Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Cosmological Interactions with Phantom Scalar Field: Revisiting Background Phase-Space Analysis with Compactified Variables

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new compactified normalization puts phantom dark-energy models on a bounded phase space, where Big Rip endpoints are unstable and the late-time attractors are scaling solutions.

desk verdict Useful compactified-variable method, but the fixed-point analysis as written contains undefined parameters and contradictory inequalities that must be corrected before the stability claims are credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09177 v1 pith:VUCPQSN4 submitted 2025-01-15 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

Genly Leon , Daya Shankar , Amlan Halder , Andronikos Paliathanasis This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords phantomscalarfielddarksectorinteractioncompactifiedphasespacedynamicalsystemsanalysisBigRipsingularityscalingsolutionsFLRWcosmologyenergy
topics Dark MatterDark 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 introduces a new set of dimensionless variables, normalized by the total dark-sector energy density, that turn the cosmological evolution equations for a flat FLRW universe with a phantom scalar field and dark matter into a compactified phase space. Using these variables, it revisits two interacting dark-energy models, $Q_A \propto \dot{\phi}\rho_m$ and $Q_B \propto \dot{\phi}\rho_\phi$, and finds that the stationary points describing Big Rip singularities are saddles or sources, never attractors. The future attractors are scaling solutions in which dark matter and the phantom field evolve together. If this is right, the compactified variables provide a single bounded phase-space picture in which cosmic interactions generically steer the universe away from future singularities, complementing the standard Hubble-normalization analysis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the compactified normalization defined in Eq. (11): $\chi = \dot{\phi}/(\sqrt{2}D)$, $\zeta^2 = V/D^2$, $\xi^2 = \rho_m/D^2$, $\eta = \sqrt{3}H/D$, $\lambda = V_{,\phi}/V$, with $D = \sqrt{\tfrac12\dot{\phi}^2 + V + \rho_m}$. By construction $\Xi \equiv \chi^2 + \zeta^2 + \xi^2 = 1$, so $(\chi,\zeta,\xi)$ live on the unit sphere, and the Friedmann equation gives a second constraint $\eta^2 = 1 - 2\chi^2$. For an exponential potential these constraints reduce a five-dimensional system to a two-dimensional compact dynamical system in $(\chi,\zeta)$, valid on the branch $\chi^2 \leq \tfrac12$ and $H > 0$. The compactness is what lets the authors enumerate all stationary points, including the Big Rip boundary points, and classify their stability directly.

What would settle it

Repeat the stationary-point and stability analysis for Model A with a non-exponential potential, for example $V = V_0\phi^2$, using the same compactified variables and evaluate the eigenvalues at the Big Rip points; if any Big Rip point becomes a stable attractor, or if the phase space is no longer compact, the central claim fails. Equivalently, take the negative root $\eta = -\sqrt{1-2\chi^2}$ and check whether the Big Rip points change from saddles and sources to attractors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the field equations of phantom scalar-field cosmologies with dark-matter interactions admit a normalization $D = \sqrt{\tfrac12\dot{\phi}^2 + V + \rho_m}$ such that the dimensionless state variables $\chi$, $\zeta$, $\xi$ lie on the unit sphere and the first Friedmann constraint closes the system, giving a compact two-dimensional phase space for exponential potentials. Within that compact space, each stationary point maps to a precise cosmological epoch. For Model A ($Q_A = \beta_0\dot{\phi}\rho_m$) there are five families of asymptotic solutions, and for Model B ($Q_B = \beta_0\dot{\phi}\rho_\phi$, with constant potential $\lambda = 0$) there are seven families. In both models the Big Rip solutions are sources or saddle points, so they are unstable under the interaction, and the late-time attractors are scaling solutions. The authors state these results agree with the Hubble-normalization analysis but are derived in a more formal, fully compactified framework.

Load-bearing premise

The broad claim rests on assuming an exponential potential for Model A and a constant potential for Model B, on the expanding branch $H>0$, and on leaving the parameter $\alpha$ in point $A_5$ unspecified; if the qualitative stability results change for general potentials, on the contracting branch, or for specific $\alpha$ values, the claimed generality of the compactified-variable insight would be weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Big Rip solutions in both interacting models are unstable, so an interaction proportional to $\dot{\phi}$ can prevent a future singularity even when the dark energy is phantom.
  • The late-time behavior of both models is a scaling solution, meaning dark matter and the phantom field reach a fixed ratio, which directly addresses the coincidence problem.
  • The compactified phase space is complete in a way the Hubble-normalized variables are not, so stability classifications do not require an extra chart at infinity.
  • For Model B, the matter-dominated epoch appears as a saddle point, so the model can pass through matter domination before reaching the accelerated attractor.
  • The method transfers the standard exponential-potential phase-space analysis from quintessence to phantom fields with interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same compactification could be applied to multiscalar or nonminimally coupled dark-energy models, where the unit-sphere constraint may still eliminate one dynamical variable.
  • The analysis is restricted to the expanding branch $H > 0$; on the contracting branch the Big Rip points might change stability, which would matter for bouncing or cyclic cosmologies if the authors' assumptions are relaxed.
  • The stability results for general potentials are delegated to a companion paper, so a natural test is to check whether the attractor structure found here survives for power-law or hyperbolic potentials.
  • The dependence of the attractor regions on $\beta_0$ and $\lambda$ could be used to place observational constraints on the interaction strength from the requirement that the current universe lie near an accelerating scaling attractor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the field equations of phantom scalar-field cosmologies with dark-matter interactions allow a normalization $D = \sqrt{\tfrac12\dot{\phi}^2 + V + \rho_m}$ such that the dimensionless state variables $\chi$, $\zeta$, $\xi$ lie on the unit sphere and the first Friedmann constraint closes the system, giving a compact two-dimensional phase space

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new compactified dimensionless normalization for spatially flat FLRW cosmologies containing a phantom scalar field and dark matter, defined by Eqs. (11)-(13), and applies it to two interacting models, QA = β0 φdot ρm and QB = β0 φdot ρφ. For an exponential potential in Model A and a constant potential in Model B, the field equations are reduced to two-dimensional dynamical systems, whose fixed points are classified. The central claim is that Big Rip stationary points are sources or saddles and that the future attractors are scaling solutions, so that interactions avoid future singularities even for phantom dark energy. The compactification idea is interesting, but the manuscript as written contains several uncorrected technical errors that prevent the central stability classification from being verified.

Significance. If the analysis were correct, the compactified normalization would be a genuinely useful alternative to Hubble-normalized variables: the constraint Ξ = 1 explicitly bounds the variables on a compact surface, and the paper addresses a physically relevant question, namely whether interaction terms can render Big Rip singularities unstable in phantom scalar field cosmologies. The paper also correctly connects the interaction models to earlier literature and clearly states the branch H > 0 and the restriction to exponential/constant potentials. These strengths are real. However, the central result rests on the fixed-point and stability analysis of the reduced systems, and that analysis is not reproducible as written because of the undefined parameter α in A5 and the contradictory attractor condition for A±4. The contribution is therefore conditional on a careful revision of the fixed-point computations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. (10)] The continuity equation for the scalar field is written as ˙ρφ + 3H(ρφ + pφ)ρφ = −Q. This contains an extra factor ρφ; the standard conservation equation is ˙ρφ + 3H(ρφ + pφ) = −Q. Since the reduced dynamical systems are derived from the cosmological field equations, this error must be corrected and the derivation of Eqs. (15)-(22) rechecked, because the extra factor would alter the scalar-field equation of motion if it were used.
  2. [§3.1, fixed point A5] The stationary point A5 is defined by A5 = (sqrt(3/(3+2(α−λ)^2)), sqrt(2α(α−λ)−3)/3), but the parameter α appears nowhere in the definitions (11)-(12), in the interaction QA = β0 φdot ρm, or in the reduced system (21)-(22), which contains only λ and β0. No definition, physical meaning, or domain is given for α. Consequently A5, its physical parameters, its acceleration region, and its attractor region in Fig. 3 and Table I are undefined. The plots in Fig. 3 are labeled as regions in {β0, λ}, but A5 depends on α and not on β0, which is inconsistent. The authors must either define α in terms of the model parameters or replace it with the correct parameter before the fixed-point classification can be accepted.
  3. [§3.1, attractor condition for A±4] The stated attractor condition for A+4 is internally contradictory: for β0 > 0 it requires simultaneously λ > (2β0^2 − 3)/(2β0) and λ < (2β0^2 − 3)/(2β0). This is an empty condition. The same paragraph also gives a condition for A−4 with a different functional form. Since the stability properties of A±4 are part of the paper's central claim that Big Rip points are not future attractors, this contradiction must be resolved by presenting the actual eigenvalues and correct inequalities.
  4. [§3.1, eigenvalues for A±1 and A±2] The text states that A±1 and A±2 are sources or saddles depending on the sign of β0 − λ, but no eigenvalues or linearization calculation are shown for these points. Given that these points are identified with Big Rip singularities and that their instability is a headline conclusion, the eigenvalues should be reported explicitly so that the stability classification can be checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, captions of Figs. 4-5] The captions state 'We present the case where there not any interaction, α = 0, and the potential function is constant, λ = 0.' Since α is undefined and for α = 0 the point A5 is not real (its second coordinate becomes imaginary), the meaning of 'α = 0' is unclear; the intended no-interaction limit is likely β0 = 0, and the captions should be corrected.
  2. [Table II] In the B4 row, the acceleration condition is written as '6 ≤ a2 < 8', which should read '6 ≤ β0^2 < 8'.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption refers to the dynamical system (21), (22), but the figure is for Model B and should refer to system (25), (26).
  4. [§2, line after Eq. (9)] The phrase 'the continuous equation' should be 'the continuity equation', and further on 'dark sectior' should be 'dark sector'.
  5. [§4, Conclusions] The conclusion that the results 'agree with those obtained using Hubble normalization' is asserted without a direct comparison table or explicit mapping to the Hubble-normalized variables; adding a short comparison would make the novelty of the compactified approach easier to assess.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the compactified phase-space analysis is derived from the field equations and the stability classification is an independent eigenvalue computation; self-citations are motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The variables (11) with D (12) are inserted into the Friedmann constraint (14) and the continuity equations (9)-(10) to produce the reduced systems (21)-(22) and (25)-(26). No observational data are fitted and no target conclusion is used as an input; the fixed-point and stability results come from standard linearization. The compactness of the variables is literally imposed by the defining constraint 'by definition, it follows Ξ ≡ χ^2 + ζ^2 + ξ^2 = 1' (Eq. 13), so the compactified character is a transparent definitional property rather than a hidden circular prediction. The self-citations do not carry the argument: [71] is cited for the normalization methodology ('Following the methodology established in [71]'), and [64] is cited for the motivation that interactions avoid singularities ('Where necessary the interactions are proportional to φ̇ in order to avoid the appearance of singularities, see the discussion in [64]') and for delegating general scalar-field potentials ('For more general potentials, the physical properties of the asymptotic solutions change slightly, as discussed in detail in [64]'). None of these citations introduces the exponential/constant-potential fixed points or their stability, which are computed in this paper. The paper does contain internal consistency defects that reduce reproducibility: the fixed point A5 in Sec. 3.1 depends on a parameter α that appears nowhere in the system, and the stated attractor condition for A+4 simultaneously requires λ > (2β0^2−3)/(2β0) and λ < (2β0^2−3)/(2β0). These are correctness concerns, not circularity, and under the review rules they do not raise the circularity score. The manuscript also explicitly restricts Model B to λ=0 and general potentials to [64], which narrows the claimed scope but does not make the presented derivation circular.

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

No data fitting is performed; λ and β0 are model parameters scanned over rather than fitted. The analysis relies on the exponential/constant potential restriction, the chosen interaction forms, and the H>0 branch; these are stated as assumptions rather than derived. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW geometry with dust dark matter and a phantom scalar field.
    The entire analysis is restricted to this background and matter content (Eqs. (1)-(7)).
  • domain assumption Exponential potential V = V0 e^{λϕ} for Model A and constant potential for Model B.
    The reduction to 2D systems in Section 3.1 and 3.2 uses Γ(λ)=1 for Model A and sets λ=0 for Model B; general potentials are excluded.
  • domain assumption Interaction terms QA = β0 φdot ρm and QB = β0 φdot ρφ.
    The interaction forms are imposed in Section 2 and are chosen to be proportional to φdot to avoid singularities, following the authors' earlier work [64].
  • ad hoc to paper Interactions proportional to φdot avoid singularities.
    The paper adopts this as a premise based on the companion preprint [64] rather than proving it here.
  • domain assumption Restriction to the expanding branch H > 0 (η = +sqrt(1-2χ²)).
    In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 the positive square root is imposed; contracting solutions are not analyzed.
  • standard math Standard dynamical systems background: linearization about fixed points determines stability.
    The stability conclusions rely on linear stability theory without derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological Interactions with Phantom Scalar Field: Revisiting Background Phase-Space Analysis with Compactified Variables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUCPQSN4

@misc{pith2026250109177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological Interactions with Phantom Scalar Field: Revisiting Background Phase-Space Analysis with Compactified Variables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUCPQSN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09177}
}
read the original abstract

Energy transfer in the dark sector of the universe gives rise to new phenomena of special interest in modern cosmology. When dark energy is modeled as a phantom scalar field, interactions become crucial to avoid Big Rip singularities. In this work, we revisit the phase-space analysis of the field equations by introducing a new set of dimensionless variables distinct from the traditional Hubble normalization approach. These new variables define a compactified phase space for the evolution of physical parameters. We demonstrate that these compactified variables offer fresh insights into the phase-space analysis in gravitational theories, particularly when the dark energy fluid is allowed to possess a negative kinetic energy density.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09177 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Interaction A: Region plots in the space of variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Interaction A: Region plots in the space of variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Interaction A: Region plots in the space of variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Interaction A: Phase-space portraits for the dynamical system (21), (22) for different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Interaction A: Phase-space portraits for the dynamical system (21), (22) for different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Interaction B: Real components for the two eigenvalues for the linearized dynamical system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Interaction B: Phase-space portraits for the dynamical system (25), (26) for different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Interaction B: Phase-space portraits for the dynamical system (21), (22) for different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Averaging Dynamics of Scalar Field-Matter Interacting Models in Anisotropic Universes: The Locally Rotationally Symmetric Bianchi I Spacetime

    gr-qc 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors apply averaging methods to classify late-time attractors for nine interacting dark sector models in Bianchi I cosmology, but the general interaction formula does not match the specific models analyzed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [71]

    Pav´ on and B

    D. Pav´ on and B. Wang, Gen. Rel. Grav. 41, 1 (2009)

    2009

  2. [64]

    Chatzidakis, A

    S. Chatzidakis, A. Giacomini, P.G.L. Leach, G. Leon and A. Paliathanasis, J. High Energ. Astroph. 36, 141 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    INTRODUCTION The detailed analysis of cosmological observations [1–4] implies that the universe is dom- inated by two matter components that do not interact with light: dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter was introduced to explain the velocity profiles of galaxies and, on ∗Electronic address: genly.leon@ucn.cl †Electronic address: daya.shankar@woxsen...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    COSMOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS On very large scales, the universe is described by the line element of the spatially flat FLR W geometry ds2 = −dt2 + a2(t) dx2 + dy2 + dz2 , (1) where a(t) is the expansion scale factor of the universe. Within the framework of General Relativity with two fluid components, the phantom field, and the dark matter, the gravitational...

    work page

  5. [3]

    COMP ACTIFIED NORMALIZA TION In contrast to the Hubble normalization studied in the recent work [64]; we adopt a different normalization approach based on matter. Following the methodology established in [71], we introduce a new set of dimensionless variables χ = ˙ϕ√ 2D , ζ2 = V (ϕ) D2 , ξ2 = ρm D2 , η = √ 3H D , λ = V,ϕ V , dτ = Ddt (11) where D = r 1 2 ...

    work page

  6. [4]

    Furthermore, the region space where A5 is an attractor is given in Fig. 3 FIG. 3: Interaction A: Region plots in the space of variables {β0, λ} where A5 describes cosmic acceleration (Left Fig.) and A5 is an attractor (Right Fig.). The above results are summarized in Table I. Moreover, in Fig. 4 we present phase-space portraits for the dynamical system (2...

    work page

  7. [5]

    CONCLUSIONS We have considered a spatially flat FLR W geometry where the dark sector of the universe consists of dark matter, described by a dust fluid source, and dark energy, modeled by a phantom scalar field. The introduction of the phantom field allows the equation of state 14 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 χ ζ Interaction B:λ=...

    work page 2022

  8. [6]

    Tegmark et al., Astrophys

    M. Tegmark et al., Astrophys. J. 606, 702 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 76 references
  1. [7]

    Kowalski et al., Astrophys

    M. Kowalski et al., Astrophys. J. 686, 749 (2008)

    2008

  2. [8]

    Komatsu et al., Astrophys

    E. Komatsu et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 180, 330 (2009)

    2009

  3. [9]

    Suzuki et

    N. Suzuki et. al., Astrophys. J. 746, 85 (2012)

    2012

  4. [10]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 119, 103865 (2021)

    2021

  5. [11]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang and Y. Wang, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 828 (2013)

    2013

  6. [12]

    Clifton, P.G

    T. Clifton, P.G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012)

    2012

  7. [13]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astronomy Reviews 95, 101659 (2022)

    2022

  8. [14]

    Ratra and P.J.E

    B. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  9. [15]

    Peebles and B

    P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003)

    2003

  10. [16]

    N. Roy, S. Goswami and S. Das, Phys. Dark Univ. 36, 10137 (2022)

    2022

  11. [17]

    Armendariz-Picon, V.F

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V.F. Mukhanov and P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 63, 103510 (2001)

    2001

  12. [18]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064036 (2009)

    2009

  13. [19]

    Deffayet, G

    C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084003 (2009)

    2009

  14. [20]

    Dimakis, A

    N. Dimakis, A. Paliathanasis, P.A. Terzis and T. Christodoulakis, 79, 618 (2019)

    2019

  15. [21]

    Horndeski, Int

    G.W. Horndeski, Int. J. Ther. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  16. [22]

    Coley and R.J

    A.A. Coley and R.J. van den Hoogen, Phys. Rev. D 023517 (2000)

    2000

  17. [23]

    Kamenshchik, A

    A.Yu. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, S.Yu. Vernov, Phys. Rev. D 87, 063503 (2013)

    2013

  18. [24]

    J¨ arv, M

    L. J¨ arv, M. R¨ unkla, M. Saal and O. Vilson, Phys. Rev. D 97, 124025 (2018)

    2018

  19. [25]

    Tsamparlis and A

    M. Tsamparlis and A. Paliathanasis, Symmetry 10, 233 (2018)

    2018

  20. [26]

    Basilakos, M

    S. Basilakos, M. Tsamparlis and A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Rev. D 83, 103512 (2011)

    2011

  21. [27]

    Christodoulakis, N

    T. Christodoulakis, N. Dimakis and P.A. Terzis, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 095202 (2014)

    2014

  22. [28]

    Christodoulakis, N

    T. Christodoulakis, N. Dimakis, P.A. Terzis, B. Vakili and E. Melas, Phys. Rev. D 89, 044031 (2014) 17

    2014

  23. [29]

    Kukukakca, A.R

    Y. Kukukakca, A.R. Akbrarieh and M. Amiri, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 523 (2024)

    2024

  24. [30]

    D. Laya, R. Bhaumik and S. Chakraborty, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 701 (2023)

    2023

  25. [31]

    Cariglia, A

    M. Cariglia, A. Galajinsky, G.W. Gibbons and P.A. Horvathy, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 314 (2018)

    2018

  26. [32]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ. 44, 101466 (2024)

    2024

  27. [33]

    Paliathanasis, J

    A. Paliathanasis, J. Geom. Phys. 206, 105338 (2024)

    2024

  28. [34]

    Copeland, A

    E.J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4686 (1998)

    1998

  29. [35]

    Roy and N

    N. Roy and N. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D 95, 064048 (2017)

    2017

  30. [36]

    Hrycyna and M

    O. Hrycyna and M. Szydlowski, JCAP 12, 016 (2013)

    2013

  31. [37]

    Mahata and S

    N. Mahata and S. Chakraborty, Gen. Rel. Gravit. 46, 1721 (2014)

    2014

  32. [38]

    De Arcia, T

    R. De Arcia, T. Gonzales, F.A. Horta-Rangel, G. Leon and U. Nucamendi, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 145001 (2018)

    2018

  33. [39]

    Lazkoz, G

    R. Lazkoz, G. Leon and I. Quiros, Phys. Lett. B 649, 103 (2007)

    2007

  34. [40]

    Lazkoz and G

    R. Lazkoz and G. Leon, Phys. Lett. B. 638, 303 (2006)

    2006

  35. [41]

    G. Leon, A. Paliathanasis and J.L. Morales-Martinez, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 753 (2018)

    2018

  36. [42]

    Paliathanasis, Eur

    A. Paliathanasis, Eur. Phys. J. C 8., 756 (2023)

    2023

  37. [43]

    Paliahanasis and G

    A. Paliahanasis and G. Leon, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 165 (2022)

    2022

  38. [44]

    Bruni and S

    M. Bruni and S. Matarrese, Astrophys. J. 445, 958 (1997)

    1997

  39. [45]

    Coley and S

    A. Coley and S. Hervik, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 579 (2005)

    2005

  40. [46]

    Ganguly, R

    A. Ganguly, R. Gannouji, R. Goswami and S. Ray, Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 105006 (2015)

    2015

  41. [47]

    Sussman and G

    R.A. Sussman and G. Izquierdo, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 045006 (2011)

    2011

  42. [48]

    Millano, K

    A.D. Millano, K. Dialektopoulos, N. Dimakis, A. Giacomini and H. Shababi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124044 (2024)

    2024

  43. [49]

    Amendola, R

    L. Amendola, R. Gannouji, D. Polarski and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 57, 083504 (2007)

    2007

  44. [50]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ. 41, 101255 (2023)

    2023

  45. [51]

    Guzman, L

    M.-J. Guzman, L. Jarv and L. Pati, Phys. Rev. D 110, 124013 (2024)

    2024

  46. [52]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000)

    2000

  47. [53]

    L. P. Chimento, Phys. Rev. D 81, 043525 (2010)

    2010

  48. [54]

    Arevalo, A

    F. Arevalo, A. P. R. Bacalhau and W. Zimdahl, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 235001 (2012)

    2012

  49. [55]

    W. Yang, S. Pan and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 4, 043529 (2018)

    2018

  50. [56]

    Amendola, G.C

    L. Amendola, G.C. Campos and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D 75, 083506 (2007)

    2007

  51. [57]

    Gao, S.-S

    L.-Y. Gao, S.-S. Xue and X. Zhang, Chinese Phys. C 48, 051001 (2024) 18

    2024

  52. [58]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon, Reports Prog. Phys. 87, 036901 (2024)

    2024

  53. [59]

    Giare, Phys

    W. Giare, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123545 (2024)

    2024

  54. [60]

    Pan and W

    S. Pan and W. Yang, On the Interacting Dark Energy Scenarios—The Case for Hubble Con- stant Tension. In: Di Valentino, E., Brout, D. (eds) The Hubble Constant Tension. Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology. Springer, Singapore (2024)

    2024

  55. [61]

    Faraoni, Phantom cosmology with general potentials, Class

    V. Faraoni, Phantom cosmology with general potentials, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 3235 (2005)

    2005

  56. [62]

    Gonzalez, G

    T. Gonzalez, G. Leon and I. Quiros, Class. Quantum Grav. 23, 3165 (2006)

    2006

  57. [63]

    Paliathanasis, S

    A. Paliathanasis, S. Pan and W. Yang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 12, 1950161 (2019)

    2019

  58. [65]

    De Arcia, I

    R. De Arcia, I. Quiros, U. Nucamendi and T. Gonzales, Phys. Dark Univ. 40, 101183 (2023)

    2023

  59. [66]

    Paliathanasis, K

    A. Paliathanasis, K. Duffy, A. Halder and A. Abebe, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101750 (2025)

    2025

  60. [67]

    Curbelo, T

    R. Curbelo, T. Gonzalez, G. Leon and I. Quiros, Class. Quantum Grav. 23, 1585 (2006)

    2006

  61. [68]

    Halder, S.D

    S. Halder, S.D. Odintsov, S. Pan, T. Saha and E.N. Saridakis, Interacting phantom dark energy: new accelerating scaling attractors (2024) [arXiv:2411.18300]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Paliathanasis, A

    A. Paliathanasis, A. Halder and G. Leon, Revise the Dark Matter-Phantom Scalar Field Interaction (2024) [arXiv:2412.06501]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Amendola, G

    L. Amendola, G. Camargo Campos and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D 75, 083506 (2007)

    2007

  64. [72]

    Salim and S.L

    J.M. Salim and S.L. Sautu, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 353 (1996)

    1996

  65. [73]

    Quantum Grav

    J.M.Salim and S.Sautu, Class. Quantum Grav. 15, 203 (1998)

    1998

  66. [74]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Wetlman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004)

    2004

  67. [75]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Wetlman, Phys. Rev. D 69, 044026 (2004)

    2004

  68. [76]

    G. Leon, A. Coley, A. Paliathanasis, J. Tot and B. Yildirim, Phys. Dark Univ. 45, 101503 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.