Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 8 cited by

A 3-form field with a Gaussian potential is an observationally viable phantom dark energy that raises the CMB+BAO Hubble constant from 67.89 to 68.29 km/s/Mpc, easing the Hubble tension.

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 17:18 UTC pith:IFS7DAXL

load-bearing objection First MCMC constraints on 3-form dark energy, but the advertised 'no fine-tuning' is contradicted by the paper's own prior choice and by Section 5's admission of fine-tuned timing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.09991 v2 pith:IFS7DAXL submitted 2025-12-10 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Observational constraints on 3-forms dark energy

Mariam Bouhmadi-L\'opez , Hsu-Wen Chiang , Carlos G. Boiza , Pisin Chen This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords 3-form fieldsdark energyphantom dark energyGaussian potentialHubble tensionMCMC cosmological constraintsbaryon acoustic oscillationscosmic microwave background
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.

This paper tries to establish that a 3-form field with a Gaussian potential—a higher-spin, phantom-capable dark energy candidate—is observationally viable and can partially ease the Hubble tension. Using MCMC fits to CMB, BAO, supernovae, local H0 anchors, and weak lensing, it reports that the model raises the CMB+BAO Hubble constant from 67.89 to 68.29 km/s/Mpc, moving toward the local distance-ladder value. The authors also argue that 3-form perturbations remain subdominant, leaving CMB and matter power spectra nearly unchanged. If right, the model offers a theoretically motivated alternative to a cosmological constant that is statistically slightly preferred over Lambda CDM when low-redshift data are included.

Core claim

The central claim is that a phantom-like dark energy built from a 3-form field with a Gaussian potential improves the fit to combined cosmological data over Lambda CDM by shifting H0 upward. The shift is produced by the field climbing its potential around z≈1.7, which changes the late-time expansion history while keeping early-time physics intact. The paper demonstrates the shift through MCMC with Planck PR4 CMB, DESI DR1 BAO, Pantheon+ SNe, Cepheid calibrators, and DES Y1, and verifies analytically and numerically that the 3-form perturbations do not destabilize the CMB or matter power spectrum. The authors present the model as the first observationally constrained 3-form dark energy and as

What carries the argument

The central object is a 3-form field (a rank-3 antisymmetric tensor) whose single scalar degree of freedom, χ, rolls under a Gaussian potential V(χ)=V* exp(−ξκ²χ²/6). Because the potential decreases with χ², the field's equation of state w_χ = −1 + χV_χ / [(χ̇+3Hχ)²/2 + V] drops below −1, giving phantom behaviour without ghosts for ξ<9/2. The mechanism that carries the claimed H0 shift is the field being swept by Hubble drag until it climbs the potential at z≈1.7, altering the late-time expansion history; the dynamical system's late-time attractor is a 'Little Sibling of the Big Rip' reached at infinite cosmic time. The argument is completed by MCMC fits of this dynamics to a combined datase

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on the prior that fixes the 3-form on the large-field branch so it climbs the Gaussian potential at z≈1.7; the authors exclude the small-field branch and the kinetic-dominated fixed point from the MCMC and concede in Section 5 that this timing requires fine-tuning of the initial condition.

What would settle it

Re-run the MCMC with a prior that includes the small-field branch (v≈0) and the kinetic-dominated E fixed point, without the EH0 constraint; if the H0 posterior returns to the Lambda CDM value near 67.9 km/s/Mpc, the claimed tension reduction is an artifact of the excluded prior region.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a 3-form field with a Gaussian potential is a viable phantom dark energy candidate that fits all major cosmological datasets without breaking CMB or matter power spectra.
  • The Hubble tension between early- and late-time probes is reduced by about 0.4 km/s/Mpc for CMB+BAO, and further when local H0 anchors are added, moving the prediction toward the local distance ladder.
  • Statistical probes (DIC, WAIC, Bayesian evidence) mildly favour the 3-form model over Lambda CDM once low-redshift SNe and Cepheid data are included.
  • The model's far future is a Little Sibling of the Big Rip—an abrupt but non-singular end at infinite cosmic time—rather than a de Sitter phase.
  • The 3-form perturbation remains subdominant, so the model does not introduce new small-scale structure or CMB anomalies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The success of the model hinges on the field climbing its potential at z≈1.7, the same epoch used by sign-switching ΛsCDM models; the authors note a negative cosmological constant extension is under investigation. A testable extension would be to check whether such a combined model removes the residual Ωm0–H0–rd tension they identify.
  • Because the MCMC prior deliberately excludes the small-field branch and the kinetic-dominated fixed point, the reported H0 shift and model preference may be prior-driven. An agnostic prior covering those regions would show whether the shift survives.
  • The model's expansion history at low z resembles that of a phantom fluid with a sudden transition; distance-only data (BAO, SNe) may be insufficient to distinguish it from phenomenological w(a) or ΛsCDM parametrisations, so growth data or gravitational-wave standard sirens could break the degeneracy.
  • The DES Y1 fit did not reach convergence criteria; a converged weak-lensing analysis, or cosmic-shear data from ongoing surveys, could sharpen the Ωm0–S8 trade-off and either confirm or overturn the statistical preference.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a 3-form dark-energy field with a Gaussian potential, combining a dynamical-system analysis with an MCMC fit to Planck PR4 CMB, DESI DR1 BAO, Pantheon+ SNe, local H0 anchors, and DES Y1 weak lensing data. The dynamical analysis shows an LSBR attractor, a saddle de Sitter point, and phantom-like late-time behavior. The MCMC analysis reports that, for CMB+BAO data, the 3-form model shifts H0 from 67.89±0.36 (ΛCDM) to 68.29^{+0.56}_{-0.61} km/s/Mpc, and that adding SNe+low-z data gives ΔlnB ≈ −2.9±1.7, interpreted as a statistical preference over ΛCDM and a mild reduction of the Hubble tension. The authors also verify that 3-form perturbations remain subdominant by comparing CAMB runs with and without the dark-energy perturbation.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be the first observational constraint on a 3-form dark-energy model, a theoretically motivated phantom candidate, and the demonstration that its perturbations are well-behaved would be valuable. The paper contains a thorough dynamical-system analysis, including a centre-manifold proof of the stability of the LSBR attractor, and a careful comparison of perturbed vs. unperturbed CAMB runs. However, the observational claims rely on a deliberately truncated prior over the 3-form parameter space, and the paper itself concedes fine-tuning of the initial condition, contradicting the abstract. The robustness of the reported H0 shift and model preference to prior choices is therefore not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, footnote 12, Table 2, §5] The central claim that the 3-form model increases H0 and is statistically preferred over ΛCDM is conditional on a truncated prior. The prior on log10(a_i^3√ξκχ_i) (Table 2) restricts the large-field branch, and footnote 12 explicitly states that the small-field branch (fixed points A1, A2) is excluded and that the E fixed point is deliberately suppressed because it is 'indistinguishable from ΛCDM'. The posterior peak at log10(a_i^3√ξκχ_i)≈−1.3 (Table 4) is what produces the H0 shift via a climb at z≈1.7. Section 5 then concedes that the model 'does require a specific moment to exert its phantom-ness... leading to a fine-tuning of the initial condition,' in direct contradiction to the abstract's 'without fine-tuning of the model parameters.' The reported ΔlnB≈−2.9±1.7 is a comparison over a restricted prior volume; widening the prior to include the full physical domain could dilute or rev
  2. [§4.1, Table 4 (DES Y1 column)] The DES Y1 chains did not meet the convergence criteria: the text states 'we cannot meet the stopping criteria when fitting DES Y1 dataset with the 3-form dark energy model (Inter-chain R−1∼0.08 for H0... of 6 chains we perform only 3 successfully explore a large parameter space).' Nevertheless, Table 4 reports the full DES Y1 column and the abstract lists DES Y1 as part of the comprehensive dataset. Since the DES Y1 posterior is explicitly described as a rough estimate, these results should be either excluded from the main conclusions or rerun to convergence. As presented, the summary statistics for the DES Y1 column are unreliable and should not be used to support the model's viability.
  3. [§4, Table 2 (Constraint E_H0)] The consistency constraint on E_H0 ≡ 1−H0,EOM^2/H0^2 is implemented as a Gaussian likelihood of width 0.001/√2 and then converted into a prior by subtracting its likelihood from all other likelihoods. This is an extremely tight, ad hoc constraint (the paper itself calls it 'reminiscent of an ad hoc Gaussian constraint'), and it directly enters the Bayesian evidence calculation. The paper does not demonstrate that the results are insensitive to the chosen width or that the prior-volume interpretation is well defined. If this constraint is purely a numerical consistency condition, its width should be shown not to affect the posterior or the model comparison; otherwise it acts as an additional, arbitrarily weighted parameter.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §5] The abstract states the H0 shift is achieved 'without fine-tuning of the model parameters,' but Section 5 concedes a fine-tuning of the initial condition. This internal inconsistency should be resolved, for example by rephrasing the abstract to 'without fine-tuning beyond the initial choice of the large-field branch' or by removing the phrase entirely.
  2. [§4.2, Fig. 3] The claim of 'mildly reducing the tension' is not quantified. Taking the reported low-z H0=73.2±1.3 km/s/Mpc, the 3-form value 68.29^{+0.56}_{-0.61} still differs by about 3.4σ, so a quantitative statement of the residual tension would help the reader assess the improvement.
  3. [Tables 3–6] The notation 'Left + BAO' and similar column headers is unusual and potentially confusing; consider labeling columns by the datasets included (e.g., 'CMB', '+BAO', '+SNe'). Some entries for non-Gaussian parameters (e.g., log10 ξ) report only a median with no uncertainty or with a question mark; this should be clarified either by giving full quantiles or by explicitly stating that the distribution is effectively a point mass at the reported value.
  4. [General] The paper uses Cobaya, CAMB, and GetDist but does not state whether the modified CAMB code for the 3-form perturbations will be made publicly available. A reproducibility statement would strengthen the work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the H0 shift is a standard posterior fit, and the prior restrictions are a limitation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central H0 claim comes from a standard MCMC fit: H0 is a sampled parameter with a flat prior, and the 3-form parameters (V*, xi, initial field strength/kinetic energy) are fitted to the same CMB+BAO data. Calling the resulting posterior a 'predicted Hubble parameter' is loose language, but the fit is not an identity: no prior or likelihood enforces H0 = 68.29 or the z~1.7 climbing time; those values emerge from the data. The EH0 constraint is admittedly 'tautological in backward-time integration' (Sec. 4), but it is an internal consistency condition for CAMB's forward integration, explicitly subtracted and converted into a prior, not used as physical evidence. The dynamical stability results are re-derived in the paper via the centre-manifold analysis in Appendix A, so self-citations [55-57] for the Gaussian model and LSBR are not load-bearing. The legitimate weakness is prior truncation: footnote 12 deliberately excludes the E fixed point and the small-field branch, and Sec. 5 concedes 'a fine-tuning of the initial condition,' which undercuts the abstract's 'without fine-tuning' wording. That is a prior/scope problem limiting the model-comparison claim, not a circular derivation: the posterior preference is not identical to the prior by construction, since the prior still spans a wide range of initial field strengths and the low-z shift of log10(a_i^3 sqrt(xi) kappa chi_i) is data-driven. No step reduces the claimed result to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model adds five effective fit parameters (potential amplitude, width, initial field amplitude, initial kinetic energy, and an ad hoc consistency width). The theoretical framework is inherited from prior 3-form literature, and no new particles or forces are introduced. The main additional burden is the prior truncation that selects the large-field branch and the hand-built E_H0 consistency prior.

free parameters (5)
  • V*/ρ_DE,0 = ≈1.0000±0.002 (posterior)
    Amplitude of Gaussian potential; flat prior 0–2; sets dark-energy density scale and is effectively pinned to the observed DE density.
  • log10 ξ = ≈ −3.2 to −3.4
    Width of Gaussian potential; flat log prior [−7, log10(9/2)]; controls phantomness and sound-speed crossing.
  • log10(a_i^3 √ξ κ χ_i) = ≈ −1.2 to −2.3 depending on dataset
    Initial field strength; flat prior [−3.5, 0.5]; controls when the field climbs the potential at z≈1.7.
  • (χdot_i + 3H_i χ_i)/ρ_crit^{1/2} = ≈ 0 ± 0.5
    Initial kinetic term of the 3-form; flat prior [−5/4, 5/4].
  • E_H0 consistency prior width = 0.001/√2 (chosen, not fitted)
    Hand-chosen Gaussian width forcing H0_EOM ≈ H0; converted from a likelihood into a prior; shapes the model comparison.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Gaussian potential ansatz V(χ)=V* exp(−ξκ²χ²/6) with V*, ξ > 0
    Model choice in Eq. (3.2); motivated by stability and phantom behaviour, not derived from a more fundamental theory.
  • domain assumption Stability requires 0 < ξ < 9/2 so c_s² > 0 over [−χ_c, χ_c]
    Imposed in Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5); the observational prior on log10 ξ respects this range.
  • standard math Flat FLRW background with standard conserved matter and radiation
    Eqs. (2.7)–(2.15); standard cosmological setup used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the large-field branch is sampled; small-field branch and E fixed point are excluded by prior
    Footnote 12: deliberate choice to prevent MCMC trapping around ΛCDM-equivalent dynamics; truncates the parameter space on which the model comparison is based.
  • ad hoc to paper E_H0 consistency condition with width 0.001/√2, converted to a prior
    Section 4: hand-chosen constraint that H0 from EOM equals H0 from θMC; admitted to be 'reminiscent of an ad hoc Gaussian constraint.'
  • standard math Centre manifold theorem for stability of non-hyperbolic LSBR points
    Appendix A, refs. [123,124]; used to establish that B± are attractors.
  • domain assumption CAMB modification for 3-form scalar perturbation δχ is correct
    Section 4: verified only indirectly by comparing to perturbation-off runs, not by an independent code.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29905 in / 15372 out tokens · 142866 ms · 2026-08-03T17:18:03.065737+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

3-forms are natural candidates for describing the late-time accelerated expansion of the Universe, as they can inherently reproduce a positive cosmological constant when lacking an evolving potential. When such a potential is present, a 3-form field may exhibit either quintessence-like or phantom-like behaviour. In this paper, we consider a late-time effective dark energy model described by a 3-form with a Gaussian potential, stable during the dark-energy-dominated era. We constrain this model observationally by performing a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis employing a comprehensive cosmological dataset, including Planck PR4 cosmic microwave background (CMB) data, DESI DR1 baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements, Pantheon+ Type Ia supernovae data, low-$z$ Cepheid calibrators, and DES Y1 large-scale structure observations. We demonstrate that the 3-form model successfully increases the predicted Hubble parameter of CMB and BAO data from $67.89\pm0.36{\rm km/s/Mpc}$ of $\Lambda$CDM model to $68.29^{+0.56}_{-0.61}{\rm km/s/Mpc}$ by approaching the potential peak at the right time, thus mildly reducing the tension with the late-time observation. Overall, the 3-form field serves as a promising candidate of phantom-like dark energy from both theoretical and observational points of view.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Alleviating the Hubble Tension with Smooth Sign-Switching Dark Energy: Full CMB Constraints with DESI and PantheonPlus

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Smooth ECDM dark energy remains compatible with Planck+ACT+SPT, DESI DR2 and Pantheon+/SH0ES while alleviating the Hubble tension through a controlled late-time density transition.

  2. Black Bounce Solutions from a Self-Interacting 3-Form Field in General Relativity

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Black-bounce solutions are obtained from a self-interacting 3-form field in GR plus scalar, producing two families that are globally regular with asymmetric horizons and different scalar behaviors.

  3. Sign-Switching Dark Energy: Smooth Transitions with Recent DESI DR2 Observations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Sign-switching dark energy with a transition at z_† fits recent DESI DR2, Planck CMB, and Pantheon+ data better than ΛCDM while raising the inferred Hubble constant and easing the Hubble tension.

  4. Background-level reconstruction of scalar-field potentials from dark-energy histories and comparison with analytic potential families

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5

    A background reconstruction maps prescribed ρ_de(z) histories to V(φ) and ranks analytic potentials by Bayesian evidence, with exponential preferred for CPL and shifted-tanh for sign-switching targets.

  5. Scaling solutions in three-form cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    A generalized three-form dark-energy Lagrangian admits stable scaling attractors that track the dominant cosmic fluid and, via a double-potential extension, exit to late-time acceleration — physical content dual to kn...

  6. Probing Dynamical Dark Energy with Late-Time Data: Evidence, Tensions, and the Limits of the $w_0w_a$CDM Framework

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Evidence for dynamical dark energy in the w0waCDM framework is strongly dataset-dependent, driven by mismatches in low-redshift BAO distance ratios that produce divergent expansion histories and inconsistent Hubble te...

  7. Three-form dark energy: constraints and multi-probe comparison with $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Three-form dark energy with Gaussian potential is fitted to multi-probe cosmological data and shows mild statistical preference over ΛCDM only in heavily tensioned dataset combinations.

  8. Three-form dark energy: constraints and multi-probe comparison with $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 conditional novelty 4.0

    A Gaussian three-form dark-energy model is viable and mildly preferred over ΛCDM only for the tensioned CMB+BAO+Pantheon+SH0ES combination, with a phantom dip at intermediate redshifts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Bahcall, J.P

    N.A. Bahcall, J.P. Ostriker, S. Perlmutter and P.J. Steinhardt,The Cosmic triangle: Assessing the state of the universe,Science284(1999) 1481 [astro-ph/9906463]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  2. [4]

    Bennett et al.,First-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series148(2003) 1

    C.L. Bennett et al.,First-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series148(2003) 1

    2003

  3. [5]

    Komatsu et al.,Seven-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Cosmological interpretation,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series192(2011) 18

    E. Komatsu et al.,Seven-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: Cosmological interpretation,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series192(2011) 18

    2011

  4. [6]

    Collaboration,Planck 2013 results

    P. Collaboration,Planck 2013 results. xvi. cosmological parameters,Astronomy & Astrophysics571(2014) A16

    2013

  5. [7]

    Collaboration,Planck 2018 results

    P. Collaboration,Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmological parameters,Astronomy & Astrophysics 641(2020) A6

    2018

  6. [8]

    Eisenstein et al.,Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of sdss luminous red galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal633(2005) 560

    D.J. Eisenstein et al.,Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of sdss luminous red galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal633(2005) 560

    2005

  7. [9]

    S. Cole et al.,The 2df galaxy redshift survey: Power-spectrum analysis of the final data set and cosmological implications,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society362(2005) 505

    2005

  8. [10]

    Percival et al.,Baryon acoustic oscillations in the sloan digital sky survey data release 7 galaxy sample,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society401(2010) 2148

    W.J. Percival et al.,Baryon acoustic oscillations in the sloan digital sky survey data release 7 galaxy sample,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society401(2010) 2148

    2010

  9. [11]

    Tegmark et al.,The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the sloan digital sky survey,The Astrophysical Journal606(2004) 702

    M. Tegmark et al.,The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the sloan digital sky survey,The Astrophysical Journal606(2004) 702

    2004

  10. [12]

    Reid et al.,Cosmological constraints from the clustering of the sloan digital sky survey dr7 luminous red galaxies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society404(2010) 60

    B.A. Reid et al.,Cosmological constraints from the clustering of the sloan digital sky survey dr7 luminous red galaxies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society404(2010) 60

    2010

  11. [13]

    Ratra and P.J.E

    B. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles,Cosmological Consequences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field,Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 3406

    1988

  12. [14]

    Armendariz-Picon, V.F

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V.F. Mukhanov and P.J. Steinhardt,Essentials of k essence,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 103510 [astro-ph/0006373]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  13. [15]

    Kamionkowski, J

    M. Kamionkowski, J. Pradler and D.G.E. Walker,Dark energy from the string axiverse,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 251302 [1409.0549]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [16]

    Emami, D

    R. Emami, D. Grin, J. Pradler, A. Raccanelli and M. Kamionkowski,Cosmological tests of an axiverse-inspired quintessence field,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 123005 [1603.04851]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [17]

    Chiang, C.G

    H.-W. Chiang, C.G. Boiza and M. Bouhmadi-López,Observational constraints on generalised axion-like potentials for the late Universe,JCAP08(2025) 064 [2503.04898]. – 28 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [18]

    Bouhmadi-López, H.-W

    M. Bouhmadi-López, H.-W. Chiang and C.G. Boiza,Generalised axion-like dark energy: From theory to observations,Phys. Dark Univ.49(2025) 101968

    2025

  17. [19]

    Deffayet, O

    C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman,Imperfect Dark Energy from Kinetic Gravity Braiding,JCAP10(2010) 026 [1008.0048]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [20]

    Pujolas, I

    O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman,The Imperfect Fluid behind Kinetic Gravity Braiding, JHEP11(2011) 156 [1103.5360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [21]

    Borislavov Vasilev, M

    T. Borislavov Vasilev, M. Bouhmadi-López and P. Martín-Moruno,Phantom attractors in kinetic gravity braiding theories: a dynamical system approach,JCAP06(2023) 026 [2212.02547]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [22]

    Borislavov Vasilev, M

    T. Borislavov Vasilev, M. Bouhmadi-López and P. Martín-Moruno,Dark energy with a shift-symmetric scalar field: Obstacles, loophole hunting and dead ends,Phys. Dark Univ.46 (2024) 101679 [2406.12576]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [23]

    Kobayashi,Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,Rept

    T. Kobayashi,Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,Rept. Prog. Phys.82(2019) 086901 [1901.07183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [24]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. Özülker and J.A. Vazquez,Relaxing cosmological tensions with a sign switching cosmological constant,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 123512 [2108.09239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [25]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. Özülker, J.A. Vazquez and A. Yadav,Relaxing cosmological tensions with a sign switching cosmological constant: Improved results with Planck, BAO, and Pantheon data,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 023513 [2211.05742]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [26]

    Akarsu, E

    O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R.C. Nunes, J.A. Vazquez and A. Yadav,ΛsCDM model: A promising scenario for alleviation of cosmological tensions, [2307.10899]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [27]

    Bouhmadi-López and B

    M. Bouhmadi-López and B. Ibarra-Uriondo,Cosmographic analysis of sign-switching dark energy,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 063559 [2506.12139]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [28]

    Bouhmadi-López and B

    M. Bouhmadi-López and B. Ibarra-Uriondo,Cosmological perturbations for smooth sign-switching dark energy models, [2506.18992]

    arXiv

  27. [29]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A.Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier,An Alternative to quintessence,Phys. Lett. B511(2001) 265 [gr-qc/0103004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  28. [30]

    Bouhmadi-López and J.A

    M. Bouhmadi-López and J.A. Jimenez Madrid,Escaping the big rip?,JCAP05(2005) 005 [astro-ph/0404540]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [31]

    Bouhmadi-López, P.F

    M. Bouhmadi-López, P.F. González-Díaz and P. Martín-Moruno,Worse than a big rip?,Phys. Lett. B659(2008) 1 [gr-qc/0612135]. [32]CANTATAcollaboration, Y. Akrami et al.,Modified Gravity and Cosmology. An Update by the CANTATA Network, Springer (2021), 10.1007/978-3-030-83715-0, [2105.12582]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  30. [33]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis,Extended Theories of Gravity,Phys. Rept.509(2011) 167 [1108.6266]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [34]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov,Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models,Phys. Rept.505(2011) 59 [1011.0544]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [35]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and V.K. Oikonomou,Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution,Phys. Rept.692(2017) 1 [1705.11098]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [36]

    Morais, M

    J. Morais, M. Bouhmadi-López and S. Capozziello,Canf(R)gravity contribute to (dark) radiation?,JCAP09(2015) 041 [1507.02623]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [37]

    Bengochea and R

    G.R. Bengochea and R. Ferraro,Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 124019 [0812.1205]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [38]

    Ferraro and F

    R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini,Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without inflaton,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 084031 [gr-qc/0610067]. – 29 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  36. [39]

    Y.-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and E.N. Saridakis,f(T) teleparallel gravity and cosmology,Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) 106901 [1511.07586]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [40]

    Beltrán Jiménez, L

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg and T.S. Koivisto,Teleparallel Palatini theories,JCAP08 (2018) 039 [1803.10185]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [41]

    Beltrán Jiménez, L

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, T.S. Koivisto and S. Pekar,Cosmology inf(Q)geometry, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 103507 [1906.10027]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [42]

    Ayuso, R

    I. Ayuso, R. Lazkoz and V. Salzano,Observational constraints on cosmological solutions of f(Q)theories,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 063505 [2012.00046]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [43]

    Boiza, M

    C.G. Boiza, M. Petronikolou, M. Bouhmadi-López and E.N. Saridakis,AddressingH0 andS 8 tensions withinf(Q)cosmology, [2505.18264]

    arXiv

  41. [44]

    Ayuso, M

    I. Ayuso, M. Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y. Chen, X.Y. Chew, K. Dialektopoulos and Y.C. Ong, Insights inf(Q)cosmology: the relevance of the connection, [2506.03506]

    arXiv

  42. [45]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton and G. Efstathiou,CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517(2022) 4620 [2205.10869]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [46]

    Riess, S

    A.G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J.B. Bowers, L. Macri, J.C. Zinn et al.,Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension withΛCDM,Astrophys. J. Lett.908 (2021) L6 [2012.08534]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [47]

    Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys

    D. Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110 [2202.04077]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [48]

    Wright et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey, [2503.19441]

    A.H. Wright et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey, [2503.19441]. [49]DEScollaboration,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023520 [2105.13549]. [50](DES Collaboration)*, DEScollaboration,Dark energy survey year...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [51]

    Dalal et al.,Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra,Phys

    R. Dalal et al.,Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 123519 [2304.00701]. [52]DESIcollaboration,Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083511 [2503.14743]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [53]

    Koivisto and N.J

    T.S. Koivisto and N.J. Nunes,Inflation and dark energy from three-forms,Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 103509 [0908.0920]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [54]

    Koivisto and N.J

    T.S. Koivisto and N.J. Nunes,Coupled three-form dark energy,Physical Review D88(2013)

    2013

  49. [55]

    Morais, M

    J. Morais, M. Bouhmadi-López, K. Sravan Kumar, J. Marto and Y. Tavakoli,Interacting 3-form dark energy models: distinguishing interactions and avoiding the Little Sibling of the Big Rip,Phys. Dark Univ.15(2017) 7 [1608.01679]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [56]

    Bouhmadi-López, J

    M. Bouhmadi-López, J. Marto, J. Morais and C.M. Silva,Cosmic infinity: A dynamical system approach,JCAP03(2017) 042 [1611.03100]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [57]

    Morais, M

    J. Morais, M. Bouhmadi-López and J. Marto,3-Form Cosmology: Phantom Behaviour, Singularities and Interactions,Universe3(2017) 21

    2017

  52. [58]

    Aurilia, H

    A. Aurilia, H. Nicolai and P.K. Townsend,Hidden Constants: The Theta Parameter of QCD and the Cosmological Constant of N=8 Supergravity,Nucl. Phys. B176(1980) 509

    1980

  53. [59]

    Koivisto and N.J

    T.S. Koivisto and N.J. Nunes,Three-form cosmology,Phys. Lett. B685(2010) 105 [0907.3883]. – 30 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [60]

    Duff and P

    M.J. Duff and P. van Nieuwenhuizen,Quantum Inequivalence of Different Field Representations,Phys. Lett. B94(1980) 179

    1980

  55. [61]

    Germani and A

    C. Germani and A. Kehagias,P-nflation: generating cosmic Inflation with p-forms,JCAP03 (2009) 028 [0902.3667]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [62]

    De Felice, K

    A. De Felice, K. Karwan and P. Wongjun,Stability of the 3-form field during inflation,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 123545 [1202.0896]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [63]

    De Felice, K

    A. De Felice, K. Karwan and P. Wongjun,Reheating in 3-form inflation,Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 103526 [1209.5156]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  58. [64]

    Mulryne, J

    D.J. Mulryne, J. Noller and N.J. Nunes,Three-form inflation and non-gaussianity,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(2012) 016–016

    2012

  59. [65]

    Urban and T.S

    F.R. Urban and T.S. Koivisto,Perturbations and non-Gaussianities in three-form inflationary magnetogenesis,JCAP09(2012) 025 [1207.7328]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [66]

    Kumar, J

    K.S. Kumar, J. Marto, N.J. Nunes and P.V. Moniz,Inflation in a two 3-form fields scenario, JCAP06(2014) 064 [1404.0211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [67]

    Sravan Kumar, D.J

    K. Sravan Kumar, D.J. Mulryne, N.J. Nunes, J. Marto and P. Vargas Moniz,Non-Gaussianity in multiple three-form field inflation,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 103504 [1606.07114]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  62. [68]

    Barros and N.J

    B.J. Barros and N.J. Nunes,Three-form inflation in type II Randall-Sundrum,Phys. Rev. D 93(2016) 043512 [1511.07856]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  63. [69]

    Barros and J

    B.J. Barros and J. Beltrán Jiménez,Non-trivial thick brane realisations with 3-forms,JHEP 02(2024) 002 [2312.12516]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [70]

    Gordin, K

    J.E.B. Gordin, K. MacDevette and J. Bruton,The dynamics of three-forms in thick branes, JHEP05(2024) 061 [2311.14436]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [71]

    Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y

    M. Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y. Chen, X.Y. Chew, Y.C. Ong and D.-h. Yeom,Traversable wormhole in Einstein 3-form theory with self-interacting potential,JCAP10(2021) 059 [2108.07302]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [72]

    Barros and F.S

    B.J. Barros and F.S. Lobo,Wormhole geometries supported by three-form fields,Physical Review D98(2018)

    2018

  67. [73]

    Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y

    M. Bouhmadi-López, C.-Y. Chen, X.Y. Chew, Y.C. Ong and D.-H. Yeom,Regular Black Hole Interior Spacetime Supported by Three-Form Field,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 278 [2005.13260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  68. [74]

    Barros, B

    B.J. Barros, B. Dˇ anilˇ a, T. Harko and F.S.N. Lobo,Black hole and naked singularity geometries supported by three-form fields,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 617 [2004.06605]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [75]

    da Fonseca, B.J

    V. da Fonseca, B.J. Barros, T. Barreiro and N.J. Nunes,Non-canonical 3-form dark energy, Phys. Dark Univ.47(2025) 101827 [2410.11658]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [76]

    De Felice and A

    A. De Felice and A. Hell,The non-minimal 3-form cosmology and the rise of the cuscuton, [2509.02323]

    arXiv

  71. [77]

    Barreiro, U

    T. Barreiro, U. Bertello and N.J. Nunes,Screening three-form fields,Phys. Lett. B773(2017) 417 [1610.00357]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  72. [78]

    Barros, Z

    B.J. Barros, Z. Haghani, T. Harko and F.S.N. Lobo,Static spherically symmetric three-form stars,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 307 [2101.04445]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [79]

    Bouhmadi-López, D

    M. Bouhmadi-López, D. Brizuela and I. Garay,Quantum behavior of the ”Little Sibling” of the Big Rip induced by a three-form field,JCAP09(2018) 031 [1802.05164]. [80]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A5 [1907.12875]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [81]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis,CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps,JCAP09 (2022) 039 [2206.07773]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [82]

    Carron, A

    J. Carron, A. Lewis and G. Fabbian,Planck integrated Sachs-Wolfe-lensing likelihood and the CMB temperature,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 103507 [2209.07395]. [83]DESIcollaboration,DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, [2404.03002]. [84]DESIcollaboration,DESI 2024 IV: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Ly...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  76. [86]

    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

    A.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(2022) L7 [2112.04510]. [87]DEScollaboration,Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Phys. Rev. D98(201...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [89]

    Raveri, G

    M. Raveri, G. Zacharegkas and W. Hu,Quantifying concordance of correlated cosmological data sets,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 103527 [1912.04880]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [90]

    Handley and P

    W. Handley and P. Lemos,Quantifying dimensionality: Bayesian cosmological model complexities,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 023512

    2019

  79. [91]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,Astrophys. J.538(2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  80. [92]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall and A. Challinor,CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology,JCAP1204(2012) 027 [1201.3654]. [93]eBOSScollaboration,The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the luminous red galaxy sample from the anisotropic ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

Showing first 80 references.