Kinetic coupled tachyon: A dynamical system analysis

Alberto Rozas-Fern\'andez; Francesco Pace; \"Ozgen Tun\c{c} T\"urker

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 70 references

Kinetic coupled tachyon: A dynamical system analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Kinetic coupling adds a scaling attractor to tachyon dark energy.

desk verdict New scaling attractor D in kinetically coupled tachyon is a real find, but the numerical runs use lambda-values where D does not exist, and the coincidence claim ignores the competing stable point B. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20118 v1 pith:GL7TVTSN submitted 2024-12-28 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Francesco Pace , Alberto Rozas-Fernández , Özgen Tunç Türker This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83F0537N20 PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k

keywords tachyondarkenergykineticcouplingdynamicalsystemsincosmologyscalingsolutioncriticalpointsandstabilitycosmiccoincidenceprobleminverse-squarepotentialphase-spaceanalysis

topics Dark Energy Dark Matter

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

This paper constructs a dark-energy model in which a tachyon scalar field is kinetically coupled to pressureless dark matter through an action-level factor $f(X)=(1-2X)^{\alpha/2}$, and asks whether this coupling changes the cosmic attractor structure. The central result is a dynamical-systems proof that the coupling creates a new critical point $D$, located at $x=1/\sqrt{1+\alpha}$ and $y=y_{s,-}$, which is a stable attractor and gives accelerated expansion for $0<\lambda<2[\alpha(1+\alpha)]^{1/4}$. Because this point is absent when $\alpha=0$, the model contains a genuine interaction effect: a scaling solution with a constant field energy fraction, followed by late-time acceleration. A sympathetic reader would care because such a scaling attractor makes the present dark-matter/dark-energy coincidence a natural outcome of the dynamics rather than a tuned initial condition. The paper also notes that the coupling mass-scale constraint of the uncoupled model disappears, since $\lambda$ is unrestricted below a coupling-dependent upper bound.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-dimensional autonomous system (39)--(40) obtained from the dimensionless variables $x$, $y$, $z$, with $z$ eliminated by the Friedmann constraint $y^2\sqrt{1-x^2}+z^2=1$. The machinery carries the argument by turning cosmology into a phase-space flow: fixed points of $(x',y')=(0,0)$ represent asymptotic cosmological solutions, and the signs of the eigenvalues of the linearization matrix decide stability. The new point $D$ is created by the coupling $f(X)=(1-2X)^{\alpha/2}$, which changes the numerator and denominator of the $x'$ equation and introduces the closed forms $y_{s,\pm}$ from Eq. (45). The stability of $D$, together with its coexistence with the uncoupled attractor $B$, is what makes the scaling solution an attractor of the full system.

What would settle it

Rebuild the autonomous system using the Schutz-Sorkin matter action (as in [42]) while keeping $f(X)=(1-2X)^{\alpha/2}$; if the point $(1/\sqrt{1+\alpha},\,y_{s,-})$ is no longer a fixed point, or is not stable for $\lambda$ in $0<\lambda<2[\alpha(1+\alpha)]^{1/4}$, the paper's central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that a tachyon field with inverse-square potential $V(\phi)=V_0^2/\phi^2$, coupled to cold dark matter by $f(X)=(1-2X)^{\alpha/2}$ at the level of the action, possesses a stable scaling fixed point not present in the uncoupled theory. In the dimensionless variables $x=\dot{\phi}/M^2$ and $y=\sqrt{V}/(\sqrt{3}H M_{\mathrm{Pl}})$, the point is $(x,y)=(1/\sqrt{1+\alpha},\,y_{s,-})$, with $y_{s,-}$ given by Eq. (45); it exists for $\lambda\geq \sqrt{3}/[\alpha(1+\alpha)]^{1/4}$ and accelerates for $0<\lambda<2[\alpha(1+\alpha)]^{1/4}$. Near this attractor the field energy fraction $\Omega_\phi=\sqrt{(1+\alpha)/\alpha}\,y_{s,-}^2$ is constant in time, so dark energy tracks matter during the scaling era; later the field takes over and drives accelerated expansion. The authors further show that at $\alpha=0.55$, $\lambda=1.8$ the new point merges with the standard tachyon attractor $B$ and becomes the global attractor, and that for $\alpha>0$ energy flows from matter to the tachyon.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on writing pressureless dark matter as the perfect-fluid Lagrangian $L_m=-\rho_m$ and multiplying it by $f(X)=(1-2X)^{\alpha/2}$; with a different matter action or coupling function, the autonomous system closes differently and critical point $D$ need not exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is correct, a kinetically coupled tachyon can produce an early matter-scaling era with constant $\Omega_\phi$, followed by late accelerated expansion, without fine-tuned initial conditions.
The coincidence problem is alleviated because the observed $\Omega_\phi\approx 0.7$ can be obtained for a wide range of initial conditions, not only near the present epoch.
The uncoupled constraint that the potential mass scale exceed roughly $1.1\,M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ is evaded; $\lambda$ may take any value in $0<\lambda<2[\alpha(1+\alpha)]^{1/4}$ provided $\alpha$ is large enough.
For $\alpha=0$ the system reduces to the standard tachyon behavior with point $B$ as the only attractor, so the new phenomenology is a genuine interaction effect.
Because matter sources the tachyon near $D$ for $\alpha>0$, dark matter is slowly converted into dark energy during the scaling regime, affecting the expansion history before dark-energy domination.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next test is to compute linear density perturbations around the scaling solution; if the growth index or effective sound speed is observationally excluded, the background attractor alone will not save the model. The paper states that this perturbation analysis is underway.
The existence of point $D$ likely depends on the perfect-fluid Lagrangian $L_m=-\rho_m$; repeating the reduction with the Schutz-Sorkin matter action may alter $Q$ and could destroy or move the point, so robustness across matter actions is the first extension to check.
The early-dark-energy signature visible in $\Omega_\phi$ for $\alpha=0.04$ suggests the model could shift CMB peak positions; a parameter-space scan of $(\alpha,\lambda)$ against cosmic-microwave-background and Hubble data would quantify the allowed coupling strength.
The same kinetic-coupling construction could be applied to other potentials, such as $V(\phi)\propto \cosh^{-2}(\beta\phi)$ or exponential forms; the inverse-square choice is what makes $\lambda$ constant and the autonomous system close.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the model is a reasonable extension of Barros's kinetic coupling to the tachyon, and critical point D is genuinely new. But the paper overreaches in two ways: the figures are run at lambda values where D does not exist, and the "irrespective of initial conditions" claim is contradicted by the fact that B is also stable whenever D exists.

What is good: The setup is clean. They derive the field equations from the action with a kinetic coupling f(X)=(1-2X)^{alpha/2}, and the reduction to a 2D autonomous system is standard but carefully done. Point D, with x=1/sqrt(1+alpha), y=y_{s,-}, appears only for alpha>0, and the explicit conditions for existence and acceleration (Eqs. 50, 51) are useful closed-form results. The observation that D and B merge at lambda^4=... is interesting. The appendix derivation is a helpful addition.

Soft spots: First, the eigenvalues in Table 1 are asserted without derivation. For a paper whose main result is stability, that is a serious omission. Either include the linearization or reference a source that carries it out. Second, Eq. (26) appears with no intermediate steps; "we arrive at" is not checkable. Third and more serious, the numerical examples do not satisfy the model's own existence conditions. Fig. 4 uses lambda=0.1; D exists only for lambda >= sqrt(3)/[alpha(1+alpha)]^{1/4}, which for alpha=0.04 is about 3.8. So the figure that is supposed to show the effect of D cannot be showing it. Figs. 2 and 3 have the same problem with lambda=0.3. This is not a cosmetic issue; the text explicitly says the D attractor "triggers" the behavior in those runs.

Fourth, the coincidence claim is overstated. The phase space has two stable points: B (Omega_phi=1) and D (Omega_phi constant <1). The authors acknowledge orbits connect A to either B or D, so the basin of D matters. The statement that Omega_phi≈0.7 is obtained "irrespective of how we set the initial conditions" is false for orbits ending at B. The follow-up "eventually final state Omega_phi=1" only makes sense if B is the final state, which would mean D is not the final attractor. The paper needs to say explicitly which claims apply to which basins, and ideally give some measure of the basin of D.

The stress-test note raised these points, and reading the paper confirms they land. The analytical core may be correct, but the presentation overstates what is demonstrated.

Who is this for: people working on interacting dark energy and scaling solutions. It deserves a serious referee, but not acceptance in its present form. I'd ask for corrected numerical runs, eigenvalue derivations, and a basin-aware interpretation of the coincidence claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a coupled dark-energy model in which a tachyon scalar field with inverse-square potential V(ϕ)∝ϕ^{-2} is kinetically coupled to pressureless dark matter through f(X)=(1-2X)^{α/2}. The authors derive the background equations, introduce dimensionless variables (x,y,z), reduce the system to a two-dimensional autonomous system, and identify four fixed points. The new point D, which exists only for α≠0 and λ≥√3/[α(1+α)]^{1/4}, is reported to be stable and to provide a scaling solution with constant Ω_ϕ and accelerated expansion for 0<λ<2[α(1+α)]^{1/4}. The paper claims that this scaling solution alleviates the coincidence problem.

Significance. If the fixed-point and stability analysis is correct, the model is a useful contribution to the interacting-dark-energy literature: the new point is derived from the action rather than imposed by hand, it is absent in the uncoupled α=0 limit, and it offers a genuine scaling branch with a possible accelerated region. The paper also states its modeling assumptions clearly and connects to existing matter Lagrangians (e.g., the Schutz-Sorkin action in Ref. [42]). However, the headline coincidence claim is not established in the present manuscript: the phase space has at least two stable attractors whenever D exists, the numerical examples do not enter the D regime, and the definition of Ω_ϕ contains an inconsistency that propagates into the reduced system. These issues are technical and fixable, but they require substantial re-analysis rather than minor editing.

major comments (4)

[Eqs. (30), (32), (43), Table 2] The definition of the tachyonic density parameter is internally inconsistent. Equation (30) states Ω_ϕ=y²√(1−x²), but Eq. (20) together with y=√V/(√3 H M_Pl) gives Ω_ϕ=y²/√(1−x²). The phase-space bound in Eq. (43), x²+y⁴≤1, and the Ω_ϕ column of Table 2 (e.g., √((1+α)/α)y² at point D) are consistent only with the latter expression. Because Eq. (32) is used to eliminate z and reduce Eqs. (34)–(36) to (39)–(40), this discrepancy propagates into the central dynamical-system calculation. Please correct the relation and re-derive the autonomous system, and state which density-parameter formula is used in the figures and tables.
[Table 1, Table 2, Point D, Fig. 1] The stability analysis does not support the claim that the scaling solution is reached 'irrespective of how we set the initial conditions.' Table 1 reports both B and D as stable; whenever D exists and accelerates (Eqs. (50) and (51)), B is also present and stable, and for λ⁴<12 it is also an accelerated solution. Thus the phase space generically contains two stable late-time attractors, and the Fig. 1 caption itself states that orbits connect A to either B or D. The Point D paragraph asserts that Ω_ϕ≈0.7 is obtained irrespective of initial conditions, while the same paragraph ends with 'the final state of the Universe will be attained when Ω_ϕ=1'; these statements are mutually incompatible unless a basin-of-attraction separation is demonstrated. Please compute the basin boundaries, the separatrices, and the relative measure of initial conditions that end at D versus B.
[Fig. 4, Eq. (50), Figs. 2-3] The numerical examples do not exercise the new point. Fig. 4 is described with λ=0.1, and Figs. 2–3 use λ=0.3; for the coupling values shown there (α up to 0.04), the existence condition Eq. (50) requires λ≳3.8, so D is not present in those runs. The statement that Fig. 4 shows the 'appearance of a new critical point (D)' as α is increased is therefore not supported by the stated parameter choices. Please re-run the illustrations with parameter pairs satisfying Eqs. (50) and (51), state the α values used in every panel, and show the corresponding evolution of Ω_ϕ, w_ϕ, and w_eff, together with the basin portrait.
[Table 1, Eq. (26), Appendix A] The paper's main technical results are not fully verifiable from the text. The eigenvalues in Table 1 are quoted without the Jacobian matrix or the intermediate eigendecomposition, and Eq. (26) is introduced with 'we arrive at' after a long computation. Given that Table 2 and the stability classification are the central results, please provide the full derivation in an appendix or supplementary material, including the substitution that leads from Eq. (33) to Eqs. (39)–(40). In addition, point A has μ₁=0, so the statement that all fixed points are hyperbolic is not correct; the critical line A should be classified as a non-hyperbolic set and its stability treated accordingly.

minor comments (3)

[Table 2, Point C] Point C is said to be stable for every λ and α, but it exists only for λ≤−√3/[α(1+α)]^{1/4}; since the paper assumes λ>0, this point is not part of the physical model, and the sentence should be qualified to avoid confusion.
[Point B paragraph] The term 'global attractor' is used imprecisely once α≠0: B is the global attractor in the uncoupled case, but when D exists both B and D are stable, so neither is global. Please reserve 'global' for the α=0 case or for the merging point at equality in Eq. (50).
[Conclusions, Point D] The wording 'an early scaling regime, followed by a period with accelerated expansion, with a late time attractor' conflates the trajectory with the fixed point itself: at the fixed point D, the solution does not leave the scaling regime. Please rephrase to describe the approach to D and the resulting asymptotic behavior.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling attractor D is a derived fixed point of the stated autonomous system, not a fitted or self-citation-backed input.

full rationale

The derivation of the central result—the existence and stability of the novel critical point D and its parameter ranges for acceleration—is self-contained. Starting from the action Eq. (16) with tachyon Lagrangian P=-V√(1-2X), inverse-square potential V=V0^2/φ^2, matter Lagrangian Lm=-ρm, and kinetic coupling f=(1-2X)^{α/2}, the authors derive the autonomous system Eqs. (34)–(36), solve the fixed-point equations to obtain Table 2, and perform a linear stability analysis in Table 1. The parameters α and λ are free; the allowed ranges for existence and acceleration are derived inequalities, not fits to data. The remark that Ωφ≈0.7 'can be obtained irrespective of how we set the initial conditions' refers to the constant value of Ωφ at the stable point D, which is a function of α and λ; the numerical initial conditions are illustrative and do not enter the derivation. No load-bearing self-citation is present: references to prior work establish the model setup or the uncoupled limit, not the new point D. A separate concern, not a circularity, is that the illustrative parameters (e.g., λ=0.3, α=0.04) do not satisfy D's existence condition λ≥√3/[α(1+α)]^{1/4} of Table 2, and point B remains stable, so the 'irrespective of initial conditions' claim would require a basin-of-attraction analysis; this is an internal-consistency issue, not a reduction of the result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the specific choices of the potential V proportional to phi^(-2) and coupling f(X) = (1-2X)^{alpha/2}, both chosen to make the autonomous system close. These are not derived from an underlying theory. The free parameters alpha and lambda are not fitted to data but are tunable. The tuneable initial conditions in the numerical runs undercut the 'independent of initial conditions' claim.

free parameters (3)

alpha (kinetic coupling strength) = free, positive; example values 0, 0.004, 0.04, 0.55, 1.8 used in figures
Introduced in Eq. (19); controls existence and acceleration of critical point D.
lambda (potential stiffness) = free; example values 0.3, 0.1, 1.8 used in figures
Defined in Eq. (18) as constant stiffness of inverse-square potential; parameter in acceleration conditions.
Initial condition for y in numerical runs = found by root-finding
The authors tune the starting value of y so that the trajectory begins near point D; this is a hand-chosen quantity in the numerical demonstrations.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption FLRW background with flat spatial sections is imposed.
The analysis is restricted to the cosmological background; Eq. (17).
domain assumption Dark matter is a pressureless perfect fluid with Lagrangian L_m = -rho_m.
Used in Eq. (14) to derive the coupling Q; the validity under kinetic coupling is not examined.
ad hoc to paper The tachyon potential is V(phi) = V0^2/phi^2 with constant lambda.
Chosen because it yields a closed autonomous system (Section 4); not derived from microphysics.
ad hoc to paper The kinetic coupling function f(X) = (1-2X)^{alpha/2}.
Chosen so that the dynamical system closes; no first-principles motivation is given.
domain assumption Couplings to baryons and radiation are ignored; only dark matter interacts with the tachyon.
Motivated by observational constraints; cited in [54-58].
ad hoc to paper alpha >= 0 is assumed; negative alpha makes the phase space divergent.
Section 4, after Eq. (42); this restriction is necessary for the new point D to exist.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic coupled tachyon: A dynamical system analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GL7TVTSN

@misc{pith2026241220118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic coupled tachyon: A dynamical system analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GL7TVTSN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20118}
}

read the original abstract

We present and examine a kinetically coupled tachyon dark energy model, where a tachyon scalar field interacts with the matter sector. More specifically, we deduce this cosmological setting from a generalised interacting dark energy model that allows for the kinetic term of the scalar field to couple to the matter species a priori in the action. A thorough dynamical system analysis and its cosmological implications unveil the appearance of a scaling solution which is also an attractor of the system, thanks to a novel critical point, with a period of accelerated expansion thereafter. This new solution, not present in the uncoupled case, has the enticing consequence of alleviating the coincidence problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20118 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Evolution of the energy densities for the tachyonic scalar field (ρ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Evolution of the relative energy densities for the tachyonic scalar field ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Evolution of the equation of state of the tachyonic scalar field ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[42]

R. Kase, S. Tsujikawa, Scalar-field dark energy nonminimally and kinet- ically coupled to dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 063511. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.101.063511. arXiv:1910.02699

arXiv 2020
[1]

Aghanim, et al

N. Aghanim, et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological param- eters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833910. arXiv:1807.06209, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

arXiv 2020
[2]

S. M. Carroll, The Cosmological constant, Living Rev. Rel. 4 (2001) 1. doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-1. arXiv:astro-ph/0004075

arXiv 2001
[3]

Padmanabhan, Cosmological constant: The Weight of the vacuum, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Cosmological constant: The Weight of the vacuum, Phys. Rept. 380 (2003) 235–320. doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00120-0. arXiv:hep-th/0212290

arXiv 2003
[4]

V . L. Fitch, D. R. Marlow, M. A. E. Dementi (Eds.), Critical problems in physics. Proceedings, Conference celebrating the 250th Anniversary of Princeton University, Princeton, USA, October 31-November 2, 1996, 1997

work page 1996
[5]

Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1–23. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989
[6]

Padilla, Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem (2015)

A. Padilla, Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem (2015). arXiv:1502.05296

arXiv 2015
[7]

J. S. Bagla, H. K. Jassal, T. Padmanabhan, Cosmology with tachyon field as dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 063504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 67.063504. arXiv:astro-ph/0212198

arXiv 2003

Show all 70 references

[8]

Padmanabhan, Accelerated expansion of the universe driven by tachyonic matter, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Accelerated expansion of the universe driven by tachyonic matter, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 021301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66. 021301. arXiv:hep-th/0204150

2002 arXiv
[9]

G. W. Gibbons, Cosmological evolution of the rolling tachyon, Phys. Lett. B 537 (2002) 1–4. doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01881-6. arXiv:hep-th/0204008

2002 arXiv
[10]

A. V . Frolov, L. Kofman, A. A. Starobinsky, Prospects and problems of tachyon matter cosmology, Phys. Lett. B 545 (2002) 8–16. doi: 10.1016/ S0370-2693(02)02582-0. arXiv:hep-th/0204187. 25

2002 arXiv
[11]

E. J. Copeland, M. R. Garousi, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, What is needed of a tachyon if it is to be the dark energy?, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 043003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.043003. arXiv:hep-th/0411192

2005 arXiv
[12]

Calcagni, A

G. Calcagni, A. R. Liddle, Tachyon dark energy models: dynamics and constraints, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 043528. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 74.043528. arXiv:astro-ph/0606003

2006 arXiv
[13]

Shao, Y .-X

Y . Shao, Y .-X. Gui, W. Wang, Parametrization of tachyon field, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22 (2007) 1175–1182. doi: 10.1142/S0217732307021809. arXiv:gr-qc/0703112

2007 arXiv
[14]

Fang, H.-Q

W. Fang, H.-Q. Lu, Dynamics of tachyon and phantom field beyond the in- verse square potentials, Eur. Phys. J. C 68 (2010) 567–572. doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-010-1352-0. arXiv:1007.2330

2010 arXiv
[15]

J. M. Aguirregabiria, R. Lazkoz, Tracking solutions in tachyon cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 123502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.123502. arXiv:hep-th/0402190

2004 arXiv
[16]

Guo, Y .-S

Z.-K. Guo, Y .-S. Piao, R.-G. Cai, Y .-Z. Zhang, Inflationary attractor from tachyonic matter, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 043508. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.68.043508. arXiv:hep-ph/0304236

2003 arXiv
[17]

Quiros, T

I. Quiros, T. Gonzalez, D. Gonzalez, Y . Napoles, Study Of Tachyon Dynam- ics For Broad Classes of Potentials, Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 215021. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/21/215021. arXiv:0906.2617

2010 arXiv
[18]

Herrera, D

R. Herrera, D. Pavon, W. Zimdahl, Exact solutions for the in- teracting tachyonic - dark matter system, Gen. Rel. Grav. 36 (2004) 2161–2169. doi: 10.1023/B:GERG.0000038630.55301.ca. arXiv:astro-ph/0404086

2004
[19]

Gumjudpai, T

B. Gumjudpai, T. Naskar, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Coupled dark energy: To- wards a general description of the dynamics, JCAP 06 (2005) 007. doi: 10. 1088/1475-7516/2005/06/007. arXiv:hep-th/0502191

2005 arXiv
[21]

Farajollahi, A

H. Farajollahi, A. Salehi, F. Tayebi, A. Ravanpak, Stability Analysis in Tachyonic Potential Chameleon cosmology, JCAP 05 (2011) 017. doi: 10. 1088/1475-7516/2011/05/017. arXiv:1105.4045

2011 arXiv
[22]

R. C. G. Landim, Coupled tachyonic dark energy: a dynamical analysis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24 (2015) 1550085. doi: 10.1142/ S0218271815500856. arXiv:1505.03243

2015 arXiv
[23]

Ahmad, N

S. Ahmad, N. Myrzakulov, R. Myrzakulov, Tachyon field non-minimally coupled to massive neutrino matter, JCAP 07 (2016) 032. doi: 10.1088/ 1475-7516/2016/07/032. arXiv:1510.04795

2016 arXiv
[25]

E. M. Teixeira, A. Nunes, N. J. Nunes, Conformally Coupled Tachy- onic Dark Energy, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 043539. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.100.043539. arXiv:1903.06028

2019 arXiv
[26]

B. J. Barros, Kinetically coupled dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 064051. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064051. arXiv:1901.03972

2019 arXiv
[27]

Baldi, Multiple dark matter as a self-regulating mechanism for dark sector interactions, Annalen Phys

M. Baldi, Multiple dark matter as a self-regulating mechanism for dark sector interactions, Annalen Phys. 524 (2012) 602–617. doi: 10.1002/ andp.201200073. arXiv:1204.0514

2012 arXiv
[28]

Amendola, D

L. Amendola, D. Tocchini-Valentini, Stationary dark energy: The present universe as a global attractor, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 043509. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.64.043509. arXiv:astro-ph/0011243

2001 arXiv
[29]

Olivares, F

G. Olivares, F. Atrio-Barandela, D. Pavon, Matter density perturbations in interacting quintessence models, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 043521. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.74.043521. arXiv:astro-ph/0607604

2006 arXiv
[30]

S. Chen, B. Wang, J. Jing, Dynamics of interacting dark energy model in einstein and loop quantum cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 123503. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123503. arXiv:0808.3482. 27

2008 arXiv
[31]

Quercellini, M

C. Quercellini, M. Bruni, A. Balbi, D. Pietrobon, Late universe dynamics with scale-independent linear couplings in the dark sector, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 063527. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.063527. arXiv:0803.1976

2008 arXiv
[32]

Szydłowski, A

M. Szydłowski, A. Stachowski, Does the diffusion dark matter- dark energy interaction model solve cosmological puzzles?, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 043521. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.043521. arXiv:1605.02325

2016 arXiv
[33]

Arevalo, A

F. Arevalo, A. P. R. Bacalhau, W. Zimdahl, Cosmological dynamics with non-linear interactions, Class. Quant. Grav. 29 (2012) 235001. doi: 10. 1088/0264-9381/29/23/235001. arXiv:1112.5095

2012 arXiv
[34]

Nunes, J

A. Nunes, J. P. Mimoso, T. C. Charters, Scaling solutions from interacting fluids, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 083506. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63. 083506. arXiv:gr-qc/0011073

2001 arXiv
[35]

Chiba, A

T. Chiba, A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, Cosmological scaling solutions for multiple scalar fields, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 023516. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.90.023516. arXiv:1403.7604

2014 arXiv
[36]

Shahalam, S

M. Shahalam, S. D. Pathak, S. Li, R. Myrzakulov, A. Wang, Dynamics of coupled phantom and tachyon fields, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 686. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5255-1. arXiv:1702.04720

2017 arXiv
[37]

S. Das, A. Al Mamon, Cosmic acceleration in non-canonical scalar field model - an interacting scenario, Astrophys. Space Sci. 355 (2015) 371–380. doi:10.1007/s10509-014-2168-4. arXiv:1407.1666

2015 arXiv
[38]

Tamanini, Phenomenological models of dark energy interacting with dark matter, Phys

N. Tamanini, Phenomenological models of dark energy interacting with dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 043524. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92. 043524. arXiv:1504.07397

2015 arXiv
[39]

Valiviita, E

J. Valiviita, E. Majerotto, R. Maartens, Instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids, JCAP 07 (2008) 020. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2008/07/020. arXiv:0804.0232

2008 arXiv
[40]

Koivisto, Growth of perturbations in dark matter coupled with quintessence, Phys

T. Koivisto, Growth of perturbations in dark matter coupled with quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 043516. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 72.043516. arXiv:astro-ph/0504571. 28

2005 arXiv
[41]

Farajollahi, A

H. Farajollahi, A. Salehi, A new approach in stability analysis: case study: tachyon cosmology with non-minimally coupled scalar field-matter, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 124042. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.124042. arXiv:1106.0091

2011 arXiv
[43]

R. Kase, S. Tsujikawa, Weak cosmic growth in coupled dark energy with a lagrangian formulation, Phys. Lett. B 804 (2020) 135400. doi: 10.1016/ j.physletb.2020.135400. arXiv:1911.02179

2020
[44]

L. G. Gomez, Y . Rodriguez, Coupled multi-proca vector dark energy, Phys. Dark Univ. 31 (2021) 100759. doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2020.100759. arXiv:2004.06466

2021
[45]

P. K. S. Dunsby, O. Luongo, M. Muccino, Unifying the dark sector through a single matter fluid with nonzero pressure, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 023510. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023510. arXiv:2308.15776

2024 arXiv
[46]

Armendariz-Picon, V

C. Armendariz-Picon, V . F. Mukhanov, P. J. Steinhardt, Essentials of k essence, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 103510. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63. 103510. arXiv:astro-ph/0006373

2001 arXiv
[47]

P. F. Gonzalez-Diaz, K-essential phantom energy: Doomsday around the corner?, Phys. Lett. B 586 (2004) 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb. 2003.12.077. arXiv:astro-ph/0312579

2004 arXiv
[48]

R. J. Scherrer, Purely kinetic k-essence as unified dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 011301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.011301. arXiv:astro-ph/0402316

2004 arXiv
[49]

Babichev, V

E. Babichev, V . Mukhanov, A. Vikman, k-Essence, superluminal propaga- tion, causality and emergent geometry, JHEP 02 (2008) 101. doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/2008/02/101. arXiv:0708.0561

2008 arXiv
[50]

L. P. Chimento, Extended tachyon field, Chaplygin gas and solvable k- essence cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 123517. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.69.123517. arXiv:astro-ph/0311613. 29

2004 arXiv
[51]

de Putter, E

R. de Putter, E. V . Linder, Kinetic k-essence and Quintessence, Astropart. Phys. 28 (2007) 263–272. doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007. 05.011. arXiv:0705.0400

2007 arXiv
[52]

Minazzoli, T

O. Minazzoli, T. Harko, New derivation of the Lagrangian of a perfect fluid with a barotropic equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 087502. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.86.087502. arXiv:1209.2754

2012 arXiv
[53]

Harko, The matter Lagrangian and the energy-momentum tensor in modified gravity with non-minimal coupling between matter and geometry, Phys

T. Harko, The matter Lagrangian and the energy-momentum tensor in modified gravity with non-minimal coupling between matter and geometry, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 044021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.044021. arXiv:1001.5349

2010 arXiv
[54]

Anderson, N

D. Anderson, N. Yunes, Solar System constraints on massless scalar-tensor gravity with positive coupling constant upon cosmological evolution of the scalar field, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 064037. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 96.064037. arXiv:1705.06351

2017 arXiv
[55]

S. M. Carroll, Quintessence and the rest of the world, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 3067–3070. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3067. arXiv:astro-ph/9806099

1998 arXiv
[56]

N. C. Devi, S. Panda, A. A. Sen, Solar System Constraints on Scalar Ten- sor Theories with Non-Standard Action, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 063521. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.063521. arXiv:1104.0152

2011 arXiv
[57]

Bertolami, R

O. Bertolami, R. March, J. Páramos, Solar System constraints to nonmin- imally coupled gravity, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 064019. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.88.064019. arXiv:1306.1176

2013 arXiv
[58]

Faraoni, N

V . Faraoni, N. Lanahan-Tremblay, Comments on ’Solar System constraints to general f(R) gravity’, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 108501. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.77.108501. arXiv:0712.3252

2008 arXiv
[59]

Bahamonde, C

S. Bahamonde, C. G. Böhmer, S. Carloni, E. J. Copeland, W. Fang, N. Tamanini, Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity, Phys. Rept. 775-777 (2018) 1–122. doi: 10.1016/j. physrep.2018.09.001. arXiv:1712.03107

2018 arXiv
[60]

Amendola, S

L. Amendola, S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Observations, Cam- bridge University Press, 2015. 30

2015
[61]

E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, D. Wands, Exponential potentials and cos- mological scaling solutions, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 4686–4690. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.57.4686. arXiv:gr-qc/9711068

1998 arXiv
[62]

Wainwright, G

J. Wainwright, G. F. R. Ellis, Dynamical Systems in Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, 2005

2005
[63]

Wetterich, Phenomenological parameterization of quintessence, Phys

C. Wetterich, Phenomenological parameterization of quintessence, Phys. Lett. B 594 (2004) 17–22. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.05.008. arXiv:astro-ph/0403289

2004 arXiv
[64]

P. A. R. Ade, et al. (Planck), Planck 2015 results. XIV . Dark energy and modified gravity, Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A14. doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/201525814. arXiv:1502.01590

2016 arXiv
[65]

Karwal, M

T. Karwal, M. Kamionkowski, Dark energy at early times, the Hub- ble parameter, and the string axiverse, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 103523. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.103523. arXiv:1608.01309

2016 arXiv
[66]

Poulin, T

V . Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, M. Kamionkowski, Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 221301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.221301. arXiv:1811.04083

2019 arXiv
[67]

E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark en- ergy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15 (2006) 1753–1936. doi: 10.1142/ S021827180600942X. arXiv:hep-th/0603057

2006 arXiv
[68]

Carloni, O

Y . Carloni, O. Luongo, Stability of non-minimally coupled dark energy in the geometrical trinity of gravity (2024). arXiv:2410.10935

2024 arXiv
[69]

A. G. Adame, et al. (DESI), DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Con- straints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (2024). arXiv:2404.03002

2024 arXiv
[70]

Kutasov, V

D. Kutasov, V . Niarchos, Tachyon effective actions in open string the- ory, Nucl. Phys. B 666 (2003) 56–70. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(03) 00498-X. arXiv:hep-th/0304045

2003 arXiv
[71]

L. R. W. Abramo, F. Finelli, Cosmological dynamics of the tachyon with an inverse power-law potential, Phys. Lett. B 575 (2003) 165–171. doi:10. 1016/j.physletb.2003.09.065. arXiv:astro-ph/0307208. 31

2003 arXiv
[72]

M. R. Garousi, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Cosmology from a rolling massive scalar field on the anti-D3 brane of de Sitter vacua, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 043536. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.043536. arXiv:hep-th/0402075. 32

2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [42]

R. Kase, S. Tsujikawa, Scalar-field dark energy nonminimally and kinet- ically coupled to dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 063511. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.101.063511. arXiv:1910.02699

arXiv 2020

[2] [1]

Aghanim, et al

N. Aghanim, et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological param- eters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833910. arXiv:1807.06209, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

arXiv 2020

[3] [2]

S. M. Carroll, The Cosmological constant, Living Rev. Rel. 4 (2001) 1. doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-1. arXiv:astro-ph/0004075

arXiv 2001

[4] [3]

Padmanabhan, Cosmological constant: The Weight of the vacuum, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Cosmological constant: The Weight of the vacuum, Phys. Rept. 380 (2003) 235–320. doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00120-0. arXiv:hep-th/0212290

arXiv 2003

[5] [4]

V . L. Fitch, D. R. Marlow, M. A. E. Dementi (Eds.), Critical problems in physics. Proceedings, Conference celebrating the 250th Anniversary of Princeton University, Princeton, USA, October 31-November 2, 1996, 1997

work page 1996

[6] [5]

Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1–23. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

[7] [6]

Padilla, Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem (2015)

A. Padilla, Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem (2015). arXiv:1502.05296

arXiv 2015

[8] [7]

J. S. Bagla, H. K. Jassal, T. Padmanabhan, Cosmology with tachyon field as dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 063504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 67.063504. arXiv:astro-ph/0212198

arXiv 2003