Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The paper proves that generic bumblebee vector-tensor cosmology around a flat FLRW background carries an extra ghostly scalar mode, and that the only way to obtain healthy cosmological perturbations is to impose the degeneracy relation σ =

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 16:44 UTC pith:R7PE3X5I

load-bearing objection Solid restricted-action analysis, but the no-go theorem overreaches — the fourth marginal operator is dropped, and the abstract contradicts itself on strong vs weak coupling. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.11647 v3 pith:R7PE3X5I submitted 2025-09-15 hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qc

A no-go theorem in bumblebee vector-tensor cosmology

Carsten van de Bruck , Mohammad Ali Gorji , Nils A. Nilsson , Masroor C. Pookkillath , Masahide Yamaguchi This is my paper
classification hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords bumblebee gravityvector-tensor theorycosmological perturbationsdark energygeneralized Procadegeneracy conditionghost instabilitiesstealth de Sitter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks whether bumblebee vector-tensor models—vector fields that acquire a vacuum expectation value and break spacetime symmetries—can describe dark energy without introducing unphysical degrees of freedom. It shows that, around a spatially flat FLRW background, the generic non-minimal couplings ξBμBνRμν and σBμBμR make the scalar sector propagate three modes instead of the single scalar expected for a massive vector. Absence of ghosts forces the degeneracy relation σ = −ξ/2, which turns the model into a subset of generalized Proca, fixes the vacuum potential to V_B = Λ_B/(1 − ξB̃₀²), and leaves a stealth de Sitter solution whose scalar perturbation has sound speed c_S² ≈ 1/6. The result is a no-go statement: the most general marginal action, an isotropic background, no extra modes, and healthy perturbations cannot hold simultaneously.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the bumblebee action with non-minimal curvature couplings is generically pathological at the linear perturbation level on a flat FLRW background. The quadratic scalar action has a kinetic matrix of rank three, meaning two additional scalar degrees of freedom propagate beyond the single longitudinal mode expected for a massive vector; these are ghostly in general. Imposing the degeneracy condition σ = −ξ/2 removes the extra modes and reduces the model to a generalized Proca subset of the form (1/2)(M_Pl² − ξB²)R + (1/4)BμνBμν − V_B(B²) — i.e., the non-minimal coupling becomes ξGμνBμBν. The same condition makes the vector field non-dynamical at the background

What carries the argument

The central object is the quadratic action for scalar perturbations around a spatially flat FLRW background, Eq. (4.9), and its kinetic matrix K given in Eq. (4.13). For generic couplings ξ and σ this 3×3 matrix has rank three, so three scalar modes propagate; imposing the degeneracy relation σ = −ξ/2 brings the rank down to one, killing the two extra ghostly modes. The same condition reduces the action to Eq. (6.1), a generalized Proca theory, and the background equations then force the potential to the fixed form Eq. (6.2). The 'stealth' property follows because the potential looks like a cosmological constant at leading order, while the non-minimal coupling still enters the perturbation a

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fourth independent marginal operator (∇μBν)² can be omitted without changing the number of propagating degrees of freedom, the degeneracy relation, or the stability results; the paper states this but does not prove it.

What would settle it

Add the fourth independent marginal operator (∇μBν)² to the action in Eq. (2.1) and recompute the quadratic scalar perturbation kinetic matrix on the same FLRW background. If the matrix rank becomes four, or if the rank-one degeneracy condition is no longer σ = −ξ/2, then the no-go theorem's claim about the 'most general marginal action' fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Any bumblebee model used in the literature with generic ξ and σ that has not imposed σ = −ξ/2 will contain a ghostly extra scalar on cosmological backgrounds, so its predictions at the perturbative level are not those of a healthy theory.
  • Imposing the degeneracy condition forces the vacuum potential to a specific function of B², removing the freedom to choose an arbitrary potential if one wants a healthy FLRW cosmology.
  • The stealth de Sitter solution provides a dark energy candidate that is indistinguishable from a cosmological constant at the background level but has a propagating, weakly coupled scalar mode with sound speed c_S² ≈ 1/6.
  • The effective gravitational coupling Geff and the slip parameter η deviate from ΛCDM in the quasi-static regime, which could allow growth-of-structure observations to distinguish this model from a pure cosmological constant.
  • The vector sector also exhibits a modified sound speed c_V² = 1 + 2ξ²B̃₀²/(1 − ξB̃₀²), so vector perturbations, although decaying at late times, follow different dispersion relations than in GR.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper sets aside one of the four independent marginal operators, (∇μBν)², stating that it keeps the setup minimal. If that omitted operator changes the rank of the kinetic matrix or the degeneracy relation, the no-go theorem as phrased for the 'most general marginal action' would need to be revised.
  • The constant subhorizon sound speed c_S² ≈ 1/6, independent of ξ as long as ξ ≠ 0, is a distinctive prediction that could be targeted by future large-scale structure or dark-energy perturbation measurements; ΛCDM has no such scalar sound horizon.
  • The same degeneracy logic may extend beyond FLRW backgrounds, since the reduction to generalized Proca is known to be background-independent, but the paper's explicit perturbative proof is only given for a spatially flat FLRW metric.
  • In the quasi-static regime, the combination of Geff and η obtained here provides a concrete, testable template for modified-growth analyses that differs from both ΛCDM and simple scalar-tensor dark energy models.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes cosmological perturbations in bumblebee vector-tensor gravity with the action (2.1), which contains non-minimal couplings ξ B^μ B^ν R_μν and σ B^μ B_μ R, a Maxwell-like kinetic term, and a general potential V(B^2). On a spatially flat FLRW background, the authors perform a complete linear perturbation analysis and find that for generic ξ and σ the scalar sector propagates three modes (kinetic matrix (4.13)). They show that imposing the degeneracy condition σ = −ξ/2 removes the extra modes, makes the vector field non-dynamical at the background level, and fixes the potential to V_B = Λ_B/(1 − ξ B̃_0²) (Eq. (6.2)). The resulting model admits a stealth de Sitter solution with scalar sound speed c_S² ≈ 1/6 for subhorizon modes, and the paper derives stability conditions and an effective gravitational coupling for matter in the quasi-static regime. The metadata abstract additionally claims a no-go theorem for the most general marginal bumblebee action, with the remaining scalar infinitely strongly coupled at linear order.

Significance. If the strong claims were fully established, the paper would be an important classification result for bumblebee cosmology: generic non-minimal bumblebee models would have ghostly extra degrees of freedom, and the only healthy subset would have a fixed potential and characteristic perturbations. The explicit perturbative analysis is a strength: the kinetic matrix, stability bounds, the c_S² ≈ 1/6 prediction, and the modified Geff and slip parameter are concrete and falsifiable. The identification of the degenerate subset with generalized Proca is useful. However, the advertised generality is not delivered: the action (2.1) omits one of the four independent marginal operators, and the abstract's strong-coupling statement conflicts with the weak-coupling claim in the body. With the scope corrected to the restricted action, the paper is a solid contribution to vector-tensor dark energy; as it stands, the central no-go theorem is not proven for the claimed domain.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, action (2.1); metadata abstract] The metadata abstract states a no-go theorem for 'the most general bumblebee action from all diffeomorphism-invariant marginal operators.' However, §2 (after Eq. (2.3)) explicitly notes that four independent marginal operators exist and then drops one: 'One could still add (∇_μ B_ν)^2 as another independent term, but we keep the setup minimal.' All subsequent results—the rank of the kinetic matrix (4.13), the degeneracy condition (4.17), the fixed potential (6.2), and the c_S² ≈ 1/6 sector—are derived only for action (2.1). The omitted operator contributes to the longitudinal mode's kinetic structure (it generates k^4/a^4 terms), so it can in principle change the degree-of-freedom counting, the degeneracy locus, and the strong/weak-coupling conclusion. The no-go theorem is therefore not established for the domain claimed. Please either analyze the fourth operator and prove it is innocuou
  2. [Abstract and §4.5/§6] The metadata abstract says that imposing degeneracy 'render[s] the remaining scalar infinitely strongly coupled already at linear order of perturbations,' while the full-text abstract and the body (§4.5, around Eqs. (4.36)–(4.37), and §6, after Eq. (6.2)) state that the setup is 'weakly coupled at the level of perturbations' with c_S² ≈ 1/6. These statements are incompatible. The main text never derives an infinite strong-coupling limit. If the strong-coupling statement is meant to apply to the general action including the omitted operator, it is not proven; if it is a remnant of an earlier version, it must be removed.
  3. [§4.3 and §6] The no-go theorem is only announced in the abstract; the body actually constructs a healthy degenerate subset, and the abstract's phrasing 'forces degeneracy relations' suggests uniqueness. In §4.3 the paper says 'there is another interesting nontrivial choice: σ = −ξ/2' but does not prove that this is the unique rank-reducing condition for the scalar kinetic matrix (4.13), nor for any extension with the fourth marginal operator. Since the no-go theorem depends on the uniqueness of the degeneracy condition and on the subsequent potential fixing, please state the theorem precisely and either prove the uniqueness or remove the theorem claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4.13)] The quantity K0 appears in the kinetic matrix but is never defined. Please define it explicitly (or replace it with the intended expression, e.g., involving \dot{\tilde B}_0).
  2. [§4.1, after Eq. (4.4)] The sentence 'The sound speed reduces to unity in the limit ξ→0, at which point c_T², but not K_T, becomes independent of σ' is incorrect. For ξ=0, Eq. (4.4) gives c_T² = 1/(1−2σ B̃_0²), which depends on σ and is not unity unless σ=0 as well. Please correct the statement.
  3. [§5.2 vs §4.4] The symbol G is used both for the gradient coefficient in Eq. (4.26) and for Newton's constant in Eq. (5.30) (Geff/G). Please disambiguate these notations.
  4. [References] References [6] and [7] appear to be the same paper (CosmoVerse White Paper); [88] is a placeholder 'To be submitted, 2025' and should be replaced with a proper citation or removed.
  5. [§4.5 and §6] The text writes 'c_S ∝ 1/√6'; in the stated limit c_S² is a constant, so it should read 'c_S ≈ 1/√6' rather than proportional.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the perturbative derivations are self-contained; the only caveat is that the 'most general marginal action' premise excludes a fourth independent operator, which is a scope overclaim rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. The degeneracy condition σ=−ξ/2 is not fitted to any target output; it is imposed and then shown to reduce the rank of the kinetic matrix (4.13), giving one propagating scalar. The fixed potential V_B=Λ_B/(1−ξB̃₀²), Eq. (6.2), follows algebraically from the background equations (4.18)–(4.21) after imposing that degeneracy, not from matching a prediction to input data. The stealth de Sitter solution and c_S²≈1/6 are obtained as an explicit subhorizon limit of the derived coefficients (4.26) and (4.31)–(4.37); no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction. The identification with generalized Proca cites the external known healthy class [35] and is used for interpretation, not as the source of the degeneracy condition. Self-citations ([31]–[34], [83], [84]) appear as EFT context or scordatura comparisons and are not load-bearing for the central result. The genuine caveat is in Section 2, where the paper lists four independent marginal operators but includes only three in action (2.1), explicitly dropping (∇_μB_ν)^2 'to keep the setup minimal.' The abstract's 'most general marginal action' is therefore stronger than what is analyzed. That is a scope/coverage issue, not a circular step: no equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction. The internal tension between the metadata abstract's 'infinitely strongly coupled' phrasing and the body's 'weakly coupled' claim is an inconsistency, not circularity, and does not affect this verdict.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The bumblebee field B_μ is a pre-existing concept, and the stealth de Sitter solution is a solution within the existing theory, not a new entity. The free parameters are the theory's coupling constants and the integration constant setting the dark energy scale.

free parameters (4)
  • ξ
    Dimensionless non-minimal coupling in action (2.1); a free input of the theory, constrained later by stability and gravitational-wave speed.
  • σ = -ξ/2
    Degeneracy condition chosen by hand to remove the extra propagating scalar mode (§4.3); this is a parameter choice, not a measured value.
  • Λ_B = 3 M_Pl² H_dS²
    Integration constant setting the dark energy scale; must be tuned to the observed cosmic acceleration, not derived from first principles.
  • B̄₀ = sub-Planckian assumed
    Background vev amplitude; the stealth de Sitter solution requires B̄₀ ≪ M_Pl with ξ=O(1).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The spatially flat FLRW background and the ansatz B̄_μ=(B̄_0(t),0) capture the most general homogeneous isotropic configuration for the vector field.
    Used in §3, Eq. (3.3). A spatial or vector component of the vev would make the background anisotropic, changing the perturbation analysis and possibly the no-go theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper The fourth independent marginal operator (∇_μB_ν)² is omitted from the action (2.1) without affecting the counting of degrees of freedom or the degeneracy condition.
    Stated in §2 after Eq. (2.3): 'One could still add (∇_μB_ν)² as another independent term, but we keep the setup minimal.' This restriction is load-bearing for the 'most general marginal action' claim in the metadata abstract.
  • domain assumption Imposing the degeneracy σ=-ξ/2 is the only nontrivial way to remove the extra propagating scalar modes; minimal coupling ξ=σ=0 is the only alternative.
    Concluded in §4.3 from the rank of the kinetic matrix (4.13). The paper analyzes only the restricted action, so uniqueness is not proven for the full operator space.
  • domain assumption The generalized Proca action of [35] propagates no extra degrees of freedom beyond the three vector polarizations, and the identification (6.1) inherits this property.
    Relied on in §6 to state that the degenerate bumblebee model becomes a subset of generalized Proca; the health of that class is taken from the cited literature, not re-derived here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22323 in / 18252 out tokens · 179208 ms · 2026-08-04T16:44:42.857576+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A no-go theorem in bumblebee vector-tensor cosmology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R7PE3X5I

@misc{pith2026250911647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A no-go theorem in bumblebee vector-tensor cosmology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R7PE3X5I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.11647}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Bumblebee models, a class of vector-tensor theories in which a vector field acquires a nonzero vacuum expectation value that spontaneously breaks spacetime symmetries, are ubiquitous in the literature. By constructing the most general bumblebee action from all diffeomorphism-invariant marginal operators together with a general potential, aiming to cover all the bumblebee models studied in the literature, we perform a complete linear perturbation analysis on a spatially flat FLRW background. We show that for generic marginal couplings, the scalar sector propagates extra degrees of freedom beyond the single scalar expected for a massive vector. Enforcing the correct number of propagating modes in a cosmological setup forces degeneracy relations between the marginal couplings, which in turn completely fix the potential at the background level and render the remaining scalar infinitely strongly coupled already at linear order of perturbations. We establish a no-go theorem stating that the following conditions cannot be simultaneously satisfied: (i) the most general marginal action, (ii) a homogeneous and isotropic background, (iii) no extra propagating degrees of freedom around a spatially flat FLRW background, and (iv) healthy cosmological perturbations.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Primordial black hole in Lorentz-violating theories: Insights from Bumblebee gravity

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Bumblebee gravity enhances primordial black hole abundance through three mechanisms, but the model harbors a ghost instability and a tachyonic instability that make it cosmologically unviable.

  2. Reference Frames and Gravitational-Wave Polarizations: Symmetry Classification and Preferred-Frame Phenomenology

    gr-qc 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Derives boost transformations for GW polarizations, proposes symmetry classification without preferred frames, and analyzes preferred-frame effects in Bumblebee gravity including novel polarization conversion.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 69 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989) 1

    1989

  2. [2]

    Martin,Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask), Comptes Rendus Physique13(2012) 566 [arXiv:1205.3365]

    J. Martin,Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask), Comptes Rendus Physique13(2012) 566 [arXiv:1205.3365]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    D. J. E. Marsh, D. Ellis and V. M. Mehta, Dark Matter: Evidence, Theory, and Constraints, Princeton Series in Astrophysics. Princeton University Press, 10, 2024, 10.1515/9780691249711

    doi:10.1515/9780691249711 2024

  4. [4]

    Huterer and D

    D. Huterer and D. L. Shafer,Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests, Rept. Prog. Phys.81(2018) 016901 [arXiv:1709.01091]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. P´ erez S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin and J. Lesgourgues,The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models, Phys. Rept.984 (2022) 1 [arXiv:2107.10291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Di Valentino et al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,arXiv:2504.01669

    E. Di Valentino et al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,arXiv:2504.01669. [7]CosmoVersecollaboration, E. Di Valentino et al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, arXiv:2504.01669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [8]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly,Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 024028 [arXiv:gr-qc/0007031]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  8. [9]

    Eling, T

    C. Eling, T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly,Einstein-Aether theory, in Deserfest: A Celebration of the Life and Works of Stanley Deser, pp. 163–179, 10, 2004, arXiv:gr-qc/0410001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  9. [10]

    Koivisto and D

    T. Koivisto and D. F. Mota,Anisotropic Dark Energy: Dynamics of Background and Perturbations, JCAP06(2008) 018 [arXiv:0801.3676]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [11]

    Koivisto and D

    T. Koivisto and D. F. Mota,Vector Field Models of Inflation and Dark Energy, JCAP08 (2008) 021 [arXiv:0805.4229]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  11. [12]

    Himmetoglu, C

    B. Himmetoglu, C. R. Contaldi and M. Peloso,Instability of anisotropic cosmological solutions supported by vector fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.102(2009) 111301 [arXiv:0809.2779]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [13]

    Watanabe, S

    M.-a. Watanabe, S. Kanno and J. Soda,Inflationary Universe with Anisotropic Hair, Phys. Rev. Lett.102(2009) 191302 [arXiv:0902.2833]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  13. [14]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso and A. Ricciardone,Anisotropic power spectrum and bispectrum in thef(ϕ)F 2 mechanism, Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 023504 [arXiv:1210.3257]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [15]

    Ohashi, J

    J. Ohashi, J. Soda and S. Tsujikawa,Observational signatures of anisotropic inflationary models, JCAP12(2013) 009 [arXiv:1308.4488]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [16]

    Heisenberg, R

    L. Heisenberg, R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa,Anisotropic cosmological solutions in massive vector theories, JCAP11(2016) 008 [arXiv:1607.03175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [17]

    De Felice and A

    A. De Felice and A. Hell,On the cosmological degrees of freedom of Proca field with non-minimal coupling to gravity, JHEP07(2025) 228 [arXiv:2503.07454]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [18]

    De Felice and A

    A. De Felice and A. Hell,The non-minimal 3-form cosmology and the rise of the cuscuton, arXiv:2509.02323

    arXiv

  18. [19]

    Golovnev, V

    A. Golovnev, V. Mukhanov and V. Vanchurin,Vector Inflation, JCAP06(2008) 009 [arXiv:0802.2068]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [20]

    Emami, S

    R. Emami, S. Mukohyama, R. Namba and Y.-l. Zhang,Stable solutions of inflation driven by vector fields, JCAP03(2017) 058 [arXiv:1612.09581]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [21]

    M. A. Gorji, S. Mukohyama, H. Firouzjahi and S. A. Hosseini Mansoori,Gauge Field Mimetic Cosmology, JCAP08(2018) 047 [arXiv:1807.06335]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [22]

    Firouzjahi, M

    H. Firouzjahi, M. A. Gorji, S. A. Hosseini Mansoori, A. Karami and T. Rostami,Charged Vector Inflation, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 043530 [arXiv:1812.07464]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [23]

    M. A. Gorji, S. A. Hosseini Mansoori and H. Firouzjahi,Inflation with multiple vector fields and non-Gaussianities, JCAP11(2020) 041 [arXiv:2008.08195]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [24]

    Maleknejad and M

    A. Maleknejad and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari,Gauge-flation: Inflation From Non-Abelian Gauge Fields, Phys. Lett. B723(2013) 224 [arXiv:1102.1513]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [25]

    Maleknejad and M

    A. Maleknejad and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari,Non-Abelian Gauge Field Inflation, Phys. Rev. D 84(2011) 043515 [arXiv:1102.1932]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [26]

    D. V. Galtsov and M. S. Volkov,Yang-Mills cosmology: Cold matter for a hot universe, Phys. Lett. B256(1991) 17

    1991

  26. [27]

    M. A. Gorji, S. Mukohyama and H. Firouzjahi,Cosmology in Mimetic SU(2) Gauge Theory, JCAP05(2019) 019 [arXiv:1903.04845]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [28]

    Mukohyama,Towards a Higgs phase of gravity in string theory, JHEP05(2007) 048 [arXiv:hep-th/0610254]

    S. Mukohyama,Towards a Higgs phase of gravity in string theory, JHEP05(2007) 048 [arXiv:hep-th/0610254]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  28. [29]

    De Felice, L

    A. De Felice, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, S. Mukohyama, S. Tsujikawa and Y.-l. Zhang, Cosmology in generalized Proca theories, JCAP06(2016) 048 [arXiv:1603.05806]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [30]

    De Felice, L

    A. De Felice, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, S. Mukohyama, S. Tsujikawa and Y.-l. Zhang, Effective gravitational couplings for cosmological perturbations in generalized Proca theories, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 044024 [arXiv:1605.05066]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [31]

    K. Aoki, M. A. Gorji, S. Mukohyama and K. Takahashi,The effective field theory of vector-tensor theories, JCAP01(2022) 059 [arXiv:2111.08119]. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [32]

    K. Aoki, M. A. Gorji, S. Mukohyama, K. Takahashi and V. Yingcharoenrat,Effective field theory of black hole perturbations in vector-tensor gravity, JCAP03(2024) 012 [arXiv:2311.06767]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [33]

    K. Aoki, M. A. Gorji, T. Hiramatsu, S. Mukohyama, M. C. Pookkillath and K. Takahashi, CMB spectrum in unified EFT of dark energy: scalar-tensor and vector-tensor theories, JCAP07(2024) 056 [arXiv:2405.04265]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    Tomizuka, H

    S. Tomizuka, H. Kobayashi, N. Oshita, K. Takahashi and S. Mukohyama,Quasinormal Modes from EFT of Black Hole Perturbations in Vector-Tensor Gravity,arXiv:2505.15125

    arXiv

  34. [35]

    Heisenberg,Generalization of the Proca Action, JCAP05(2014) 015 [arXiv:1402.7026]

    L. Heisenberg,Generalization of the Proca Action, JCAP05(2014) 015 [arXiv:1402.7026]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [36]

    R. E. Keeley, S. Joudaki, M. Kaplinghat and D. Kirkby,Implications of a transition in the dark energy equation of state for theH 0 andσ 8 tensions, JCAP12(2019) 035 [arXiv:1905.10198]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [37]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou,Positivity Bounds for Massive Spin-1 and Spin-2 Fields, JHEP03(2019) 182 [arXiv:1804.10624]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [38]

    G. J. Olmo, D. Rubiera-Garcia and A. Wojnar,Stellar structure models in modified theories of gravity: Lessons and challenges, Phys. Rept.876(2020) 1 [arXiv:1912.05202]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [39]

    Babichev, C

    E. Babichev, C. Charmousis and M. Hassaine,Black holes and solitons in an extended Proca theory, JHEP05(2017) 114 [arXiv:1703.07676]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [40]

    V. A. Kostelecky,Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 105009 [arXiv:hep-th/0312310]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  40. [41]

    V. A. Kostelecky and N. Russell,Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation, Rev. Mod. Phys.83(2011) 11 [arXiv:0801.0287]

    arXiv 2011

  41. [42]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel,Phenomenological Gravitational Constraints on Strings and Higher Dimensional Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.63(1989) 224

    1989

  42. [43]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel,Gravitational Phenomenology in Higher Dimensional Theories and Strings, Phys. Rev. D40(1989) 1886

    1989

  43. [44]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel,Spontaneous Breaking of Lorentz Symmetry in String Theory, Phys. Rev. D39(1989) 683

    1989

  44. [45]

    Casana, A

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis and E. B. Santos,Exact Schwarzschild-like solution in a bumblebee gravity model, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 104001 [arXiv:1711.02273]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [46]

    R. Xu, D. Liang and L. Shao,Static spherical vacuum solutions in the bumblebee gravity model, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 024011 [arXiv:2209.02209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [47]

    A. A. A. Filho, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porf ´ ırio,Vacuum solution within a metric-affine bumblebee gravity, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 085010 [arXiv:2211.11821]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [48]

    Q. G. Bailey, H. S. Murray and D. T. Walter-Cardona,Bumblebee gravity: spherically-symmetric solutions away from the potential minimum,arXiv:2503.10998

    arXiv

  48. [49]

    C. Ding, C. Liu, R. Casana and A. Cavalcante,Exact Kerr-like solution and its shadow in a gravity model with spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 178 [arXiv:1910.02674]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [50]

    Li and A

    Z. Li and A. ¨Ovg¨ un,Finite-distance gravitational deflection of massive particles by a Kerr-like black hole in the bumblebee gravity model, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 024040 [arXiv:2001.02074]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [51]

    W. Liu, X. Fang, J. Jing and J. Wang,QNMs of slowly rotating Einstein–Bumblebee black hole, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 83 [arXiv:2211.03156]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [52]

    Lambiase, L

    G. Lambiase, L. Mastrototaro, R. C. Pantig and A. Ovgun,Probing Schwarzschild-like black holes in metric-affine bumblebee gravity with accretion disk, deflection angle, greybody bounds, and neutrino propagation, JCAP12(2023) 026 [arXiv:2309.13594]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [53]

    Bonder and C

    Y. Bonder and C. A. Escobar,Dynamical ambiguities in models with spontaneous Lorentz violation, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 025020 [arXiv:1510.05999]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [54]

    ¨Ovg¨ un, K

    A. ¨Ovg¨ un, K. Jusufi and I. Sakallı,Exact traversable wormhole solution in bumblebee gravity, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 024042 [arXiv:1804.09911]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [55]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves,Black holes with a cosmological constant in bumblebee gravity, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 044002 [arXiv:2011.12841]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [56]

    W. D. R. Jesus and A. F. Santos,G¨ odel-type universes in bumblebee gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35(2020) 2050050 [arXiv:2003.13364]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [57]

    Liang, R

    D. Liang, R. Xu, X. Lu and L. Shao,Polarizations of gravitational waves in the bumblebee gravity model, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 124019 [arXiv:2207.14423]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [58]

    R. Xu, D. Liang and L. Shao,Bumblebee Black Holes in Light of Event Horizon Telescope Observations, Astrophys. J.945(2023) 148 [arXiv:2302.05671]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [59]

    Bluhm and V

    R. Bluhm and V. A. Kosteleck´ y,Spontaneous lorentz violation, nambu-goldstone modes, and gravity, Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 065008

    2005

  59. [60]

    Bluhm, N

    R. Bluhm, N. L. Gagne, R. Potting and A. Vrublevskis,Constraints and Stability in Vector Theories with Spontaneous Lorentz Violation, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 125007 [arXiv:0802.4071]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  60. [61]

    C. M. Reyes, C. Riquelme and A. Soto,Cosmology with explicit and spontaneous background fields,arXiv:2407.13041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [62]

    R. Xu, D. Xu, L. Andersson, P. A. Seoane and L. Shao,Bumblebee cosmology: The FLR W solution and the CMB temperature anisotropy,arXiv:2504.10297. 25

    arXiv

  62. [63]

    X. Zhu, R. Xu and D. Xu,Bumblebee cosmology: Tests using distance- and time-redshift probes,arXiv:2411.18559

    arXiv

  63. [64]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves,Bumblebee field as a source of cosmological anisotropies, JCAP10(2021) 038 [arXiv:2105.08659]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  64. [65]

    J. C. S. Neves,Kasner cosmology in bumblebee gravity, Annals Phys.454(2023) 169338 [arXiv:2209.00589]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [66]

    Bluhm, S.-H

    R. Bluhm, S.-H. Fung and V. A. Kostelecky,Spontaneous Lorentz and Diffeomorphism Violation, Massive Modes, and Gravity, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 065020 [arXiv:0712.4119]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  66. [67]

    Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology

    V. Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology. Cambridge University Press, Oxford, 2005, 10.1017/CBO9780511790553

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790553 2005

  67. [68]

    Weinberg, Cosmology

    S. Weinberg, Cosmology. 2008

    2008

  68. [69]

    Ostrogradsky,M´ emoires sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles, relatives au probl` eme des isop´ erim` etres, Mem

    M. Ostrogradsky,M´ emoires sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles, relatives au probl` eme des isop´ erim` etres, Mem. Acad. St. Petersbourg6(1850) 385

  69. [70]

    R. P. Woodard,Ostrogradsky’s theorem on Hamiltonian instability, Scholarpedia10(2015) 32243 [arXiv:1506.02210]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [71]

    Bertolami and J

    O. Bertolami and J. Paramos,The Flight of the bumblebee: Vacuum solutions of a gravity model with vector-induced spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 044001 [arXiv:hep-th/0504215]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  71. [72]

    Ovg¨ un, K

    A. Ovg¨ un, K. Jusufi and I. Sakalli,Gravitational lensing under the effect of Weyl and bumblebee gravities: Applications of Gauss–Bonnet theorem, Annals Phys.399(2018) 193 [arXiv:1805.09431]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  72. [73]

    Kanzi and ˙I

    S. Kanzi and ˙I. Sakallı,GUP Modified Hawking Radiation in Bumblebee Gravity, Nucl. Phys. B946(2019) 114703 [arXiv:1905.00477]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [74]

    Li and J

    H. Li and J. Zhu,Static Spherical Vacuum Solution to Bumblebee Gravity with Time-like VEVs,arXiv:2506.17957

    arXiv

  74. [75]

    Khodadi, G

    M. Khodadi, G. Lambiase, L. Mastrototaro and T. K. Poddar,Primordial gravitational waves from spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking, Phys. Lett. B867(2025) 139597 [arXiv:2501.14395]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    Khodadi,Black Hole Superradiance in the Presence of Lorentz Symmetry Violation, Phys

    M. Khodadi,Black Hole Superradiance in the Presence of Lorentz Symmetry Violation, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 064051 [arXiv:2103.03611]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [77]

    G¨ ull¨ u and A.¨Ovg¨ un,Schwarzschild-like black hole with a topological defect in bumblebee gravity, Annals Phys.436(2022) 168721 [arXiv:2012.02611]

    ˙I. G¨ ull¨ u and A.¨Ovg¨ un,Schwarzschild-like black hole with a topological defect in bumblebee gravity, Annals Phys.436(2022) 168721 [arXiv:2012.02611]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [78]

    Ding and X

    C. Ding and X. Chen,Slowly rotating Einstein-bumblebee black hole solution and its greybody factor in a Lorentz violation model, Chin. Phys. C45(2021) 025106 [arXiv:2008.10474]. 26 [79]LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM, INTEGRALcollaboration, B. P. Abbott et al.,Gravitational Waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [80]

    A. E. G¨ umr¨ uk¸ c¨ uo˘ glu, S. Mukohyama and T. P. Sotiriou,Low energy ghosts and the Jeans’ instability, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 064001 [arXiv:1606.00618]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  79. [81]

    Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M. A. Luty and S. Mukohyama,Ghost condensation and a consistent infrared modification of gravity, JHEP05(2004) 074 [arXiv:hep-th/0312099]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  80. [82]

    Motohashi and S

    H. Motohashi and S. Mukohyama,Weakly-coupled stealth solution in scordatura degenerate theory, JCAP01(2020) 030 [arXiv:1912.00378]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.