Interacting Dark Energy and Dark Matter in O(3) No-Scale Gravity

Elisa G. M. Ferreira; Lincoln da S. Pereira; Muzi Hong; Tsutomu T. Yanagida

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Interacting Dark Energy and Dark Matter in O(3) No-Scale Gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark matter and dark energy, together with their interaction, can emerge from the angular directions of a single O(3)-symmetric gravitational scalar multiplet in No-Scale Gravity.

desk verdict The O(3) construction is a real step beyond the O(2) model and the inverse-hierarchy mechanism is genuinely new, but the quantitative claims rest on fitted initial conditions and an envelope approximation that is not validated for this coupled system; worth a serious referee, not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20320 v1 pith:S5H4E2OB submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Lincoln da S. Pereira , Muzi Hong , Elisa G. M. Ferreira , Tsutomu T. Yanagida This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 95.36.+x95.35.+d04.50.Kd

keywords darkenergymatterNo-ScaleGravityO(3)symmetryinteractingsectoreffectivephantomequationofstateultralightscalarfield

topics Dark Energy Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that dark matter and dark energy are not separate ingredients added to the Standard Model, but two angular directions of a single gravitational scalar multiplet in a scale-free theory called No-Scale Gravity. The Brans-Dicke boson is promoted to a three-component vector with O(3) symmetry; in the Einstein frame the radial field is the dilaton and the two angular fields become the dark-matter and dark-energy candidates. A small explicit breaking of O(3) with an inverted mass hierarchy generates their masses and a cosmologically relevant interaction. Solving the background equations with an envelope approximation, the paper reports the standard radiation, matter, and dark-energy sequence with the present-day abundances, and finds that the interaction makes the dark-energy equation of state look phantom-like at late times. That matters because it offers a first-principles origin for interacting dark-sector phenomenology that is otherwise introduced by hand.

What carries the argument

The central object is the O(3) vector multiplet built from the Brans-Dicke scalar, written in polar coordinates with radial field rho and two angular fields theta and phi. After the Weyl transformation to the Einstein frame, the radial direction becomes the massless dilaton with a shift symmetry, while theta and phi are flat directions that acquire masses and an interaction from small explicit O(3) breaking terms, chosen with the inverse hierarchy epsilon_1 << epsilon_2. The dynamics are carried by the field-space geometry (the sin^2(theta/f_theta) kinetic coupling and the sin^4(theta/f_theta) normalization of the dark-matter density) together with an envelope approximation for the rapidly o

What would settle it

A full numerical integration of the coupled equations of motion (equations 13 and 14) through the onset of the dark-matter oscillations, without the envelope approximation, could directly test whether the averaged solution reproduces the same theta trajectory and effective equation of state; alternatively, a joint fit of CMB, BAO, and supernova data that excludes the predicted phantom crossing at 0.5 < z < 2.5 would falsify the model's late-time phenomenology.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the inverse-hierarchy branch of O(3) No-Scale Gravity, defined by m_theta << m_phi, the heavier angular field phi behaves as ultralight scalar dark matter (~10^-20 eV) and the lighter field theta acts as dynamical dark energy with m_theta <= H_0. The O(3)-breaking potential makes the initial dark-energy position theta/f_theta ~ pi/2 unstable while phi is frozen; as phi begins to oscillate and its amplitude decays, the interaction is suppressed and theta rolls toward its minimum, producing a transient kinetic-dominated phase and then late-time quintessence-like evolution. Although the physical equation of state w_theta always satisfies w_theta >= -1, the sin^4(the

Load-bearing premise

The numerical results rest on the envelope approximation that coarse-grains the rapidly oscillating dark-matter field, matched at m_phi |sin(theta/f_theta)| = 100 H; if that averaging is inaccurate during the epoch when the interaction is strong, the computed theta trajectory and the phantom crossing could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, dark matter and dark energy no longer need independent microphysical origins; both come from the same gravitational symmetry-breaking sector.
The benchmark solution reproduces the radiation-, matter-, and dark-energy-dominated expansion history together with the present-day abundances, making it a candidate for fits to CMB, BAO, and supernova data.
The interaction produces a transient stiff phase with w_theta ~ 1 that remains far below BBN bounds, so it does not disturb the early background expansion.
The effective phantom crossing at redshifts 0.5-2.5 mimics the late-time behavior suggested by recent cosmological observations without introducing a fundamental phantom field.
The dark-matter mass is set by the symmetry-breaking parameter and is not fixed to the ultralight scale, so heavier scalar dark-matter realizations of the same construction are possible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the construction is right, the same geometric mechanism may extend to other scale-invariant gravity settings, though the paper does not explore that generality.
The apparent phantom crossing is an interpretation artifact; perturbation-level calculations could yield a growth-of-structure signature that distinguishes this model from a genuine phantom field.
The model does not remove the cosmic coincidence problem and still requires tuned initial conditions and mass ratios; a dedicated parameter scan would show how much tuning actually remains.
If an ultralight field like phi existed during inflation, isocurvature constraints may force a low-scale inflationary epoch; the paper notes this but does not develop it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the O(3) construction is a real extension of the O(2) model, and the inverse-hierarchy interaction mechanism is new. But the paper's headline claims—reproducing present abundances and showing an effective phantom crossing—rest on fitted initial conditions and an envelope approximation that is not validated for this coupled system. That's the main thing to know.

What the paper does well: the derivation is careful and mostly transparent. The field-space geometry, the distinction between sequential and inverse hierarchy, and the identification of the transient stiff phase are handled well. The appendix varies parameters and is honest that those runs do not match abundances. The BBN check for the stiff transient is a nice touch. The effective phantom formula (Eq. 33) is standard and applied correctly, and the authors are explicit that the physical EoS never crosses -1. This is a genuinely useful model-building result: a concrete gravitational origin for an interacting dark sector with a natural DM-DE interaction.

The soft spots: the envelope approximation is load-bearing. The matching condition m_phi |sin(theta/f_theta)| = alpha H with alpha = 100 comes from single-field axion studies. Here the source terms in the averaged theta equation are opposite in sign and nearly cancel (the phi'^2 term and the potential term in Eq. 23). A small error in the envelope can shift the theta trajectory, and the phantom crossing in Fig. 5 depends on that trajectory. The paper shows rapid features in theta near the transition (Fig. 2 inset) and then simply stops resolving them. I don't think the model is broken, but this is exactly where a full numerical integration over the transition, or a convergence test in alpha, would have settled the question. As written, it's plausible, not demonstrated.

Second, the initial conditions are tuned. The paper says this plainly—"chosen so that the desired present-day DM and DE abundances are reproduced"—so the abundances are not a prediction. That is a limitation, not a flaw, but it means the claimed reproduction is weaker than it sounds.

Third, there is no perturbation analysis. The authors explicitly say that is the next step. Fine, but it means the DESI connection is qualitative, and the model has not been shown to fit any data yet.

Bottom line: this is a serious model-building paper with an honest discussion of its own limitations. The equations look consistent and the citation pattern is appropriate. It deserves a serious referee, with the envelope approximation as the central technical question. I would not desk-reject it; I would send it out and expect the revision either to validate the averaging or to weaken the phantom claim.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an O(3) extension of No-Scale Gravity in which the Brans-Dicke field is promoted to a three-component vector. In the Einstein frame the two angular fields are identified as dark matter and dark energy. The authors focus on the inverse hierarchy m_phi >> m_theta, which makes the dark-sector interaction strong. They derive the coupled equations of motion, introduce an envelope approximation for the rapidly oscillating DM field phi, and numerically solve the background evolution. The reported results are: the standard radiation-matter-DE sequence, present-day abundances, and an effective phantom-like DE equation of state at late times of the type suggested by DESI, without a fundamental phantom field. The paper also presents a parameter-sensitivity appendix.

Significance. If the numerical treatment is reliable, the paper offers an interesting and elegant UV-motivated origin for an interacting dark sector: DM, DE, and their coupling emerge from the O(3) field-space geometry and explicit symmetry breaking, rather than being introduced independently. The construction is original and the equations of motion are derived consistently. The authors are transparent about several limitations, including the fitting of initial conditions and the absence of a full parameter scan. The main risk is the validity of the envelope approximation in a strongly coupled two-field system; the late-time dynamics and the effective phantom crossing depend on it.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III A (Eqs. (19)-(26), Fig. 2)] The numerical results replace the rapidly oscillating DM field phi by an envelope, using the matching condition m_phi |sin(theta/f_theta)| = alpha H with alpha=100. The cited literature for this threshold treats single-field axions; no test is shown for the present two-field system. In the averaged theta equation (23), the kinetic and potential interaction contributions are comparable in magnitude and opposite in sign, so a small error in phi_amp or omega can produce a large relative error in theta''. Figure 2 shows unresolved rapid features in theta around the transition. Since the late-time theta trajectory controls the DE dynamics and the effective phantom crossing in Figure 5, the central numerical claim is not yet established. The authors should either integrate the exact equations across the matching epoch for a representative case, or provide a controlled estimate of the averaging
[Sec. III A (after Eq. (30))] The paper states that 'the initial conditions used in the numerical evolution are chosen so that the desired present-day DM and DE abundances are reproduced.' The masses m_theta and m_phi and the initial field values are therefore fitted to the abundances. This means the agreement with the observed abundances is by construction, and the phrase 'first-principles realization' overstates what is demonstrated. The paper should soften this claim or, better, include a scan showing that a non-negligible region of parameter space reproduces the abundances without fine-tuning.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 2] The inset shows rapid oscillations in theta before the matching epoch; please state explicitly that these features are not captured by the envelope and explain why the averaged effect is sufficient for the later evolution.
[Sec. III A, Eqs. (27)-(28)] The energy-decomposition choice assigning V_int to DM is central to the effective EoS. It would be helpful to state more explicitly that this decomposition is a convention and to comment on how the effective phantom signal would change under an alternative assignment.
[Sec. III B, Eq. (33)] Define rho_phi,0 and rho_theta in the text around Eq. (33); currently they are inferred from context.
[Appendix A] The appendix varies parameters without refitting abundances, as stated. Clarify that the benchmark in Sec. III B is not the same as the baseline in Appendix A (different xi, m_theta, m_phi), to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Present-day abundances are imposed by hand through the initial conditions, so that part of the central claim is an input-output match; the phantom-like EoS is an emergent, non-fitted result.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. III A (after Eq. (30)) and Sec. III B benchmark setup]
"The initial conditions used in the numerical evolution are chosen so that the desired present-day DM and DE abundances are reproduced. ... initial field values ... are taken to be θi/fθ ≃ π/2 − 0.2 and φi/fθ ≃ 6 × 10^−4 and chosen to reproduce the present-day DM and DE abundances given by [28]."

The two free initial amplitudes θi and φi are explicitly tuned so that the numerical solution ends at the observed Ω_DE and Ω_DM. The later statement that the model reproduces the required present-day abundances is therefore an input-output match for that part of the claim: the abundances are not derived from the symmetry-breaking structure alone, because the free parameters and initial field values are the inputs. The effective phantom crossing is not among the fitted targets, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

Apart from the abundance matching, the derivation chain is self-contained. The O(3) No-Scale Gravity Lagrangian is stated, the Einstein-frame equations (19)–(20) are solved with an envelope approximation, and the α = 100 matching threshold is taken from external single-field axion literature ([29,30]), not from the authors' own work. The effective phantom EoS in Eq. (33) is an emergent consequence of the sin^4(θ/fθ) suppression of the DM energy density, and Appendix A scans parameters without fitting abundances, so the phantom behavior is not forced by the fitted inputs. The main additional caveats are correctness issues rather than circularity: the envelope approximation is not validated against the full coupled two-field system during the strongly interacting transient, and the energy decomposition assigning Vint to the DM component is non-unique. These could shift the quantitative phantom evolution, but they do not make the derivation circular. The only genuine input-output loop is the explicit choice of initial field values to reproduce today's abundances.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-picked masses, initial conditions, and approximation choices. No predicted value is derived from first principles: the masses, the field-space scale, and the initial field values are all chosen to reproduce the observed abundances and late-time behavior. The framework additionally assumes the validity of the self-cited No-Scale Gravity construction and the envelope approximation.

free parameters (7)

mθ (DE mass, from ε1) = 2×10^-1 H0 (baseline); 5×10^-1, 8×10^-1 H0 in Fig. 5; 1.4×10^-1 H0 in Appendix
Sets the DE potential curvature and late-time dynamics; chosen ≲ H0 to allow late-time acceleration. Not predicted by the construction.
mφ (DM mass, from ε2) = 10^13 H0 ≈ 10^-20 eV (baseline); 2×10^13 H0 in Appendix
Ultralight fuzzy-DM scale chosen by hand; controls the oscillation onset and interaction strength. 'This particular scale is not fixed by the construction' (Sec. III B).
ξ (nonminimal coupling) = 10^-3 (baseline); 10^-4 in Appendix
Sets fθ = Mp/√ξ and the field-space scale; a trans-Planckian fθ is required and is assumed to be naturally accommodated by No-Scale Gravity.
θi/fθ (initial DE field value) = π/2 − 0.2 (baseline); π/2 − 0.1 in Appendix
Chosen to reproduce today's DE abundance and to keep the trajectory away from the coordinate singularity, while also seeding the early-time instability.
φi/fθ (initial DM field value) = 6×10^-4 (baseline); 10^-4 in Appendix
Set to match the DM abundance and to control the magnitude of the interaction term.
α (envelope matching threshold) = 100
Matching condition mφ|sin(θ/fθ)| = αH; taken from the ultralight-axion literature, not varied or validated in this coupled system.
λ (Jordan-frame quartic coefficient) = assumed negligible (≈0)
The induced cosmological constant is assumed to be negligible compared with the dynamical DE; this is a choice, not a prediction.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption No-Scale Gravity is a consistent quantum scale-invariant theory with an illusional Planck scale.
Invoked throughout Sec. II; relies on the scale-invariant renormalization scheme of refs. [18-22] and prior work [10].
domain assumption The Weyl transformation to the Einstein frame produces a massless dilaton and flat angular directions for the O(3) vector.
Used to identify θ and φ as light scalar fields with canonical kinetic terms; Sec. II A.
ad hoc to paper The O(3) breaking pattern and the inverse hierarchy ε1 ≪ ε2 are the relevant ones for an interacting dark sector.
The sequential hierarchy is set aside; the inverse hierarchy is chosen a priori to make the interaction relevant (Sec. II C).
domain assumption The dark-sector fields are homogeneous on an FLRW background; perturbations are neglected.
All equations in Sec. III assume θ=θ(t), φ=φ(t); no perturbation analysis is performed, and the conclusion states this is the next step.
ad hoc to paper The envelope approximation for the fast-oscillating DM field is valid, with matching condition mφ|sin(θ/fθ)| = αH, α=100.
Time averaging over φ oscillations is used to derive Eqs. (23)-(26); the matching threshold is taken from refs. [29,30] and not verified for the coupled system.
ad hoc to paper The energy decomposition assigns all interaction energy V_int to the DM component.
Eqs. (15)-(18) and the discussion that 'the assignment of the interaction energy between them is not unique'; the effective phantom EoS depends on this choice.
domain assumption The coordinate chart used (θ near π/2, sinθ ≠ 0) covers the entire relevant field evolution; the singularity is never reached.
Stated in Sec. II C and III A; the initial conditions are chosen to avoid the chart boundary.

invented entities (3)

θ scalar field (DE candidate)
purpose: The lighter angular field that remains frozen and then rolls at late times to drive accelerated expansion.
Its mass mθ is a free parameter; no unique observational handle is derived beyond the generic dynamical-DE behavior.
φ scalar field (DM candidate)
purpose: The heavier angular field that oscillates and behaves as ultralight (fuzzy) dark matter.
The mass mφ is chosen, not predicted; the field is a scalar with oscillations, but the model does not predict the coupling to ordinary matter or a specific mass.
Interaction term V_int = sin⁴(θ/fθ) V_φ between DM and DE
purpose: Connects the two dark sectors, producing energy transfer and the effective phantom crossing.
The interaction strength is controlled by the free masses and initial conditions; no independent experimental signature is specified in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interacting Dark Energy and Dark Matter in O(3) No-Scale Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S5H4E2OB

@misc{pith2026260720320,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interacting Dark Energy and Dark Matter in O(3) No-Scale Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S5H4E2OB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20320}
}

abstract

Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Matter (DM) are among the greatest mysteries in particle physics and cosmology, since their origins remain unclear. It is intriguing to consider whether both may originate from a purely gravitational sector. We propose that they arise from degrees of freedom associated with the partners of the Brans-Dicke boson in No-Scale Gravity, a fundamental scale-invariant gravitational theory in which the Planck scale is illusional. We consider the Brans-Dicke boson, together with two scalar fields, to form a vector multiplet under an $O(3)$ symmetry, whose angular directions in the Einstein frame are identified with DM and DE. Small explicit breaking of $O(3)$ generates their masses and interaction, and we show that the resulting model reproduces the required background cosmological evolution and present-day abundances, with the lighter field providing a dynamical DE component at late times. Although the DE field remains canonical, the interacting cosmology exhibits an effective phantom-like evolution at late times, of the type suggested by DESI in combination with other cosmological probes, without introducing a fundamental phantom degree of freedom. The model provides a first-principles realization of interacting DE, in which DM, DE, and their coupling emerge from the symmetry structure of the underlying gravitational theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20320 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. On the left panel, the field value evolution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. On the left panel, the energy densities as functions of the redshift are plotted, and on the right panel, the abundances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. On the left panel, the EoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The EoS and the effective EoS for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references

[1]

The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013

Michael Levi et al. The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013. 8 2013

2013
[2]

The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

Amir Aghamousa et al. The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design. 10 2016

2016
[3]

The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design

Amir Aghamousa et al. The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design. 10 2016

2016
[4]

Abdul Karim et al

M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest. 3 2025

2025
[5]

Abdul Karim et al

M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. 3 2025. 14

2025
[6]

Sabogal, Rafael C

William Giarè, Miguel A. Sabogal, Rafael C. Nunes, and Eleonora Di Valentino. Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133(25):251003, 2024

2024
[7]

King, and Xin Wang

Stefan Antusch, Stephen F. King, and Xin Wang. Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide. 4 2026

2026
[8]

Guedezounme, Bikash R

Sêcloka L. Guedezounme, Bikash R. Dinda, and Roy Maartens. Phantom crossing or dark interaction?JCAP, 01:062, 2026

2026

Show all 32 references

[9]

Super-acceleration as signature of dark sector interaction.Phys

Subinoy Das, Pier Stefano Corasaniti, and Justin Khoury. Super-acceleration as signature of dark sector interaction.Phys. Rev. D, 73:083509, 2006

2006
[10]

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo

is a theory without any dimensionful parameters, and the Planck scale is not fundamental but illusional. Due to the absence of any dimensionful parameters, including the cutoff scale at the quantum level, the theory is completely scale invariant [11]. After the Weyl transforma...

2025
[11]

Yanagida

Muzi Hong, Kyohei Mukaida, and Tsutomu T. Yanagida. No-scale Brans-Dicke Gravity – ultralight scalar boson & heavy inflaton.JCAP, 10:032, 2025

2025
[12]

Wetterich

C. Wetterich. Quantum scale symmetry. 1 2019

2019
[13]

Brans and R

C. Brans and R. H. Dicke. Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation.Phys. Rev., 124:925–935, 1961

1961
[14]

Clifford M. Will. The Confrontation between general relativity and experiment.Living Rev. Rel., 9:3, 2006

2006
[15]

Yanagida

Muzi Hong, Kyohei Mukaida, and Tsutomu T. Yanagida. Dynamical dark energy in the no-scale Brans–Dicke gravity. Phys. Lett. B, 870:139932, 2025

2025
[16]

Yanagida

Weikang Lin, Luca Visinelli, and Tsutomu T. Yanagida. Testing quintessence axion dark energy with recent cosmological results.JCAP, 10:023, 2025

2025
[17]

Ferreira, Christopher T

Pedro G. Ferreira, Christopher T. Hill, and Graham G. Ross. No fifth force in a scale invariant universe.Phys. Rev. D, 95(6):064038, 2017

2017
[18]

Copeland, Peter Millington, and Michael Spannowsky

Clare Burrage, Edmund J. Copeland, Peter Millington, and Michael Spannowsky. Fifth forces, Higgs portals and broken scale invariance.JCAP, 11:036, 2018

2018
[19]

Englert, C

F. Englert, C. Truffin, and R. Gastmans. Conformal Invariance in Quantum Gravity.Nucl. Phys. B, 117:407–432, 1976

1976
[20]

Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy problem

Mikhail Shaposhnikov and Daniel Zenhausern. Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy problem. Phys. Lett. B, 671:162–166, 2009

2009
[21]

Spontaneously Broken Conformal Symmetry: Dealing with the Trace Anomaly.JHEP, 10:030, 2013

Roberta Armillis, Alexander Monin, and Mikhail Shaposhnikov. Spontaneously Broken Conformal Symmetry: Dealing with the Trace Anomaly.JHEP, 10:030, 2013

2013
[22]

Meaning of the field dependence of the renormalization scale in Higgs inflation.Phys

Yuta Hamada, Hikaru Kawai, Yukari Nakanishi, and Kin-ya Oda. Meaning of the field dependence of the renormalization scale in Higgs inflation.Phys. Rev. D, 95(10):103524, 2017

2017
[23]

Frame (In)equivalence in Quantum Field Theory and Cosmology.Eur

Kevin Falls and Mario Herrero-Valea. Frame (In)equivalence in Quantum Field Theory and Cosmology.Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(7):595, 2019

2019
[24]

David J. E. Marsh. Axion Cosmology.Phys. Rept., 643:1–79, 2016

2016
[25]

Elisa G. M. Ferreira. Ultra-light dark matter.Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 29(1):7, 2021

2021
[26]

Wave Dark Matter.Ann

Lam Hui. Wave Dark Matter.Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 59:247–289, 2021

2021
[27]

Andrew Eberhardt and Elisa G. M. Ferreira. Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review. 7 2025

2025
[28]

Yanagida

Masahiro Kawasaki and Tsutomu T. Yanagida. Hill-top inflation from Dai-Freed anomaly in the standard model — a solution to the iso-curvature problem of the axion dark matter.JCAP, 01:014, 2024

2024
[29]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

2018
[30]

Renée Hlozek, Daniel Grin, David J. E. Marsh, and Pedro G. Ferreira. A search for ultralight axions using precision cosmological data.Phys. Rev. D, 91(10):103512, 2015

2015
[31]

Smith, Daniel Grin, Tanvi Karwal, and Marc Kamionkowski

Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, Daniel Grin, Tanvi Karwal, and Marc Kamionkowski. Cosmological implications of ultralight axionlike fields.Phys. Rev. D, 98(8):083525, 2018

2018
[32]

Scherrer

Sourish Dutta and Robert J. Scherrer. Big Bang nucleosynthesis with a stiff fluid.Phys. Rev. D, 82:083501, 2010. 15 Appendix A: Parameter sensitivity To illustrate the robustness of the cosmological evolution and the role of each model parameter, we present the field evolution...

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013

Michael Levi et al. The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013. 8 2013

2013

[2] [2]

The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

Amir Aghamousa et al. The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design. 10 2016

2016

[3] [3]

The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design

Amir Aghamousa et al. The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design. 10 2016

2016

[4] [4]

Abdul Karim et al

M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest. 3 2025

2025

[5] [5]

Abdul Karim et al

M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. 3 2025. 14

2025

[6] [6]

Sabogal, Rafael C

William Giarè, Miguel A. Sabogal, Rafael C. Nunes, and Eleonora Di Valentino. Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133(25):251003, 2024

2024

[7] [7]

King, and Xin Wang

Stefan Antusch, Stephen F. King, and Xin Wang. Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide. 4 2026

2026

[8] [8]

Guedezounme, Bikash R

Sêcloka L. Guedezounme, Bikash R. Dinda, and Roy Maartens. Phantom crossing or dark interaction?JCAP, 01:062, 2026

2026