Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Canonical scalar fields cannot cross the phantom divide; fine-tuned k-essence models can.

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 06:59 UTC pith:KOGUOL7X

load-bearing objection The canonical no-go is correct but textbook; the k-essence crossing claim fails at the crossing point because P_X=0 kills the gradient term, so the positive half of the paper doesn't survive. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.21356 v2 pith:KOGUOL7X submitted 2026-01-29 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Is Phantom Divide Crossing in General Relativity Completely Impossible? Shortcomings in canonical and minimally coupled scalar field and Possible Solutions in k-essence Models

Shin'ichi Nojiri , S.D. Odintsov , V.K. Oikonomou This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th MSC 83F05
keywords phantom crossingequation of state parameterscalar field cosmologyk-essenceghost condensatedark energyreconstruction methodmodified gravity
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 establishes a no-go result: in general relativity, a single canonical, minimally coupled scalar field has pressure p and density ρ obeying ρ + p = φ̇² ≥ 0, so the equation-of-state parameter w = p/ρ is always at least −1. Therefore the universe described by such a field can never enter a phantom phase (w < −1), let alone cross from phantom to quintessence as recent cosmological observations hint. The paper then shows that k-essence theories — the most general single-field scalar theories with second-order field equations — can in principle realize such a crossing, because there ρ + p = 2X P_X and P_X can change sign. It constructs an explicit reconstruction that realizes an inverse phantom crossing and shows how to choose the free function K⁽²⁾(φ) to eliminate ghost instabilities. The result matters because it draws a sharp line around which dark-energy models in general relativity can fit the data.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a sharp structural obstruction and a constructive workaround. First, for a canonical scalar field with Lagrangian X − V(φ), the combination ρ + p equals 2X = φ̇², which is nonnegative by definition; hence w ≥ −1 identically, independent of the potential, initial conditions, or even negative potentials. Since the phantom regime requires w < −1, a canonical field never enters it, so a phantom-to-quintessence transition is impossible in that framework. The paper then shows that the obstruction is relaxed in k-essence models L = P(φ, X), where ρ + p = 2X P_X: a phantom phase corresponds to P_X < 0 and crossing requires P_X = 0. Using a reconstruction method in wh

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identities are ρ + p = 2X for a canonical scalar (X = ½∂φ∂φ) and ρ + p = 2X P_X for k-essence; the sign of these combinations fixes whether w can drop below −1. The constructive tool is the reconstruction of K(φ, X) = Σ (X+1)ⁿ K⁽ⁿ⁾(φ), where K⁽⁰⁾ and K⁽¹⁾ are fixed by the desired Hubble rate h(t) through the Friedmann equations, while K⁽ⁿ≥²⁾ are free and control stability. The paper uses the freedom in K⁽²⁾ to make the quadratic perturbation's kinetic coefficient positive (ghost-free) and to stabilize the solution. The explicit transition is generated by adding a bump function γ(t) to the ΛCDM scale factor, with γ(t0) < 0 selecting the phantom-to-quintessence direction.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstructed k-essence model is assumed to stay physically well-behaved exactly at the instant of crossing, where the kinetic term for perturbations vanishes; the paper verifies the background equations and the sign of the perturbed kinetic energy, but not whether the perturbations freeze or blow up at that instant. If that point is singular rather than smoothly traversable, the claimed ghost-free crossing fails.

What would settle it

Compute the sound speed squared c_s² = P_X / (2X P_XX + P_X) (or the full quadratic action for perturbations) at the crossing time t0 in the model specified by Eqs. (57), (69), and (86). If c_s² diverges, changes sign, or the perturbation action becomes singular at P_X = 0, the claimed ghost-free phantom-to-quintessence crossing is not a consistent classical solution. A direct numerical evolution of linear perturbations through the crossing would settle the question.

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

If this is right

  • Any dark-energy model in general relativity that is a single canonical scalar field is excluded from explaining the observed phantom-to-quintessence hint; the no-go is structural, not a fine-tuning issue.
  • k-essence (ghost condensate) models can realize the crossing, but only with fine-tuned background evolution and with explicit ghost elimination via the choice of K⁽²⁾(φ).
  • The reconstructed example produces a definite Hubble rate h(t) and dark-energy density ρ_k(t); if observationally viable, it provides a concrete general-relativity-compatible template for the inverse crossing.
  • In modified gravity (such as F(R) gravity), the same transition is achieved without such fine-tuning or ghost removal, making modified gravity a qualitatively simpler candidate.
  • An apparent-crossing mechanism via a mass-varying scalar dark-matter candidate is shown to run into tachyon issues in a simple matter-dominated example, so it is not yet a clean resolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Directly computing the sound speed in the reconstructed model at the crossing time would test whether the perturbation sector stays classical; the paper stops at the background and δφ̇² coefficient, so this is not yet settled.
  • The reconstruction requires ρ_k'(t0) = 0 and a specific sign of γ(t0); a parameter scan over γ0 and t0 could quantify how large a fraction of the model space actually permits a stable, ghost-free crossing — the paper notes fine-tuning but does not quantify it.
  • The same reconstruction could, in principle, be required to connect inflation and late-time dark energy in a single k-essence Lagrangian; the paper mentions this as future work, and matching both the tensor-to-scalar bound and the crossing would be a concrete test of the framework's reach.

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 addresses whether a phantom-to-quintessence crossing (w crossing −1) can be realized by scalar-field dark energy within general relativity. Section II gives a simple exact argument: for a canonical, minimally coupled scalar, ρ+p = 2X = φ̇² ≥ 0, so w ≥ −1 and no crossing is possible; the same conclusion holds with negative potentials. The paper then uses the reconstruction method of Ref. [49] for a general k-essence Lagrangian K(φ,X), Eqs. (54)–(57), to construct a model that formally has a background solution with a prescribed crossing. The crossing is introduced by hand through a deformation γ(t) of the ΛCDM scale factor, Eq. (78), and the function K⁽²⁾(φ) is chosen as in Eq. (69) to make the coefficient of δφ̇² positive. Section IV.C discusses an alternative “apparent” crossing from a massive δφ dark-matter component, and Section V compares slow-roll inflationary EoS parameters in single-field and F(R) gravity. The central positive claim is that k-essence ghost condensates can realize a ghost-free phantom-to-quintessence transition, although with significant fine-tuning.

Significance. The no-go proof for canonical scalar fields is exact, self-contained, and correct; it is a useful reference result and is the paper’s strongest part. The reconstruction technology from Ref. [49] is competently adapted, and the explicit choice Eq. (69) that eliminates the δφ̇² ghost is a nice observation. However, the paper’s positive claim is not established at the level claimed. As the paper itself notes in Sec. II, citing Refs. [38–40], a k-essence theory at P_X = 0 has an ill-defined sound speed and a strongly coupled perturbation sector. The constructed crossing occurs exactly at P_X = 0, and Eq. (87) shows the spatial gradient term vanishes there; the no-ghost condition Eq. (69) does not restore it. Thus the model does not provide a physically viable crossing within the stated k-essence action; it can at most provide a formal background crossing at a singular point. The reconstruction is also a model-building exercise: the crossing is inserted via γ(t), so the paper should not be read as predicting or explaining the DESI crossing without further observational input.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eqs. (57), (78), (87); Sec. II] The central construction fails to address the singular point P_X = 0. From Eq. (56), K⁽¹⁾(φ) = (1/κ²)h″ + (1/2)Σ(1+w_i)ρᵢa₀^{−3(1+w_i)}e^{−3(1+w_i)h(φ)}, and for the background φ = t one has ρ_k+p_k = −2K⁽¹⁾(t). At the crossing t0, ρ_k+p_k = 0 forces K⁽¹⁾(t0) = 0. The quadratic perturbation action Eq. (87) then has spatial gradient coefficient a⁻²K⁽¹⁾(t0) = 0, so δφ is non-propagating; c_s² = 0 and the perturbation problem is strongly coupled, exactly the no-go cited in Sec. II from Refs. [38–40]. Choosing K⁽²⁾ via Eq. (69) only makes the coefficient of δφ̇² positive; it cannot generate a (∂iδφ)² term because K⁽ⁿ⁾ (n ≥ 2) enter through (X+1)ⁿ, which at quadratic order contain no such term at X = −1. The statement at the end of Sec. IV.B that the model realizes the crossing “without ghosts” is therefore not supported; the correct statement is that a formal background crossing exists but t
  2. [Sec. IV.B/C, Eqs. (86), (90)] The model is not shown to be stable over the whole trajectory. The no-ghost condition and the background stability analysis of Sec. III.B do not control the time-dependent mass term in Eq. (90). For the specific γ(t) of Eq. (86), one should verify m_δφ² ≥ 0 for all times (or at least over the observationally relevant interval); otherwise the “viable” crossing model is tachyonic. The paper itself shows in Eq. (93) that in a simple matter-dominated example m_δφ² becomes negative, and it acknowledges neglecting back-reaction; this makes it clear that the stability check in Sec. IV is incomplete. Please provide the corresponding check for the crossing model or state the limitation explicitly.
  3. [Sec. II vs. Sec. IV.B] There is an internal tension in the presentation. Sec. II concludes that “the realization of such crossing cannot be done in the context of a single scalar field theory and its k-essence extensions,” citing the P_X = 0 problem, while Sec. IV.B claims an explicit k-essence realization. This is not just a matter of wording: the contradiction is resolved only by recognizing that the constructed model is precisely singular at P_X = 0. The paper should state this tension explicitly and adjust the abstract and conclusions accordingly. As written, a reader can take away that the paper both proves and disproves the same no-go.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.B, around Eq. (65)] The function g(φ) appearing in δλ is not defined in the text; please define it or remove it. There is also a typo near Eq. (59): “does not containg” should presumably read “does not contain y” (or “does not contain h″”).
  2. [Eqs. (93)–(94)] There is a stray comma after Eq. (93) and an empty numbered equation (94); please clean up the typography and numbering.
  3. [Sec. V, Eqs. (96)–(99)] The comparison of inflationary EoS parameters assumes the slow-roll relations r = 16ε for single-field models and the corresponding F(R) expression. Please state these assumptions explicitly, since the numerical values are used to draw qualitative conclusions about future CMB and dark-energy measurements.
  4. [Sec. IV.C] The apparent-crossing scenario is only qualitative: m_δφ is computed at second order in perturbations, while back-reaction and the k-essence contribution to the background are neglected. This is acknowledged in the text, but it should be listed prominently as a limitation in the conclusions.
  5. [Abstract/Conclusions] The phrase “may be possible” in the abstract should be qualified in view of the strong-coupling point. A sentence such as “at the crossing the perturbation sector becomes strongly coupled, so a UV completion or a modified-gravity embedding would be needed for a fully consistent model” would accurately reflect the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the k-essence crossing is an explicitly inserted reconstruction input, not a hidden prediction, though the paper's own P_X=0 caveat is a separate physical-consistency concern.

full rationale

The canonical no-go section is self-contained and non-circular: ρ+p=2X=φdot^2≥0 is an identity independent of V(φ), so w≥−1 identically and phantom crossing would require φdot^2<0 (Eqs. 7–9, 18). This is not fitted or assumed; it follows from the Lagrangian structure. For the k-essence part, Eq. (57) explicitly reconstructs K(φ,X) from a prescribed h(φ), and the crossing is inserted through γ(t) in Eqs. (78)–(86). The paper transparently says 'By combining (78) with (86), we find h(t) as a function of t. Then, using (57) with (69), we obtain a k-essence model that generates the crossing' — this is a model-building construction, not a claim to predict the crossing from an independently fixed K. A construction that realizes a desired property is a legitimate existence proof, not circularity. The self-citations [38,39,49] are not load-bearing in a circular way: the P_X=0 no-go also cites the independent Vikman paper [40], and the reconstruction/stability equations are re-derived in Sec. III. The paper itself flags limitations — Sec. II admits that at P_X=0 the sound speed becomes ill-defined and the Cauchy problem ill-posed, and Sec. VI concedes that 'simply realizing the phantom-to-quintessence transition does not make these theories viable'; Eq. (93) even finds a tachyon in an example. These are physical consistency and viability problems, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is low; the minor self-citation weight gives 2 rather than 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The canonical no-go uses only standard GR identities and is self-contained. The k-essence existence claim rests on a reconstruction ansatz whose target Hubble rate is an input, on arbitrary higher-order K_n functions, and on stability/ghost conditions that are imposed by hand. Additional domain assumptions include a flat FLRW background, dust-only matter, linear perturbation truncation, and positivity of the perturbation mass square. These are the items the reader pays for beyond the central no-go.

free parameters (5)
  • Higher-order reconstruction functions K_n(phi), n>=2 = arbitrary functions; K_2 fixed by Eq. (69) in the ghost-free example
    They do not affect the background FLRW solution but determine stability and ghost structure; choosing them is how the paper makes the desired transition look stable.
  • Mass scale mu = introduced in K_2 = (1/8)(1/(2 mu^4) + K_1) in Eq. (69)
    Hand-chosen scale controlling the delta_phi kinetic coefficient; not determined by data or external theory.
  • Crossing deformation gamma(t) = Gaussian example Eq. (86) with parameters gamma(t0), gamma0, gamma''(t0)
    Chosen to satisfy rho_k'(t0)=0 and produce a phantom-to-quintessence transition; the transition itself is the input, not the output.
  • Ghost-condensate scale M = M in P(X) = -X + X^2/M^4 (Eq. 25)
    Scale of the illustrative ghost-condensate example; arbitrary and independent of observations.
  • Integration constant K0 = constant in Eq. (34)/(44)
    Arbitrary integration constant inherited from the pure-kinetic reconstruction of Ref. [49]; sets a normalization in the reconstruction.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption FLRW metric and homogeneous scalar field phi=phi(t)
    Eqs. (2)-(4); all background analysis assumes flat FLRW and homogeneous fields except for the perturbations added later.
  • domain assumption Taylor expansion of K(phi,X) around X = -1 with arbitrary K_n(phi)
    Eq. (57) assumes an infinite Taylor series with arbitrary higher coefficients and does not discuss convergence or the radius of validity.
  • domain assumption Linear perturbation theory around phi=t, keeping delta_phi up to O(delta_phi^3)
    Eqs. (61)-(70); stability and ghost conclusions rely on this truncation, and higher-order terms are assumed not to destabilize the solution.
  • domain assumption At P_X=0 the standard k-essence singular/strong-coupling behavior applies
    Introduced in Sec. II via Refs. [38-40]; used to frame the no-go, but the reconstructed crossing is not explicitly checked against this singularity.
  • domain assumption Dust-only late universe and separate conservation of dark energy
    Eqs. (71)-(72); no interaction between dust and k-essence, which observational analyses sometimes allow.
  • domain assumption Energy conditions and asymptotic de Sitter/power-law behavior in Sec. IVC
    Used to argue that m_delta_phi^2 grows with time; the specific matter-dominated check contradicts this by giving a negative mass square.
  • ad hoc to paper m_delta_phi^2 >= 0 to avoid tachyons
    Required for the apparent-crossing mechanism; Eq. (93) shows it fails for matter domination, so this assumption is not satisfied in the paper's own test.
invented entities (1)
  • delta_phi particle / massive dark-matter component from k-essence perturbations no independent evidence
    purpose: produce an apparent phantom crossing via a time-dependent mass m_delta_phi(t) in Sec. IVC
    Eq. (90) defines m_delta_phi^2 in terms of Hubble derivatives and mu; it gives no observable prediction outside the model and becomes tachyonic in the matter-dominated test (Eq. 93).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 4237 in / 5725 out tokens · 221547 ms · 2026-08-03T06:59:58.281103+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

General relativity has its successes at the local astrophysical level, however, it seems to be insufficient in describing the Universe at large scales. In this work we investigate how the most general field theories in the context of general relativity can accomodate a phantom-to-quintessence transition which may be essential element of realistic Dark Energy scenarios in the late Universe. As we demonstrate in a very detailed manner, this is impossible for a canonical and minimally coupled single scalar field theory, but it may be possible for ghost condensate theories like $k$-essence theories. We point out how the ghost instabilities may be eliminated, and we analyze the quantitative features of a $k$-essence theory that may realize a phantom-to-quintessence transition in the late Universe. We also qualitatively compare the difficulties and fine-tunings required for $k$-essence theories to realize a phantom-to-quintessence transition, and how such a transition is naturally realized in modified gravity, without unnecessary fine-tunings and ghost eliminations.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. The Status of Single Scalar Field Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5

    Cosmological data can constrain only a handful of EFT parameters for single-scalar dark energy; extended models show modest preference over Λ but remain underdetermined and challenged by fifth forces and screening.

  2. Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Coupled quintessence-dark matter models can produce an apparent phantom-crossing effective equation of state matching DESI preferences if the scalar field begins frozen in the radiation era.

  3. Effective Phantom Dark Energy: What Cosmological Reconstruction Does and Does Not Imply

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Effective phantom dark energy is a background-level reconstruction that does not imply fundamental pathologies such as ghost instabilities or null energy condition violation by the underlying stress tensor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Theory Center, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Oho 1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan and

  2. [2]

    Odintsov, 3,4,5†

    Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute for the Origin of Particles and the Universe, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan S.D. Odintsov, 3,4,5†

  3. [3]

    ICREA, Passeig Luis Companys, 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain

  4. [4]

    Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain and

    Institute of Space Sciences (IEEC-CSIC) C. Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain and

  5. [5]

    Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), Edifici RDIT, Campus UPC, 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain V.K. Oikonomou, 6,7‡ 6)Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece and 7)Center for Theoretical Physics, Khazar University, 41 Mehseti Str., Baku, AZ-1096, Azerbaijan General relativity has its succ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Reconstruction of model We first consider the model where the action for a scalar fieldϕis only given by the kinetic term, which was the originalk-essence model, as follows, S= Z d4x√−g R 2κ2 −K(q(ϕ)∂ µϕ∂µϕ) ,(27) whereKandqare adequate functions ofq(ϕ)∂ µϕ∂µϕandϕ, respectively. We should note that as long as the signature ofq(ϕ) is not changed,q(ϕ) can b...

  7. [7]

    We start with the first and second FLR W equations and the field equation obtained from Eq

    Stability of solutions We now investigate the stability of the solution. We start with the first and second FLR W equations and the field equation obtained from Eq. (27), 3 κ2 H 2 =K −q ˙ϕ2 + 2K′ −q ˙ϕ2 q ˙ϕ2 , 1 2κ2 3H 2 + 2 ˙H = 1 2 K −q ˙ϕ2 ,(41) 0 = d dt 2a3q 1 2 ˙ϕK ′ −q ˙ϕ2 .(42) The FLR W equations in (41) indicate that, K ′(−Q)Q=− ˙H κ2 ,(43) wher...

  8. [8]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Cortˆ es and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and D. Stojkovic, JHEAp49(2026), 100428 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100428 [arXiv:2404.08633 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) no.25, 251003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.251003 [arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Shlivko and P

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

    arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    S. D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez and G. S. Sharov, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.3, 298 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-14013-3 [arXiv:2412.09409 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    W. M. Dai, Y. Z. Ma and H. J. He, Phys. Rev. D102(2020), 121302 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.121302 [arXiv:2003.03602 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    H. J. He, Y. Z. Ma and J. Zheng, JCAP11(2020), 003 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/003 [arXiv:2003.12057 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Nakai, M

    Y. Nakai, M. Suzuki, F. Takahashi and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B816(2021), 136238 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136238 [arXiv:2009.09754 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, Entropy23(2021) no.4, 404 doi:10.3390/e23040404 [arXiv:2005.12587 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Agrawal, G

    P. Agrawal, G. Obied and C. Vafa, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.4, 043523 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043523 [arXiv:1906.08261 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Ye and Y

    G. Ye and Y. S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.8, 083507 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083507 [arXiv:2001.02451 [astro- ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Desmond, B

    H. Desmond, B. Jain and J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.4, 043537 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.6, 069904; erratum: Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.12, 129901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043537 [arXiv:1907.03778 [astro- ph.CO]]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    H¨ og ˚ as and E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as and E. M¨ ortsell, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.12, 124050 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124050 [arXiv:2309.01744 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    ´O Colg´ ain, M

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. H. P. M. van Putten and H. Yavartanoo, Phys. Lett. B793(2019), 126-129 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.032 [arXiv:1807.07451 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Krishnan, E

    C. Krishnan, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, Ruchika, A. A. Sen, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.10, 103525 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103525 [arXiv:2002.06044 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain and H. Yavartanoo, Phys. Lett. B797(2019), 134907 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134907 [arXiv:1905.02555 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Krishnan, R

    C. Krishnan, R. Mohayaee, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and L. Yin, Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021) no.18, 184001 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac1a81 [arXiv:2105.09790 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    G. Ye, J. Zhang and Y. S. Piao, Phys. Lett. B839(2023), 137770 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137770 [arXiv:2107.13391 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Ye and Y

    G. Ye and Y. S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.4, 043536 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043536 [arXiv:2202.10055 [astro- ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3, 891 doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 [arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  31. [31]

    Menci, S

    N. Menci, S. A. Adil, U. Mukhopadhyay, A. A. Sen and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP07(2024), 072 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/07/072 [arXiv:2401.12659 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    S. A. Adil, U. Mukhopadhyay, A. A. Sen and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP10(2023), 072 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/072 [arXiv:2307.12763 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Reeves, L

    A. Reeves, L. Herold, S. Vagnozzi, B. D. Sherwin and E. G. M. Ferreira, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.520(2023) no.3, 3688-3695 doi:10.1093/mnras/stad317 [arXiv:2207.01501 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Ferlito, S

    F. Ferlito, S. Vagnozzi, D. F. Mota and M. Baldi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512(2022) no.2, 1885-1905 doi:10.1093/mnras/stac649 [arXiv:2201.04528 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Vagnozzi, L

    S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli, P. Brax, A. C. Davis and J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.6, 063023 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063023 [arXiv:2103.15834 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Di Valentino, S

    E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, O. Mena and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP07(2020) no.07, 045 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/07/045 [arXiv:2005.02062 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    M. A. Sabogal, E. Silva, R. C. Nunes, S. Kumar, E. Di Valentino and W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.12, 123508 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123508 [arXiv:2408.12403 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Di Valentinoet al.[CosmoVerse Network], Phys

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

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and G. S. Sharov, JHEAp47(2025), 100398 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100398 [arXiv:2503.17946 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and G. S. Sharov, JHEAp50(2026), 100471 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100471 [arXiv:2506.02245 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan and E. Di Valentino, [arXiv:2504.00776 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.10, 104035 doi:10.1103/16yg-966k [arXiv:2506.21010 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, [arXiv:2512.06279 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  44. [44]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and G. S. Sharov, [arXiv:2601.06949 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  45. [45]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D70(2004), 043539 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.043539 [arXiv:hep- th/0405034 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2004

  46. [46]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 023003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.023003 [arXiv:hep-th/0505215 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  47. [47]

    Vikman, Phys

    A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 023515 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.023515 [arXiv:astro-ph/0407107 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [48]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept.692(2017), 1-104 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001 [arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509(2011), 167-321 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 [arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  50. [50]

    Faraoni and S

    V. Faraoni and S. Capozziello, Springer, 2011, ISBN 978-94-007-0164-9, 978-94-007-0165-6 doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0165-6

    doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0165-6 2011

  51. [51]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, eConfC0602061(2006), 06 doi:10.1142/S0219887807001928 [arXiv:hep-th/0601213 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  52. [52]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept.505(2011), 59-144 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001 [arXiv:1011.0544 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [53]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. Okabe and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 023511 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.023511 [arXiv:astro- ph/9912463 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2000

  54. [54]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.85(2000), 4438-4441 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4438 [arXiv:astro-ph/0004134 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  55. [55]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D63(2001), 103510 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.103510 [arXiv:astro-ph/0006373 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  56. [56]

    Matsumoto and S

    J. Matsumoto and S. Nojiri, Phys. Lett. B687(2010), 236-242 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.03.030 [arXiv:1001.0220 [hep- th]]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [57]

    I. P. C. Heard and D. Wands, Class. Quant. Grav.19(2002), 5435-5448 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/21/309 [arXiv:gr- qc/0206085 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2002

  58. [58]

    de Haro, S

    J. de Haro, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and S. Pan, Phys. Rept.1034(2023), 1-114 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.09.003 [arXiv:2309.07465 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 063004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063004 [arXiv:hep- th/0501025 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2005

  60. [60]

    Bahamonde, S

    S. Bahamonde, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and M. Wright, Annals Phys.373(2016), 96-114 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.020 [arXiv:1603.05113 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [61]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Class. Quant. Grav.33(2016) no.12, 125029 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/12/125029 [arXiv:1602.03309 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  62. [62]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Gen. Rel. Grav.38(2006), 1285-1304 doi:10.1007/s10714-006-0301-6 [arXiv:hep-th/0506212 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  63. [63]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B632(2006), 597-604 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.11.012 [arXiv:hep-th/0507182 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  64. [64]

    Khoury, M

    J. Khoury, M. X. Lin and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) no.18, 181001 doi:10.1103/w4qb-plk8 [arXiv:2503.16415 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.[BICEP and Keck], Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) no.15, 151301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151301 [arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2021