, 191 (2006), hep-ph/0506054

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    Spontaneous Lorentz and Diffeomorphism Violation, Massive Modes, and Gravity

    R. Bluhm, S.-H. Fung, and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev.D77, 065020 (2008), 0712.4119

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    A. Y. P. A. A. A. Filho, J. R. Nascimento and P. J. Porf´ ırio, Phys. Rev. D108, 085010 (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Delhom, T

    A. Delhom, T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento, G. J. Olmo, A. Y. Petrov, and P. J. Porf´ ırio, JCAP07, 018 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Delhom, J

    A. Delhom, J. R. Nascimento, G. J. Olmo, A. Y. Petrov, and P. J. Porf´ ırio, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 287 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    R. C. P. G. Lambiase, L. Mastrototaro and A. Ovgun, JCAP12, 026 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    G¨ ull¨ u and A.¨Ovg¨ un, Annals Phys.436, 168721 (2022)

    I. G¨ ull¨ u and A.¨Ovg¨ un, Annals Phys.436, 168721 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Li and A

    Z. Li and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Phys. Rev. D101, 024040 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, Phys. Rev. D103, 044002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    R. V. Maluf, C. A. S. Almeida, R. Casana, and J. Ferreira, M. M., Phys. Rev. D90, 025007 (2014)

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Casana, A

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis, and E. B. Santos, Phys. Rev. D97, 104001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Bertolami and J

    O. Bertolami and J. Paramos, Phys. Rev. D72, 044001 (2005)

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Zare, and H. Hassanabadi (2023), 2311.12896

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Zare, D. F. Mota, and H. Hassanabadi, JCAP2023, 027 (2023), 2303.13554

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Nambu-Goldstone Modes in Gravitational Theories with Spontaneous Lorentz Breaking

    R. Bluhm, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D16, 2357 (2008), hep-th/0607127

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  23. [23]

    Modern tests of Lorentz invariance

    D. Mattingly, Living Rev. Rel.8, 5 (2005), gr-qc/0502097

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    Tests of Lorentz invariance: a 2013 update

    S. Liberati, Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 133001 (2013), 1304.5795

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    S. M. Carroll and E. A. Lim, Phys. Rev.D70, 123525 (2004), hep-th/0407149

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  26. [26]

    Lorentz Violating Inflation

    S. Kanno and J. Soda, Phys. Rev.D74, 063505 (2006), hep-th/0604192

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  27. [27]

    J. D. Barrow, Physical Review D85, 047503 (2012), 1201.2882

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Riemann-Finsler geometry and Lorentz-violating kinematics

    A. Kostelecky, Phys. Lett.B701, 137 (2011), 1104.5488. 14

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    Khodadi, G

    M. Khodadi, G. Lambiase, L. Mastrototaro, and T. K. Poddar (2025), 2501.14395

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    V. A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 251304 (2001)

    work page 2001

  31. [31]

    V. A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 011601 (2007), astro-ph/0702379

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  32. [32]

    Caloni, S

    L. Caloni, S. Giardiello, M. Lembo, M. Gerbino, G. Gubitosi, M. Lattanzi, and L. Pagano, JCAP03, 018 (2023), 2212.04867

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    The CTA Sensitivity to Lorentz-Violating Effects on the Gamma-Ray Horizon

    M. Fairbairn, A. Nilsson, J. Ellis, J. Hinton, and R. White, JCAP06, 005 (2014), 1401.8178

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

    J.-Q. Xia, H. Li, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B687, 129 (2010), 0908.1876

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [35]

    Theoretical Physics Implications of the Binary Black-Hole Mergers GW150914 and GW151226

    N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D94, 084002 (2016), 1603.08955

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    Constraining Lorentz-violating, Modified Dispersion Relations with Gravitational Waves

    S. Mirshekari, N. Yunes, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D85, 024041 (2012), 1110.2720

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    Cosmological constraints on Lorentz violating dark energy

    B. Audren, D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and S. Sibiryakov, JCAP08, 039 (2013), 1305.0009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    Sarmah and U

    P. Sarmah and U. D. Goswami (2024), 2407.13487

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    J. C. S. Neves, Annals Phys.454, 169338 (2023), 2209.00589

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Could dark energy be vector-like?

    C. Armendariz-Pic´ on, JCAP07, 007 (2004), astro-ph/0405267

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  41. [42]

    Cosmological implications of Bumblebee vector models

    D. Capelo and J. P´ aramos, Phys. Rev. D91, 104007 (2015), 1501.07685

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [43]

    Vector theories in cosmology

    G. Esposito-Farese, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D81, 063519 (2010), 0912.0481

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [44]

    Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev.D64, 024028 (2001), gr-qc/0007031

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  44. [45]

    Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point

    P. Horava, Phys. Rev. D79, 084008 (2009), 0901.3775

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [46]

    D. Blas, O. Pujolas, and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 181302 (2010), 0909.3525

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  46. [47]

    Undoing the twist: the Ho\v{r}ava limit of Einstein-aether

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D89, 081501 (2014), 1310.5115

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [48]

    Barausse, Phys

    E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D100, 084053 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 069903 (2021)], 1907.05958

    work page arXiv 2019

  48. [49]

    Ho\v{r}ava Gravity after GW170817

    A. Emir G¨ umr¨ uk¸ c¨ uo˘ glu, M. Saravani, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D97, 024032 (2018), 1711.08845

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [50]

    Y. Gong, S. Hou, E. Papantonopoulos, and D. Tzortzis, Phys. Rev. D98, 104017 (2018), 1808.00632

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [51]

    P. Ji, Z. Li, L. Yang, R. Xu, Z. Hu, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D110, 104057 (2024), 2409.04805

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    A cosmic vector for dark energy

    J. Beltran Jimenez and A. L. Maroto, Phys. Rev. D78, 063005 (2008), 0801.1486

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  52. [53]

    Cosmic vector for dark energy: constraints from SN, CMB and BAO

    J. Beltran Jimenez, R. Lazkoz, and A. L. Maroto, Phys. Rev. D80, 023004 (2009), 0904.0433

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [54]

    Generalized SU(2) Proca Theory

    E. Allys, P. Peter, and Y. Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. D94, 084041 (2016), 1609.05870

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [55]

    Generalized multi-Proca fields

    J. Beltran Jimenez and L. Heisenberg, Phys. Lett. B770, 16 (2017), 1610.08960

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [56]

    Garcia-Serna, J

    S. Garcia-Serna, J. B. Orjuela-Quintana, Y. Rodriguez, G. Gomez, and C. A. Valenzuela-Toledo, JCAP07, 037 (2025), 2501.17280

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [57]

    J. N. Martinez, J. F. Rodriguez, L. M. Becerra, Y. Rodriguez, and G. Gomez, Phys. Rev. D110, 104070 (2024), 2408.07674

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [58]

    Gallego Cadavid, Y

    A. Gallego Cadavid, Y. Rodriguez, and L. G. G´ omez, Phys. Rev. D102, 104066 (2020), 2009.03241

    work page arXiv 2020

  58. [59]

    L. G. G´ omez and Y. Rodr´ ıguez, Phys. Rev. D100, 084048 (2019), 1907.07961

    work page arXiv 2019

  59. [60]

    L. G. Gomez and Y. Rodriguez, Phys. Dark Univ.31, 100759 (2021), 2004.06466

    work page arXiv 2021

  60. [61]

    M. S. E. J. Copeland and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006), hep-th/0603057

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  61. [62]

    Phase-space analysis of Horava-Lifshitz cosmology

    G. Leon and E. N. Saridakis, JCAP11, 006 (2009), 0909.3571

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  62. [63]

    Rodriguez-Benites, M

    C. Rodriguez-Benites, M. Gonzalez-Espinoza, G. Otalora, and M. Alva-Morales, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 276 (2024), 2311.02397

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [64]

    Gonzalez-Espinoza, G

    M. Gonzalez-Espinoza, G. Otalora, Y. Leyva, and J. Saavedra, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, 600 (2023), 2212.12071

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [65]

    A. A. S. V. Sahni, T. D. Saini and U. Alam, JETP Lett.77, 201 (2003), translated from Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 77 (2003) 249, astro-ph/0201498

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  65. [66]

    T. D. S. U. Alam, V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.344, 1057 (2003), astro-ph/0303009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  66. [67]

    J. A. et al. [SNAP Collaboration] (2005), astro-ph/0507458

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  67. [68]

    J. A. et al. [SNAP Collaboration] (2005), astro-ph/0507459

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  68. [69]

    Statefinder parameters for interacting dark energy

    W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Gen. Rel. Grav.36, 1483 (2004), gr-qc/0311067

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  69. [70]

    Statefinder diagnostic for coupled quintessence

    X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B611, 1 (2005), astro-ph/0503075

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  70. [71]

    P. X. Wu and H. W. Yu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D14, 1873 (2005), gr-qc/0509036

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  71. [72]

    L. X. B. Chang, H. Liu and C. Zhang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A23, 269 (2008), 0704.3670

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  72. [73]

    Statefinder parameters in two dark energy models

    G. Panotopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B796, 66 (2008), 0712.1177

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  73. [74]

    V. A. Kostelecky, Physical Review D69, 105009 (2004), hep-th/0312310

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  74. [75]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, P. V. Moniz, J. M. Mourao, and P. M. Sa, Class. Quant. Grav.10, 285 (1993), gr-qc/9302034

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  75. [76]

    Interacting Vector-like Dark Energy, the First and Second Cosmological Coincidence Problems

    H. Wei and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D73, 083002 (2006), astro-ph/0603052

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  76. [77]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, JCAP10, 038 (2021), 2105.08659

    work page arXiv 2021

  77. [78]

    W. D. R. Jesus and A. F. Santos, Mod. Phys. Lett. A34, 1950171 (2019), 1903.09316

    work page arXiv 2019

  78. [79]

    R. Bean, S. H. Hansen, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D64, 103508 (2001), astro-ph/0104162

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  79. [80]

    S. R. Brownsberger, D. Brout, D. Scolnic, C. W. Stubbs, and A. G. Riess, Astrophys. J.944, 188 (2023), 2110.03486

    work page arXiv 2023

  80. [81]

    Popovic, D

    B. Popovic, D. Brout, R. Kessler, and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J.945, 84 (2023), 2112.04456

    work page arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.