Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper claims the first meaningful measurement of the effective sound speed of dynamical dark energy, finding log10 c_s^2 = -3.00 for time-varying dark energy, while constant-w models remain unconstrained.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 19:44 UTC pith:RFEFJAG4

load-bearing objection A legitimate but over-claimed first bound on the dark-energy sound speed from DESI/CMB/SNe data; the PPF constraint depends on an untested cΓ=0.4c_s choice and the posterior is too broad for 'meaningful'. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.22478 v3 pith:RFEFJAG4 submitted 2025-11-27 astro-ph.CO

Probing the sound speed and clustering of dark energy

Yuhang Yang , Qingqing Wang , Xin Ren , Emmanuel N. Saridakis , Yi-Fu Cai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords dark energyeffective sound speeddark energy clusteringPPF frameworkEFT of dark energybaryon acoustic oscillationsquintom-Bcosmic acceleration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether dark energy, the force driving cosmic acceleration, can do more than sit as a smooth background—whether it can clump. Using galaxy, CMB, and supernova data, it tries to measure the effective sound speed of dark energy, the property that governs clustering. For a constant equation of state, the data cannot pin the sound speed down; but for a time-varying equation of state suggested by recent data, the degeneracy that hides the sound speed is broken, yielding log10 c_s^2 = -3.00 and thus a first meaningful constraint. A complementary effective-field-theory treatment favors a slightly larger sound speed, around 0.3–0.4. The overall picture: dynamism is mildly preferred, clustering is not, so future precision surveys will decide.

Core claim

The central claim is that current cosmological data—baryon acoustic oscillations from DESI DR2, Planck 2018 CMB, and Union3 supernovae—are now sensitive to the perturbative properties of dynamical dark energy. In the Parameterized Post-Friedmann (PPF) framework, when the dark energy equation of state follows the (w0, wa) parameterization, the degeneracy between (1+w) and c_s^2 is broken, yielding a constraint log10 c_s^2 = -3.00 (+2.9/-0.99), favoring a very small sound speed. For constant-w models, the near-(-1) equation of state renders the sound speed essentially unobservable, since clustering effects scale as (1+w). An independent EFT analysis reconstructs c_s^2 ~0.3–0.4, and the reconst

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective sound speed c_s^2: its size sets the comoving Jeans scale k_J ~ aH/c_s, below which dark-energy perturbations grow instead of being pressure-supported, leaving imprints on the CMB's low-multipole temperature spectrum via the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. The paper computes c_s^2 within two representations: the PPF fluid description, which uses a transition variable Γ to keep perturbations regular across the phantom divide w=-1 and imposes cΓ=0.4cs to map the transition scale to the sound speed; and the EFT of dark energy in the α-basis, where c_s^2 is derived from the coefficients α_B, α_K, α_M and stability conditions enforce 0<c_s^2≤1. The two fram

Load-bearing premise

The PPF constraint depends on the imposed modeling relation cΓ=0.4cs, which fixes how the transition scale of dark energy perturbations maps to the effective sound speed; if the true relation differs, the inferred value of c_s^2 shifts, and the paper neither varies this choice nor derives it from a microphysical theory.

What would settle it

Re-run the same DESI+CMB+SNe likelihoods with cΓ varied over, say, 0.1–1.0 times cs; if the best-fit log10 c_s^2 moves by more than the quoted error bars, the reported -3.00 constraint is an artifact of that fixed relation. Alternatively, a future CMB-S4 measurement of the large-scale TT/TE power spectrum that resolves the low-multipole ISW plateau would either confirm the small-sound-speed preference or rule it out with high significance.

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

If this is right

  • If the constraint holds, the old Planck-era claim that the dark-energy sound speed is unconstrained is superseded, at least for time-varying equations of state; perturbative degrees of freedom of dark energy have become observable.
  • The breaking of the (1+w)-c_s^2 degeneracy means future surveys can target clustering without a precisely known equation of state; the two can be disentangled.
  • The mild preference for a smooth component, combined with the ~3.4σ preference for dynamics, implies the next generation of surveys could either confirm clustering or push dark energy toward a nearly-perfect-fluid description.
  • The EFT reconstruction c_s^2 ~0.3-0.4 places dynamical dark energy in a region that avoids gradient instabilities (c_s^2>0) and is consistent with no running of the Planck mass, narrowing the viable theoretical models.
  • The AIC-versus-BIC split highlights that the current preference for dynamics is not decisive; resolving the tension will require data, not extra parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The central measurement rests on the imposed relation cΓ=0.4cs; a first-principles derivation of this proportionality from a specific dark energy theory would either validate or shift the inferred sound speed by an order of magnitude.
  • If the sound speed is genuinely as small as log10 c_s^2 ≈ -3, dark energy clusters at scales that could leave an imprint in the late-time matter power spectrum or CMB lensing; cross-correlating the ISW effect with future galaxy surveys is a direct test.
  • The two frameworks disagree by about two orders of magnitude (PPF: ~0.001, EFT: ~0.3-0.4); reconciling these reconstructions, or attributing the shift to the different parameterizations, is a testable question.
  • With a constant equation of state, current data can never probe clustering; any future sound-speed limit from this data combination is therefore a dynamical-dark-energy signature, not a limit on a cosmological constant.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper constrains the effective sound speed c_s^2 of dark energy in both the wCDM and w0waCDM backgrounds, using the PPF and EFT frameworks. The data are DESI DR2 BAO, Planck 2018 CMB, and Union3 supernovae. The central result is a claimed first meaningful PPF constraint for time-varying dark energy, log10 c_s^2 = -3.00^{+2.9}_{-0.99}, while the EFT analysis yields a reconstructed c_s^2 ~ 0.3-0.4. The paper also reports a 3.4-3.6 sigma preference for the w0waCDM background over LCDM and model-comparison statistics (AIC/BIC).

Significance. If the PPF calibration is accepted, the paper is a useful step: it is the first to use DESI DR2 to argue that current data can begin to probe the perturbative properties of dynamical dark energy, and it does so with two complementary frameworks and standard public MCMC tools. The analysis is a straightforward parameter estimation exercise, not circular: c_s^2 is a fitted parameter. The main novelty is the combination of DESI DR2 with a time-varying equation of state and two perturbation formalisms. However, the headline constraint is fragile: it depends on a fixed, unvaried relation between the PPF transition scale and the sound speed, and the reported posterior is wide and strongly non-Gaussian. The claimed consistency between the PPF and EFT results is not quantitatively supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, after Eq. (4)] The PPF transition-scale parameter c_Gamma is fixed to 0.4 c_s via 'for subsequent calculations we impose c_Gamma = 0.4 c_s', citing Fang et al. (2008). The likelihood, however, is sensitive to c_Gamma directly; the reported constraint on c_s^2 therefore inherits this calibration. A constant rescaling c_Gamma = lambda c_s would shift log10 c_s^2 by 2 log10(lambda/0.4), i.e. about 0.8 dex for lambda=1, which is a substantial fraction of the reported 68% width. No sensitivity analysis is presented, and c_Gamma is not varied. Since the paper's central claim concerns c_s^2, a robustness check (e.g., c_Gamma = c_s, or a free c_Gamma with a prior) is required before the constraint can be regarded as meaningful.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.1, Table 2, Fig. 1] The reported 68% interval log10 c_s^2 = -3.00^{+2.9}_{-0.99} spans about 3.9 dex and only marginally excludes c_s^2 = 1 (upper bound -0.10). The MAP value is log10 c_s^2 = -0.978, which differs from the posterior mean by about 2 dex. This indicates a strongly non-Gaussian, likely prior-volume-driven posterior, not simply a small projection effect. The statement that 'the MAP lying within 1 sigma supports robustness' is not a meaningful test of prior domination. Please report the full 95% credible interval, the posterior fraction below e.g. c_s^2 = 10^-4, and/or a Bayes-factor comparison against c_s^2 = 1 to justify the word 'meaningful' in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [Abstract vs Sec. 4.2.3 / Table 2] The abstract states that the EFT analysis gives 'consistent results, favoring c_s^2 ~ 0.3 or 0.4', but the PPF posterior mean is log10 c_s^2 = -3.00, i.e. c_s^2 ~ 10^-3. These two numbers differ by about 2.5 dex. Calling them 'consistent' is not supported without a quantitative overlap calculation or an explanation that the two frameworks probe different effective quantities (e.g., different definitions of the sound speed in the presence of the c_Gamma calibration). This discrepancy should be discussed explicitly, as it weakens the paper's claim of complementarity.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.1 and Conclusions] The paper concludes that 'current data now yield meaningful constraints on the clustering behavior of dynamical dark energy,' but the actual constraint is a broad 68% interval that is consistent with both c_s^2 ~ 10^-4 and c_s^2 ~ 0.8. The added value over previous Planck-era unconstrained results is incremental. The paper should either temper the abstract/conclusion or provide a quantitative measure of what has been learned (e.g., the percentage of posterior volume excluded near c_s^2 = 1, or the change in evidence relative to the c_s^2 = 1 model).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'Honderski theory' should be 'Horndeski theory'.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1)] Please define k_H explicitly (k_H = k/aH is stated, but the combination v_de/k_H is dimensionally odd; clarify the convention for v_de and theta_de).
  3. [Sec. 4.1 / Table 3] State clearly whether p_tot in the AIC/BIC computation includes all nuisance parameters or only cosmological and dark-energy parameters; this affects the BIC values.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.3 / Fig. 5] The EFT reconstruction imposes 0 < c_s^2 <= 1 by construction, so the mean value c_s^2 ~ 0.3-0.4 is partially a consequence of this hard prior. Please note this explicitly when comparing to the PPF result.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'DESI DR2 BAO ... favor a dynamical dark energy component ... crossing w=-1' is stronger than the model-comparison results in Table 3, where BIC still prefers LCDM. Consider softening to 'are mildly in tension with LCDM'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard MCMC parameter estimation with externally anchored frameworks.

full rationale

This paper is a standard MCMC parameter-estimation study. The headline quantity log10 c_s^2 = −3.00^{+2.9}_{−0.99} for w0waCDM+PPF is a directly fitted parameter, not a derived quantity renamed as a prediction. In the EFT section, c_s^2 is explicitly reconstructed from the fitted α-basis coefficients via Eq. (8) and labeled a 'reconstruction' (Sec. 4.2.3), so this is a reparameterization of the fit, not a circular prediction. The PPF framework and the calibration cΓ = 0.4 c_s are adopted from the external Fang, Hu & Lewis (2008) reference, not from the authors' own prior work; this is a modeling assumption that affects the physical interpretation of the constraint but does not make the constraint equivalent to its input by construction. Self-citations (Cai et al. 2010, Yang et al. 2024/2025, Ren et al. 2022, etc.) appear in contextual/introductory roles; the load-bearing equations (PPF perturbation equations, EFT action, α-basis, and the sound-speed formula) cite independent external references such as Fang et al. (2008), Hu (2008), Bellini & Sawicki (2014), and Gubitosi et al. (2013). No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in solely via self-citation. The paper itself flags its limitations, noting that the sound-speed constraint is driven by the w0wa parameterization rather than the PPF framework and that current CMB large-scale data cannot tightly constrain c_s^2. Those are robustness/caveat issues, not circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained against external datasets and external perturbation frameworks, so no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on established PPF and EFT parameterizations, which bring several free coefficients (w0, wa, c_s^2, cK, cB, cM) and a fixed relation cΓ=0.4c_s. The central claim is a fitted constraint, so the ledger mainly reflects the model parameters and stability priors that the inference depends on.

free parameters (5)
  • w0 = -0.683 ± 0.094 (PPF); -0.724 (+0.081/-0.092) (EFT)
    Background dark energy equation-of-state at present; the clustering effect scales with (1+w), so the c_s constraint is degenerate with w0.
  • wa = -0.996 ± 0.31 (PPF); -0.79 (+0.30/-0.25) (EFT)
    CPL time-variation parameter; breaking the (1+w) degeneracy with c_s relies on wa being nonzero and is the key to the reported constraint.
  • log10 c_s^2 = -3.00 (+2.9/-0.99); MAP = -0.978
    The primary target parameter, the effective sound speed of dark energy in the PPF framework, fitted to the data.
  • cΓ = 0.4 (fixed, not varied)
    Ad hoc relation imposed in the PPF implementation (Section 2); directly shapes how the sound speed enters the perturbation equations.
  • cK, cB, cM = cK~6.4, cB~0.82, cM~0.30 (w0waCDM+EFT)
    Constant coefficients in the EFT α_i = c_i Ω_de parametrization; fitted to the data and used to reconstruct c_s^2 in the EFT analysis.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption PPF smoothness condition: dark energy perturbations are smooth relative to matter inside the transition scale c_s k_H = 1.
    Section 2, Eq. (4) and surrounding text. This defines how the PPF framework interpolates between large and small scales, and is essential to the c_s constraint.
  • ad hoc to paper cΓ = 0.4 c_s
    Section 2: 'for subsequent calculations we impose cΓ = 0.4cs'. This is a fixed choice, not varied or independently justified in the paper.
  • domain assumption f_ζ(t) = 0
    Section 2: 'it is proved that for most purposes it is sufficient to set f_ζ = 0' (Fang et al. 2008). Affects the source term S in the PPF equation.
  • domain assumption α_i(t) = c_i Ω_de(t)
    Section 3, Eq. (9). This parametrization assumes the EFT α-functions scale with the dark energy density; it forces α_i→0 at early times and sets the redshift dependence of the reconstructed sound speed.
  • domain assumption 0 < c_s^2 ≤ 1
    Section 3: 'we strictly require 0 < c_s^2 ≤ 1 to ensure a physically viable sound speed.' This prior excludes negative or superluminal sound speeds and shapes the EFT posteriors.
  • standard math Weak equivalence principle; matter minimally coupled to the metric (Jordan frame)
    Section 3: the matter action is assumed to be S_m[gμν, Ψ_m], which is standard for EFT of dark energy but still a modeling assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16699 in / 13172 out tokens · 109156 ms · 2026-08-03T19:44:54.591334+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) observations favor a dynamical dark energy component with a time-varying equation-of-state, potentially crossing the cosmological-constant boundary \(w=-1\), challenging the standard \(\Lambda\)CDM paradigm. In this paper we present the first joint observational constraints on the clustering properties of such dynamical dark energy, using both the Parameterized Post-Friedmann (PPF) framework and the effective field theory (EFT) of dark energy. Combining DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations with Planck 2018 cosmic microwave background data and the Union3 supernova sample, we constrain the effective sound speed \(c_s^{2}\). For a time-varying equation-of-state, the degeneracy between \((1+w)\) and \(c_s^{2}\) is broken, yielding the first meaningful constraint \(\log_{10}c_{s}^{2}=-3.00^{+2.9}_{-0.99}\), while constant-\(w\) models remain unconstrained. A complementary EFT analysis gives consistent results, favoring \(c_s^{2}\sim 0.3\) or \(0.4\). Our findings demonstrate that current data are now sensitive to the perturbative properties of dynamical dark energy, opening a new observational window on the nature of cosmic acceleration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.22478 by Emmanuel N. Saridakis, Qingqing Wang, Xin Ren, Yi-Fu Cai, Yuhang Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Normalized marginalized 1D posteriors for log10 c 2 s, for wCDM+PPF and w0waCDM+PPF using BAO+CMB+SNe datasets. The dashed line represents the the Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) value log10 c 2 s = −0.9780 for w0waCDM model, marginalized using procoli. 4.1. Data We leverage the latest cosmological observations to place stringent constraints on the dark energy speed of sound. These are briefly described below. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Constraints on wCDM model under Parameterized Post-Friedmann (PPF) and Effective Field Theory (EFT) pertur￾bation descriptions, using BAO+CMB+SNe datasets. The contours represent the 68% and 95% credible intervals. The results are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Constraints on w0waCDM model under Parameterized Post-Friedmann (PPF) and Effective Field Theory (EFT) perturbation descriptions, using BAO+CMB+SNe datasets. The contours represent the 68% and 95% credible intervals. The results are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the reconstructed sound speed square of dark energy c 2 s between wCDM+EFT and w0waCDM+EFT, using BAO+CMB+SNe datasets. The wCDM+EFT reconstruction is shown in blue, accompanied by shaded 68% and 95% confidence intervals. While the w0waCDM+EFT is shown in green, the green dashed curve and green dot-dashed curve represent 68% and 95% confi￾dence intervals, respectively. Additionally, both soli… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2D posterior distributions for the EFT coefficients cM and cB, for wCDM+EFT and w0waCDM+EFT using BAO+CMB+SNe datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: the normalized marginalized 1D posterior distribution for w in a wCDM background cosmology under different perturbation descriptions, using BAO+CMB+SNe datasets, where the dashed line represents the ΛCDM paradigm. Right panel: The results for the posterior distributions of w0 and wa for w0waCDM model under different perturbation descriptions, using BAO+CMB+SNe datasets. The contours enclose 68%… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Evidence for deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity at cosmological scales with KiDS-Legacy and CMB lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    KiDS-Legacy weak lensing plus CMB data yields a 3 sigma deviation in light deflection from GR in a Lambda CDM background, with the signal driven by large-scale CMB lensing amplitudes.

  2. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c Abdul Karim, M., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083515, doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 Adame, A. G., et al. 2025a, JCAP, 02, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 —. 2025b, JCAP, 09, 008, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/09/008 Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 59...

    arXiv 2017

  2. [5]

    2025, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02669-6 Gubitosi, G., Piazza, F., & Vernizzi, F

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.12335 Gu, G., et al. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02669-6 Gubitosi, G., Piazza, F., & Vernizzi, F. 2013, JCAP, 02, 032, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/032 G¨ umr¨ uk¸ c¨ uo˘ glu, A. E., Mukohyama, S., & Sotiriou, T. P. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 064001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.064001 Guo, Z.-K., Piao, Y.-S., Zhang, X.-M., & Zhang...

    arXiv 2025

  3. [8]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.10616 Lu, Z., Simon, T., & Zhang, P

    arXiv

  4. [9]

    G., Paliathanasis, A., & Saridakis, E

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04602 Luciano, G. G., Paliathanasis, A., & Saridakis, E. N. 2026, JHEAp, 49, 100427, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100427 Ma, C.-P., & Bertschinger, E. 1995, Astrophys. J., 455, 7, doi: 10.1086/176550 Pan, S., Yang, W., Singha, C., & Saridakis, E. N. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 083539, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083539 Park, M., Zurek, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [10]

    2011, JHEP, 11, 156, doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2011)156 Ratra, B., & Peebles, P

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07517 Pujolas, O., Sawicki, I., & Vikman, A. 2011, JHEP, 11, 156, doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2011)156 Ratra, B., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1988, Phys. Rev. D, 37, 3406, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406 Reischke, R., Spurio Mancini, A., Sch¨ afer, B. M., & Merkel, P. M. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 482, 3274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2919 Ren...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  6. [2012]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0548 Batista, R. C. 2021, Universe, 8, 22, doi: 10.3390/universe8010022 Bellini, E., Cuesta, A. J., Jimenez, R., & Verde, L. 2016, JCAP, 02, 053, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/06/E01 Bellini, E., & Sawicki, I. 2014, JCAP, 07, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/07/050 Bellini, E., Sawicki, I., & Zumalac´ arregui, M. 2020, JCAP, 02, 0...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [2014]

    2005, Phys

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3590 Hu, W. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 047301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.047301 —. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 103524, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.103524 Karwal, T., Patel, Y., Bartlett, A., et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [2018]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07261 Cai, Y., Ren, X., Qiu, T., Li, M., & Zhang, X

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [2023]

    2015, Eur

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12098 Sbis` a, F. 2015, Eur. J. Phys., 36, 015009, doi: 10.1088/0143-0807/36/1/015009 Seraille, E., Noller, J., & Sherwin, B. D. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 123525, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123525 St¨ olzner, B., Cuoco, A., Lesgourgues, J., & Bilicki, M. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 063506, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.063506 Takada, M. 20...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [2024]

    2015, Phys

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14225 Kunz, M., Nesseris, S., & Sawicki, I. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 063006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.063006 Lewis, A. 2025, JCAP, 08, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 Li, C., Cai, Y., Cai, Y.-F., & Saridakis, E. N. 2018, JCAP, 10, 001, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/001 Li, T.-N., Li, Y.-H., Du, G.-H., et al. 2025, Eur. P...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [2025]

    N., Setare, M

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24732 Cai, Y.-F., Saridakis, E. N., Setare, M. R., & Xia, J.-Q. 2010, Phys. Rept., 493, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.04.001 Caldwell, R. R. 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 545, 23, doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02589-3 Carroll, S. M., Hoffman, M., & Trodden, M. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 023509, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.023509 Chaussidon, E., ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010