pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.04582 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO· hep-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Galileon versus Quintessence: A comparative phase space analysis and late-time cosmic relevance

Mohd Shahalam
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 20:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords GalileonQuintessencephase spacelate-time accelerationdynamical systemscosmological attractorsFLRW universe
0
0 comments X

The pith

Light-mass Galileon models lack stable late-time accelerating attractors unlike Quintessence

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

The paper performs a phase space analysis of the light mass Galileon model with cubic interaction and compares it to standard Quintessence for late-time cosmic acceleration in a flat universe. It converts the field equations into an autonomous system using dimensionless variables and studies the critical points for three scalar potentials: generalized cosh, simple cosh, and linear. In the Galileon case, scalar field dominated solutions appear but all are saddle points with no stable accelerating attractors, even near de-Sitter configurations. Quintessence, however, has stable de-Sitter attractors for the cosh potentials, offering a viable model for observed acceleration. This points to the possible need for higher-order Galileon terms to achieve stability in such models.

Core claim

Although the phase space for light mass Galileon admits scalar field dominated solutions, all critical points are of saddle type for the potentials considered, so that no stable late-time accelerating attractor emerges even in de-Sitter like configurations, in contrast to the Quintessence limit which admits stable de-Sitter attractors for cosh potentials.

What carries the argument

Reformulation of the cosmological field equations as an autonomous dynamical system using suitable dimensionless variables to find and classify stationary points and their stability.

If this is right

  • Scalar field dominated solutions exist in the Galileon phase space but remain unstable saddles.
  • No stable late-time accelerating attractor is found for the light mass Galileon with cubic term and the three potentials.
  • Quintessence models with cosh potentials provide stable de-Sitter attractors suitable for late-time acceleration.
  • Higher-order Galileon interactions may be necessary to obtain a stable accelerating universe within this framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Cosmological observations of the expansion history could test whether Galileon models require additional terms beyond cubic to match the current acceleration.
  • The distinction suggests exploring how higher-derivative terms affect attractor stability in other modified gravity theories.
  • Future work might examine the impact of including the full Galileon terms or varying the mass parameter on the phase space structure.

Load-bearing premise

The study is limited to the light-mass regime with only the cubic Galileon interaction plus one of three chosen potentials.

What would settle it

A numerical integration or further dynamical analysis revealing a stable fixed point with negative equation of state and acceleration in the light-mass cubic Galileon model would contradict the claim of no stable attractors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.04582 by Mohd Shahalam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The figure illustrates the phase–space trajectories in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We perform a comparative phase space analysis of the light mass Galileon model and standard Quintessence in the context of late--time cosmic acceleration. Focusing on a spatially flat FLRW background, we consider a cubic Galileon interaction supplemented by a scalar potential and examine three representative choices of the potential: a generalized cosh potential, a simple cosh potential, and a linear potential. By introducing suitable dimensionless variables, the cosmological field equations are reformulated as an autonomous dynamical system, allowing a systematic investigation of the stationary points and their stability properties. For the light mass Galileon scenario, we find that although the phase space admits scalar field dominated solutions, all critical points are of saddle type for the potentials considered. In particular, no stable late-time accelerating attractor emerges, even in the presence of de-Sitter like configurations. In contrast, the Quintessence limit admits stable de-Sitter attractors for cosh potentials, providing a viable description of the observed late--time acceleration. Our results highlight a key qualitative distinction between Galileon and Quintessence cosmologies and indicate that, within the light mass Galileon framework, the higher-order Galileon interactions may be required to realize a stable accelerating Universe.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper performs a comparative phase space analysis of the light-mass cubic Galileon model (with only the cubic interaction term) and standard Quintessence on a flat FLRW background. It introduces dimensionless variables to recast the equations as an autonomous dynamical system, classifies the critical points for three scalar potentials (generalized cosh, simple cosh, and linear), and concludes that all Galileon critical points are saddles with no stable late-time accelerating attractor, while the Quintessence limit yields stable de-Sitter attractors for the cosh potentials.

Significance. If the results hold, the work identifies a clear qualitative distinction: the light-mass cubic Galileon does not admit stable accelerating solutions for the potentials considered, suggesting that higher-order Galileon interactions may be required for viable late-time cosmology. The systematic use of dynamical systems methods to compare the two frameworks is a strength, as it allows assessment of attractor behavior independent of specific initial conditions.

major comments (1)
  1. The central claim that all critical points in the Galileon case are saddles and that no stable accelerating attractor emerges rests on the stability analysis of the autonomous system, but the manuscript does not provide the explicit definitions of the dimensionless variables, the full autonomous equations, or the Jacobian matrices and their eigenvalues. Without these, the classification of points as saddles (and the contrast with Quintessence) cannot be independently verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. The physical motivation for selecting the three specific potentials could be expanded to clarify why they are representative of the model class.
  2. Notation for the scalar field, its derivatives, and the interaction terms should be checked for consistency between the Galileon and Quintessence sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comment on the presentation of the dynamical systems analysis. We agree that explicit details are necessary for independent verification of the stability results and will revise the manuscript to address this.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that all critical points in the Galileon case are saddles and that no stable accelerating attractor emerges rests on the stability analysis of the autonomous system, but the manuscript does not provide the explicit definitions of the dimensionless variables, the full autonomous equations, or the Jacobian matrices and their eigenvalues. Without these, the classification of points as saddles (and the contrast with Quintessence) cannot be independently verified.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern. To enable full independent verification, we will add a new appendix to the revised manuscript that explicitly lists: (i) the complete set of dimensionless variables and their definitions for both the Galileon and Quintessence cases; (ii) the full autonomous dynamical equations obtained after substitution for each of the three potentials; (iii) the Jacobian matrix for the autonomous system; and (iv) the eigenvalues evaluated at every critical point, together with the resulting stability classification. These additions will be cross-referenced in the main text so that the saddle nature of the Galileon points and the de-Sitter attractors in the Quintessence limit can be reproduced directly from the provided expressions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard dynamical-systems analysis

full rationale

The paper introduces dimensionless variables to convert the FLRW field equations (with cubic Galileon term plus chosen potential) into an autonomous system, locates critical points by setting the derivatives to zero, and classifies stability via the Jacobian eigenvalues. These steps are direct algebraic consequences of the model equations themselves; no fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation, and the reported absence of stable de-Sitter attractors for the light-mass Galileon case follows from the explicit eigenvalue signs obtained for the three potentials. The Quintessence comparison is obtained simply by setting the Galileon coupling to zero in the same system. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the stated equations and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological assumptions plus the restriction to light-mass cubic Galileon and three chosen potentials; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • parameters inside the generalized cosh, simple cosh, and linear potentials
    The potentials contain free parameters whose specific values are chosen for the analysis rather than derived from first principles.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW background metric
    Invoked at the start of the abstract for the cosmological setting.
  • domain assumption Light-mass regime for the Galileon scalar
    The entire analysis is performed under the light-mass Galileon approximation stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5505 in / 1439 out tokens · 36780 ms · 2026-05-10T20:14:06.943626+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    This setup is purely phe- nomenological and is introduced to allow greater flexibility and tractability in the analysis

    Model 1:V(ϕ) =V 0 h cosh αϕ Mpl −1 ip We consider a Galileon scalar field endowed with acoshtype potential. This setup is purely phe- nomenological and is introduced to allow greater flexibility and tractability in the analysis. It should be emphasized that such a potential explicitly breaks the Galileon shift symmetry, however, this feature is common in ...

  2. [2]

    V(ϕ) =V 0 cosh βϕ Mpl ,(19) 7 whereβrepresents a real dimensionless parameter, and quantifies the deviation of the potential from a constant energyV(ϕ) =V 0

    Model 2:V(ϕ) =V 0 cosh βϕ Mpl We now consider a scalar field model characterized by the potential [46]. V(ϕ) =V 0 cosh βϕ Mpl ,(19) 7 whereβrepresents a real dimensionless parameter, and quantifies the deviation of the potential from a constant energyV(ϕ) =V 0. The potential (19) can be written equivalently as a sum of two exponential terms, V(ϕ) = V0 2 e...

  3. [3]

    Linear potentials do not break Galileon shift symmetry, and are often employed as phenomenological models due to their simplicity and analytical tractability

    Model 3:V(ϕ) =V 0 ϕ Mpl In cosmology, a linear potential refers to a scalar field potential that depends linearly on the field, V(ϕ) =V 0 ϕ Mpl ,(24) Such potentials arise naturally in effective field theory descriptions and can also emerge as leading order approximations of more complicated potentials over a restricted field range. Linear potentials do n...

    2024

  4. [4]

    Deffayet, G

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

    2009

  5. [5]

    Antonio De Felice, Shinji Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105:111301, 2010

    2010

  6. [6]

    Dinda, Md

    Bikash R. Dinda, Md. Wali Hossain, Anjan A. Sen, J. Astrophys. Astr. (2023) 44:85

    2023

  7. [7]

    Dinda, Md

    Bikash R. Dinda, Md. Wali Hossain, Anjan A Sen, JCAP 01 (2018) 045

    2018

  8. [8]

    Wali Hossain, Universe 2021, 7, 167

    Suddhasattwa Brahma, Md. Wali Hossain, Universe 2021, 7, 167

    2021

  9. [9]

    Dinda, Md

    Jiajun Zhang, Bikash R. Dinda, Md. Wali Hossain, Anjan A. Sen, Wentao Luo, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043510 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Nicolis, R

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

    2009

  11. [11]

    G. R. Dvali, G. Gabaddze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B,485, 208, (2000). M. A. Luty, M. Porrati and R. Rattazzi, JHEP,09, 029 (2003); A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi, JHEP,06, 059 (2004)

    2000

  12. [12]

    A. Ali, R. Gannouji and M. Sami, Modified gravity a la Galileon: Late time cosmic acceleration and ob- servational constraints, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 103015 [arXiv:1008.1588] [INSPIRE]; R. Gannouji and M. Sami, Galileon gravity and its relevance to late time cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 024011 [arXiv:1004.2808] [INSPIRE]

    work page arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    Ryotaro Kase and Shinji Tsujikawa, Cosmology in generalized Horndeski theories with second-order equations of motion, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044073 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    Tsutomu Kobayashi, Horndeski theory and beyond: a review, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82 (2019) 8, 086901, 1901.07183 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Cosmology of a covariant Galileon field

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Cosmology of a covariant Galileon field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 111301 [arXiv:1007.2700] [INSPIRE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    Appleby and E.V

    S. Appleby and E.V. Linder, The Paths of Gravity in Galileon Cosmology, JCAP 03 (2012) 043 [arXiv:1112.1981] [INSPIRE]. 13

    work page arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    Jamil, D

    M. Jamil, D. Momeni and R. Myrzakulov, Observational constraints on non-minimally coupled Galileon model, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2347 [arXiv:1302.0129 [physics.gen-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Linder, The Direction of Gravity, arXiv:1201.5127 [INSPIRE]

    E.V. Linder, The Direction of Gravity, arXiv:1201.5127 [INSPIRE]

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Cosmological constraints on extended Galileon models, JCAP 03 (2012) 025 [arXiv:1112.1774] [INSPIRE]

    work page arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    de Sitter Galileon

    C. Burrage, C. de Rham and L. Heisenberg, de Sitter Galileon, JCAP 05 (2011) 025 [arXiv:1104.0155] [INSPIRE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    De Felice, R

    A. De Felice, R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Matter perturbations in Galileon cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 043515 [arXiv:1011.6132] [INSPIRE]

    work page arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Nesseris, A

    S. Nesseris, A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Observational constraints on Galileon cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 124054 [arXiv:1010.0407] [INSPIRE]

    work page arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    Galileon inflation

    C. Burrage, C. de Rham, D. Seery and A.J. Tolley, Galileon inflation, JCAP 01 (2011) 014 [arXiv:1009.2497] [INSPIRE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  24. [24]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Generalized Galileon cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 124029 [arXiv:1008.4236] [INSPIRE]

    work page arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    M. Sami, M. Shahalam, M. Skugoreva and A. Toporensky, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 103532 [arXiv:1207.6691]

    work page arXiv 2012

  26. [26]

    Myrzakulov and M

    R. Myrzakulov and M. Shahalam, JCAP 10 (2013) 047 [arXiv:1303.0194]

    work page arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    Sen, DBI Galileon and late acceleration of the universe, JCAP 12 (2012) 019 [arXiv:1208.0179]

    Sampurnanand and A.A. Sen, DBI Galileon and late acceleration of the universe, JCAP 12 (2012) 019 [arXiv:1208.0179]

    work page arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Leon and E.N

    G. Leon and E.N. Saridakis, Dynamical analysis of generalized Galileon cosmology, JCAP 03 (2013) 025 [arXiv:1211.3088 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    A. Ali, R. Gannouji, M.W. Hossain and M. Sami, Light mass galileons: Cosmological dynamics, mass screening and observational constraints, Phys. Lett. B 718 (2012) 5 [arXiv:1207.3959]

    work page arXiv 2012

  30. [30]

    M. W. Hossain, Anjan A. Sen, Do Observations favour Galileon Over Quintessence?Phys. Lett. B.,713, 140, (2012) [arXiv:1201.6192]

    work page arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    Myrzakulov, M

    R. Myrzakulov, M. Shahalam, Light mass galileon and late time acceleration of the Universe, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. (2015) 47:81

    2015

  32. [32]

    Light mass Galileon: Phase space analysis and its late time cosmic relevance,

    Y. Myrzakulov, M. Shahalam, S. Myrzakul and K. Yerzhanov, “Light mass Galileon: Phase space analysis and its late time cosmic relevance,” Annals Phys.485, 170315 (2026) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170315

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170315 2026

  33. [33]

    Elias and H

    U. Elias and H. Gingold, Critical points at infinity and blow up of solutions of autonomous polynomial differential systems via compactification, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 318, (2006), 305

    2006

  34. [34]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006); Miao Li, Xiao-Dong Li, Shuang Wang, arXiv:1103.5870

    work page arXiv 2006

  35. [35]

    The Case for a Positive Cosmological Lambda-term

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989); V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D9, 373 (2000) [astro-ph/9904398]; S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel.4, 1 (2001) [astro-ph/0004075]; P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003) [astro-ph/0207347]; T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept.380, 235 (2003) [hep-th/0212290]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1989

  36. [36]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, apj325, L17 (1988); C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B302, 668 (1988); M. S. Turner and M. White, Phys. Rev. D56, 4439 (1997); R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1582 (1998); I. Zlatev, L. M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 896 (1999)

    1988

  37. [37]

    R. J. Scherrer and A. .A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D,77, 083515 (2008); R. J. Scherrer and A. .A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 067303 (2008); S. Sen, A. A. Sen and M. Sami, Phys. Lett. B.,686, 1, (2010); S. del Campo, C. R. Fadra- gas, R. Herrera, C. Leiva, G. Leon and J. Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D88, 023532 (2013) [arXiv:1303.5779 [astro-ph.CO]]; D. Escobar, C. R. Fadragas...

    work page arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    Andrei, A

    C. Andrei, A. Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt, Rapidly Descending Dark Energy and the End of Cosmic Expansion, PNAS 119 (15) e2200539119 (2022) [arXiv:2201.07704]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Dynamical system analysis in descending dark energy model

    M. Shahalam, S. Ayoub, P. Avlani and R. Myrzakulov, Dynamical system analysis in descending dark energy model, Accepted in IJGMMP, [arXiv:2402.01270 [gr-qc]] https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887825502275

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0219887825502275

  40. [40]

    Shahalam, Avoidance of Big Crunch Singularity in the Q-SC-CDM model via nonminimal coupling: Theory and Data Analyses, arXiv:2506.11755 [gr-qc]

    Yerlan Myrzakulov, Saddam Hussain, M. Shahalam, Avoidance of Big Crunch Singularity in the Q-SC-CDM model via nonminimal coupling: Theory and Data Analyses, arXiv:2506.11755 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    Le´ on, R

    G. Le´ on, R. C´ ardenas, J. L. Morales, Equilibrium sets in quintom cosmologies: the past asymptotic dynamics, [arXiv:0812.0830

    work page arXiv

  42. [42]

    Paliathanasis, A

    A. Paliathanasis, A. Halder, G. Le´ on, Revise the Dark Matter-Phantom Scalar Field Interaction, [arXiv:2412.06501]

    work page arXiv

  43. [43]

    Le´ on, D

    G. Le´ on, D. Shankar, A. Halder, A. Paliathanasis, Cosmological Interactions with Phantom Scalar Field: Revisiting Background Phase-Space Analysis with Compactified Variables, [arXiv:2501.09177]

    work page arXiv

  44. [44]

    Dynamical analysis off(Q)-cosmology,

    A. Paliathanasis, Dynamical analysis off(Q)-cosmology, [arXiv:2304.04219]

    work page arXiv

  45. [45]

    Paliathanasis, G

    A. Paliathanasis, G. Le´ on, Global dynamics of the hyperbolic Chiral-Phantom model, [arXiv:2105.03261]

    work page arXiv

  46. [46]

    Lynch, Dynamical Systems with Applications using Mathematica, Boston: Birkhauser (2007)

    S. Lynch, Dynamical Systems with Applications using Mathematica, Boston: Birkhauser (2007)

    2007

  47. [47]

    Sahni, L

    V. Sahni, L. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 62 103517 (2000)

    2000

  48. [48]

    Omdiagnostic applied to scalar field models and slowing down of cosmic acceleration,

    M. Shahalam, S. Sami and A. Agarwal, “Omdiagnostic applied to scalar field models and slowing down of cosmic acceleration,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.448, no.3, 2948-2959 (2015) doi:10.1093/mnras/stv083 [arXiv:1501.04047 [astro-ph.CO]]. 14

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv083 2015

  49. [49]

    Constraints on quintessence scalar field models using cosmological observations,

    W. Yang, M. Shahalam, B. Pal, S. Pan and A. Wang, “Constraints on quintessence scalar field models using cosmological observations,” Phys. Rev. D100, no.2, 023522 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023522 [arXiv:1810.08586 [gr-qc]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.023522 2019

  50. [50]

    Barreira, B

    A. Barreira, B. Li, C. Baugh and S. Pascoli, JCAP08, 059 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/08/059 [arXiv:1406.0485 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/08/059 2014

  51. [51]

    Barreira, B

    A. Barreira, B. Li, A. Sanchez, C. M. Baugh and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D87, 103511 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.103511 [arXiv:1302.6241 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.103511 2013

  52. [53]

    Barreira, B

    A. Barreira, B. Li, C. M. Baugh and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D86, 124016 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124016 [arXiv:1208.0600 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.124016 2012

  53. [54]

    Mastache, W

    A. Barreira, B. Li, W. A. Hellwing, C. M. Baugh and S. Pascoli, JCAP10, 027 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2013/10/027 [arXiv:1306.3219 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475- 2013

  54. [55]

    Barreira, B

    A. Barreira, B. Li, C. M. Baugh and S. Pascoli, JCAP11, 056 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/056 [arXiv:1308.3699 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/056 2013

  55. [56]

    Barreira, B

    A. Barreira, B. Li, W. A. Hellwing, L. Lombriser, C. M. Baugh and S. Pascoli, JCAP04, 029 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/04/029 [arXiv:1401.1497 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/04/029 2014

  56. [57]

    B. Li, A. Barreira, C. M. Baugh, W. A. Hellwing, K. Koyama, S. Pascoli and G. B. Zhao, JCAP11, 012 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/012 [arXiv:1308.3491 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/012 2013

  57. [58]

    Tsujikawa, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D113, no.4, L041301 (2026) doi:10.1103/y858-4swl [arXiv:2508.17231 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/y858-4swl 2026