Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Weinberg's theorem, phantom crossing and screening

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper argues that graviton-loop corrections screen the dilaton locally and that the same screening caps any observable phantom crossing of the dark-energy equation of state.

desk verdict A useful tracking-regime result and a useful parameterization, wrapped in an overbroad no-go that conflates chameleon screening with cosmological tracking. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16723 v1 pith:HS4IDVAC submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Philippe Brax This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords dilatondarkenergyWeinberg'stheoremphantomcrossingchameleonscreeningscalar-tensortheoryequationofstategravitonloopscaleinvariance
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 if the dilaton—the pseudo-Goldstone boson of broken scale invariance—is the dark energy, graviton-loop corrections give it a density-dependent mass that screens it in dense environments. The same coupling makes the dark-energy equation of state cross the phantom divide ($\omega=-1$) at a calibration redshift, but screening limits how far it can deviate from $-1$. A substantial low-redshift variation of $\omega$ is only possible when the scalar's mass is of order the Hubble rate cosmologically, which is exactly what single-field chameleon-type screening forbids. If galaxy-survey data confirm a sizeable phantom crossing, every single-field screened dark-energy model of this type would be excluded; if $\omega$ stays extremely close to $-1$, the screened dilaton becomes a viable dark-energy candidate that ties cosmic acceleration to quantum corrections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dilaton, the pseudo-Goldstone boson of spontaneously broken scale invariance, together with the quadratic matter coupling that graviton loops generate. That coupling, with running $c_2(\mu)=c/\Lambda_{\rm UV}^2+(m^2/8\pi^2m_{\rm Pl}^4)\ln(\Lambda_{\rm UV}/\mu)$, makes the effective mass $m_{\rm eff}^2=m_{\rm DE}^2+(\beta^2+2c_2m_{\rm Pl}^2)\rho_m/m_{\rm Pl}^2$ density dependent, drives $\beta_{\rm eff}$ to zero inside dense bodies, and produces thin-shell screening; the Cassini bound then forces a hierarchy $\Lambda_{\rm UV}\lesssim 10^{-5}\sqrt{\beta}\,m_{\rm Pl}$. The equation-of-state formula $\omega_{\rm DE}^E=-1/[1-\beta^2(\rho_m-\rho_{mc})\rho_m/(m_{\rm Pl}^2m_{\rm eff}^2V_{\rm DE})]$ carries the cosmological conclusion: phantom crossing happens at the calibration time, but its size is set by $\beta^2H_0^2/m_{\rm eff}^2$, which screening makes tiny.

What would settle it

Compute $c$ in a concrete UV completion or probe the predicted density-dependent fifth force in a laboratory experiment; if $c$ turns out not to be positive and order one, the density-dependent mass, the vanishing of $\beta_{\rm eff}$, and the Cassini bound all fail, and the screening obstruction collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from Weinberg's no-go theorem, the paper shows that graviton loops induce a quadratic coupling of the dilaton to matter, $A(\varphi)=1+c_2(\mu)(\varphi-\varphi_\star)^2$, turning it into an environment-dependent scalar that is massive and screened in dense media. In the effective potential the dilaton tracks a density-dependent minimum, and this tracking makes $\omega_{\rm DE}^E$ cross $-1$ at the calibration time $t_c$; in the Jordan frame the crossing is displaced slightly later. Because screening requires $m_{\rm eff}\gg H_0$, and because the deviation from $-1$ is controlled by $\beta^2H_0^2/m_{\rm eff}^2$, the phantom crossing is real but unobservably small in the single-field model. The paper concludes that a visible time variation and deviation of the equation of state can only be reconciled with screening by going to at least two fields, so a confirmed phantom crossing would rule out the entire single-field screened chameleon-type class, including $f(R)$ models.

Load-bearing premise

The screening mechanism depends on the unknown short-distance constant $c$ being positive and of order one; if the ultraviolet value were negative or very small, the density-dependent mass, the vanishing of $\beta_{\rm eff}$ in dense matter, and the Cassini bound—and with them the obstruction—would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A confirmed sizeable deviation of the dark-energy equation of state from $-1$ at low redshift would exclude the screened dilaton and, more broadly, every single-field screened chameleon-type dark-energy model, including $f(R)$ gravity.
  • In the screened dilaton model phantom crossing does occur, around the calibration redshift ($z_c\simeq 0.5$ for a survey analysis), but the deviation from $-1$ and its time drift are too small to observe.
  • Graviton loops give any very light scalar a quadratic coupling to all matter, so the common assumption that dark energy couples only to dark matter is not protected by classical symmetries; the coupling is fixed by UV physics instead.
  • Current BAO survey fits correspond to $\beta^2H_0^2/m_{\rm eff}^2\simeq 0.05$–$0.09$, requiring $\beta\sim 0.1$ and $m_{\rm eff}\sim H_0$, a regime incompatible with single-field screening and pointing to multi-field screening, for example with an axion.
  • If future data show $\omega$ extremely close to $-1$ with negligible drift, the screened dilaton becomes a plausible dark-energy model that connects cosmic acceleration, quantum corrections, and the absence of observable fifth forces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the graviton-loop quadratic coupling is generic, then dark-energy models that classically couple only to dark matter are incomplete: the Planck-suppressed coupling to baryons is a UV-matching input, not a forbidden coupling, and it dominates in dense environments.
  • The two-parameter equation-of-state formula of Appendix B can be used as a fitting function; a best fit requiring $\beta^2H_0^2/m_{\rm eff}^2$ above the screening bound would be observational evidence for multi-field screening, not merely for dynamical dark energy.
  • A UV completion that actually computes the constant $c$ would settle the screening mechanism: a negative or tiny $c$ removes the density-dependent mass, so the paper's central obstruction would collapse even if its equation-of-state dynamics survive.
  • The same graviton-loop argument should apply to other ultra-light scalars, suggesting that locally screened and cosmologically active scalars may generically require at least two fields—one driving acceleration and one providing screening.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits Weinberg's no-go theorem in a scale-invariant scalar-tensor theory and identifies the dilaton as the pseudo-Goldstone boson of broken scale invariance. It derives the dilaton's runaway potential from quantum corrections, stabilizes it with a mass term à la Albrecht-Skordis, and analyzes the resulting cosmology in both Einstein and Jordan frames. In the tracking regime, the paper finds that the equation of state crosses the phantom divide at the calibration time, and it argues that a graviton-loop-induced quadratic coupling to matter generates an environment-dependent mass, i.e. chameleon-type screening, with a coupling that vanishes in dense matter. On this basis the abstract and conclusion claim that screening locally limits the time variation of the equation of state and its deviation from -1, and that a confirmed phantom crossing would jeopardize all single-field chameleon-type models, pointing instead to multifield models. The appendices contain a vacuum-energy calculation in the Decoupling Minimal Subtraction scheme, a new two-parameter equation-of-state parameterization with a calibration redshift, a discussion of initial conditions, and an estimate of kinetic couplings.

Significance. The paper's tracking-regime algebra is internally consistent, and its power-law solutions reproduce known coupled-quintessence results. The explicit computation of a graviton-loop-induced quadratic coupling between a light scalar and matter is a useful contribution, and the Appendix B parameterization with a calibration redshift provides a compact form for comparing future data. However, the advertised screening-based obstruction is conditional on two unproven ingredients: the sign and size of an undetermined renormalization constant c, and the assumption that the cosmological field tracks the minimum of the effective potential with meff >> H on cosmological scales. If those conditions are granted, the conclusion that tracking chameleon-type models have negligible low-redshift variation of the equation of state is interesting and would be relevant for interpreting DESI results. The sweeping no-go for all single-field screened models is not established by the calculation presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV.A, Eqs. (4.11)-(4.28)] The screening mechanism is conditional on the sign and size of the renormalization constant c. The one-loop calculation determines only the logarithmic running; the boundary value c2(Lambda_UV) = c/Lambda_UV^2 is an undetermined UV input, and the paper adopts c = O(1) "agnostically" after Eq. (4.12). This choice enters directly into the density-dependent mass meff^2 = 2c rho_m/Lambda_UV^2 (Eq. 4.28), the vanishing of beta_eff in dense matter (Eq. 4.24), and the Cassini bound Lambda_UV <= 10^-5 sqrt(beta) m_Pl (Eq. 4.27). If c is negative or much smaller than unity, none of these conclusions follow. Since the abstract and Section V present graviton-loop screening as a result, the derivation must either supply a UV argument fixing c or be labeled explicitly as a conditional obstruction within an assumed parameter regime.
  2. [III.B, Eqs. (3.43)-(3.49)] The claim that the obstruction applies to all single-field chameleon-type models is not supported. The derivation of the equation of state and its small variation is performed under the explicit condition that the dark-energy field tracks the minimum of the effective potential, with meff >> H, as stated at the start of the paragraph containing Eqs. (3.43)-(3.49). Chameleon screening, however, is a local statement about high-density environments; it does not by itself force the cosmological field to track the instantaneous minimum or require meff >> H0 at z = 0. A thawing chameleon with meff ~ H0 at present can still satisfy the local thin-shell condition given in Eq. (4.25), and along such a branch the expansion behind Eq. (3.49) fails. The sentence immediately after Eq. (3.49) saying that this applies to "all the models satisfying the chameleon mechanism" is therefore an overreach; the calculation supports an obstruction for tracking chameleons, not for the whole class.
  3. [III.B, Eqs. (3.38)-(3.39)] The phantom crossing at the calibration redshift is partly built into the parameterization rather than predicted. By construction of the effective potential in Eq. (3.43), omega^E_DE equals -1 when rho_m = rho_mc, and the paper itself notes after Eq. (3.39) that zc "could be considered as a parameter to be fitted." Consequently, the statement that the model naturally produces a crossing near DESI's z ~ 0.5 is not an independent prediction: the same functional form would produce a crossing at any chosen calibration time. The paper should clearly separate the genuinely dynamical content (the coupling induces a time-dependent shift away from -1) from the choice of tc that fixes where the crossing appears.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.B and Appendix B] The main text uses zc ~ 0.5 for the qualitative DESI discussion, while Appendix B takes zc ~ 0.37 from a specific DESI fit; please reconcile these values or state explicitly that they are different conventions or choices.
  2. [Appendix A] The assumption rho_UV = 0, stated in the last paragraph of Appendix A as befitting certain supersymmetric string constructions, is load-bearing for the Weinberg revisit and should be flagged with the same prominence in the Introduction or Section II rather than only in an appendix.
  3. [Appendix B] Equation (B2) is derived in the tracking regime with meff >> H, but the parameter range meff ~ H0 used to match the DESI window in Eq. (B7) lies outside that regime; if the expression is intended as a purely phenomenological fitting function, this should be stated at its first use and in the discussion of the inferred bounds.
  4. [Introduction and Eq. (3.29)] There are several typographical and typesetting issues, including "postulaled" in the Introduction and an unclosed parenthesis in Eq. (3.29); these should be corrected in a revision.
  5. [Fig. 1] The caption describes the variation of omega^E_DE for four values of meff/H0, but the figure as printed lacks visible axis labels and a legend; please add them so the curves can be read independently of the caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Phantom-crossing timing is built into the calibration-time parameterization; the screening obstruction is conditional but not circular.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III.B, Eqs. (3.38)-(3.39) and the paragraph following Eq. (3.39); Appendix B]
    "ωE_DE = − 1/(1 − β^2(ρm−ρmc)/(m^2_Pl m^2_eff) ρm/V_DE) ... We see immediately that the equation of state crosses the phantom divide at the calibration time. ... It is noteworthy that DESI as a BAO experiment calibrates its analysis around a redshift of z ≈ 0.5. This leads here to a natural crossing of the phantom divide around this redshift as announced by the DESI team."

    The denominator in Eq. (3.38) is constructed so that it equals 1 when ρm = ρmc, making ωE_DE = −1 at the calibration time tc by algebraic identity. The calibration time is a free choice: the paper says the calibration density 'can be considered as a free parameter' and later that 'zc could be considered as a parameter to be fitted.' Adopting zc ≈ 0.5 because DESI calibrates its BAO analysis near that redshift therefore makes the claimed DESI-compatible phantom crossing an input rather than a derived prediction. What remains model-derived is the existence of a crossing in the tracking regime, not the redshift at which it is compared with DESI.

full rationale

The central screening claim is not circular: the small |1+w| result follows from the tracking-minimum equations, the condition meff ≫ H, and the graviton-loop-induced coupling, with the undetermined constant c explicitly stated as an input after Eq. (4.12). The no-go extension to all single-field chameleon-type models does involve an assumption that chameleon models track the effective-potential minimum cosmologically, but that is an overreach or correctness concern, not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. The only genuine constructional circularity is the phantom-crossing redshift: Eq. (3.38) forces crossing at the calibration time by definition, and the paper then identifies that time with DESI's calibration redshift z ≈ 0.5. The paper is transparent about zc being a fitted/experimental input, which limits the severity; the main obstruction is independently derived. Hence a moderate score of 4 is appropriate rather than a higher score that would require the central claim itself to reduce to a fit or self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on inputs the paper does not derive: the accidental scale invariance below Lambda_UV, the assumption that no global symmetry survives in quantum gravity, the vanishing UV vacuum energy rho_UV = 0, the O(1) positive renormalization constant c that produces screening, and the tracking regime meff much larger than H0. Free parameters include the calibration redshift zc (which sets the phantom-crossing time), the UV constants V0 and m (tuned against phi_star to fix VDE and mDE), and the coupling beta. No new particle or force is introduced: the environment-dependent dilaton is a known concept and the graviton-induced coupling is a derived effect, not an entity.

free parameters (6)
  • c (boundary constant of the graviton-induced quadratic coupling) = c = O(1); c = 1 is used in the Cassini estimate Lambda_UV < 10^-5 sqrt(beta) mPl
    Undetermined UV matching constant in c2(Lambda_UV) = c/Lambda_UV^2 (Eq. 4.12); its sign and magnitude set the whole screening effect.
  • zc (calibration redshift) = zc approximately 0.5 (DESI-motivated); zc approximately 0.37 in the Appendix B fit
    Free parameter that fixes the phantom-crossing time in Eq. (3.38); the paper says zc 'could be considered as a parameter to be fitted'.
  • V0 (UV vacuum energy seed) = scenario V0 of order (TeV)^4 with exponential scaling e^{-4 beta phi_star/mPl}
    UV input tuned against phi_star to produce VDE of order the observed dark energy density; the paper admits 'essentially only one tuning of V0 versus phi_star'.
  • m (Jordan-frame dilaton mass parameter) = m of order e^{-2 beta phi_star/mPl} mPl to obtain mDE of order H0
    UV input chosen so the vacuum mass of the dilaton is of order the Hubble rate (Eq. 5.6).
  • beta (dilaton-matter coupling) = beta = 0.1 in Figure 1; small enough for Cassini in the unscreened case
    Model parameter; the paper takes beta of order 0.1 for percent-level effects and notes beta must be small without screening.
  • beta^2 H0^2 / meff^2 (equation-of-state fitting parameter in Appendix B) = between 0.047 and 0.093 from the DESI w0-wa bounds
    The Appendix B parameterization (B2) uses this combination as a fitting parameter; the paper states models with beta of order 0.1 and meff of order H0 are 'within the right ball-park'.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The scalar sector is globally scale invariant below the cutoff Lambda_UV, with V(lambda phi) = lambda^4 V(phi).
    Invoked at the start of Section II to define the dilaton as the Goldstone mode of broken scale invariance.
  • domain assumption No global symmetry survives in quantum gravity, so the dilaton is only a pseudo-Goldstone boson with a soft mass term.
    Invoked at the start of Section III.B, citing [3]; it justifies adding the Albrecht-Skordis stabilization potential (3.25)-(3.26).
  • ad hoc to paper The UV contribution to the vacuum energy vanishes, rho_UV = 0.
    Stated in Appendix A ('we assume that rho_UV = 0 as befitting certain supersymmetric string constructions'); needed for the runaway dilaton potential to be the sole seed of dark energy.
  • ad hoc to paper The renormalized boundary constant c in c2(Lambda_UV) = c/Lambda_UV^2 is positive and of order unity.
    Section IV.A: 'an agnostic attitude imposes that c must be chosen of order unity'; the screening mechanism, the Cassini bound (4.27), and the density-dependent mass (4.28) all depend on this input.
  • domain assumption The dilaton tracks the minimum of the effective potential with meff much larger than H during the redshifts of interest.
    Used in Sections III.B and IV.B to derive the equation of state (3.37)-(3.48); this regime is imposed by screening, and the obstruction claim is restricted to it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weinberg's theorem, phantom crossing and screening." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HS4IDVAC

@misc{pith2026250716723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weinberg's theorem, phantom crossing and screening},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HS4IDVAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16723}
}
abstract

We consider models where the dilaton, seen as the pseudo-Goldstone boson of broken scale invariance, plays the role of dark energy. We revisit Weinberg's theorem and show that quantum corrections induced by the graviton lead to the screening of the dilaton locally. We also discuss the time evolution of the equation of state and find that phantom crossing is a natural feature of these models. The time variation of the equation of state and its deviation from $-1$ is limited by screening locally and can only be relaxed when the dilaton is allowed to have a mass of the order of the Hubble rate cosmologically, thus going beyond single-field screened dark-energy models. This obstruction extends to all single-field screened models of the chameleon-type where the large mass of the scalar on cosmological scales leads to a negligible variation of the equation of state at low redshift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The variation of the equation of state ω E DE at low redshift for β = 0.1 and four values of meff H0 = (2, 5, 10, 103 ). When the ratio is equal to 103 the variation is negligible. It grows as the ratio decreases. Phantom crossing takes place at the calibration redshift zc = 0.5 here. would happen further back in the past when the density of matter becomes large enough. In these models and de￾pending on the calibrat… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Matter influence on large-scale scalar dynamics

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Matter modeled as stochastic sources induces stochastic noise and new interactions in the large-scale EFT for light scalars, yielding corrections to the Klein-Gordon equation that can mimic dynamical dark energy or pr...

  2. Thawing Quintessence: Priors, evidence, and likely trajectories

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Bayesian evidence from DESI DR2 BAO, Planck+ACT CMB, and multiple supernova samples favors thawing quintessence over a cosmological constant.

  3. Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by nonminimally coupled quintessence

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Non-minimally coupled quintessence resolves the Planck-DESI Ω_m tension at >3σ while the effective equation of state stays above w=-1 and other tensions on neutrino mass and growth rate are relieved.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique 13, 566 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique 13, 566 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Polchinski, in 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics: The Quantum Structure of Space and Time (2006) pp

    J. Polchinski, in 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics: The Quantum Structure of Space and Time (2006) pp. 216– 236, arXiv:hep-th/0603249

    arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    N. B. Agmon, A. Bedroya, M. J. Kang, and C. Vafa, (2022), arXiv:2212.06187 [hep-th]. 14

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    McAllister and F

    L. McAllister and F. Quevedo, (2023), arXiv:2310.20559 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    and the future measurements by large-scale surveys

    work page

  6. [6]

    These experiments test in an indirect manner energy scales corresponding to the UV completion of the stan- dard model

    offer an unprecedented window on physics beyond the standard model of particle physics and cosmology [7]. These experiments test in an indirect manner energy scales corresponding to the UV completion of the stan- dard model. This sensitivity to UV physics manifests itself primarily in the discrepancy between the expected value of the vacuum energy, which ...

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Amendola et al

    L. Amendola et al. , Living Rev. Rel. 21, 2 (2018), arXiv:1606.00180 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Brandenberger, (2025), arXiv:2503.17659 [astro- ph.CO]

    R. Brandenberger, (2025), arXiv:2503.17659 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  3. [11]

    C. P. Burgess, Annals Phys. 313, 283 (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0402200

    2004

  4. [12]

    C. P. Burgess, in 100e Ecole d’Ete de Physique: Post- Planck Cosmology (2015) pp. 149–197, arXiv:1309.4133 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C. P. Burgess, D. Dineen, and F. Quevedo, JCAP 03, 064 (2022), arXiv:2111.07286 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Wetterich, Nucl

    C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B 302, 668 (1988), arXiv:1711.03844 [hep-th]

    1988 arXiv

  7. [15]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, Phys. Rev. D 58, 023503 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9711102

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4686 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9711068

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Barreiro, E

    T. Barreiro, E. J. Copeland, and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 61, 127301 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910214

    2000 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zlatev, L.-M

    I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807002

    1999 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. J. Steinhardt, L.-M. Wang, and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D 59, 123504 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812313

    1999 arXiv

  12. [20]

    L.-M. Wang, R. R. Caldwell, J. P. Ostriker, and P. J. Steinhardt, Astrophys. J. 530, 17 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/9901388

    2000

  13. [21]

    Binetruy, Phys

    P. Binetruy, Phys. Rev. D 60, 063502 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9810553

    1999

  14. [22]

    Brax and J

    P. Brax and J. Martin, Phys. Lett. B 468, 40 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9905040

    1999 arXiv

  15. [23]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139632 (2025), arXiv:2503.19428 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Efstathiou, (2025), arXiv:2505.02658 [astro-ph.CO]

    G. Efstathiou, (2025), arXiv:2505.02658 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Albrecht and C

    A. Albrecht and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2076 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908085

    2000 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, Nature 425, 374 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    J. G. Williams, S. G. Turyshev, and D. Boggs, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 184004 (2012), arXiv:1203.2150 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis, and D. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063519 (2010), arXiv:1005.3735 [astro- ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis, B. Li, and D. J. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104026 (2011), arXiv:1102.3692 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. Brax, H. Fischer, C. K¨ ading, and M. Pitschmann, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 934 (2022), arXiv:2203.12512 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, B. Li, and H. A. Winther, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044015 (2012), arXiv:1203.4812 [astro- ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    S. Das, P. S. Corasaniti, and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083509 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510628

    2006 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Brax and A.-C

    P. Brax and A.-C. Davis, Phys. Lett. B 707, 1 (2012), arXiv:1109.0468 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Schimd, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 061303 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510208

    2006 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Andriot, (2025), arXiv:2505.10410 [hep-th]

    D. Andriot, (2025), arXiv:2505.10410 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Fer- reira, (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, (2025), arXiv:2503.16415 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  30. [38]

    P. Brax, S. Casas, H. Desmond, and B. Elder, Universe 8, 11 (2021), arXiv:2201.10817 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Smith, P

    A. Smith, P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess, and A.-C. Davis, (2025), arXiv:2505.05450 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Wess and J

    J. Wess and J. Bagger, Supersymmetry and supergravity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1992)

    1992

  33. [41]

    Brax and A

    P. Brax and A. C. Davis, JCAP 05, 019 (2014), arXiv:1401.7281 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill, and G. G. Ross, Phys. Rev. D 95, 064038 (2017), arXiv:1612.03157 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Brax and P

    P. Brax and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064088 (2024), arXiv:2309.12087 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    de Rham, Living Rev

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

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gasperini, F

    M. Gasperini, F. Piazza, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. D 65, 023508 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0108016

    2002 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

    2000 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D 69, 044026 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0309411

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    P. Brax, L. A. Rizzo, and P. Valageas, Phys. Rev. D 92, 043519 (2015), arXiv:1505.05671 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Herold and T

    L. Herold and T. Karwal, (2025), arXiv:2506.12004 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A

    A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A. G´ omez-Valent, (2025), arXiv:2506.11758 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  44. [52]

    Lee, (2025), arXiv:2505.19052 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Lee, (2025), arXiv:2505.19052 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  45. [53]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    2001 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D. H. Lee, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, and C. van de Bruck, (2025), arXiv:2507.11432 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  47. [55]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0309300

    2004 arXiv

  48. [56]

    D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2504.00776 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Gubitosi, F

    G. Gubitosi, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, JCAP 02, 032 (2013), arXiv:1210.0201 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Binetruy and T

    P. Binetruy and T. Schucker, Nucl. Phys. B 178, 307 (1981)

    1981

  51. [59]

    C. P. Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, JHEP 06, 167 (2022), arXiv:2202.05344 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B 423, 532 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401069

    1994 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Albrecht, C

    A. Albrecht, C. P. Burgess, F. Ravndal, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. D65, 123507 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0107573

    2002 arXiv

Pith tools

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