Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

DESI constraints on two-field quintessence with exponential potentials

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two scalar fields with slopes near one can together drive the universe's acceleration, and current cosmological data moderately favor them over a cosmological constant.

desk verdict Worth a read: the first DESI DR2 constraints on a well-motivated two-field quintessence model, but the headline Bayes factor is fragile because the slope priors are never specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.21627 v2 pith:YEHOIBPK submitted 2025-10-24 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

George Alestas , Marienza Caldarola , Indira Ocampo , Savvas Nesseris , Shinji Tsujikawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords two-fieldquintessenceassistedexponentialpotentialdarkenergyDESIDR2baryonacousticoscillationsBayesianmodelselectioncosmicacceleration
topics 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

The paper argues that dark energy may not be a cosmological constant but the combined push of two scalar fields, each with an exponential potential too steep to accelerate the universe on its own. Through assisted quintessence, the pair behaves like a single field with a shallower effective slope, so individual slopes near unity—the values high-energy theory prefers—can still produce late-time acceleration. Confronting the model with Planck CMB shift parameters, DESI DR2 BAO, and DES Y5 supernovae gives a log Bayes factor of about 4 over flat ΛCDM, moderate evidence for the two-field model. The inferred slopes λφ ≈ 1.03 and λχ ≈ 0.96 are consistent with order-unity values, addressing a theoretical difficulty of single-field quintessence.

What carries the argument

Assisted quintessence: the sum-of-exponentials potential V(φ,χ) = V0 e^{-λφ φ} + V0 e^{-λχ χ}, combined with the identity 1/λ_eff² = 1/λφ² + 1/λχ² that describes the effective single-field slope approached by the two-field system at the scalar-field-dominated fixed point. This identity does the work: it converts two 'too steep' slopes into a shallow effective slope, and it explains why the posterior-mean λ_eff (≈0.49) differs from λ_eff computed from the mean slopes (≈0.7) through Jensen-type nonlinearity. The analysis also uses the theoretical prediction of scaling radiation/matter eras to exclude slopes above about 2, which would deviate strongly from w = -1.

What would settle it

Calculate the evidence with V0φ/V0χ allowed to vary freely (e.g., with a log-uniform prior); if ΔlnB relative to ΛCDM drops below about 1, the central claim fails. Independently, a >2σ detection of w_DE < -1 at any redshift (phantom crossing) would rule the model out, since its equation of state is bounded below by -1 by construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-field quintessence model with potential V = V0 e^{-λφ φ} + V0 e^{-λχ χ} fits the DESI-era data better than flat ΛCDM, with ΔlnB ≈ 4 (moderate evidence), and that the data drive both slopes toward unity (λφ = 1.026 ± 0.547, λχ = 0.962 ± 0.546 at 68.3%). Because the effective slope obeys 1/λ_eff² = 1/λφ² + 1/λχ², fields that individually cannot accelerate (λ > √2) cooperate to give λ_eff ≈ 0.5 (posterior-sampled) or ≈ 0.7 (from the means), comfortably allowing acceleration. The model's equation of state thaws from w ≈ -1 and never crosses into phantom territory. The authors stress this result is obtained by integrating the full background equations for the scala

Load-bearing premise

The analysis fixes the two potential amplitudes to be equal (V0φ = V0χ = V0) before comparing to data; the paper checks insensitivity to the ratio only informally, yet this choice affects both the Bayes factor and the inferred slopes, so the 'moderate evidence' claim rests on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, the DESI preference for dynamical dark energy does not require phantom crossing; a physically motivated Lagrangian with w ≥ -1 can do the job.
  • Slopes of order unity, as higher-dimensional theories predict, become compatible with cosmic acceleration, removing a long-standing obstacle for exponential-potential quintessence.
  • The model predicts weff = -1/3 at z ≈ 0.65 for the mean parameters, so high-redshift BAO and supernova data can test the timing of the acceleration onset.
  • The data rule out slopes λφ, λχ above about 2, meaning the full region with scaling radiation and matter eras is disfavored; future data may tighten this into an upper bound near unity.
  • The thawing w(z) shape, with w_DE ≥ -1, gives a concrete discrimination target against CPL-like parameterizations that allow phantom crossing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Bayes factor of ~4 is computed with V0φ = V0χ fixed; allowing unequal amplitudes would add prior volume and could shift ΔlnB. A direct numerical comparison with unequal amplitudes would tell whether the 'moderate evidence' is robust or an artifact of that prior restriction.
  • If one takes the swampland bound |V'/V| > O(1) seriously, this model is attractive: each field has slope ≳ 1 yet the pair accelerates. A dedicated investigation of whether such assisted acceleration survives full string-theoretic constraints would be a natural follow-up.
  • The λ_eff posterior mean (~0.49) vs. the mean-slope estimate (~0.7) highlights a reporting subtlety: derived parameters with nonlinear relations should be quoted from the posterior, not from the means; readers comparing models need to be careful about which effective slope to use.
  • A decisive test is near-term: Euclid and DESI DR2+ supernova data should shrink the w(z) error bars; if the true w(z) crosses -1, this model (with canonical fields) is excluded, whereas if w ≥ -1 with a thawing shape, it will be favored.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper constrains a two-field quintessence model with potential V(φ,χ)=V0φ e^{-λφ φ}+V0χ e^{-λχ χ} using Planck 2018 CMB shift parameters, DESI DR2 BAO, and DESY5 supernovae. The authors integrate the background equations, assume equal amplitudes V0φ=V0χ=V0, set initial field values and derivatives to zero at Nini=-15, and vary {Ωm,0, h, λφ, λχ} (plus {Ωm,0, h} for ΛCDM) in an MCMC analysis. They report marginalized slopes λφ=1.026±0.547, λχ=0.962±0.546, an effective slope λeff≈0.488±0.255, and a log Bayes factor ΔlnB≈3.97 relative to flat ΛCDM, interpreted as moderate evidence against ΛCDM. A CPL w(z) parametrization is also compared, yielding ΔlnB≈6.84.

Significance. If the evidence claim is robust, this is a useful, physically motivated contribution: it shows that an explicit two-field exponential-potential model, without a Taylor-expanded w(z), can fit the DESI DR2 + DESY5 data better than ΛCDM, and that the inferred slopes are of order unity as expected in higher-dimensional/string-theory settings. The analysis is transparent in using an explicit Lagrangian, integrating the full background equations, and computing Bayesian evidence with two independent methods (MCEvidence and a brute-force integral). The comparison to ΛCDM and CPL on the same datasets is informative. However, the central quantitative claim is currently not reproducible because the prior distributions are not specified; this must be fixed before the reported ΔlnB can be evaluated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III and Table I] The prior distributions for the free parameters, especially λφ and λχ, are never stated. A Bayes factor is the ratio of likelihood×prior integrals, and the Occam penalty is set by the prior volume. Without this information, the reported ΔlnB≈3.97 is not well defined and the analysis is not reproducible. If flat priors were used, the result depends strongly on the upper bound; for example, changing a uniform prior [0,3] to [0,10] shifts lnB by roughly 2 ln(10/3)≈2.4, moving the finding below the 'moderate' threshold. Please provide the exact priors for all parameters (including Ωm,0, h, and any baryon parameter) and report a sensitivity test over prior widths.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (12)] The equality V0φ=V0χ=V0 is a structural assumption that restricts the model before comparison with data. The text states that results are insensitive to V0φ/V0χ 'as long as the ratio does not significantly differ from 1', but no quantitative check is shown. A free ratio would add a parameter with its own prior volume, which directly affects both the posterior and the Bayes factor. Please provide an explicit test (e.g., varying the ratio or using a prior on V0φ/V0χ) and quantify the impact on ΔlnB.
  3. [Sec. III / Sec. IV] The parameter vector for ϕχCDM is listed as {Ωm,0, h, λφ, λχ}, yet the likelihood includes a BBN prior on ωb=Ωb,0 h² and CMB shift parameters that depend on the baryon density. It is unclear whether ωb (or Ωb,0) is varied, fixed, or included as a Gaussian likelihood term. If it is varied, it is missing from the parameter vector and its prior must be included in the evidence integral. Please clarify this point; it is essential for reproducing the reported evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. I] Typo: 'results of a a Markov Chain Monte Carlo' should be 'results of a Markov Chain Monte Carlo'.
  2. [Sec. III] The statement 'N=1845 data points' is given without a detailed breakdown. A table identifying each dataset and the number of points would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Sec. IV] The claim that (λφ,λχ)=(0,0) lies outside the 95.5% contour is stated without reporting the posterior density at that point. A Savage–Dickey density ratio or a 1D marginalized posterior at λ=0 would make this quantitative.
  4. [Sec. III] The 'brute-force calculation of the evidence' is mentioned but not described. Since the evidence is the central result, please include the integration domain, number of dimensions, and method, or provide a reference.
  5. [Abstract/Sec. III] The phrase 'fully Bayesian analysis' is too strong given the additional fixed assumptions (equal amplitudes, fixed initial conditions). Consider tempering the wording or explicitly listing these assumptions in the abstract.
  6. [Sec. IV] The CPL comparison is interesting, but the same missing-prior issue applies to w0 and wa. Reporting their priors and a prior-sensitivity test would strengthen the model-comparison section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is an explicit Lagrangian tested against external data; the missing-prior issue is a reproducibility concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The action (Eq. 1) and the double-exponential potential (Eq. 12) define the model, and the background equations (3)-(10) are integrated for fixed parameters and confronted with external Planck CMB shift, DESI DR2 BAO, and DESY5 data. The slopes λφ and λχ are free parameters in θtq={Ωm,0,h,λφ,λχ}; they are not chosen to reproduce the reported ΔlnB, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The effective slope λeff from Eq. (14) is a derived combination of λφ and λχ, and the paper explicitly discusses the non-linear difference between ⟨λeff⟩ and λeff(⟨λφ⟩,⟨λχ⟩), so no definitional identity is hidden. Self-citations such as Ref. [49] for the single-field λ~0.7 constraint and Ref. [45] for transient acceleration are used for context and comparison, not as load-bearing justification of the central Bayes factor. The assumption V0φ=V0χ=V0 is a stated model restriction, and the claimed insensitivity to this ratio is informal, but it is a modeling choice rather than a circular step. The main caveat is that the prior ranges/distributions for λφ and λχ are not stated, which makes the numerical value ΔlnB~4 prior-dependent and not fully reproducible; this is a substantive correctness/reproducibility limitation, but it does not amount to the derivation reducing to its own inputs by construction.

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

The model contains two scalar fields with exponential potentials, but these are not new entities invented for this paper; they are known from assisted quintessence literature. The key assumptions are the equal-amplitude choice for the two potentials, the arbitrary initial conditions, and the use of a compressed CMB likelihood. The free parameters are standard cosmological parameters plus the two exponential slopes. No new particle or nonstandard interaction is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • V0 = not quoted (shooting parameter)
    The overall amplitude of both potential terms is fixed by shooting to satisfy H(a=1)=H0; it is a fitted quantity and essential to the model. It is not reported as a constrained parameter in Table I, but it is varied implicitly.
  • λφ = 1.026 ± 0.547 (posterior mean)
    Slope of the φ exponential potential; free parameter of the model, constrained by the data.
  • λχ = 0.962 ± 0.546
    Slope of the χ exponential potential; free parameter, constrained by the data.
  • Ωm,0 = 0.315 ± 0.005
    Present matter density parameter, varied in the MCMC for all models.
  • h = 0.667 ± 0.005
    Dimensionless Hubble constant, varied in the MCMC.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FLRW background with k=0 and minimal coupling to gravity
    The paper assumes a spatially flat Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and two canonical scalar fields minimally coupled to gravity; this is stated in Sec. II (Eqs. 1-2).
  • ad hoc to paper Both potential amplitudes are equal, V0φ = V0χ = V0
    Stated in Sec. III as an assumption, justified by an informal insensitivity check. It reduces the parameter space and directly affects the Bayes factor and posterior widths.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial conditions φ=χ=0 and first derivatives zero at Nini=-15
    Stated in Sec. III ('Without loss of generality...'). This choice is not physically derived and can affect the thawing dynamics and posterior shape.
  • domain assumption BBN prior ωb = 0.02218 ± 0.00055
    External prior used in the analysis (Sec. III); reasonable but external.
  • domain assumption Sound horizon at drag epoch uses the approximation of Brieden, Gil-Marín, and Verde (2023)
    The BAO likelihood relies on this approximate relation (Ref. [68]); this is an external approximate formula whose uncertainties are not propagated if the approximation is imperfect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DESI constraints on two-field quintessence with exponential potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YEHOIBPK

@misc{pith2026251021627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DESI constraints on two-field quintessence with exponential potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YEHOIBPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.21627}
}
abstract

We investigate a quintessence model involving two scalar fields with double-exponential potentials. This configuration allows the system as a whole to emulate the dynamics of a single field with a shallower potential, enabling scalar fields that individually cannot drive cosmic acceleration to collectively achieve and sustain it. We assess the viability of this model by performing a fully Bayesian analysis and confronting its predictions with observational data, including the Planck 2018 cosmic microwave background (CMB) shift parameters, the newly released Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements, and the Dark Energy Survey Year 5 (DESY5) type Ia supernova (SnIa) sample. Our analysis shows that the two-field quintessence model yields a log Bayes factor relative to the flat $\Lambda$ cold dark matter model of $\Delta \ln B \sim 4$, indicating moderate evidence against the latter. We also find that the central values of the two slopes of the exponential potentials are both close to 1, whereas the slope of an effective single-field system is constrained to be less than order unity. This property is theoretically desirable from the perspective of higher-dimensional theories. Thus, the two-field quintessence model with exponential potentials provides a physically motivated and compelling mechanism that is consistent with both observational and theoretical requirements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.21627 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The theoretically derived present-day fractional DE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Confidence regions for the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Plots of the DE equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The one-dimensional marginalized posteriors and the inner and outer contours correspond to the 68.3 % and 95.5 % [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Higher-Order Analytical Expansion of Thawing Dark Energy with an Exponential Potential

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

    For exponential-potential quintessence, a new fourth-order analytic correction, including a background expansion correction, improves the predicted dark energy equation of state compared with the leading-order thawing...

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

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

    A linearly stable kinetic-braiding dark-energy model with CDM momentum exchange realizes upward phantom-divide crossing and weak CDM gravitational clustering, altering matter and CMB spectra.

  3. Realizing the phantom-divide crossing with vector and scalar fields

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A scalar-vector-tensor dark-energy model crosses the phantom divide at low redshift with no ghost or Laplacian instabilities and growth signatures close to LCDM.

  4. Signatures of Modified Gravity on Linear Scales in a Dynamical Dark Energy Background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using Planck, DESI, supernovae, and redshift-space distortions, the authors infer that modified gravity, if present, must act only below ~30 Mpc and cannot modify the large scales previously considered.

  5. Breaking Free from the Swampland of Impossible Universes through the DESI Portal

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    DESI data indicating evolving dark energy may allow string theory to describe observed universes without violating swampland constraints on constant dark energy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 63 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Ramón Areces

    We also introduce the total effective equation of state of the Universe, as [59] weff =−1− 2 3 ˙H H2 ,(11) which provides information on the transition epochs of the Universe. In particular,weff <− 1/3corresponds to accelerated expansion (¨a>0). For concreteness, we consider a potential given by the sum of two exponential terms of the form V(ϕ,χ) =V 0ϕe−λ...

    2018

  3. [3]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D9, 373 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904398

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys

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

    arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel.4, 1 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0004075

    arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

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

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept.380, 235 (2003), arXiv:hep- th/0212290

    arXiv 2003

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Tsujikawa, Class

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

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hirata, A. G. Riess, and E. Rozo, Phys. Rept.530, 87 (2013), arXiv:1201.2434 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  4. [12]

    Joyce, B

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

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique13, 566 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique13, 566 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    L. H. Ford, Phys. Rev. D35, 2339 (1987)

    1987

  8. [16]

    Fujii, Phys

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

    1982

  9. [17]

    Wetterich, Nucl

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

    1988 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ratra and P

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

    1988

  11. [19]

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

    1997 arXiv

  12. [20]

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

    1997 arXiv

  13. [21]

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

    1998 arXiv

  14. [22]

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

    1998 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Binetruy, Phys

    P. Binetruy, Phys. Rev. D60, 063502 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9810553

    1999

  16. [24]

    Zlatev, L.-M

    I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 896 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807002

    1999 arXiv

  17. [25]

    E. J. Copeland, N. J. Nunes, and F. Rosati, Phys. Rev. D62, 123503 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005222

    2000 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Brax and J

    P. Brax and J. Martin, Phys. Lett. B468, 40 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9905040

    1999 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Choi, Phys

    K. Choi, Phys. Rev. D62, 043509 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/9902292. 8 FIG. 4. The one-dimensional marginalized posteriors and the inner and outer contours correspond to the 68.3% and 95.5% credible intervals for the parameters of the two-field quintessence model, including the effe...

    2000

  20. [28]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, S. Prokushkin, and M. Shmakova, Phys. Rev. D66, 123503 (2002), arXiv:hep- th/0208156

    2002

  21. [29]

    P. K. Townsend, JHEP11, 042 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0110072

    2001

  22. [30]

    Nomura, T

    Y. Nomura, T. Watari, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 484, 103 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004182

    2000 arXiv

  23. [31]

    L. J. Hall, Y. Nomura, and S. J. Oliver, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 141302 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503706

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. E. Kim and H. P. Nilles, Phys. Lett. B553, 1 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210402

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 1: INTRODUCTION, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    Panda, Y

    S. Panda, Y. Sumitomo, and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D 83, 083506 (2011), arXiv:1011.5877 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bergshoeff, M

    E. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, M. B. Green, G. Papadopoulos, and P. K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B470, 113 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9601150

    1996 arXiv

  28. [36]

    assisted quintessence

    and in the presence of supergravity corrections to global supersymmetric theories [25]. To realize cosmic acceleration, the slope of the potentialV (ϕ) = V0e−λϕ should lie within the range|λ|< √ 2, where we have adopted units in which the reduced Planck massMpl is set to unity...

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    K. A. Olive, Phys. Rept.190, 307 (1990)

    1990

  30. [38]

    de Carlos, J

    B. de Carlos, J. A. Casas, and C. Munoz, Nucl. Phys. B 399, 623 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9204012

    1993 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Obied, H

    G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko, and C. Vafa, (2018), arXiv:1806.08362 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ooguri, E

    H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu, and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B 788, 180 (2019), arXiv:1810.05506 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. R. Liddle, A. Mazumdar, and F. E. Schunck, Phys. Rev. D58, 061301 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9804177

    1998 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Akrami, R

    Y. Akrami, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and V. Vardanyan, Fortsch. Phys.67, 1800075 (2019), arXiv:1808.09440 [hep- th]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A. A. Coley and R. J. van den Hoogen, Phys. Rev. D62, 023517 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9911075

    2000 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. A. Kim, A. R. Liddle, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D72, 043506 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0506076

    2005 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tsujikawa, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D73, 103504 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0601178

    2006

  38. [46]

    Blais and D

    D. Blais and D. Polarski, Phys. Rev. D70, 084008 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404043

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ohashi and S

    J. Ohashi and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D80, 103513 (2009), arXiv:0909.3924 [gr-qc]. 9

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Lodhaet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Lodhaet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Akrami, G

    Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, and S. Nesseris, (2025), arXiv:2504.04226 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Alestas, M

    G. Alestas, M. Delgado, I. Ruiz, Y. Akrami, M. Montero, and S. Nesseris, Phys. Rev. D110, 106010 (2024), arXiv:2406.09212 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Nesseris, Y

    S. Nesseris, Y. Akrami, and G. D. Starkman, (2025), arXiv:2503.22529 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M. W. Toomey, G. Montefalcone, E. McDonough, and K. Freese, (2025), arXiv:2509.13318 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  47. [55]

    Sapone and S

    D. Sapone and S. Nesseris, Phys. Rev. D112, 063523 (2025), arXiv:2412.01740 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    E. Ó. Colgáin and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, (2024), arXiv:2412.12905 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, (2024), arXiv:2407.02558 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    E. Ó. Colgáin, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic, JHEAp49, 100428 (2026), arXiv:2404.08633 [astro- ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    K. A. Malik and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D59, 123501 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812204

    1999 arXiv

  52. [60]

    van de Bruck and J

    C. van de Bruck and J. M. Weller, Phys. Rev. D80, 123014 (2009), arXiv:0910.1934 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa,Dark Energy(Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Barreiro, E

    T. Barreiro, E. J. Copeland, and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D61, 127301 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910214

    2000 arXiv

  55. [63]

    R. Bean, S. H. Hansen, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 64, 103508 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0104162

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Anselmi, G

    S. Anselmi, G. D. Starkman, and A. Renzi, Phys. Rev. D107, 123506 (2023), arXiv:2205.09098 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    O’Dwyer, S

    M. O’Dwyer, S. Anselmi, G. D. Starkman, P.-S. Corasaniti, R. K. Sheth, and I. Zehavi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083517 (2020), arXiv:1910.10698 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Anselmi, P.-S

    S. Anselmi, P.-S. Corasaniti, A. G. Sanchez, G. D. Starkman, R. K. Sheth, and I. Zehavi, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123515 (2019), arXiv:1811.12312 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Zhai and Y

    Z. Zhai and Y. Wang, JCAP07, 005 (2019), arXiv:1811.07425 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Marín, and L. Verde, JCAP04, 023 (2023), arXiv:2212.04522 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Schöneberg, JCAP06, 006 (2024), arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Schöneberg, JCAP06, 006 (2024), arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  64. [72]

    Chevallier and D

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

    2001 arXiv

  65. [73]

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

    2003 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Heavens, Y

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, and E. Sellentin, (2017), arXiv:1704.03472 [stat.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Jeffreys,The Theory of Probability, Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences (1939)

    H. Jeffreys,The Theory of Probability, Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences (1939)

    1939

  68. [76]

    Trotta, Contemp

    R. Trotta, Contemp. Phys.49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  69. [77]

    M. V. John and J. V. Narlikar, Phys. Rev. D65, 043506 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111122

    2002 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Nesseris and J

    S. Nesseris and J. Garcia-Bellido, JCAP08, 036 (2013), arXiv:1210.7652 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  71. [79]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181002 (2025), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  72. [80]

    W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Tsujikawa, (2025), arXiv:2508.17231 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Tsujikawa, (2025), arXiv:2508.17231 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  74. [82]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. García-García, (2025), arXiv:2509.17586 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.