Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Constraint on Momentum-coupled Dark Energy using DESI DR2

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Momentum-coupled dark energy fits DESI data better than ΛCDM

desk verdict A workmanlike MCMC plus dynamical-systems paper with new DESI DR2 numbers, but the central β constraint is undone by a field redefinition that makes β unidentifiable from background data. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21295 v1 pith:VNIZITMR submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Prasanta Sahoo , Nandan Roy , Himadri Shekhar Mondal This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords darkenergymatterinteractionsmomentumcouplingaxionpotentialinversepower-lawdynamicalsystemsDESIDR2BAOMCMCcosmologicalconstraints
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 argues that dark energy and dark matter may exchange momentum, not just energy. It studies two scalar-field dark energy models—one with an axion potential and one with an inverse power-law potential—coupled to dark matter through a momentum-transfer term, and fits them to Pantheon+ and DES Y5 supernovae, DESI DR2 BAO, and a compressed Planck CMB likelihood. In all three data combinations the coupled models fit better than ΛCDM, with the inverse power-law potential preferred over the axion potential. The coupling constant β comes out negative and is only bounded from above, which the paper reads as a hint that momentum exchange between the dark sectors is real. If the claim holds, the standard cosmological-constant picture is incomplete and the dark sector is dynamically interacting.

What carries the argument

The central object is the momentum-transfer interaction Lagrangian $L_{\rm int}=-\beta(u^\alpha\partial_\alpha\phi)^2$ with $u^\mu=(1,0,0,0)$, which couples the scalar field to dark matter through the field's time derivative. This term alters only the kinetic coefficient in $\rho_\phi$ and $p_\phi$, so the background dynamics feel $\beta$ through an effective kinetic term $(1-2\beta)\dot\phi^2$. To study stability, the paper introduces polar phase-space variables $r\cos\theta=\kappa\dot\phi/(\sqrt6 H)$, $r\sin\theta=\kappa\sqrt{V}/(\sqrt3 H)$, plus the slope parameter $\lambda=-V_\phi/(\kappa V)$, which turn the Friedmann and Klein-Gordon equations into an autonomous system whose fixed points encode matter, stiff-fluid, and dark-energy eras. The choice of potential closes the system through $\Gamma=V V_{\phi\phi}/V_\phi^2$, giving separate autonomous systems for the axion and inverse power-law cases. This machinery is what lets the paper connect the interaction to observables and to stability.

What would settle it

Compute the profile likelihood for β with the potential parameters free: if the profile is flat or the best-fit χ² hardly changes when β is fixed to 0, then the reported negative β is an artifact of the prior rather than a data-driven detection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a pure momentum-transfer interaction between a quintessence scalar field and dark matter, written as $L_{\rm int} = -\beta(u^\alpha \partial_\alpha \phi)^2$ with $u^\mu=(1,0,0,0)$, is a viable and data-preferred alternative to $\Lambda$CDM. Because the interaction changes the kinetic coefficient from $\frac12\dot\phi^2$ to $\frac12(1-2\beta)\dot\phi^2$, it alters the expansion history. An MCMC fit to three combinations of current datasets yields $\beta<0$ with no lower bound for both the axion potential $V(\phi)=m_a^2 f_a^2(1+\cos(\phi/f_a))^n$ and the inverse power-law potential $V(\phi)=M^{m+4}\phi^{-m}$; the dark-energy equation of state deviates from $-1$ ($w_\phi$ between about $-0.64$ and $-0.80$), and the $\Delta\chi^2$ and $\Delta\text{AIC}$ statistics indicate moderate-to-strong preference over $\Lambda$CDM, strongest when supernova data are included. A dynamical-systems stability analysis finds that the late-time attractor is a dark-energy-dominated, accelerating fixed point, while the scalar field can behave as a stiff fluid at early times. The paper concludes that momentum-coupled scalar-field dark energy is a viable alternative to the cosmological constant.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that β can be determined from the expansion history alone, but the coupling only rescales the kinetic term, so a field redefinition yields the same expansion and β cannot be distinguished from the potential parameters with the datasets used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the negative β result is real, dark matter and dark energy exchange momentum at a level current background data prefer, so the dark sector is not simply a cosmological constant plus cold dark matter.
  • The two scalar-field potentials fit the combined datasets better than ΛCDM, with the inverse power-law potential preferred over the axion potential in all three data combinations.
  • Including supernova data strengthens the statistical preference, meaning low-redshift distance indicators are the main drivers of the signal.
  • The stability analysis shows the momentum-coupled models share the standard late-time attractor: a dark-energy-dominated, accelerating universe, so the interaction does not spoil the cosmic sequence.
  • The scalar field can act as a stiff fluid in the early epoch, which is a new dynamical feature of these coupled models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the interaction only rescales the kinetic term, redefining $\psi=\sqrt{1-2\beta}\,\phi$ turns the model into an ordinary canonical scalar with a rescaled potential; the background expansion alone cannot separate β from the potential parameters, so the reported negative β may be a prior effect rather than a detection.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension is to include linear perturbations and growth data; momentum coupling changes the dark-matter velocity divergence, so DESI full-shape clustering, redshift-space distortions, or CMB lensing should either confirm a nonzero β or drive it to zero.
  • Editorial inference: the unbounded lower limit on β suggests the posterior is one-sided; replacing the flat prior with a proper prior or reporting the profile likelihood would clarify whether the data genuinely prefer β<0 or merely allow it.
  • Editorial inference: the same polar dynamical-system construction could be applied to other potentials or to energy-plus-momentum couplings to see whether the stiff-fluid early phase and negative coupling persist.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two scalar-field dark energy models with a pure momentum-transfer coupling L_int = -β(u^α∂_αφ)^2 between the scalar field and dark matter, using the axion potential and the inverse power-law potential. It recasts the background dynamics as an autonomous polar system, performs a stability analysis, and constrains the model parameters with Pantheon+ and DES Y5 supernova data, DESI DR2 BAO, and the Planck 2018 compressed CMB likelihood via MCMC. The authors report that the coupling parameter β is negative with no lower bound and that both potentials are preferred over ΛCDM according to AIC, interpreting this as evidence for a momentum-coupled interaction in the dark sector.

Significance. If the central result were correct, a negative momentum coupling between dark matter and dark energy would be a significant new finding and would connect naturally to current hints of dynamical dark energy. The paper uses a commendable and up-to-date combination of cosmological datasets, and the dynamical-systems presentation is clear in places. However, the main observational claim is undermined by an exact field redefinition that makes β unidentifiable from background expansion data alone, and by several internal inconsistencies in the equations used for the MCMC analysis. The stability analysis may have pedagogical value, but it does not compensate for the failure of the central inference.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (5)-(6); Section V, Table I] In a homogeneous FLRW background, L_int = -β(∂_0φ)^2 = -βφdot², so the Lagrangian (2) becomes L = ½(1-2β)φdot² - V(φ). The redefinition ψ = (1-2β)^{1/2}φ turns this exactly into canonical quintessence with effective potential V_eff(ψ) = V(ψ/(1-2β)^{1/2}); for the two potentials used here the effective potential has the same functional form with rescaled parameters (f_eff = (1-2β)^{1/2}f and m_eff² = m²/(1-2β) for the axion; M_eff^{m+4} = M^{m+4}(1-2β)^{m/2} for the inverse power law). Since the likelihoods in Section IV use only background expansion data (SN distances, BAO, compressed CMB distances/shift parameters), the likelihood is exactly invariant along this reparametrization. Therefore the negative β with 'no lower bound' in Table I is a prior/sampling artifact of the boxes in Section V and Appendix A, not a data-driven constraint on momentum coupling, and the AIC improvements in Section VI reflect added potential freedom rather than evidence for the interaction. This invalidates the central conclusion in Section IX that β is 'consistently constrained to negative values... suggesting a momentum-coupled interaction.'
  2. [Section III, Eq. (13)] The Friedmann constraint is inconsistent with Eqs. (5)-(7). Substituting the polar variables (11) into Ωϕ = κ²ρϕ/(3H²) gives Ωϕ = r²[(1-2β)cos²θ + sin²θ] = r²(1 - 2β cos²θ), so the constraint should be r²(1 - 2β cos²θ) + Ω_m = 1. Eq. (13) instead writes r²(1 - β - β cos²θ) + Ω_m = 1. Because Ω_m enters the MCMC integration and the reported density parameters, this is not a harmless typo but a genuine inconsistency in the dynamical-system formulation.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (16)] The deceleration parameter does not follow from Eq. (15). With w_tot = r²(cos2θ - 2β cos²θ), the standard relation q = (1+3w_tot)/2 gives q = 1/2 + (3/2)r²(cos2θ - 2β cos²θ). Eq. (16) has -1 + (3/2)r²(...), which would yield q = -5/2 at the dark-energy fixed points in Tables II and III instead of the tabulated q = -1. The stability eigenvalues are unaffected, but the reported q values are incorrect.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (21)] The evolution equation used for the numerical integration is not consistent with Eq. (8). From Eq. (8), 𝑇𝑛𝑟 = -(3H²/2)[Ω_m + 2(1-2β)r²cos²θ]. Eq. (21) contains the bracket Ω_m + 2(β-1)r²cos²θ, which differs by replacing 1-2β with β-1; for the negative β posteriors in Table I the two expressions even have opposite signs for the kinetic contribution. Since this equation is used to compute H(z) for the likelihoods, the MCMC constraints do not follow from the stated field equations.
  5. [Section VIII, Table II and surrounding text] The stability condition for P3, 6β > 3 + 2nα, is incompatible with the physical requirement β < 1/2 when nα > 0; with the priors in Section V (α > 0, n > 0.5) the condition can never be met. Hence the eigenvalues shown do not establish the claimed late-time stable dark-energy attractor for the axion potential. Additionally, the text says Q3 is an unstable node (eigenvalues 0, 3, 3) yet later states 'the fixed point given by Q3 can be a stable one for β ranges between -1.42 and -0.48'; this appears to be a typo for Q4, but as written it is a direct contradiction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (21)] The notation 'Cosθ2' should be cos²θ, and the expression should be written with 𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 explicitly so that the sign convention is unambiguous; as printed, the formula mixes a derivative with respect to z and a division by dz/dt in a confusing way.
  2. [Section V and Table I] The phrase 'no lower bound' is not a statistical statement; with the finite prior β ∈ [-1.5, 0.49] (or [-1, 0.49]), the authors should report e.g. 95% credible intervals for β. The quoted asymmetric 68% errors do not quantify the claimed lack of a lower bound.
  3. [Figures 7 and 8] The horizontal axis is labelled N (e-folds), but the plotted data are cosmic chronometer H(z) measurements; the paper should specify how the data were converted to N, or plot against redshift z directly.
  4. [References] References [56] and [61] are the same paper (Pourtsidou and Tram 2016) and should be merged; the citation following 'ghost in the theory' should also be checked.
  5. [Appendix A and Section V] Appendix A states that the prior is chosen so that wϕ ∼ -1 ± 0.3, while Section V states wϕ ≃ -1 ± 0.4; the two statements should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the analysis fits model parameters to external data, and the β degeneracy is an identifiability issue, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained: the Lagrangian (Eq. 2) is converted to Friedmann equations (Eqs. 7–8) and a dynamical system (Eqs. 12a–c), specialized to the axion and inverse-power potentials (Eqs. 18 and 20), and then compared with external cosmological data sets (Pantheon+, DES Y5, DESI DR2 BAO, and the compressed Planck likelihood) via MCMC. The reported quantities—β, θ0, α, λ0, n, m, and the cosmological parameters—are free parameters fitted to the data, not predictions generated from fitted values; the AIC comparisons (Eq. 25) are standard model-selection statistics. The strongest identifiability concern raised in review—that L_int = −β(u^α∂_αφ)^2 only renormalizes the kinetic term, so ψ = (1−2β)^{1/2}φ maps the model onto canonical quintessence—does identify a degeneracy between β and potential parameters in background data, but it is a model/parameter-identifiability and prior-dependence issue, not a circular step in which the paper's output is equivalent to its input by construction; no equation is fitted to the quantity it claims to predict. Self-citations to the authors' prior dynamical-system papers are used for methodology only, not as load-bearing evidence for the central claim. Therefore no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on many fitted parameters. The key free parameter is beta, but it is degenerate with a rescaling of the scalar field, meaning the background data cannot separate the 'interaction' from a redefined canonical quintessence model. Standard cosmological parameters and potential parameters are also fitted to the data.

free parameters (10)
  • H0 = 67.4-67.7 km/s/Mpc
    Hubble constant, fit freely with prior [60,90].
  • Omega_m0 = 0.314-0.318
    Current matter density parameter, fit freely with prior [0.2,0.4].
  • rd = 140-144 Mpc
    Sound horizon at drag epoch, treated as free and fitted from BAO.
  • Omega_b h^2 = 0.02234-0.02238
    Baryon physical density, fit with prior [0.01,0.03].
  • beta = -0.7 to -0.9, no lower bound
    Momentum coupling parameter, fit with prior [-1.5,0.49] for axion and [-1,0.49] for inverse power law. Degenerate with field normalization.
  • theta0 = 1.29-1.35 rad
    Initial polar angle at z=0, fit with prior centered near pi/2.
  • lambda0 = 1.7-2.8
    Initial potential slope parameter, fit with priors [0,3.5] (axion) or [0.5,6] (InvPow).
  • alpha = 3.2-4.4
    Axion potential scale parameter, fit with prior [0,10].
  • n = 1.7-1.8
    Axion potential power, fit with prior [0.5,3.2].
  • m = 2.9-3.1
    Inverse power-law potential index, fit with prior [1,5].
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW metric and background dynamics.
    Used throughout Section II; the analysis is restricted to a homogeneous and isotropic background.
  • ad hoc to paper Momentum interaction L_int = -beta(u^alpha d_alpha phi)^2 with u=(1,0,0,0) is the physically relevant coupling.
    This is the model assumption from Pourtsidou et al. (2013), adopted without independent justification. It changes only the kinetic coefficient and is equivalent to a field redefinition.
  • domain assumption beta < 1/2 is required to avoid ghost instabilities.
    Stated in Section II; used to set priors. The paper allows arbitrarily negative beta, which corresponds to a large positive kinetic coefficient.
  • ad hoc to paper Radiation is neglected in the MCMC integration.
    Section II says radiation is neglected for late-time dynamics, but the compressed CMB likelihood includes information at z*>1000. The paper does not explain how distances to decoupling are computed without radiation.
  • domain assumption The compressed Planck 2018 likelihood is valid for these non-LambdaCDM models.
    Section IV.C acknowledges potential systematic biases for models deviating from LambdaCDM, yet the central claims depend on this compressed likelihood.
  • standard math The polar variable system closes for the chosen potentials.
    The transformation in Eq. (11) and the Gamma relations for axion and inverse power-law potentials are standard and correctly close the system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraint on Momentum-coupled Dark Energy using DESI DR2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNIZITMR

@misc{pith2026250621295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraint on Momentum-coupled Dark Energy using DESI DR2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNIZITMR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21295}
}
abstract

In this work, we study two scalar field driven dark energy models characterized by the axion potential and the inverse power law potential, each coupled to dark matter through a momentum exchange interaction. By formulating the dynamics as an autonomous system, we identify the equilibrium points and analyze their stability. To constrain these models, we utilize observational data from Pantheon Plus Type Ia Supernovae, DES Y5, DESI DR2 BAO, and Planck 2018 CMB compressed likelihood, employing Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. Both potentials exhibit weak to strong preference over the $\Lambda$CDM model, with a particularly strong preference for the momentum-coupled scenario when Supernova data are included in the analysis. Furthermore, we find the coupling parameter to be negative, with no lower bound, for both potentials. This suggests that momentum-exchange coupling between the dark sectors cannot be ruled out. From the stability analysis, we observe that for both potentials, the late-time attractor corresponds to a dark energy dominated phase, and the scalar field can behave as a stiff fluid during the early epoch.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21295 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Plots of the cosmological parameters for the axion potential and a comparison with ΛCDM model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plots of the cosmological parameters and model parameters for the axion potential. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Plots of the cosmological parameters for the inverse power law potential and a comparison with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plots of the cosmological parameters and model parameters for the inverse power law potential. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Evolution of Hubble parameter for axion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Evolution of Hubble parameter for inverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Evolution of density parameters for inverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Plots of the numerical solutions for each dynamical variable for the system of equations Eq.( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Disentangling Similarity and Relatedness in Topic Models

    cs.CL 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Topic models lie on a spectrum from thematic-relatedness-rich to similarity-rich, and that position predicts which downstream tasks they handle well.

  2. Revisiting observational constraints on coupled exponential quintessence with energy and momentum transfers: degeneracy with massive neutrinos

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Allowing the neutrino mass to vary removes the 2σ evidence for momentum transfer between dark energy and dark matter in coupled quintessence, via a degeneracy with the energy-exchange coupling.

  3. 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

84 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Set 1: Pantheon Plus + CMB + DESI DR2

  2. [2]

    Set 2: DES Y5 + CMB + DESI DR2

  3. [3]

    Set 3: CMB + DESI DR2 V. CONSTRAINTS FROM DA T A ANAL YSIS In this section, we present the observational con- straints obtained on the ΛCDM model and the in- teracting model for the axion potential and the In- verse Power Law (InvPow) potential using the above three cosmological datasets. In our notation Ω m = Ωb + Ωc, where Ω b and Ω c are the density pa...

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Con- straints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. 4 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Calderon et al

    R. Calderon et al. DESI 2024: Reconstructing Dark Energy using Crossing Statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data. 5 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results II: Mea- surements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cos- mological Constraints. 3 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars. 11 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements. 3 2025

    2025

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with ∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set. Astrophys. J. Lett., 973(1):L14, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Riess, Louise Breuval, Wenlong Yuan, Ste- fano Casertano, Lucas M

    Adam G. Riess, Louise Breuval, Wenlong Yuan, Ste- fano Casertano, Lucas M. Macri, J. Bradley Bowers, Dan Scolnic, Tristan Cantat-Gaudin, Richard I. An- derson, and Mauricio Cruz Reyes. Cluster cepheids with high precision gaia parallaxes, low zero-point uncertainties, and hubb...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmo- logical parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2021

  4. [12]

    Blazek, Adam S

    Shadab Alam, Metin Ata, Stephen Bailey, Flo- rian Beutler, Dmitry Bizyaev, Jonathan A. Blazek, Adam S. Bolton, Joel R. Brownstein, Angela Bur- den, Chia-Hsun Chuang, and et al. The clustering of galaxies in the completed sdss-iii baryon oscilla- tion spectroscopic survey: cosm...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Heath Jones, Lister Staveley-Smith, Lachlan Campbell, Quentin Parker, Will Saunders, and Fred Watson

    Florian Beutler, Chris Blake, Matthew Colless, D. Heath Jones, Lister Staveley-Smith, Lachlan Campbell, Quentin Parker, Will Saunders, and Fred Watson. The 6df galaxy survey: baryon acoustic oscillations and the local hubble constant. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical ...

    2011

  6. [14]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clus- tering and weak lensing. Phys. Rev. D, 98(4):043526, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Macaulay et al

    E. Macaulay et al. First Cosmological Results using Type Ia Supernovae from the Dark Energy Survey: Measurement of the Hubble Constant. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 486(2):2184–2196, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Bautista, Matthew A

    Shadab Alam, Marie Aubert, Santiago Avila, Christophe Balland, Julian E. Bautista, Matthew A. Bershady, Dmitry Bizyaev, Michael R. Blanton, Adam S. Bolton, Jo Bovy, and et al. Completed sdss- iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: Cosmological implications from t...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team. Astrophys. J. Lett., 934(1):L7, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Wong et al

    Kenneth C. Wong et al. H0LiCOW – XIII. A 2.4 percent measurement of H0 from lensed quasars: 5.3σ tension between early- and late-Universe probes. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 498(1):1420–1439, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Dark en- ergy: theory and observations

    Luca Amendola and Shinji Tsujikawa. Dark en- ergy: theory and observations. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    Odintsov

    Kazuharu Bamba, Salvatore Capozziello, Shin’ichi Nojiri, and Sergei D. Odintsov. Dark energy cos- mology: the equivalent description via different the- oretical models and cosmography tests. Astrophys. Space Sci., 342:155–228, 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    Dynamics of dark energy

    Edmund J Copeland, Mohammad Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa. Dynamics of dark energy. Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics D, 15(11):1753– 1935, 2006

    1935

  14. [22]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra. Quintessence: A review. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(2):559–606, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, and P. J. Stein- hardt. k-essence as a model for dark energy. Physical Review Letters, 85(15):4438–4441, 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    Quintessence or phantom: study of scalar field dark energy models through a general parametrization of the hubble parameter

    Nandan Roy, Sangita Goswami, and Sudipta Das. Quintessence or phantom: study of scalar field dark energy models through a general parametrization of the hubble parameter. Physics of the Dark Universe, 36:101037, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Colg´ ain, M

    Aritra Banerjee, Haiying Cai, Lavinia Heisenberg, Eoin ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and Tao Yang. Hubble sinks in the low-redshift swampland. Phys. Rev. D, 103(8):L081305, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Colg´ ain, M

    Bum-Hoon Lee, Wonwoo Lee, Eoin ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and Somyadip Thakur. Is local H 0 at odds with dark energy EFT? JCAP, 04(04):004, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Krishnan, E

    C. Krishnan, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and Tao Yang. Running Hubble Tension and a H0 Diagnostic. Phys. Rev. D, 103(10):103509, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Cosmology with interaction between phantom dark energy and dark matter and the coincidence problem

    Rong-Gen Cai and Anzhong Wang. Cosmology with interaction between phantom dark energy and dark matter and the coincidence problem. JCAP, 03:002, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Cou- pled quintessence and the coincidence problem

    G Mangano, Gennaro Miele, and V Pettorino. Cou- pled quintessence and the coincidence problem. Mod- ern Physics Letters A, 18(12):831–842, 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Mohseni Sadjadi and M

    H. Mohseni Sadjadi and M. Alimohammadi. Cosmo- logical coincidence problem in interactive dark energy models. Phys. Rev. D, 74:103007, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon. Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interac- tions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Impli- cations and Observational Signatures. Rept. Prog. Phys., 79(9):096901, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    J. F. Jesus, A. A. Escobal, D. Benndorf, and S. H. Pereira. Can dark matter–dark energy interaction alleviate the cosmic coincidence problem? Eur. Phys. 14 J. C, 82(3):273, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Coupled quintessence

    Luca Amendola. Coupled quintessence. Physical Re- view D, 62(4):043511, 2000

    2000

  26. [34]

    Interact- ing dark matter and dark energy

    Glennys R Farrar and P James E Peebles. Interact- ing dark matter and dark energy. The Astrophysical Journal, 604(1):1, 2004

    2004

  27. [35]

    Phenomenological models of dark energy interacting with dark matter

    Nicola Tamanini. Phenomenological models of dark energy interacting with dark matter. Physical Review D, 92(4):043524, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Linear and nonlinear interactions in the dark sector

    Luis P Chimento. Linear and nonlinear interactions in the dark sector. Physical Review D, 81(4):043525, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    An analytic model for interact- ing dark energy and its observational constraints

    Supriya Pan, Subhra Bhattacharya, and Subenoy Chakraborty. An analytic model for interact- ing dark energy and its observational constraints. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452(3):3038–3046, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Extended quintessence with an exponen- tial coupling

    Valeria Pettorino, Carlo Baccigalupi, and Gianpiero Mangano. Extended quintessence with an exponen- tial coupling. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2005(01):014, 2005

    2005

  31. [39]

    Cou- pled and extended quintessence: theoretical differ- ences and structure formation

    Valeria Pettorino and Carlo Baccigalupi. Cou- pled and extended quintessence: theoretical differ- ences and structure formation. Physical Review D, 77(10):103003, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Salvatelli, A

    V. Salvatelli, A. Marchini, L. Pogosian, N. Vittorio, Y.-C. Wu, and J. Zavala. Indications of a late-time interaction in the dark sector. Physical Review Let- ters, 113(18):181301, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Costa and P

    A. Costa and P. G. Ferreira. Hubble tension and interacting dark energy. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017(12):013, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk. Cos- mological constraints from the combination of latest data sets: the role of dark energy interactions. The European Physical Journal C, 79(2):139, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Kumar, S

    S. Kumar, S. Kumar, K. Liao, and Y. Wang. In- teracting dark energy models with a logarithmic in- teraction term and their implications on the hubble tension. Astrophysics and Space Science, 365(6):207, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Interacting dark en- ergy in the early 2020s: A promising solution to the H0 and cosmic shear tensions

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, Olga Mena, and Sunny Vagnozzi. Interacting dark en- ergy in the early 2020s: A promising solution to the H0 and cosmic shear tensions. Phys. Dark Univ., 30:100666, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Nonminimal dark sec- tor physics and cosmological tensions

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, Olga Mena, and Sunny Vagnozzi. Nonminimal dark sec- tor physics and cosmological tensions. Phys. Rev. D, 101(6):063502, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Nunes, Sunny Vagnozzi, and David F

    Weiqiang Yang, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C. Nunes, Sunny Vagnozzi, and David F. Mota. Tale of stable interacting dark energy, ob- servational signatures, and the H0 tension. JCAP, 1809:019, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    The multi-feature universe: Large pa- rameter space cosmology and the swampland

    Deng Wang. The multi-feature universe: Large pa- rameter space cosmology and the swampland. Phys. Dark Univ., 28:100545, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Saridakis

    Wompherdeiki Khyllep, Jibitesh Dutta, Spyros Basi- lakos, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis. Background evo- lution and growth of structures in interacting dark energy scenarios through dynamical system analysis. Phys. Rev. D, 105(4):043511, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Ar- turo Urena-Lopez

    Gabriela Caldera-Cabral, Roy Maartens, and L. Ar- turo Urena-Lopez. Dynamics of interacting dark en- ergy. Phys. Rev. D, 79:063518, 2009

    2009

  42. [50]

    Coupled quintessence

    Luca Amendola. Coupled quintessence. Phys. Rev. D, 62:043511, 2000

    2000

  43. [51]

    Boehmer, Gabriela Caldera-Cabral, Ruth Lazkoz, and Roy Maartens

    Christian G. Boehmer, Gabriela Caldera-Cabral, Ruth Lazkoz, and Roy Maartens. Dynamics of dark energy with a coupling to dark matter. Phys. Rev. D, 78:023505, 2008

    2008

  44. [52]

    Extended Phase Space Analysis of Interacting Dark Energy Models in Loop Quantum Cosmology

    Hmar Zonunmawia, Wompherdeiki Khyllep, Nandan Roy, Jibitesh Dutta, and Nicola Tamanini. Extended Phase Space Analysis of Interacting Dark Energy Models in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev. D, 96(8):083527, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Dynamical systems anal- ysis of tachyon-dark-energy models from a new per- spective

    Saddam Hussain, Saikat Chakraborty, Nandan Roy, and Kaushik Bhattacharya. Dynamical systems anal- ysis of tachyon-dark-energy models from a new per- spective. Phys. Rev. D, 107(6):063515, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    B¨ ohmer, Sante Carloni, Edmund J

    Sebastian Bahamonde, Christian G. B¨ ohmer, Sante Carloni, Edmund J. Copeland, Wei Fang, and Nicola Tamanini. Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity. Phys. Rept., 775- 777:1–122, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    Arbitrariness of potentials in interacting quintessence models

    Nandan Roy and Kazuharu Bamba. Arbitrariness of potentials in interacting quintessence models. Phys. Rev. D, 99(12):123520, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Exploring the possibility of interacting quintessence model as an alternative to the ΛCDM model

    Nandan Roy. Exploring the possibility of interacting quintessence model as an alternative to the ΛCDM model. Gen. Rel. Grav., 55(10):115, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Interacting dark sector: A dynamical sys- tem perspective

    Chonticha Kritpetch, Nandan Roy, and Narayan Banerjee. Interacting dark sector: A dynamical sys- tem perspective. Phys. Rev. D, 111(10):103501, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    Pourtsidou, C

    A. Pourtsidou, C. Skordis, and E. J. Copeland. Mod- els of dark matter coupled to dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 88(8):083505, 2013

    2013

  51. [59]

    Reconcil- ing CMB and structure growth measurements with dark energy interactions

    Alkistis Pourtsidou and Thomas Tram. Reconcil- ing CMB and structure growth measurements with dark energy interactions. Phys. Rev. D, 94(4):043518, 2016

    2016

  52. [60]

    Copeland, Anne M

    Finlay Noble Chamings, Anastasios Avgoustidis, Ed- mund J. Copeland, Anne M. Green, and Alkistis Pourtsidou. Understanding the suppression of struc- ture formation from dark matter-dark energy mo- mentum coupling. Phys. Rev. D, 101(4):043531, 2020

    2020

  53. [61]

    Probing elastic interactions in the dark sector and the role of S8

    Jose Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, Dario Bettoni, David Figueru- elo, Florencia Anabella Teppa Pannia, and Shinji Tsujikawa. Probing elastic interactions in the dark sector and the role of S8. Phys. Rev. D , 104(10):103503, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Coupled dark sector models and cosmo- logical tensions

    Gang Liu, Jiaze Gao, Yufen Han, Yuhao Mu, and Lixin Xu. Coupled dark sector models and cosmo- logical tensions. Phys. Rev. D, 109(10):103531, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Velocities as a probe of dark sector interac- tions

    Kazuya Koyama, Roy Maartens, and Yong-Seon Song. Velocities as a probe of dark sector interac- tions. JCAP, 10:017, 2009

    2009

  56. [64]

    Reconciling cmb and structure growth measurements with dark energy interactions

    Alkistis Pourtsidou and Thomas Tram. Reconciling cmb and structure growth measurements with dark energy interactions. Phys. Rev. D, 94:043518, Aug 2016

    2016

  57. [65]

    Tracking quintessence: a dynamical systems study

    Nandan Roy and Narayan Banerjee. Tracking quintessence: a dynamical systems study. Gen. Rel. Grav., 46:1651, 2014. 15

    2014

  58. [66]

    Gonzalez-Morales, and L

    Nandan Roy, Alma X. Gonzalez-Morales, and L. Ar- turo Urena-Lopez. New general parametrization of quintessence fields and its observational constraints. Phys. Rev., D98(6):063530, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Quintessence scalar field and cosmological constant: dynamics of a multi-component dark en- ergy model

    Prasanta Sahoo, Nandan Roy, and Himadri Shekhar Mondal. Quintessence scalar field and cosmological constant: dynamics of a multi-component dark en- ergy model. Gen. Rel. Grav., 57(2):38, 2025

    2025

  60. [68]

    V. K. Oikonomou. Theoretical probes of Higgs boson- axion nonperturbative couplings. Phys. Rev. D , 110(7):075003, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    Using ∆N ef fto con- strain preferred axion model dark matter

    Andrew Cheek and Ui Min. Using ∆N ef fto con- strain preferred axion model dark matter. JCAP, 03:014, 2025

    2025

  62. [70]

    Linares Cede˜ no, Alma X

    Francisco X. Linares Cede˜ no, Alma X. Gonz´ alez- Morales, and L. Arturo Ure˜ na L´ opez. Ultralight DM bosons with an axion-like potential: scale-dependent constraints revisited. JCAP, 01:051, 2021

    2021

  63. [71]

    Kneller and Gary Steigman

    James P. Kneller and Gary Steigman. BBN and CMB constraints on dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 67:063501, 2003

    2003

  64. [72]

    Inflation in the Generalized Inverse Power Law Scenario

    Zhun Lu. Inflation in the Generalized Inverse Power Law Scenario. JCAP, 11:038, 2013

    2013

  65. [73]

    Quintessence and gravitational waves

    Alain Riazuelo and Jean-Philippe Uzan. Quintessence and gravitational waves. Phys. Rev. D, 62:083506, 2000

    2000

  66. [74]

    Sha- halam

    Yerlan Myrzakulov, Saddam Hussain, and M. Sha- halam. Phase space and Data analyses of a non- minimally coupled scalar field system with decaying dark energy model. 6 2025

    2025

  67. [75]

    Interacting models of dark energy and dark matter in Einstein scalar Gauss Bonnet gravity

    Saddam Hussain, Simran Arora, Yamuna Rana, Ben- jamin Rose, and Anzhong Wang. Interacting models of dark energy and dark matter in Einstein scalar Gauss Bonnet gravity. JCAP, 11:042, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Arturo Ure˜ na-L´ opez and Nandan Roy

    L. Arturo Ure˜ na-L´ opez and Nandan Roy. Gener- alized tracker quintessence models for dark energy. Physical Review D, 102(6), Sep 2020

    2020

  69. [77]

    Linares Cede˜ no, Nandan Roy, and L

    Francisco X. Linares Cede˜ no, Nandan Roy, and L. Arturo Ure˜ na L´ opez. Tracker phantom field and a cosmological constant: Dynamics of a composite dark energy model. Phys. Rev. D, 104(12):123502, 2021

    2021

  70. [78]

    Supernova serach team

    AG Reiss et al. Supernova serach team. Astron. J, 116:1009, 1998

    1998

  71. [79]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmo- logical constant. Astron. J., 116:1009–1038, 1998

    1998

  72. [80]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release

    Dan Scolnic et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release. Astrophys. J., 938(2):113, 2022

    2022

  73. [81]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmo- logical Constraints

    Dillon Brout et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmo- logical Constraints. Astrophys. J., 938(2):110, 2022

    2022

  74. [82]

    Distance Priors from Planck Final Release

    Lu Chen, Qing-Guo Huang, and Ke Wang. Distance Priors from Planck Final Release. JCAP, 02:028, 2019

    2019

  75. [83]

    Testing cosmology with cosmic sound waves

    Pier Stefano Corasaniti and Alessandro Melchiorri. Testing cosmology with cosmic sound waves. Phys. Rev. D, 77:103507, 2008

    2008

  76. [84]

    On using the CMB shift parameter in tests of models of dark energy

    Oystein Elgaroy and Tuomas Multamaki. On using the CMB shift parameter in tests of models of dark energy. Astron. Astrophys., 471:65, 2007

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.