Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 57 references

This paper claims that all silent dark-sector models with zero sound speed, built from a transverse-diffeomorphism scalar field, reduce to one two-parameter mimetic action that unifies dark matter and dark energy.

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

2026-08-01 12:36 UTC pith:K7KTTBXT

load-bearing objection Clean field-theory result — all silent TDiff scalars reduce to a two-parameter mimetic action — with a cosmological headline that overreaches the current analysis. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19494 v1 pith:K7KTTBXT submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

The silent dark sector: a field-theory approach to unified dark fluids with vanishing speed of sound

Javier de Cruz P\'erez , Dar\'io Jaramillo-Garrido , Antonio L. Maroto , Prado Mart\'in-Moruno This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords unified dark fluidvanishing speed of soundtransverse diffeomorphism invariancemimetic constraintinteracting dark sectordark energy equation of stateCPL parametrizationcosmological perturbations
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.

Recent DESI data hint that dark energy may evolve, yet the usual route to evolving dark energy requires phantom behavior and its associated instabilities. This paper tries to establish that a single perfect fluid—the entire dark sector—with zero speed of sound can reproduce that evolution without ever crossing the phantom divide. Starting from a scalar field invariant only under transverse diffeomorphisms, the authors derive the condition for vanishing sound speed and show that every resulting model can, after field redefinitions, be written as one two-parameter mimetic action with a Lagrange multiplier enforcing a constraint on the kinetic term. In this description the fluid splits into comoving dust plus vacuum energy that exchange energy through a kernel derived from the action, and the ΛCDM case is recovered exactly when the fluid is adiabatic. A quadratic-potential example reproduces the CPL dark-sector equation of state at all redshifts with the same number of dark-sector parameters, providing a field-theoretic basis for the phenomenological 'silent' unified fluid proposed to fit DESI data.

Core claim

Imposing a vanishing speed of sound on the TDiff scalar action frees the coupling functions only through three channels—a linear kinetic coupling, a nonlinear kinetic coupling with μ₀ = 0, or a nonlinear coupling with constant potential—and each channel is mapped by field redefinitions to the common action S = ∫√g [X − V(ψ) + φ(X − βV(ψ) − γ)], with β and γ free parameters and φ a Lagrange multiplier enforcing X = βV(ψ) + γ. The paper shows this is exactly the mimetic constraint. The energy-momentum tensor then reads as dust plus vacuum energy, with the vacuum piece p_λ = −ρ_λ and an interaction kernel Q^ν = (β−1)V′(ψ)∇^νψ; when β = 1 or V(ψ) is constant the kernel vanishes and the ΛCDM dark

What carries the argument

The mimetic constraint X = βV(ψ) + γ enforced by the Lagrange multiplier φ is the load-bearing mechanism: it locks the scalar kinetic term to the potential plus a constant, so perturbations evaluated at constant ψ carry no pressure and the fluid has c_s² = 0. The classification is obtained by solving A = 0, the numerator of the sound-speed formula, for the arbitrary coupling functions, yielding three solution branches; the redefinition φ = H_k(ϕ)/σ² − 1 together with rescalings of ψ and V collapses all three onto the same two-parameter action.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of 'all' silent models assumes the kinetic coupling function has nonzero slope (H′_k ≠ 0) and that the kinetic term never vanishes (X ≠ 0); if a silent model exists with H_k constant or at X = 0, it escapes the mimetic reduction and the universality claim fails.

What would settle it

Find or construct a TDiff scalar field theory with vanishing speed of sound that cannot be brought to the form (3.1) by field redefinitions—for instance, a model with H_k(ϕ) = const that still has c_s² = 0, or a configuration with X = 0 that yields c_s² = 0 instead of the asserted c_s² = 1. Explicitly solving the sound-speed condition outside the three listed cases, or numerically scanning the space of H_k, H_v, V for such counterexamples, would settle the claim.

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

If this is right

  • Every future single-field TDiff dark sector model with zero sound speed is covered by the two-parameter action (3.1), so observational constraints on (β, γ) constrain the entire class.
  • The unified fluid never violates the null energy condition, so the DESI preference for evolving dark energy can be fitted without invoking phantom energy or its instabilities.
  • The dark matter–dark energy interaction is not put in by hand: the kernel Q^ν = (β−1)V′(ψ)∇^νψ follows from the action, and in the quadratic example its sign flips when ψ crosses zero, reversing the energy flow between dust and vacuum.
  • ΛCDM is contained in the class (β = 1 and/or V constant) and is recovered exactly in any background, extending earlier shift-symmetric TDiff constructions.
  • At the perturbative level the gravitational potential obeys a scale-independent equation, and superhorizon density contrasts differ from ΛCDM only at late times, giving an integrated Sachs–Wolfe signature that can be tested with CMB data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the universality claim survives the stated caveats, zero sound speed appears to be a structurally protected condition: any mechanism generating a TDiff scalar with c_s² = 0 would be described by the same effective action, making the phenomenology robust to ultraviolet details.
  • The sign-switching interaction kernel in the quadratic model offers microphysical underpinning for 'interacting vacuum' models; reconstructing β, γ, and the potential from large-scale structure and ISW data could distinguish this mechanism from a pure CPL parametrization.
  • Because the non-interacting decomposition produces an effective dark energy that crosses the phantom divide even though the total fluid never does, apparent phantom-crossing fits may be an artifact of splitting the dark sector; a testable consequence is different perturbation growth from genuine phantom models even when background expansions match.
  • The underlying field theory supplies full non-linear equations of motion, so structure formation can be simulated without prescribing a spherical collapse model—something the purely phenomenological silent-fluid approach cannot do.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies TDiff-invariant scalar field theories of the form (2.1) and their covariantized two-field version (2.7). After deriving the effective sound speed c_s^2 = A/(A−B), it imposes c_s^2 = 0 and solves the condition A = 0 under the assumptions H'_k(φ)≠0 and X≠0. Three solution families are identified and shown by explicit field redefinitions to reduce to the mimetic action (3.1) with two free parameters β and γ. The paper then interprets the resulting fluid as interacting dust plus vacuum energy, derives the interaction kernel Q_ν = ∇_ν p_λ, shows that the adiabatic subcases exactly reproduce the ΛCDM dark sector, and studies a quadratic-potential β = 0 example. The total dark-sector equation of state of this example is compared with the CPL best-fit parameters, and the perturbation equations for silent perfect fluids are derived and applied in a dark-sector-only approximation.

Significance. The central classification is a genuine field-theoretic derivation rather than a phenomenological ansatz: the condition c_s^2 = 0 is solved for the coupling functions, and the reduction of all three solution branches to the mimetic action (3.1) is shown explicitly. This gives a top-down justification of mimetic dark matter from TDiff invariance, provides a fundamental expression for the interacting DM–DE kernel, and avoids phantom behavior by construction. The exact ΛCDM limit is a useful consistency check. The paper is transparent about its limitations: the CPL comparison is illustrative rather than a likelihood analysis, and the perturbation study neglects baryons and radiation. These caveats do not undermine the universality claim, which is the paper's main contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §6.1, Eq. (6.14); Fig. 2] The abstract states that the model 'can reproduce the DESI best-fit CPL evolution with the same number of free parameters.' In the body, however, the TDiff parameters in (6.14c) are chosen by hand to match the CPL curve ('some example parameters'), and no likelihood fit to DESI or other data is performed. The body is appropriately cautious, but the abstract and conclusions overstate the result. Please rephrase to 'for suitably chosen parameters, the model can reproduce...' and state explicitly that this is a proof-of-principle, not a fit.
  2. [§3.1, footnote 1 and Eq. (3.2)] The claim that 'all vanishing sound speed models' reduce to (3.1) relies on excluding H'_k(φ)=0 and X=0. These exclusions are not proved in the main text: H'_k=0 is delegated to a footnote, and X=0 is dismissed through B≠0. Since the universality of the mimetic reduction is the central result, the authors should either prove (or cite precisely) that H'_k=0 gives c_s^2=1 and that X=0 is outside the perfect-fluid representation, or state the theorem with these assumptions made explicit and part of the hypothesis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Footnote 1] 'We shall all throughout this work assume' should read 'We shall throughout this work assume.' The remark about H_k=const. would be better placed in the main text, since it is a substantive exclusion for the 'all models' claim.
  2. [Eq. (3.6)] The displayed field redefinitions in Eq. (3.6) are hard to parse because of nested parentheses and the fraction involving μ0. Please expand or display the substitution more clearly.
  3. [§6.1, after Eq. (6.13)] The sentence 'the sign of ξ̄ determines whether dark matter will receive or give energy to the vacuum when ψ̄<0 or ψ̄>0' is ambiguous. The direction of energy transfer depends on the product ξ̄ ψ̄, as Eq. (6.13) shows. Please rephrase to avoid implying that ξ̄ alone fixes the direction.
  4. [References] Several DOIs appear malformed or non-resolvable, e.g. [2] doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6, [4] doi:10.1103/xchk-xlk1, and [31] doi:10.1103/rxnw-gvyd. Please verify that all DOIs are correct before publication.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption should note that the comparison is for a dark-sector-only universe and that the TDiff Ωc=0.414 is the bare interacting dust component rather than the effective non-interacting DM abundance, which is given later as Ωc_eff=0.266 in Eq. (6.21).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the silent-TDiff-to-mimetic reduction is re-derived from the stated action, and the CPL 'reproduction' is an example-parameter existence statement, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the TDiff action (2.1) and its covariantized two-field form (2.7), the paper algebraically computes the effective sound speed (2.18a) and imposes c_s^2=0 via A=0 (3.2). The three cases treated in Section 3.1 (linear H_k; mu_0=0; constant potential) are the direct factorization cases of (3.2), and each is mapped by explicit field redefinitions (3.5)-(3.8) to the same mimetic action (3.1). No step equates a fitted parameter to a predicted quantity: beta and gamma are combinations of the original coupling constants, not data-fit inputs. The cosmological application in Section 6 is explicitly an example-parameter exercise ('for the TDiff model some example parameters'), and the claim is that the model can reproduce the CPL dark-sector equation of state--an existence/expressiveness statement rather than a prediction extracted from a fit, so it does not reduce the result to its own input. The exclusions of H'_k=0 and X=0 in footnote 1 and Section 3.1 are not hidden circularity: those branches give c_s^2=1 when a fluid limit exists, so no silent model is lost. Citations to earlier work by the same group ([31], [35], [38]) supply background formulas and motivation, but the load-bearing reduction is re-derived here from the stated action and is not imported as an unverified uniqueness theorem or used to forbid alternatives. Thus no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The core derivation rests on prior TDiff covariantization results by the same group ([35,37,38]). The new reduction is performed from those results. In the quadratic example, beta, gamma, xi, psi_0, Omega_c, and h are hand-picked or degenerate combinations; no external benchmark is used to set them, so the central 'reproduces CPL' demonstration depends on parameter freedom rather than on an independent predictive test.

free parameters (6)
  • beta = 0 (example)
    Free parameter in the mimetic action (3.1); determines the interaction and vacuum-component structure. Set to 0 for the quadratic example.
  • gamma = absorbed into definitions of psi-bar and xi-bar
    Free parameter in (3.9); with beta=0 it fixes the kinetic scale through the constraint X=gamma.
  • xi = xi-bar = -2.54
    Curvature of the quadratic potential in (6.1), introduced as V(psi)=1/2 xi psi^2 + V0. The dimensionless combination xi-bar is chosen by hand to reproduce the CPL background.
  • psi_0 = psi-bar_0 = 0.435
    Present-day value of the scalar field, an initial condition for (6.10a). Chosen by hand to match CPL.
  • Omega_c = 0.414
    Present-day density parameter of the interacting dust component in the decomposition (4.1). Chosen as an example value; it differs from the standard LCDM Omega_c because the component does not scale as a^-3.
  • h = 0.6775
    Hubble constant used for the TDiff example in (6.14c). Chosen near the DESI/CMB fits, not derived from a TDiff likelihood.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The TDiff scalar action (2.1) with f_k(g)>0 is the starting point, and the covariantized two-field action (2.7) with constant mu_0 is fully equivalent (from [35,37]).
    Used to derive the general two-scalar framework; this equivalence is cited from the same group's prior work and not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption H'_k(phi) != 0 and X != 0 throughout (footnote 1 and Section 3.1).
    Required for the vanishing-sound-speed condition A = 0 with B != 0. Excludes constant kinetic coupling and X=0 cases, making the classification conditional.
  • standard math The scalar field gradient is timelike and future-pointing (X > 0), so the energy-momentum tensor can be written in perfect-fluid form.
    Perfect-fluid representation in Section 2.2 and the choice of positive root in (5.7) depend on this assumption.
  • standard math Standard FLRW background and linear scalar perturbation theory in longitudinal and synchronous gauges apply.
    Used in Section 5 to derive background and perturbation evolution equations.
invented entities (1)
  • Spectator / Lagrange-multiplier field phi no independent evidence
    purpose: Enforces the constraint X = beta V(psi) + gamma in action (3.1), which imposes zero sound speed; in beta=0 models it enters the dust density as rho_c = 2(1+phi)gamma.
    Introduced via field redefinitions from H_k(phi); it is a constrained scalar device common in mimetic gravity, not a new particle. No direct observational handle is identified.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 3950 in / 4514 out tokens · 282167 ms · 2026-08-01T12:36:20.273558+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel class of field-theory models that provide a unified description of the dark sector as a single perfect fluid with vanishing sound speed. These models also admit the interpretation of cold dark matter interacting with vacuum energy while avoiding any phantom behavior and including standard $\Lambda$CDM as a particular case. Built upon a single scalar field invariant under transverse diffeomorphisms, the framework naturally implements the constraints imposed in the so called mimetic models. We analyze a particular simple example exhibiting an effectively evolving dark energy and find that it can reproduce the DESI best-fit CPL evolution with the same number of free parameters.

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

57 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, et al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km/s/Mpc Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934 (1) (2022) L7.arXiv:2112.04510,doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b. – 19 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Abdul Karim, et al., DESI DR2 results

    M. Abdul Karim, et al., DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, Phys. Rev. D 112 (8) (2025) 083515.arXiv:2503.14738, doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Di Valentino, et al., The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Phys

    E. Di Valentino, et al., The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Phys. Dark Univ. 49 (2025) 101965.arXiv:2504.01669, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    de Cruz P´ erez, A

    J. de Cruz P´ erez, A. G´ omez-Valent, J. Sol` a Peracaula, Dynamical dark energy models in light of the latest observations, Phys. Rev. D 113 (8) (2026) 083521.arXiv:2512.20616,doi:10.1103/xchk-xlk1

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, D. Pavon, Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interactions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Implications and Observational Signatures, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 (9) (2016) 096901.arXiv:1603.08299,doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/9/096901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, D. Pav´ on, Further understanding the interaction between dark energy and dark matter: current status and future directions, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (3) (2024) 036901.arXiv:2402.00819,doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad2527

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Bertacca, N

    D. Bertacca, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, Unified Dark Matter Scalar Field Models, Adv. Astron. 2010 (2010) 904379.arXiv:1008.0614,doi:10.1155/2010/904379

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Wasserman, On the degeneracy inherent in observational determination of the dark energy equation of state, Phys

    I. Wasserman, On the degeneracy inherent in observational determination of the dark energy equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 123511.arXiv:astro-ph/0203137,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.123511

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    Kunz, The dark degeneracy: On the number and nature of dark components, Phys

    M. Kunz, The dark degeneracy: On the number and nature of dark components, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 123001.arXiv:astro-ph/0702615,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.123001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    M. Kunz, A. R. Liddle, D. Parkinson, C. Gao, Constraining the dark fluid, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 083533.arXiv:0908.3197,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.083533

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Popovic, et al., A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie (2025).arXiv:2506.05471

    B. Popovic, et al., A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie (2025).arXiv:2506.05471

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    B. Popovic, et al., The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 548 (2026) stag632.arXiv:2511.07517,doi:10.1093/mnras/stag632

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 538 (2) (2025) 875–882.arXiv:2408.07175,doi:10.1093/mnras/staf301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Nesseris, Y

    S. Nesseris, Y. Akrami, G. D. Starkman, To CPL, or not to CPL? What we have not learned about the dark energy equation of state (2025).arXiv:2503.22529

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup, 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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Chevallier, D

    M. Chevallier, D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10 (2001) 213–224.arXiv:gr-qc/0009008,doi:10.1142/S0218271801000822

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  18. [18]

    E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 091301. arXiv:astro-ph/0208512,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  19. [19]

    R. R. Caldwell, A Phantom menace?, Phys. Lett. B 545 (2002) 23–29.arXiv:astro-ph/9908168, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02589-3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  20. [20]

    S. M. Carroll, M. Hoffman, M. Trodden, Can the dark energy equation-of-state parameterwbe less than−1?, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 023509.arXiv:astro-ph/0301273, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.023509. – 20 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  21. [21]

    Vikman, Can dark energy evolve to the phantom?, Phys

    A. Vikman, Can dark energy evolve to the phantom?, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 023515. arXiv:astro-ph/0407107,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.023515

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  22. [22]

    Hu, Crossing the phantom divide: Dark energy internal degrees of freedom, Phys

    W. Hu, Crossing the phantom divide: Dark energy internal degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 047301.arXiv:astro-ph/0410680,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.047301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  23. [23]

    M. Kunz, D. Sapone, Crossing the Phantom Divide, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 123503. arXiv:astro-ph/0609040,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.123503

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    Borislavov Vasilev, M

    T. Borislavov Vasilev, M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, P. Mart ´ ın-Moruno, Dark energy with a shift-symmetric scalar field: Obstacles, loophole hunting and dead ends, Phys. Dark Univ. 46 (2024) 101679. arXiv:2406.12576,doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101679

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    R. Kou, A. Lewis, Unified dark fluid with null sound speed as an alternative to phantom dark energy, JCAP 01 (2026) 014.arXiv:2509.16155,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/01/014

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Sandvik, M

    H. Sandvik, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga, I. Waga, The end of unified dark matter?, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 123524.arXiv:astro-ph/0212114,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.123524

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, M

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, M. P. Garrote, F. A. Teppa Pannia, S. Tsujikawa, A solid unification of the dark sector (2026).arXiv:2606.27290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Bertacca, N

    D. Bertacca, N. Bartolo, ISW effect in Unified Dark Matter Scalar Field Cosmologies: An analytical approach, JCAP 11 (2007) 026.arXiv:0707.4247,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/11/026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  29. [29]

    E. A. Lim, I. Sawicki, A. Vikman, Dust of Dark Energy, JCAP 05 (2010) 012.arXiv:1003.5751, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/05/012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    Sebastiani, S

    L. Sebastiani, S. Vagnozzi, R. Myrzakulov, Mimetic gravity: a review of recent developments and applications to cosmology and astrophysics, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017 (2017) 3156915. arXiv:1612.08661,doi:10.1155/2017/3156915

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    de Cruz P´ erez, A

    J. de Cruz P´ erez, A. L. Maroto, ΛCDM from broken diffeomorphisms, Phys. Rev. D 111 (12) (2025) 123555.arXiv:2504.02541,doi:10.1103/rxnw-gvyd

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    A. L. Maroto, TDiff invariant field theories for cosmology, JCAP 04 (2024) 037.arXiv:2301.05713, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Jaramillo-Garrido, A

    D. Jaramillo-Garrido, A. L. Maroto, P. Mart ´ ın-Moruno, TDiff in the dark: gravity with a scalar field invariant under transverse diffeomorphisms, JHEP 03 (2024) 084.arXiv:2307.14861, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2024)084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Alonso-L´ opez, J

    D. Alonso-L´ opez, J. de Cruz P´ erez, A. L. Maroto, Unified transverse diffeomorphism invariant field theory for the dark sector, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2) (2024) 023537.arXiv:2311.16836, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023537

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Jaramillo-Garrido, A

    D. Jaramillo-Garrido, A. L. Maroto, P. Mart ´ ın-Moruno, Symmetry restoration in transverse diffeomorphism invariant scalar field theories, Phys. Rev. D 110 (4) (2024) 044009.arXiv:2402.17422, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.044009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    A. G. Bello-Morales, J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, A. Jim´ enez Cano, T. S. Koivisto, A. L. Maroto, A class of ghost-free theories in symmetric teleparallel geometry, JHEP 12 (2024) 146.arXiv:2406.19355, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    D. Blas, M. Shaposhnikov, D. Zenhausern, Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 044001.arXiv:1104.1392,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.044001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, T

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, T. Borislavov Vasilev, D. Jaramillo-Garrido, A. L. Maroto, P. Mart ´ ın-Moruno, K-nonizing, Phys. Lett. B 872 (2026) 140118.arXiv:2509.07715, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140118

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Wands, J

    D. Wands, J. De-Santiago, Y. Wang, Inhomogeneous vacuum energy, Class. Quant. Grav. 29 (2012) 145017.arXiv:1203.6776,doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/14/145017. – 21 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    Y. Wang, D. Wands, L. Xu, J. De-Santiago, A. Hojjati, Cosmological constraints on a decomposed Chaplygin gas, Phys. Rev. D 87 (8) (2013) 083503.arXiv:1301.5315, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.083503

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    Y. Wang, D. Wands, G.-B. Zhao, L. Xu, Post-P lanckconstraints on interacting vacuum energy, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2) (2014) 023502.arXiv:1404.5706,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.023502

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [42]

    Salvatelli, N

    V. Salvatelli, N. Said, M. Bruni, A. Melchiorri, D. Wands, Indications of a late-time interaction in the dark sector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (18) (2014) 181301.arXiv:1406.7297, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.181301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    Sola, Vacuum energy and cosmological evolution, AIP Conf

    J. Sola, Vacuum energy and cosmological evolution, AIP Conf. Proc. 1606 (1) (2015) 19–37. arXiv:1402.7049,doi:10.1063/1.4891113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    J. Sola, A. Gomez-Valent, J. de Cruz P´ erez, Hints of dynamical vacuum energy in the expanding Universe, Astrophys. J. Lett. 811 (2015) L14.arXiv:1506.05793,doi:10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Sol` a, A

    J. Sol` a, A. G´ omez-Valent, J. de Cruz P´ erez, First evidence of running cosmic vacuum: challenging the concordance model, Astrophys. J. 836 (1) (2017) 43.arXiv:1602.02103, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/43

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Sol` a Peracaula, J

    J. Sol` a Peracaula, J. de Cruz P´ erez, A. G´ omez-Valent, Dynamical dark energy vs. Λ = const in light of observations, EPL 121 (3) (2018) 39001.arXiv:1606.00450,doi:10.1209/0295-5075/121/39001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Asghari, J

    M. Asghari, J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, S. Khosravi, D. F. Mota, On structure formation from a small-scales-interacting dark sector, JCAP 04 (2019) 042.arXiv:1902.05532, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/04/042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D. Bettoni, D. Figueruelo, F. A. Teppa Pannia, On cosmological signatures of baryons-dark energy elastic couplings, JCAP 08 (2020) 020.arXiv:2004.14661, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Amendola, Coupled quintessence, Phys

    L. Amendola, Coupled quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 043511.arXiv:astro-ph/9908023, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043511

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  50. [50]

    Kodama, M

    H. Kodama, M. Sasaki, Cosmological Perturbation Theory, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 78 (1984) 1–166. doi:10.1143/PTPS.78.1

    doi:10.1143/ptps.78.1 1984

  51. [51]

    C.-P. Ma, E. Bertschinger, Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges, Astrophys. J. 455 (1995) 7–25.arXiv:astro-ph/9506072,doi:10.1086/176550

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  52. [52]

    Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Oxford, 2005

    V. Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Oxford, 2005. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511790553

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790553 2005

  53. [53]

    Baumann, Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, 2022.doi:10.1017/9781108937092

    D. Baumann, Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, 2022.doi:10.1017/9781108937092

    doi:10.1017/9781108937092 2022

  54. [54]

    R. Bean, O. Dor´ e, Probing dark energy perturbations: The Dark energy equation of state and speed of sound as measured by WMAP, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 083503.arXiv:astro-ph/0307100, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.083503

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  55. [55]

    Valiviita, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Ballesteros, J

    G. Ballesteros, J. Lesgourgues, Dark energy with non-adiabatic sound speed: initial conditions and detectability, JCAP 10 (2010) 014.arXiv:1004.5509,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/10/014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [57]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001. – 22 –

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024