Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 149 references

A kinetically braided scalar field with momentum exchange between dark energy and cold dark matter can cross the phantom divide upward while making the effective gravitational coupling for CDM weaker than Newton's constant, without ghosts o

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 15:36 UTC pith:QC5TUZL4

load-bearing objection A careful, transparent model-building paper that delivers a stable phantom crossing plus G_c<G, but its large-scale CMB and P(k) signatures are conditional on the delta-phi=0 initial condition and need a scan before being treated as predictions. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26447 v1 pith:QC5TUZL4 submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Phantom-divide crossing and suppressed structure growth in kinetically braided dark energy with momentum exchange

Masroor C. Pookkillath , Shinji Tsujikawa This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords phantom dividedark energykinetic braidingmomentum transfereffective gravitational couplingmatter power spectrumCMB temperature anisotropiesHorndeski theories
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper constructs a single scalar-field dark-energy model that does two things standard stable models cannot do together: it crosses the phantom divide upward at low redshift, from w_DE below -1 to above -1, and it makes cold dark matter cluster more weakly than in general relativity, G_c < G, while baryonic clustering is enhanced. The design adds an exponential potential to a cubic-Galileon kinetic-braiding action and then couples the scalar to CDM through a pure momentum-exchange term that changes only the perturbation equations, not the background dilution of matter. The authors prove the model is free of ghosts and Laplacian instabilities along the trajectories, compute the effective gravitational couplings in the quasi-static limit, and evolve the full linear perturbations with a modified Boltzmann solver. The representative stable solutions show suppressed small-scale matter power and f_sigma8, an enhanced matter power at the largest scales, and an 8-10 percent reduction of CMB temperature power over multipoles 2 to 30. If the construction holds up under a full likelihood analysis, it offers one mechanism that speaks to both the observed preference for evolving dark energy and the persistently low measured clustering amplitude.

Core claim

Starting from the luminal Horndeski action with G2 = a1 X + a2 X^2 - V(phi), G3 = 3 a3 X box phi, and a constant Planck mass, plus the covariant interaction beta Z^2 with Z = u_c^mu grad_mu phi, the paper shows that the background evolves from w_DE ~ 1/6 in the radiation era to a stable phantom phase with w_DE < -1 at intermediate redshifts, then returns to w_DE > -1 at z_c ~ 0.36-0.66 as the exponential potential grows. The same interaction that leaves the CDM background untouched introduces a velocity inertia q_c > 1, which in the quasi-static regime drives the effective CDM gravitational coupling below G despite the braiding enhancement of the baryonic coupling. Around radiation-matter eq

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the momentum-exchange interaction L_int = beta Z^2, Z = u_c^mu grad_mu phi: at background level it only shifts a1 to A = a1 + 2 beta, but in the perturbation sector it introduces q_c = 1 + 4 beta x1^2 / Omega_c, an effective inertia for CDM velocity perturbations that suppresses G_c/G. The exponential potential V = V0 e^{-lambda phi/M_Pl} breaks shift symmetry; the sign of w_DE + 1 is controlled by C = C0 + B x4, so the potential's growth at low redshift causes the upward phantom-divide crossing even though x4 vanishes on the asymptotic de Sitter branch. The cubic Galileon supplies kinetic braiding alpha_B = -x3/2, which enhances the baryonic coupling G_b/G and pro

Load-bearing premise

The large-scale matter-power enhancement and low-ell CMB suppression assume vanishing scalar-field perturbation and its time derivative at the initial epoch; if a nonadiabatic scalar mode is present initially, those signatures can change sign or amplitude.

What would settle it

Recompute the linear spectra with adiabatic initial conditions replaced by nonzero delta_phi (or delta_phi') at early times; if the low-k P(k) enhancement and the 2 <= ell <= 30 CMB suppression are not recovered, the transient-braiding signatures are conditional on the chosen initial data. Observationally, measure P(k) near k = 10^-4 h/Mpc and C_TT_ell for ell = 2-30: the model predicts roughly 24-35 percent power enhancement at the lowest k and 8-10 percent suppression of large-angle CMB power.

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

If this is right

  • Upward phantom-divide crossings at z_c ~ 0.36-0.66 are realized in stable, ghost-free trajectories, matching the low-redshift behavior favored by current baryon-acoustic-oscillation data.
  • The effective CDM gravitational coupling drops below Newton's constant at low redshift while baryons experience enhanced coupling, implying lower f_sigma8 and suppressed small-scale matter power, with suppression growing with the momentum-exchange strength beta.
  • A transient braiding peak near radiation-matter equality enhances matter power at the lowest wavenumbers (about 1.2-1.4 times Lambda-CDM) and suppresses CMB temperature power over 2 <= ell <= 30 by roughly 8-10 percent.
  • The acoustic scale shifts by -0.23 percent to +0.17 percent and the first CMB peak moves to slightly lower multipoles with a modest height reduction.
  • The model provides a concrete theoretical basis for a joint likelihood analysis combining background, growth, and CMB data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The large-scale signatures are computed with the scalar-field perturbation set to zero initially (Eq. 5.10); a rerun with nonzero delta_phi or delta_phi' initial conditions, not done in the paper, would show whether the low-k enhancement and low-ell suppression are robust or artifacts of that choice.
  • Inference: The predicted scale break in the linear matter power — a rise toward k ~ 10^-4 h/Mpc and a fall below Lambda-CDM for k >~ 0.1 h/Mpc — is a distinctive fingerprint; a wide-band P(k) measurement at those scales could confirm or rule out this specific mechanism.
  • Inference: If the representative couplings are close to the best-fit values, the same momentum exchange that suppresses structure growth also lowers C_ell at ell <= 30, suggesting a single physical origin for both the low clustering amplitude and the large-angle CMB deficit; the paper itself stops short of claiming a fit.
  • Inference: The paper leaves the ISW-galaxy cross-correlation open; the late-time metric evolution induced by braiding plus momentum transfer could change its sign relative to earlier Galileon models, which is testable with current galaxy and CMB lensing surveys.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a Horndeski-type scalar-tensor dark-energy model combining a cubic Galileon with an exponential potential and a pure momentum-transfer interaction βZ^2 between the dark-energy scalar and CDM. It derives the background autonomous system, the no-ghost and Laplacian-stability conditions, and the complete Newtonian-gauge linear perturbation equations. In the quasi-static limit, it obtains effective gravitational couplings G_c and G_b, and shows that with suitable parameter choices G_c can fall below Newton's constant while G_b remains enhanced. A modified CLASS calculation is used to compute the matter and CMB temperature power spectra for three representative stable solutions. The paper claims that the model realizes an upward phantom-divide crossing at low redshift together with suppressed CDM clustering, and that transient braiding near matter-radiation equality produces a low-k matter-power enhancement and a reduction of large-angle CMB power.

Significance. If correct, the model would be a useful existence proof: it is the first construction in this class that combines a stable phantom-divide crossing with a weakened effective CDM gravitational coupling. The derivation is careful, with explicit stability conditions, analytic approximations checked against numerical integration, and full Boltzmann evolution including the scalar-field perturbation. The paper is also honest about the representative nature of the parameter sets and the fact that the large-scale response is not a universal asymptotic power law. However, the advertised large-scale signatures are not yet shown to be robust: they rest on a special choice of initial conditions for δφ and on three hand-picked parameter sets, and the modified CLASS code is not released. The parameter choices are tuned to the desired phenomenology, so the paper should be read as an existence proof rather than a predictive fit. For these reasons the central claim is defensible, but the large-scale phenomenological statements need further support before the paper can be accepted as is.

major comments (2)
  1. [V B, Eq. (5.10)] The calculation initializes δφ_i=0 and (δφ,N)_i=0. This is a special isocurvature condition, not the adiabatic growing mode of the coupled CDM-scalar system. The source decomposition in Eq. (5.20) and the Euler solution in Eqs. (5.23)–(5.24) depend explicitly on π and π′, so different initial δφ can change the sign and amplitude of the peak-induced responses of Φ, δ_c, and V_c shown in Figs. 9–10. The low-k P(k) enhancement and low-ℓ CMB suppression in Figs. 11–14 are therefore conditional on this choice; no scan or adiabatic-mode derivation is provided. This is load-bearing for the abstract's 'signatures include' claim, although it does not undermine the background/G_c existence result.
  2. [III E, Eq. (3.57) and Sec. VI] Only three hand-picked parameter sets are shown, and the code used to produce the CLASS spectra is not released. The paper correctly calls these 'representative solutions', and no likelihood analysis is claimed, so this is not fatal. But the generality of the claimed signatures—especially the low-k enhancement and the low-ℓ CMB suppression—is not established. A stability/parameter scan, or release of the modified CLASS implementation, would let the reader separate the model mechanism from numerical artifacts and would make the existence claim reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] The paper contains no code/data availability statement. Please provide the modified CLASS implementation or at least a detailed description of the numerical setup, so that the spectra in Figs. 11–14 can be reproduced.
  2. [Eq. (3.57)] The parameter values are given to seven decimal places but there is no explanation of how they were found or how much fine-tuning is required. A short description of the search procedure, or a region of viable β and λ, would be helpful.
  3. [Fig. 6] In case (iii), G_c/G approaches zero at the present epoch. Please discuss whether the quasi-static approximation remains reliable in this regime and whether such a small effective CDM coupling is physically sensible in the context of the full perturbation equations.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. III A] The phrase 'linearly stable' is used in the abstract; in the body it specifically means no-ghost and Laplacian stability for the scalar and CDM sectors on the given backgrounds. Please qualify this in the abstract to avoid overclaiming.
  5. [Notation] Some notation is dense and could be streamlined, e.g., the relation between α_m2 and β_K in Eq. (4.5), and the use of both h=Hdot/H^2 and h_100. A table of symbols would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained; the phantom crossing and G_c<G are demonstrated model realizations, not fitted predictions, and the initial-condition caveat affects robustness rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central chain — action (2.1) → background autonomous system (Sec. II) → stability conditions (Sec. III) → Newtonian-gauge perturbation equations (Sec. IV) → quasi-static couplings G_c, G_b (Eqs. 4.28–4.29) → CLASS matter and CMB spectra (Sec. VI) — is derived from the stated action rather than from quantities that are put back in as inputs. The representative parameter sets in Eq. (3.57) are explicitly described as 'chosen to demonstrate viable cosmological evolution rather than obtained from a fit to observational data' (Sec. VII), so the phantom-divide crossing and G_c<G are model realizations, not fitted values renamed as predictions. Self-citations to Refs. [72] and [131] supply the base model and general stability framework, but the paper re-derives the tracker and crossing conditions and specializes the general perturbation equations to this model; no author-uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives. The only notable caveat is the explicit initial condition δφ_i = 0, (δφ,N)_i = 0 in Eq. (5.10), on which the low-k matter-power enhancement and low-ℓ CMB suppression depend. This is a robustness limitation — no scan of scalar isocurvature modes is provided — but it is not circular: the spectra are computed from the full coupled equations rather than being identical to the initial condition by construction, and the paper presents them as features of the representative solutions rather than as parameter-free predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central demonstration rests on an imported perturbation formalism, a hand-selected branch of parameter space (A<0, x_2>0, x_3>0, x_4>0), and a choice of scalar-field initial conditions. The exponential potential and beta Z^2 interaction are invented mechanisms, not derived from data or a more fundamental theory. No free parameter is fit to real observations, but several are selected specifically to produce the desired phantom-divide crossing and weak CDM clustering.

free parameters (4)
  • beta = 1.1077541e-2, 1.9617328e-2, 3.6001860e-2
    Momentum-transfer coupling; chosen positive to ensure q_c>1 and to realize G_c<G at z=0. It is not fitted to observational data; the three values are selected to exhibit different suppression strengths.
  • lambda = 0.9148, 1.1140892, 0.8149903
    Exponential-potential slope; chosen together with beta and initial conditions to satisfy lambda x_1>0, maintain stability, and produce the desired crossing redshift for the phantom divide.
  • a1 = -1
    Kinetic coefficient fixed by hand. Together with beta>0 it gives A=a1+2beta<0, required for the x_3>0 Galileon tracker branch.
  • Initial conditions x1,0, x2,0, x3,0 (and implied x4,0) = (i) 0.708068, 0.328828, 0.654177, 0.187158; (ii) 0.720630, 0.324659, 0.694523, 0.159660; (iii) 0.778347, 0.377507, 0.711
    Present-day values of the dimensionless variables, chosen to satisfy Omega_c0=0.27, Omega_b0=0.05, Omega_r0=9e-5 and to land on the stable branch x_2>0, x_3>0, x_4>0, A<0. These encode the otherwise unspecified model parameters a2, a3, V0, and initial phi-dot/H.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The covariant momentum-transfer interaction f2(Z)=beta Z^2 is correctly described by the fluid formulation imported from Ref. [131], including the CDM no-ghost coefficient q_c and Euler equation.
    Used for Eqs. (2.1)-(2.4), (4.16), and the stability conditions in Sec. III A. The paper specializes prior results rather than re-deriving the coupling from a microscopic fluid action.
  • domain assumption The reduced Horndeski form with G_4=M_Pl^2/2 and c_T=c is the viable theory space after GW170817.
    Invoked in the Introduction via Refs. [65-71]; restricts the action to Eq. (1.1), from which the model starts.
  • domain assumption Linear no-ghost (q_s>0, q_c>0) and Laplacian-stability (c_s^2>0) conditions are sufficient to declare the background physically stable.
    Sec. III A; the paper checks these conditions but does not address nonlinear stability, strong-coupling limits, or quantum corrections.
  • domain assumption The quasi-static approximation retains only leading spatial gradients and neglects the oscillating scalar mode and radiation perturbations.
    Sec. IV B, before Eqs. (4.19)-(4.23); it is valid only for modes deep inside the scalar sound horizon. The paper itself uses the full CLASS system for large scales, confirming that quasi-static results do not apply globally.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar-field perturbation is initialized with delta_phi_i=0 and (delta_phi,N)_i=0 at the deep-radiation epoch.
    Eq. (5.10) in Sec. V B. This choice is needed to identify the regular adiabatic growing mode and strongly affects the transient-braiding signatures in Figs. 9-14.
  • ad hoc to paper The exponential potential V=V0 exp(-lambda phi/M_Pl) is chosen to break shift symmetry and drive the upward crossing.
    Eq. (2.5). No symmetry or ultraviolet completion is given; the potential's role is phenomenological.
  • domain assumption The fixed fiducial cosmology (Omega_c0=0.27, Omega_b0=0.05, Omega_r0=9e-5, h_100=0.67810, A_s=2.1e-9, n_s=0.9649, tau_reio=0.0544) is held fixed while model parameters vary.
    Sec. VI; the comparison to LCDM is made at fixed standard parameters, which is appropriate for an illustrative study but not a global fit.
invented entities (1)
  • beta Z^2 scalar-CDM momentum-transfer interaction no independent evidence
    purpose: Adds velocity-dependent inertia to CDM, raises q_c, and drives the effective CDM gravitational coupling below Newton's constant without changing background energy exchange.
    The interaction is introduced as a model term with coupling constant beta chosen by hand. It has no independent observational anchor or UV motivation; the cosmological spectra predicted here are internal outputs of the same construction, not external confirmations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 41665 in / 15302 out tokens · 145570 ms · 2026-08-01T15:36:07.767036+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We construct a linearly stable scalar-field model that realizes both an upward crossing of the dark-energy equation of state, from $w_{\rm DE}<-1$ to $w_{\rm DE}>-1$, and weakened gravitational clustering in the cold dark matter (CDM) sector. An exponential potential breaks shift symmetry and drives the background from a stable phantom phase toward the nonphantom regime, while a pure momentum-transfer interaction increases the dynamical inertia of CDM without altering its background dilution law. We derive the background and linear perturbation equations and establish the no-ghost and Laplacian-stability conditions. For perturbations deep inside the Hubble radius, where the quasi-static approximation applies, the effective gravitational coupling for CDM can fall below Newton's constant, suppressing late-time growth and small-scale matter power, while the baryonic coupling remains enhanced by Galileon braiding. A modified CLASS calculation, including the scalar-field perturbation and the full Boltzmann hierarchies, reveals signatures of transient braiding around radiation--matter equality. For the representative stable solutions studied here, these signatures include an enhancement of matter power toward the lowest wavenumbers probed numerically and a reduction of CMB temperature power over the multipole range $2\leq\ell\leq30$. We also find small shifts in the acoustic scale and the position of the first temperature peak. These results motivate a full likelihood analysis of the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26447 by Masroor C. Pookkillath, Shinji Tsujikawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: , over the range 0 ≤ log10(z + 1) ≤ 5. The zeros of C determine where wDE crosses the phantom divide. For the so￾lution shown here, the low-redshift upward crossing occurs at zc ≃ 0.5347, while the earlier crossing takes place at a higher redshift. The figure shows that the transition is controlled by the full combination C rather than by the sign of B alone. full combination C = C0 + Bx4 determines on whi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution of the background variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Evolution of the scalar-field no-ghost coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Evolution of the squared scalar propagation speed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Evolution of the gravitational potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Evolution of the redshift-space-distortion growth ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Full numerical CLASS evolution of the normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Full numerical CLASS evolution of the normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: shows the matter power spectra computed with CLASS over the wide wavenumber range 10−4 ≲ k/(h100 Mpc−1 ) ≲ 10. The enhancement toward the low￾k edge is the finite-wavelength response parametrized in Eq. (5.35). Its scale dependence is determined by T∆(k, Np) through the full CLASS evolution and should not be interpreted as a universal asymptotic power law. For modes with k ≳ apHp, which are close to or in… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Ratio of the CLASS linear matter power spectra for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. CMB temperature power spectra computed with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.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

149 extracted references · 123 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project),As- trophys

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project),As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    D. N. Spergelet al.(WMAP),Astrophys. J. Suppl.148, 175 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    D. J. Eisensteinet al.(SDSS),Astrophys. J.633, 560 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501171

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck),Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Silvestri and M

    A. Silvestri and M. Trodden,Rept. Prog. Phys.72, 096901 (2009), arXiv:0904.0024 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,Living Rev. Rel.13, 3 (2010), arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Clifton, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Tsujikawa,Class

    S. Tsujikawa,Class. Quant. Grav.30, 214003 (2013), arXiv:1304.1961 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    Joyce, B

    A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden,Phys. Rept.568, 1 (2015), arXiv:1407.0059 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Koyama,Rept

    K. Koyama,Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 046902 (2016), arXiv:1504.04623 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Amendolaet al.,Living Rev

    L. Amendolaet al.,Living Rev. Rel.21, 2 (2018), arXiv:1606.00180 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28, 1942005 (2019), arXiv:1809.08735 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    P. J. E. Peebles,Astrophys. J. Lett.263, L1 (1982)

    1982

  16. [16]

    P. J. E. Peebles,Astrophys. J.284, 439 (1984)

    1984

  17. [17]

    M. S. Turner, G. Steigman, and L. M. Krauss,Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 2090 (1984)

    2090

  18. [18]

    Efstathiou, W

    G. Efstathiou, W. J. Sutherland, and S. J. Maddox, Nature348, 705 (1990)

    1990

  19. [19]

    J. P. Ostriker and P. J. Steinhardt,Nature377, 600 (1995)

    1995

  20. [20]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  21. [21]

    E. V. Linder,Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  22. [22]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI),JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Calderonet al.(DESI),JCAP10, 048 (2024), arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Calderonet al.(DESI),JCAP10, 048 (2024), arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro- ph.CO]

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Hildebrandtet al.(KiDS),Mon

    H. Hildebrandtet al.(KiDS),Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.465, 1454 (2017), arXiv:1606.05338 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES),Phys. Rev. D98, 043526 (2018), arXiv:1708.01530 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Asgariet al.,Astron

    M. Asgariet al.,Astron. Astrophys.645, A104 (2021), arXiv:2007.15633 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Heymanset al.,Astron

    C. Heymanset al.,Astron. Astrophys.646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES),Phys. Rev. D105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Liet al.,Phys

    X. Liet al.,Phys. Rev. D108, 123518 (2023), arXiv:2304.00702 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Fujii,Phys

    Y. Fujii,Phys. Rev. D26, 2580 (1982)

    1982

  33. [33]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles,Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  34. [34]

    Wetterich,Nucl

    C. Wetterich,Nucl. Phys. B302, 668 (1988), arXiv:1711.03844 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1988

  35. [35]

    Chiba, N

    T. Chiba, N. Sugiyama, and T. Nakamura,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.289, L5 (1997), arXiv:astro- ph/9704199

    arXiv 1997

  36. [36]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce,Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 4740 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9707286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  37. [37]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  38. [38]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, and D. Wands,Phys. Rev. D57, 4686 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9711068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  39. [39]

    Armendariz-Picon, T

    C. Armendariz-Picon, T. Damour, and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B458, 209 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9904075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  40. [40]

    Chiba, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  41. [41]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov, and P. J. Stein- hardt,Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4438 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/0004134

    arXiv 2000

  42. [42]

    Shlivko, P

    D. Shlivko, P. J. Steinhardt, and C. L. Steinhardt, arXiv:2504.02028 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Akrami, G

    Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, and S. Nesseris, arXiv:2504.04226 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Bayat and M

    Z. Bayat and M. P. Hertzberg,JCAP08, 065 (2025), arXiv:2505.18937 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    J. M. Cline and V. Muralidharan,Phys. Rev. D112, 063539 (2025), arXiv:2506.13047 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae,Phys. Rev. D112, 063551 (2025), arXiv:2506.21542 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Alestas, M

    G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, I. Ocampo, S. Nesseris, and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. D114, 023532 (2026), arXiv:2510.21627 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Shlivko, arXiv:2512.20832 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Shlivko, arXiv:2512.20832 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    R. R. Caldwell,Phys. Lett. B545, 23 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/9908168

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  50. [50]

    R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, and N. N. Wein- berg,Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 071301 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0302506

    arXiv 2003

  51. [51]

    Singh, M

    P. Singh, M. Sami, and N. Dadhich,Phys. Rev. D68, 023522 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0305110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  52. [52]

    S. M. Carroll, M. Hoffman, and M. Trodden,Phys. Rev. D68, 023509 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301273

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  53. [53]

    J. M. Cline, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore,Phys. Rev. D 70, 043543 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311312

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  54. [54]

    Feng, X.-L

    B. Feng, X.-L. Wang, and X.-M. Zhang,Phys. Lett. B 607, 35 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0404224

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  55. [55]

    Guo, Y.-S

    Z.-K. Guo, Y.-S. Piao, X.-M. Zhang, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B608, 177 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410654

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  56. [56]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, and E. Trincherini,Phys. Rev. D79, 064036 (2009), arXiv:0811.2197 [hep-th]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  57. [57]

    Deffayet, G

    C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese, and A. Vikman,Phys. Rev. D79, 084003 (2009), arXiv:0901.1314 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  58. [58]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 111301 (2010), arXiv:1007.2700 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  59. [59]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. D84, 124029 (2011), arXiv:1008.4236 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  60. [60]

    Nesseris, A

    S. Nesseris, A. De Felice, and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. D82, 124054 (2010), arXiv:1010.0407 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [61]

    G. W. Horndeski,Int. J. Theor. Phys.10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  62. [62]

    Deffayet, X

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D84, 064039 (2011), arXiv:1103.3260 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  63. [63]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, and J. Yokoyama,Prog. Theor. Phys.126, 511 (2011), arXiv:1105.5723 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  64. [64]

    Charmousis, E

    C. Charmousis, E. J. Copeland, A. Padilla, and P. M. Saffin,Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 051101 (2012), arXiv:1106.2000 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo),Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi- GBM, INTEGRAL),Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    Goldsteinet al.,Astrophys

    A. Goldsteinet al.,Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L14 (2017), arXiv:1710.05446 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Creminelli and F

    P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi,Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 251302 (2017), arXiv:1710.05877 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalac´ arregui,Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 251304 (2017), arXiv:1710.05901 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [70]

    Sakstein and B

    J. Sakstein and B. Jain,Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 251303 (2017), arXiv:1710.05893 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  71. [71]

    Baker, E

    T. Baker, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller, and I. Sawicki,Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 251301 (2017), arXiv:1710.06394 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  72. [72]

    Tsujikawa,Phys

    S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. D113, L041301 (2026), arXiv:2508.17231 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    Peirone, G

    S. Peirone, G. Benevento, N. Frusciante, and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. D100, 063540 (2019), arXiv:1905.05166 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    Amendola, R

    L. Amendola, R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, and S. Tsu- jikawa,Phys. Rev. D75, 083504 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0612180

    arXiv 2007

  75. [75]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki,Phys. Rev. D76, 064004 (2007), arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  76. [76]

    A. A. Starobinsky,JETP Lett.86, 157 (2007), arXiv:0706.2041 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  77. [77]

    S. A. Appleby and R. A. Battye,Phys. Lett. B654, 7 (2007), arXiv:0705.3199 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  78. [78]

    Tsujikawa,Phys

    S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. D77, 023507 (2008), arXiv:0709.1391 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  79. [79]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Lett. B660, 125 (2008), arXiv:0705.0396 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  80. [80]

    Motohashi, A

    H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys.123, 887 (2010), arXiv:1002.1141 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

Showing first 80 references.