Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Observational constraints on 3-forms dark energy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 3-form field with a Gaussian potential is an observationally viable phantom dark energy that raises the CMB+BAO Hubble constant from 67.89 to 68.29 km/s/Mpc, easing the Hubble tension.

desk verdict First MCMC constraints on 3-form dark energy, but the advertised 'no fine-tuning' is contradicted by the paper's own prior choice and by Section 5's admission of fine-tuned timing. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.09991 v2 pith:IFS7DAXL submitted 2025-12-10 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Mariam Bouhmadi-López , Hsu-Wen Chiang , Carlos G. Boiza , Pisin Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords 3-formfieldsdarkenergyphantomGaussianpotentialHubbletensionMCMCcosmologicalconstraintsbaryonacousticoscillationscosmicmicrowavebackground
topics Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a 3-form field with a Gaussian potential—a higher-spin, phantom-capable dark energy candidate—is observationally viable and can partially ease the Hubble tension. Using MCMC fits to CMB, BAO, supernovae, local H0 anchors, and weak lensing, it reports that the model raises the CMB+BAO Hubble constant from 67.89 to 68.29 km/s/Mpc, moving toward the local distance-ladder value. The authors also argue that 3-form perturbations remain subdominant, leaving CMB and matter power spectra nearly unchanged. If right, the model offers a theoretically motivated alternative to a cosmological constant that is statistically slightly preferred over Lambda CDM when low-redshift data are included.

What carries the argument

The central object is a 3-form field (a rank-3 antisymmetric tensor) whose single scalar degree of freedom, χ, rolls under a Gaussian potential V(χ)=V* exp(−ξκ²χ²/6). Because the potential decreases with χ², the field's equation of state w_χ = −1 + χV_χ / [(χ̇+3Hχ)²/2 + V] drops below −1, giving phantom behaviour without ghosts for ξ<9/2. The mechanism that carries the claimed H0 shift is the field being swept by Hubble drag until it climbs the potential at z≈1.7, altering the late-time expansion history; the dynamical system's late-time attractor is a 'Little Sibling of the Big Rip' reached at infinite cosmic time. The argument is completed by MCMC fits of this dynamics to a combined datase

What would settle it

Re-run the MCMC with a prior that includes the small-field branch (v≈0) and the kinetic-dominated E fixed point, without the EH0 constraint; if the H0 posterior returns to the Lambda CDM value near 67.9 km/s/Mpc, the claimed tension reduction is an artifact of the excluded prior region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a phantom-like dark energy built from a 3-form field with a Gaussian potential improves the fit to combined cosmological data over Lambda CDM by shifting H0 upward. The shift is produced by the field climbing its potential around z≈1.7, which changes the late-time expansion history while keeping early-time physics intact. The paper demonstrates the shift through MCMC with Planck PR4 CMB, DESI DR1 BAO, Pantheon+ SNe, Cepheid calibrators, and DES Y1, and verifies analytically and numerically that the 3-form perturbations do not destabilize the CMB or matter power spectrum. The authors present the model as the first observationally constrained 3-form dark energy and as

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on the prior that fixes the 3-form on the large-field branch so it climbs the Gaussian potential at z≈1.7; the authors exclude the small-field branch and the kinetic-dominated fixed point from the MCMC and concede in Section 5 that this timing requires fine-tuning of the initial condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a 3-form field with a Gaussian potential is a viable phantom dark energy candidate that fits all major cosmological datasets without breaking CMB or matter power spectra.
  • The Hubble tension between early- and late-time probes is reduced by about 0.4 km/s/Mpc for CMB+BAO, and further when local H0 anchors are added, moving the prediction toward the local distance ladder.
  • Statistical probes (DIC, WAIC, Bayesian evidence) mildly favour the 3-form model over Lambda CDM once low-redshift SNe and Cepheid data are included.
  • The model's far future is a Little Sibling of the Big Rip—an abrupt but non-singular end at infinite cosmic time—rather than a de Sitter phase.
  • The 3-form perturbation remains subdominant, so the model does not introduce new small-scale structure or CMB anomalies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The success of the model hinges on the field climbing its potential at z≈1.7, the same epoch used by sign-switching ΛsCDM models; the authors note a negative cosmological constant extension is under investigation. A testable extension would be to check whether such a combined model removes the residual Ωm0–H0–rd tension they identify.
  • Because the MCMC prior deliberately excludes the small-field branch and the kinetic-dominated fixed point, the reported H0 shift and model preference may be prior-driven. An agnostic prior covering those regions would show whether the shift survives.
  • The model's expansion history at low z resembles that of a phantom fluid with a sudden transition; distance-only data (BAO, SNe) may be insufficient to distinguish it from phenomenological w(a) or ΛsCDM parametrisations, so growth data or gravitational-wave standard sirens could break the degeneracy.
  • The DES Y1 fit did not reach convergence criteria; a converged weak-lensing analysis, or cosmic-shear data from ongoing surveys, could sharpen the Ωm0–S8 trade-off and either confirm or overturn the statistical preference.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a 3-form dark-energy field with a Gaussian potential, combining a dynamical-system analysis with an MCMC fit to Planck PR4 CMB, DESI DR1 BAO, Pantheon+ SNe, local H0 anchors, and DES Y1 weak lensing data. The dynamical analysis shows an LSBR attractor, a saddle de Sitter point, and phantom-like late-time behavior. The MCMC analysis reports that, for CMB+BAO data, the 3-form model shifts H0 from 67.89±0.36 (ΛCDM) to 68.29^{+0.56}_{-0.61} km/s/Mpc, and that adding SNe+low-z data gives ΔlnB ≈ −2.9±1.7, interpreted as a statistical preference over ΛCDM and a mild reduction of the Hubble tension. The authors also verify that 3-form perturbations remain subdominant by comparing CAMB runs with and without the dark-energy perturbation.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be the first observational constraint on a 3-form dark-energy model, a theoretically motivated phantom candidate, and the demonstration that its perturbations are well-behaved would be valuable. The paper contains a thorough dynamical-system analysis, including a centre-manifold proof of the stability of the LSBR attractor, and a careful comparison of perturbed vs. unperturbed CAMB runs. However, the observational claims rely on a deliberately truncated prior over the 3-form parameter space, and the paper itself concedes fine-tuning of the initial condition, contradicting the abstract. The robustness of the reported H0 shift and model preference to prior choices is therefore not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, footnote 12, Table 2, §5] The central claim that the 3-form model increases H0 and is statistically preferred over ΛCDM is conditional on a truncated prior. The prior on log10(a_i^3√ξκχ_i) (Table 2) restricts the large-field branch, and footnote 12 explicitly states that the small-field branch (fixed points A1, A2) is excluded and that the E fixed point is deliberately suppressed because it is 'indistinguishable from ΛCDM'. The posterior peak at log10(a_i^3√ξκχ_i)≈−1.3 (Table 4) is what produces the H0 shift via a climb at z≈1.7. Section 5 then concedes that the model 'does require a specific moment to exert its phantom-ness... leading to a fine-tuning of the initial condition,' in direct contradiction to the abstract's 'without fine-tuning of the model parameters.' The reported ΔlnB≈−2.9±1.7 is a comparison over a restricted prior volume; widening the prior to include the full physical domain could dilute or rev
  2. [§4.1, Table 4 (DES Y1 column)] The DES Y1 chains did not meet the convergence criteria: the text states 'we cannot meet the stopping criteria when fitting DES Y1 dataset with the 3-form dark energy model (Inter-chain R−1∼0.08 for H0... of 6 chains we perform only 3 successfully explore a large parameter space).' Nevertheless, Table 4 reports the full DES Y1 column and the abstract lists DES Y1 as part of the comprehensive dataset. Since the DES Y1 posterior is explicitly described as a rough estimate, these results should be either excluded from the main conclusions or rerun to convergence. As presented, the summary statistics for the DES Y1 column are unreliable and should not be used to support the model's viability.
  3. [§4, Table 2 (Constraint E_H0)] The consistency constraint on E_H0 ≡ 1−H0,EOM^2/H0^2 is implemented as a Gaussian likelihood of width 0.001/√2 and then converted into a prior by subtracting its likelihood from all other likelihoods. This is an extremely tight, ad hoc constraint (the paper itself calls it 'reminiscent of an ad hoc Gaussian constraint'), and it directly enters the Bayesian evidence calculation. The paper does not demonstrate that the results are insensitive to the chosen width or that the prior-volume interpretation is well defined. If this constraint is purely a numerical consistency condition, its width should be shown not to affect the posterior or the model comparison; otherwise it acts as an additional, arbitrarily weighted parameter.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §5] The abstract states the H0 shift is achieved 'without fine-tuning of the model parameters,' but Section 5 concedes a fine-tuning of the initial condition. This internal inconsistency should be resolved, for example by rephrasing the abstract to 'without fine-tuning beyond the initial choice of the large-field branch' or by removing the phrase entirely.
  2. [§4.2, Fig. 3] The claim of 'mildly reducing the tension' is not quantified. Taking the reported low-z H0=73.2±1.3 km/s/Mpc, the 3-form value 68.29^{+0.56}_{-0.61} still differs by about 3.4σ, so a quantitative statement of the residual tension would help the reader assess the improvement.
  3. [Tables 3–6] The notation 'Left + BAO' and similar column headers is unusual and potentially confusing; consider labeling columns by the datasets included (e.g., 'CMB', '+BAO', '+SNe'). Some entries for non-Gaussian parameters (e.g., log10 ξ) report only a median with no uncertainty or with a question mark; this should be clarified either by giving full quantiles or by explicitly stating that the distribution is effectively a point mass at the reported value.
  4. [General] The paper uses Cobaya, CAMB, and GetDist but does not state whether the modified CAMB code for the 3-form perturbations will be made publicly available. A reproducibility statement would strengthen the work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the H0 shift is a standard posterior fit, and the prior restrictions are a limitation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central H0 claim comes from a standard MCMC fit: H0 is a sampled parameter with a flat prior, and the 3-form parameters (V*, xi, initial field strength/kinetic energy) are fitted to the same CMB+BAO data. Calling the resulting posterior a 'predicted Hubble parameter' is loose language, but the fit is not an identity: no prior or likelihood enforces H0 = 68.29 or the z~1.7 climbing time; those values emerge from the data. The EH0 constraint is admittedly 'tautological in backward-time integration' (Sec. 4), but it is an internal consistency condition for CAMB's forward integration, explicitly subtracted and converted into a prior, not used as physical evidence. The dynamical stability results are re-derived in the paper via the centre-manifold analysis in Appendix A, so self-citations [55-57] for the Gaussian model and LSBR are not load-bearing. The legitimate weakness is prior truncation: footnote 12 deliberately excludes the E fixed point and the small-field branch, and Sec. 5 concedes 'a fine-tuning of the initial condition,' which undercuts the abstract's 'without fine-tuning' wording. That is a prior/scope problem limiting the model-comparison claim, not a circular derivation: the posterior preference is not identical to the prior by construction, since the prior still spans a wide range of initial field strengths and the low-z shift of log10(a_i^3 sqrt(xi) kappa chi_i) is data-driven. No step reduces the claimed result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model adds five effective fit parameters (potential amplitude, width, initial field amplitude, initial kinetic energy, and an ad hoc consistency width). The theoretical framework is inherited from prior 3-form literature, and no new particles or forces are introduced. The main additional burden is the prior truncation that selects the large-field branch and the hand-built E_H0 consistency prior.

free parameters (5)
  • V*/ρ_DE,0 = ≈1.0000±0.002 (posterior)
    Amplitude of Gaussian potential; flat prior 0–2; sets dark-energy density scale and is effectively pinned to the observed DE density.
  • log10 ξ = ≈ −3.2 to −3.4
    Width of Gaussian potential; flat log prior [−7, log10(9/2)]; controls phantomness and sound-speed crossing.
  • log10(a_i^3 √ξ κ χ_i) = ≈ −1.2 to −2.3 depending on dataset
    Initial field strength; flat prior [−3.5, 0.5]; controls when the field climbs the potential at z≈1.7.
  • (χdot_i + 3H_i χ_i)/ρ_crit^{1/2} = ≈ 0 ± 0.5
    Initial kinetic term of the 3-form; flat prior [−5/4, 5/4].
  • E_H0 consistency prior width = 0.001/√2 (chosen, not fitted)
    Hand-chosen Gaussian width forcing H0_EOM ≈ H0; converted from a likelihood into a prior; shapes the model comparison.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Gaussian potential ansatz V(χ)=V* exp(−ξκ²χ²/6) with V*, ξ > 0
    Model choice in Eq. (3.2); motivated by stability and phantom behaviour, not derived from a more fundamental theory.
  • domain assumption Stability requires 0 < ξ < 9/2 so c_s² > 0 over [−χ_c, χ_c]
    Imposed in Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5); the observational prior on log10 ξ respects this range.
  • standard math Flat FLRW background with standard conserved matter and radiation
    Eqs. (2.7)–(2.15); standard cosmological setup used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the large-field branch is sampled; small-field branch and E fixed point are excluded by prior
    Footnote 12: deliberate choice to prevent MCMC trapping around ΛCDM-equivalent dynamics; truncates the parameter space on which the model comparison is based.
  • ad hoc to paper E_H0 consistency condition with width 0.001/√2, converted to a prior
    Section 4: hand-chosen constraint that H0 from EOM equals H0 from θMC; admitted to be 'reminiscent of an ad hoc Gaussian constraint.'
  • standard math Centre manifold theorem for stability of non-hyperbolic LSBR points
    Appendix A, refs. [123,124]; used to establish that B± are attractors.
  • domain assumption CAMB modification for 3-form scalar perturbation δχ is correct
    Section 4: verified only indirectly by comparing to perturbation-off runs, not by an independent code.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational constraints on 3-forms dark energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IFS7DAXL

@misc{pith2026251209991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational constraints on 3-forms dark energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IFS7DAXL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.09991}
}
abstract

3-forms are natural candidates for describing the late-time accelerated expansion of the Universe, as they can inherently reproduce a positive cosmological constant when lacking an evolving potential. When such a potential is present, a 3-form field may exhibit either quintessence-like or phantom-like behaviour. In this paper, we consider a late-time effective dark energy model described by a 3-form with a Gaussian potential, stable during the dark-energy-dominated era. We constrain this model observationally by performing a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis employing a comprehensive cosmological dataset, including Planck PR4 cosmic microwave background (CMB) data, DESI DR1 baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements, Pantheon+ Type Ia supernovae data, low-$z$ Cepheid calibrators, and DES Y1 large-scale structure observations. We demonstrate that the 3-form model successfully increases the predicted Hubble parameter of CMB and BAO data from $67.89\pm0.36{\rm km/s/Mpc}$ of $\Lambda$CDM model to $68.29^{+0.56}_{-0.61}{\rm km/s/Mpc}$ by approaching the potential peak at the right time, thus mildly reducing the tension with the late-time observation. Overall, the 3-form field serves as a promising candidate of phantom-like dark energy from both theoretical and observational points of view.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. 3-form dark energy and cosmic birefringence

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    3-form dark energy can explain cosmic birefringence with a dimension-4 photon coupling, yielding redshift profiles that can mimic or differ from axion dark energy, but the implied photon mass estimate is numerically shaky.

  2. Alleviating the Hubble Tension with Smooth Sign-Switching Dark Energy: Full CMB Constraints with DESI and PantheonPlus

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Smooth ECDM dark energy remains compatible with Planck+ACT+SPT, DESI DR2 and Pantheon+/SH0ES while alleviating the Hubble tension through a controlled late-time density transition.

  3. Black Bounce Solutions from a Self-Interacting 3-Form Field in General Relativity

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Black-bounce solutions are obtained from a self-interacting 3-form field in GR plus scalar, producing two families that are globally regular with asymmetric horizons and different scalar behaviors.

  4. Background-level reconstruction of scalar-field potentials from dark-energy histories and comparison with analytic potential families

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    A background reconstruction maps prescribed ρ_de(z) histories to V(φ) and ranks analytic potentials by Bayesian evidence, with exponential preferred for CPL and shifted-tanh for sign-switching targets.

  5. Scaling solutions in three-form cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A generalized three-form dark-energy Lagrangian admits stable scaling attractors that track the dominant cosmic fluid and, via a double-potential extension, exit to late-time acceleration — physical content dual to kn...

  6. Three-form dark energy: constraints and multi-probe comparison with $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Three-form dark energy with Gaussian potential is fitted to multi-probe cosmological data and shows mild statistical preference over ΛCDM only in heavily tensioned dataset combinations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Bahcall, J.P

    N.A. Bahcall, J.P. Ostriker, S. Perlmutter and P.J. Steinhardt,The Cosmic triangle: Assessing the state of the universe,Science284(1999) 1481 [astro-ph/9906463]

    arXiv 1999

  2. [4]

    Bennett et al.,First-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series148(2003) 1

    C.L. Bennett et al.,First-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series148(2003) 1

    2003

  3. [5]

    Komatsu et al.,Seven-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Cosmological interpretation,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series192(2011) 18

    E. Komatsu et al.,Seven-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Cosmological interpretation,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series192(2011) 18

    2011

  4. [6]

    Collaboration,Planck 2013 results

    P. Collaboration,Planck 2013 results. xvi. cosmological parameters,Astronomy & Astrophysics571(2014) A16

    2013

  5. [7]

    Collaboration,Planck 2018 results

    P. Collaboration,Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmological parameters,Astronomy & Astrophysics 641(2020) A6

    2018

  6. [8]

    Eisenstein et al.,Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of sdss luminous red galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal633(2005) 560

    D.J. Eisenstein et al.,Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of sdss luminous red galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal633(2005) 560

    2005

  7. [9]

    S. Cole et al.,The 2df galaxy redshift survey: Power-spectrum analysis of the final data set and cosmological implications,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society362(2005) 505

    2005

  8. [10]

    Percival et al.,Baryon acoustic oscillations in the sloan digital sky survey data release 7 galaxy sample,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society401(2010) 2148

    W.J. Percival et al.,Baryon acoustic oscillations in the sloan digital sky survey data release 7 galaxy sample,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society401(2010) 2148

    2010

Show all 107 references
  1. [11]

    Tegmark et al.,The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the sloan digital sky survey,The Astrophysical Journal606(2004) 702

    M. Tegmark et al.,The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the sloan digital sky survey,The Astrophysical Journal606(2004) 702

    2004

  2. [12]

    Reid et al.,Cosmological constraints from the clustering of the sloan digital sky survey dr7 luminous red galaxies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society404(2010) 60

    B.A. Reid et al.,Cosmological constraints from the clustering of the sloan digital sky survey dr7 luminous red galaxies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society404(2010) 60

    2010

  3. [13]

    Ratra and P.J.E

    B. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles,Cosmological Consequences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field,Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 3406

    1988

  4. [14]

    Armendariz-Picon, V.F

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V.F. Mukhanov and P.J. Steinhardt,Essentials of k essence,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 103510 [astro-ph/0006373]

    2001 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Kamionkowski, J

    M. Kamionkowski, J. Pradler and D.G.E. Walker,Dark energy from the string axiverse,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 251302 [1409.0549]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Emami, D

    R. Emami, D. Grin, J. Pradler, A. Raccanelli and M. Kamionkowski,Cosmological tests of an axiverse-inspired quintessence field,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 123005 [1603.04851]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [17]

    Chiang, C.G

    H.-W. Chiang, C.G. Boiza and M. Bouhmadi-López,Observational constraints on generalised axion-like potentials for the late Universe,JCAP08(2025) 064 [2503.04898]. – 28 –

    2025 arXiv

  8. [18]

    Bouhmadi-López, H.-W

    M. Bouhmadi-López, H.-W. Chiang and C.G. Boiza,Generalised axion-like dark energy: From theory to observations,Phys. Dark Univ.49(2025) 101968

    2025

  9. [19]

    Deffayet, O

    C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman,Imperfect Dark Energy from Kinetic Gravity Braiding,JCAP10(2010) 026 [1008.0048]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [20]

    Pujolas, I

    O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman,The Imperfect Fluid behind Kinetic Gravity Braiding, JHEP11(2011) 156 [1103.5360]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Borislavov Vasilev, M

    T. Borislavov Vasilev, M. Bouhmadi-López and P. Martín-Moruno,Phantom attractors in kinetic gravity braiding theories: a dynamical system approach,JCAP06(2023) 026 [2212.02547]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Borislavov Vasilev, M

    T. Borislavov Vasilev, M. Bouhmadi-López and P. Martín-Moruno,Dark energy with a shift-symmetric scalar field: Obstacles, loophole hunting and dead ends,Phys. Dark Univ.46 (2024) 101679 [2406.12576]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Kobayashi,Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,Rept

    T. Kobayashi,Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,Rept. Prog. Phys.82(2019) 086901 [1901.07183]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. Özülker and J.A. Vazquez,Relaxing cosmological tensions with a sign switching cosmological constant,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 123512 [2108.09239]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. Özülker, J.A. Vazquez and A. Yadav,Relaxing cosmological tensions with a sign switching cosmological constant: Improved results with Planck, BAO, and Pantheon data,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 023513 [2211.05742]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Akarsu, E

    O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R.C. Nunes, J.A. Vazquez and A. Yadav,ΛsCDM model: A promising scenario for alleviation of cosmological tensions, [2307.10899]

    arXiv

  17. [27]

    Bouhmadi-López and B

    M. Bouhmadi-López and B. Ibarra-Uriondo,Cosmographic analysis of sign-switching dark energy,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 063559 [2506.12139]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Bouhmadi-López and B

    M. Bouhmadi-López and B. Ibarra-Uriondo,Cosmological perturbations for smooth sign-switching dark energy models, [2506.18992]

  19. [29]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A.Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier,An Alternative to quintessence,Phys. Lett. B511(2001) 265 [gr-qc/0103004]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Bouhmadi-López and J.A

    M. Bouhmadi-López and J.A. Jimenez Madrid,Escaping the big rip?,JCAP05(2005) 005 [astro-ph/0404540]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Bouhmadi-López, P.F

    M. Bouhmadi-López, P.F. González-Díaz and P. Martín-Moruno,Worse than a big rip?,Phys. Lett. B659(2008) 1 [gr-qc/0612135]. [32]CANTATAcollaboration, Y. Akrami et al.,Modified Gravity and Cosmology. An Update by the CANTATA Network, Springer (2021), 10.1007/978-3-030-83715-0, [...

    2008 arXiv

  22. [33]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis,Extended Theories of Gravity,Phys. Rept.509(2011) 167 [1108.6266]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [34]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov,Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models,Phys. Rept.505(2011) 59 [1011.0544]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [35]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and V.K. Oikonomou,Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution,Phys. Rept.692(2017) 1 [1705.11098]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [36]

    Morais, M

    J. Morais, M. Bouhmadi-López and S. Capozziello,Canf(R)gravity contribute to (dark) radiation?,JCAP09(2015) 041 [1507.02623]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [37]

    Bengochea and R

    G.R. Bengochea and R. Ferraro,Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 124019 [0812.1205]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [38]

    Ferraro and F

    R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini,Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without inflaton,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 084031 [gr-qc/0610067]. – 29 –

    2007 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Y.-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and E.N. Saridakis,f(T) teleparallel gravity and cosmology,Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) 106901 [1511.07586]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [40]

    Beltrán Jiménez, L

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg and T.S. Koivisto,Teleparallel Palatini theories,JCAP08 (2018) 039 [1803.10185]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [41]

    Beltrán Jiménez, L

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, T.S. Koivisto and S. Pekar,Cosmology inf(Q)geometry, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 103507 [1906.10027]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [42]

    Ayuso, R

    I. Ayuso, R. Lazkoz and V. Salzano,Observational constraints on cosmological solutions of f(Q)theories,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 063505 [2012.00046]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [43]

    Boiza, M

    C.G. Boiza, M. Petronikolou, M. Bouhmadi-López and E.N. Saridakis,AddressingH0 andS 8 tensions withinf(Q)cosmology, [2505.18264]

  33. [44]

    Ayuso, M

    I. Ayuso, M. Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y. Chen, X.Y. Chew, K. Dialektopoulos and Y.C. Ong, Insights inf(Q)cosmology: the relevance of the connection, [2506.03506]

  34. [45]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton and G. Efstathiou,CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517(2022) 4620 [2205.10869]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [46]

    Riess, S

    A.G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J.B. Bowers, L. Macri, J.C. Zinn et al.,Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension withΛCDM,Astrophys. J. Lett.908 (2021) L6 [2012.08534]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [47]

    Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys

    D. Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110 [2202.04077]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [48]

    Wright et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey, [2503.19441]

    A.H. Wright et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey, [2503.19441]. [49]DEScollaboration,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023520 ...

    2022 arXiv

  38. [51]

    Dalal et al.,Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra,Phys

    R. Dalal et al.,Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 123519 [2304.00701]. [52]DESIcollaboration,Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083511 [2503.14743]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [53]

    Koivisto and N.J

    T.S. Koivisto and N.J. Nunes,Inflation and dark energy from three-forms,Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 103509 [0908.0920]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [54]

    Koivisto and N.J

    T.S. Koivisto and N.J. Nunes,Coupled three-form dark energy,Physical Review D88(2013)

    2013

  41. [55]

    Morais, M

    J. Morais, M. Bouhmadi-López, K. Sravan Kumar, J. Marto and Y. Tavakoli,Interacting 3-form dark energy models: distinguishing interactions and avoiding the Little Sibling of the Big Rip,Phys. Dark Univ.15(2017) 7 [1608.01679]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [56]

    Bouhmadi-López, J

    M. Bouhmadi-López, J. Marto, J. Morais and C.M. Silva,Cosmic infinity: A dynamical system approach,JCAP03(2017) 042 [1611.03100]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [57]

    Morais, M

    J. Morais, M. Bouhmadi-López and J. Marto,3-Form Cosmology: Phantom Behaviour, Singularities and Interactions,Universe3(2017) 21

    2017

  44. [58]

    Aurilia, H

    A. Aurilia, H. Nicolai and P.K. Townsend,Hidden Constants: The Theta Parameter of QCD and the Cosmological Constant of N=8 Supergravity,Nucl. Phys. B176(1980) 509

    1980

  45. [59]

    Koivisto and N.J

    T.S. Koivisto and N.J. Nunes,Three-form cosmology,Phys. Lett. B685(2010) 105 [0907.3883]. – 30 –

    2010 arXiv

  46. [60]

    Duff and P

    M.J. Duff and P. van Nieuwenhuizen,Quantum Inequivalence of Different Field Representations,Phys. Lett. B94(1980) 179

    1980

  47. [61]

    Germani and A

    C. Germani and A. Kehagias,P-nflation: generating cosmic Inflation with p-forms,JCAP03 (2009) 028 [0902.3667]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [62]

    De Felice, K

    A. De Felice, K. Karwan and P. Wongjun,Stability of the 3-form field during inflation,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 123545 [1202.0896]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [63]

    De Felice, K

    A. De Felice, K. Karwan and P. Wongjun,Reheating in 3-form inflation,Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 103526 [1209.5156]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [64]

    Mulryne, J

    D.J. Mulryne, J. Noller and N.J. Nunes,Three-form inflation and non-gaussianity,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(2012) 016–016

    2012

  51. [65]

    Urban and T.S

    F.R. Urban and T.S. Koivisto,Perturbations and non-Gaussianities in three-form inflationary magnetogenesis,JCAP09(2012) 025 [1207.7328]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [66]

    Kumar, J

    K.S. Kumar, J. Marto, N.J. Nunes and P.V. Moniz,Inflation in a two 3-form fields scenario, JCAP06(2014) 064 [1404.0211]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [67]

    Sravan Kumar, D.J

    K. Sravan Kumar, D.J. Mulryne, N.J. Nunes, J. Marto and P. Vargas Moniz,Non-Gaussianity in multiple three-form field inflation,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 103504 [1606.07114]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [68]

    Barros and N.J

    B.J. Barros and N.J. Nunes,Three-form inflation in type II Randall-Sundrum,Phys. Rev. D 93(2016) 043512 [1511.07856]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [69]

    Barros and J

    B.J. Barros and J. Beltrán Jiménez,Non-trivial thick brane realisations with 3-forms,JHEP 02(2024) 002 [2312.12516]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [70]

    Gordin, K

    J.E.B. Gordin, K. MacDevette and J. Bruton,The dynamics of three-forms in thick branes, JHEP05(2024) 061 [2311.14436]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [71]

    Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y

    M. Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y. Chen, X.Y. Chew, Y.C. Ong and D.-h. Yeom,Traversable wormhole in Einstein 3-form theory with self-interacting potential,JCAP10(2021) 059 [2108.07302]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [72]

    Barros and F.S

    B.J. Barros and F.S. Lobo,Wormhole geometries supported by three-form fields,Physical Review D98(2018)

    2018

  59. [73]

    Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y

    M. Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y. Chen, X.Y. Chew, Y.C. Ong and D.-H. Yeom,Regular Black Hole Interior Spacetime Supported by Three-Form Field,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 278 [2005.13260]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [74]

    Barros, B

    B.J. Barros, B. Dˇ anilˇ a, T. Harko and F.S.N. Lobo,Black hole and naked singularity geometries supported by three-form fields,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 617 [2004.06605]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [75]

    da Fonseca, B.J

    V. da Fonseca, B.J. Barros, T. Barreiro and N.J. Nunes,Non-canonical 3-form dark energy, Phys. Dark Univ.47(2025) 101827 [2410.11658]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [76]

    De Felice and A

    A. De Felice and A. Hell,The non-minimal 3-form cosmology and the rise of the cuscuton, [2509.02323]

  63. [77]

    Barreiro, U

    T. Barreiro, U. Bertello and N.J. Nunes,Screening three-form fields,Phys. Lett. B773(2017) 417 [1610.00357]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [78]

    Barros, Z

    B.J. Barros, Z. Haghani, T. Harko and F.S.N. Lobo,Static spherically symmetric three-form stars,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 307 [2101.04445]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [79]

    Bouhmadi-López, D

    M. Bouhmadi-López, D. Brizuela and I. Garay,Quantum behavior of the ”Little Sibling” of the Big Rip induced by a three-form field,JCAP09(2018) 031 [1802.05164]. [80]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A5 [19...

    2018 arXiv

  66. [81]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis,CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps,JCAP09 (2022) 039 [2206.07773]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [82]

    Carron, A

    J. Carron, A. Lewis and G. Fabbian,Planck integrated Sachs-Wolfe-lensing likelihood and the CMB temperature,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 103507 [2209.07395]. [83]DESIcollaboration,DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, [2404.0300...

    2022 arXiv

  68. [86]

    Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]. [87]DEScollaboration,Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cos...

    2022 arXiv

  69. [89]

    Raveri, G

    M. Raveri, G. Zacharegkas and W. Hu,Quantifying concordance of correlated cosmological data sets,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 103527 [1912.04880]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [90]

    Handley and P

    W. Handley and P. Lemos,Quantifying dimensionality: Bayesian cosmological model complexities,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 023512

    2019

  71. [91]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,Astrophys. J.538(2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    2000 arXiv

  72. [92]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall and A. Challinor,CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology,JCAP1204(2012) 027 [1201.3654]. [93]eBOSScollaboration,The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and ...

    2012 arXiv

  73. [94]

    Turnbull, M.J

    S.J. Turnbull, M.J. Hudson, H.A. Feldman, M. Hicken, R.P. Kirshner and R. Watkins, Cosmic flows in the nearby universe from Type Ia Supernovae,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 420(2012) 447 [1111.0631]

    2012 arXiv

  74. [95]

    Achitouv, C

    I. Achitouv, C. Blake, P. Carter, J. Koda and F. Beutler,Consistency of the growth rate in different environments with the 6-degree Field Galaxy Survey: Measurement of the void-galaxy and galaxy-galaxy correlation functions,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 083502 [1606.03092]

    2017 arXiv

  75. [96]

    Beutler, C

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D.H. Jones, L. Staveley-Smith, G.B. Poole et al.,The 6dF Galaxy Survey:z≈0measurement of the growth rate andσ 8,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 423(2012) 3430 [1204.4725]

    2012 arXiv

  76. [97]

    M. Feix, A. Nusser and E. Branchini,Growth Rate of Cosmological Perturbations at z∼0.1 from a New Observational Test,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 011301 [1503.05945]. [98]BOSScollaboration,The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Surve...

    2015 arXiv

  77. [100]

    Blake et al.,The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z<1,Mon

    C. Blake et al.,The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z<1,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.425(2012) 405 [1204.3674]

    2012 arXiv

  78. [101]

    Nadathur, P.M

    S. Nadathur, P.M. Carter, W.J. Percival, H.A. Winther and J. Bautista,Beyond BAO: Improving cosmological constraints from BOSS data with measurement of the void-galaxy cross-correlation,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 023504 [1904.01030]. [102]BOSScollaboration,The clustering of galaxie...

    2019 arXiv

  79. [103]

    Wilson,Geometric and growth rate tests of General Relativity with recovered linear cosmological perturbations, Ph.D

    M.J. Wilson,Geometric and growth rate tests of General Relativity with recovered linear cosmological perturbations, Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh U., 2017.1610.08362. [104]eBOSScollaboration,The clustering of the SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey DR14 quasar s...

    2017

  80. [105]

    Okumura et al.,The Subaru FMOS galaxy redshift survey (FastSound)

    T. Okumura et al.,The Subaru FMOS galaxy redshift survey (FastSound). IV. New constraint on gravity theory from redshift space distortions atz∼1.4,Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap.68(2016) 38 [1511.08083]

    2016 arXiv

  81. [106]

    Reid et al.,Cosmological Constraints from the Clustering of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR7 Luminous Red Galaxies,Mon

    B.A. Reid et al.,Cosmological Constraints from the Clustering of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR7 Luminous Red Galaxies,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.404(2010) 60 [0907.1659]. [107]eBOSScollaboration,The one-dimensional power spectrum from the SDSS DR14 Lyα forests,JCAP07(2019) 0...

    2010 arXiv

  82. [108]

    Beltrán Almeida, A

    J.P. Beltrán Almeida, A. Guarnizo and C.A. Valenzuela-Toledo,Arbitrarily coupledp−forms in cosmological backgrounds,Class. Quant. Grav.37(2020) 035001 [1810.05301]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [109]

    Bouhmadi-Lopez, A

    M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, A. Errahmani, P. Martin-Moruno, T. Ouali and Y. Tavakoli,The little sibling of the big rip singularity,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24(2015) 1550078 [1407.2446]

    2015 arXiv

  84. [110]

    Albarran, M

    I. Albarran, M. Bouhmadi-López, F. Cabral and P. Martín-Moruno,The quantum realm of the ”Little Sibling” of the Big Rip singularity,JCAP11(2015) 044 [1509.07398]

    2015 arXiv

  85. [111]

    Eisenstein and W

    D.J. Eisenstein and W. Hu,Baryonic features in the matter transfer function,Astrophys. J. 496(1998) 605 [astro-ph/9709112]

    1998 arXiv

  86. [112]

    Fixsen,The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background,Astrophys

    D.J. Fixsen,The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background,Astrophys. J.707 (2009) 916 [0911.1955]

    2009 arXiv

  87. [113]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05(2021) 057 [2005.05290]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [114]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle,Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 103511 [astro-ph/0205436]

    2002 arXiv

  89. [115]

    Lewis,Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters,Phys

    A. Lewis,Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 103529 [1304.4473]

    2013 arXiv

  90. [116]

    Neal,Taking Bigger Metropolis Steps by Dragging Fast Variables,arXiv Mathematics e-prints(2005) math/0502099 [math/0502099]

    R.M. Neal,Taking Bigger Metropolis Steps by Dragging Fast Variables,arXiv Mathematics e-prints(2005) math/0502099 [math/0502099]

    2005 arXiv

  91. [117]

    Hu and N

    W. Hu and N. Sugiyama,Small scale cosmological perturbations: An Analytic approach, Astrophys. J.471(1996) 542 [astro-ph/9510117]

    1996 arXiv

  92. [118]

    Watanabe,A widely applicable bayesian information criterion,J

    S. Watanabe,A widely applicable bayesian information criterion,J. Mach. Learn. Res.14 (2013) 867–897. – 33 –

    2013

  93. [119]

    Avila, A

    F. Avila, A. Bernui, A. Bonilla and R.C. Nunes,InferringS8(z)andγ(z)with cosmic growth rate measurements using machine learning,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 594 [2201.07829]

    2022 arXiv

  94. [120]

    Chen, Q.-G

    L. Chen, Q.-G. Huang and K. Wang,Distance Priors from Planck Final Release,JCAP02 (2019) 028 [1808.05724]

    2019 arXiv

  95. [121]

    Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, [1910.13970]

    A. Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, [1910.13970]

    1910 arXiv

  96. [122]

    Chabanier, M

    S. Chabanier, M. Millea and N. Palanque-Delabrouille,Matter power spectrum: from Lyα forest to CMB scales,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489(2019) 2247 [1905.08103]

    2019 arXiv

  97. [123]

    Carr,Applications of Centre Manifold Theory, vol

    J. Carr,Applications of Centre Manifold Theory, vol. 35 ofApplied Mathematical Sciences, Springer, New York, NY, 1 ed. (1981), 10.1007/978-1-4612-5929-9

    1981 doi

  98. [124]

    Wiggins,Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos, vol

    S. Wiggins,Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos, vol. 2 ofTexts in Applied Mathematics, Springer, New York, NY, 1 ed. (1990), 10.1007/978-1-4757-4067-7

    1990 doi

  99. [125]

    Mathematica, Version 14.0

    W.R. Inc., “Mathematica, Version 14.0.” – 34 –

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.