Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Stable Cosmology from Minimal Theory of Mass-Varying Massive Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Minimal mass-varying massive gravity admits a stable cosmology.

desk verdict Useful perturbation calculation, but the central 'stable cosmology' claim is not demonstrated, and the phenomenology is fitted, not predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21542 v1 pith:IJQVIURO submitted 2025-07-29 gr-qc hep-th

Ahmad Khoirul Falah , Andy Octavian Latief , Husin Alatas , Bobby Eka Gunara This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83F0583D0583C25 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k98.80.Cq
keywords massivegravitymass-varyingminimaltheorycosmologicalperturbationsdarkenergyinflationinstabilitiesFLRWbackground
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 paper aims to establish that a constrained version of mass-varying massive gravity, the minimal theory of mass-varying massive gravity (MTMVMG), has stable cosmological solutions. Around a flat Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker background, the tensor, vector, and scalar perturbations are claimed to be free from ghost, gradient, and tachyonic instabilities, provided one adopts a specific relation between the physical and fiducial scale factors. If correct, the external scalar field that controls the graviton mass could serve as dark energy in the late universe or as the inflaton in the early universe, with late-time behavior close to a cosmological constant and inflationary spectra compatible with current cosmic microwave background bounds. The result would offer a consistent massive-gravity cosmology that avoids the instabilities that plagued earlier dRGT-based massive gravity models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scale-factor ratio $u = \tilde{a}/a$ between the fiducial and physical metrics, pinned by the ansatz $u = (1 - \dot{\psi}^2/(6 M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 N^2 H^2)) H/H_f$. In the minimalism program the constraint $C_0$ erases all scalar kinetic terms; this ansatz prevents that cancellation and yields the positive kinetic coefficient $G_2 = 1 + \dot{\psi}^2 \Theta/(24 M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 N^2 H^2 (c_1 u^2 + c_2 u))$ for the single surviving scalar mode. The other main ingredients are the two Lagrange-multiplier constraints $C_0 \approx 0$ and $C_i \approx 0$, whose background solution $\lambda = 0$ leaves the mass-varying-gravity Friedmann equations intact, and the restricted mass potential $W = W_0 \exp(-\int N dt (H - H_f u) \Theta / (2 \Phi))$, with $\Theta = 6(c_1 u^2 + 2 c_2 u + c_3)$ and $\Phi = c_0 u^3 + 3 c_1 u^2 + 3 c_2 u + c_3$ built from the dRGT couplings $c_n$.

What would settle it

A direct test is to compute the full quadratic scalar action at a generic $u$ that does not obey ansatz (14) and check whether the kinetic coefficient $G_2$ can remain positive; if not, the stability claim rests entirely on that ansatz and would fail for any other fiducial-to-physical scale-factor relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MTMVMG propagates only three physical degrees of freedom, the same count as scalar-tensor gravity, and yet yields a healthy cosmological sector. On the FLRW background with $\lambda = 0$, the background equations match the original mass-varying massive gravity, but the minimalism constraints restrict the mass potential $W$ to an integral form and, after the explicit ansatz (14) for the fiducial-to-physical scale-factor ratio $u$, leave one active scalar mode with positive kinetic coefficient $G_2$, sound speed $c_s^2 \geq 0$, and mass parameter $M_{\mathrm{sc}}^2 \geq 0$; the tensor mode similarly requires $M_{\mathrm{GW}}^2 \geq 0$. Phenomenologically, the static branch reproduces $\Omega_{\mathrm{DE},0} \simeq 0.7$ with $w_{\mathrm{DE},0} = -1$ for a range of the fiducial parameter $k$ and gives the observed deceleration-to-acceleration transition $z_{\mathrm{tr}} \simeq 0.72$ at $k = 1.10$, while the dynamic branch fails those late-time tests. In the early universe, the same scalar can drive inflation and yield scalar and tensor spectra whose spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio lie within the Planck bounds, at the cost of a superluminal scalar sound speed $c_s^2 > 1$.

Load-bearing premise

The scalar sector is dynamical only because of the ansatz $u = (1 - \dot{\psi}^2/(6 M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 N^2 H^2)) H/H_f$; if that relation is not actually forced by the theory, all scalar kinetic terms vanish identically and there is no dark energy or inflaton mode left to describe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MTMVMG provides a massive-gravity cosmology with only three propagating degrees of freedom and no ghost, gradient, or tachyonic instabilities around a flat FLRW background.
  • The static branch behaves as a cosmological constant at $z = 0$ ($\Omega_{\mathrm{DE},0} \approx 0.7$, $w_{\mathrm{DE},0} = -1$) and, at $k = 1.10$, puts the deceleration-acceleration transition at $z_{\mathrm{tr}} \simeq 0.72$, matching the model-independent estimate.
  • The dynamic branch is less suitable for late-time cosmology: its dark-energy density diverges today for $k$ in $[0.37, 0.67]$, and its closest fit, $k = 0.46$, gives a transition redshift of $0.53$, well below the observed $0.72 \pm 0.05$.
  • The inflationary computation yields a spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio within Planck bounds ($n_s \simeq 0.965$, $r < 0.056$), with blue-tilted tensor modes possible when $M_{\mathrm{GW}}^2 > 3 \varepsilon_H H^2$.
  • The stability requirements translate into concrete parameter constraints via $c_s^2 \geq 0$, $M_{\mathrm{sc}}^2 \geq 0$, and $M_{\mathrm{GW}}^2 \geq 0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ansatz (14) is a modeling choice rather than a consequence of the action: if it cannot be derived from the constraints or replaced by a dynamical relation, then the advertised stable scalar sector is contingent on that choice rather than a generic prediction of MTMVMG.
  • The inflationary branch requires a superluminal scalar sound speed, which the paper treats as acceptable in a Lorentz-violating theory; an observational or formal bound demanding $c_s \leq 1$ would eliminate that branch, whereas if superluminality is tolerated, the theory predicts distinctive blue-tilted gravitational waves that separate it from standard single-field slow-roll inflation.
  • The same scalar field plays two roles in two different regimes, but the paper does not construct one continuous cosmic history that starts as the inflaton and ends as quintessence; building such a trajectory and checking both stability bounds along it would be a natural next step.
  • Testing the full nonlinear theory would settle whether the three-degree-of-freedom count survives beyond linear perturbations, since the minimalism constraints could in principle admit a hidden mode at higher order.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes cosmological perturbations in the minimal theory of mass-varying massive gravity (MTMVMG), a constrained extension of MVMG. It derives quadratic actions for tensor, vector, and scalar perturbations, identifies conditions for avoiding ghost, gradient, and tachyonic instabilities, and proposes that the external scalar field can act as either dark energy or the inflaton. Phenomenological applications are presented using the observed Hubble parameter as an input, with parameter choices aimed at reproducing Ω_DE,0 ≃ 0.7 and the Planck region in the r–n_s plane.

Significance. A stable cosmological model within a Lorentz-violating massive gravity framework would be a significant result, potentially addressing instabilities known in dRGT-based massive gravity and offering a unified scalar field for dark energy and inflation. The paper contains explicit perturbation actions and identifies the relevant stability conditions, which is a useful starting point. However, the central stability claim is not verified for any explicit background, the scalar dynamics are restored only through an ad hoc ansatz, and the phenomenological 'consistency' with observations is a fitting exercise rather than a prediction. These issues currently prevent the results from supporting the paper's main claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Cosmological perturbation and ghost-free conditions, Eq. (17)] The statement that G2 is 'clearly always positive' is not correct as written. G2 = 1 + ψ̇² Θ / [24 M_Pl² N² H² (c1 u² + c2 u)] is sign-indefinite because Θ = 6(c1 u² + 2 c2 u + c3) and the denominator can have opposite signs and sufficiently large magnitude. For example, with c1=1, c2=10, c3=−100, u=1, the second term is ≈ −43 ψ̇²/(24 M_Pl² N² H²), which can be less than −1 for ψ̇ of order M_Pl N H. The paper never restricts the parameters c_n to ensure G2>0, and more importantly it never evaluates G2, c_s², M_sc², or M_GW² for the background solutions used in Figs. 1 and 2. The abstract's claim that the theory admits stable cosmological solutions is therefore unsupported.
  2. [Cosmological perturbation and ghost-free conditions, Eq. (14)] The ansatz u = (1 − ψ̇²/(6 M_Pl² N² H²)) H/H_f is introduced to give the scalar perturbations a non-vanishing kinetic term after the minimalism constraints erase all scalar kinetic terms. This is an external input, not derived from the action, and its consistency with the background equations (3)–(5) and the constraint (6) is not demonstrated. Because the scalar field would be non-dynamical without this ansatz, the dark energy and inflation phenomenology rests entirely on this unproven assumption; the paper needs to show that the ansatz is a genuine solution or at least a consistent truncation of the equations of motion.
  3. [Phenomenology, Figs. 1 and 2] The claimed consistency with cosmological observations is a fit rather than a prediction. The observed H(z) is used as an input, and the parameters k, V0, W0, λ_V, λ_W are chosen to give Ω_DE,0 ≈ 0.7 and to place the r–n_s curve in the Planck-allowed region. For instance, the static-branch transition redshift z_tr = 0.72 is obtained by selecting k = 1.10, and the inflation plot is generated for a narrow parameter range 0.9602 ≤ k ≤ 0.9620 with all coefficients set to 0.1 and H = M_Pl = 1. These choices are not derived from the theory, and the paper does not check that the corresponding backgrounds satisfy the stability conditions G2>0, c_s²≥0, M_sc²≥0, and M_GW²≥0.
  4. [Appendix, Eq. (26), and Fig. 2] The paper acknowledges that the inflation scenario yields a superluminal sound speed, c_s² > 1, but it does not verify the stability conditions c_s² ≥ 0, M_sc² ≥ 0, or the smallness of the slow-roll parameter ε_H for the parameter set used in Fig. 2. The 'slow-roll approximation' is invoked without demonstrating ε_H ≪ 1 or the validity of the power-spectrum formulas (20)–(21) for the chosen parameters, so the r–n_s curve shown is not yet established as a viable inflationary prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract contains a grammatical error: 'a stable cosmological solutions' should be 'stable cosmological solutions'.
  2. [Eq. (15)] The definition of Υ appears to contain a typo: the term '3c1u' should likely be '3c3u' to match the definition Υ = c1 u³ + 3 c2 u² + 3 c3 u + c4 used in the pressure expression (4).
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states 'All dimensional parameters are normalized in unit of MPl = 10', which is ambiguous; clarify whether this means M_Pl is set to 10 in the chosen units, and specify the normalization of the other dimensional quantities.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Eq. (22)] The parameter k is introduced as a generally time-dependent function, yet Fig. 2 plots a curve as k varies over a narrow interval. The physical meaning of varying k as a constant parameter should be clarified, since a time-dependent k would not define a single trajectory in the r–n_s plane.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability computation is an independent perturbation analysis, and the observational 'consistency' is a parameter-conditional check, not a prediction.

full rationale

The perturbation and stability analysis is an algebraic derivation from the action (1), the background constraint (2), and the stated ansatz (14); it does not use the later phenomenological targets (Ω_DE,0≈0.7 or ns≈0.965) as inputs. The 'consistent with observations' passages in the Phenomenology section are consistency checks rather than predictions: the paper explicitly inputs the observationally fitted H(z) from refs. [34,35] and scans the free fiducial parameter k, so the reported Ω_DE,0 and the (ns,r) curve are model outputs conditional on free parameters, not circularly enforced identities. The self-citation [27] supplies the MTMVMG action and background equations from prior published work by the same group; it is not an unverified uniqueness theorem whose content is identical to the paper's conclusion. The ansatz (14) is indeed a load-bearing modeling choice—introduced to restore a dynamical scalar sector—but imposing it is not equivalent to assuming the desired stability inequalities G2>0, cs2≥0, Msc2≥0; those conditions are separately asserted or imposed, and their actual verification on the phenomenology backgrounds is a support gap, not a circular step. No specific reduction of a claimed result to its own input was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several free parameters and ad hoc assumptions: the ansatz for u, the choice λ = 0, and the exponential potentials. The phenomenology relies on tuning V0, W0, λ_V, λ_W, and k against observed Ω_DE,0 and the Planck n_s-r region, as well as inserting an observed H(z) function rather than solving the theory's own background equations.

free parameters (7)
  • c0, c1, c2, c3, c4 = 1 (all figures)
    Dimensionless dRGT potential coefficients; set to 1 in all numerical examples without scanning other values.
  • W0 (amplitude of mass-varying potential) = 0.43 (static branch), 96.3 (dynamic branch), 0.1 (inflation)
    Chosen to make Ω_DE,0 ≈ 0.7 and the r-n_s curve pass through the Planck region.
  • V0 (amplitude of self-interaction potential) = 0.51 (static), 67.5 (dynamic), 0.1 (inflation)
    Chosen along with W0 to satisfy the background energy density constraints in the fitted examples.
  • λ_W (exponent of W) = 0.2 (dynamic), 0.1 (inflation)
    Exponential slope of the mass potential, tuned phenomenologically.
  • λ_V (exponent of V) = 0.5 (dynamic), 0.1 (inflation)
    Exponential slope of the self-interaction potential, tuned phenomenologically.
  • k (fiducial/physical lapse parameter) = 0.62-2.27 (static branch), 0.46 (dynamic branch), 0.9602-0.9620 (inflation)
    Selected to match observed Ω_DE,0 and to place the r-n_s curve inside the Planck allowed region; the narrow inflation range indicates fine-tuning.
  • u (scale factor ratio ansatz) = defined by eq. (14), with H_f/H free
    The ad hoc ansatz for u introduces a free function of time that is not derived from the action; it is essential for restoring scalar dynamics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The minimalism constraints C0 ≈ 0 and Ci ≈ 0 from refs. [21,22,27] are imposed and correct.
    The entire MTMVMG framework rests on these constraints; the paper refers to its own prior work for their validity.
  • ad hoc to paper The fiducial metric is unperturbed in unitary gauge, and the physical fiducial scale factor ratio is set by the ansatz (14).
    This assumption is introduced to cure the vanishing scalar kinetic terms; it is not derived from the Lagrangian and is a load-bearing modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The background Lagrange multiplier is λ = 0.
    The paper states that λ = 0 is a particular solution but does not analyze other branches or their stability.
  • ad hoc to paper The potentials W and V take exponential forms in the phenomenological sections.
    Used to obtain the figures; no justification is given for exponential potentials beyond convenience.
  • standard math Standard cosmological perturbation theory and the Bunch-Davies vacuum are used for power spectra.
    Standard tools, though the theory is Lorentz-violating and the vacuum choice may need additional justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stable Cosmology from Minimal Theory of Mass-Varying Massive Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJQVIURO

@misc{pith2026250721542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stable Cosmology from Minimal Theory of Mass-Varying Massive Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJQVIURO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21542}
}
abstract

We study cosmological perturbations in the minimal theory of mass-varying massive gravity (MTMVMG), a constrained extension of mass-varying massive gravity that propagates only three physical degrees of freedom. We show that MTMVMG admits a stable cosmological solutions i.e. free from ghost, gradient, and tachyonic instabilities around the homogeneous and isotropic background. We further demonstrate that the dynamical external scalar field$\textendash\textendash$which is responsible for the mass of the graviton$\textendash\textendash$can suitably serve as either dark energy or the inflaton, yielding a description consistent with current cosmological observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21542 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Evolutions of dimensionless density parameter of dark energy Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plot of the tensor-to-scalar ratio ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    A. K. Falah, A. O. Latief, H. Alatas, and B. E. Gunara, Higher-dimensional minimal theory of mass-varying mas- sive gravity and its cosmological consequences, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084013 (2021), arXiv:2105.03849 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [34]

    Farooq, F

    O. Farooq, F. R. Madiyar, S. Crandall, and B. Ra- tra, Hubble Parameter Measurement Constraints on the Redshift of the Deceleration–acceleration Transition, Dy- namical Dark Energy, and Space Curvature, Astrophys. J. 835, 26 (2017), arXiv:1607.03537 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [1]

    Hinterbichler, Theoretical Aspects of Massive Gravity, Rev

    K. Hinterbichler, Theoretical Aspects of Massive Gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 671 (2012), arXiv:1105.3735 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [2]

    de Rham, Massive Gravity, Living Rev

    C. de Rham, Massive Gravity, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 7 (2014), arXiv:1401.4173 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2014

  5. [3]

    Fierz and W

    M. Fierz and W. Pauli, On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 173, 211 (1939)

    work page 1939

  6. [4]

    de Rham and G

    C. de Rham and G. Gabadadze, Generalization of the Fierz-Pauli Action, Phys. Rev. D 82, 044020 (2010), arXiv:1007.0443 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [5]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, Resum- mation of Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 231101 (2011), arXiv:1011.1232 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2011

  8. [6]

    D’Amico, C

    G. D’Amico, C. de Rham, S. Dubovsky, G. Gabadadze, D. Pirtskhalava, and A. J. Tolley, Massive Cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124046 (2011), arXiv:1108.5231 [hep- th]. 8

    arXiv 2011

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Higuchi, Forbidden Mass Range for Spin-2 Field The- ory in De Sitter Space-time, Nucl

    A. Higuchi, Forbidden Mass Range for Spin-2 Field The- ory in De Sitter Space-time, Nucl. Phys. B 282, 397 (1987)

    1987

  2. [8]

    Fasiello and A

    M. Fasiello and A. J. Tolley, Cosmological perturbations in Massive Gravity and the Higuchi bound, JCAP 11, 035, arXiv:1206.3852 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  3. [9]

    De Felice, A

    A. De Felice, A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, and S. Mukohyama, Massive gravity: nonlinear instability of the homoge- neous and isotropic universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 171101 (2012), arXiv:1206.2080 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Huang, Y.-S

    Q.-G. Huang, Y.-S. Piao, and S.-Y. Zhou, Mass-Varying Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124014 (2012), arXiv:1206.5678 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [11]

    E. N. Saridakis, Phantom crossing and quintessence limit in extended nonlinear massive gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 075003 (2013), arXiv:1207.1800 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Hinterbichler, J

    K. Hinterbichler, J. Stokes, and M. Trodden, Cosmologies of extended massive gravity, Phys. Lett. B 725, 1 (2013), arXiv:1301.4993 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [13]

    R. A. Battye and J. A. Pearson, Massive gravity, the elas- ticity of space-time and perturbations in the dark sector, Phys. Rev. D 88, 084004 (2013), arXiv:1301.5042 [astro- ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Lin, SO(3) massive gravity, Phys

    C. Lin, SO(3) massive gravity, Phys. Lett. B 727, 31 (2013), arXiv:1305.2069 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Rubakov, Lorentz-violating graviton masses: Getting around ghosts, low strong coupling scale and vdvz dis- continuity, arXiv preprint hep-th/0407104 (2004)

    V. Rubakov, Lorentz-violating graviton masses: Getting around ghosts, low strong coupling scale and vdvz dis- continuity, arXiv preprint hep-th/0407104 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  10. [16]

    V. A. Rubakov and P. G. Tinyakov, Infrared-modified gravities and massive gravitons, Phys. Usp. 51, 759 (2008), arXiv:0802.4379 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [17]

    D. Blas, D. Comelli, F. Nesti, and L. Pilo, Lorentz Break- ing Massive Gravity in Curved Space, Phys. Rev. D 80, 044025 (2009), arXiv:0905.1699 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Lin, Massive Graviton on a Spatial Condensate, Phys

    C. Lin, Massive Graviton on a Spatial Condensate, Phys. Lett. B 738, 386 (2014), arXiv:1307.2574 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Comelli, F

    D. Comelli, F. Nesti, and L. Pilo, Massive gravity: a General Analysis, JHEP 07, 161, arXiv:1305.0236 [hep- th]

    arXiv

  14. [20]

    Blas and S

    D. Blas and S. Sibiryakov, Completing Lorentz violating massive gravity at high energies, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 147, 578 (2015), arXiv:1410.2408 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [21]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Mukohyama, Minimal theory of massive gravity, Phys. Lett. B 752, 302 (2016), arXiv:1506.01594 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [22]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Mukohyama, Phenomenology in minimal theory of massive gravity, JCAP 04, 028, arXiv:1512.04008 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  17. [23]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Mukohyama, Graviton mass might reduce tension between early and late time cosmo- logical data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 091104 (2017), arXiv:1607.03368 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [24]

    J. C. N. de Araujo, A. De Felice, S. Kumar, and R. C. Nunes, Minimal theory of massive gravity in the light of CMB data and the S8 tension, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104057 (2021), arXiv:2106.09595 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [25]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Mukohyama, and M. C. Pookkillath, Minimal theory of massive gravity and constraints on the graviton mass, JCAP 12 (12), 011, arXiv:2110.01237 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  20. [26]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Mukohyama, and M. C. Pookkillath, Ex- tended minimal theories of massive gravity, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084050 (2022), arXiv:2206.03338 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Cosmological Conse- quences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  22. [29]

    A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, C. Lin, and S. Mukohyama, Cosmo- logical perturbations of self-accelerating universe in non- linear massive gravity, JCAP 03, 006, arXiv:1111.4107 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  23. [30]

    Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO- Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys

    R. Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO- Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    de Rham, J

    C. de Rham, J. T. Deskins, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, Graviton mass bounds, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025004 (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    Comelli, M

    D. Comelli, M. Crisostomi, F. Nesti, and L. Pilo, Degrees of Freedom in Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 86, 101502 (2012), arXiv:1204.1027 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Comelli, F

    D. Comelli, F. Nesti, and L. Pilo, Nonderivative Modified Gravity: a Classification, JCAP 11, 018, arXiv:1407.4991 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Salehi and H

    A. Salehi and H. Hatami, New Hubble parame- ter data and possibility of more than one decelera- tion–acceleration transition redshift, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1165 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Dom` enech, T

    G. Dom` enech, T. Hiramatsu, C. Lin, M. Sasaki, M. Shiraishi, and Y. Wang, CMB Scale Dependent Non-Gaussianity from Massive Gravity during Inflation, JCAP 05, 034, arXiv:1701.05554 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fujita, S

    T. Fujita, S. Kuroyanagi, S. Mizuno, and S. Mukohyama, Blue-tilted Primordial Gravitational Waves from Massive Gravity, Phys. Lett. B789, 215 (2019), arXiv:1808.02381 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Wang and W

    Y. Wang and W. Xue, Inflation and Alternatives with Blue Tensor Spectra, JCAP 10, 075, arXiv:1403.5817 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Akrami, F

    Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Bacci- galupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. Barreiro, N. Bar- tolo, S. Basak, et al., Planck 2018 results-x. constraints on inflation, Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A10 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Mukhanov and A

    V. Mukhanov and A. Vikman, Enhancing the tensor-to- scalar ratio in simple inflation, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2006 (02), 004

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.