Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Phantom crossing in dark energy does not require a conformal coupling, and this paper constructs minimally coupled kinetic-gravity-braiding models that cross the phantom divide while staying stable and broadly consistent with CMB, lensing,

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 ↗

Minimally coupled kinetic-gravity-braiding models can cross w = -1 with stable perturbations and remain broadly consistent with current data, so phantom crossing does not uniquely favor conformal coupling.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful existence proof for minimally coupled phantom crossing, but 'viable' is overstated: all six models violate the alpha_B gravitational-wave instability bound. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.13691 v2 pith:Z4KBMYSX submitted 2025-12-15 astro-ph.CO

Non-parametric exploration of minimally coupled gravity with phantom crossing

Matteo Cataneo , Kazuya Koyama This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords phantom crossingkinetic gravity braidingHorndeski gravitydark energy equation of stateEFT of dark energymodified gravityDESIintegrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
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 reading

The paper addresses the recent DESI-era hint that the dark energy equation of state crosses w=-1 at late times, a behavior often taken as evidence for non-minimal conformal coupling in Horndeski gravity. The authors counter that a subclass of minimally coupled Horndeski theories, kinetic gravity braiding (KGB), can produce the same phantom crossing without any conformal coupling. They scan a wide, non-parametric family of KGB models using a stable EFT basis, guaranteeing no ghost or gradient instabilities, and then check the predictions against a suite of linear cosmological observables. They find six representative models that realize phantom crossing and remain broadly consistent with current data, concluding that the apparent preference for conformal coupling in earlier analyses may be a prior-volume or EFT-basis artifact.

Core claim

Using the explicitly stable EFT basis {D_kin, c_s^2} implemented in the mochi_class solver, the authors generate over 250,000 KGB models with Gaussian-process deviations on power-law forms, and apply selection criteria limiting deviations from ΛCDM growth and requiring a positive galaxy-ISW cross-correlation. They identify six models (M1–M6) that cross the phantom divide, remain free of ghost and gradient instabilities, and predict CMB TT, CMB lensing, f_sigma8, cosmic shear, and galaxy-ISW spectra consistent with Planck, DESI, DES, and unWISE measurements. The key claim is that the data do not uniquely favor conformal coupling (alpha_M ≠ 0); derivative self-interactions (braiding) suffice,

What carries the argument

Kinetic gravity braiding (KGB): a minimally coupled Horndeski subclass with G_4 = 1/2 and a cubic derivative self-interaction. The stability-based EFT parameterization uses {D_kin, c_s^2} (the de-mixed kinetic term and scalar sound speed) instead of {alpha_K, alpha_B, alpha_M}, ensuring ghost and gradient stability by construction. The central identity is the stability condition D_kin > 0, c_s^2 > 0, with the background equation of state set by CPL parameters {w0, wa}. The key result is that braiding (alpha_B) stabilizes phantom crossing without needing alpha_M.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the Creminelli et al. bound on alpha_B (that gravitational-wave induced instabilities rule out alpha_B > 10^-2) can be bypassed by either a breakdown of the EFT at high energies or by a specific UV completion, but no such completion is provided for these particular models.

What would settle it

If a full Bayesian analysis with the same non-parametric EFT basis and current data yields a posterior that strongly favors alpha_M ≠ 0 over alpha_M = 0, or if a concrete UV completion for these KGB models fails to suppress the gravitational-wave instability for alpha_B > 10^-2, the paper's central conclusion would be overturned.

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

If this is right

  • If the KGB models are representative of the full class, the DESI/CMB/SNIa preference for w0, wa with crossing w=-1 can be accommodated without invoking non-minimal coupling.
  • The prior-volume and EFT-basis interpretation of earlier alpha_M constraints is supported: the stable basis explores a different, physically motivated region of theory space.
  • KGB models predict no gravitational slip (gamma = 1), so lensing and dynamical masses agree, testable with galaxy cluster observations and weak-lensing systematics.
  • KGB models predict luminal gravitational waves, consistent with GW170817, and standard sirens will further test them.
  • The existence of viable models in this stable basis motivates full Bayesian analyses with non-parametric EFT priors, potentially sharpening constraints on the EFT functions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's six selected models may not represent the full KGB space; a Bayesian posterior could reveal whether the data prefer different shapes of D_kin and c_s^2 than the hand-picked M1–M6.
  • The superluminal sound speed at late times (c_s^2 > 1) is a common feature; whether this is physically acceptable in a UV-complete theory is a question the paper leaves open, and future observational constraints on subluminality could disfavor these models.
  • A direct extension would be to search for KGB models with alpha_B < 10^-2 that still fit the data, as the Creminelli et al. bound indicates all current models are theoretically unviable without UV completion.
  • The paper's qualitative comparison to data (eyeballing error bars) could be turned into a quantitative likelihood analysis; doing so may reveal tensions in the cosmic shear or lensing amplitude that a full fit would expose.
  • If phantom crossing persists in future datasets, the KGB alternative predicts specific signatures in the ISW-galaxy cross-correlation (slower decay of potentials) that can be distinguished from conformal coupling in principle.
  • The 'mirage' backgrounds used for M5 and M6 (w_a = -3.66(1+w0)) are empirically motivated by DESI data; a more flexible equation-of-state reconstruction would test how much of the crossing is parameterization-driven.
  • The paper's non-parametric approach could be generalized to other Horndeski subclasses, such as those with a time-dependent Planck mass but constrained by gravitational-wave speed, to map the full viable landscape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper performs a non-parametric exploration of kinetic gravity braiding (KGB), the minimally coupled, luminal subclass of Horndeski gravity, in search of phantom-crossing cosmologies that are stable against scalar ghost and gradient instabilities. Using the stable EFT basis implemented in mochi_class, the authors generate over 250,000 models, enforce stability by construction, and select six representative models (M1–M6) that realize phantom crossing with either the DESI DR2+CMB+DES Y5 best-fit CPL background or two mirage-dark-energy backgrounds. They then compute predictions for the CMB temperature and lensing spectra, fσ8, cosmic shear, and the galaxy-ISW cross-correlation, and find these models broadly consistent with current measurements. The central claim is that viable phantom-crossing solutions exist without conformal coupling, challenging the recent inference that α_M ≠ 0 is required.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would make an important contribution: it would show that the DESI phantom-crossing preference does not uniquely select conformally coupled Horndeski theories, and it would provide a methodological template—GP-based stable-basis scans with public Einstein-Boltzmann solvers—for exploring modified-gravity model spaces. The strengths are real: the stable-basis construction does eliminate an entire class of numerical and theoretical instabilities by design, the machinery (mochi_class, MGrowth, CCL) is public and standard, and the paper is honest in many of its caveats, including the qualitative nature of the data comparisons and the neglected super-sample covariance. However, the paper’s own Sec. V concedes that all six presented models violate the well-known Creminelli et al. gravitational-wave-induced instability bound α_B ≳ 10^-2, so the headline claim of 'viable phantom-crossing solutions without conformal coupling' is not established under the standard definition of theoretical viability. The manuscript therefore needs major revision: either supply a concrete rescue mechanism for these particular parameters, present models that respe

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, final paragraph before the future-work discussion] The authors state: 'all the models studied in this work satisfy this condition and would therefore be deemed theoretically unviable under this constraint, possible resolutions involve invoking the breakdown of the EFT or appealing to specific UV completions [77].' This directly contradicts the abstract's 'viable phantom-crossing solutions exist without conformal coupling.' The cited instability is a classical linear effect within the EFT, not a quantum consistency issue, so the offered rescue via UV completion or EFT breakdown is an unsupported assertion unless shown to apply to these specific late-time EFT functions at the scales probed by the Boltzmann calculation. The central claim of the paper therefore fails under the standard viability criterion. A concrete demonstration or a revised claim is required.
  2. [Sec. V, first paragraph] The claim that the preference for non-minimal coupling in Refs. [14, 41] 'may reflect prior volume effects or limitations inherent in other EFT bases' is not supported by the analysis presented. The paper performs a by-eye consistency check against selected data, not a Bayesian model comparison. No posterior volume or evidence computation is given. This is an extrapolation beyond the existence-proof scope and should be either removed or replaced with a precise statement of what the qualitative agreement does and does not imply.
  3. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (16)–(24) and selection criteria] The phantom-crossing background is imposed, not derived: the CPL parameters (w0, wa) are fixed to external best-fit values or mirage relations before the scan, and the stable-basis functions are then adapted to that background. This is a legitimate existence-probing strategy, but it means the paper demonstrates that KGB perturbations can be stable and observationally acceptable on an imposed phantom-crossing background, not that KGB models generically produce phantom crossing or that the crossing is robust to the choice of background. The conclusions should be phrased accordingly, especially in the abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II B, after Eq. (10)] The definition c_{sN}^2 ≡ D_kin c_s^2 is embedded in the text; give it an equation number and use a consistent notation (the manuscript sometimes writes 'c2 sN' without superscript placement).
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caveat that the DESI DR1 compressed RSD measurements should be adjusted for the fiducial cosmology is mentioned only in the body text. It should also appear in the caption, since the plotted points are compared directly with model predictions.
  3. [Sec. IV, after Eq. (32)] The statement that the cosmic-shear uncertainties can be underestimated by up to 50% is important and should be incorporated into the conclusions as a limitation of the 'broadly consistent' assessment.
  4. [Sec. IV, CMB lensing discussion] The text says model M5 'may slightly overshoot the data, albeit still within current observational uncertainties.' Since no quantitative likelihood or chi-square is given for the lensing spectrum, it would help to specify the multipole range and the size of the residual.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Positive-ISW and near-ΛCDM P(k) are selection filters presented as predictions; phantom-crossing background is imposed, not derived.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III A (model selection) and Sec. IV (galaxy-ISW results)]
    "Selected models are required to satisfy two phenomenological criteria: (i) the matter power spectrum at redshift z=0 must deviate by less than 3% from ΛCDM on sub-horizon scales; and (ii) the late-time ISW effect must be positive (see Sec. III B)."

    The later text in Sec. IV says 'This behavior leads to a positive galaxy-ISW cross-correlation, as confirmed by the full calculation', but the positive sign of the ISW cross-correlation was already used as an admission filter. Likewise, requiring P(k) to be within 3% of ΛCDM at z=0 by construction keeps growth and RSD predictions close to the reference cosmology. The sign of the ISW spectrum and the near-ΛCDM growth behaviour are therefore partly consequences of the selection, not independent outputs of the scan. The amplitudes of the computed spectra remain non-trivial, which prevents the circularity from being total.

  2. self definitional [Sec. III A (background parameterization)]
    "The background expansion is specified independently via the dark energy equation of state {w0, wa}, which sets the evolution of the scalar field energy density through the continuity equation. ... (i) the DESI DR2 + CMB + DES Y5 best-fit values {w0, wa}={−0.75,−0.86} in Ref. [7]."

    Phantom crossing is an input to the scan, not a derived property: w0<−1 and wa<0 are fixed before the EFT functions are sampled. Thus the abstract's statement that the identified models 'realize phantom crossing' reduces, at the background level, to the imposed CPL parameterization. What remains non-circular is the demonstration that stable KGB perturbation theories can be attached to that imposed background and produce acceptable CMB, lensing, shear and ISW spectra.

full rationale

The paper is largely transparent: it does not fit the plotted data, and the CMB, lensing, cosmic shear and ISW spectra are forward Boltzmann calculations for six selected models. However, two by-construction elements weaken the advertised result. First, models are admitted only if P(k) is within 3% of ΛCDM and the ISW effect is positive, so the subsequent 'prediction' of a positive galaxy-ISW cross-correlation and the mild growth/RSD constraints are partly tautological; only the amplitudes, and the lensing and CMB spectra, provide independent content. Second, the phantom-crossing background is imposed via the DESI DR2 best-fit CPL parameters, so the existence of 'phantom-crossing solutions' is an input rather than a dynamical output of KGB. These issues are stated openly in the paper, which argues against a higher score. The self-citations (mochi_class [21] and the KiDS-Legacy comparison [40]) are code/data usage rather than load-bearing uniqueness arguments, so they do not add circularity. Separately, the admitted violation of the alpha_B ≳ 1e-2 gravitational-wave instability bound is a serious physical viability limitation, but it is a correctness concern rather than a circularity and is therefore not counted in the score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the cost of the demonstration: the phantom-crossing background is imported from DESI fits (w0, wa), the stable-basis priors and GP hyperparameters are hand-chosen, two observables (P(k) amplitude, ISW sign) are used as selection filters rather than independent checks, and the rescue from the alpha_B gravitational-wave instability bound is an unproven assumption. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the fifth-force modification is a standard KGB consequence.

free parameters (8)
  • zeta_D (early-time power-law slope of D_kin) = sampled U(2,15); M1-M6 values not tabulated
    Eqs. (16)/(22): sets the asymptotic behavior of the braiding sector; chosen from a wide prior, not constrained by data in this paper.
  • b_D (offset of D_kin) = sampled U(-10,5)
    Eqs. (16)/(23): amplitude of D_kin at early times; hand-sampled.
  • C_cs (amplitude of c_s^2) = sampled U(0.1,1.5)
    Eqs. (17)/(24): sound-speed amplitude; hand-sampled.
  • GP hyperparameters (sigma^2_D=50, sigma^2_cs=10, lambda in {0.9,1,1.1}) = chosen by hand
    Eq. (18): variance and correlation length of the non-parametric deviations; chosen ad hoc to cover broad shapes.
  • w0, wa (CPL background) = {-0.752,-0.86} for M1-M4; {-0.5,-1.83} for M5; {-0.85,-0.549} for M6
    External inputs from DESI DR2 + CMB + DES Y5 fits (Refs. [7,9,11]); imposed, not derived. The phantom crossing is assumed before the scan runs.
  • alpha_B0 (initial braiding) = not stated
    Chosen so the numerical solution of Eq. (5) matches the early-time approximation (Eq. 19); the value propagates into the entire braiding history.
  • mu_0 (phenomenological growth parameter) = 0.085-0.13 across M1-M6
    Eq. (14): fitted to match the KGB f_sigma8 predictions in Fig. 3; a mapping from model output, not an independent constraint.
  • Sigma_0 (phenomenological lensing parameter) = 0.074-0.11
    Eq. (15): adjusted to approximate the KGB shear predictions in Fig. 5; a fit to the model output.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The action is restricted to luminal Horndeski with G4 = 1/2 and no conformal coupling (M_* = 1), i.e., KGB.
    Sec. II A (Eqs. 1a-1d): the entire search space is KGB; the conclusion 'phantom crossing without conformal coupling' is relative to this subclass.
  • domain assumption Ghost/gradient stability is fully captured by D_kin > 0 and c_s^2 > 0 (with M_* = 1); classical instabilities are discarded only when the growth rate exceeds H0.
    Sec. II A (Eqs. 3-5): defines the 'manifestly stable' basis; other instability channels (e.g., the gravitational-wave-induced Creminelli bound) are treated separately and are in fact violated by the presented models.
  • ad hoc to paper The background dark-energy equation of state is exactly CPL with (w0, wa) fixed to external fits; the scalar density follows from the continuity equation.
    Sec. III A (Eqs. 19-21): phantom crossing is imposed by hand; the paper tests compatibility of KGB perturbations with this background, not whether KGB dynamics produce the crossing.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static approximation: mu_inf ~ 1 + alpha_B^2/(2 c_sN^2) governs growth on sub-horizon scales.
    Sec. II B (Eq. 11): used for f_sigma8 and shear calculations via MGrowth/CCL; standard for linear LSS in Horndeski but an approximation whose validity is not checked per model.
  • domain assumption Superluminal sound speed (c_s^2 > 1) at late times does not imply causality violation.
    Sec. IV (Fig. 1 discussion; Refs. [55,56]): all models become superluminal at late times; viability relies on this cited interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper The Creminelli et al. bound alpha_B <= 1e-2 can be evaded by EFT breakdown or UV completion.
    Sec. V, para 2: all six models violate the bound; no concrete UV completion is supplied. This is the paper's escape hatch and its weakest premise.
  • domain assumption unWISE blue galaxy linear bias is as inferred under Lambda-CDM; modified-gravity effects on bias are subdominant.
    Sec. III B: used to compute galaxy-ISW spectra; justified by citing Ref. [52] as subdominant to observational uncertainties.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-parametric exploration of minimally coupled gravity with phantom crossing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z4KBMYSX

@misc{pith2026251213691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-parametric exploration of minimally coupled gravity with phantom crossing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z4KBMYSX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.13691}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Recent measurements of the baryon acoustic oscillations by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), especially when combined with cosmic microwave background (CMB) and supernova data, favor a late-time dark energy equation of state that crosses $w=-1$, which has been argued to point toward non-minimal conformal coupling in Horndeski gravity. We test this interpretation by performing a non-parametric exploration of the minimally coupled, luminal Horndeski subclass known as kinetic gravity braiding (KGB). Using mochi_class and its manifestly stable effective field theory (EFT) basis implementation, we efficiently scan a broad class of models in which the EFT functions are allowed to vary freely in time, while enforcing the absence of ghost and gradient instabilities from the outset. We identify a set of KGB models that realize phantom crossing and remain broadly consistent with current probes of the background and linear large-scale structure, including CMB temperature and lensing power spectra, redshift-space distortions, cosmic shear, and the cross-correlation between galaxies and the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. Our results demonstrate that viable phantom-crossing solutions exist without conformal coupling, motivating future full Bayesian analyses of this model class with non-parametric EFT priors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13691 by Kazuya Koyama, Matteo Cataneo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ratios of the cosmic shear auto-power spectra for the four DES Y3 tomographic bins, shown relative to the DESI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] 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 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Rolling Galileons: Evolving Braiding Strength for Viable Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Rolling Galileon gravity, with field-dependent coupling coefficients, can produce a viable phantom-crossing dark energy with healthy void screening and an acceptable fit to expansion data.

  2. Constraints on Dynamical Dark Energy from Multiple Probes in the Full Dark Energy Survey

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Full DES data from SN+BAO+3x2pt yields w0=-0.84, wa=-0.44 with 2.2σ deviation from ΛCDM; adding DESI+CMB reaches 3.0σ while 3x2pt improves figure of merit by ~10%.

  3. Neutrino mass limits and decaying dark matter: background evolution versus perturbations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0

    Decaying dark matter can hide neutrino mass from expansion-history data, but CMB lensing unmasks it and restores ∑mν ≲ 0.079 eV.

  4. The sound of dynamical dark energy and modified gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Using CMB, SN, BAO and shear data, the work shows dynamical dark energy in MG models correlates with deviations from GR below z=2 at >95% CL, a link that holds for varying sound speed but vanishes for a cosmological constant.

  5. Charging Across the Phantom Divide with Modified Gravity

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Horndeski gravity with shift symmetry and linear potential permits three mechanisms for crossing the phantom divide but none fit current data well without a cosmological constant.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Scott, The standard model of cosmology: A skeptic’s guide, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi”200, 133 (2018)

    D. Scott, The standard model of cosmology: A skeptic’s guide, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi”200, 133 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Ellis, The standard cosmological model: Achieve- ments and issues, Foundations of Physics 2018 48:1048, 1226 (2018)

    G. Ellis, The standard cosmological model: Achieve- ments and issues, Foundations of Physics 2018 48:1048, 1226 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Blanchard, The fallacies of lcdm falsifications, Cosmol- ogy Research - Addressing Current Problems with As- trophysics [Working Title] 10.5772/intechopen.1010549 (2025)

    A. Blanchard, The fallacies of lcdm falsifications, Cosmol- ogy Research - Addressing Current Problems with As- trophysics [Working Title] 10.5772/intechopen.1010549 (2025)

    work page doi:10.5772/intechopen.1010549 2025

  4. [4]

    Abdalla, G

    E. Abdalla, G. F. Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Ag- nello, ¨O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, D. Aloni, L. Amendola, L. A. Anchordoqui, R. I. Anderson, N. Arendse, M. Asgari, M. Ballardini, V. Barger, S. Basilakos, R. C. Batista, E. S. Battistelli, R. Bat- tye, M. Benetti, D. Benisty, A. Berlin, P. de Bernardis, E. Berti, B. Bidenko, S. Birrer, J. P. Blake...

    2022

  5. [5]

    P. J. Peebles, Anomalies in physical cosmology, Annals of Physics447, 0 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Collaboration, A

    D. Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, B. Bahr-Kalus, S. Bailey, C. Bal- tay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, A. Bera, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. Brieden, A. Brodzeller, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, E. Burtin, R...

    2024

  7. [7]

    Collaboration, M

    D. Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. A. Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, A. Aviles, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, P. Bansal, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. Ben- Zvi, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, S. Brieden, A. Brodzeller, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, E. Burtin, R. Calderon, R. Canning, A. C. Rosell, P. Carrilho, L. C...

    2025

  8. [8]

    Lodha, A

    K. Lodha, A. Shafieloo, R. Calderon, E. Linder, W. Sohn, J. L. Cervantes-Cota, A. D. Mattia, J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, M. Ishak, W. Matthewson, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, A. D. L. Macorra, A. Dey, B. Dey, P. Doel, J. E. Forero-Romero, E. Gazta˜ naga, 13 S. G. A. Gontcho, C. Howlett, S. Juneau, S. Kent, T. Kisner, A. Lambert, M. Landriau, L...

    2024

  9. [9]

    Lodha, R

    K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W. L. Matthewson, A. Shafieloo, M. Ishak, J. Pan, C. Garcia-Quintero, D. Huterer, G. Val- ogiannis, L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, N. V. Kamble, D. Parkin- son, A. G. Kim, G. B. Zhao, J. L. Cervantes-Cota, J. Rohlf, F. Lozano-Rodr ´ ıguez, J. O. Rom´ an-Herrera, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, O. Alves, U. An- drade, E. Armengaud, A. ...

    2025

  10. [10]

    G. Gu, X. Wang, Y. Wang, G.-B. Zhao, L. Pogosian, K. Koyama, J. A. Peacock, Z. Cai, J. L. Cervantes-Cota, M. Ishak, A. Shafieloo, R. Zhao, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, S. Cole, A. de la Macorra, A. de Mattia, P. Doel, S. Ferraro, J. E. Forero-Romero, E. Gazta˜ naga, S. G. A. Gontcho, G. Gutierrez, C. Hahn, C. Howlett, R. Kehoe, D. Kirkby...

    2025

  11. [11]

    Popovic, P

    B. Popovic, P. Shah, W. D. Kenworthy, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, A. Goobar, D. Scolnic, M. Vincenzi, P. Wise- man, R. Chen, E. Charleton, M. Acevedo, P. Arm- strong, B. M. Boyd, D. Brout, R. Camilleri, J. Frieman, L. Galbany, M. Grayling, L. Kelsey, B. Rose, B. S´ anchez, J. Lee, A. M´ oller, M. Smith, M. Sullivan, N. Shiamtanis, A. Alarcon, S. S. Allam, F....

    2025

  12. [12]

    A. D. Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Conditions for the cosmo- logical viability of the most general scalar-tensor theories and their applications to extended galileon dark energy models, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012

    2012

  13. [13]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Hints of nonminimally coupled gravity in desi 2024 baryon acous- tic oscillation measurements, Physical Review Letters 134, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.181002 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.181002 2024

  14. [14]

    Pan and G

    J. Pan and G. Ye, Non-minimally coupled gravity con- straints from desi dr2 data, (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Fer- reira, Assessing cosmological evidence for non-minimal coupling, Physical review letters135, 081001 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Deffayet, O

    C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, Im- perfect dark energy from kinetic gravity braiding, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2010

  17. [17]

    Deffayet, G

    C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese, and A. Vikman, Covari- ant galileon, Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravi- tation and Cosmology79, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084003 (2009)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.084003 2009

  18. [18]

    Tsujikawa, Crossing the phantom divide in scalar- tensor and vector-tensor theories, (2025)

    S. Tsujikawa, Crossing the phantom divide in scalar- tensor and vector-tensor theories, (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    J. A. Kable, G. Benevento, N. Frusciante, A. D. Fe- lice, and S. Tsujikawa, Probing modified gravity with in- tegrated sachs-wolfe cmb and galaxy cross-correlations, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022

  20. [20]

    [43] for a detailed discussion on shift-symmetric Horndeski cosmologies)

    and Tsujikawa [18], cubic Galileon models with bro- ken shift symmetry can produce a dark energy equation of state that crosses the phantom divide while remain- ing consistent with data probing the late-time growth of structure (see Ref. [43] for a detailed discussion on shift-symmetric Horndeski cosmologies). These models belong to the broader class of K...

    2018

  21. [21]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Cos- mological constraints on galileon dark energy with broken shift symmetry, (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Cataneo and E

    M. Cataneo and E. Bellini, mochi class: Modelling opti- misation to compute horndeski in class, Open Journal of Astrophysics7, 10.33232/001c.123470 (2024)

    doi:10.33232/001c.123470 2024

  23. [23]

    Zumalacarregui, E

    M. Zumalacarregui, E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, J. Lesgourgues, and P. G. Ferreira, hi class: Horndeski in the cosmic lin- ear anisotropy solving system, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017

  24. [24]

    Bellini, I

    E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, and M. Zumalacarregui, hi class: Background evolution, initial conditions and approxima- tion schemes, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020

  25. [25]

    Lesgourgues, The cosmic linear anisotropy solving sys- 14 tem (class) i: Overview, (2011)

    J. Lesgourgues, The cosmic linear anisotropy solving sys- 14 tem (class) i: Overview, (2011)

    2011

  26. [26]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, The cosmic lin- ear anisotropy solving system (class) ii: Approximation schemes, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2011

    2011

  27. [27]

    Lombriser, C

    L. Lombriser, C. Dalang, J. Kennedy, and A. Taylor, In- herently stable effective field theory for dark energy and modified gravity, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019

  28. [28]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, A detailed description of the camspec likelihood pipeline and a reanalysis of the planck high frequency maps, Open Journal of Astro- physics4, 10.21105/astro.1910.00483 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  29. [29]

    G. W. Horndeski, Second-order scalar-tensor field equa- tions in a four-dimensional space, Int.J.Theor.Phys.10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  30. [31]

    Baker, E

    T. Baker, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller, and I. Sawicki, Strong constraints on cosmological gravity from gw170817 and grb 170817a, Physical Review Letters 119, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251301 (2017)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.251301 2017

  31. [32]

    Creminelli and F

    P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi, Dark energy after gw170817 and grb170817a, Physical Review Letters119, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251302 (2017)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.251302 2017

  32. [34]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalacarregui, Dark energy af- ter gw170817: dead ends and the road ahead, Physical Review Letters119, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251304 (2017)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.251304 2017

  33. [35]

    Frusciante and L

    N. Frusciante and L. Perenon, Effective field theory of dark energy: a review, Physics Reports857, 1 (2019)

    2019

  34. [36]

    Bellini and I

    E. Bellini and I. Sawicki, Maximal freedom at minimum cost: linear large-scale structure in general modifica- tions of gravity, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014

  35. [37]

    Kennedy, L

    J. Kennedy, L. Lombriser, and A. Taylor, Reconstructing horndeski theories from phenomenological modified grav- ity and dark energy models on cosmological scales, Phys- ical Review D98, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044051 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.044051 2018

  36. [38]

    Denissenya and E

    M. Denissenya and E. V. Linder, Gravity’s islands: Parametrizing horndeski stability, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018

  37. [39]

    Thummel, B

    L. Thummel, B. Bose, and A. Pourtsidou, Stable islands of weak gravity, MNRAS000, 1 (2025)

    2025

  38. [40]

    B. Hu, M. Raveri, N. Frusciante, and A. Silvestri, Eft- camb/eftcosmomc: Numerical notes v3.0, (2014)

    2014

  39. [41]

    St¨ olzner, R

    B. St¨ olzner, R. Reischke, M. Grasso, M. Cataneo, B. Joachimi, A. Loureiro, A. S. Mancini, A. H. Wright, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, A. Dvornik, C. Georgiou, B. Gib- lin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, S. Joudaki, K. Kuijken, S.-S. Li, L. Linke, C. Mahony, L. Moscardini, L. Porth, M. Radovich, T. Tr¨ oster, M. von Wietersheim-Kramsta, Z. Yan, M. Yoon, and Y.-H. ...

    2025

  40. [42]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, Modified gravity interpre- tation of the evolving dark energy in light of desi data, (2024)

    2024

  41. [43]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Matching current observational constraints with nonmin- imally coupled dark energy, Physical Review D111, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L041303 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.l041303 2025

  42. [44]

    E. V. Linder, Cosmology after phantom crossing by horn- deski gravity, (2025)

    2025

  43. [45]

    E. V. Linder, The mirage of w=-1, (2007)

    2007

  44. [46]

    G.-B. Zhao, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, and J. Zylberberg, Searching for modified growth patterns with tomographic surveys, Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravi- tation and Cosmology79, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.083513 (2008)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.083513 2008

  45. [48]

    Song and W

    Y.-S. Song and W. J. Percival, Reconstructing the history of structure formation using redshift distortions, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2009

  46. [49]

    https://github.com/MariaTsedrik/MGrowth

  47. [50]

    Simpson, C

    F. Simpson, C. Heymans, D. Parkinson, C. Blake, M. Kil- binger, J. Benjamin, T. Erben, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoek- stra, T. D. Kitching, Y. Mellier, L. Miller, L. V. Waer- beke, J. Coupon, L. Fu, J. Harnois-D´ eraps, M. J. Hud- son, K. Kuijken, B. Rowe, T. Schrabback, E. Semboloni, S. Vafaei, and M. Velander, Cfhtlens: Testing the laws of gravity with tomogr...

    2015

  48. [51]

    N. E. Chisari, D. Alonso, E. Krause, C. D. Leonard, P. Bull, J. Neveu, A. Villarreal, S. Singh, T. McClintock, J. Ellison, Z. Du, J. Zuntz, A. Mead, S. Joudaki, C. S. Lorenz, T. Troester, J. Sanchez, F. Lanusse, M. Ishak, R. Hlozek, J. Blazek, J.-E. Campagne, H. Almoubayyed, T. Eifler, M. Kirby, D. Kirkby, S. Plaszczynski, A. Slosar, M. Vrastil, and E. L....

    2019

  49. [52]

    Krolewski and S

    A. Krolewski and S. Ferraro, The integrated sachs wolfe effect: unwise and planck constraints on dynamical dark energy, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022

    2022

  50. [53]

    J. Renk, M. Zumalacarregui, F. Montanari, and A. Bar- reira, Galileon gravity in light of isw, cmb, bao andh 0 data, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017

    2017

  51. [54]

    Myles, A

    J. Myles, A. Alarcon, A. Amon, C. S´ anchez, S. Ev- erett, J. DeRose, J. McCullough, D. Gruen, G. M. Bernstein, M. A. Troxel, S. Dodelson, A. Campos, N. MacCrann, B. Yin, M. Raveri, A. Amara, M. R. Becker, A. Choi, J. Cordero, K. Eckert, M. Gatti, G. Giannini, J. Gschwend, R. A. Gruendl, I. Harrison, W. G. Hartley, E. M. Huff, N. Kuropatkin, H. Lin, D. Ma...

    2021

  52. [55]

    W. J. Percival and M. White, Testing cosmological struc- ture formation using redshift-space distortions, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society393, 297 (2008)

    2008

  53. [56]

    Bruneton, On causality and superluminal behav- ior in classical field theories

    J.-P. Bruneton, On causality and superluminal behav- ior in classical field theories. applications to k-essence theories and mond-like theories of gravity, Physical Re- view D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology 75, 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.085013 (2006)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.085013 2006

  54. [57]

    Babichev, V

    E. Babichev, V. Mukhanov, and A. Vikman, k- essence, superluminal propagation, causality and emer- gent geometry, Journal of High Energy Physics2008, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/101 (2007)

    doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/101 2008

  55. [58]

    Here we explicitly reintroduce the speed of light for clar- ity

  56. [59]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. Brieden, A. Brodzeller, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, E. Burtin, R. Calderon, R. Canning, A. C. Rosell, R. Cer...

    2024

  57. [60]

    Ishak, J

    M. Ishak, J. Pan, R. Calderon, K. Lodha, G. Valogiannis, A. Aviles, G. Niz, L. Yi, C. Zheng, C. Garcia-Quintero, A. de Mattia, L. Medina-Varela, J. L. Cervantes-Cota, U. Andrade, D. Huterer, H. E. Noriega, G. Zhao, A. Shafieloo, W. Fang, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, E. Burtin, E. Chaussidon, T. Claybaugh, S. Cole, A. de la Macorra, A. Dey, K. Fanning,...

    2024

  58. [61]

    Collaboration, N

    P. Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Ban- day, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, K. Benabed, J. P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, M. Bucher, C. Burigana, E. Calabrese, J. F. Cardoso, J. Carron, A. Challinor, H. C. Chi...

    2018

  59. [62]

    Barreira, E

    A. Barreira, E. Krause, and F. Schmidt, Accurate cos- mic shear errors: do we need ensembles of simulations?, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018

  60. [63]

    T. M. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, S. Avila, D. Bacon, E. Baxter, K. Bechtol, M. R. Becker, G. M. Bernstein, S. Bhargava, S. Birrer, J. Blazek, A. Brandao-Souza, S. L. Bridle, D. Brooks, E. Buckley- Geer, D. L. Burke, H. Camacho, A. Campos, A. C. Rosell, M. C. Kind, J. Carretero, F. J. Castande...

    2021

  61. [64]

    C. Doux, B. Jain, D. Zeurcher, J. Lee, X. Fang, R. Rosen- feld, A. Amon, H. Camacho, A. Choi, L. F. Secco, J. Blazek, C. Chang, M. Gatti, E. Gaztanaga, N. Jef- frey, M. Raveri, S. Samuroff, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, F. Andrade-Oliveira, E. Baxter, K. Bechtol, M. R. Becker, G. M. Bernstein, A. Campos, A. C. Rosell, M. C. Kind, R. Cawthon, R. Chen, J. Cordero, ...

    1942

  62. [65]

    Collaboration, T

    D. Collaboration, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alar- con, O. Alves, A. Amon, J. Annis, S. Avila, D. Ba- con, E. Baxter, K. Bechtol, M. R. Becker, G. M. Bern- stein, S. Birrer, J. Blazek, S. Bocquet, A. Brandao- Souza, S. L. Bridle, D. Brooks, D. L. Burke, H. Ca- macho, A. Campos, A. C. Rosell, M. C. Kind, J. Car- retero, F. J. Castander, R. Cawthon, C. ...

    2023

  63. [66]

    Hofmann and J

    F. Hofmann and J. M¨ uller, Relativistic tests with lunar laser ranging, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 035015 (2018)

    2018

  64. [67]

    Burrage and J

    C. Burrage and J. Dombrowski, Constraining the cos- mological evolution of scalar-tensor theories with local measurements of the time variation of g, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2020

  65. [68]

    Alvey, N

    J. Alvey, N. Sabti, M. Escudero, and M. Fairbairn, Im- proved bbn constraints on the variation of the grav- itational constant, European Physical Journal C80, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7727-y (2020)

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7727-y 2020

  66. [69]

    Boumechta, B

    Y. Boumechta, B. S. Haridasu, L. Pizzuti, M. A. Butt, C. Baccigalupi, and A. Lapi, Constraining chameleon screening using galaxy cluster dynamics, Physical Review D108, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044007 (2023)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.044007 2023

  67. [70]

    Pizzuti, B

    L. Pizzuti, B. Sartoris, S. Borgani, L. Amendola, K. Umetsu, A. Biviano, M. Girardi, P. Rosati, I. Balestra, G. B. Caminha, B. Frye, A. Koekemoer, C. Grillo, M. Lombardi, A. Mercurio, and M. Nonino, Clash-vlt: Testing the nature of gravity with galaxy cluster mass profiles, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016

    2016

  68. [71]

    Pizzuti, A

    L. Pizzuti, A. Biviano, K. Umetsu, E. Agostoni, A. Au- torino, A. M. Pombo, A. Mercurio, and M. D’Addona, Clash-vlt: Constraining deviation from gr with the mass profiles of nine massive galaxy clusters, (2025)

    2025

  69. [72]

    L. S. Collaboration, V. Collaboration, F. G.-R. B. Mon- itor, and INTEGRAL, Gravitational waves and gamma- rays from a binary neutron star merger: Gw170817 and grb 170817a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters848, L13 (2017)

    2017

  70. [73]

    Amendola, I

    L. Amendola, I. Sawicki, M. Kunz, and I. D. Saltas, Di- rect detection of gravitational waves can measure the time variation of the planck mass, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018

  71. [74]

    Lagos, M

    M. Lagos, M. Fishbach, P. Landry, and D. E. Holz, Stan- dard sirens with a running planck mass, Physical Review D99, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083504 (2019)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.083504 2019

  72. [75]

    W. J. Wolf and M. Lagos, Standard sirens as a novel probe of dark energy, Physical Review Letters124, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.061101 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.061101 2020

  73. [76]

    Dalang and L

    C. Dalang and L. Lombriser, Limitations on standard sirens tests of gravity from screening, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics2019

  74. [77]

    Creminelli, G

    P. Creminelli, G. Tambalo, F. Vernizzi, and V. Yingcharoenrat, Dark-energy instabilities induced by gravitational waves, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020

  75. [78]

    M. Zumalacarregui, Gravity in the era of equality: To- wards solutions to the hubble problem without fine-tuned initial conditions, Physical Review D102, 10.1103/Phys- RevD.102.023523 (2020)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2020

  76. [79]

    R. G. Landim, H. Desmond, K. Koyama, and S. Penny, Testing screened modified gravity with sdss-iv-manga, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society534, 349 (2024)

    2024

  77. [80]

    C. M. Will, The confrontation between general relativ- ity and experiment, Living Reviews in Relativity17, 10.12942/lrr-2014-4 (2014)

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-4 2014

  78. [81]

    Raveri, Reconstructing gravity on cosmological scales, Physical Review D101, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083524 (2019)

    M. Raveri, Reconstructing gravity on cosmological scales, Physical Review D101, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083524 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.083524 2019

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.