Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Nonlinear matter terms in general scalar-tensor braneworld cosmology

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A scalar-tensor braneworld produces Cardassian matter terms with powers one-half and minus one-half in the Friedmann equation.

desk verdict New Horndeski-braneworld Friedmann equations with rho^{±1/2} and rho^3 corrections, but the unproven translation of the Gleyzes decomposition to a spacelike brane is the load-bearing step. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06574 v1 pith:2UIZURJD submitted 2019-08-19 gr-qc

Kevin F. S. Pardede , Agus Suroso , Freddy P. Zen This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords BraneworldcosmologyCardassianHorndeskitheoryModifiedFriedmannequationsDarkradiationScalar-tensorgravityBigbangnucleosynthesisExtrinsiccurvaturejunctionconditions
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 derives the effective Friedmann equations for a four-dimensional brane in a five-dimensional bulk whose action is the general Horndeski scalar-tensor theory. It claims that when the fifth Horndeski Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_5$ is strongly coupled to the rest, the brane Friedmann equation acquires Cardassian terms $\rho^n$ with $n=\pm 1/2$, and that the $n=-1/2$ branch lies close to current combined cosmological constraints. In the weakly coupled case, the same construction produces new high-energy corrections, a cubic term $\rho^3$ and a dark-radiation-matter interaction $\chi a^{-4}\rho$, together with an effective cosmological constant built from the bulk scalar and no need for brane tension. A sympathetic reader cares because this is a concrete higher-dimensional origin for nonlinear matter terms that can mimic late-time acceleration, in a theory with second-order field equations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the geometric form of the 5D Horndeski action on the brane, Eq. (13), in which the bulk curvature and scalar derivatives are replaced by the brane Ricci scalar, the extrinsic curvature $K_{\mu\nu}$, and the scalar functions $G_4, G_5, F_3, F_5$. This translation is what lets the authors read off the metric junction conditions; the junction condition, in the strong- or weak-coupling limit, becomes an algebraic equation for $a'/a$ on the brane and thereby produces the nonlinear $\rho$ terms. The final step rewrites the $(yy)$ and $(tt)$ bulk equations as first-order equations in an integration constant $\chi$, so the Friedmann equation follows by evaluating the junction solution on the brane.

What would settle it

Re-derive Eq. (13) directly on a $y$-constant spacelike hypersurface, keeping $G_{i\phi}$ and $\phi''(0)$ nonzero, and compare the resulting junction conditions with Eqs. (28)-(29) and (45)-(46); if additional extrinsic-curvature terms or sign flips appear, equations (43) and (50) do not follow. Observationally, measuring the dark-radiation-matter interaction amplitude $\alpha\kappa_5^2\rho/6$ at CMB or structure-formation redshifts, or tightening the gravitational-wave speed bound beyond the two cited loopholes, would rule out the weak-coupling branch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the geometry of a 5D Horndeski brane already contains the nonlinear matter terms that are usually put in by hand. Starting from the geometrized action (Eq. 13) and the junction conditions, the strong-coupling limit $|\tilde{\alpha} a'/a| \gg B_H$ gives Eq. (43): $$$H^{2}$=-\frac{k}{$a^{2}$}+\frac{B_1}{\tilde{\$\alpha$}}+\left(\frac{\$kappa_5^{2}$}{6\tilde{\$\alpha$}^3}\right)^{1/2}B_2\$rho^{{1/2}}$+\frac{\$kappa_5^{2}$}{6\tilde{\$\alpha$}^2}B_3\rho-\left(\frac{6}{\tilde{\$\alpha$}\$kappa_5^{2}$}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\chi}{$a^{4}$}-B_0\right)\$rho^{{-1/2}}$,$$ which is a generalized Cardassian form with $n=\pm 1/2$. In the weak-coupling regime ($\xi_5$ small, $\xi_4=0$), solving the junction condition order by order yields Eq. (50): $$$H^{2}$=-\frac{k}{$a^{2}$}+\frac{\$kappa_5^{2}$}{6}A_1\rho+\frac{\$kappa_5^{4}$}{36}A_2\$rho^{2}$+\frac{\$kappa_5^{6}$}{216}A_3\$rho^{3}$+\frac{\chi}{$a^{4}$}\left(1+\$\alpha$\frac{\$kappa_5^{2}$}{6}\rho\right)+A_0,$$ with $A_0$ acting as a cosmological constant from the scalar and $A_1^{-1}$ proportional to the extra-dimension radius. The authors also show the model reproduces the Einstein-Hilbert braneworld limit and satisfies BBN bounds without a large brane tension.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the geometric translation of the Horndeski action used in Eq. (13), originally derived for a time-constant hypersurface, also holds on the $y$-constant spacelike brane with $\phi=\phi(y)$; the paper asserts this without proof, and together with the pruning assumptions $G_{i\phi}=0$ and $\phi''(0)=0$, any sign or term error there would change both central Friedmann equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. (43) is correct, the strongly coupled $\mathcal{L}_5$ braneworld supplies a microphysical source for the Cardassian terms, so an accelerated phase can appear in matter domination without a cosmological constant; the $n=-1/2$ branch lies within the region allowed by the combined BAO, CMB, SNIa, $f_{\sigma_8}$, and $H_0$ constraints.
  • In the weak-coupling regime, the model predicts a high-energy $\rho^3$ correction and a $\chi a^{-4}\rho$ dark-radiation-matter interaction that are absent from the Einstein-Hilbert braneworld, and the paper shows these corrections can satisfy BBN bounds with an extra-dimension radius smaller than about $10^{2.5}$ m.
  • The effective cosmological constant arises from the bulk scalar field rather than from brane tension, so the model avoids the unnaturally large tension that standard braneworld BBN bounds require.
  • At low redshift the scalar-tensor braneworld and Einstein-Hilbert braneworld Hubble diagrams are practically indistinguishable in the SNIa data used, while the standard four-dimensional model is separated by the dark-radiation term; distinguishing the new corrections requires higher-redshift or early-universe probes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Eq. (43) is structurally different from the polytropic Cardassian form (2), the closeness of $n=-1/2$ to the observed constraint is suggestive but not decisive; a direct numerical fit of Eq. (43) to the same combined data would be the sharper test, as the paper itself notes for future work.
  • The $\chi a^{-4}\rho$ coupling means dark radiation is not independent of matter: if it exists, it changes how dark radiation redshifts and interacts, leaving a possible signature in CMB anisotropies or large-scale structure that this paper does not compute.
  • The overall construction depends on $\mathcal{L}_5$ surviving the GW170817 gravitational-wave speed bound through the two cited loopholes; if those loopholes close, the fifth-Lagrangian sector of this model would be the first piece to fall away.
  • The relation between $A_1^{-1}$ and the extra-dimension radius, combined with the BBN bound, makes compactification scales below about a meter viable; a direct search for deviations from the gravitational inverse-square law at millimeter scales could test this branch.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a five-dimensional braneworld cosmological model whose bulk action is general relativity plus the Horndeski Lagrangians L2 through L5. Using the geometric form of the Horndeski action, the authors derive bulk field equations and junction conditions on a brane located at y=0 in the metric (5)-(6). In the regime where L5 is strongly coupled, they obtain the modified Friedmann equation (43), which contains the powers rho^{1/2}, rho, and rho^{-1/2}; the rho^{+-1/2} terms are interpreted as Cardassian terms, and the n=-1/2 case is compared with the polytropic-Cardassian observational constraint of Ref. [48]. In the weakly coupled L5 regime with xi4=0, they derive equation (50), which contains rho^2, rho^3, and the dark radiation-matter interaction term chi a^{-4} rho, plus a scalar-field cosmological constant A0. They verify the Einstein-Hilbert braneworld limit (52)-(53), impose BBN constraints on the coefficients A1, A2, A3, and compare the Hubble diagram with SNIa data. The central claims are that the strongly coupled L5 model generates Cardassian-type corrections from the junction structure and that the weakly coupled model supports BBN without requiring a brane tension.

Significance. If the derivation is completed and the identified gaps are closed, the paper would provide a concrete Horndeski-braneworld realization of Cardassian cosmology, with the interesting feature that the Cardassian powers emerge from the junction conditions rather than from a phenomenological fit. The paper's algebraic core is largely reproducible: the reduction of (41) and (38) to (43), the Einstein-Hilbert limit (52)-(53), and the BBN inequalities (59)-(60) are internally consistent, and the authors are honest about the GW170817 tension with L5. The potential significance is real, but it is contingent on the unresolved geometric transfer of the Horndeski decomposition, the physical branch choice for a'/a, and the consistency of the scalar-field junction condition. These are load-bearing issues rather than presentation problems, so the paper needs substantial revision before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (13)] The assertion immediately before Eq. (13), namely that the Gleyzes et al. decomposition [37] derived for a four-dimensional constant-time hypersurface with a timelike normal also works for the spacelike y=constant brane of metric (5), is not demonstrated. The decomposition is signature sensitive: for the normal n_A=delta_A^y one has n^A n_A=+1, whereas in Ref. [37] the normal is timelike with n^2=-1. The relative signs of K^2-K_AB K^AB and of terms containing odd powers of K and X^{1/2} can therefore differ, and with phi=phi(y) one has X=phi'^2 rather than X=-phidot^2. Since Eq. (13) feeds directly into the action (15), the junction conditions (28)-(29), and eventually both central results (43) and (50), this is a load-bearing step. Please provide an explicit projection calculation for a spacelike normal, or prove that the timelike decomposition carries over with the stated sign conventions; the assumptions G_i phi=0 and phi''(0)=0 remove precisely the phi-dependent terms that could expose a sign error.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (38) and (43)] The strong-coupling solution (38) chooses a'/a = +(beta_tilde/alpha_tilde)^{1/2}, but the branch that connects continuously to the Einstein-Hilbert junction condition a'/a = -kappa_5^2 rho/6, which is Eq. (28) with B_H=1 and alpha_tilde=0, is the negative root. With a'/a < 0, the sign of the B2 rho^{1/2} term in Eq. (43) flips; the B1 and B3 terms keep their signs. This changes the predicted sign of the Cardassian contribution and therefore affects the claimed proximity of the n=-1/2 term to the observational constraints. The physical branch and the allowed sign of alpha_tilde need to be specified and justified, since alpha_tilde < 0 would make the strong-coupling equation (a'/a)^2 = beta_tilde/alpha_tilde inconsistent with positive rho.
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (34)-(36)] The scalar-field junction condition is implemented by adding to the brane Lagrangian a term ell_b[phi] = phi [2 sqrt(-q) partial L/partial phi']_{y=0}. Because ell_b depends only on phi and not on derivatives of the metric, its variation with respect to q^{mu nu} contributes -ell_b q_{mu nu} to the brane stress-energy tensor S_{mu nu} in Eq. (11). This acts as a brane-localized energy density or effective tension, but the paper sets sigma=0 and never includes ell_b in the rho and p that appear in the junction conditions (28)-(29). The junction conditions are therefore incomplete: either the backreaction of ell_b on the brane Friedmann equations must be computed, or it must be shown that ell_b vanishes. This affects both Eq. (43) and Eq. (50).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract contains grammatical errors, including 'comprises of' and 'which can served as alternative explanation'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (16)] The quantity C(t) is introduced as if it were a known function, but it is first defined by the right-hand side of (16); please state explicitly that C(t) is defined by that expression and explain why it is a function of t only.
  3. [Section 2, text before Eq. (20)] The text says the ty-equation can be solved 'by assuming b constant', although the shift variable b was introduced in (17) and later set to 1. Please clarify whether b here is the shift scalar or the lapse-like variable, and how the assumption is removed when reverting to metric (5).
  4. [Eq. (43) and Abstract] The phrase 'the Cardassian term rho^n with n=+-1/2' is slightly misleading because Eq. (43) also contains a linear rho term and a constant B1/alpha_tilde term; the abstract should say 'Cardassian-type terms' or otherwise list all powers present.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The figure caption reports identical chi-squared values for the BW and HD models to four decimal places; a sentence explaining that this degeneracy is expected at low redshift, where the high-order corrections are negligible, would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the Cardassian and rho^3 terms come from solving the stated junction conditions, not from fitting or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central results are derived algebraically from the action and junction conditions. The strongly coupled L5 Friedmann equation (43) follows from substituting the strong-coupling solution (38), a'/a = (beta/alpha~)^(1/2), into the H^2 relation (41), with the coefficients B1-B3, alpha~ and chi defined in terms of the Horndeski functions. These are model parameters, not fitted values; none are tuned to the observational constraints quoted from Ref. [48]. The weakly coupled result (50) similarly follows by substituting the expanded junction condition (48) into the definition of chi (49); the rho^3 and chi a^-4 rho terms are algebraic consequences of that substitution. The comparison to the polytropic Cardassian constraints is external, and the paper explicitly notes that (43) is more general and would require its own numerical evaluation. The self-citation [24] is used for motivation and for the Hubble-diagram methodology, not to force a result. The main risk identified by the skeptic is the asserted transfer of the Gleyzes et al. decomposition (13) from a timelike to a spacelike hypersurface; that is a correctness/assumption concern, not circularity, because the paper does not define a result in terms of itself or fit a prediction to the data it then claims to predict. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central equations (43) and (50) depend on the Horndeski coupling functions and boundary data through B1-B3, alpha-tilde, and A0-A3, none of which are fitted; the only numbers fixed by hand appear in the illustrative Fig. 1 comparison. No new entities are introduced: the rho^3 and chi a^-4 rho terms are new couplings, not new degrees of freedom. The decisive unproved premise is the transfer of the Gleyzes geometric form to the spacelike brane.

free parameters (3)
  • Horndeski couplings xi2, xi3, xi5 and brane scalar data phi' (absorbed into B1-B3, alpha-tilde, A0-A3) = not fitted
    The central results are expressed in terms of these hand-chosen model inputs; no fit to cosmological data is performed, so the Cardassian exponents are structural rather than fitted.
  • Figure parameters A1 = A3 = alpha = 10^-3, A2 = 1, sigma = 10^22 = 10^-3, 1, 10^22 (caption values)
    Chosen by hand for the illustrative Hubble diagram (Fig. 1); the authors acknowledge the two braneworld models are indistinguishable, so these values carry no evidential weight.
  • Dark radiation constant chi = unconstrained; Omega_chi,0 = -0.03 in Fig. 1
    Integration constant inherited from the braneworld construction, standard in this literature, but its value (including negative values) is a free input.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gi_phi = 0 for i = 2,3,4,5
    Stated in Section 2 just before Eq. (15), 'let us assume that Gi_phi = 0'. It makes the scalar field equation first-order in phi and drops phi-dependent terms; without it the junction structure changes.
  • domain assumption Scalar field depends only on the extra dimension, phi = phi(y)
    Required (Section 2, before Eq. 13) to apply the Gleyzes geometric translation to the y-constant brane; it makes the scalar time-independent on the brane, so it cannot by itself drive dynamical dark energy.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gleyzes et al. [37] geometric translation for a 4D constant-time hypersurface remains valid for a 5D spacelike y-constant brane
    Asserted in Section 2 ('this procedure also works in our case'); sign errors in K-dependent terms would propagate into both Friedmann equations. This is the weakest load-bearing premise.
  • domain assumption Z2 symmetry and phi''(y=0) = 0 (phi' continuous)
    Section 3: used to drop phi'' terms from the ij-field equation (23) and to integrate the junction conditions (28)-(29).
  • domain assumption L5 is not excluded by GW170817
    Section 1: the paper notes L5 is excluded under the standard EFT reading of [26] and adopts the UV-completion [27] and time-varying c_T [28] loopholes; the L5-dependent derivation rests on this.
  • standard math Binetruy et al. junction-condition and distributional calculus
    The delta(y) integration and Z2 discontinuity treatment follows Refs. [22,38].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear matter terms in general scalar-tensor braneworld cosmology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UIZURJD

@misc{pith2026190806574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear matter terms in general scalar-tensor braneworld cosmology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UIZURJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06574}
}
abstract

A five dimensional braneworld cosmological model in general scalar-tensor action comprises of various Horndeski Lagrangian is considered. The Friedmann equations in the case of the strongly and weakly coupled $\mathcal{L}_5$ Horndeski Lagrangian have been obtained. The strongly coupled $\mathcal{L}_5$ model produces the Cardassian term $\rho^n$ with $n=\pm 1/2$, which can served as alternative explanation for the accelerated expansion phase of the universe. Furthermore, the latest combined observational facts from BAO, CMB, SNIa, $f_{\sigma_8}$, and $H_0$ value observation suggest that the $n=-1/2$ term lies quite close to the constrained value. On the other hand, the weakly coupled $\mathcal{L}_5$ case has several new correction terms which are omitted in the braneworld Einstein-Hilbert model, e.g. the cubic $\rho^3$ and the dark radiation-matter interaction term $ \chi a^{-4}\rho$. Furthermore, this model provides a cosmological constant constructed from the bulk scalar field, requires no brane tension, and supports the big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) constraint naturally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06574 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Hubble diagram for conventional four dimensional model (EH), braneworld Einstein-Hilbert model (BW), and general scalar-tensor braneworld model (HD) with SNIa data, Davis, et al.(2007) [41, 42, 43]. For EH, we use the cosmological parameter from Planck 2015 [40] H0 = 67 km s−1 Mpc−1 , Ωm,0 = 0.308, ΩΛ,0 = 0.692. For BW and HD, we use H0 = 66.157 km s−1 Mpc−1 , Ωm,0 = 0.3453, ΩΛ,0 = 0.6568 and ΩE,0 = −0… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    Z. Zhai, M. Blanton, A. Slosar, J. Tinker, The Astrophysical Journal 850(2), 183 (2017) 15

    work page 2017

  2. [37]

    Gleyzes, D

    J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, F. Piazza, F. Vernizzi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013(08), 025 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [1]

    Abbott, et al., Physical Review Letters 116, 061102 (2016)

    B.P. Abbott, et al., Physical Review Letters 116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [2]

    Riess, A.V

    A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M. Garnavich, R.L. Gilliland, C.J. Hogan, S. Jha, R.P. Kirshner, et al., The Astronomical Journal 116(3), 1009 (1998)

    1998

  5. [3]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. Knop, P. Nugent, P. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. Groom, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 517(2), 565 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [4]

    Maartens, K

    R. Maartens, K. Koyama, Living Reviews in Relativity 13(1) (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [5]

    Randall, R

    L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Physical Review Letters 83(17) (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [6]

    Randall, R

    L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Physical Review Letters 83(23) (1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 48 references
  1. [7]

    Caldwell, R

    R.R. Caldwell, R. Dave, P.J. Steinhardt, Physical Review Letters 80(8), 1582 (1998)

    1998

  2. [8]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, P.J. Steinhardt, Physical Review Letters 85(21), 4438 (2000)

    2000

  3. [9]

    Amendola, Physics Letters B 301(2-3), 175 (1993)

    L. Amendola, Physics Letters B 301(2-3), 175 (1993)

    1993

  4. [10]

    Sushkov, Physical Review D 80(10) (2009)

    S.V. Sushkov, Physical Review D 80(10) (2009)

    2009

  5. [11]

    Suroso, F.P

    A. Suroso, F.P. Zen, General Relativity and Gravitation 45(4) (2013)

    2013

  6. [12]

    Suroso, F.P

    A. Suroso, F.P. Zen, Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics 6(27) (2012) 13

    2012

  7. [13]

    Hikmawan, A

    G. Hikmawan, A. Suroso, F.P. Zen, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 739(1), 012049 (2016). DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/739/1/012049

    2016 doi

  8. [14]

    Horndeski, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 10(6), 363 (1974)

    G.W. Horndeski, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 10(6), 363 (1974)

    1974

  9. [15]

    Deffayet, G

    C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese, A. Vikman, Physical Review D 79(8), 084003 (2009)

    2009

  10. [16]

    Deffayet, S

    C. Deffayet, S. Deser, G. Esposito-Farese, Physical Review D 80(6), 064015 (2009)

    2009

  11. [17]

    Deffayet, X

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D.A. Steer, G. Zahariade, Physical Review D 84(6), 064039 (2011)

    2011

  12. [18]

    Deffayet, G

    C. Deffayet, G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, Physical Review D 65(4), 044023 (2002)

    2002

  13. [19]

    Gabadadze, A

    G. Gabadadze, A. Iglesias, Physics Letters B 639(2), 88 (2006)

    2006

  14. [20]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, E. Trincherini, Physical Review D 79(6), 064036 (2009)

    2009

  15. [21]

    Shiromizu, K

    T. Shiromizu, K. Maeda, M. Sasaki, Physical Review D 62(2) (2000)

    2000

  16. [22]

    Binetruy, C

    P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet, D. Langlois, Physics Letters B 565(1) (2000)

    2000

  17. [23]

    Ida, Journal of High Energy Physics 2000(09), 014 (2000)

    D. Ida, Journal of High Energy Physics 2000(09), 014 (2000)

    2000

  18. [24]

    Pardede, A

    K.F.S. Pardede, A. Suroso, F.P. Zen, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 988(1), 012007 (2018). DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/988/1/012007

    2018 doi

  19. [25]

    Abbott, et al., Physical Review Letters 119 (16), 161101 (2017)

    B.P. Abbott, et al., Physical Review Letters 119 (16), 161101 (2017)

    2017

  20. [26]

    Creminelli, F

    P. Creminelli, F. Vernizzi, Physical Review Letters 119 (25), 251302 (2017)

    2017

  21. [27]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, Physical Review Letters 121 (22), 221101 (2018)

    2018

  22. [28]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Kopp, A. Padilla, P.M. Saffin, C. Skordis, Physical Review Letters 122(6), 061301 (2019)

    2019

  23. [29]

    Zen, B.E

    F.P. Zen, B.E. Gunara, et al., General Relativity and Gravitation 42(4), 909 (2010)

    2010

  24. [30]

    Arianto, Freddy.P.Zen, S.Feranie, I.P.Widyatmika, B.E.Gunara, Physical Review D 84(4) (2011)

    2011

  25. [31]

    Feranie, F.P

    S. Feranie, F.P. Zen, Physical Review D 81(1) (2010)

    2010

  26. [32]

    Youm, Phys

    D. Youm, Phys. Rev. D 65, 025008 (2001). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.025008

    2001 doi

  27. [33]

    Bogdanos, A

    C. Bogdanos, A. Dimitriadis, K. Tamvakis, Classical and Quantum Gravity 24(14), 3701 (2007)

    2007

  28. [34]

    Widiyani, A

    A. Widiyani, A. Suroso, F.P. Zen, in AIP Conference Proceedings , vol. 1656 (AIP Publishing, 2015), vol. 1656, p. 050006

    2015

  29. [35]

    Minamitsuji, Physical Review D 89(6) (2014)

    M. Minamitsuji, Physical Review D 89(6) (2014)

    2014

  30. [36]

    Maeda, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 148 (2002)

    K. Maeda, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 148 (2002)

    2002

  31. [38]

    Binetruy, C

    P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet, U. Ellwanger, D. Langlois, Physics Letters B 477(1) (2000)

    2000

  32. [39]

    Gao, Physics Letters B 684(2), 85 (2010)

    C. Gao, Physics Letters B 684(2), 85 (2010)

    2010

  33. [40]

    Ade, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 594 (2016)

    P.A.R. Ade, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 594 (2016)

    2016

  34. [41]

    Davis, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 666(2) (2007)

    T.M. Davis, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 666(2) (2007)

    2007

  35. [42]

    Wood-Vasey, W.Michael, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 666(2) (2007) 14

    2007

  36. [43]

    Riess, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 659(1) (2007)

    A.G. Riess, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 659(1) (2007)

    2007

  37. [44]

    Press, S.A

    W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, B.P. Flannery, Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing (Cambridge University Press, 1992)

    1992

  38. [45]

    Freese, M

    K. Freese, M. Lewis, Physics Letters B 540(1-2), 1 (2002)

    2002

  39. [46]

    Y. Wang, K. Freese, P. Gondolo, M. Lewis, The Astrophysical Journal594(1), 25 (2003)

    2003

  40. [47]

    Chung, K

    D.J. Chung, K. Freese, Physical Review D 61(2), 023511 (1999)

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.