Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Resolving Hubble Tension with Quintom Dark Energy Model

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tiny negative-density component added to the Friedmann equation can relieve the Hubble tension without changing the Planck-preferred matter and dark-energy fractions.

desk verdict A neat Friedmann-equation observation and a serious model, but the only point that resolves the Hubble tension is excluded by the paper's own CMB-peak fit. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03324 v2 pith:G7HJ34M5 submitted 2019-08-09 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Sirachak Panpanich , Piyabut Burikham , Supakchai Ponglertsakul , Lunchakorn Tannukij This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords HubbletensionquintomphantomscalarnegativeenergydensityFriedmannequationconformalcouplingdynamicalsystemdark
topics The Hubble TensionDark Energy
open problems The Hubble Tension
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

The paper argues that the Hubble tension—the roughly 10 percent gap between the local measurement $H_0\simeq74$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and the Planck/$\Lambda$CDM value $H_0=67.4$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$—can be relieved by adding a very small negative-density component to the Friedmann equation, without changing the Planck-preferred matter and dark-energy fractions. It derives that such a component must have equation of state $1/3\le w_X\le 1$ to remain undetectably small while still lifting $H_0$ to about 74.03 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. As a concrete realization, it constructs a quintom model with a quintessence scalar and a 'phantom' scalar conformally coupled to matter, whose benchmark solution reaches $H_0\simeq73.4$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ with $\Omega_m^{(0)}\simeq0.31$ and $\Omega_{\rm DE}^{(0)}\simeq0.69$, and whose parameter scan contains models that fit supernovae, BAO, and the first CMB peak better than $\Lambda$CDM. The claim matters because it shows a minimal addition to the energy budget can address the tension while leaving the successful early-universe picture intact.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized Friedmann equation with an extra component, $$$H^{2}$(z)=$H_0^{2}$\left[\$Omega_r^{{(0)}}$(1+z)^4+\$Omega_m^{{(0)}}$(1+z)^3+\Omega_{\rm DE}^{(0)}\exp\left(3\int_0^z\frac{1+w_{\rm DE}(z)}{1+z}dz\right)+\$Omega_X^{{(0)}}$\exp\left(3\int_0^z\frac{1+w_X(z)}{1+z}dz\right)\right] ,$$ which translates a target present-day $H_0$ into a required negative $\Omega_X^{(0)}$ at fixed early-universe parameters. The concrete realization is the coupled quintom action, in which the phantom field's negative kinetic term generates $\rho_\sigma<0$ with $w_\sigma=+1$, and the conformal matter coupling provides an effective potential that keeps $\Omega_\sigma$ small throughout cosmic history. The dynamics are analyzed through the autonomous system of four dimensionless variables, whose fixed points connect radiation domination, matter domination, and accelerated expansion, allowing $H(N)$ to be integrated from the last-scattering surface forward to the present day.

What would settle it

Compute the quantum decay rate of the ghost field $\sigma$ in the coupled quintom theory, and if the rate exceeds the Hubble scale at any epoch the classical trajectory used in the paper is not the physical one; observationally, a high-precision measurement of the CMB acoustic scale that pins $\ell_A$ near 300 while $H_0$ stays near 73.4 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ would exclude the benchmark Quintom I parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the standard Friedmann equation already admits a solution to the Hubble tension once a small negative-density component is allowed: fixing the early-universe abundances ($\Omega_m^{(0)}=0.308$, $\Omega_r^{(0)}=9.2\times10^{-5}$, $\Omega_\Lambda^{(0)}=0.692$) and the last-scattering value of $H$, a present-day $H_0=74.03$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ forces $\Omega_X^{(0)}$ to lie in $[-6.4\times10^{-5}, -5.2\times10^{-11}]$ when $1/3\le w_X\le 1$. The paper then shows that a quintom model—one ordinary quintessence field $\varphi$ and one 'phantom' field $\sigma$ whose kinetic term has the wrong sign—can supply exactly this negative density: the phantom has $w_\sigma=+1$ and $\rho_\sigma=-\dot\sigma^2/2$, and a conformal coupling $\kappa\delta\rho_m$ drags it along with matter so that its fraction stays below one percent. With only two parameters, $\lambda_\varphi$ (the rolling of the quintessence potential) and $\delta$ (the phantom-matter coupling strength), the model yields $H_0\simeq73.4$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ while keeping $\Omega_m^{(0)}\simeq0.31$ and $\Omega_{\rm DE}^{(0)}\simeq0.69$; a parameter scan over $\delta$ and $\Omega_m^{(0)}$ finds a region, $0.02<\delta<0.10$ and $\Omega_m^{(0)}<0.31$, where the model provides better combined fits to SN Ia, BAO, and the first CMB peak than $\Lambda$CDM while still not completely resolving the tension.

Load-bearing premise

The phantom scalar has a negative kinetic term, making it a ghost; the paper acknowledges the resulting quantum instability but assumes the model is safe because the total energy density stays positive, treating the unstable degree of freedom classically without a proof that the vacuum does not decay.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Raising $H_0$ to about 74 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ requires only a tiny negative density, $\Omega_X^{(0)}\sim -10^{-5}$ to $-10^{-11}$, when $1/3\le w_X\le 1$, so the Planck-era abundances stay effectively unchanged.
  • The benchmark Quintom I ($\lambda_\varphi=0.10$, $\delta=0.113$) reaches $H_0=73.36$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and fits the Pantheon supernovae as well as $\Lambda$CDM, but predicts an acoustic multipole $\ell_A=285.5$, about five percent below the observed value.
  • In the region $0.02<\delta<0.10$ with $\Omega_m^{(0)}<0.31$, the model's combined fits to BAO and the first CMB peak improve on $\Lambda$CDM while giving $H_0$ in the 68–69.5 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ range, significantly relieving the tension.
  • The phantom contribution must stay below about one percent of the total density at all times, so the negative-density effect acts as a small cumulative shift in $H_0$ rather than a large change at any single epoch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The constraint $1/3\le w_X\le 1$ is model-independent: any stiff negative-density substance, not necessarily a scalar ghost, can serve as the extra component, so the mechanism could survive in a ghost-free ultraviolet completion.
  • The model leaves a testable fingerprint in the absolute magnitude of Type Ia supernovae, preferring $M\simeq-19.25$ where $\Lambda$CDM prefers $M\simeq-19.43$; a future precise calibration of SN Ia absolute magnitude could discriminate between the two.
  • The contours relating $\delta$ to $H_0$ imply that once $\Omega_m^{(0)}$ and $H_0$ are both pinned down, the phantom-matter coupling is determined, making the model checkable against structure-formation or weak-lensing constraints on conformal couplings.
  • The same Friedmann-equation logic suggests that other late-time modifications producing a small negative density—such as a negative cosmological constant paired with a compensating quintessence—could relieve the tension, and the paper's $\chi^2$ comparison provides a template for testing such alternatives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that adding an extra component X with negative energy density to the Friedmann equation can raise the present Hubble parameter from the Planck-\LambdaCDM value H0=67.4 km/s/Mpc to about 74 km/s/Mpc while keeping the matter and dark-energy density parameters at their Planck-compatible values. Section II derives a condition 1/3 <= wX <= 1 for the extra component to be small. The authors then propose a quintom model with a quintessence field and a phantom field conformally coupled to matter, analyze its fixed points via a dynamical system, and present two benchmark models: Quintom I (delta=0.113) reaches H0=73.356 km/s/Mpc with Omega_m=0.3078 and Omega_DE=0.692, and Quintom II (delta=0.06) fits the BAO and first CMB peak but gives H0=68.55 km/s/Mpc. The paper claims that the model can significantly alleviate, and in some places completely resolve, the Hubble tension.

Significance. If the central claim were established, this would be an interesting mechanism because the extra component is very small at low redshift and the model keeps the late-time densities close to LambdaCDM values. The paper has some genuine strengths: the dynamical-system analysis is presented in detail, the numerical procedure is explicit, and the authors report the chi-square values for their benchmarks, including the large chi-square for the first CMB peak of Quintom I. This transparency allows the reader to check the main claim. However, the paper's own numbers show that the benchmark that resolves the Hubble tension is excluded by the CMB acoustic scale, and the benchmark that fits the CMB leaves H0 essentially at the LambdaCDM value. The claimed resolution is therefore not supported by the presented results.

major comments (2)
  1. [II, Eq. (2.1)] The derivation of the required negative density is tautological: H0=74.03 km/s/Mpc is inserted on the right-hand side of Eq. (2.1) and the equation is then solved for Omega_X^(0). The statement that a negative component with 1/3 <= wX <= 1 is required is exactly equivalent to assuming that the target H0 is the correct one. The later quintom analysis does not remove this circularity because H0 is not predicted; Section V states that H0 can be tuned by choosing delta and initial conditions, and Fig. 4 displays H0 contours, not a derived value.
  2. [VI, Eqs. (6.11)-(6.13)] The claim that Quintom II is preferred over LambdaCDM via AIC/BIC rests on a reduced chi2 that includes only the first CMB peak position, BAO, and SN distance moduli, and on a parameter count that omits the tuned initial conditions and integration constant C in Eq. (5.2). Even if that comparison were accepted, it does not support the paper's title: Quintom II has H0=68.55 km/s/Mpc, so it does not resolve the Hubble tension.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section VII] Calling lA=285.54 'slightly small' is misleading; it is about 5% below the Planck value and is the dominant source of exclusion for Quintom I.
  2. [Abstract] The statement that 'the model depends only on two parameters' undercounts the freedom used in the analysis, since initial conditions and the integration constant C in Eq. (5.2) are also tuned; the text itself acknowledges this in Section V.
  3. [Throughout] There are several grammatical and typographical errors, including 'provide better model' in the abstract, 'prefered' in Section VI, and inconsistent capitalization of 'universe'; these should be corrected.
  4. [VI, Eq. (6.9)] The BAO calculation rescales rs(zdrag) by 1.0275 to match numerical results; the sensitivity of the final chi2 to this ad hoc rescaling should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline H0 result is tuned, not predicted: Section II solves for the negative component by imposing H0=74.03, and the quintom benchmark is then chosen to hit H0≈74, so the claimed resolution is partly by construction; the model's independent CMB-peak check fails at the resolving point.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II, Eq. (2.1), paragraph beginning 'In order to address the Hubble tension...']
    "In order to address the Hubble tension where the value of H at small z is relatively large compared to the Planck value H0 = 67.4 km s−1Mpc−1, we use H(z = 1100) = 1.57537× 10^6 km s−1Mpc−1 and H0 = 74.03 km s−1Mpc−1 to find the physical constraint on the extra unknown component X from Eq. (2.1)."

    The negative-density component X is not predicted; it is solved for by inserting the target H0=74.03 into Eq. (2.1) while holding the early-time Hubble value fixed. The conclusion that a small negative component with 1/3≤wX≤1 can resolve the tension is therefore equivalent to the assumed H0. The later model realization does not remove this: the benchmark is selected by tuning parameters to hit the same target, so the headline H0 is an input reproduced by construction rather than an independent output.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V, after Eq. (5.2) and Fig. 3]
    "By tuning the model parameters and initial condition, we can obtain the Hubble parameter in the desired range of values, namely H0≈ 74 km s−1 Mpc−1 in order to relieve the Hubble tension."

    This sentence states explicitly that H0≈74 is the objective of the tuning. Consequently the reported Quintom I value H0=73.356 in Table III is a fitted target, not a successful prediction of the model. The claim 'the Hubble tension is alleviated' reduces to the parameter choice. The model does have independent outputs (l1, BAO, SN fits), but those outputs at the resolving point fail (l1=210.093 vs the observed 220.0), while the benchmark that fits the CMB peak, Quintom II, gives H0=68.55 and does not resolve the tension.

full rationale

The paper is not circular as a whole: the autonomous-system equations, the fixed-point analysis, and the numerical integrations are explicit and self-contained, and the comparisons to SN Ia, BAO, and the CMB acoustic peak use external data. There is no load-bearing self-citation: Ref. [35] is peripheral, and the quintom construction is not imported from the authors' own prior work. However, the central claim that the model 'resolves' the Hubble tension is partially circular by construction. Section II fixes H0=74.03 as an input and solves Eq. (2.1) for the negative-density component, so the phenomenological existence of that component is equivalent to the assumed target. Section V then openly tunes model parameters and initial conditions to obtain H0≈74, and the benchmark Quintom I is presented with H0=73.356. The independent acoustic-peak output at that point, l1=210.093 against the observed 220.0±0.5, fails, while the benchmark chosen to fit BAO and l1 (Quintom II) returns H0=68.55. Thus the only parameter point that 'resolves' the tension does so because it was tuned to do so, and the surviving viable point does not resolve it. This is partial circularity: the headline result reduces to a fitted target, even though the model has genuine non-tautological constraints that can and do falsify that target. Score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central model rests on the hand-chosen parameters λφ and δ, tuned initial conditions, and the assumed conformal coupling of a ghost field. The H0 output is therefore a fitted consequence of these choices rather than an independent prediction. The only extra entity introduced is the coupled phantom scalar, which lacks independent evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • λφ (exponential potential slope) = 0.1 for benchmarks, 1.0 in some contours
    Hand-chosen in the range 0<λφ<√2 to allow late-time accelerated expansion; the paper notes H0 is relatively insensitive to λφ.
  • δ (phantom-matter coupling) = 0.113 for Quintom I, 0.06 for Quintom II
    The main dial controlling H0 in the numerical model; Quintom I is tuned to produce H0≈73.4, Quintom II is chosen to improve the BAO and CMB first-peak fits.
  • Initial conditions (x1_i, x2_i, x3_i, x4_i) = 1e-5, 1e-10, 1e-5, 0.9983 at N=-13.79
    Tuned to start near the radiation fixed point and to yield the desired present-day densities and H0; the paper explicitly says H0 depends on initial conditions.
  • Integration constant C in Eq. (5.2) = Matched to ΛCDM H(1100)=1.57537e6 km/s/Mpc
    Normalizes the quintom Hubble evolution to coincide with Lambda-CDM at the last scattering surface; this boundary condition feeds into the output H0.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric and standard Friedmann equations with a ghost scalar field.
    Used throughout Section III; assumes spatial flatness and that a negative-kinetic-term scalar can be coupled as written.
  • domain assumption Conformal interaction form ∇μTμ(M)ν = κδ TM ∇ν σ.
    Motivated by scalar-tensor theories (refs [44,45]) but assumed without derivation in Eqs. (3.12)-(3.13); it drives the phantom equation of motion.
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential potential V(φ)=V0 e^{-κλφφ}.
    Chosen to close the autonomous system and keep λφ constant; no particle physics derivation is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Classical treatment of the phantom ghost is physically meaningful despite its quantum instability.
    The paper acknowledges the quantum instability in Section III but proceeds with classical evolution; the validity of this assumption is load-bearing for the model.
  • domain assumption zdec and zdrag are given by Hu-Sugiyama and Eisenstein-Hu formulas, with rs(zdrag) rescaled by 1.0275.
    Used in Section VI to compute l_A and r_BAO; the rescaling is taken from Planck numerical calibration, not from a full treatment of the quintom model.
invented entities (1)
  • Phantom scalar σ with negative kinetic energy and conformal coupling to matter
    purpose: Provides the negative-density component X that raises H0 while keeping Ωm and ΩDE near Planck values; without it the model has no mechanism to relieve the Hubble tension.
    No independent observable signature is provided outside the cosmological fit. The field and its coupling are introduced to realize the required negative density, and no non-cosmological measurement is predicted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolving Hubble Tension with Quintom Dark Energy Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G7HJ34M5

@misc{pith2026190803324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolving Hubble Tension with Quintom Dark Energy Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G7HJ34M5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03324}
}
abstract

Recent low-redshift observations give value of the present-time Hubble parameter $H_{0}\simeq 74~\rm{km s}^{-1}\rm{Mpc}^{-1}$, roughly 10\% higher than the predicted value $H_{0}=67.4~\rm{km s}^{-1}\rm{Mpc}^{-1}$ from Planck's observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation~(CMB) and the $\Lambda$CDM model. Phenomenologically, we show that by adding an extra component X with negative density in the Friedmann equation, it can relieve the Hubble tension without changing the Planck's constraint on the matter and dark energy densities. For the extra negative density to be sufficiently small, its equation-of-state parameter must satisfy $1/3\leq w_{X}\leq1$. We propose a quintom model of two scalar fields that realizes this condition and potentially alleviate the Hubble tension. One scalar field acts as a quintessence while another "phantom" scalar conformally couples to matter in such a way that viable cosmological scenario can be achieved. The model depends only on two parameters, $\lambda_{\phi}$ and $\delta$ which represent rolling tendency of the self-interacting potential of the quintessence and the strength of conformal phantom-matter coupling respectively. The toy quintom model with $H_{0}=73.4~\rm{km s}^{-1}\rm{Mpc}^{-1}$~(Quintom I) gives good Supernovae-Ia luminosity fits, decent $r_{\rm BAO}$ fit, but slightly small acoustic multipole $\ell_{A}=285.54$. Full parameter scan reveals that quintom model provide better model than the $\Lambda$CDM model in certain region of the parameter space, $0.02<\delta<0.10, \Omega_{m}^{(0)}<0.31$, while significantly relieving Hubble tension even though not completely resolving it. A benchmark quintom model, Quintom II, is presented as an example.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03324 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A relation between Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Evolution of the density parameters and the equation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Top figure represents evolutions of the Hubble param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Parameter space of the coupled quintom model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Parameter space of the coupled quintom model un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison between Type Ia Supernovae data from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the chi-square contours of the SN Ia fit of FIG. 8: χ 2 contours of the quintom model (λφ = 0.10). Dashed lines represent χ 2 l1 of the first acoustic peak l1 of the CMB spectrum, non-shaded solid lines represent H0 of the quintom model. the quintom model, the mo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: For the CMB we consider only the first acoustic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Holographic is the Dark Energy? A Spline Nodal reconstruction approach

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A three-node spline reconstruction of holographic dark energy improves chi-squared over LambdaCDM by about 10 to 12, but Bayesian evidence gives no clear preference.

  2. Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: a promising solution to the $H_0$ and cosmic shear tensions

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An interacting dark energy model with coupling proportional to the dark energy density alleviates the H0 and S8 tensions in Planck 2018 data but is not preferred once BAO and supernova data are included.

  3. Hubble tension: a short review of theoretical explanations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review finds no theoretical Hubble-tension solution yet passes all consistency tests; new early-dark-energy chains reach high H0 only when the SH0ES calibration is added.

  4. Hubble Tension and the G-step Model: Re-examination of Recent Constraints on Modified Local Physics

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper argues that the G-step model remains a viable solution to the Hubble tension by widening error bars, adopting a weaker luminosity-gravity scaling, and reinterpreting Earth history and distance-ladder data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (4.16) Although a sign ± depends on roots of the condition x2 1−x2 3 = 1, the fixed point is either saddle or unstable point

    Fixed Point (a) Eigenvalues of the fixed point are µ(a) = 1, 0, 3± √ 6δ √ x2 1− 1, 3− √ 3 2λφx1. (4.16) Although a sign ± depends on roots of the condition x2 1−x2 3 = 1, the fixed point is either saddle or unstable point. Since this fixed point does not match with any known cosmological era, we no longer consider it. 5 Ωm Ωr ΩDE wDE weff (a) 0 0 1 1 1 (b) 0 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Radiation Dominated Solutions Eigenvalues of the fixed point (b), (c), (e), and (f) are given by µ(b) = 2 ,−1,−1, 1. (4.17) µ(c) = −1, 2,−1 2± 1 2 √ − ( 2 δ2 + 3 ) , (4.18) µ(e) = −1, 1,−1 2± √ 16 λ2 φ − 15 4 , (4.19) µ(f) = −1 2± 1 2δ2λ2 φ √ −δ2λ4 φ +δ4(32λ2 φ− 9λ4 φ) + √ δ4λ4 φ(λ4 φ + 4δ4(16− 3λ2 φ)2− 4δ2λ2 φ(16 + 3λ2 φ)), (4.20) −1 2± 1 2δ2λ2 φ √ −δ2λ4 ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (4.23) The fixed point (d) is stable when δ2 > 3 2, whereas it is a saddle point when δ2 < 3

    Matter Dominated Solutions For the fixed point (d) and (h), their corresponding eigenvalues are µ(d) = −3 2−δ2,−3 2−δ2,−1 2−δ2, 3 2−δ2, (4.22) µ(h) = λ2 φ + 2δ2(λ2 φ− 4) 4δ2− 2λ2 φ , 3λ2 φ + 2δ2(λ2 φ− 6) 4δ2− 2λ2 φ , 1 4(λ2 φ− 2δ2)2 ( −3λ4 φ− 2δ2λ2 φ(λ2 φ− 9) + 4δ4(λ2 φ− 6) ± √ 3(λ2 φ− 2δ2)2(72λ2 φ− 21λ4 φ + 4δ2(−72 + 18λ2 φ +λ4 φ) + 4δ4(60− 28λ2 φ + 3λ4 φ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    For the fixed point (h), the 6 eigenvalues can be understood once we set the value of λφ and δ

    work page

  5. [5]

    (4.24) Thus, the fixed point is stable when λ2 φ < 3

    Accelerated Expansion Solutions Eigenvalues of the fixed point (g) are µ(g) = 1 2(λ2 φ− 6), 1 2(λ2 φ− 6), 1 2(λ2 φ− 4),λ 2 φ− 3. (4.24) Thus, the fixed point is stable when λ2 φ < 3. For the point (h) it is the same as the previous case. V. NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS In this section, the autonomous equations (4.12) - (4.15) are solved numerically, where we set λφ ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998) doi:10.1086/300499 [astro-ph/9805201]

    arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. [Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999) doi:10.1086/307221 [astro-ph/9812133]

    arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974). doi:10.1007/BF01807638

    doi:10.1007/bf01807638 1974

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Deffayet, X

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer and G. Za- hariade, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064039 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.064039 [arXiv:1103.3260 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 126, 511 (2011) doi:10.1143/PTP.126.511 [arXiv:1105.5723 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Heisenberg, JCAP 1405, 015 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2014/05/015 [arXiv:1402.7026 [hep-th]]

    L. Heisenberg, JCAP 1405, 015 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2014/05/015 [arXiv:1402.7026 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    De Felice, L

    A. De Felice, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, S. Muko- hyama, S. Tsujikawa and Y. l. Zhang, JCAP 1606, no. 06, 048 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/06/048 [arXiv:1603.05806 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze and A. J. Tol- ley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 231101 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.231101 [arXiv:1011.1232 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    de Rham and G

    C. de Rham and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Rev. D 82, 044020 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.044020 [arXiv:1007.0443 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collab- orations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no. 6, 061102 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collab- orations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 16, 161101 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 [arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Baker, E

    T. Baker, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 25, 251301 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251301 [arXiv:1710.06394 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Sakstein and B

    J. Sakstein and B. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 25, 251303 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251303 [arXiv:1710.05893 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astro- phys. 594, A13 (2016) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 [arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. 876, no. 1, 85 (2019) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422 [arXiv:1903.07603 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    K. C. Wong et al. , arXiv:1907.04869 [astro-ph.CO]

    1907 arXiv

  14. [22]

    G. C.-F. Chen et al. , arXiv:1907.02533 [astro-ph.CO]

    1907 arXiv

  15. [23]

    W. L. Freedman et al. , arXiv:1907.05922 [astro-ph.CO]

    1907 arXiv

  16. [24]

    W. Yuan, A. G. Riess, L. M. Macri, S. Caser- tano and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. 886 (2019), 61 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4bc9 [arXiv:1908.00993 [astro- ph.GA]]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. Renk, M. Zumalacrregui, F. Montanari and A. Bar- reira, JCAP 1710, no. 10, 020 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2017/10/020 [arXiv:1707.02263 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    R. C. Nunes, JCAP 1805, no. 05, 052 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/05/052 [arXiv:1802.02281 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Desmond, B

    H. Desmond, B. Jain and J. Sakstein, arXiv:1907.03778 [astro-ph.CO]

    1907 arXiv

  20. [28]

    U. Alam, S. Bag and V. Sahni, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 2, 023524 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.023524 [arXiv:1605.04707 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Khosravi, S

    N. Khosravi, S. Baghram, N. Afshordi and N. Al- tamirano, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 10, 103526 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103526 [arXiv:1710.09366 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Di Valentino, E

    E. Di Valentino, E. V. Linder and A. Mel- chiorri, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 4, 043528 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043528 [arXiv:1710.02153 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Banihashemi, N

    A. Banihashemi, N. Khosravi and A. H. Shi- razi, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 8, 083509 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083509 [arXiv:1810.11007 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no. 22, 221301 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.221301 [arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Vattis, S

    K. Vattis, S. M. Koushiappas and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 12, 121302 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.121302 [arXiv:1903.06220 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kumar, R

    S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes and S. K. Yadav, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no. 7, 576 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7087-7 [arXiv:1903.04865 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi and D. F. Mota, JCAP 1809, no. 09, 019 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/019 [arXiv:1805.08252 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C. D. Kreisch, F. Y. Cyr-Racine and O. Dor, arXiv:1902.00534 [astro-ph.CO]

    1902 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Li and A

    X. Li and A. Shafieloo, arXiv:1906.08275 [astro-ph.CO]

    1906 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Dutta, Ruchika, A

    K. Dutta, Ruchika, A. Roy, A. A. Sen and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, arXiv:1808.06623 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Visinelli, S

    L. Visinelli, S. Vagnozzi and U. Danielsson, Sym- metry 11, 1035 (2019) doi:10.3390/sym11081035 [arXiv:1907.07953 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Panpanich and P

    S. Panpanich and P. Burikham, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 6, 064008 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.064008 [arXiv:1806.06271 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Z. K. Guo, Y. S. Piao, X. M. Zhang and Y. Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 608, 177 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.01.017 [astro-ph/0410654]

    2005 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043539 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.043539 [hep-th/0405034]

    2004 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, D. Saez-Gomez and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 77, 106005 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.106005 [arXiv:0803.1311 [hep- th]]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Alexander and E

    S. Alexander and E. McDonough, Physics Let- ters B 797 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134830 [arXiv:1904.08912 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019

  37. [45]

    Colgin and H

    E. . Colgin and H. Yavartanoo, arXiv:1905.02555 [astro- ph.CO]

    1905 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Naruko, D

    A. Naruko, D. Yoshida and S. Mukohyama, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, no. 9, 09LT01 (2016) doi:10.1088/0264- 15 9381/33/9/09LT01 [arXiv:1512.06977 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    E. N. Saridakis and M. Tsoukalas, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 12, 124032 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.124032 [arXiv:1601.06734 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Amendola, Phys

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

    2000 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Tsujikawa, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8685-3 8 arXiv:1004.1493 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Tsujikawa, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8685-3 8 arXiv:1004.1493 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hinterbichler, J

    K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, A. Levy and A. Matas, Phys. Rev. D 84, 103521 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.103521 [arXiv:1107.2112 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.171104 [astro-ph/0309300]

    2004 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D 69, 044026 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.044026 [astro- ph/0309411]

    2004

  46. [54]

    H. Yu, B. Ratra and F. Wang, Astrophys. J. 856, no.1, 3 (2018) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a2 [arXiv:1711.03437 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. M. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J. 859, no. 2, 101 (2018) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb [arXiv:1710.00845 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Jones, D

    D. Jones, D. Scolnic, A. Riess, A. Rest, R. Kirshner, E. Berger, R. Kessler, Y. Pan, R. Foley, R. Chornock, C. Ortega, P. Challis, W. Burgett, K. Chambers, P. Draper, H. Flewelling, M. Huber, N. Kaiser, R. Ku- dritzki, N. Metcalfe, J. Tonry, R. Wainscoat, C. Waters, E. Gall, R...

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Conley et al

    A. Conley et al. [SNLS], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 1 (2011) doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/1 [arXiv:1104.1443 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Richardson, R

    D. Richardson, R. L. Jenkins, J. Wright and L. Mad- dox, Astron. J. 147, 118 (2014) doi:10.1088/0004- 6256/147/5/118 [arXiv:1403.5755 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Hu and N

    W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J. 471, 542 (1996) doi:10.1086/177989 [astro-ph/9510117]

    1996 arXiv

  52. [60]

    D. J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 496, 605 (1998) doi:10.1086/305424 [astro-ph/9709112]

    1998 arXiv

  53. [61]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astro- phys. 571, A16 (2014) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 [arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    W. J. Percival, S. Cole, D. J. Eisenstein, R. C. Nichol, J. A. Peacock, A. C. Pope and A. S. Szalay, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 381, 1053 (2007) doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2007.12268.x [arXiv:0705.3323 [astro-ph]]

    2007

  55. [63]

    Beutler, F., Blake, C., Colless, M. et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 3017 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Burden and M. Manera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, no. 1, 835 (2015) doi:10.1093/mnras/stv154 [arXiv:1409.3242 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. [BOSS Collaboration], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, no. 3, 2617 (2017) doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 [arXiv:1607.03155 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Arevalo, A

    F. Arevalo, A. Cid and J. Moya, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.8, 565 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5128-7 [arXiv:1610.09330 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    W. Hu, M. Fukugita, M. Zaldarriaga and M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J. 549 (2001), 669 doi:10.1086/319449 [arXiv:astro-ph/0006436 [astro-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Doran and M

    M. Doran and M. Lilley, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.330 (2002), 965-970 doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05144.x [arXiv:astro-ph/0104486 [astro-ph]]

    2002

  61. [69]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 594, A11 (2016) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526926 [arXiv:1507.02704 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.