Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Lovelock type brane cosmology

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One quartic equation yields dark energy from pure brane geometry

desk verdict The closed-universe core is real and the limits check out, but the flat/open master equation is an unproven substitution, so the paper is conditional rather than wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05920 v1 pith:W4LLWB4Y submitted 2025-09-07 gr-qc hep-th

Amairani Arroyo , Rubén Cordero , Giovany Cruz , Efraín Rojas This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.50.-h98.80.-k
keywords branecosmologygeodeticgravityLovelock-typemodelsextrinsiccurvatureGibbons-Hawking-YorktermGibbons-Hawking-York-MyersdarkenergyFriedmann-typeequation
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that a single geometric action for a brane moving as a geodesic in a flat five-dimensional bulk produces a quartic Friedmann-type equation that generalizes and unifies the standard general-relativistic, DGP, and Gauss-Bonnet brane cosmologies. The key move is to include, alongside the worldvolume Ricci term, the two boundary-type extrinsic-curvature terms allowed by second-order Lovelock-type dynamics: a linear term and a cubic term built from the extrinsic curvature. The resulting master equation contains an integration constant, the fingerprint of the extra dimension, which acts like a dark-radiation contribution and parametrizes how far the model sits from ordinary cosmology. The paper shows that in pure geometric limits those correction terms generate effective cosmological constants and late-time accelerated expansion, so dark energy appears as a geometric effect rather than an exotic fluid. It then demonstrates that with fine-tuned parameters the model reproduces the late-time expansion history of Lambda-CDM, while making altered early-time predictions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lovelock-type brane action (Eq. 2), which combines the constant term, the GHY-type linear extrinsic-curvature term $\alpha_1 K$, the worldvolume Ricci scalar $\alpha_2 R$, and the GHYM-type cubic extrinsic-curvature term $\alpha_3(K^3-3KK^{ab}K_{ab}+2K^a{}_bK^b{}_cK^c{}_a)$. The machinery that makes the derivation work is the set of conserved symmetric tensors $J^{(n)}_{ab}$ built from intrinsic and extrinsic curvatures; assembling them into $T^{ab}$ turns the equation of motion into the normal constraint $T^{ab}K_{ab}=0$, a second-order wave-like conservation law. Demanding FRW symmetry and integrating the conserved component produces the constant $\omega$ that becomes the dark-radiation density $\Omega_{dr,0}$, and the same quartic structure then acts as a generating function for all the Friedmann equations, effective potentials, and the reconstructed dark-energy density.

What would settle it

Fit Eq. (28) to a joint dataset of Type Ia supernova distances, cosmic microwave background distances, and Hubble-parameter measurements: the fit must satisfy the generalized normalization condition (32) and keep the quartic discriminant nonnegative, and the fitted dark-radiation density $\Omega_{dr,0}$ contributes a $1/a^4$ term bounded by Big Bang nucleosynthesis limits on extra relativistic energy, so an acceptable parameter set that violates those bounds would rule out the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the derivation of a quartic Friedmann-type equation, $$\Omega_{\alpha_3,0}\$chi^{4}$ + H_0\$chi^{3}$ + \Omega_{\alpha_1,0}$H_0^{2}$\$chi^{2}$ + \left(\Omega_{\alpha_0,0}-\frac{\Omega_{m,0}}{$a^{3}$}-\frac{\Omega_{r,0}}{$a^{4}$}\right)$H_0^{3}$\chi + \frac{\Omega_{dr,0}$H_0^{4}$}{$a^{4}$}=0,$$ where $\chi=(H^2+k/a^2)^{1/2}$ and the $\Omega$'s are dimensionless densities built from the four Lovelock-type couplings, matter, radiation, curvature, and the bulk integration constant. This equation is presented as the master relation of Lovelock-type brane cosmology: setting $\Omega_{dr,0}=\Omega_{\alpha_3,0}=0$ gives the DGP brane Friedmann equation, setting only $\Omega_{dr,0}=0$ gives the induced-gravity Gauss-Bonnet brane equation, and switching off the extrinsic-curvature terms plus the dark radiation recovers standard Friedmann cosmology. The authors argue that the correction terms dominate at low energies and late times, that self-accelerating and non-self-accelerating branches live in the two signs of the roots, and that the effective density reconstructed from the same quartic plays the role of a purely geometric dark energy accompanying ordinary matter.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the universe is a purely geodesic brane in a fixed five-dimensional Minkowski bulk, so the brane's gravitational back-reaction on the bulk is neglected; if bulk dynamics or brane-bulk coupling matters at cosmological scales, the quartic Friedmann equation and its geometric dark energy would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the quartic master equation is correct, general-relativistic, DGP, and Gauss-Bonnet brane cosmologies are not independent models but limiting cases of one geodesic brane action with four couplings.
  • Late-time cosmic acceleration follows without any cosmological constant or exotic matter: the GHY and GHYM terms become active at low energies and produce effective cosmological constants with self-accelerating branches.
  • The integration constant $\omega$ behaves as a dark-radiation-like component, so the model predicts a $1/a^4$ geometric contribution whose amplitude is fixed by the bulk energy and is testable through early-universe constraints.
  • With fine-tuned energy-density parameters satisfying the generalized normalization condition, the model emulates the $\Lambda$CDM expansion history at late times while giving a distinct, screened radiation era at early times.
  • The same quartic structure yields an explicit effective dark-energy density, so the model is ready for direct comparison with distance, Hubble, and equation-of-state data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the master equation is purely geometric, adding extra fields or couplings on the brane would shift only the matter terms in the quartic equation; this gives a clean mapping between brane couplings and effective dark-energy parameters that could be fitted to data.
  • The model implies a specific, testable early-universe signature: its effective radiation density is attenuated relative to $\Lambda$CDM, so precision primordial-nucleosynthesis measurements of the expansion rate would constrain the product of $\Omega_{\alpha_1,0}$ and $\Omega_{\alpha_3,0}$ and the dark-radiation amplitude.
  • The identification of $\tau^{ab}$ with embedding matter suggests a route to a geometric dark-matter component as well: the effective pressure and equation of state derived from the quartic equation could be compared with rotation-curve or lensing data, a step the paper outlines but does not carry out.
  • A natural next calculation is to include a non-Minkowski bulk, since the derivation relies only on the worldvolume geometry; the same quartic structure would produce modified coefficients, giving a quantitative handle on how sensitive the dark-energy interpretation is to the bulk geometry.
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 proposes a geodetic brane gravity model whose worldvolume action contains, in addition to the Regge-Teitelboim term, the GHY-type extrinsic curvature term, the intrinsic Einstein-Hilbert term, and the GHYM-type cubic extrinsic curvature term. For a homogeneous and isotropic (FRW) brane embedded in a 5-dimensional Minkowski background, the authors derive a first integral of the second-order equation of motion, introduce a constant ω as the 'fingerprint of the extra dimension', and obtain a quartic Friedmann-type master equation in terms of dimensionless density parameters. They then analyze several limits (Einstein, DGP, and Gauss-Bonnet brane cosmologies), construct effective potentials, and examine late-time accelerating branches that can emulate ΛCDM behavior. The paper closes with a discussion of an effective dark-energy density that absorbs all geometric corrections and a set of concluding remarks about the model's potential as a geometric origin of cosmic acceleration.

Significance. If the derivation were fully valid, the paper would provide a useful unification of several brane cosmologies from a single Lovelock-type action, with explicit analytic expressions for the Friedmann equation and its branches. The authors are careful to present the action, the conserved tensors, and the integration procedure, and they correctly recover the Einstein and DGP limits when the corresponding coupling parameters vanish. The paper also demonstrates a systematic method for extracting an effective dark-energy component from the geometric terms, which is a common and potentially valuable way to confront brane models with observations. However, the central step that extends the derived first integral from closed spatial sections to flat and open sections is not justified; this affects the claimed DGP and Gauss-Bonnet limits for the cosmologically relevant flat case. The numerical results and figures, which all use Ωk,0=0, therefore do not follow from the stated action as it stands. Because the flat-universe case is central to the paper's phenomenological claims, the current significance is substantially reduced unless the k-continuation can be properly derived.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (21)] The step from Eq. (20) to Eq. (21) is not valid for k=0 and k=-1. The first integral in Eq. (20) is derived after choosing the cosmic gauge N=1, where N^2=˙t^2−˙a^2. Replacing ˙t by (˙a^2+k)^{1/2} in the integrated expression gives N^2=k for the worldvolume, so for k=0 the brane is null and for k=-1 the worldvolume is not timelike. Thus Eq. (21), the master equation (24), the quartic equation (28), and all numerical results in Section IV that take Ωk,0=0 are not consequences of the action (2) for flat or open FRW branes. The citation to Refs. [36,43] does not cure this inconsistency unless those references actually derive the k-extension from the equations of motion for the corresponding embeddings; the present paper does not reproduce such a derivation. The authors should either derive the flat/open case from the correct embeddings or restrict the claims to the closed (k=1) case, which would remove the DGP and Gauss-Bonnet limit claims for flat spatial sections.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (14)] The claimed equivalence between Eq. (13) and Eq. (14) is incorrect. From Eq. (13), if D_ab K^ab=0, then contracting yields (G_ab−κT^m_ab)K^ab=0, which does not imply the tensor equation G_ab−κT^m_ab−τ_ab=0. Furthermore, the definition τ^ab = D^ab + D^ab is not meaningful as written; it appears to be a typo, but even with a corrected definition the stated implication does not follow. Since this is the basis for the interpretation of the geometric terms as a dark-matter or embedding-matter source, the equivalence claim needs to be repaired or removed.
  3. [Section IV.C, Eq. (62)] The effective dark-energy density ρ_dark is introduced by postulating the standard FRW form in Eq. (62) and then solving for ρ_dark from the previously derived Friedmann-type equation. This makes Eq. (65) a reparametrization of Eq. (21) rather than an independent derivation of a geometric dark-energy component. The abstract's statement that the model yields dark energy as a purely geometric contribution is therefore stronger than what Eqs. (62)–(65) establish; the authors should describe ρ_dark as an effective quantity defined so that the model reproduces the standard FRW form, not as a prediction of a new component.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.B.3, Eq. (29) vs. text] In the reduction of f(Ω_I,a) for the case Ωα0,0=0, Ωdr,0≠0, the first term is written as 2Ω^3_{α3,0}, whereas in Eq. (29) the corresponding term is 2Ω^3_{α1,0}. This inconsistency should be checked and corrected.
  2. [References] References [36] and [39] are identical (both cite Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 115012 (2013)); one should be removed or replaced with a different source if intended.
  3. [General] The figures are based on hand-picked parameter values and contain no error bars or comparison with observational data beyond qualitative ΛCDM emulation. The paper acknowledges fine-tuning, but a brief statement about the observational status of these parameter choices would improve clarity.
  4. [Section IV.A, Eq. (30)] The discussion of the discriminant of the quartic (28) is vague; the authors state that real solutions depend on the discriminant but do not give the conditions. A short summary of when real branches exist would be helpful.
  5. [References] There are several typographical errors in the references, e.g., 'Teiltelboim' should be 'Teitelboim' and 'reprot' should be 'report'; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Core Friedmann dynamics derive from the action, but the flat/open-universe continuation is imported from the authors' Refs. [36,43] and the dark-energy density is defined to enforce the standard FRW form, so that 'dark energy' is a by-construction rearrangement of the master quartic.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section III, Eq. (21), after Eq. (20)]
    "A direct integration followed by choosing the cosmic gauge, N= 1, as well as the inclusion of the three main geometries by ˙t→(˙a 2 +k) 1/2 withk=−1,0,1, as discussed in detail in [36, 43] allows us to find ..."

    Equation (21) is the first integral from which the master equation (24), the quartic (28), and all of Section IV follow. For k=1 it is a genuine integration of (20) in the N=1 gauge together with the paper's lapse definition N^2=˙t^2−˙a^2. The extension to k=0,−1 is not derived here from the action or from an explicit embedding calculation; it is inserted through the substitution ˙t→(˙a^2+k)^{1/2} and referred to Refs. [36,43], whose authors include the present authors Rojas and Cruz. With the paper's own definition of N, that substitution gives N^2=k in the N=1 gauge, so the flat/open cases do not follow from the stated equations in this text.

  2. self definitional [Section IV.C, Eqs. (62)-(64)]
    "Grounded in the conventional cosmology by enforcing an effective FRW evolution dictated by ... (ρ+ρ dark) ... we wonder about the possibility of rearranging (21) in this way to find outρ dark. ... This is the same equation we already obtained in (28)."

    The dark-energy density is not independently predicted; it is introduced as the quantity that makes the model's first integral (21) take the standard Friedmann form (62). Inserting (24) into (21), changing variable to Z, and reorganizing yields (64), which the paper immediately identifies with the previously derived master equation (28). Thus (65) is a rearrangement of (28) solved for ρ+ρ_dark and then subtracting ρ. The statement that dark energy is a purely geometric contribution is true only by the construction of ρ_dark: any deviation from the standard Friedmann form is renamed as dark energy. The paper is transparent about this being a rearrangement, but it is a definitional equivalence, not an independent result.

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular: the action (2) with the Lovelock-type tensors (4) yields the conservation law (12), and the μ=t component in the FRW ansatz (15) integrates to the first-order equation (20). In the closed case k=1, Eq. (21) is a legitimate consequence of the action in the N=1 gauge. The Einstein, DGP, and Gauss-Bonnet limits are algebraic specializations of (24) compared against Refs. [44–46], not inputs to the derivation. Two qualifications prevent a clean 0–2 score. First, the flat/open (k=0,−1) master equation is imported from the authors' own Refs. [36,43] via the substitution ˙t→(˙a^2+k)^{1/2}, with no isometric embedding or equation-of-motion derivation shown in this paper; if that substitution was an ansatz in those papers, the claimed flat/open unification is a self-citation rather than a derivation. Second, the 'dark energy' in Section IV.C is defined by enforcing the standard Friedmann form (62), so solving for ρ_dark reproduces the same quartic (28) by construction; this is a transparent rearrangement rather than an independent prediction. The emulation of ΛCDM in Fig. 7 is also explicitly obtained by fine-tuning parameters, so it is a fit, not a predicted success. These issues are partial rather than total: the k=1 dynamics and the algebraic structure of the Friedmann-type equation remain substantive consequences of the model.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the Lovelock-type action (2), the geodetic brane approximation, and a perfect-fluid matter ansatz. Free parameters α0, α1, α3 and ω are hand-tuned in the figures, not derived from data. No new fundamental entities are introduced; the effective dark energy is bookkeeping defined to match the standard Friedmann form.

free parameters (4)
  • α0 = Set to zero in most illustrative cases
    Coefficient of the constant term in action (2); a free cosmological-constant-like parameter.
  • α1 = Ωα1,0 = -1.06, -0.76, 1.22 in figures
    Coefficient of the GHY term linear in extrinsic curvature; tuned to emulate standard cosmology and to give self-accelerating branches.
  • α3 = Ωα3,0 = 0.06, -0.61 in figures
    Coefficient of the GHYM term cubic in extrinsic curvature; a free parameter that changes early-time dynamics.
  • ω = Ωdr,0 = -1.05, -1.28 in figures
    Integration constant related to conserved bulk energy; parametrizes the dark-radiation-like deviation from Einstein cosmology.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The brane action (2) containing only α0, α1, α2, α3 Lovelock-type invariants is the most general action yielding second-order equations of motion.
    Section II, Eq. (2). This restricts the theory to these four terms; derived in earlier work (Refs. [36,42]) and adopted here without restating the proof.
  • domain assumption The bulk is a fixed (4+1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime and the brane evolves geodetically, i.e., the brane's gravitational back-reaction on the bulk is neglected.
    Section II, second paragraph: the worldvolume floats in a (4+1)-dimensional Minkowski background.
  • domain assumption The matter content on the brane is a perfect fluid with energy density ρ = ρ_m,0/a^3 + ρ_r,0/a^4.
    Section III after Eq. (22): the total energy density is assumed in this form. This excludes other components.
  • standard math α2 ≠ 0 so that the dimensionless density parameters (23) are well defined.
    Section III, Eq. (23): the parameters divide by α2. If α2 = 0 the parametrization fails.
  • domain assumption The quartic equation (28) admits real positive roots for the parameter ranges of interest.
    Section IV: physical viability requires real χ; the paper refers to discriminant conditions but does not analyze the full parameter space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lovelock type brane cosmology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4LLWB4Y

@misc{pith2026250905920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lovelock type brane cosmology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4LLWB4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05920}
}
abstract

The cosmological implications of the geodetic brane gravity model, enhanced by geometrical terms of Gibbons-Hawking-York (GHY) type and Gibbons-Hawking-York-Myers type (GHYM), carefully constructed as combinations of intrinsic and extrinsic curvatures, are examined. All the geometrical terms under study belong to a set named Lovelock-type brane models. The combined model gives rise to a second-order differential equation of motion. Under a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) geometry defined on a $(3+1)$-dimensional world volume, together with a perfect fluid matter content, the emerging universe of this model evolves in a 5-dimensional Minkowski background, yielding peculiar facts. The resulting Friedmann-type equation is written in terms of energy density parameters, where fine-tuning is needed to probe interesting cosmological processes close to the current data. In this sense, Lovelock-type brane models might underlie the cosmic acceleration. Indeed, we find that these correction terms become significant at low energies/late times. The model exhibits self-accelerating (non-self-accelerating) behavior for the brane expansion, and in the case where the radiation-like contribution due to the existence of the extra dimension vanishes its behavior is the same as the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) brane cosmology and its generalization to the Gauss-Bonnet (GB) brane gravity. Likewise, Einstein cosmology is recovered when the radiation-like contribution fades away along with the odd polynomials in brane extrinsic curvature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Here the parameter values are: Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison between (45) and the potential of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The parameters values are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The parameter values are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Here the parameter values are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The parameter values used are: Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Cosmological dynamics based on Lovelock's gravity. Qualitative analysis

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For flat FRW universes in Lovelock gravity, the dynamics reduces to a single first-order ODE whose fixed and singular points classify all evolutions, including a new 'Big Shock' initial state for N>4 with negative couplings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In this sense, as discussed in [55] and [56],τ ab can be understood as an additional matter termed asdark 4 matterorembedding matter

    This structure naturally suggests interpretingτ ab as an additional contribution to the ordinary matter source Tab m . In this sense, as discussed in [55] and [56],τ ab can be understood as an additional matter termed asdark 4 matterorembedding matter. Notice that in our case, such a fictional matter results in a solely geometric sum of terms. It is worth...

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Despite this,U rad exhibits a much larger negative magnitude thanU eff

    Radiation does not appear as an indepen- dent term, but is instead included effectively within the structure of the potential, together with other geometric contributions. Despite this,U rad exhibits a much larger negative magnitude thanU eff. In both cases the abso- lute value decreases as the universe expands. This trend suggests that the effective comp...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999),

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B302, 668 (1988)

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    Zlatev, L

    I. Zlatev, L. M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 896-899 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    K¨ ading, Astronomy2, no.2, 128-140 (2023)

    C. K¨ ading, Astronomy2, no.2, 128-140 (2023). 14

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Burrage, E

    C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, C. K¨ ading and P. Millington, Phys. Rev. D99, no.4, 043539 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. Okabe, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 62, 023511 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov, and P. J. Stein- hardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4438 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov, and P. J. Stein- hardt, Phys. Rev. D63, 103510 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Melchiorri, L

    A. Melchiorri, L. Mersini-Houghton, C. J. Odman, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D68, 043509 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    L. P. Chimento and A. Feinstein, Mod. Phys. Lett. A19, 761 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    L. P. Chimento, Phys. Rev. D69, 123517 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Garriga and V

    J. Garriga and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B458, 219 (1999)

    1999

  8. [16]

    Armendariz-Picon, T

    C. Armendariz-Picon, T. Damour, and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B458, 209 (1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    de Putter and E

    R. de Putter and E. V. Linder, Astropart. Phys.28, 263 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Gao and R.-J

    X.-T. Gao and R.-J. Yang, Phys. Lett. B687, 99 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, and E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064036 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    de Rham and A

    C. de Rham and A. J. Tolley, JCAP05, 015 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    G. L. Goon, K. Hinterbichler, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D83, 085015 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    G. Goon, K. Hinterbichler, and M. Trodden, JCAP07, 017 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 011301 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Deffayet, O

    C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, JCAP10, 026 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Pujolas, I

    O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, JHEP11, 156 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Kimura and K

    R. Kimura and K. Yamamoto, JCAP04, 025 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Maity, Phys

    D. Maity, Phys. Lett. B720, 389 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Capozziello, Int

    S. Capozziello, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11, 483-492 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. F. Cardone, S. Carloni and A. Troisi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D12, 1969-1982 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D60, 043501 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    Bartolo and M

    N. Bartolo and M. Pietroni, Phys. Rev. D61, 023518 (2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    S. M. Carroll, A. De Felice, V. Duvvuri, D. A. Easson, M. Trodden and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D71, 063513 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 71, 123509 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Maartens and K

    R. Maartens and K. Koyama, Living Rev. Rel.13, 5 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Stern and Chuang Xu, Phys

    A. Stern and Chuang Xu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024001 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Regge and C

    T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, General Relativity ` a la string: A progress reprot, inProceedings of the First Marcel Grossman Meeting, ed. R. Ruffini (North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1977), p. 77; arXiv: 1612.05256 [hep-th]

    1977 arXiv

  29. [37]

    V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 125, 136 (1983)

    1983

  30. [39]

    Cordero, M

    R. Cordero, M. Cruz, A. Molgado and E. Rojas, Gen. Rel. Grav.46, 1761 (2014)

    2014

  31. [40]

    Montiel, N

    A. Montiel, N. Bret´ on, R. Cordero and E. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D92, 024042 (2015)

    2015

  32. [41]

    Cruz and E

    M. Cruz and E. Rojas, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 115012 (2013)

    2013

  33. [42]

    Bagatella-Flores, C

    N. Bagatella-Flores, C. Campuzano, M. Cruz and E. Ro- jas, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 245012 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    Rojas, Class

    E. Rojas, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 185006 (2019)

    2019

  35. [44]

    Rojas and G

    E. Rojas and G. Cruz, Phys. Lett. B866, 139504 (2025)

    2025

  36. [45]

    Rojas, G

    E. Rojas, G. Cruz and J.C. Natividad, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39, 2450069 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B484, 112 (2000);485, 208 (2000)

    2000

  38. [47]

    Charmousis, C., and Dufaux, J. F. Class. Quantum Grav. 194671, (2002)

    2002

  39. [48]

    Kofinas, R

    G. Kofinas, R. Maartens and E. Papantonopoulos, JHEP 10, 066 (2003)

    2003

  40. [49]

    R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D36, 392 (1987)

    1987

  41. [50]

    S. C. Davis, Phys. Rev. D67, 024030 (2003)

    2003

  42. [51]

    Davidson, Class

    A. Davidson, Class. Quant. Grav.16, 653 (1999)

    1999

  43. [52]

    Karasik and A Davidson, Phys

    D. Karasik and A Davidson, Phys. Rev. D67, 064012 (2003)

    2003

  44. [53]

    Davidson and I

    A. Davidson and I. Gurwich, Phys. Rev. D74, 044023 (2006)

    2006

  45. [54]

    Spivak,A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, Vol

    M. Spivak,A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, Vol. 4, (Publish or Perish, Boston, MA, 1970) (1979)

    1979

  46. [55]

    Capovilla and J

    R. Capovilla and J. Guven, Phys. Rev. D51, 6736 (1995)

    1995

  47. [56]

    Arreaga, R

    G. Arreaga, R. Capovilla and J. Guven, Annals Phys. 279, 126-158 (2000)

    2000

  48. [57]

    Davidson, D

    A. Davidson, D. Karasik and Y. Lederer, Cold dark mat- ter from dark energy, arXiv:gr-qc/0111107

    arXiv

  49. [58]

    S. A. Paston and A. A. Sheykin, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 1 (2018)

    2018

  50. [59]

    E. M. Prodanov, Int. J. Appl. Comput. Math.7, 218 (2021)

    2021

  51. [60]

    Davidson, D

    A. Davidson, D. Karasik and Y. Lederer, Class. Quant. Grav.161349 (1999)

    1999

  52. [61]

    Cordero, A

    R. Cordero, A. Molgado and E. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D79, 024024 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.