Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

A hybrid three-form dark energy model is constructed whose dual scalar formulation yields stable scaling attractors and a late-time exit to acceleration distinct from a cosmological constant.

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

2026-08-02 22:50 UTC pith:PXCYKJFP

load-bearing objection Genuinely new three-form scaling Lagrangian, but the headline 'first realization' is a dual restatement of known k-essence scaling, and the stability analysis has a sign/typo problem that needs fixing before the attractor claim is load-bearing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.15498 v2 pith:PXCYKJFP submitted 2026-02-17 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Scaling solutions in three-form cosmology

Vitor da Fonseca , Bruno J. Barros , Tiago Barreiro , Nelson J. Nunes This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords dark energythree-form fieldscaling solutionsattractorsHodge dualityk-essence equivalencecosmological coincidence problemdynamical systems
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.

This paper sets out to show that dark energy carried by a three-form field—long resistant to scaling behavior—can nonetheless track the dominant background fluid, just as quintessence does. The authors start from a first-order action with a generalized kinetic term, use Hodge duality to rewrite the three-form in terms of two scalars, and derive the two power-law potentials that make the three-form density dilute exactly like radiation or matter. In that scaling regime the three-form equation of state is w_A = −1+γ and the fixed point is a stable attractor, so the coincidence problem is alleviated. They then extend the potentials with a second pair of power laws so the system exits the attractor and ends in three-form-dominated acceleration with w_A = −1+λ²/3, distinguishable from Λ. If right, this gives three-form cosmology the self-tuning machinery that scalar-field dark energy has had for decades.

Core claim

Central claim: three-form dark energy can scale with the background. The hybrid Lagrangian L=(n−1)χ^n −(ϕ/M)^{2n/(n−2)} (Eq. 3.33), with ϕ,χ the Hodge-dual scalar and the dual-vector time component, yields a stable fixed point with Ω_A constant and w_A=−1+γ for n>γ and small M. Adding a second power-law pair (χ^m, ϕ^{2m/(m−2)}) gives an exit to three-form domination with w_A=−1+λ²/3, Λ only for λ→0. The paper calls this the first scaling realization in three-form cosmology; Appendix B shows the Lagrangian is dual to known k-essence scaling models.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the first-order action L = (1/48)f(Π²) + (1/6)Π ∇[µ Aνρσ] − V(A²), whose auxiliary four-form Π and the three-form A are Hodge-dualized to a scalar ϕ and a vector Bµ; in an isotropic background the vector reduces to a single function χ, leaving a two-scalar hybrid Lagrangian. The scaling condition χV_χ ∝ e^{-3γN} fixes V(χ) ∝ χ^n and U(ϕ) ∝ ϕ^{2n/(n−2)}, producing the related power-law Lagrangian (3.33). The associated autonomous system in variables (x,y,s) has the stable scaling attractor Point (a) and the three-form-dominated points (b) and (c), and the double-potential extension (5.2)–(5.3) turns the formerly stable scaling point into a saddle so the flow exits to Poin

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the first-order action with a general kinetic function f(Π²), reduced to two scalars on an isotropic background, faithfully represents three-form dark energy, and that a single constant λ² can govern both the matter-scaling era and the late-time attractor; if either fails, the claimed first realization and its Λ-distinguishable exit lose their footing.

What would settle it

A numerical scan that lets λ² evolve freely (instead of imposing it constant) and checks whether the double-potential model still exits to Ω_A ≈ 1 with Ω_m^0 ≈ 0.3; if the exit requires λ² to drift or the scaling era to break before matter domination, the working model is falsified. Alternatively, an independent derivation showing the scaling Lagrangian (3.33) is just a field redefinition of a known k-essence model with no new observable would falsify the 'first realization' as a physically new mechanism.

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

If this is right

  • Three-form dark energy gains the same attractor-based self-tuning that explains why dark energy could be non-negligible in the early universe, easing the coincidence problem.
  • The model predicts a late-time equation of state w_A = −1+λ²/3 that deviates from −1 for λ>0, giving a concrete, testable distinction from ΛCDM.
  • Existing observational upper bounds on λ from CMB and BAO data translate directly into constraints on the mass scale M of the hybrid potentials.
  • Because the scaling Lagrangian is dual to a known k-essence class, any result already established for those k-essence scaling solutions carries over to this three-form formulation.
  • The double-potential structure shows a workable exit from scaling within the three-form framework, a step that had been missing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Appendix B suggests the new physics may be representational rather than dynamical: the three-form scaling regime is equivalent to established k-essence scaling models, so the 'first realization' claim is about the three-form frame, not a new cosmic mechanism—an editor's reading.
  • If the duality holds at background level, it likely extends to perturbations, meaning three-form dark energy with these potentials should inherit the perturbation equations of the corresponding k-essence model—worth checking explicitly.
  • The constant-λ² ansatz imports an analytic solution from double-exponential quintessence; allowing λ² to evolve, or dropping the fine-tuning of the late-time mass scales, would change Ω_m^0 and the smoothness of the exit—these are testable within the model's own parameter space.
  • One could search for a direct observational signature: a dark energy whose w approaches −1+λ²/3 at late times or whose early abundance follows the scaling track would favor this framework over ΛCDM in current and upcoming surveys.

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. The paper constructs a hybrid first-order three-form dark energy model in which the four-form momentum and the three-form are Hodge-dualized to a scalar phi and a vector proportional to a scalar chi. Requiring the three-form energy density to track the dominant background fluid fixes the potentials as V(chi)=V0|chi|^n and U(phi)=U0 phi^{2n/(n-2)}, leading to the Lagrangian (3.33). The paper then studies the autonomous system for this Lagrangian and claims a stable scaling attractor (Point (a)) with Omega_A and w_A=-1+gamma, as well as three-form-dominated fixed points. To obtain a viable cosmology it adds a double-potential extension, imports the analytic density solution known from double-exponential quintessence, and presents a numerical example in which the three-form tracks radiation and matter and then drives late-time acceleration with w_A=-1+lambda^2/3. The abstract states that this is the first realization of scaling behavior in three-form dark energy; Appendix B, however, shows that the scaling Lagrangian is dual to known k-essence scaling models and reproduces the same density parameter.

Significance. If the dynamical-system analysis is correct, the paper would be a useful contribution: the inverse-design derivation of the scaling potentials in Sec. III is transparent and the hybrid two-scalar formulation is a genuinely convenient representation for three-form cosmology. The proposed double-potential exit is phenomenologically interesting and the numerical example demonstrates the intended radiation-tracking, matter-scaling, and late-time acceleration sequence. The authors are also commendably explicit about the fine-tuning required for the working model. The significance is reduced, however, by the paper's own Appendix B, which shows that the scaling solutions are equivalent to established k-essence scaling solutions; the novelty is therefore in the three-form formulation and not in the scaling mechanism itself. The main concern is technical: the sign inconsistency in Eq. (4.12) and the unreproducible stability analysis directly affect the central claim of a stable scaling attractor.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (4.12)] The definition s=chi phi/H carries the sign of chi phi, but the printed relation s=sqrt(3) M x^{2/n} y^{2/k} is non-negative for the non-negative variables x^2, y^2 defined in Eq. (4.2). This is incompatible with Point (a) in Table II, which has s_a=-k(n/gamma)x_a^2<0. The sign enters Eqs. (4.6) linearly through s, so the reduced system (4.14), the fixed-point coordinates, and the stability eigenvalues all depend on it. Moreover, substituting the printed relation into Eq. (4.6a) gives, for the nonlinear term, -[sqrt(3)n^2/((n-2)M)] x^{(n-2)/n} y^{(n+2)/n}, whereas Eq. (4.14a) contains a coefficient differing by a factor of two and also differs in the first term. The authors should state which signed branch is used, re-derive the reduced system, and re-check the fixed points and stability.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Table III and Appendix A] The eigenvalue table is not reproducible from the stated equations. The full three-dimensional system (4.6) has a continuum of fixed points along s=-kOmega_A for any x^2 satisfying Omega_A = n x^2/gamma, so the two-eigenvalue stability analysis is not well defined unless one works on the two-dimensional constraint manifold. The printed eigenvalues also contain ambiguous factors, e.g. '3/4(n-2)n2' in the Point (a) row. Since the claim that Point (a) is always a stable attractor is the central result, the authors should present the full Jacobian on the correct constraint manifold, with explicit expressions for all entries and eigenvalues, or provide a reproducible companion calculation.
  3. [Abstract and Appendix B] Appendix B explicitly dualizes the scaling Lagrangian (3.33) to a k-essence Lagrangian and shows that the scaling density parameter Omega_phi in Eq. (B.24) is identical to Omega_A in Eq. (4.16), with the same ratio U/V. Thus the scaling solutions are not new to the literature; they are a dual rewriting of known k-essence scaling solutions. The abstract's unqualified statement 'This constitutes the first realization of scaling behavior within a three-form dark energy framework' overclaims. It should be qualified either as the first realization within the hybrid three-form formulation, or the comparison with the k-essence results should be moved more prominently into the main text.
  4. [Sec. V C, Eqs. (5.10)-(5.18)] The analytic solution (5.10) is imported from double-exponential quintessence under the assumption that lambda^2 is constant. The paper imposes Eqs. (5.16)-(5.18) to make the same lambda^2 govern both the matter-scaling attractor and the late-time three-form-dominated attractor, but the dynamics during the transition are not derived; they are only illustrated for one parameter set (5.20). The fine-tuning of (U1,V1) needed to obtain Omega_m^0 ~ 0.3 is admitted in the text. To support the claim that the exit is 'natural', the authors should specify the parameter region and the range of initial conditions for which the stitching is valid, and quantify the sensitivity of Omega_m^0 to the fine-tuned mass scales.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3.21)] The printed expression phi''/phi' = 3gamma/2 - n/2n contradicts the immediately following statement that n=2 gives phi''=0. The correct expression is phi''/phi' = 3gamma(2-n)/(2n). This appears to be a typesetting error but should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 3] The horizontal axis label reads '(n, S^2)' but the text and equations use M^2. Please correct the axis label to M^2.
  3. [Eq. (5.14)] The displayed formula for lambda^2 lacks clear fraction formatting and could be misread. Please typeset as lambda^2 = [9M^2/(4 n^3)](n-2)^2 (n-1)^{(n-2)/n}.
  4. [Throughout Sec. IV] The variables x and y are introduced as x^2 = V/(3H^2), y^2 = U/(3H^2), but the text often speaks of 'x' and 'y' as if they were signed coordinates. A clear statement that x,y are non-negative square roots would remove ambiguity, especially in light of the sign issue in Eq. (4.12).
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.11)] The formula for P(phi, Xtilde) is typeset densely and is difficult to parse. Adding an explicit multiplication symbol or an extra line would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the scaling Lagrangian is derived by an explicit inverse-design calculation and the attractor analysis is a separate check; caveats are novelty framing, fine-tuning, and a sign/verification issue, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Sec. III starts from the first-order three-form action (2.1) and imposes the scaling requirement U ∝ V ∝ e^{-3γN} (Eq. 3.6); this is an inverse-design problem, not a hidden use of the conclusion. The potentials V=V0χ^n and U=U0φ^{2n/(n-2)} (Eqs. 3.17 and 3.31) follow from that condition, and the existence/stability of Point (a) in Sec. IV is then analyzed through the autonomous system (4.6); the Jacobian eigenvalues in Table III provide a separate stability check. I found no equation where the stability conclusion is assumed as an input. Appendix B does show that the scaling density parameter equals the known k-essence result (Ωφ=ΩA, Eq. B24 vs Eq. 4.16), and the paper itself says the framework 'can be recast as an equivalent k-essence model.' This weakens the 'first realization' novelty framing but does not make the three-form derivation itself circular; it is an acknowledged dual equivalence. The working model in Sec. V is explicitly constructed: Eq. (5.18) enforces the same λ² in both eras, x_b² is set by Eq. (5.16), and the text admits fine-tuning of (U1,V1) and degeneracy of (n,M). These are modeling choices/limitations, not fitted inputs relabeled as predictions. The analytic density (5.10) is an elementary solution of the linear ODE (5.9) under the stated constant-λ² assumption, so the self-citation [50] is not load-bearing. I note two non-circular concerns: Eq. (4.12) omits the sign of s=χφ/H although the fixed points in Table II have s<0, and the Table III eigenvalues are not independently derived in the text; these are correctness risks, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on (i) a new first-order Ansatz with an arbitrary kinetic function f(Π²), which the paper postulates; (ii) the standard isotropic truncation to two scalars; (iii) the imposed scaling condition U ∝ V ∝ e^{-3γN}, from which the power-law potentials are derived, so the 'emergence' of scaling is the result of assuming it; and (iv) in the working model, a constant λ² imported from the authors' double-exponential quintessence papers plus hand-set parameters (λ²=0.1, n=1.9, m=0.5) and fine-tuned mass scales to reproduce Ω_m^0≈0.3. No new entities are invented: the dual scalars ϕ and χ are mathematical reformulations of the three-form degrees of freedom. The five listed parameters are all chosen by hand or tuned to the target cosmology; none is independently measured in this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • n (power-law index of V(χ)) = 1.9 (illustrative); restricted to n>γ and n<2
    Sets the scaling Lagrangian L=(n−1)χⁿ−(ϕ/M)^{2n/(n−2)}. Chosen by hand; the paper restricts to n<2 to keep a stable, Λ-distinguishable exit and n>γ for the scaling point to exist.
  • m (late-time power-law index) = 0.5 (illustrative); m<1
    Controls the exit terms χ^m and ϕ^{2m/(m−2)}; m<1 ensures the three-form-dominated point is the stable attractor and no second scaling regime intervenes.
  • λ² = 0.1
    Sets the scaling fraction Ω_A=λ²/3 in the matter era and the late-time w_A=−1+λ²/3. Set by hand, not derived; bounded only by importing the authors' earlier quintessence constraints.
  • M (potential mass scale, V0^{-1/n}U0^{(2-n)/2n}) = M² < 0.95 from λ<0.056 (Eq. 5.22)
    Degenerate with n; observationally bounded using constraints from the authors' own prior quintessence studies (Eqs. 5.21–5.23), not from a fit performed in this paper.
  • α rescaling of (U1, V1) = fine-tuned to Ω_m^0 ≈ 0.3
    The paper states that reproducing the present matter abundance 'requires fine tuning (U1, V1)' (Sec. V.C); different α give different trajectories toward the same late-time attractor.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper First-order action (2.1): L = (1/48)f(Π²) + (1/6)Π·∇A − V(A²) with arbitrary function f
    This general-kinetic Ansatz is the paper's starting point; the standard three-form kinetic term is recovered only for f=−Π². The whole scaling construction lives inside this model space, which the paper postulates.
  • domain assumption Isotropic FLRW truncation B^μ=(χ(t),0,0,0)
    Standard in three-form cosmology; reduces the theory to two scalars with first-order equations (2.22)–(2.23). Vector perturbations and metric backreaction are dropped, so the stability results are background-level only.
  • domain assumption Scaling condition U ∝ V ∝ ρ_A ∝ e^{-3γN}
    The target behavior is imposed in Sec. III.A and the potential forms (3.17), (3.31) are derived from it; the 'emergence' of scaling is the consequence of assuming it. This is the standard inverse approach in the scaling-solution literature.
  • domain assumption Background fluid with constant barotropic index 0<γ<2, minimally coupled
    Radiation (γ=4/3) or matter (γ=1) obeys ρ_γ ∝ e^{-3γN}; no coupling between the background fluid and the three-form sector.
  • ad hoc to paper λ² constant in the matter era so that Eq. (5.10) holds
    The analytic density solution is imported from double-exponential quintessence (Nunes–Lidsey 2004) under a λ²-constancy assumption; the matching conditions (5.16)–(5.18) are imposed by hand to make the same λ² govern both the scaling and late-time eras.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18590 in / 30513 out tokens · 279933 ms · 2026-08-02T22:50:23.747630+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A hybrid three-form model of dark energy is developed in order to identify scaling solutions, a long-sought feature in three-form cosmology. Exploiting Hodge dualities, the theory is formulated in terms of two scalar functions that are associated with the conjugate momentum, and the three-form dual vector in an isotropic background. The resulting Lagrangian yields a stable scaling attractor where the three-form energy density tracks the dominant background fluid. A dynamical mechanism is also identified that naturally drives the system out of this regime toward a late-time accelerated phase distinguishable from a cosmological constant. This constitutes the first realization of scaling behavior within a three-form dark energy framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.15498 by Bruno J. Barros, Nelson J. Nunes, Tiago Barreiro, Vitor da Fonseca.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Phase portrait of the dynamical system showing the scaling fixed point (a) in red, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Phase portrait for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Region of stability of the scaling regime and three-form-dominated universe, in the parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Left panel: Evolution of the energy densities of radiation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Evolution of the fractional energy densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In this Appendix, we demonstrate the consistency between these solutions and the three- form Lagrangian (3.32) that exhibits scaling behavior, derived in Sec

    Finding the equivalent k-essence model Within the context of general k-essence models, the class of Lagrangians admitting scaling solutions is well established [22, 47]. In this Appendix, we demonstrate the consistency between these solutions and the three- form Lagrangian (3.32) that exhibits scaling behavior, derived in Sec. III D from a first order for...

  2. [2]

    Along a scaling solution of the k-essence Lagrangian P (φ, ˜X) in Eq

    Scaling density parameter Ωφ To further the comparison between the two frame- works, we now derive, as an example, the density pa- rameter Ωφ of the k-essence scalar field and verify that it coincides with Ω A, the one obtained in the three- form dynamical system analysis. Along a scaling solution of the k-essence Lagrangian P (φ, ˜X) in Eq. (B13), the de...

  3. [3]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9812133

    arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9708069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP 02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Rubin et al

    D. Rubin et al. , Astrophys. J. 986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Scolnic et al

    D. Scolnic et al. , Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    F. J. Qu et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, JCAP 12, 007, arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083528 (2024), arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    E. V. Linder, (2025), arXiv:2506.02122 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Wetterich, Astron

    C. Wetterich, Astron. Astrophys. 301, 321 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9408025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  18. [18]

    Zlatev, L.-M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  19. [19]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. Okabe, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 62, 023511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9912463

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  20. [20]

    de Putter and E

    R. de Putter and E. V. Linder, Astropart. Phys. 28, 263 (2007), arXiv:0705.0400 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  21. [21]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  22. [22]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  23. [23]

    Barreiro, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  24. [24]

    Tsujikawa and M

    S. Tsujikawa and M. Sami, Phys. Lett. B 603, 113 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0409212

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  25. [25]

    Tsujikawa, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 73, 103504 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0601178

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  26. [26]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  27. [27]

    T. S. Koivisto and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 80, 103509 (2009), arXiv:0908.0920 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    T. S. Koivisto and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Lett. B 685, 105 (2010), arXiv:0907.3883 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [29]

    Wongjun, Phys

    P. Wongjun, Phys. Rev. D 96, 023516 (2017), arXiv:1602.00682 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Wongjun, J

    P. Wongjun, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 883, 012002 (2017), arXiv:1708.05795 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    da Fonseca, B

    V. da Fonseca, B. J. Barros, T. Barreiro, and 15 N. J. Nunes, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101827 (2025), arXiv:2410.11658 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    J. a. Morais, M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, K. Sravan Kumar, J. a. Marto, and Y. Tavakoli, Phys. Dark Univ. 15, 7 (2017), arXiv:1608.01679 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Bouhmadi-L´ opez, J

    M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, J. a. Marto, J. a. Morais, and C. M. Silva, JCAP 03, 042, arXiv:1611.03100 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    J. a. Morais, M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, and J. a. Marto, Universe 3, 21 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    Bouhmadi-L´ opez, D

    M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, D. Brizuela, and I. n. Garay, JCAP 09, 031, arXiv:1802.05164 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Bouhmadi-L´ opez, C.-Y

    M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, C.-Y. Chen, X. Y. Chew, Y. C. Ong, and D.-H. Yeom, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 278 (2021), arXiv:2005.13260 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Bouhmadi-L´ opez, C.-Y

    M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, C.-Y. Chen, X. Y. Chew, Y. C. Ong, and D.-h. Yeom, JCAP 10, 059, arXiv:2108.07302 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    B. J. Barros and J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, JHEP02, 002, arXiv:2312.12516 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Bouhmadi-L´ opez, H.-W

    M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, H.-W. Chiang, C. G. Boiza, and P. Chen, Observational constraints on 3-forms dark energy (2025), arXiv:2512.09991 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Di Valentino et al

    E. Di Valentino et al. (CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    J. P. Beltr´ an Almeida, A. Guarnizo, and C. A. Valenzuela-Toledo, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 035001 (2020), arXiv:1810.05301 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    M. J. Duff and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. B 94, 179 (1980)

    1980

  43. [43]

    Germani and A

    C. Germani and A. Kehagias, JCAP 03, 028, arXiv:0902.3667 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Friedmann, Zeitschrift fur Physik 10, 377 (1922)

    A. Friedmann, Zeitschrift fur Physik 10, 377 (1922)

    1922

  45. [45]

    Lema ˆ ıtre, mnras91, 483 (1931)

    G. Lema ˆ ıtre, mnras91, 483 (1931)

    1931

  46. [46]

    H. P. Robertson, apj 83, 257 (1936)

    1936

  47. [47]

    Wetterich, Nucl

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1988

  48. [48]

    Wands, E

    D. Wands, E. J. Copeland, and A. R. Liddle, in 16th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics and 3rd Particles, Strings, and Cosmology Symposium (1993) pp. 0647–652

    1993

  49. [49]

    Piazza and S

    F. Piazza and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP07, 004, arXiv:hep- th/0405054

    arXiv

  50. [50]

    T. S. Koivisto, D. F. Mota, and C. Pitrou, JHEP 09, 092, arXiv:0903.4158 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Sravan Kumar, D

    K. Sravan Kumar, D. J. Mulryne, N. J. Nunes, J. a. Marto, and P. Vargas Moniz, Phys. Rev. D94, 103504 (2016), arXiv:1606.07114 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [52]

    N. J. Nunes and J. E. Lidsey, Phys. Rev. D69, 123511 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310882

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  53. [53]

    da Fonseca, T

    V. da Fonseca, T. Barreiro, and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Dark Univ. 35, 100940 (2022), arXiv:2104.14889 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    da Fonseca et al

    V. da Fonseca et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 666, A57 (2022), arXiv:2204.02930 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    B. J. Barros and V. da Fonseca, JCAP 06, 048, arXiv:2209.12189 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    da Fonseca, T

    V. da Fonseca, T. Barreiro, and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063517 (2024), arXiv:2311.01803 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024