Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Cosmological perturbations and dynamical analysis for interacting quintessence

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Including matter perturbations makes the dark-energy point (c) a saddle in interacting quintessence.

desk verdict Useful extension of background dynamics to coupled quintessence with matter perturbations, but the main new result rests on an unquantified δQ neglect in the perturbation equation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03657 v3 pith:C23HG77F submitted 2019-08-10 gr-qc

Ricardo G. Landim This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83F05 PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords interactingquintessencedynamicalsystemsanalysiscosmologicalperturbationsmatterdensitydarkenergycouplingexponentialpotentialfixed-pointstability
topics Dark EnergyDark Matter
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 asks which fixed points of interacting quintessence—dark energy as a scalar field exchanging energy with dark matter—can actually describe the three cosmological eras once linear matter perturbations are added to the background dynamics. It builds an autonomous system whose extra variable is $U_m = \delta_m'/\delta_m$, the logarithmic growth rate of matter density fluctuations, and classifies each critical point by the eigenvalues of the enlarged Jacobian. The central finding is that the point (c), previously used as the dark-energy-dominated attractor, is a saddle for observationally allowed values of the potential slope $\lambda$, so it cannot drive late-time acceleration. The viable transition through the radiation, matter, and dark-energy eras is instead captured by the sequence (a1) → (b) → (d1) or (d2), with (a1) giving the expected growth $\delta_m\sim a$ and the (d) points giving an accelerating Universe. This matters because perturbation-level information changes the viability of a dark-energy model in a way background dynamics alone cannot detect.

What carries the argument

The central object is the extended autonomous system in the variables $x=\dot\phi/(\sqrt{6}H)$, $y=\sqrt{V}/(\sqrt{3}H)$, $z=\sqrt{\rho_r}/(\sqrt{3}H)$, $\lambda$, and $U_m=\delta_m'/\delta_m$. The workhorse is the closed second-order matter perturbation equation $\ddot\delta_m+(2H-Q\dot\phi)\dot\delta_m-\frac{3}{2}H^2\Omega_m\delta_m=0$, obtained after neglecting quintessence and coupling perturbations at sub-horizon scales; rewritten in terms of $U_m$ it becomes a first-order phase-space equation. This adds one eigenvalue to each fixed point, and the sign structure of the enlarged Jacobian decides which points are viable attractors.

What would settle it

Integrate the full linear perturbation system for coupled quintessence without dropping $\delta Q$ and the dark-energy velocity perturbation, and compare the eigenvalues and late-time attractors with the tables here; if point (c) regains stability for some observationally allowed $\lambda$, the central conclusion fails. A complementary check is to measure the matter growth index $f=U_m$ during the matter era and test whether it equals $1-4Q^2/5$ up to the predicted coupling corrections.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that, at linear perturbation level, the fixed point (c) of coupled quintessence with an exponential potential—previously a candidate for the dark-energy-dominated attractor in background analyses—is a saddle for $\lambda$ values compatible with observations. Point (c2) could be stable only in a parameter region with $\lambda$ large enough to be observationally excluded, and (c1) is always a saddle. Consequently the late-time accelerated expansion is described by the scalar-field-dominated points (d1) and (d2): (d1) is an attractor when $Q < (4-\lambda^2)/(2\lambda)$, and (d2) when $(4-\lambda^2)/(2\lambda) < Q < (3-\lambda^2)/\lambda$, with $\lambda^2<2$ required for acceleration. The matter-dominated era is best represented by (a1), whose solution $U_m \approx 1-4Q^2/5$ reproduces $\delta_m\sim a$ with a small correction from the dark-sector coupling. These stability results otherwise agree with background-only analyses, indicating that the perturbation extension mainly changes the fate of point (c).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that quintessence density perturbations and the perturbation of the coupling $\delta Q$ are negligible at sub-horizon scales, so the matter growth rate $U_m$ obeys a closed first-order equation; if $\delta Q$ contributes at the same order, the fixed points, eigenvalues, and stability classifications in this paper would need to be recomputed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For observationally allowed $\lambda$, the fixed point (c) is a saddle, so it can no longer serve as the dark-energy-dominated attractor.
  • The paper's viable sequence of critical points, (a1) → (b) → (d1) or (d2), covers the matter, radiation, and dark-energy eras, with the choice between (d1) and (d2) set by $Q$ and $\lambda$.
  • At (a1) matter perturbations grow as $\delta_m\sim a$ with a small $O(Q^2)$ correction; at (a2) growth is unrealistic, so (a2) is not a viable matter era.
  • In the dark-energy-dominated era structure formation stops: $U_m=0$ at (d1) and $U_m<0$ at (d2).
  • Apart from point (c), the stability of the remaining critical points matches earlier background-only analyses, so most of the background picture survives the perturbation extension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same perturbation-level treatment could be applied to other interaction forms, such as $Q\propto\rho_\phi\dot\phi$ or $Q\propto(\rho_\phi+\rho_m)\dot\phi$, to test whether their background-level non-viability persists once matter perturbations are included.
  • Because the matter growth rate at (a1) carries an $O(Q^2)$ correction, existing redshift-space distortion data could be used to bound the coupling $Q$ directly, a test the paper does not perform.
  • If future constraints push $\lambda$ toward values above roughly 1, this paper's saddle result would compound existing tensions and make exponential-potential quintessence an increasingly unlikely dark-energy candidate.
  • The perturbed-dynamics method suggests a general principle: a background attractor should be reclassified with a perturbation variable before being used to claim a viable cosmological model, and other dark-energy constructions may need similar checks.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a spatially flat FLRW universe with a canonical quintessence field, an exponential potential V(φ)=V0e^{-λφ}, and an interaction Q=Qρ_mφdot between dark matter and dark energy. It extends the standard background dynamical-systems analysis by introducing a matter-perturbation variable U_m ≡ δ_m'/δ_m, derives an autonomous system for (x, y, z, λ, U_m), and lists critical points and eigenvalues in Tables 1 and 2. The central claims are that the previously known late-time dark-energy point (c) becomes a saddle when matter perturbations are included for observationally allowed λ, and that the viable radiation→matter→dark-energy sequence is (a1)→(b)→(d1) or (d2). The text also compares the perturbation-level stability with earlier background-only results.

Significance. If the derivation is sound, the paper offers a compact way to include growth-of-structure information in the phase-space analysis of coupled quintessence, and it makes a falsifiable statement: the scaling fixed point (c) cannot serve as the late-time attractor once matter perturbations are included, for λ values allowed by current observations. The manuscript is self-contained in its dynamical-systems calculation, provides explicit eigenvalue tables, and uses an external observational bound on λ rather than tuning parameters. The main novelty, the U_m equation, is potentially useful for other coupled-dark-energy models. However, the central conclusion rests on a perturbation equation whose derivation contains an unquantified and possibly incorrect neglect of δQ terms; until that step is repaired, the advertised conclusion is not established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (9)–(11), and Eq. (21)] The derivation of Eq. (11) is the load-bearing step of the paper, because every new U_m fixed point in Table 1 and every eigenvalue in Table 2 follows from Eq. (21), which is constructed from Eq. (11). The text discards δQ by saying that quintessence perturbations are negligible at sub-horizon scales [98], but for the adopted coupling Q=Qρ_mφdot, δQ contains a term Qφdot δρ_m = Qφdot ρ_m δ_m, which is proportional to the matter perturbation itself, not to a quintessence perturbation. In the first line of Eq. (9) this term must be combined with the explicit −(Q/ρ_m)δ_m term; dropping δQ outright changes the coefficient of δ_m in the resulting second-order equation. No order-of-magnitude estimate of δQ/(Hδ_m) is given. Please derive Eq. (11) keeping the δρ_m contribution, or show explicitly why it is negligible; without this, the saddle nature of (c1)/(c2) and the claimed sequence (a1)→(b)→(d1)/(d2) are not self-contained.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Table 1] The small-Q limits quoted in the text are inconsistent with Table 1. Expanding the entries in Table 1 for small Q gives U_m ≈ −3/2 − Q^2/5 for the plus-sqrt branch (a1) and U_m ≈ 1 − 4Q^2/5 for the minus-sqrt branch (a2), yet the text states the opposite: 'U_m = 1 − 4Q^2/5 for (a1)' and 'U_m = −3/2 − Q^2/5 for (a2).' The point that correctly describes δ_m ∼ a growth is the one with U_m ≈ 1, so the labels are not a cosmetic issue: they determine which fixed point is used in the viable sequence. Please correct the labels in either Table 1 or the text and ensure that the sequence (a1)→(b)→(d1)/(d2) refers to the point with the growing matter perturbation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (15)] The equation of state wφ is written with an undefined symbol ε; the correct expression from Eq. (8) is wφ = (x^2 − y^2)/(x^2 + y^2). Please remove ε or define it.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The symbol φ is used both for the scalar field and for the metric perturbation in the Newtonian gauge in the same section. Please denote the metric perturbation, e.g., by Ψ, to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 4.1, point (b)] The text says (b) is 'unstable, because it has one positive, one negative and one zero eigenvalue', then notes it is a saddle at background level. With eigenvalues 2, −1, 1, 0 the point is a non-hyperbolic saddle, not unstable; this wording should be corrected, ideally with a center-manifold or numerical comment.
  4. [Table 2 and Eq. (23)] The expression for μ3c,4c in Eq. (23) is hard to read: '16λ Q3' should presumably be 16λ Q^3, and the table entries for the (c1)/(c2) U_m values would benefit from cleaner parentheses and superscripts.
  5. [Section 3] The step from Eq. (9) and the Poisson equation (10) to Eq. (11) is stated as 'whose result gives' without showing the intermediate algebra. Please provide the derivation, especially since Eq. (11) is the basis of the paper's new perturbation-level conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability and fixed-point analysis follows from the model equations, and the central (c)-saddle conclusion uses an external observational bound rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The autonomous system in Eqs. (17)-(21) is constructed from the background Friedmann/continuity equations and from the matter-perturbation equation (11), and the critical points and eigenvalues in Tables 1-2 are obtained by solving those equations directly. The paper's new conclusion, that point (c) cannot be the late-time DE attractor, is drawn from the eigenvalues in Table 2 plus the external constraint that lambda > 1 is ruled out at 3 sigma [102]; no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction. Self-citations, such as [60] for the general perturbed equations and [61] for the non-viability of the Q(rho_phi+rho_m)phi-dot coupling, are references to published derivations and are not used as unverified premises that force the result. The principal caveat is an approximation rather than circularity: Section 3 states 'DE perturbations are expected to be negligible at sub-horizon scales [98], thus they can be neglected' before deriving Eq. (11). For Q = Q rho_m phi-dot, delta Q contains a delta rho_m term, so dropping delta Q in Eq. (9) without estimating delta Q/(H delta_m) is an unquantified step that could affect the Um equation (21) and the (c)-saddle conclusion. That is a correctness risk, not a self-referential reduction, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two model parameters (λ and Q), on the assumption that quintessence and coupling perturbations are negligible, and on standard dynamical-systems stability theory. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • λ = not fitted; constrained to λ < 1 (3σ, ref. [102])
    Slope of the exponential potential; determines which fixed points exist and whether (c2) can be stable.
  • Q = not fitted; assumed positive constant
    Dark-energy/dark-matter coupling strength; enters all eigenvalues and Um values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW background with a single real canonical scalar field and exponential potential V=V0 exp(-λφ)
    Basic model setup in Sections 1-3.
  • domain assumption Dark energy perturbations and the perturbation of the coupling δQ are negligible at sub-horizon scales; cs=1 for quintessence
    Used to derive the matter perturbation equation (11) from the general system (9).
  • domain assumption Radiation density fluctuations do not cluster
    Stated in Section 3 before the perturbation analysis.
  • standard math Standard linear stability analysis of autonomous ODEs via Jacobian eigenvalues; center manifold treatment for zero eigenvalue
    Used in Section 4.1; zero eigenvalue for point (b) is treated via [100].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological perturbations and dynamical analysis for interacting quintessence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C23HG77F

@misc{pith2026190803657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological perturbations and dynamical analysis for interacting quintessence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C23HG77F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03657}
}
read the original abstract

We present the dynamical analysis for interacting quintessence, considering linear cosmological perturbations. Matter perturbations improve the background analysis and viable critical points describing the transition of the three cosmological eras are found. The stability of those fixed points are similar to previous studies in the literature, for both coupled and uncoupled cases, leading to a late-time attractor.

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. A microphysically inspired approach to dark matter-dark energy interactions: first bounds on dark-sector scattering cross sections

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A microphysically motivated Q∝ρ² dark-sector interaction is constrained by cosmological data, giving upper limits A<7.6×10⁻²⁵, B<0.048, and H₀=67.71±0.65 km/s/Mpc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [102]

    The Landscape, the Swampland and the Era of Precision Cosmology

    Yashar Akrami, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Valeri Vardanyan. The Landscape, the Swampland and the Era of Precision Cosmology. F ortsch. Phys., 67(1- 2):1800075, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [98]

    Duniya, D

    D. Duniya, D. Bertacca, and R. Maartens. Clustering of quintessence on horizon scales and its imprint on HI intensity mapping. JCAP, 1310:015, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [1]

    A. G. Riess et al. Observational evidence from super- novae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. Astron. J., 116:1009–1038, 1998

    1998

  4. [2]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae. Astrophys. J., 517:565–586, 1999

    1999

  5. [3]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmolog- ical parameters. 2018

    2018

  6. [4]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra. Cosmology with a Time Variable Cosmological Constant. Astrophys. J., 325:L17, 1988. 5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Q λ Fig. 1 Allowed parameter space for Q and λ in order for (c2) to be a stable point. These possible values of λ are ruled out by current cos- mological observations [102]

    1988

  7. [5]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles. Cosmological Conse- quences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field.Phys. Rev., D37:3406, 1988

    1988

  8. [6]

    J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, and R. Watkins. Late time cosmological phase transitions. 1. Particle physics models and cosmic evolution. Phys. Rev., D46:1226– 1238, 1992

    1992

Show all 102 references
  1. [7]

    J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins, and I. Waga. Cosmology with ultralight pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 75:2077, 1995

    1995

  2. [8]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt. Cosmo- logical imprint of an energy component with general equation of state. Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:1582, 1998

    1998

  3. [9]

    Padmanabhan

    T. Padmanabhan. Accelerated expansion of the universe driven by tachyonic matter. Phys. Rev. , D66:021301, 2002

    2002

  4. [10]

    J. S. Bagla, H. K. Jassal, and T. Padmanabhan. Cos- mology with tachyon field as dark energy. Phys. Rev., D67:063504, 2003

    2003

  5. [11]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V . F. Mukhanov, and P. J. Stein- hardt. A Dynamical solution to the problem of a small cosmological constant and late time cosmic accelera- tion. Phys. Rev. Lett., 85:4438–4441, 2000

    2000

  6. [12]

    Brax and J

    P. Brax and J. Martin. Quintessence and supergravity. Phys. Lett., B468:40–45, 1999

    1999

  7. [13]

    E. J. Copeland, N. J. Nunes, and F. Rosati. Quintessence models in supergravity. Phys. Rev. , D62:123503, 2000

    2000

  8. [14]

    Vagnozzi, S

    S. Vagnozzi, S. Dhawan, M. Gerbino, K. Freese, A. Goobar, and O. Mena. Constraints on the sum of the neutrino masses in dynamical dark energy mod- els with w(z)≥− 1 are tighter than those obtained in ΛCDM. Phys. Rev., D98(8):083501, 2018

    2018

  9. [15]

    Koivisto and D

    T. Koivisto and D. F. Mota. Vector Field Models of Inflation and Dark Energy. JCAP, 0808:021, 2008

    2008

  10. [16]

    Bamba and S

    K. Bamba and S. D. Odintsov. Inflation and late- time cosmic acceleration in non-minimal Maxwell- F(R) gravity and the generation of large-scale mag- netic fields. JCAP, 0804:024, 2008

    2008

  11. [17]

    Emelyanov and F

    V . Emelyanov and F. R. Klinkhamer. Possible solu- tion to the main cosmological constant problem. Phys. Rev., D85:103508, 2012

    2012

  12. [18]

    Emelyanov and F

    V . Emelyanov and F. R. Klinkhamer. Reconsidering a higher-spin-field solution to the main cosmological constant problem. Phys. Rev., D85:063522, 2012

    2012

  13. [19]

    Emelyanov and F

    V . Emelyanov and F. R. Klinkhamer. Vector-field model with compensated cosmological constant and radiation-dominated FRW phase. Int. J. Mod. Phys. , D21:1250025, 2012

    2012

  14. [20]

    Kouwn, P

    S. Kouwn, P. Oh, and C.-G. Park. Massive Photon and Dark Energy. Phys. Rev., D93(8):083012, 2016

    2016

  15. [21]

    R. C. G. Landim. Dynamical analysis for a vector-like dark energy. Eur . Phys. J., C76:480, 2016

    2016

  16. [22]

    S. D. H. Hsu. Entropy bounds and dark energy. Phys. Lett., B594:13–16, 2004

    2004

  17. [23]

    M. Li. A model of holographic dark energy. Phys. Lett., B603:1, 2004

    2004

  18. [24]

    Pavon and W

    D. Pavon and W. Zimdahl. Holographic dark energy and cosmic coincidence. Phys. Lett., B628:206–210, 2005

    2005

  19. [25]

    Wang, Y .-G

    B. Wang, Y .-G. Gong, and E. Abdalla. Transition of the dark energy equation of state in an interacting holo- graphic dark energy model. Phys. Lett. , B624:141– 146, 2005

    2005

  20. [26]

    B. Wang, Y . Gong, and E. Abdalla. Thermodynam- ics of an accelerated expanding universe. Phys. Rev., D74:083520, 2006

    2006

  21. [27]

    Wang, C.-Y

    B. Wang, C.-Y . Lin, and E. Abdalla. Constraints on the interacting holographic dark energy model. Phys. Lett., B637:357–361, 2006

    2006

  22. [28]

    Wang, C.-Y

    B. Wang, C.-Y . Lin, D. Pavon, and E. Abdalla. Ther- modynamical description of the interaction between dark energy and dark matter. Phys. Lett. , B662:1–6, 2008

    2008

  23. [29]

    R. C. G. Landim. Holographic dark energy from mini- mal supergravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys., D25(4):1650050, 2016

    2016

  24. [30]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, and X. Zhang. Holographic dark energy models: A comparison from the latest ob- servational data. JCAP, 0906:036, 2009

    2009

  25. [31]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, Y . Wang, and X. Zhang. Probing interaction and spatial curvature in the holo- graphic dark energy model. JCAP, 0912:014, 2009. 6

    2009

  26. [32]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, and Y . Wang. Dark Energy. Commun. Theor . Phys., 56:525–604, 2011

    2011

  27. [33]

    Saridakis

    Emmanuel N. Saridakis. Ricci-Gauss-Bonnet holo- graphic dark energy.Phys. Rev., D97(6):064035, 2018

    2018

  28. [34]

    Al Mamon

    A. Al Mamon. Reconstruction of interaction rate in holographic dark energy model with Hubble hori- zon as the infrared cut-off. Int. J. Mod. Phys. , D26(11):1750136, 2017

    2017

  29. [35]

    Mukherjee

    A. Mukherjee. Reconstruction of interaction rate in Holographic dark energy. JCAP, 1611:055, 2016

    2016

  30. [36]

    Feng and X

    L. Feng and X. Zhang. Revisit of the interacting holo- graphic dark energy model after Planck 2015. JCAP, 1608(08):072, 2016

    2015

  31. [37]

    Herrera, W

    R. Herrera, W. S. Hipolito-Ricaldi, and N. Videla. Instability in interacting dark sector: An appropri- ate Holographic Ricci dark energy model. JCAP, 1608:065, 2016

    2016

  32. [38]

    M. Forte. Holographik, the k-essential approach to in- teractive models with modified holographic Ricci dark energy. Eur . Phys. J., C76(12):707, 2016

    2016

  33. [39]

    Stachowski, and K

    M.k Szydlowski, A. Stachowski, and K. Urbanowski. Quantum mechanical look at the radioactive-like de- cay of metastable dark energy. Eur . Phys. J. , C77(12):902, 2017

    2017

  34. [40]

    Stachowski, M

    A. Stachowski, M. Szydlowski, and . Urbanowski. Cosmological implications of the transition from the false vacuum to the true vacuum state. Eur . Phys. J., C77(6):357, 2017

    2017

  35. [41]

    Stojkovic, G

    D. Stojkovic, G. D. Starkman, and R. Matsuo. Dark energy, the colored anti-de Sitter vacuum, and LHC phenomenology. Phys. Rev., D77:063006, 2008

    2008

  36. [42]

    Greenwood, E

    E. Greenwood, E. Halstead, R. Poltis, and D. Sto- jkovic. Dark energy, the electroweak vacua and col- lider phenomenology. Phys. Rev., D79:103003, 2009

    2009

  37. [43]

    Abdalla, L

    E. Abdalla, L. L. Graef, and B. Wang. A Model for Dark Energy decay. Phys. Lett., B726:786–790, 2013

    2013

  38. [44]

    Shafieloo, D

    A. Shafieloo, D. K. Hazra, V . Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky. Metastable Dark Energy with Radioactive-like Decay. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 473:2760–2770, 2018

    2018

  39. [45]

    R. G. Landim and E. Abdalla. Metastable dark energy. Phys. Lett. B., 764:271, 2017

    2017

  40. [46]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa. Dynamics of dark energy. Int. J. Mod. Phys. , D15:1753–1936, 2006

    1936

  41. [47]

    Dvali, G

    G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, and M. Porrati. 4D Gravity on a Brane in 5D Minkowski Space. Phys. Lett. B , 485:208, 2000

    2000

  42. [48]

    S. Yin, B. Wang, E. Abdalla, and C. Lin. Transition of equation of state of effective dark energy in the Dvali- Gabadadze-Porrati model with bulk contents. Phys. Rev., D76:124026, 2007

    2007

  43. [49]

    Wetterich

    C. Wetterich. The Cosmon model for an asymptot- ically vanishing time dependent cosmological ’con- stant’. Astron. Astrophys., 301:321–328, 1995

    1995

  44. [50]

    Amendola

    L. Amendola. Coupled quintessence. Phys. Rev. , D62:043511, 2000

    2000

  45. [51]

    Guo and Y .-Z

    Z.-K. Guo and Y .-Z. Zhang. Interacting phantom en- ergy. Phys. Rev. D., 71:023501, 2005

    2005

  46. [52]

    Cai and A

    R.-G. Cai and A. Wang. Cosmology with interaction between phantom dark energy and dark matter and the coincidence problem. JCAP, 0503:002, 2005

    2005

  47. [53]

    Guo, R.-G

    Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y .-Z. Zhang. Cosmologi- cal evolution of interacting phantom energy with dark matter. JCAP, 0505:002, 2005

    2005

  48. [54]

    X.-J. Bi, B. Feng, H. Li, and X. Zhang. Cosmological evolution of interacting dark energy models with mass varying neutrinos. Phys. Rev. D., 72:123523, 2005

    2005

  49. [55]

    Gumjudpai, T

    B. Gumjudpai, T. Naskar, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa. Coupled dark energy: Towards a general description of the dynamics. JCAP, 0506:007, 2005

    2005

  50. [56]

    A. A. Costa, X.-D. Xu, B. Wang, E. G. M. Ferreira, and E. Abdalla. Testing the Interaction between Dark Energy and Dark Matter with Planck Data. Phys. Rev., D89(10):103531, 2014

    2014

  51. [57]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, J. Quintin, A. A. Costa, E. Abdalla, and B. Wang. Evidence for interacting dark energy from BOSS. Phys. Rev., D95(4):043520, 2017

    2017

  52. [58]

    A. A. Costa, L. C. Olivari, and E. Abdalla. Quintessence with Yukawa Interaction. Phys. Rev. , D92(10):103501, 2015

    2015

  53. [59]

    A. A. Costa, X.-D. Xu, B. Wang, and E. Abdalla. Constraints on interacting dark energy models from Planck 2015 and redshift-space distortion data. JCAP, 1701(01):028, 2017

    2015

  54. [60]

    R. J. F. Marcondes, R. C. G. Landim, A. A. Costa, B. Wang, and E. Abdalla. Analytic study of the effect of dark energy-dark matter interaction on the growth of structures. JCAP, 1612(12):009, 2016

    2016

  55. [61]

    F. F. Bernardi and R. G. Landim. Coupled quintessence and the impossibility of an interaction: a dynamical analysis study. Eur . Phys. J., C77(5):290, 2017

    2017

  56. [62]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon. Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interac- tions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Implica- tions and Observational Signatures. Rep. Prog. Phys., 79(9):096901, 2016

    2016

  57. [63]

    G. R. Farrar and P. J. E. Peebles. Interacting dark mat- ter and dark energy. Astrophys. J., 604:1–11, 2004

    2004

  58. [64]

    Micheletti, E

    S. Micheletti, E. Abdalla, and B. Wang. A Field The- ory Model for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in Inter- action. Phys. Rev., D79:123506, 2009

    2009

  59. [65]

    Yang and S

    W. Yang and S. Banerjee, N.and Pan. Constrain- ing a dark matter and dark energy interaction sce- 7 nario with a dynamical equation of state. Phys. Rev., D95(12):123527, 2017

    2017

  60. [66]

    R. F. vom Marttens, L. Casarini, W. S. Hipólito- Ricaldi, and W. Zimdahl. CMB and matter power spectra with non-linear dark-sector interactions. JCAP, 1701(01):050, 2017

    2017

  61. [67]

    Bar- row

    Weiqiang Yang, Supriya Pan, and John D. Bar- row. Large-scale Stability and Astronomical Con- straints for Coupled Dark-Energy Models. Phys. Rev., D97(4):043529, 2018

    2018

  62. [68]

    A. A. Costa, R. C. G. Landim, B. Wang, and E. Ab- dalla. Interacting Dark Energy: Possible Explanation for 21-cm Absorption at Cosmic Dawn. Eur . Phys. J., C78(9):746, 2018

    2018

  63. [69]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota. Tale of stable interact- ing dark energy, observational signatures, and the H0 tension. JCAP, 1809(09):019, 2018

    2018

  64. [70]

    Zimdahl, D

    W. Zimdahl, D. Pavon, and L. P. Chimento. Interacting quintessence. Phys.Lett., B521:133–138, 2001

    2001

  65. [71]

    L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon, and W. Zim- dahl. Interacting quintessence solution to the coinci- dence problem. Phys. Rev., D67:083513, 2003

    2003

  66. [72]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, and D. Wands. Expo- nential potentials and cosmological scaling solutions. Phys. Rev., D57:4686–4690, 1998

    1998

  67. [73]

    S. C. C. Ng, N. J. Nunes, and F. Rosati. Applications of scalar attractor solutions to cosmology. Phys. Rev., D64:083510, 2001

    2001

  68. [74]

    E. J. Copeland, M. R. Garousi, M. Sami, and S. Tsu- jikawa. What is needed of a tachyon if it is to be the dark energy? Phys. Rev., D71:043003, 2005

    2005

  69. [75]

    Zhai and Y .-B

    X.-H. Zhai and Y .-B. Zhao. A cosmological model with complex scalar field. Nuovo Cim. , B120:1007– 1016, 2005

    2005

  70. [76]

    De-Santiago, J

    J. De-Santiago, J. L. Cervantes-Cota, and D. Wands. Cosmological phase space analysis of the F(X) - V(φ) scalar field and bouncing solutions. Phys. Rev., D87(2):023502, 2013

    2013

  71. [77]

    Tsujikawa

    S. Tsujikawa. General analytic formulae for attractor solutions of scalar-field dark energy models and their multi-field generalizations. Phys. Rev., D73:103504, 2006

    2006

  72. [78]

    Amendola, M

    L. Amendola, M. Quartin, S. Tsujikawa, and I. Waga. Challenges for scaling cosmologies. Phys. Rev. , D74:023525, 2006

    2006

  73. [79]

    Chen, Y .-G

    X.-M. Chen, Y .-G. Gong, and E. N. Saridakis. Phase- space analysis of interacting phantom cosmology. JCAP, 0904:001, 2009

    2009

  74. [80]

    Mahata and S

    N. Mahata and S. Chakraborty. Dynamical system analysis for DBI dark energy interacting with dark matter. Mod. Phys. Lett .A , 30(02):1550009, 2015

    2015

  75. [81]

    R. C. G. Landim. Coupled tachyonic dark energy: a dynamical analysis. Int. J. Mod. Phys. , D24:1550085, 2015

    2015

  76. [82]

    R. C. G. Landim. Coupled dark energy: a dynami- cal analysis with complex scalar field. Eur . Phys. J., C76(1):31, 2016

    2016

  77. [83]

    Per- turbations of the Lambda-CDM model in a dynamical systems perspective

    Artur Alho, Claes Uggla, and John Wainwright. Per- turbations of the Lambda-CDM model in a dynamical systems perspective. JCAP, 1909(09):045, 2019

    1909

  78. [84]

    Papagiannopou- los, and Emmanuel N

    Spyros Basilakos, Genly Leon, G. Papagiannopou- los, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis. Dynamical sys- tem analysis at background and perturbation levels: Quintessence in severe disadvantage comparing to ΛCDM. Phys. Rev., D100(4):043524, 2019

    2019

  79. [85]

    Bertolami and P

    O. Bertolami and P. J. Martins. Nonminimal coupling and quintessence. Phys. Rev., D61:064007, 2000

    2000

  80. [86]

    Constraints on flat cosmologies with tracking quintessence from cos- mic microwave background observations

    Carlo Baccigalupi, Amedeo Balbi, Sabino Matarrese, Francesca Perrotta, and Nicola Vittorio. Constraints on flat cosmologies with tracking quintessence from cos- mic microwave background observations. Phys. Rev., D65:063520, 2002

    2002

  81. [87]

    Rahul Dave, R. R. Caldwell, and Paul J. Stein- hardt. Sensitivity of the cosmic microwave back- ground anisotropy to initial conditions in quintessence cosmology. Phys. Rev., D66:023516, 2002

    2002

  82. [88]

    Extended quintessence with an exponential coupling

    Valeria Pettorino, Carlo Baccigalupi, and Gianpiero Mangano. Extended quintessence with an exponential coupling. JCAP, 0501:014, 2005

    2005

  83. [89]

    Brookfield, C

    Anthony W. Brookfield, C. van de Bruck, D. F. Mota, and D. Tocchini-Valentini. Cosmology of mass- varying neutrinos driven by quintessence: theory and observations. Phys. Rev., D73:083515, 2006. [Erra- tum: Phys. Rev.D76,049901(2007)]

    2007

  84. [90]

    Growth of perturbations in dark matter coupled with quintessence

    Tomi Koivisto. Growth of perturbations in dark matter coupled with quintessence. Phys. Rev., D72:043516, 2005

    2005

  85. [91]

    Constraints on the coupled quintessence from cosmic microwave background anisotropy and matter power spectrum

    Seokcheon Lee, Guo-Chin Liu, and Kin-Wang Ng. Constraints on the coupled quintessence from cosmic microwave background anisotropy and matter power spectrum. Phys. Rev., D73:083516, 2006

    2006

  86. [92]

    Atrio-Barandela, and D

    German Olivares, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon. Matter density perturbations in interacting quintessence models. Phys. Rev. , D74:043521, 2006

    2006

  87. [93]

    Coupled and Extended Quintessence: theoretical differences and structure formation

    Valeria Pettorino and Carlo Baccigalupi. Coupled and Extended Quintessence: theoretical differences and structure formation. Phys. Rev., D77:103003, 2008

    2008

  88. [94]

    Ewan R. M. Tarrant, Carsten van de Bruck, Edmund J. Copeland, and Anne M. Green. Coupled Quintessence and the Halo Mass Function. Phys. Rev., D85:023503, 2012

    2012

  89. [95]

    Cosmolog- ical structure formation with clustering quintessence

    Emiliano Sefusatti and Filippo Vernizzi. Cosmolog- ical structure formation with clustering quintessence. 8 JCAP, 1103:047, 2011

    2011

  90. [96]

    Constraining coupled quintessence with the 21cm sig- nal

    Xue-Wen Liu, Caroline Heneka, and Luca Amendola. Constraining coupled quintessence with the 21cm sig- nal. 2019

    2019

  91. [97]

    França and R

    U. França and R. Rosenfeld. Fine tuning in quintessence models with exponential potentials. JHEP, 10:015, 2002

    2002

  92. [99]

    Bahamonde, C

    S. Bahamonde, C. G. Bohmer, S. Carloni, E. J. Copeland, W. Fang, and N. Tamanini. Dynamical sys- tems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity. Phys. Rept., 775-777:1–122, 2018

    2018

  93. [100]

    C. G. Boehmer, N. Chan, and R. Lazkoz. Dynamics of dark energy models and centre manifolds. Phys. Lett., B714:11–17, 2012

    2012

  94. [101]

    Linde, Sergey Prokushkin, and Marina Shmakova

    Renata Kallosh, Andrei D. Linde, Sergey Prokushkin, and Marina Shmakova. Supergravity, dark energy and the fate of the universe.Phys. Rev., D66:123503, 2002

    2002

Pith tools

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