Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 83 references

A dark-energy field with a two-term cosine potential fits cosmological data better than the standard one-cosine potential, the authors argue, and pins the axion decay constant below the Planck mass.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 19:45 UTC pith:I7EARXMG

load-bearing objection N=2 axion-potential fit improves on N=1, but the sub-Planckian F and the preference over a general N=2 potential are weaker than the abstract suggests. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.22559 v2 pith:I7EARXMG submitted 2025-11-27 astro-ph.CO

Cosmology of axion dark energy in supersymmetric models and constraints on high scale parameters

Amin Aboubrahim , Andrew H. Giman , Pran Nath This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO MSC 83F0585A40 PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords axion dark energyquintessencesuperposed cosine potentialaxion decay constantdark matter-dark energy interactionsupergravitystring theorycosmological parameter constraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the dark-energy field driving cosmic acceleration could be an ultralight axion whose potential is a superposition of N cosine terms, as arises generically in supergravity and string models, rather than the single cosine usually assumed. It shows that the N=2 superposition fits current cosmological data (CMB, baryon acoustic oscillations, and three supernova compilations) better than the N=1 case, while remaining competitive with the cosmological constant for some data sets. The fits also deliver constraints on high-energy parameters: the effective axion decay constant F is sub-Planckian but near the Planck scale, consistent with string-theoretic expectations, and the dark-matter–dark-energy interaction strength is feeble, with an upper bound around 4e-6 in the model's natural units. For N=3 and N=4, the potential alone causes thawing quintessence to transmute into freezing quintessence even with no coupling to dark matter.

Core claim

The central claim is that a single axionic field with the multi-cosine potential V(φ) = μ^4 Σ_{n=1}^N c_n (1 + cos(nφ/F)), truncated to the single-sum terms of a supergravity/string axion landscape, is a viable and testable dark-energy model. Fitting the N=2 version to a combination of CMB, baryon-acoustic-oscillation, and supernova data within a Lagrangian-based interacting quintessence–dark-matter model, the authors find the N=2 potential improves the fit over the standard N=1 axion potential and constrains the axion decay constant to sub-Planckian values (F around 0.4–0.8 times the Planck mass, with lower limits near 0.6) and the interaction strength to λ ≲ 4e-6 in the model's units. The

What carries the argument

The central object is the superposed-cosine axion potential V(φ) = μ^4 Σ c_n (1 + cos(nφ/F)), which the paper derives from a single anomalous U(1) shift symmetry broken by instanton effects in supergravity/string models, with F the effective axion decay constant. The analysis truncates the full two-sum potential to its single-sum terms, couples the axion to a dark-matter scalar through V_int = (λ/2)χ²φ², and rewrites the Klein-Gordon and perturbation equations in variables that tame the rapid dark-matter oscillations. These equations are integrated numerically and fit to cosmological data, yielding posterior constraints on μ^4, F, φ_ini, λ, and the coefficients c_n.

Load-bearing premise

The truncation of the axionic potential to the single-sum terms, dropping the double-sum cross terms c_rl in Eq. (2.10), is the load-bearing simplification; if those cross terms are not negligible, the fitted potential is not the full supergravity/string potential and the derived constraints would have to be redone.

What would settle it

A cosmological re-fit of the full two-sum potential of Eq. (2.10), including the c_rl cross terms, would settle whether the N=2 preference and the sub-Planckian F bound survive; if the full-potential fit no longer prefers N=2, the central claim fails. Alternatively, an independent estimate of c_rl from explicit instanton data in a concrete string compactification could show the cross terms are large enough to change the N=2 fit.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, supergravity/string-motivated multi-axion potentials become viable dark-energy models that current cosmological data can actually discriminate among (N=1 versus N=2).
  • The data-driven bound that F is sub-Planckian supports the string-theoretic prohibition of trans-Planckian axion decay constants.
  • The dark-matter–dark-energy coupling is constrained to be feeble (λ ≲ 4e-6 in the model's units), so significant interaction between the two dark sectors is ruled out at this level.
  • The N=2 potential's better information-criterion score than N=1 indicates that adding one extra cosine term is enough to improve the description of the expansion history, even though ΛCDM remains competitive for some data sets.
  • For N=3 and N=4, the thawing-to-freezing transmutation is a purely potential-driven phenomenon, independent of any dark-matter coupling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The main caveat is the paper's own: the fits use only the single-sum part of the derived potential, dropping the double-sum cross terms c_rl. If those cross terms are not negligible, the N=2 preference, the F bound, and the λ bound may shift; a full two-sum fit would test this directly.
  • The success of the N=2 potential suggests that future CMB and large-scale-structure surveys with percent-level distance measurements could distinguish specific axion landscapes through the coefficients c_n, turning cosmology into a probe of instanton-generated superpotential terms.
  • The λ constraint could be tightened by cross-correlating with structure-growth observables such as S8, since interacting quintessence imprints on the matter power spectrum; the paper's predicted power spectra provide a concrete target.
  • The same single-field superposition framework could be applied to N>4 or to explicit string compactifications with computed c_k, testing whether specific axiverse models survive the same data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a quintessence dark-energy model in which the DE scalar is an ultralight axion with a superposed-cosine potential V(φ)=μ^4 Σ_n c_n [1+cos(nφ/F)], motivated by SUGRA/string axion landscapes, and is coupled to a scalar dark-matter field through V_int=(λ/2)χ^2φ^2. The authors implement the coupled background and perturbation equations in CLASS+Cobaya and compare N=1 and N=2 potentials using CMB (Planck PR4 + ACT DR6), DESI DR2 BAO, and three SN compilations (PPS, DESY5, Union3). They report that the N=2 potential with equal coefficients fits the data better than N=1 by ΔAIC differences of roughly 20 units, that the axion decay constant F is constrained to be sub-Planckian, and that the DM–DE coupling is feeble (λ≲4×10^{-6}). They also exhibit, for N=3,4 in a benchmark phenomenological study, a thawing-to-freezing transmutation without DM coupling. The model comparison is the central quantitative result; the high-scale parameter claims are the central interpretive claims.

Significance. If correct, the paper demonstrates that multi-cosine axion potentials, of the type generated in SUGRA/string constructions, are viable and can be preferred over the single-cosine pNGB potential by current cosmological data, while yielding one-sided constraints on the effective decay constant and the DM–DE coupling. The analysis has genuine strengths: the underlying Lagrangian treatment of the DM–DE interaction is internally consistent; the background and perturbation equations are implemented in the standard CLASS+Cobaya pipeline; the comparison is made with standard information criteria across three independent SN data sets; and the paper explicitly quantifies the relative improvement (Tables 1–3). The significance is, however, moderated by three issues: the prior ranges for the sampled parameters are not reported, which is crucial for the sub-Planckian F claim; the headline N=2 result is obtained for a special equal-coefficient choice rather than the generic SUGRA/string potential; and the abstract's λ bound is not what the tables' 68% intervals imply. These issues are fixable and are detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.2, Tables 1–3] Section 6.2 states 'We impose flat priors on all the parameters' but gives no numerical ranges. The abstract's headline that F is 'determined to be sub-Planckian' is therefore not independently checkable: if the prior on F is truncated at 1 m_Pl, the posterior cannot exceed it. Moreover, Tables 1–3 mostly report one-sided lower limits on F (e.g., F>0.620, F>0.691, F>0.599); the only two-sided interval, F=0.62±0.22 for DESY5 in Table 2, has a 95% upper endpoint near 1.05 m_Pl, so F>1 is not strongly excluded. Please quote the prior ranges for all sampled parameters and, ideally, release the chains; the sub-Planckian claim should be rephrased or supported by a prior-independent statement.
  2. [Eq. (2.10), Eq. (3.5), Tables 2–3] The fitted potential (3.5) uses only the single-sum part of Eq. (2.10). For N=2 the neglected double-sum term c21[1+cos(a/F)] has the same harmonic as the c1 term, so the free-coefficient potential (6.3) in fact spans the full N=2 potential. However, the main N=2 result (Table 2) imposes c1=c2=1, which is not the general SUGRA/string potential when c21≠0; the free-coefficient fit (Table 3) gives ΔAIC = 20.70, 9.48, 17.58 versus 8.83, −0.52, 6.45 for Table 2, with poorly constrained c1 and c2. The relative improvement over N=1 survives in both variants, but its magnitude and the claimed connection to the SUGRA/string potential depend on the special equal-coefficient choice. Justify this choice or present the free-coefficient run as the fiducial SUGRA-motivated case.
  3. [Abstract and Tables 1–3] The bound λ≲4×10^{-6} m_Pl^{-2} Mpc^{-2} quoted in the abstract does not follow from the reported 68% intervals. Table 1 (PPS) gives log λ = −5.49^{+0.97}_{−2.2}, corresponding to a 68% upper bound near 3×10^{-5}; Table 2 (DESY5) gives log λ = −5.5^{+1.4}_{−1.7}, i.e. an upper bound near 10^{-4}. If a different data set or confidence level is intended, it should be stated explicitly; as written the abstract understates the uncertainty by roughly an order of magnitude, and the same overstatement appears in §7.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5.1)] The summand is written as cos(N a/F) under a sum over k; this should likely be cos(k a/F). Please correct the index.
  2. [Table 3 caption] The caption lists 'log μ4 = 7.0', but the text in §6.2 says the c1≠c2 run fixes log μ4 = −7.0. One of these is a typo.
  3. [Tables 1–3] The tables use asymmetric intervals and one-sided limits without specifying whether the one-sided entries are 68% or 95% bounds, and without stating units for log μ4 and log λ. Please add a footnote with the confidence level and units (m_Pl^2 Mpc^{-2} for μ^4 and m_Pl^{-2} Mpc^{-2} for λ).
  4. [Eq. (6.3) and §6.2] The sentence 'c_i are coefficients that are multiples of μ^4' is ambiguous. State explicitly that μ^4 is fixed to 10^{-7} m_Pl^2 Mpc^{-2} in the c1≠c2 run and that c1 and c2 are dimensionless coefficients.
  5. [§6.1] The transmutation phenomenon for N=3,4 is demonstrated only for a benchmark with equal coefficients and log μ4 = −7.0. The abstract presents it as a general result; please qualify it as a benchmark demonstration unless a wider scan is performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the cosmological parameters are fitted, not predicted from themselves, and the high-scale potential dictionary is a modeling input rather than a restatement of the data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a Bayesian fit of a two-cosine axion dark-energy potential to Planck PR4 + DESI DR2 + supernova data, with parameters μ^4, F, φ_ini, λ, c1, c2 sampled by MCMC. This is a parameter-estimation exercise, not a derivation of the data from the parameters or vice versa; the abstract's phrase 'fits also constrain high scale parameters' correctly describes posterior constraints rather than predictions. The SUGRA/string origin of the superposed-cosine potential is derived in Sec. 2 (Eqs. 2.6–2.12) with coefficients given explicitly, and the truncation of the double-sum terms is stated as an assumption, not hidden as a result. Citations to the authors' prior work [39,52,53] supply motivation and the coupled-field formalism, but they do not substitute for the CLASS/Cobaya likelihood evaluation against external data; no uniqueness theorem or fit-derived result is imported from those citations. The N=3,4 transmutation discussion is illustrative and not used as evidence for the fit. The main verifiability caveat is that Sec. 6.2 says only 'We impose flat priors on all the parameters' without giving numerical ranges, so one cannot check whether the sub-Planckian F posterior is partly prior-driven; absent the actual ranges, this is a transparency limitation, not an exhibited circular reduction. The data-comparison step is self-contained and the paper does not rename a fitted quantity as an independent prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model is parameterized by five fitted quantities (μ^4, F, φ_ini, λ, and c1/c2 in the unequal case); no new particle or force is introduced. The SUGRA/string origin of the potential is imported from prior work by the authors and truncated by dropping cross terms. The derived 'constraints' on F and λ are therefore data fits within a model class, not independent predictions.

free parameters (5)
  • log μ^4 (DE potential scale) = -7.54 to -7.18 (N=1,2)
    Sampled in MCMC with flat prior; sets the height of the axion potential and is adjusted to match the measured DE density.
  • F (effective axion decay constant) = 0.4-0.9 m_Pl where bounded; lower limits only for PPS
    Sampled in MCMC; posterior quoted as constraints; the 'sub-Planckian' claim comes from this fitted posterior, not a derivation.
  • φ_ini (initial field value) = upper limits <0.56 m_Pl (varies)
    Sampled in MCMC; sets where the field starts on the potential and thus the late-time EoS.
  • log λ (DM-DE coupling) = < -3.65 to < -6.0 depending on case/dataset
    Sampled in MCMC; the abstract's λ≲4e-6 uses only the tightest subsets; some posterior limits allow λ two orders of magnitude larger.
  • c1, c2 (potential coefficients, N=2 c1≠c2 case) = c1≈1-5; c2≈-0.6±0.5 (weakly constrained)
    Sampled with flat priors; they control the shape of the two-cosine potential; the data do not constrain them well.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The full two-cosine potential can be truncated to the single-sum terms (neglect c_rl cross terms)
    Stated in Sec. 2 before Eq. (3.5); all numerical results use the truncated V2; no test of the neglected terms is provided.
  • domain assumption Dark matter is a single scalar field with quadratic potential V1=1/2 mχ^2 χ^2 and oscillates like CDM after a numerical cutoff on θ
    Sec. 3-4; the cutoff enforcing ⟨wχ⟩=0 is standard but the exact prescription and initial χ conditions are not specified in the paper.
  • domain assumption An anomalous U(1)_X shift symmetry broken by instantons produces a superposition of cosines with a single effective decay constant F
    Sec. 2 and Eq. (2.10), drawn from the authors' prior work [52,53]; the cosmological analysis does not independently test this derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The interaction V_int=λ/2 χ^2 φ^2 is the only relevant portal between DM and DE
    Eq. (3.6); chosen for simplicity and motivated by particle physics, but not derived from the high-scale model.
  • domain assumption Flat priors on all sampled parameters
    Sec. 6.2; standard but affects the quoted posterior limits.
  • domain assumption The modified CLASS+Cobaya implementation and the numerical cutoff do not bias the likelihood
    Sec. 6.2; no code or validation tests are provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23470 in / 21728 out tokens · 179162 ms · 2026-08-03T19:45:36.456060+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

An analysis is given of interacting dark energy and dark matter where the dark energy is assumed to be an ultralight axionic field with a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone Boson potential which is in general a superposition of $N$ number of cosine terms motivated by supergravity and string models with a $U(1)$ global symmetry, where the symmetry is broken by instanton effects. The case $N=2$ is investigated in detail and a fit to cosmological data is performed where it is found that a better fit is obtained in comparison with the $N=1$ case. The fits also constrain high scale parameters, i.e., the axion decay constant which is determined to be sub-Planckian, a result consistent with string theory that disfavors trans-Planckian axion decay constant. Furthermore, the dark energy-dark matter interaction strength is constrained to be feeble, i.e., $\lambda\lesssim 4\times 10^{-6}$ m$_{\rm Pl}^{-2}$ Mpc$^{-2}$. We study possible implications of this type of potential on the Hubble tension and on the dynamics of the dark energy equation of state using the DESI-DR2 data. For the cases $N=3,4$, the analysis exhibits the phenomenon of transmutation even in the absence of coupling to dark matter, where thawing quintessence transmutes to freezing quintessence. The analysis is internally consistent in its treatment of the dark energy-dark matter interaction as it is based on an underlying Lagrangian, in contrast with several previous works where the sources are chosen in an ad hoc manner to satisfy energy conservation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.22559 by Amin Aboubrahim, Andrew H. Giman, Pran Nath.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The matter power spectrum versus the wavenumber k (left panel) and the temperature TT power spectrum as a function of the multipoles (right panel) for three cases: N = 1, N = 2 with equal coefficients (c1 = c2 = 1 with log µ 4 = −7.0) and N = 2 with different coefficients (c1 = 2.0, c2 = −0.1 and log µ 4 = −7.0). No DM-DE interaction is present. The ΛCDM case is shown as a dashed black curve. where µ 4 c1 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The 1D and 2D marginalized posteriors for the N = 1 (top left panel) and N = 2 (top right panel) cases, showing correlations between different cosmological parameters for the three data sets. Here c1 = c2 = 1. Bottom panel: same as top right panel but for c1 ̸= c2 and log µ 4 = −7.0. 6.2 MCMC results The Boltzmann solver CLASS is interfaced with Cobaya [63], a code for sampling and statis￾tical modeling, t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for the posterior distributions of w0 and wa for three data sets pertaining to the N = 1 case. The best fit for each data set and DESI’s contours are also shown. very small values and the decay constant to values just above ∼ 0.5 mPl. The quantity wa in the EoS is well constrained in this data set. For all the data sets, the analysis shows a baryon density higher than seen in the previous scenarios… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results for the posterior distributions of w0 and wa for three data sets pertaining to the cases N = 2 with equal coefficients (c1 = c2 = 1) and N = 2 with different coefficients (c1 ̸= c2). The best fit for each data set and DESI’s contours are also shown. CMB+DESI+DESY5/Union3, arise because Pantheon+SH0ES is in significant tension with the CMB- and BAO-calibrated distance scale, especially through the S… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 1D and 2D marginalized posteriors for the N = 1 case. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 1D and 2D marginalized posteriors for the N = 2 case when c2 = c1 and they are absorbed in µ 4 . 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 1D and 2D marginalized posteriors for the N = 2 case with c2 ̸= c1. References [1] R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582-1585 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1582 [arXiv:astro-ph/9708069 [astro-ph]]. [2] B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406 [3] R. J. Scherrer and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 77, 083515 (2008) doi:10.1103… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1582-1585 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1582 [arXiv:astro-ph/9708069 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.37.3406 1988

  3. [3]

    R. J. Scherrer and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D77, 083515 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.083515 [arXiv:0712.3450 [astro-ph]]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    R. R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 141301 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.141301 [arXiv:astro-ph/0505494 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D108, no.10, 103519 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103519 [arXiv:2310.07482 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D110, no.8, 083528 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083528 [arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, Phys. Rev. D58, 023503 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.023503 [arXiv:astro-ph/9711102 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D57, 4686-4690 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4686 [arXiv:gr-qc/9711068 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  9. [9]

    J. M. Alimi, A. Fuzfa, V. Boucher, Y. Rasera, J. Courtin and P. S. Corasaniti, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.401, 775 (2010) doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15712.x [arXiv:0903.5490 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 2077-2080 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.2077 [arXiv:astro-ph/9505060 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2077

  11. [11]

    L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, F. Lozano-Rodr ´ ıguez, J. O. Rom´ an-Herrera, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, A. de la Macorra and A. Dey,et al.Phys. Rev. D112, no.10, 103505 (2025) doi:10.1103/6pqs-xjln [arXiv:2503.20178 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    J. Lee, K. Murai, F. Takahashi and W. Yin, Phys. Rev. D112, no.4, 043538 (2025) doi:10.1103/pjf4-sn4v [arXiv:2503.18417 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    M. L. Abreu and M. S. Turner, [arXiv:2502.08876 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    A. J. Shajib and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D112, no.6, 063508 (2025) doi:10.1103/kjpb- r698 [arXiv:2502.06929 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Berbig, JCAP03, 015 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/015 [arXiv:2412.07418 [astro-ph.CO]]

    M. Berbig, JCAP03, 015 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/015 [arXiv:2412.07418 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, JCAP04, 086 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/086 [arXiv:2410.21243 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    G. Choi, W. Lin, L. Visinelli and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D104, no.10, L101302 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L101302 [arXiv:2106.12602 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Smer-Barreto and A

    V. Smer-Barreto and A. R. Liddle, JCAP01, 023 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2017/01/023 [arXiv:1503.06100 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Dutta and L

    K. Dutta and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D75, 063514 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.063514 [arXiv:astro-ph/0612457 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    L. J. Hall, Y. Nomura and S. J. Oliver, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 141302 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.141302 [arXiv:astro-ph/0503706 [astro-ph]]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  21. [21]

    Kawasaki, T

    M. Kawasaki, T. Moroi and T. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D64, 083009 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.083009 [arXiv:astro-ph/0105161 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  22. [22]

    Waga and J

    I. Waga and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D62, 043521 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043521 [arXiv:astro-ph/0001354 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  23. [23]

    S. C. C. Ng and D. L. Wiltshire, Phys. Rev. D63, 023503 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.023503 [arXiv:astro-ph/0004138 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  24. [24]

    P. T. P. Viana and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D57, 674-684 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.674 [arXiv:astro-ph/9708247 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    J. A. Frieman and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. D57, 4642-4650 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4642 [arXiv:astro-ph/9709063 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  26. [26]

    Coble, S

    K. Coble, S. Dodelson and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D55, 1851-1859 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.1851 [arXiv:astro-ph/9608122 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  27. [27]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith and T. Karwal, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101348 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101348 [arXiv:2302.09032 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    R. G. Cai, L. Li and S. J. Wang, Acta Phys. Sin.72, no.23, 239801 (2023) doi:10.7498/aps.72.20231270

    work page doi:10.7498/aps.72.20231270 2023

  29. [29]

    Efstathiou, Phil

    G. Efstathiou, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A383, no.2290, 20240022 (2025) doi:10.1098/rsta.2024.0022 [arXiv:2406.12106 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Di Valentinoet al.[CosmoVerse Network], Phys

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

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Abdalla, G

    E. Abdalla, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, D. Aloni, L. Amendola and L. A. Anchordoqui,et al.JHEAp34, 49-211 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 [arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, L. Breuval and T. G. Brink,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.934, no.1, L7 (2022) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b [arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Breuval, A

    L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Mu- rakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand and I. Soszy´ nski, Astrophys. J.973, no.1, 30 (2024) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad630e [arXiv:2404.08038 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. As- trophys.652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro- ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    V. I. Sabla and R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D103, no.10, 103506 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103506 [arXiv:2103.04999 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Banerjee, H

    A. Banerjee, H. Cai, L. Heisenberg, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D103, no.8, L081305 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L081305 [arXiv:2006.00244 [astro-ph.CO]]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Aboubrahim and P

    A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, [arXiv:2503.09769 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Aboubrahim and P

    A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, JCAP10, 081 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/081 [arXiv:2411.11177 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Aboubrahim and P

    A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, JCAP09, 076 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/076 [arXiv:2406.19284 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein and D. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D110, no.4, L041303 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L041303 [arXiv:2405.18747 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Cortˆ es and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213-224 (2001) doi:10.1142/S0218271801000822 [arXiv:gr-qc/0009008 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  46. [46]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301 [arXiv:astro-ph/0208512 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  47. [47]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 214003 (2013) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/30/21/214003 [arXiv:1304.1961 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    Shlivko and P

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

    arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Cicoli, F

    M. Cicoli, F. Cunillera, A. Padilla and F. G. Pedro, JHEP10, 141 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)141 [arXiv:2407.03405 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Cicoli, F

    M. Cicoli, F. Cunillera, A. Padilla and F. G. Pedro, Fortsch. Phys.70, no.4, 2200008 (2022) doi:10.1002/prop.202200008 [arXiv:2112.10783 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP06, 051 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/06/051 [arXiv:hep-th/0605206 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  52. [52]

    Halverson, C

    J. Halverson, C. Long and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D96, no.5, 056025 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.056025 [arXiv:1703.07779 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    Nath and M

    P. Nath and M. Piskunov, JHEP03, 121 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)121 [arXiv:1712.01357 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    Panda, Y

    S. Panda, Y. Sumitomo and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D83, 083506 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.083506 [arXiv:1011.5877 [hep-th]]. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  55. [55]

    M¨ u¨ ursepp, [arXiv:2405.20478 [hep-ph]]

    K. M¨ u¨ ursepp, [arXiv:2405.20478 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    M¨ u¨ ursepp, E

    K. M¨ u¨ ursepp, E. Nardi and C. Smarra, [arXiv:2405.00090 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    M. R. Gangopadhyay, N. Kumar, A. Mukherjee and M. K. Sharma, New Astron.118, 102373 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.newast.2025.102373 [arXiv:2205.15249 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Ettengruber and E

    M. Ettengruber and E. Koutsangelas, Phys. Rev. D111, no.3, 036006 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.036006 [arXiv:2307.10298 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D28, 1243 (1983) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.1243

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.28.1243 1983

  60. [60]

    L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez and A. X. Gonzalez-Morales, JCAP07, 048 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2016/07/048 [arXiv:1511.08195 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [61]

    Garcia-Arroyo, L

    G. Garcia-Arroyo, L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez and J. A. V´ azquez, Phys. Rev. D110, no.2, 023529 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023529 [arXiv:2402.08815 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, JCAP07, 034 (2011) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2011/07/034 [arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  63. [63]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057 [arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  64. [64]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D66, 103511 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511 [arXiv:astro-ph/0205436 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  65. [65]

    Lewis, Phys

    A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D87, no.10, 103529 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.103529 [arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    R. M. Neal, [arXiv:math/0502099 [math.ST]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statist. Sci.7, 457-472 (1992) doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136

    arXiv 1992

  68. [68]

    Lewis, JCAP08, 025 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 [arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]]

    A. Lewis, JCAP08, 025 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 [arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Tristram, A

    M. Tristram, A. J. Banday, K. M. G´ orski, R. Keskitalo, C. R. Lawrence, K. J. Andersen, R. B. Barreiro, J. Borrill, H. K. Eriksen and R. Fernandez-Cobos,et al.Astron. As- trophys.647, A128 (2021) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039585 [arXiv:2010.01139 [astro- ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    Tristram, A

    M. Tristram, A. J. Banday, M. Douspis, X. Garrido, K. M. G´ orski, S. Henrot-Versill´ e, L. T. Hergt, S. Ili´ c, R. Keskitalo and G. Lagache,et al.Astron. Astrophys.682, A37 (2024) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348015 [arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A1 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201833880 [arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201936386 [arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis, JCAP09, 039 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2022/09/039 [arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    M. S. Madhavacherilet al.[ACT], Astrophys. J.962, no.2, 113 (2024) doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/acff5f [arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys. Rev. D112, no.8, 083514 (2025) doi:10.1103/2wwn-xjm5 [arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, A. Carr, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton and D. Jones,et al.Astrophys. J.938, no.2, 110 (2022) doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/ac8e04 [arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A. G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perlmutter and P. Ruiz-Lapuente,et al.Astrophys. J.986, no.2, 231 (2025) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5 [arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.[DES], Astrophys. J. Lett.973, no.1, L14 (2024) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f [arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    A. H. Wright, B. St¨ olzner, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, B. Giblin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra, B. Joachimi and K. Kuijken,et al.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554908 [arXiv:2503.19441 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    Akaike, IEEE Trans

    H. Akaike, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control19, no.6, 716-723 (1974) doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    arXiv 1974

Showing first 80 references.