Is Phantom Divide Crossing in General Relativity Completely Impossible? Shortcomings in canonical and minimally coupled scalar field and Possible Solutions in $k$-essence Models

S.D. Odintsov; Shin'ichi Nojiri; V.K. Oikonomou

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Is Phantom Divide Crossing in General Relativity Completely Impossible? Shortcomings in canonical and minimally coupled scalar field and Possible Solutions in $k$-essence Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Canonical scalar fields cannot cross the phantom divide; fine-tuned k-essence models can.

desk verdict The canonical no-go is correct but textbook; the k-essence crossing claim fails at the crossing point because P_X=0 kills the gradient term, so the positive half of the paper doesn't survive. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.21356 v2 pith:KOGUOL7X submitted 2026-01-29 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Shin'ichi Nojiri , S.D. Odintsov , V.K. Oikonomou This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th MSC 83F05

keywords phantomcrossingequationofstateparameterscalarfieldcosmologyk-essenceghostcondensatedarkenergyreconstructionmethodmodifiedgravity

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 establishes a no-go result: in general relativity, a single canonical, minimally coupled scalar field has pressure p and density ρ obeying ρ + p = φ̇² ≥ 0, so the equation-of-state parameter w = p/ρ is always at least −1. Therefore the universe described by such a field can never enter a phantom phase (w < −1), let alone cross from phantom to quintessence as recent cosmological observations hint. The paper then shows that k-essence theories — the most general single-field scalar theories with second-order field equations — can in principle realize such a crossing, because there ρ + p = 2X P_X and P_X can change sign. It constructs an explicit reconstruction that realizes an inverse phantom crossing and shows how to choose the free function K⁽²⁾(φ) to eliminate ghost instabilities. The result matters because it draws a sharp line around which dark-energy models in general relativity can fit the data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identities are ρ + p = 2X for a canonical scalar (X = ½∂φ∂φ) and ρ + p = 2X P_X for k-essence; the sign of these combinations fixes whether w can drop below −1. The constructive tool is the reconstruction of K(φ, X) = Σ (X+1)ⁿ K⁽ⁿ⁾(φ), where K⁽⁰⁾ and K⁽¹⁾ are fixed by the desired Hubble rate h(t) through the Friedmann equations, while K⁽ⁿ≥²⁾ are free and control stability. The paper uses the freedom in K⁽²⁾ to make the quadratic perturbation's kinetic coefficient positive (ghost-free) and to stabilize the solution. The explicit transition is generated by adding a bump function γ(t) to the ΛCDM scale factor, with γ(t0) < 0 selecting the phantom-to-quintessence direction.

What would settle it

Compute the sound speed squared c_s² = P_X / (2X P_XX + P_X) (or the full quadratic action for perturbations) at the crossing time t0 in the model specified by Eqs. (57), (69), and (86). If c_s² diverges, changes sign, or the perturbation action becomes singular at P_X = 0, the claimed ghost-free phantom-to-quintessence crossing is not a consistent classical solution. A direct numerical evolution of linear perturbations through the crossing would settle the question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a sharp structural obstruction and a constructive workaround. First, for a canonical scalar field with Lagrangian X − V(φ), the combination ρ + p equals 2X = φ̇², which is nonnegative by definition; hence w ≥ −1 identically, independent of the potential, initial conditions, or even negative potentials. Since the phantom regime requires w < −1, a canonical field never enters it, so a phantom-to-quintessence transition is impossible in that framework. The paper then shows that the obstruction is relaxed in k-essence models L = P(φ, X), where ρ + p = 2X P_X: a phantom phase corresponds to P_X < 0 and crossing requires P_X = 0. Using a reconstruction method in wh

Load-bearing premise

The reconstructed k-essence model is assumed to stay physically well-behaved exactly at the instant of crossing, where the kinetic term for perturbations vanishes; the paper verifies the background equations and the sign of the perturbed kinetic energy, but not whether the perturbations freeze or blow up at that instant. If that point is singular rather than smoothly traversable, the claimed ghost-free crossing fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any dark-energy model in general relativity that is a single canonical scalar field is excluded from explaining the observed phantom-to-quintessence hint; the no-go is structural, not a fine-tuning issue.
k-essence (ghost condensate) models can realize the crossing, but only with fine-tuned background evolution and with explicit ghost elimination via the choice of K⁽²⁾(φ).
The reconstructed example produces a definite Hubble rate h(t) and dark-energy density ρ_k(t); if observationally viable, it provides a concrete general-relativity-compatible template for the inverse crossing.
In modified gravity (such as F(R) gravity), the same transition is achieved without such fine-tuning or ghost removal, making modified gravity a qualitatively simpler candidate.
An apparent-crossing mechanism via a mass-varying scalar dark-matter candidate is shown to run into tachyon issues in a simple matter-dominated example, so it is not yet a clean resolution.

Reading between the lines

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

Directly computing the sound speed in the reconstructed model at the crossing time would test whether the perturbation sector stays classical; the paper stops at the background and δφ̇² coefficient, so this is not yet settled.
The reconstruction requires ρ_k'(t0) = 0 and a specific sign of γ(t0); a parameter scan over γ0 and t0 could quantify how large a fraction of the model space actually permits a stable, ghost-free crossing — the paper notes fine-tuning but does not quantify it.
The same reconstruction could, in principle, be required to connect inflation and late-time dark energy in a single k-essence Lagrangian; the paper mentions this as future work, and matching both the tensor-to-scalar bound and the crossing would be a concrete test of the framework's reach.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the negative half is solid, the positive half is not. The canonical scalar proof is exactly right — rho+p=phi_dot^2 >= 0, and no potential can change that — and it is worth having stated cleanly. But it is not new: it is Vikman and the related Ref. [38-40] work, which the paper itself cites. The real content is the attempt to build a k-essence model that crosses. That attempt does not work as presented.

What is genuinely useful: the explicit no-ghost choice for K^(2) (Eq. 69) is a clear small extension of the reconstruction in [49]; the gamma(t) deformation of the LambdaCDM background is concrete; and the delta-phi mass formula (Eq. 90) is a nice warning that perturbations can become tachyonic. The paper even shows this itself in the matter-dominated test: Eq. (93) gives m_delta_phi^2 < 0. That is honest, but it means the apparent-crossing mechanism is not viable in that regime.

The main soft spot is the crossing point itself. The paper's own no-go, cited in Sec. II, is that P_X = 0 makes the perturbation problem singular and the sound speed ill-defined. In the reconstruction, P_X = K^(1), and at t0 the crossing condition forces K^(1)(t0) = 0. Look at Eq. (87): the spatial gradient term is proportional to K^(1), so at t0 it vanishes identically, leaving only the time-derivative term. The no-ghost choice (69) fixes the coefficient of delta_phi_dot^2, not the gradient term, and no K^(n>=2) can restore it because those terms appear as (X+1)^n and vanish quadratically. So c_s^2 = 0 and the perturbation is strongly coupled. The model therefore does not evade the no-go it cites. On top of that, the whole crossing is reconstructed by inserting gamma(t) into h(t); it is an input, not a prediction.

Who is this for? Someone cataloguing no-go statements for DESI model selection, or teaching why reconstruction arguments need a perturbation check. It is not a paper that establishes viable phantom-to-quintessence in GR.

Recommendation: send it to peer review — the question is timely and the canonical part is clean — but the referee should require the authors to confront the P_X=0 problem in Eq. (87). As it stands, the positive claim needs major revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses whether a phantom-to-quintessence crossing (w crossing −1) can be realized by scalar-field dark energy within general relativity. Section II gives a simple exact argument: for a canonical, minimally coupled scalar, ρ+p = 2X = φ̇² ≥ 0, so w ≥ −1 and no crossing is possible; the same conclusion holds with negative potentials. The paper then uses the reconstruction method of Ref. [49] for a general k-essence Lagrangian K(φ,X), Eqs. (54)–(57), to construct a model that formally has a background solution with a prescribed crossing. The crossing is introduced by hand through a deformation γ(t) of the ΛCDM scale factor, Eq. (78), and the function K⁽²⁾(φ) is chosen as in Eq. (69) to make the coefficient of δφ̇² positive. Section IV.C discusses an alternative “apparent” crossing from a massive δφ dark-matter component, and Section V compares slow-roll inflationary EoS parameters in single-field and F(R) gravity. The central positive claim is that k-essence ghost condensates can realize a ghost-free phantom-to-quintessence transition, although with significant fine-tuning.

Significance. The no-go proof for canonical scalar fields is exact, self-contained, and correct; it is a useful reference result and is the paper’s strongest part. The reconstruction technology from Ref. [49] is competently adapted, and the explicit choice Eq. (69) that eliminates the δφ̇² ghost is a nice observation. However, the paper’s positive claim is not established at the level claimed. As the paper itself notes in Sec. II, citing Refs. [38–40], a k-essence theory at P_X = 0 has an ill-defined sound speed and a strongly coupled perturbation sector. The constructed crossing occurs exactly at P_X = 0, and Eq. (87) shows the spatial gradient term vanishes there; the no-ghost condition Eq. (69) does not restore it. Thus the model does not provide a physically viable crossing within the stated k-essence action; it can at most provide a formal background crossing at a singular point. The reconstruction is also a model-building exercise: the crossing is inserted via γ(t), so the paper should not be read as predicting or explaining the DESI crossing without further observational input.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV.B, Eqs. (57), (78), (87); Sec. II] The central construction fails to address the singular point P_X = 0. From Eq. (56), K⁽¹⁾(φ) = (1/κ²)h″ + (1/2)Σ(1+w_i)ρᵢa₀^{−3(1+w_i)}e^{−3(1+w_i)h(φ)}, and for the background φ = t one has ρ_k+p_k = −2K⁽¹⁾(t). At the crossing t0, ρ_k+p_k = 0 forces K⁽¹⁾(t0) = 0. The quadratic perturbation action Eq. (87) then has spatial gradient coefficient a⁻²K⁽¹⁾(t0) = 0, so δφ is non-propagating; c_s² = 0 and the perturbation problem is strongly coupled, exactly the no-go cited in Sec. II from Refs. [38–40]. Choosing K⁽²⁾ via Eq. (69) only makes the coefficient of δφ̇² positive; it cannot generate a (∂iδφ)² term because K⁽ⁿ⁾ (n ≥ 2) enter through (X+1)ⁿ, which at quadratic order contain no such term at X = −1. The statement at the end of Sec. IV.B that the model realizes the crossing “without ghosts” is therefore not supported; the correct statement is that a formal background crossing exists but t
[Sec. IV.B/C, Eqs. (86), (90)] The model is not shown to be stable over the whole trajectory. The no-ghost condition and the background stability analysis of Sec. III.B do not control the time-dependent mass term in Eq. (90). For the specific γ(t) of Eq. (86), one should verify m_δφ² ≥ 0 for all times (or at least over the observationally relevant interval); otherwise the “viable” crossing model is tachyonic. The paper itself shows in Eq. (93) that in a simple matter-dominated example m_δφ² becomes negative, and it acknowledges neglecting back-reaction; this makes it clear that the stability check in Sec. IV is incomplete. Please provide the corresponding check for the crossing model or state the limitation explicitly.
[Sec. II vs. Sec. IV.B] There is an internal tension in the presentation. Sec. II concludes that “the realization of such crossing cannot be done in the context of a single scalar field theory and its k-essence extensions,” citing the P_X = 0 problem, while Sec. IV.B claims an explicit k-essence realization. This is not just a matter of wording: the contradiction is resolved only by recognizing that the constructed model is precisely singular at P_X = 0. The paper should state this tension explicitly and adjust the abstract and conclusions accordingly. As written, a reader can take away that the paper both proves and disproves the same no-go.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. III.B, around Eq. (65)] The function g(φ) appearing in δλ is not defined in the text; please define it or remove it. There is also a typo near Eq. (59): “does not containg” should presumably read “does not contain y” (or “does not contain h″”).
[Eqs. (93)–(94)] There is a stray comma after Eq. (93) and an empty numbered equation (94); please clean up the typography and numbering.
[Sec. V, Eqs. (96)–(99)] The comparison of inflationary EoS parameters assumes the slow-roll relations r = 16ε for single-field models and the corresponding F(R) expression. Please state these assumptions explicitly, since the numerical values are used to draw qualitative conclusions about future CMB and dark-energy measurements.
[Sec. IV.C] The apparent-crossing scenario is only qualitative: m_δφ is computed at second order in perturbations, while back-reaction and the k-essence contribution to the background are neglected. This is acknowledged in the text, but it should be listed prominently as a limitation in the conclusions.
[Abstract/Conclusions] The phrase “may be possible” in the abstract should be qualified in view of the strong-coupling point. A sentence such as “at the crossing the perturbation sector becomes strongly coupled, so a UV completion or a modified-gravity embedding would be needed for a fully consistent model” would accurately reflect the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the k-essence crossing is an explicitly inserted reconstruction input, not a hidden prediction, though the paper's own P_X=0 caveat is a separate physical-consistency concern.

full rationale

The canonical no-go section is self-contained and non-circular: ρ+p=2X=φdot^2≥0 is an identity independent of V(φ), so w≥−1 identically and phantom crossing would require φdot^2<0 (Eqs. 7–9, 18). This is not fitted or assumed; it follows from the Lagrangian structure. For the k-essence part, Eq. (57) explicitly reconstructs K(φ,X) from a prescribed h(φ), and the crossing is inserted through γ(t) in Eqs. (78)–(86). The paper transparently says 'By combining (78) with (86), we find h(t) as a function of t. Then, using (57) with (69), we obtain a k-essence model that generates the crossing' — this is a model-building construction, not a claim to predict the crossing from an independently fixed K. A construction that realizes a desired property is a legitimate existence proof, not circularity. The self-citations [38,39,49] are not load-bearing in a circular way: the P_X=0 no-go also cites the independent Vikman paper [40], and the reconstruction/stability equations are re-derived in Sec. III. The paper itself flags limitations — Sec. II admits that at P_X=0 the sound speed becomes ill-defined and the Cauchy problem ill-posed, and Sec. VI concedes that 'simply realizing the phantom-to-quintessence transition does not make these theories viable'; Eq. (93) even finds a tachyon in an example. These are physical consistency and viability problems, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is low; the minor self-citation weight gives 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The canonical no-go uses only standard GR identities and is self-contained. The k-essence existence claim rests on a reconstruction ansatz whose target Hubble rate is an input, on arbitrary higher-order K_n functions, and on stability/ghost conditions that are imposed by hand. Additional domain assumptions include a flat FLRW background, dust-only matter, linear perturbation truncation, and positivity of the perturbation mass square. These are the items the reader pays for beyond the central no-go.

free parameters (5)

Higher-order reconstruction functions K_n(phi), n>=2 = arbitrary functions; K_2 fixed by Eq. (69) in the ghost-free example
They do not affect the background FLRW solution but determine stability and ghost structure; choosing them is how the paper makes the desired transition look stable.
Mass scale mu = introduced in K_2 = (1/8)(1/(2 mu^4) + K_1) in Eq. (69)
Hand-chosen scale controlling the delta_phi kinetic coefficient; not determined by data or external theory.
Crossing deformation gamma(t) = Gaussian example Eq. (86) with parameters gamma(t0), gamma0, gamma''(t0)
Chosen to satisfy rho_k'(t0)=0 and produce a phantom-to-quintessence transition; the transition itself is the input, not the output.
Ghost-condensate scale M = M in P(X) = -X + X^2/M^4 (Eq. 25)
Scale of the illustrative ghost-condensate example; arbitrary and independent of observations.
Integration constant K0 = constant in Eq. (34)/(44)
Arbitrary integration constant inherited from the pure-kinetic reconstruction of Ref. [49]; sets a normalization in the reconstruction.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption FLRW metric and homogeneous scalar field phi=phi(t)
Eqs. (2)-(4); all background analysis assumes flat FLRW and homogeneous fields except for the perturbations added later.
domain assumption Taylor expansion of K(phi,X) around X = -1 with arbitrary K_n(phi)
Eq. (57) assumes an infinite Taylor series with arbitrary higher coefficients and does not discuss convergence or the radius of validity.
domain assumption Linear perturbation theory around phi=t, keeping delta_phi up to O(delta_phi^3)
Eqs. (61)-(70); stability and ghost conclusions rely on this truncation, and higher-order terms are assumed not to destabilize the solution.
domain assumption At P_X=0 the standard k-essence singular/strong-coupling behavior applies
Introduced in Sec. II via Refs. [38-40]; used to frame the no-go, but the reconstructed crossing is not explicitly checked against this singularity.
domain assumption Dust-only late universe and separate conservation of dark energy
Eqs. (71)-(72); no interaction between dust and k-essence, which observational analyses sometimes allow.
domain assumption Energy conditions and asymptotic de Sitter/power-law behavior in Sec. IVC
Used to argue that m_delta_phi^2 grows with time; the specific matter-dominated check contradicts this by giving a negative mass square.
ad hoc to paper m_delta_phi^2 >= 0 to avoid tachyons
Required for the apparent-crossing mechanism; Eq. (93) shows it fails for matter domination, so this assumption is not satisfied in the paper's own test.

invented entities (1)

delta_phi particle / massive dark-matter component from k-essence perturbations
purpose: produce an apparent phantom crossing via a time-dependent mass m_delta_phi(t) in Sec. IVC
Eq. (90) defines m_delta_phi^2 in terms of Hubble derivatives and mu; it gives no observable prediction outside the model and becomes tachyonic in the matter-dominated test (Eq. 93).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is Phantom Divide Crossing in General Relativity Completely Impossible? Shortcomings in canonical and minimally coupled scalar field and Possible Solutions in $k$-essence Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KOGUOL7X

@misc{pith2026260121356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is Phantom Divide Crossing in General Relativity Completely Impossible? Shortcomings in canonical and minimally coupled scalar field and Possible Solutions in $k$-essence Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KOGUOL7X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.21356}
}

abstract

General relativity has its successes at the local astrophysical level, however, it seems to be insufficient in describing the Universe at large scales. In this work we investigate how the most general field theories in the context of general relativity can accomodate a phantom-to-quintessence transition which may be essential element of realistic Dark Energy scenarios in the late Universe. As we demonstrate in a very detailed manner, this is impossible for a canonical and minimally coupled single scalar field theory, but it may be possible for ghost condensate theories like $k$-essence theories. We point out how the ghost instabilities may be eliminated, and we analyze the quantitative features of a $k$-essence theory that may realize a phantom-to-quintessence transition in the late Universe. We also qualitatively compare the difficulties and fine-tunings required for $k$-essence theories to realize a phantom-to-quintessence transition, and how such a transition is naturally realized in modified gravity, without unnecessary fine-tunings and ghost eliminations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith

[49]

Capozziello and M

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509(2011), 167-321 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 [arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2011
[1]

Theory Center, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Oho 1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan and
[2]

Odintsov, 3,4,5†

Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute for the Origin of Particles and the Universe, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan S.D. Odintsov, 3,4,5†
[3]

ICREA, Passeig Luis Companys, 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain
[4]

Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain and

Institute of Space Sciences (IEEC-CSIC) C. Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain and
[5]

Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), Edifici RDIT, Campus UPC, 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain V.K. Oikonomou, 6,7‡ 6)Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece and 7)Center for Theoretical Physics, Khazar University, 41 Mehseti Str., Baku, AZ-1096, Azerbaijan General relativity has its succ...

arXiv 2026
[6]

Reconstruction of model We first consider the model where the action for a scalar fieldϕis only given by the kinetic term, which was the originalk-essence model, as follows, S= Z d4x√−g R 2κ2 −K(q(ϕ)∂ µϕ∂µϕ) ,(27) whereKandqare adequate functions ofq(ϕ)∂ µϕ∂µϕandϕ, respectively. We should note that as long as the signature ofq(ϕ) is not changed,q(ϕ) can b...
[7]

We start with the first and second FLR W equations and the field equation obtained from Eq

Stability of solutions We now investigate the stability of the solution. We start with the first and second FLR W equations and the field equation obtained from Eq. (27), 3 κ2 H 2 =K −q ˙ϕ2 + 2K′ −q ˙ϕ2 q ˙ϕ2 , 1 2κ2 3H 2 + 2 ˙H = 1 2 K −q ˙ϕ2 ,(41) 0 = d dt 2a3q 1 2 ˙ϕK ′ −q ˙ϕ2 .(42) The FLR W equations in (41) indicate that, K ′(−Q)Q=− ˙H κ2 ,(43) wher...

Show all 65 references

[8]

A. G. Adameet al.[DESI], JCAP02(2025), 021 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 [arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]]

2025 arXiv
[9]

Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.8, 083515 doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 [arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]]

2025 arXiv
[10]

Cortˆ es and A

M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, JCAP12(2024), 007 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/007 [arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[11]

E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and D. Stojkovic, JHEAp49(2026), 100428 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100428 [arXiv:2404.08633 [astro-ph.CO]]

2026
[12]

Giar` e, M

W. Giar` e, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) no.25, 251003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.251003 [arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Shlivko and P

D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B855(2024), 138826 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138826 [arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024
[14]

S. D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez and G. S. Sharov, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.3, 298 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-14013-3 [arXiv:2412.09409 [gr-qc]]

2025 arXiv
[15]

W. M. Dai, Y. Z. Ma and H. J. He, Phys. Rev. D102(2020), 121302 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.121302 [arXiv:2003.03602 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[16]

H. J. He, Y. Z. Ma and J. Zheng, JCAP11(2020), 003 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/003 [arXiv:2003.12057 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[17]

Nakai, M

Y. Nakai, M. Suzuki, F. Takahashi and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B816(2021), 136238 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136238 [arXiv:2009.09754 [astro-ph.CO]]

2021
[18]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, Entropy23(2021) no.4, 404 doi:10.3390/e23040404 [arXiv:2005.12587 [astro-ph.CO]]

2021 arXiv
[19]

Agrawal, G

P. Agrawal, G. Obied and C. Vafa, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.4, 043523 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043523 [arXiv:1906.08261 [astro-ph.CO]]

2021 arXiv
[20]

Ye and Y

G. Ye and Y. S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.8, 083507 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083507 [arXiv:2001.02451 [astro- ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[21]

Desmond, B

H. Desmond, B. Jain and J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.4, 043537 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.6, 069904; erratum: Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.12, 129901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043537 [arXiv:1907.03778 [astro- ph.CO]]. 15

2019 arXiv
[22]

H¨ og ˚ as and E

M. H¨ og ˚ as and E. M¨ ortsell, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.12, 124050 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124050 [arXiv:2309.01744 [astro-ph.CO]]

2023 arXiv
[23]

´O Colg´ ain, M

E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. H. P. M. van Putten and H. Yavartanoo, Phys. Lett. B793(2019), 126-129 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.032 [arXiv:1807.07451 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Krishnan, E

C. Krishnan, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, Ruchika, A. A. Sen, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.10, 103525 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103525 [arXiv:2002.06044 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[25]

E. ´O. Colg´ ain and H. Yavartanoo, Phys. Lett. B797(2019), 134907 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134907 [arXiv:1905.02555 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019
[26]

B. H. Lee, W. Lee, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and S. Thakur, JCAP04(2022) no.04, 004 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2022/04/004 [arXiv:2202.03906 [astro-ph.CO]]

2022 arXiv
[27]

Krishnan, R

C. Krishnan, R. Mohayaee, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and L. Yin, Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021) no.18, 184001 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac1a81 [arXiv:2105.09790 [astro-ph.CO]]

2021 arXiv
[28]

G. Ye, J. Zhang and Y. S. Piao, Phys. Lett. B839(2023), 137770 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137770 [arXiv:2107.13391 [astro-ph.CO]]

2023
[29]

Ye and Y

G. Ye and Y. S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.4, 043536 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043536 [arXiv:2202.10055 [astro- ph.CO]]

2022 arXiv
[30]

Verde, T

L. Verde, T. Treu and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3, 891 doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 [arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]]

1907 arXiv
[31]

Menci, S

N. Menci, S. A. Adil, U. Mukhopadhyay, A. A. Sen and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP07(2024), 072 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/07/072 [arXiv:2401.12659 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[32]

S. A. Adil, U. Mukhopadhyay, A. A. Sen and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP10(2023), 072 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/072 [arXiv:2307.12763 [astro-ph.CO]]

2023 arXiv
[33]

Reeves, L

A. Reeves, L. Herold, S. Vagnozzi, B. D. Sherwin and E. G. M. Ferreira, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.520(2023) no.3, 3688-3695 doi:10.1093/mnras/stad317 [arXiv:2207.01501 [astro-ph.CO]]

2023 arXiv
[34]

Ferlito, S

F. Ferlito, S. Vagnozzi, D. F. Mota and M. Baldi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512(2022) no.2, 1885-1905 doi:10.1093/mnras/stac649 [arXiv:2201.04528 [astro-ph.CO]]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Vagnozzi, L

S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli, P. Brax, A. C. Davis and J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.6, 063023 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063023 [arXiv:2103.15834 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[36]

Di Valentino, S

E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, O. Mena and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP07(2020) no.07, 045 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/07/045 [arXiv:2005.02062 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[37]

M. A. Sabogal, E. Silva, R. C. Nunes, S. Kumar, E. Di Valentino and W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.12, 123508 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123508 [arXiv:2408.12403 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[38]

Di Valentinoet al.[CosmoVerse Network], Phys

E. Di Valentinoet al.[CosmoVerse Network], Phys. Dark Univ.49(2025), 101965 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101965 [arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]]

2025
[39]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and G. S. Sharov, JHEAp47(2025), 100398 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100398 [arXiv:2503.17946 [gr-qc]]

2025
[40]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and G. S. Sharov, JHEAp50(2026), 100471 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100471 [arXiv:2506.02245 [gr-qc]]

2026
[41]

D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan and E. Di Valentino, [arXiv:2504.00776 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv
[42]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.10, 104035 doi:10.1103/16yg-966k [arXiv:2506.21010 [gr-qc]]

2025
[43]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, [arXiv:2512.06279 [gr-qc]]
[44]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and G. S. Sharov, [arXiv:2601.06949 [gr-qc]]
[45]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D70(2004), 043539 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.043539 [arXiv:hep- th/0405034 [hep-th]]

2004
[46]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 023003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.023003 [arXiv:hep-th/0505215 [hep-th]]

2005 arXiv
[47]

Vikman, Phys

A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 023515 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.023515 [arXiv:astro-ph/0407107 [astro-ph]]

2005 arXiv
[48]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept.692(2017), 1-104 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001 [arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]]

2017 arXiv
[50]

Faraoni and S

V. Faraoni and S. Capozziello, Springer, 2011, ISBN 978-94-007-0164-9, 978-94-007-0165-6 doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0165-6

2011 doi
[51]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, eConfC0602061(2006), 06 doi:10.1142/S0219887807001928 [arXiv:hep-th/0601213 [hep-th]]

2006 arXiv
[52]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept.505(2011), 59-144 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001 [arXiv:1011.0544 [gr-qc]]

2011 arXiv
[53]

Chiba, T

T. Chiba, T. Okabe and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 023511 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.023511 [arXiv:astro- ph/9912463 [astro-ph]]

2000
[54]

Armendariz-Picon, V

C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.85(2000), 4438-4441 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4438 [arXiv:astro-ph/0004134 [astro-ph]]

2000 arXiv
[55]

Armendariz-Picon, V

C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D63(2001), 103510 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.103510 [arXiv:astro-ph/0006373 [astro-ph]]

2001 arXiv
[56]

Matsumoto and S

J. Matsumoto and S. Nojiri, Phys. Lett. B687(2010), 236-242 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.03.030 [arXiv:1001.0220 [hep- th]]. 16

2010 arXiv
[57]

I. P. C. Heard and D. Wands, Class. Quant. Grav.19(2002), 5435-5448 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/21/309 [arXiv:gr- qc/0206085 [gr-qc]]

2002
[58]

de Haro, S

J. de Haro, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and S. Pan, Phys. Rept.1034(2023), 1-114 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.09.003 [arXiv:2309.07465 [gr-qc]]

2023 arXiv
[59]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 063004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063004 [arXiv:hep- th/0501025 [hep-th]]

2005
[60]

Bahamonde, S

S. Bahamonde, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and M. Wright, Annals Phys.373(2016), 96-114 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.020 [arXiv:1603.05113 [gr-qc]]

2016 arXiv
[61]

S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Class. Quant. Grav.33(2016) no.12, 125029 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/12/125029 [arXiv:1602.03309 [gr-qc]]

2016 arXiv
[62]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Gen. Rel. Grav.38(2006), 1285-1304 doi:10.1007/s10714-006-0301-6 [arXiv:hep-th/0506212 [hep-th]]

2006 arXiv
[63]

Capozziello, S

S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B632(2006), 597-604 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.11.012 [arXiv:hep-th/0507182 [hep-th]]

2006 arXiv
[64]

Khoury, M

J. Khoury, M. X. Lin and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) no.18, 181001 doi:10.1103/w4qb-plk8 [arXiv:2503.16415 [astro-ph.CO]]

2025
[65]

P. A. R. Adeet al.[BICEP and Keck], Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) no.15, 151301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151301 [arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]]

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [49]

Capozziello and M

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509(2011), 167-321 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 [arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2011

[2] [1]

Theory Center, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Oho 1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan and

[3] [2]

Odintsov, 3,4,5†

Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute for the Origin of Particles and the Universe, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan S.D. Odintsov, 3,4,5†

[4] [3]

ICREA, Passeig Luis Companys, 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain

[5] [4]

Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain and

Institute of Space Sciences (IEEC-CSIC) C. Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain and

[6] [5]

Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), Edifici RDIT, Campus UPC, 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain V.K. Oikonomou, 6,7‡ 6)Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece and 7)Center for Theoretical Physics, Khazar University, 41 Mehseti Str., Baku, AZ-1096, Azerbaijan General relativity has its succ...

arXiv 2026

[7] [6]

Reconstruction of model We first consider the model where the action for a scalar fieldϕis only given by the kinetic term, which was the originalk-essence model, as follows, S= Z d4x√−g R 2κ2 −K(q(ϕ)∂ µϕ∂µϕ) ,(27) whereKandqare adequate functions ofq(ϕ)∂ µϕ∂µϕandϕ, respectively. We should note that as long as the signature ofq(ϕ) is not changed,q(ϕ) can b...

[8] [7]

We start with the first and second FLR W equations and the field equation obtained from Eq

Stability of solutions We now investigate the stability of the solution. We start with the first and second FLR W equations and the field equation obtained from Eq. (27), 3 κ2 H 2 =K −q ˙ϕ2 + 2K′ −q ˙ϕ2 q ˙ϕ2 , 1 2κ2 3H 2 + 2 ˙H = 1 2 K −q ˙ϕ2 ,(41) 0 = d dt 2a3q 1 2 ˙ϕK ′ −q ˙ϕ2 .(42) The FLR W equations in (41) indicate that, K ′(−Q)Q=− ˙H κ2 ,(43) wher...