Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 235 references

Cosmology can pin only a few EFT parameters of single-scalar dark energy; Stage-IV data will still leave it underdetermined.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 18:18 UTC pith:IVMQHLFX

load-bearing objection Solid status report that updates the authors’ EFT program with DES-Dovekie + DESI DR2 and shows underdetermination survives Stage IV; soft spots are known and already flagged. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07777 v1 pith:IVMQHLFX submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

The Status of Single Scalar Field Dark Energy

Carlos Garc\'ia-Garc\'ia , Pedro G. Ferreira , William J. Wolf This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords dark energyquintessenceeffective field theorynon-minimal couplingmassive Galileongrowth rateISW effectgravitational screening
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 assesses whether a single dynamical scalar field can explain the Universe’s late-time acceleration, using recent BAO, supernova and CMB measurements. Within an effective-field-theory approach, the authors show that observations only ever probe a narrow range of field values, so they can constrain at most a handful of low-energy parameters (a constant, a mass, a non-minimal coupling, a cubic Galileon coefficient). Minimal quintessence is only marginally preferred over a pure cosmological constant; non-minimally coupled and massive-Galileon extensions fit the expansion history better, but that preference is sensitive to which data sets and priors one chooses. Those same extensions generically produce fifth forces that threaten Solar-System and astrophysical tests unless screening works—and the paper argues that viable screening is theoretically non-trivial. Current growth-rate and Integrated Sachs-Wolfe measurements are still compatible, yet the largest deviations appear only at very low redshift. Looking ahead, Stage-IV surveys will tighten bounds by a factor of a few, but the fundamental underdetermination will remain; decisive progress will require better low-z growth data and a clearer theory of screening.

Core claim

Cosmological observations of single-scalar dark energy are fundamentally limited: they can at most constrain a small number of EFT parameters that govern the scalar’s late-time dynamics. Even after Stage-IV surveys, the problem of underdetermination will persist, so the ultimate viability of these models hinges on improved low-redshift growth measurements and a consistent understanding of gravitational screening.

What carries the argument

The low-energy EFT of a single scalar (Jordan-frame non-minimal coupling plus optional cubic Galileon term), Taylor-expanded to quadratic or cubic order in the field. Because cosmological data probe only a narrow field excursion, this expansion collapses the infinite landscape of microphysical models onto a handful of free parameters whose background and linear-perturbation predictions can be mapped onto the familiar (w0, wa) plane and tested against growth and ISW observables.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the same low-energy EFT that works on cosmological scales is either invalid or successfully screened on Solar-System and galactic scales, so that fifth-force constraints do not immediately rule the models out.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the density-weighted growth rate fσ8 at z ≲ 0.1 that is inconsistent with the enhanced growth predicted by the non-minimally coupled or massive-Galileon posteriors preferred by current expansion-history data, while remaining consistent with ΛCDM.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper assesses single-scalar-field dark energy within a low-energy EFT truncated at quadratic (or cubic) order, covering minimal quintessence, non-minimally coupled (NM) models, and massive Galileons (mG). Using MCMC with hi_class+Cobaya on DESI DR2 BAO, DES-Dovekie SNe, and Planck/ACT CMB (plus variants with PR4, neutrinos, and optical depth), it shows that quintessence is only marginally preferred over Λ while NM and mG achieve Δχ^{2}≈−16 (≈3.2σ) and modest Bayesian evidence, both sensitive to data choices and priors. The same models generically produce fifth forces (μ,Σ) that conflict with Solar-System bounds unless screening operates; the authors examine Vainshtein, chameleon and symmetron mechanisms, find theoretical obstructions, and confront the models with low-z fσ_{8}, ISW cross-correlations and LLR. Stage-IV forecasts indicate only modest tightening of (w_{0},w_a) and that underdetermination will persist, so viability hinges on improved low-redshift growth and a clearer theory of screening.

Significance. If the underdetermination claim holds, the paper supplies a useful, self-contained map of what cosmological data can and cannot say about single-scalar dark energy. Strengths include a systematic EFT truncation justified by the narrow field range Δφ/M_Pl≲O(0.1) (Fig. 1), careful multi-dataset MCMC with Wilks and Bayesian evidence (Tables II–VI), an explicit (w_{0},w_a) compression that recovers the microphysical expansion history, and concrete, falsifiable predictions for low-z fσ_{8} and ISW that can be tested with forthcoming surveys. The work therefore clarifies both the observational ceiling and the theoretical bottlenecks (screening, UV completion) that any viable scalar-field model must confront.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section VIII / Appendix C] Section VIII and Appendix C: the ISW analysis omits cross-covariances between C^{gT}_ℓ and C^{gκ}_ℓ (or C^{gg}_ℓ) for Krolewski+22 and Stölzner+18, and rejects up to 44% of mG samples because of numerical failures in the non-Limber integrals. While the authors correctly label the comparison qualitative, the claim that “current ISW and growth data remain largely in agreement” (abstract and §X) rests on these incomplete fits. Either a joint covariance (or a clear demonstration that the missing correlations do not shift A_ISW by more than the quoted 1σ) or a more cautious wording is needed before the statement can be treated as load-bearing.
  2. [Section VI / Fig. 8] Section VI and Fig. 8: the LLR constraint on Ġ/G is translated into a (w_{0},w_a) prior that appears to rule out the cosmologically preferred NM region at ~3.25σ. The paper acknowledges that screening may invalidate the extrapolation, yet still presents the tension as a serious challenge. A quantitative statement of how large a screening factor (or how high an EFT cutoff) would be required to restore consistency would make the argument sharper and would clarify whether the tension is decisive or merely indicative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table III] Table III: the conversion of Δχ^{2}_MAP to n_σ via Wilks’ theorem assumes nested models and Gaussian likelihoods; a brief caveat that the approximation can be imperfect for the highly non-Gaussian mG and NM posteriors would be useful.
  2. [Figure 9] Figure 9: the Stiskalek25 fσ_{8} point is plotted with a large error bar that still visibly pulls the NM and mG contours; clarifying whether the linear-theory bias assumption remains valid at z~0.02 would strengthen the interpretation.
  3. [Appendix A] Appendix A: the prior ranges for eta, au_reio and A are listed, but the motivation for the upper edge of au_reio=[0.01,0.15] (well above Planck) is not stated; a one-sentence justification would help reproducibility.
  4. Throughout: a few typographical slips remain (“undetermination”, “vis-à-vis”, inconsistent hyphenation of “non-minimally”). A final proof-read would clean these up.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-citations for the (w0,wa) compression methodology and prior model implementations; core constraints, growth/ISW predictions and underdetermination claim rest on external data and independent calculations.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section IV (and references to [13,14])]
    "In [13, 14], we refined the procedure to use the observables at the redshifts probed by a given data set, and with their associated relative covariance. The method can be summarized as follows: 1. Define a Lagrangian L ... 4. Now, using a w0waCDM cosmology, compute H2(w0,wa) ... and determine the (w0,wa) parameters that best fit the observables predicted by the model Lagrangian L"

    The (w0,wa) compression used for theory priors and posterior visualization is taken from the authors’ own prior papers. While the procedure is re-stated and the actual parameter constraints come from direct MCMC (not the compression), the visualization step that underpins several figures and tension estimates inherits its construction from self-cited work rather than an independent external method.

full rationale

The paper is an observational assessment that updates previous analyses with new data combinations (DESI DR2, DES-Dovekie, Planck PR3/PR4, ACT lensing). The EFT truncation to quadratic/cubic order is justified by an explicit field-excursion argument and Fig. 1 comparison of full potentials versus Taylor expansions, not by definitional fiat. Full Bayesian inference is performed by solving the scalar-field equations in hi_class and sampling with Cobaya against external likelihoods; the (w0,wa) projection of Section IV is used only for visualization and is explicitly distinguished from the MCMC results. Growth-rate (fσ8) and ISW predictions are derived from the resulting posteriors and compared to independent data sets (Stiskalek25, BOSS FS, unWISE, Reeves+25, Stölzner+18). Screening discussion acknowledges theoretical obstructions rather than assuming them away. Self-citations ([13–17,28]) supply the compression algorithm and earlier model implementations, but the algorithm is re-derived in full in Section IV and the numerical results are regenerated with current data. No prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input, no uniqueness theorem is imported solely from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. Circularity is therefore limited to ordinary methodological continuity and does not affect the load-bearing claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard FRW + linear-perturbation framework, the EFT truncation of single-scalar actions to quadratic/cubic order, and the assumption that cosmological data only probe a narrow field range. Free parameters are the usual EFT coefficients fitted to data; no new particles or forces are invented beyond the scalar already under study.

free parameters (6)
  • V0 (potential height) = model-dependent (e.g. 0.71–2.23 in units of M_Pl² H0²)
    Overall dark-energy density scale; fitted freely in every model.
  • m² (mass-squared term) = negative, O(1–50) H0²
    Quadratic coefficient of the potential; posteriors prefer m² < 0.
  • β (linear potential slope) = 2.45^{+0.54}_{-0.36}
    Present only in non-minimal model; controls thawing.
  • ξ (non-minimal coupling) = 2.21^{+0.85}_{-0.35}
    Strength of φ²R coupling; drives fifth-force phenomenology.
  • α (Galileon kinetic coefficient) = −2.22^{+0.29}_{-0.42}
    Coefficient of X□φ term in massive Galileon; controls phantom crossing and μ,Σ.
  • γ (Galileon normalization) = −1/H̃0²
    Fixed to −1/H̃0² by convention; not varied.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Homogeneous isotropic FRW background plus linear scalar perturbations in Newtonian gauge.
    Standard cosmological framework used throughout Sections III–VIII.
  • domain assumption Single-scalar EFT truncated at quadratic (or cubic for Galileon) order is sufficient on cosmological scales because Δφ/M_Pl ≪ 1.
    Core claim of Section II and Fig. 1; justified by the narrow observational window.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static approximation for μ(k,z) and Σ(k,z) on sub-horizon scales.
    Used to derive fifth-force expressions in Section VI.
  • domain assumption Weak Equivalence Principle holds for the universal coupling (or is deliberately violated only for dark-matter-only couplings discussed in Appendix B).
    Explicitly stated in Section II.
  • ad hoc to paper CPL (w0,wa) is an adequate two-parameter compression of the expansion history for the redshifts and covariances of the chosen data sets.
    Method of Section IV; accuracy claimed to ≲1 % but is data-set dependent.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 62701 in / 3147 out tokens · 41450 ms · 2026-07-10T18:18:11.083348+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present an assessment of the current observational status of single scalar field models of dark energy. Motivated by recent cosmological measurements -- including baryon acoustic oscillations, Type Ia supernovae, and CMB data -- we examine whether a dynamical scalar field offers a viable explanation for the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Working within an effective field theory (EFT) framework, we argue that cosmological observations are fundamentally limited and can at most constrain a small number of parameters that govern scalar field dynamics. We show that quintessence remains only marginally distinguishable from a cosmological constant, $\Lambda$, and that more general EFT extensions exhibit modest statistical preference, though such evidence is sensitive to data set selection and prior assumptions. These extended models generically predict fifth forces and modifications to the growth of structure, raising challenges from astrophysical constraints. We compare their predictions with current growth rate measurements, Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect and Solar System constraints. We emphasize that viable screening mechanisms remain theoretically non-trivial and observationally testable. On the other hand, we find that current ISW and growth data remain largely in agreement. Looking ahead to Stage IV surveys we forecast improvements in constraints on the dark energy behaviour; although there will be some tightening of bounds, we argue that the problem of underdetermination will persist. We conclude that while single scalar field dark energy remains a natural and flexible framework, its ultimate viability will hinge on improved low-redshift growth measurements and a clearer understanding of gravitational screening.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07777 by Carlos Garc\'ia-Garc\'ia, Pedro G. Ferreira, William J. Wolf.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Top) The exponential potential for a scalar field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. On the left, we depict the area spanned by the theory priors for each dark energy model considered in this work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Constraints on the isotropic distance ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Constraints on dark energy equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Marginalized posterior distributions of the effec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Constraints (68% and 95%) on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Inferred ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The density-weighted growth rate of structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Inferred ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Marginalized posterior distributions of the coupling parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Posterior distributions of the time derivative of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. In black, the angular power spectra for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Qualitative depiction of the possible different scenar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Comparison of Stage IV growth forecasts for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Constraints (68% and 95% C.L.) on thawing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Constraints (68% and 95% C.L.) on the non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Constraints (68% and 95% C.L.) on the massive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Angular power spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. 68% and 95% C.L. cosmological parameters posterior distribution with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_26.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

235 extracted references · 235 canonical work pages · 167 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    marginal

    There is very little evidence that whatever form of energy – dark energy – which is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe isnot the cosmological constant, Λ. While the strongest, credible evidence for it comes from a combination of the CMB,DESImeasurements of the BAO, and the original calibration ofDES-Y5measurements of apparent magnit...

    work page

  2. [2]

    If one’s prejudice is firmly in favour of Λ, it is pos- sible to make such a case. While there are concerns about possible systematics with parts of either the DESIdata or theDES-Y5compilation, one can argue that theDES-Dovekieanalysis on its own as well as discarding measurements of the low-ℓE mode 25 from thePlanck2018 data set (and thus allowing for a ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Dark energy, in the form of a single scalar field, is a natural extension to Λ. Given the very narrow range of time and length scales accessible to cosmo- logical measurements, one is very limited to what one might say about the fundamental properties of these scalar fields. In particular, at most we will be able to constrain a few, effective, fundamental...

    work page

  4. [4]

    An interesting consequence of this perspective is thatV 0 (or Λ) isalwayspresent. Indeed, from the analysis we have undertaken, we have always found uncontrovertible evidence for Λ which means that, from the EFT perspective, one can view dark en- ergy as ”Λ + something dynamical”. Alternatively, one can think of Λ as simply the lowest order of a local Tay...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Current measurements are only marginally consistent with quintessence

    The simplest single scalar field form of dark energy is quintessence, completely characterized in terms of a quadratic potential. Current measurements are only marginally consistent with quintessence. Fur- thermore, the data favoursm 2 <0, which means from cosmological data alone, we cannot determine the full form of the potential

    work page

  6. [6]

    These modifications comprehen- sively cover the EFT of single scalar field dark en- ergy models on cosmological scales

    There is slightly stronger evidence for non-trivial modifications to quintessence either in the form of a non-minimal coupling (NM) or in the form of a massive Galileon (mG), both with a quintessence like potential. These modifications comprehen- sively cover the EFT of single scalar field dark en- ergy models on cosmological scales. The evidence weakens ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    That is a substantial ex- trapolation for the EFT which might not, in prac- tice, be valid

    If one assumes that the scope of the EFT extends all the way down to Solar System scales, then both NM and mG models inevitably lead to fifth forces at late times which, bar any other mechanism, should be detectable and constrainable on astro- physical scales, effectively ruling out these modifi- cation to quintessence. That is a substantial ex- trapolati...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Nevertheless, in both cases, there are severe theoretical obstruc- tions to implementing these screening mechanisms

    Both NM and mG have internal theoretical re- sources that can generate gravitational screening – either of the Vainshtein or chameleon form – which would shield them from being detected and ruled out with astrophysical constraints. Nevertheless, in both cases, there are severe theoretical obstruc- tions to implementing these screening mechanisms. Although...

    work page

  9. [9]

    There one clearly sees that the largest deviations from ΛCDM occur at very late times

    To circumvent the issues of whether there is a viable screening mechanism or the cosmological- scales EFT validity at astrophysical scales, one should focus on larger scales and, in particular on the effect on the growth rate of structure. There one clearly sees that the largest deviations from ΛCDM occur at very late times. The current, tight- est, const...

    work page

  10. [10]

    A corollary of this, is that one should not expect current endeavours to constrainf σ 8 on intermedi- ate to high redshift ranges to deliver a killer blow to these theories – the uncertainties will remain too large in a regime where the deviations are small. Quite clearly the focus should be on improving con- straints at very low redshifts where, unfortun...

    work page

  11. [11]

    The key effect is that the time derivative of the gravita- tional potential, Φ ′ + has the opposite sign to what one finds in a Λ dominated cosmology

    The ISW effect has been used to rule out the sim- plest shift symmetric models – cubic Galileons. The key effect is that the time derivative of the gravita- tional potential, Φ ′ + has the opposite sign to what one finds in a Λ dominated cosmology. In both NM and mG, one finds that, indeed, Φ ′ + is pulled away from the Λ prediction but not as much as for...

    work page

  12. [12]

    While we have focused on a universally coupled sin- gle scalar field, it has been argued that a scalar field coupled solely to the dark matter will have the right behaviour to explain current data. Such a theory naturally evades astrophysical constraints but will have a similar phenomenology to that of the NM model in the growth rate, albeit with a slight...

    work page

  13. [13]

    In rough terms, we expect our constraints onw 0 and wa to improve by a factor of a few but not more

    We have a good idea of how the quality and quan- tity of data will improve over the next decade. In rough terms, we expect our constraints onw 0 and wa to improve by a factor of a few but not more. 26 Thus we should not expect a step change in our understanding of dark energy

    work page

  14. [14]

    what is dark en- ergy?

    From the point of view of scalar field dark en- ergy, there are a few possible outcomes. Contours may drift back to ΛCDM although quintessence and its extensions remain a possibility. Contours may drift upwards in the (w 0,wa) plane, favour- ing quintessence and its extensions but increasing the evidence against ΛCDM. Finally, constraints remain resolutel...

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    21) andSt¨ olzner+18 (Fig

    ExtraC gT ℓ plots In this section we present the ISW angular power spectra for the galaxy and CMB temperature cross- correlation forReeves+25(Fig. 21) andSt¨ olzner+18 (Fig. 22)

    work page

  16. [16]

    Data sets We now describe the three data sets considered for the ISW analysis in more detail. The main take-away is that the three data sets have undergone different data analysis choices, that we are missing the cross-covariance between most of the redshift bins and surveys, preventing us from doing a joint analysis, and that the underlying approximation...

    work page

  17. [17]

    density” and “lensing + GR

    Precision parameters Despite our best efforts to produce reliable angular power spectra, we found that there were still models for which the perturbations, the non-Limber integral or other computational step failed. In addition, apart from those that crashed, there were some that produce un- reliable results, with unphysical oscillations or values, a clea...

    work page

  18. [18]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cos- mological Constraints, (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Ratra and P

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

    work page 1988

  21. [21]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Cosmology with a Time Variable Cosmological Constant, Astrophys. J. Lett. 325, L17 (1988)

    work page 1988

  22. [22]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, Structure formation with a selftuning scalar field, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 4740 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9707286. 35 0.30 0.32 Ω m 2 4 6 A −20 −10 0 m2 −3 −2 −1 α 3.00 3.04 3.08 log(As1010) 0.04 0.06 0.08 τreio 0.96 0.97 0.98 ns 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 h 0.0222 0.0224 0.0226 0.0228 ωb 0.0222 0.0228 ωb 0.66 0.68 h 0.96 0.97 ns 0.04 0.06...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  23. [23]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Cos- mological imprint of an energy component with gen- eral equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1582 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9708069

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  24. [24]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, Cosmology with a pri- mordial scaling field, Phys. Rev. D58, 023503 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9711102

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    Extended Quintessence

    F. Perrotta, C. Baccigalupi, and S. Matarrese, Ex- tended quintessence, Phys. Rev. D61, 023507 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906066

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  26. [26]

    Coupled Quintessence

    L. Amendola, Coupled quintessence, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  27. [27]

    Quintessence and Supergravity

    P. Brax and J. Martin, Quintessence and supergravity, Phys. Lett. B468, 40 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9905040

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  28. [28]

    Quintessence arising from exponential potentials

    T. Barreiro, E. J. Copeland, and N. J. Nunes, Quintessence arising from exponential potentials, Phys. 36 Rev. D61, 127301 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910214

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  29. [29]

    Modified Gravity and Cosmology

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Modified Gravity and Cosmology, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  30. [30]

    W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Underdetermination of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D108, 103519 (2023), arXiv:2310.07482 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Scant evidence for thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D110, 083528 (2024), arXiv:2408.17318 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Matching current observational constraints with non- minimally coupled dark energy, Phys. Rev. D111, L041303 (2025), arXiv:2409.17019 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Assessing Cosmological Evidence for Nonmin- imal Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Cos- mological constraints on Galileon dark energy with bro- ken shift symmetry, Phys. Rev. D113, 023551 (2026), arXiv:2509.17586 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    M. Park, K. M. Zurek, and S. Watson, A Unified Ap- proach to Cosmic Acceleration, Phys. Rev. D81, 124008 (2010), arXiv:1003.1722 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    R. P. Woodard, Ostrogradsky’s theorem on Hamil- tonian instability, Scholarpedia10, 32243 (2015), arXiv:1506.02210 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    C. P. Burgess and M. Williams, Who You Gonna Call? Runaway Ghosts, Higher Derivatives and Time- Dependence in EFTs, JHEP08, 074, arXiv:1404.2236 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Tracking Extended Quintessence

    C. Baccigalupi, S. Matarrese, and F. Perrotta, Tracking extended quintessence, Phys. Rev. D62, 123510 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0005543

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  39. [39]

    Baccigalupi, A

    C. Baccigalupi, A. Balbi, S. Matarrese, F. Perrotta, and N. Vittorio, Constraints on flat cosmologies with track- ing quintessence from cosmic microwave background ob- servations, Phys. Rev. D65, 063520 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0109097

    work page arXiv 2002

  40. [40]

    Reconstruction of a scalar-tensor theory of gravity in an accelerating universe

    B. Boisseau, G. Esposito-Farese, D. Polarski, and A. A. Starobinsky, Reconstruction of a scalar tensor theory of gravity in an accelerating universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2236 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0001066

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  41. [41]

    Gannouji, D

    R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, A. Ranquet, and A. A. Starobinsky, Scalar-Tensor Models of Normal and Phantom Dark Energy, JCAP09, 016, arXiv:astro- ph/0606287

    work page arXiv

  42. [42]

    Scaling solutions in general non-minimal coupling theories

    L. Amendola, Scaling solutions in general nonminimal coupling theories, Phys. Rev. D60, 043501 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9904120

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  43. [43]

    Theoretical priors in scalar-tensor cosmologies: Shift-symmetric Horndeski models

    D. Traykova, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, C. Garc´ ıa- Garc´ ıa, J. Noller, and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Theoreti- cal priors in scalar-tensor cosmologies: Shift-symmetric Horndeski models, Phys. Rev. D104, 083502 (2021), arXiv:2103.11195 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Tsujikawa, Crossing the phantom divide in scalar- tensor and vector-tensor theories, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Crossing the phantom divide in scalar- tensor and vector-tensor theories, Phys. Rev. D113, L041301 (2026), arXiv:2508.17231 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, and P. G. Ferreira, Ro- bustness of dark energy phenomenology across differ- ent parameterizations, JCAP05, 034, arXiv:2502.04929 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [50]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019 (2019)

    work page 1910

  47. [51]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosen- bluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, The Journal of Chemical Physics21, 1087 (1953), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1699114 1953

  48. [52]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications, Biometrika57, 97 (1970), https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article- pdf/57/1/97/23940249/57-1-97.pdf

    work page 1970

  49. [53]

    Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters

    A. Lewis, Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmo- logical parameters, Phys. Rev.D87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  50. [54]

    Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  51. [55]

    E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the uni- verse, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0208512

    work page arXiv 2003

  52. [56]

    Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analy- sis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [57]

    Optimal parameterizations for observational constraints on thawing dark energy

    D. Shlivko, P. J. Steinhardt, and C. L. Steinhardt, Op- timal parameterizations for observational constraints on thawing dark energy, (2025), arXiv:2504.02028 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [58]

    Montefalcone and R

    G. Montefalcone and R. Stiskalek, Parameterizing Dark Energy at the density level: A two-parameter alterna- tive to CPL, (2026), arXiv:2603.25735 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  55. [59]

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), The Dark Energy Survey Su- pernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Re- sults And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration, (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [60]

    T. J. Hoyt, D. Rubin, G. Aldering, S. Perlmutter, A. Cuceu, and R. Gupta, Union3.1: Self-consistent Mea- surements of Host Galaxy Properties for 2000 Type Ia Supernovae, (2026), arXiv:2601.19424 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2000

  57. [61]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [62]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), The Dark Energy Sur- vey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set, Astro- phys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro- 37 ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [63]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Broutet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmo- logical Constraints, Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [64]

    Evolving Dark Energy or Supernovae Systematics?

    G. Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae sys- tematics? (2024), arXiv:2408.07175 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [65]

    M. Vincenziet al.(DES), Comparing the DES-SN5YR and Pantheon+ SN cosmology analyses: Investigation based on ”Evolving Dark Energy or Supernovae sys- tematics?”, (2025), arXiv:2501.06664 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [66]

    Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [67]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models

    E. Calabreseet al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models, JCAP11, 063, arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [68]

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), SPT-3G D1: CMB tem- perature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field, (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [69]

    D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup, and W. Handley, The Bayesian view of DESI DR2: Evidence and tension in a combined analysis with CMB and supernovae across cosmological models, (2026), arXiv:2603.05472 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [70]

    Planck intermediate results. LVII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck),P lanckintermediate re- sults. LVII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing, Astron. Astrophys.643, A42 (2020), arXiv:2007.04997 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [71]

    Cosmological parameters derived from the final (PR4) Planck data release

    M. Tristramet al., Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4), Astron. Astro- phys.682, A37 (2024), arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [72]

    Constraints on Neutrino Physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 Full Shape

    W. Elberset al., Constraints on neutrino physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full shape, Phys. Rev. D112, 083513 (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [73]

    NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, NuFit- 6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino os- cillations, JHEP12, 216, arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [74]

    Negative neutrino masses as a mirage of dark energy

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, and S. Pascoli, Negative neutrino masses as a mirage of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D111, 063534 (2025), arXiv:2407.10965 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [75]

    The Cosmological Preference for Negative Neutrino Mass

    D. Green and J. Meyers, Cosmological preference for a negative neutrino mass, Phys. Rev. D111, 083507 (2025), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [76]

    Negative neutrino mass or negative dark energy?

    C. Kıbrıs, W. Elbers, ¨O. Akarsu, and E. Di Valentino, Negative neutrino mass or negative dark energy?, (2026), arXiv:2605.21456 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  73. [77]

    It's All ${\tt Ok}$: Curvature in Light of BAO from DESI DR2

    S.-F. Chen and M. Zaldarriaga, It’s all Ok: curva- ture in light of BAO from DESI DR2, JCAP08, 014, arXiv:2505.00659 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [78]

    I. J. Allali, L. Li, P. Singh, and J. Fan, Cosmicτensions Indirectly Correlate with Reionization Optical Depth, (2025), arXiv:2509.09678 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [79]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, Dispuτable: the high cost of a low optical depth, (2025), arXiv:2504.16932 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  76. [80]

    Turning a negative neutrino mass into a positive optical depth

    T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal, and W. Hu, Turning a negative neutrino mass into a positive optical depth, Phys. Rev. D112, 043541 (2025), arXiv:2504.21813 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [81]

    Rapid late-time reionization: constraints and cosmological implications

    W. Elbers, Rapid late-time reionization: con- straints and cosmological implications, (2025), arXiv:2508.21069 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [82]

    Kageura, M

    Y. Kageura, M. Ouchi, F. Naokawa, H. Umeda, A. Mat- sumoto, Y. Harikane, M. Nakane, and T. T. Thai, A New Constraint on the Optical Depth from the Reion- ization History Independent of CMB Large-Scale E- Mode Polarization, (2026), arXiv:2601.09644 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  79. [83]

    Y. B. Ginat and P. G. Ferreira, Apparent Dark-Energy Evolution from Cosmic Inhomogeneities, (2026), arXiv:2601.20633 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  80. [84]

    D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup, and W. Handley, A Bayesian Perspective on Evidence for Evolving Dark Energy, (2025), arXiv:2511.10631 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.