Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 92 references

Cosmological implications of Bumblebee theory on an FLRW background

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-05-17 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read 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.

desk verdict Standard dynamical systems run on Bumblebee FLRW cosmology with a single-parameter SN fit; background only and routine methods but internally consistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.04349 v2 pith:4TSXQRSO submitted 2025-12-04 gr-qc

Manuel Gonzalez-Espinoza , Grigorios Panotopoulos , Francisco Tello-Ortiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords BumblebeemodelFLRWcosmologydynamicalsystemssupernovafittingdarkenergyequationofstatedecelerationparameterstatefinderdiagnosticsLambda-CDMcomparison
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquation
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

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.

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.

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.

Watch

Extended reading notes

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.

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

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 · score 0.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 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
assumptions (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
    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

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological implications of Bumblebee theory on an FLRW background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4TSXQRSO

@misc{pith2026251204349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological implications of Bumblebee theory on an FLRW background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4TSXQRSO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.04349}
}
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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.04349 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
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]
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]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Statefinder diagnostic parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Parametric plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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

  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 Pith review 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 Pith review arXiv 2006

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Bluhm, S.-H

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

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

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

    2023

  3. [11]

    Delhom, T

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

    2022

  4. [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)

    2021

  5. [13]

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

    2023

  6. [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)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Li and A

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

    2020

  8. [16]

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

    2021

  9. [17]

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

    2014

  10. [18]

    Casana, A

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

    2018

  11. [19]

    Bertolami and J

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

    2005

  12. [20]

    Capozziello, S

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

    2023

  13. [21]

    Capozziello, S

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

    2023

  14. [22]

    Bluhm, Int

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

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mattingly, Living Rev

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

    2005 arXiv

  16. [24]

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

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

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

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

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kanno and J

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

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

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

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kostelecky, Phys

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

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Khodadi, G

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

    2025

  22. [30]

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

    2001

  23. [31]

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

    2007 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Caloni, S

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

    2023

  25. [33]

    Fairbairn, A

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

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

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

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Yunes, K

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

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Mirshekari, N

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

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Audren, D

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

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sarmah and U

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

    2024

  31. [39]

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

    2023

  32. [40]

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

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

    2004 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Capelo and J

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

    2015 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Esposito-Farese, C

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

    2010 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Jacobson and D

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

    2001 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Horava, Phys

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

    2009 arXiv

  37. [46]

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

    2010 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Jacobson, Phys

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

    2014 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Barausse, Phys

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

    2019

  40. [49]

    Emir G¨ umr¨ uk¸ c¨ uo˘ glu, M

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

    2018 arXiv

  41. [50]

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

    2018 arXiv

  42. [51]

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

    2024

  43. [52]

    Beltran Jimenez and A

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

    2008 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Beltran Jimenez, R

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

    2009 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Allys, P

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

    2016 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Beltran Jimenez and L

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

    2017 arXiv

  47. [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

    2025

  48. [57]

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

    2024

  49. [58]

    Gallego Cadavid, Y

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

    2020

  50. [59]

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

    2019

  51. [60]

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

    2021

  52. [61]

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

    2006 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Leon and E

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

    2009 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Rodriguez-Benites, M

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

    2024

  55. [64]

    Gonzalez-Espinoza, G

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

    2023

  56. [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

    2003 arXiv

  57. [66]

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

    2003 arXiv

  58. [67]

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

    2005 arXiv

  59. [68]

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

    2005 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Zimdahl and D

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

    2004 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Zhang, Phys

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

    2005 arXiv

  62. [71]

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

    2005 arXiv

  63. [72]

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

    2008 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Panotopoulos, Nucl

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

    2008 arXiv

  65. [74]

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

    2004 arXiv

  66. [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

    1993 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Wei and R.-G

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

    2006 arXiv

  68. [77]

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

    2021

  69. [78]

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

    2019

  70. [79]

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

    2001 arXiv

  71. [80]

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

    2023

  72. [81]

    Popovic, D

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

    2023

  73. [82]

    A. Carr, T. M. Davis, D. Scolnic, D. Scolnic, K. Said, D. Brout, E. R. Peterson, and R. Kessler, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 39, e046 (2022), 2112.01471

    2022

  74. [83]

    E. R. Peterson et al., Astrophys. J.938, 112 (2022), 2110.03487

    2022

  75. [84]

    Brout et al., Astrophys

    D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J.938, 111 (2022), 2112.03864

    2022

  76. [85]

    Scolnic et al., Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), 2112.03863

    2022 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Brout et al., Astrophys

    D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), 2202.04077

    2022 arXiv

  78. [87]

    W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, A. G. Riess, T. G. Brink, S. Casertano, A. V. Filippenko, S. L. Hoffmann, C. D. Huang, and D. Scolnic, The Astrophysical Journal940, 64 (2022), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ 15 ac51db

    2022 doi

  79. [88]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), 2112.04510

    2022 arXiv

  80. [89]

    W. L. Freedman and M. S. Turner, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 1433 (2003), astro-ph/0308418

    2003 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Nesseris and L

    S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D70, 043531 (2004), astro-ph/0401556

    2004 arXiv

  82. [91]

    V. H. C. J. Maga˜ na and V. Motta, JCAP1410, 017 (2014), 1407.1632

    2014 arXiv

  83. [92]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010), 0805.1726

    2010 arXiv

  84. [93]

    A. D. Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel.13, 3 (2010), 1002.4928

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed May 17, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.