Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Extended Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy: Ghost Condensate Dark Energy with Sextic Dispersion Relation in de Sitter Spacetime

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A sextic ghost condensate dark energy model predicts that the gravitational potential around matter is corrected by terms sourced by the matter density itself, and that gravitational wave speed becomes frequency dependent.

desk verdict The GW speed calculation is clean, but the density-dependent Newtonian potential does not follow from the equations as written; the scalar sector needs a proper sourced derivation before the central claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02401 v2 pith:B3SMYLOX submitted 2025-02-04 hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph

A. Ashoorioon , M. B. Jahani Poshteh , A. Yousefi-Sostani This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thastro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph PACS 95.36.+x04.30.-w98.80.-k
keywords ghostcondensatedarkenergysexticdispersionrelationNewtonianpotentialgravitationalwavespeeddeSitterspacetimeunitarygaugeeffectivefieldtheory
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 argues that a ghost condensate dark energy whose fluctuations obey a sixth-order dispersion relation leaves a distinctive fingerprint on gravity, and asks what observations would see. Working in de Sitter spacetime and the unitary gauge, it derives the equation of motion for the Newtonian potential and shows that, unlike the quartic ghost condensate, the correction to the potential is sourced by the space and time variation of the matter density itself. It concludes that at late times the potential develops damped oscillations at the distance scale $M_{\rm Pl}/M^2$ and the time scale $M^4/M_{\rm Pl}^3$, before relaxing to the usual $1/r$ behavior at large distances. It also finds that the speed of gravitational waves becomes frequency dependent, $c_T^2=(1-4\sigma_1 k^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2)^{-1}$, with substantial deviations only near $k\sim M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{|\sigma_1|}$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the unitary-gauge action for the sextic ghost condensate, Eq. (2.1), with extrinsic-curvature derivative operators $\sigma_i$; the term $\sigma_1\gamma^{ij}\nabla_i K_{lr}\nabla_j K^{lr}$ is the one that generates the sixth-order dispersion relation $\omega^2=(S_1/M^4)(k^6-\mu^2 k^4)$ in the Newtonian limit and, via the Einstein equations, the sixth-order radial equation for $\Phi_{\rm GC}$ whose source depends on $\rho$ and its derivatives. The same operator controls the tensor-perturbation kinetic term $-\frac{\sigma_1}{2}\int dt\,d^3x\,a^3 a^{-2}(\partial_k\dot H_{ij})^2$, producing the momentum-dependent gravitational wave speed. The combination of these operators with the Einstein-Hilbert action is what converts the ghost condensate into a modified-gravity theory with the claimed observable signatures.

What would settle it

Measure the gravitational potential around a dense spherical source at the distance scale $M_{\rm Pl}/M^2$ and look for the damped oscillations predicted by Eq. (2.27); their absence, or a potential that strictly follows the Newtonian $1/r$ profile with no density-sourced correction, would falsify the sextic ghost condensate prediction. A broadband gravitational-wave observation yielding a frequency-independent $c_T$ at momenta where $|\sigma_1|k^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2$ is of order one would also rule out the predicted frequency dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the sextic ghost condensate, whose action adds the operator $\gamma^{ij}\nabla_i K_{lr}\nabla_j K^{lr}$ with coefficient $\sigma_1$ to the unitary-gauge action, is a viable dark energy model that modifies gravity in a way qualitatively different from the well-studied quartic ghost condensate. The authors obtain the full equation for the gravitational potential $\Phi$ sourced by matter, and show that the ghost-condensate part $\Phi_{\rm GC}$ obeys a sixth-order radial equation whose right-hand side contains $\rho$, $\partial_t\rho$, and $X\partial_X\rho$. At late times, when the potential is time-independent, the solution exhibits oscillatory modulations on the distance scale $r_c\sim M_{\rm Pl}/M^2$ and the instability time scale $\Upsilon^{-1}\sim M_{\rm Pl}^3/M^4$, then approaches $1/r$ at large distances. For tensor perturbations, the same $\sigma_1$ operator changes the propagation speed to $c_T^2=(1-4\sigma_1 k^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2)^{-1}$, making gravitational wave speed momentum dependent and requiring $\sigma_1\le 0$ for subluminal propagation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the two gravitational potentials $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are equal throughout; the paper's own off-diagonal equations admit solutions where they differ even without anisotropic stress, and the derived potential equation uses the equal branch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Newtonian potential around a matter source in a sextic ghost condensate carries damped oscillations at distance $\sim M_{\rm Pl}/M^2$, with an associated time scale $\sim M_{\rm Pl}^3/M^4$, before settling to $1/r$ at large radii.
  • The correction to the potential is sourced by the local matter density and its derivatives, so a time-dependent or spatially clumpy source leaves a different gravitational signature than in the quartic ghost condensate or general relativity.
  • Gravitational wave speed is frequency dependent, $c_T^2=(1-4\sigma_1 k^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2)^{-1}$, with sizable deviations from $c$ only for $k\sim M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{|\sigma_1|}$ and with $\sigma_1\le 0$ for subluminal propagation.
  • Existing GW170817 bounds on $c_T$ translate into the constraints $|\sigma_1|\lesssim 10^{69}$ at $f\sim 10$ Hz and $|\sigma_1|\lesssim 10^{63}$ at $f\sim 10$ kHz, so the model is observationally allowed for large $\sigma_1$.
  • The same effective field theory may admit $\Phi\neq\Psi$ even with no anisotropic stress, a branch the paper identifies but leaves for future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: The paper's own Eq. (2.15) leaves open $\Phi\neq\Psi$; if the alternate branch is physical, the claimed $\Phi_{\rm GC}$ equation (2.19) is not the governing one, and the oscillatory signature could be absent or altered. A numerical evolution of the full system off the $\Phi=\Psi$ branch would settle whether the prediction is robust.
  • Editorial extension: Because the potential correction is sourced by $\rho$ and its derivatives, high-density or strongly clustered regions should show a larger relative deviation from the Newtonian potential at the predicted scale, which could be searched for in weak-lensing or satellite dynamics if the scale $M_{\rm Pl}/M^2$ is observationally accessible.
  • Editorial extension: The frequency-dependent $c_T$ implies that a single broadband gravitational-wave event could test the model without a counterpart, because a dispersion-like signature would violate the constant-$c_T$ template used in standard analyses; current LIGO/Virgo data already bound $\sigma_1$.
  • Editorial extension: The paper treats de Sitter as the background; a worthwhile extension is to matter-dominated or slow-roll backgrounds, where the $\rho$-dependent source would act during structure formation and could leave a scale-dependent growth signature.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies a ghost condensate model with a sixth-order dispersion relation, written in unitary gauge with higher-derivative curvature operators, coupled to gravity in a de Sitter background. The authors derive the equations of motion for the scalar perturbation π and the gravitational potentials Φ and Ψ, obtain a homogeneous sixth-order equation for Φ, and then decompose Φ into a Newtonian part and a ghost-condensate correction. They claim that this correction satisfies a source equation whose right-hand side depends explicitly on the matter density, leading to oscillatory behaviour on a characteristic distance scale and a time scale. They also compute the speed of gravitational waves and find a momentum-dependent modification. The paper includes numerical solutions in two figures and concludes with a discussion of future directions.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a distinctive and falsifiable signature of sextic ghost condensate dark energy: a matter-density-dependent modification of the Newtonian potential with oscillations on scales M_Pl/M^2 and a frequency-dependent gravitational wave speed parameterized by σ1. The derivation from an explicit action and the explicit, if lengthy, equations of motion are commendable, and the c_T prediction is concrete. However, the main derivation has a serious gap: the matter source is inserted through a decomposition of the vacuum equation rather than through a sourced Einstein equation, so the headline result is not currently supported. The paper also relies on hand-picked boundary conditions and an unexamined branch choice Φ=Ψ; these issues would need to be addressed before the results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (2.19) and (2.23)] Equation (2.19) for Φ is derived from the vacuum equations of motion (2.8), which contain no matter source. When nonrelativistic matter is present, the linearized Einstein equations include T_μν; the correct equation for Φ is inhomogeneous. The paper instead defines Φ_N via the standard Poisson equation (2.22) and substitutes Φ = Φ_N + Φ_GC into the homogeneous equation (2.19). The right-hand side of (2.23) is therefore -L(Φ_N), where L is the vacuum differential operator, not the matter source of the modified theory. This does not establish that Φ_GC depends on ρ; it only shows that if one forces Φ_N to obey the GR Poisson equation, the leftover satisfies a driven equation by a particular combination of Φ_N. A proper derivation must start from the sourced Einstein equations and specify how the ghost-condensate stress-energy combines with T_μν.
  2. [Section 2, Figs. 1 and 2] The numerical results are obtained with hand-selected boundary conditions at X=0 (Φ_GC(0) = -10^-12, or second/fourth derivative zero; the Fig. 1 caption lists three arbitrary choices, and Fig. 2 sets Φ_GC(0) = 0 and ∂^2_X Φ_GC(0) = 0). No physical matching to the Newtonian potential at small X or to an asymptotically decaying solution at large X is provided. As a result, the oscillatory profiles are not a unique prediction of the sextic ghost condensate; they depend on these arbitrary constants. The paper should derive the boundary conditions from regularity and from requiring that Φ_GC vanishes at the origin and reduces to GR at short distances.
  3. [Section 2, Eqs. (2.14)-(2.19) and footnote 5] The entire derivation assumes Φ = Ψ, following the statement that the off-diagonal components of (2.8) 'suggest' this equality. However, Eq. (2.15) shows that (∇/a)^2(Φ - Ψ) = -(9/2)H^2(Φ - Ψ), which admits non-decaying solutions with Φ ≠ Ψ even in the absence of anisotropic stress. The authors acknowledge this and restrict to Φ = Ψ, but this is a nontrivial branch choice. Because the potential equation (2.19) and all subsequent results are derived under this assumption, the paper should either justify why this branch is physically selected or analyze whether the alternative branch changes the claimed density-dependence and oscillations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract states that oscillations occur 'at the distance M_Pl/M^2' and 'at the time scale M^4/M_Pl^3', while the conclusion states 'scales ∼ M^2/M_Pl in timescales of order M_Pl^3/M^4'. These are inverse to each other; one of the two is wrong. This inconsistency affects how the main result is communicated.
  2. [Section 3, after Eq. (3.6)] The quoted bounds on σ1 from GW170817 are inconsistent with Eq. (3.6). For f ∼ 10 Hz, k ∼ 4×10^-14 eV, so |σ1| ≲ (M_Pl^2/k^2)|c_T^2 - 1| ∼ 10^81, not 10^69; the f ∼ 10 kHz bound should be correspondingly ∼10^75, not 10^63. The numerical values in the text should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (2.26)] The coefficient of ∂_X ∂_T Φ_GC is written with a factor 2/(3βH^3X), which contains the dimensionful H^3, unlike all other dimensionless coefficients in the equation; this appears to be a typo and should read a dimensionless combination of α and β.
  4. [Section 2, Eq. (2.18)] The sound speed c_s^2 is defined but never used in the subsequent analysis; if it is not needed, it should be removed or its role clarified.
  5. [Section 2, Fig. 1 caption] The caption lists three boundary conditions but the curves in the figure are not labeled by which boundary condition corresponds to which curve; labeling would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central claim that the Newtonian-potential correction depends on matter density reduces to the Φ=Φ_N+Φ_GC decomposition of the homogeneous equation, so it is partly constructed rather than predicted.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Eqs. (2.19)-(2.23); see also abstract claim]
    "Φ could be decomposed into two parts: Φ = ΦN + ΦGC , (2.21) where ΦGC represents the modification the ghost condensation imparts on the conventional general relativity potential, ΦN, which satisfies the Poisson equation (∂/a)^2 ΦN = ρ/(2MPl^2). (2.22) It should be noted that ρ represents a general matter source. Following this decomposition, the Eq. (2.19) becomes ... = ... ρ/(2MPl^2). (2.23) A notable issue in the above equation is that the differential equation for ΦGC explicitly depends on the the space and time variation of matter density."

    Eq. (2.19) is the homogeneous equation for Φ obtained from the sourceless metric EOM (2.8); no matter T_μν enters its derivation. Φ_N is then defined by the standard Poisson equation (2.22), so ρ enters only through that definition. Substituting Φ=Φ_N+Φ_GC into the homogeneous operator LΦ=0 gives LΦ_GC = -LΦ_N, and replacing the (∂/a)^2Φ_N terms by ρ via (2.22) is what produces the ρ-dependent right-hand side of (2.23). The claimed explicit matter-density dependence is therefore the algebraic residual of subtracting the GR potential from a solution of the vacuum equation, not a consequence of coupling the sextic GC to a matter source.

full rationale

The paper is mostly a self-contained derivation from the stated unitary-gauge action (2.1). The tensor-sector result c_T^2 = (1 - 4σ1 k^2/M_Pl^2)^{-1} follows directly from the quadratic action (3.4), and the ρ=0 oscillatory solutions are legitimate solutions of the sixth-order homogeneous equation, although the boundary conditions in Fig. 1 are chosen by hand and not derived from matching or regularity. However, the abstract's central claim—that the correction to the Newtonian potential explicitly depends on matter density—is not derived from a sourced Einstein equation. The derivation starts from the sourceless EOM (2.8), defines Φ_N via the GR Poisson equation (2.22), and then obtains the density-dependent source in (2.23) by substituting the decomposition into the homogeneous equation (2.19). That makes the density dependence an input of the decomposition, not an output of the matter-coupled dynamics. The paper also explicitly assumes Ψ=Φ (footnote 5) while acknowledging that an alternative branch exists, but this is an assumption, not circularity. The self-citation to [59] for the viability of the sextic ghost condensate is load-bearing for the model choice but is reviewed in the text and is not a reduction of the present potential calculation to a fit, so it does not raise the score beyond the definitional issue. Overall: partial circularity, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results rest on the assumed unitary-gauge action and on the prior strong-coupling argument from the authors' earlier paper. The model has several hand-chosen parameters and boundary conditions. No new particle, force, or dimension is postulated. The Phi = Psi branch is an explicitly flagged restriction, and the potential calculation depends on it.

free parameters (5)
  • M (ghost condensate scale) = ~10^-3 eV
    The ghost field velocity scale M sets mu = M^2/M_Pl and the distance and time scales of the potential correction; it is chosen to make the condensate act as dark energy, not derived from the model.
  • sigma1, sigma2, sigma3, sigma4 (EFT coefficients) = not fitted; ratios chosen in Eq. (2.25)
    These coefficients of the higher-derivative unitary-gauge operators control the dispersion relation and the gravitational wave speed. The paper assumes they are of order one and imposes specific ratios for the numerical solutions.
  • Boundary conditions for Phi_GC at X=0 = e.g., -10^-12, 0, 0
    The amplitude and even derivatives of the potential at the origin are chosen by hand in Fig. 1; the oscillatory solution's amplitude is set by these choices, not derived from matter sources.
  • alpha = mu/H and beta = H/Upsilon = alpha=4, beta=2 in the figures
    Dimensionless ratios chosen for numerical illustration; the qualitative behavior may depend on these choices.
  • Matter source amplitude in Fig. 2 = rho/mu^2 = 10^-11 exp(-10^-3 X^2)
    A Gaussian source with hand-picked amplitude and width is used to illustrate the potential correction; it is not derived from cosmology.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The ghost condensate background phi = c t with stability conditions P'(c^2) > 0 and P'(c^2) + 2c^2 P''(c^2) > 0 is assumed.
    Section 1, Eqs. (1.5)-(1.8); this is the standard ghost condensate background from the prior literature.
  • domain assumption The unitary-gauge action with the four sigma operators is the correct EFT for the sextic ghost condensate.
    Equation (2.1), following the extended EFT of inflation; the central results are consequences of this assumed action.
  • ad hoc to paper The quartic term in the dispersion relation is suppressed by setting the relevant coefficient to zero or by requiring it to be much smaller than the sextic term at the relevant scales.
    Section 1, after Eq. (1.11); this tuning is needed to obtain a pure sixth-order dispersion relation and is not derived from a symmetry.
  • domain assumption The sextic ghost condensate stays weakly coupled in the infrared because a bound involving the nonlinearity parameter and the condensate scale is satisfied.
    Section 1, Eq. (1.15); viability is imported from the authors' previous paper, not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper The relation Phi = Psi is assumed for the gravitational potentials.
    Section 2, Eq. (2.15) and the sentence stating that the paper focuses on Phi = Psi; the potential equation and all subsequent results are derived under this branch.
  • domain assumption The Newtonian limit with omega^2 much smaller than k^2 and the absence of anisotropic stress is assumed.
    Section 2, before Eq. (2.3); standard assumptions for deriving the modified Poisson equation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extended Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy: Ghost Condensate Dark Energy with Sextic Dispersion Relation in de Sitter Spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B3SMYLOX

@misc{pith2026250202401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extended Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy: Ghost Condensate Dark Energy with Sextic Dispersion Relation in de Sitter Spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B3SMYLOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02401}
}
abstract

We continue our studies of the ghost condensate (GC) with sixth-order dispersion relation. Contrary to the GC with quartic dispersion relation, we find that the correction to the Newtonian potential explicitly depends on the space and time dependence of matter density. At late times when the Newtonian potential becomes time-independent, one obtains similar oscillatory behavior at the distance $\frac{M_\textrm{Pl}}{M^2}$, but this time at the time scale $\frac{M^4}{M_\textrm{Pl}^3}$, where $M^2$ is the ghost field velocity. We also show that the speed of gravitational wave is modified in a frequency dependent manner at momenta close to $\frac{M_\textrm{Pl}}{\sqrt{|\sigma_1|}}$, where $\sigma_1$ is the coefficient of $\gamma^{ij} \nabla_i K_{lr} \nabla_j K^{lr}$ operator in the unitary gauge action.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02401 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. For three different boundary conditions, numerical solutions for the equation Φ are plotted in the form of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The numerical solution with a matter source, ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009–1038. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201, doi:10.1086/300499

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high redshift supernovae, Astrophys

    S. Perlmutter, et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565–586. arXiv:astro-ph/ 9812133, doi:10.1086/307221

    doi:10.1086/307221 1999

  3. [3]

    Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A1. arXiv:1807.06205, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    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. 11

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Di Valentino, D

    E. Di Valentino, D. Brout (Eds.), The Hubble Constant Tension, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology, Springer, 2024. doi:10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7

    doi:10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 2024

  6. [6]

    Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1–23. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

  7. [7]

    S. M. Carroll, W. H. Press, E. L. Turner, The Cosmological constant, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 30 (1992) 499–542. doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002435

    work page arXiv 1992

  8. [8]

    On the cosmological constant problem

    L. Lombriser, On the cosmological constant problem, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134804. arXiv:1901.08588, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2019.134804

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Zlatev, L.-M

    I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang, P. J. Steinhardt, Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 896–899. arXiv:astro-ph/9807002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.896

    1999 arXiv

  2. [10]

    P. J. Steinhardt, L.-M. Wang, I. Zlatev, Cosmological tracking solutions, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 123504. arXiv:astro-ph/9812313, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.123504

    1999 arXiv

  3. [11]

    L.-M. Wang, R. R. Caldwell, J. P. Ostriker, P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmic concordance and quintessence, Astrophys. J. 530 (2000) 17–35. arXiv:astro-ph/9901388, doi:10.1086/308331

    2000 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lahav, P

    O. Lahav, P. B. Lilje, J. R. Primack, M. J. Rees, Dynamical effects of the cosmological constant, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 251 (1) (1991) 128–136. doi:10.1093/mnras/251.1.128

    1991 doi

  5. [13]

    Mukohyama, L

    S. Mukohyama, L. Randall, A Dynamical approach to the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 211302. arXiv:hep-th/ 0306108, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.211302

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    Yoshimura, Dynamical relaxation of cosmological constant (4 2022)

    M. Yoshimura, Dynamical relaxation of cosmological constant (4 2022). arXiv:2204.10809

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sol` a, Cosmological constant vis-a-vis dynamical vacuum: bold challenging the ΛCDM, Int

    J. Sol` a, Cosmological constant vis-a-vis dynamical vacuum: bold challenging the ΛCDM, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31 (23) (2016) 1630035. arXiv:1612.02449, doi:10.1142/S0217751X16300350

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Nakamura, T

    T. Nakamura, T. Chiba, Determining the equation of state of the expanding universe: Inverse problem in cosmology, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 306 (3) (1999) 696–700. arXiv:astro-ph/9810447, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02551.x

    1999 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. Sola, H. Stefancic, Cosmology with variable parameters and effective equation of state for dark energy, J. Phys. A 39 (2006) 6753–6760. arXiv:gr-qc/0601012, doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/21/S76

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Tripathi, A

    A. Tripathi, A. Sangwan, H. K. Jassal, Dark energy equation of state parameter and its evolution at low redshift, JCAP 06 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    arXiv:1611.01899, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/012

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Janka, A

    H.-T. Janka, A. Bauswein, Dynamics and Equation of State Dependencies of Relevance for Nucleosynthesis in Supernovae and Neutron Star Mergers, 2023, pp. 1–98. arXiv:2212.07498, doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1_93-1

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ratra, P

    B. Ratra, P. J. E. Peebles, Cosmological Consequences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3406. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406

    1988 doi

  14. [22]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmological imprint of an energy component with general equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 1582–1585. arXiv:astro-ph/9708069, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1582

    1998 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Tsujikawa, Quintessence: A Review, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Quintessence: A Review, Class. Quant. Grav. 30 (2013) 214003. arXiv:1304.1961, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/21/ 214003

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    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

    2002 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov, P. J. Steinhardt, Essentials of k-essence, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 103510. arXiv:astro-ph/ 0006373, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.103510

    2001 doi

  18. [26]

    G. W. Gibbons, Phantom matter and the cosmological constant (2 2003). arXiv:hep-th/0302199

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    K. J. Ludwick, The viability of phantom dark energy: A review, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 32 (28) (2017) 1730025. arXiv:1708.06981, doi:10.1142/S0217732317300257

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Modified gravity with negative and positive powers of the curvature: Unification of the inflation and of the cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 123512. arXiv:hep-th/0307288, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.123512

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models, Phys. Rept. 505 (2011) 59–144. arXiv:1011.0544, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution, Phys. Rept. 692 (2017) 1–104. arXiv:1705.11098, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. F. Cardone, A. Troisi, Reconciling dark energy models with f(R) theories, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 043503. arXiv: astro-ph/0501426, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.043503

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. Polarski, S. Tsujikawa, Are f (R) dark energy models cosmologically viable ?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 131302. arXiv:astro-ph/0603703, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.131302

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Tsujikawa, Observational signatures of f (R) dark energy models that satisfy cosmological and local gravity constraints, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Observational signatures of f (R) dark energy models that satisfy cosmological and local gravity constraints, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 023507. arXiv:0709.1391, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023507

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, M. Porrati, 4-D gravity on a brane in 5-D Minkowski space, Phys. Lett. B 485 (2000) 208–214. arXiv: hep-th/0005016, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00669-9

    2000 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Roos, A model of accelerating dark energy in decelerating gravity (7 2007)

    M. Roos, A model of accelerating dark energy in decelerating gravity (7 2007). arXiv:0707.1086

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lombriser, W

    L. Lombriser, W. Hu, W. Fang, U. Seljak, Cosmological Constraints on DGP Braneworld Gravity with Brane Tension, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 063536. arXiv:0905.1112, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.063536

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, A. J. Tolley, Resummation of Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 231101. arXiv:1011.1232, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.231101

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    de Rham, Massive Gravity, Living Rev

    C. de Rham, Massive Gravity, Living Rev. Rel. 17 (2014) 7. arXiv:1401.4173, doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-7 . 12

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hinterbichler, Theoretical Aspects of Massive Gravity, Rev

    K. Hinterbichler, Theoretical Aspects of Massive Gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 671–710. arXiv:1105.3735, doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.84.671

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. F. Hassan, R. A. Rosen, Bimetric Gravity from Ghost-free Massive Gravity, JHEP 02 (2012) 126. arXiv:1109.3515, doi:10.1007/ JHEP02(2012)126

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Deser, M

    S. Deser, M. Sandora, A. Waldron, No consistent bimetric gravity?, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 081501. arXiv:1306.0647, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.88.081501

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Deser, K

    S. Deser, K. Izumi, Y. C. Ong, A. Waldron, Problems of massive gravities, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30 (2015) 1540006. arXiv:1410.2289, doi:10.1142/S0217732315400064

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    H¨ og ˚ as, F

    M. H¨ og ˚ as, F. Torsello, E. M¨ ortsell, On the stability of bimetric structure formation, JCAP 04 (2020) 046. arXiv:1910.01651, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/046

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    H¨ og ˚ as, E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as, E. M¨ ortsell, Constraints on bimetric gravity. Part II. Observational constraints, JCAP 05 (2021) 002.arXiv:2101.08795, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/002

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    H¨ og ˚ as, E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as, E. M¨ ortsell, Constraints on bimetric gravity from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, JCAP 11 (2021) 001. arXiv:2106.09030, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/001

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Dwivedi, M

    S. Dwivedi, M. H¨ og ˚ as, 2D BAO vs. 3D BAO: Solving the Hubble Tension with Bimetric Cosmology, Universe 10 (11) (2024) 406. arXiv:2407.04322, doi:10.3390/universe10110406

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Pourtsidou, C

    A. Pourtsidou, C. Skordis, E. J. Copeland, Models of dark matter coupled to dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 88 (8) (2013) 083505. arXiv:1307.0458, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083505

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. G. Boehmer, G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Lazkoz, R. Maartens, Dynamics of dark energy with a coupling to dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 023505. arXiv:0801.1565, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023505

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Fay, Constraints from growth-rate data on some coupled dark energy models mimicking a ΛCDM expansion, Mon

    S. Fay, Constraints from growth-rate data on some coupled dark energy models mimicking a ΛCDM expansion, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460 (2) (2016) 1863–1868. arXiv:1605.01644, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1087

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Li, A. Shafieloo, A Simple Phenomenological Emergent Dark Energy Model can Resolve the Hubble Tension, Astrophys. J. Lett. 883 (1) (2019) L3. arXiv:1906.08275, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3e09

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J. A. Lozano Torres, Generalized emergent dark energy in the late-time Universe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533 (2) (2024) 1865–

    2024

  44. [52]

    W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, O. Mena, Emergent Dark Energy, neutrinos and cosmological tensions, Phys. Dark Univ. 31 (2021) 100762. arXiv:2007.02927, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100762

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    R. John, S. N., T. K. Mathew, Thermal evolution and stability analysis of phenomenologically emergent dark energy model, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (8) (2023) 697. arXiv:2301.12172, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11840-0

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    E. P. Verlinde, Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe, SciPost Phys. 2 (3) (2017) 016. arXiv:1611.02269, doi:10.21468/ SciPostPhys.2.3.016

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. A. Easson, P. H. Frampton, G. F. Smoot, Entropic Accelerating Universe, Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011) 273–277. arXiv:1002.4278, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.12.025

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M. A. Luty, S. Mukohyama, Ghost condensation and a consistent infrared modification of gravity, JHEP 05 (2004) 074. arXiv:hep-th/0312099, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/05/074

    2004 arXiv

  49. [57]

    D ´ ıaz-Salda˜ na, J

    I. D ´ ıaz-Salda˜ na, J. L´ opez-Dom ´ ınguez, M. Sabido, An Effective Cosmological Constant From an Entropic Formulation of Gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29 (09) (2020) 2050064. arXiv:1806.04918, doi:10.1142/S0218271820500649

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Piazza, S

    F. Piazza, S. Tsujikawa, Dilatonic ghost condensate as dark energy, JCAP 07 (2004) 004. arXiv:hep-th/0405054, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2004/07/004

    2004 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Mukohyama, Accelerating Universe and Cosmological Perturbation in the Ghost Condensate, JCAP 10 (2006) 011

    S. Mukohyama, Accelerating Universe and Cosmological Perturbation in the Ghost Condensate, JCAP 10 (2006) 011. arXiv:hep-th/ 0607181, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/10/011

    2006 doi

  52. [60]

    Ashoorioon, R

    A. Ashoorioon, R. Casadio, M. Cicoli, G. Geshnizjani, H. J. Kim, Extended Effective Field Theory of Inflation, JHEP 02 (2018) 172. arXiv:1802.03040, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)172

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ashoorioon, A

    A. Ashoorioon, A. Yousefi-Sostani, Exorcising the ghost condensate dark energy with a sextic dispersion relation, Phys. Lett. B 844 (2023) 138115. arXiv:2304.07344, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138115

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (16) (2017) 161101. arXiv:1710.05832, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., Gravitational Waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Astrophys. J. Lett. 848 (2) (2017) L13. arXiv:1710.05834, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    2017 arXiv

  56. [65]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger, Astrophys. J. Lett. 848 (2) (2017) L12. arXiv: 1710.05833, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9. 13

    2017 arXiv

  57. [1873]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1920

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.