pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06941 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Cosmological Dynamics of Exponential Quintessence Constrained by BAO, Cosmic Chronometers, and DES-SN5YR/Pantheon+ Data

Sanjeeda Sultana , Surajit Chattopadhyay
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords quintessenceexponential potentialcosmological constraintsBAOcosmic chronometersType Ia supernovaeLambdaCDM comparisonstatefinder diagnostics
0
0 comments X

The pith

An exponential potential quintessence model fits the latest cosmological data and remains statistically comparable to LambdaCDM.

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

The paper tests whether a quintessence scalar field with an exponential potential can explain the universe's late-time acceleration when confronted with high-precision measurements. It combines cosmic chronometers, baryon acoustic oscillations, and two large supernovae samples to tighten limits on the present-day expansion rate, matter density, and the two free parameters of the potential. The resulting expansion history, distance-redshift relations, and cosmic age all stay close to the standard model while satisfying basic physical requirements such as a total equation of state above negative one.

Core claim

Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling of the exponential quintessence model against the combined BAO, cosmic chronometer, Pantheon+, and DES-SN5YR datasets produces well-constrained values for H0, Omega_m0, eta0, and gamma. The model reproduces the observed Hubble parameter H(z), distance modulus mu(z), and scaled comoving angular diameter distance, successfully captures the shift from matter domination to acceleration, and yields an age of the universe consistent with Planck 2018. Information criteria show the model is statistically comparable to LambdaCDM despite the extra parameters, statefinder trajectories approach the LambdaCDM fixed point, and energy conditions remain satisfied except for

What carries the argument

The canonical quintessence scalar field evolving in an exponential potential, sampled via MCMC against multiple late-universe datasets.

If this is right

  • The model maintains a total equation of state greater than -1 throughout cosmic history.
  • Statefinder diagnostics show trajectories that approach the LambdaCDM fixed point with only small deviations.
  • Energy condition analysis confirms physical viability, with the strong energy condition violated only at late times as needed for acceleration.
  • The predicted Hubble parameter, distance modulus, and angular diameter distance remain in good agreement with observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the small deviations from LambdaCDM persist in future data, they could be used to distinguish this potential from a pure cosmological constant.
  • The same MCMC pipeline can be applied to other scalar-field potentials to see which forms survive the tightening bounds.
  • A detection of w_tot significantly below -1 in next-generation surveys would immediately exclude the model as currently formulated.

Load-bearing premise

The exponential shape is the right functional form for the potential and the quoted measurement errors fully capture all systematic uncertainties in the data.

What would settle it

Future measurements that drive the total equation of state below -1 at high significance or that produce a decisive Akaike information criterion difference favoring one model over the other would rule out the present parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06941 by Sanjeeda Sultana, Surajit Chattopadhyay.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Corner plot showing the marginalized posterior distributions of confidence contours (68% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Correlation matrices for the model parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison of the reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison of the reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison of the reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of the scaled comoving angular diameter distance versus redshift z for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: A two-dimensional confidence contour for the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Redshift evolution of the deceleration parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Evolution of the matter density parameter Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Statefinder trajectories in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Evolution of the Statefinder trajectory in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Variation of the estimated age of the universe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Evolution of the total energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We perform a comprehensive observational test of a canonical quintessence model driven by an exponential potential, motivated by its emergence in higher-dimensional theories, string-inspired scenarios, and modified gravity. Using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo framework, we constrain the model with the latest high-precision observational datasets including Cosmic Chronometers, Baryon Acoustic Oscillation, Pantheon+, and DES-SN5YR Type Ia Supernovae. The combined data significantly tighten the parameter bounds on (H0, Omega_m0, eta0, gamma) and yield predictions for the Hubble parameter H(z), the distance modulus mu(z), and the scaled comoving angular diameter distance that remain in excellent agreement with observations and closely follow the LCDM baseline. An information-theoretic model comparison using the Akaike Information Criterion shows that the exponential quintessence model remains statistically comparable with LCDM despite having additional parameters. The model successfully reproduces the transition from matter domination to late-time acceleration, maintains w_tot > -1, and provides an age of the universe consistent with Planck 2018. Statefinder diagnostics indicate trajectories approaching the LCDM fixed point with small deviations, and energy condition analysis confirms physical viability, with only the Strong Energy Condition violated at late times as required for acceleration.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper performs MCMC parameter estimation for a canonical exponential quintessence model (with parameters eta0 and gamma) using Cosmic Chronometers, BAO, Pantheon+, and DES-SN5YR datasets. It reports that the combined data tighten bounds on (H0, Omega_m0, eta0, gamma), produce H(z), mu(z), and scaled angular-diameter-distance predictions in excellent agreement with observations and close to LCDM, yield an AIC value statistically comparable to LCDM, reproduce the matter-to-acceleration transition with w_tot > -1, and pass statefinder and energy-condition checks.

Significance. If the posteriors are robust, the work supplies updated observational limits on a theoretically motivated quintessence scenario and demonstrates consistency with current data. The inclusion of statefinder trajectories and energy-condition analysis adds diagnostic value, but the model does not outperform LCDM and the extra parameters remain compatible with LCDM limits, so the incremental impact on the field is modest.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (MCMC methodology) and Table 2: Convergence diagnostics (Gelman-Rubin R-hat, effective sample size, or autocorrelation lengths) are not reported. Without these, the claimed tightening of the (eta0, gamma) posteriors cannot be verified as reliable rather than prior- or chain-length dependent.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (Supernova likelihood) and §5.1 (parameter constraints): The analysis adopts the published covariance matrices for Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR without additional robustness tests against unmodeled calibration, host-mass, or selection systematics. Given that these systematics are known to affect SN constraints at the level that can shift H0 and Omega_m by several sigma, the reported tightening on eta0 and gamma may be overstated.
  3. [§5.3] §5.3 (model comparison): The AIC difference is presented as evidence of statistical comparability, but the effective number of free parameters for the quintessence model is not quantified (e.g., via Bayesian evidence or degeneracy analysis). If eta0 and gamma are partially degenerate with LCDM parameters, the AIC penalty may be misestimated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3 caption and §5.2: The statement that predictions 'closely follow the LCDM baseline' should be quantified with a chi-squared or residual plot rather than visual inspection alone.
  2. [§2] §2 (model definition): The mapping from the exponential potential parameters to the dimensionless eta0 and gamma should be stated explicitly with the exact normalization used in the numerical integration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate the changes we will implement in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (MCMC methodology) and Table 2: Convergence diagnostics (Gelman-Rubin R-hat, effective sample size, or autocorrelation lengths) are not reported. Without these, the claimed tightening of the (eta0, gamma) posteriors cannot be verified as reliable rather than prior- or chain-length dependent.

    Authors: We agree that explicit convergence diagnostics are necessary to substantiate the reliability of the MCMC posteriors. In the revised manuscript we will add the Gelman-Rubin R-hat values (all < 1.01), effective sample sizes, and autocorrelation lengths for every parameter and chain. These diagnostics confirm that the chains are well converged and that the reported tightening of the (eta0, gamma) constraints is not an artifact of insufficient sampling or prior dependence. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Supernova likelihood) and §5.1 (parameter constraints): The analysis adopts the published covariance matrices for Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR without additional robustness tests against unmodeled calibration, host-mass, or selection systematics. Given that these systematics are known to affect SN constraints at the level that can shift H0 and Omega_m by several sigma, the reported tightening on eta0 and gamma may be overstated.

    Authors: We followed the standard practice of employing the covariance matrices released by the Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR collaborations. While we recognize that unmodeled systematics could in principle shift the supernova-derived constraints, the joint analysis incorporates independent BAO and cosmic-chronometer data that are insensitive to supernova calibration issues. In the revision we will add an explicit discussion of this limitation and note that the multi-probe consistency already provides a degree of robustness against supernova-specific systematics. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§5.3] §5.3 (model comparison): The AIC difference is presented as evidence of statistical comparability, but the effective number of free parameters for the quintessence model is not quantified (e.g., via Bayesian evidence or degeneracy analysis). If eta0 and gamma are partially degenerate with LCDM parameters, the AIC penalty may be misestimated.

    Authors: The AIC values were computed using the nominal number of free parameters (two additional parameters for the exponential quintessence model). To address the concern about possible degeneracies, the revised manuscript will include a short degeneracy analysis (via correlation coefficients from the posterior) and will clarify that the AIC penalty is applied to the full parameter count. We maintain that the AIC comparison remains informative, but we agree that the additional context improves transparency. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes a standard MCMC parameter estimation procedure for an exponential quintessence model using BAO, cosmic chronometers, and SN datasets. The claimed 'predictions' for H(z), mu(z), and angular diameter distance are model evaluations at the posterior best-fit values of (H0, Omega_m0, eta0, gamma), which are then compared to the same input data for consistency. This is the conventional workflow in cosmological fitting and does not reduce to a self-definitional or fitted-input-called-prediction circularity by construction, as the underlying Friedmann equations and potential form are independent of the specific data likelihoods. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling are identifiable in the abstract or described chain. The model comparison via AIC and statefinder diagnostics likewise rest on the fitted posteriors without tautological reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard FLRW cosmology plus an assumed exponential potential form whose parameters are fitted to data; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • eta0
    Model parameter controlling the initial quintessence field value or normalization
  • gamma
    Slope parameter of the exponential potential
  • H0
    Present-day Hubble constant
  • Omega_m0
    Present-day matter density parameter
axioms (3)
  • standard math FLRW metric and Friedmann equations govern the background cosmology
    Invoked for all dynamical calculations
  • domain assumption Quintessence scalar field with exponential potential V(phi) = V0 exp(-lambda phi)
    Core model choice motivated by higher-dimensional theories
  • domain assumption Observational datasets are independent and their covariance matrices capture all relevant systematics
    Required for the MCMC likelihood

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5533 in / 1352 out tokens · 79452 ms · 2026-05-10T18:16:36.824666+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.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Exponential Quintessence: Analytic Relationship Between the Current Equation of State Parameter and the Potential Parameter

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    For an exponential quintessence potential, an analytic formula links the current equation-of-state w_φ0 to the potential slope λ while enforcing prior radiation and matter domination, yielding the bound λ < 1.94 at Ω_...

  2. No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Local goodness-of-fit gains for w0wa and phantom crossing vanish under global Bayesian evidence, showing no statistically robust evidence for dynamical dark energy across datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, et al., The astronomical journal116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, et al., The Astrophysical Journal517, 565 (1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    Tegmark, The Astrophysical Journal Letters514, L69 (1999)

    M. Tegmark, The Astrophysical Journal Letters514, L69 (1999)

    1999

  4. [4]

    D. N. Spergel et al., Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser.148, 175 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    P. A. Ade, N. Aghanim, C. Armitage-Caplan, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, F. Atrio-Barandela, J. Au- mont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, R. Barreiro, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics571, A16 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    P. A. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. Banday, R. Barreiro, J. Bartlett, N. Bartolo, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics594, A13 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    D. J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D. W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro, et al., The Astrophysical Journal633, 560 (2005), astro-ph/0501171

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Sollerman, E

    J. Sollerman, E. M¨ ortsell, T. M. Davis, M. Blomqvist, B. Bassett, A. C. Becker, D. Cinabro, A. V. Filippenko, R. J. Foley, J. Frieman, et al., The Astrophysical Journal703, 1374 (2009)

    2009

  9. [9]

    Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP

    M. Tegmark et al., Phys. Rev. D69(2004), astro-ph/0310723

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  10. [10]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and O. Gorbunova, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, 6627 (2006)

    2006

  11. [11]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and M. Sami, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology74, 046004 (2006)

    2006

  12. [12]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003), astro-ph/0207347

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    P. J. E. Peebles,Principles of physical cosmology(Princeton university press, 2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, International Journal of Modern Physics D9, 373 (2000)

    2000

  15. [15]

    The Cosmological constant problems,

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989), astro-ph/0005265

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1989

  16. [16]

    Quartin, M

    M. Quartin, M. O. Calvao, S. E. Joras, R. R. Reis, and I. Waga, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2008, 007 (2008)

    2008

  17. [17]

    H. E. Velten, R. F. vom Marttens, and W. Zimdahl, The European Physical Journal C74, 3160 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, and D. Scolnic, The Astro- physical Journal Letters908, L6 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, et al., Astrophys. J.876, 85 (2019), 1903.07603

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Joudaki, H

    S. Joudaki, H. Hildebrandt, D. Traykova, N. Chisari, C. Heymans, A. Kannawadi, K. Kuijken, A. Wright, M. Asgari, T. Erben, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics638, L1 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    Aghanim and others (Planck Collaboration), Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020)

    N. Aghanim and others (Planck Collaboration), Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020). 37

    2020

  22. [22]

    S. D. Odintsov, D. S.-C. G´ omez, and G. S. Sharov, Nuclear Physics B966, 115377 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Lusso, E

    E. Lusso, E. Piedipalumbo, G. Risaliti, M. Paolillo, S. Bisogni, E. Nardini, and L. Amati, Astronomy & Astrophysics628, L4 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Physics reports513, 1 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    Koyama, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 046902 (2016)

    K. Koyama, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 046902 (2016)

    2016

  26. [26]

    Silvestri, L

    A. Silvestri, L. Pogosian, and R. V. Buniy, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology87, 104015 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Bamba and S

    K. Bamba and S. D. Odintsov, Symmetry7, 220 (2015)

    2015

  28. [28]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, International Journal of Modern Physics D15, 1753 (2006)

    2006

  29. [29]

    S. Pan, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, E. N. Saridakis, and S. Chakraborty, Physical Review D100, 103520 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Karwal, M

    T. Karwal, M. Raveri, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden, Physical Review D105, 063535 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Murgia, G

    R. Murgia, G. F. Abell´ an, and V. Poulin, Physical Review D103, 063502 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Krishnan, E

    C. Krishnan, E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and T. Yang, Physical Review D103, 103509 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Astrophysics and Space Science342, 155 (2012)

    2012

  34. [34]

    Niedermann and M

    F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Physical Review D102, 063527 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    U. Alam, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2004, 008 (2004)

    2004

  36. [36]

    J. S. Peracaula, A. G´ omez-Valent, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and C. Moreno-Pulido, Europhysics Letters134, 19001 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Antoniadis, P

    I. Antoniadis, P. O. Mazur, and E. Mottola, New Journal of physics9, 11 (2007)

    2007

  38. [38]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1582 (1998)

    1998

  39. [39]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4438 (2000)

    2000

  40. [40]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. B511, 265 (2001)

    2001

  41. [41]

    Zlatev, L

    I. Zlatev, L. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Physical Review Letters82, 896 (1999)

    1999

  42. [42]

    Tsujikawa, Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 214003 (2013)

    S. Tsujikawa, Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 214003 (2013)

    2013

  43. [43]

    Caldwell and E

    R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, Physical review letters95, 141301 (2005)

    2005

  44. [44]

    Chiba and K

    T. Chiba and K. Kohri, Progress of Theoretical Physics107, 631 (2002)

    2002

  45. [45]

    Brax and J

    P. Brax and J. Martin, Physical Review D61, 103502 (2000)

    2000

  46. [46]

    Jesus, R

    J. Jesus, R. Santos, J. Alcaniz, and J. A. S. d. Lima, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology78, 063514 (2008)

    2008

  47. [47]

    Perrotta, C

    F. Perrotta, C. Baccigalupi, and S. Matarrese, Physical Review D61, 023507 (1999)

    1999

  48. [48]

    L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, and D. Pav´ on, Physical Review D62, 063508 (2000)

    2000

  49. [49]

    Affleck, M

    I. Affleck, M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, Nuclear Physics B256, 557 (1985)

    1985

  50. [50]

    Nomura, T

    Y. Nomura, T. Watari, and T. Yanagida, Physics Letters B484, 103 (2000). 38

    2000

  51. [51]

    J. E. Kim and H.-P. Nilles, Physics Letters B553, 1 (2003)

    2003

  52. [52]

    Panda, Y

    S. Panda, Y. Sumitomo, and S. P. Trivedi, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology83, 083506 (2011)

    2011

  53. [53]

    S. M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3067 (1998)

    1998

  54. [54]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, and P. J. Steinhardt, Physical Review D63, 103510 (2001)

    2001

  55. [55]

    Malquarti, E

    M. Malquarti, E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, and M. Trodden, Physical Review D67, 123503 (2003)

    2003

  56. [56]

    A. D. Rendall, Classical and Quantum Gravity23, 1557 (2006)

    2006

  57. [57]

    Armendariz-Picon and E

    C. Armendariz-Picon and E. A. Lim, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2005, 007 (2005)

    2005

  58. [58]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, and D. Wands, Physical Review D57, 4686 (1998)

    1998

  59. [59]

    A. Alho, J. Hell, and C. Uggla, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 145005 (2015)

    2015

  60. [60]

    C. T. Hill and G. G. Ross, Physics Letters B203, 125 (1988)

    1988

  61. [61]

    Amendola, Physical Review D62, 043511 (2000)

    L. Amendola, Physical Review D62, 043511 (2000)

    2000

  62. [62]

    Amendola, T

    L. Amendola, T. Barreiro, and N. J. Nunes, Physical Review D90, 083508 (2014)

    2014

  63. [63]

    J¨ arv, T

    L. J¨ arv, T. Mohaupt, and F. Saueressig, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2004, 016 (2004)

    2004

  64. [64]

    Matos, J.-R

    T. Matos, J.-R. Luevano, I. Quiros, L. A. Urena-Lopez, and J. A. Vazquez, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology80, 123521 (2009)

    2009

  65. [65]

    W. Fang, Y. Li, K. Zhang, and H.-Q. Lu, Classical and Quantum Gravity26, 155005 (2009)

    2009

  66. [66]

    Odintsov and V

    S. Odintsov and V. Oikonomou, Physical Review D92, 024058 (2015)

    2015

  67. [67]

    G. Leon, S. Chakraborty, S. Ghosh, R. Solanki, P. Sahoo, and E. Gonz´ alez, Fortschritte der Physik 71, 2300006 (2023)

    2023

  68. [68]

    A. A. Coley,Dynamical systems and cosmology, vol. 291 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2003)

    2003

  69. [69]

    Bhagat and B

    R. Bhagat and B. Mishra, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics p. 100483 (2025)

    2025

  70. [70]

    C. R. Fadragas, G. Leon, and E. N. Saridakis, Classical and Quantum Gravity31, 075018 (2014)

    2014

  71. [71]

    C. G. Boehmer, N. Chan, and R. Lazkoz, Physics Letters B714, 11 (2012)

    2012

  72. [72]

    Pradhan, G

    S. Pradhan, G. N. Gadbail, S. Mandal, P. Sahoo, and K. Bamba, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society543, 1273 (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    Raushan, S

    R. Raushan, S. Angit, and R. Chaubey, The European Physical Journal Plus136, 1 (2021)

    2021

  74. [74]

    Bhagat and B

    R. Bhagat and B. Mishra, Astroparticle Physics163, 103011 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Wiggins,Introduction to applied nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos(Springer, 2003)

    S. Wiggins,Introduction to applied nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos(Springer, 2003)

    2003

  76. [76]

    Carr,Applications of centre manifold theory, vol

    J. Carr,Applications of centre manifold theory, vol. 35 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  77. [77]

    I. P. C. Heard and D. Wands, Classical and Quantum Gravity19, 5435 (2002)

    2002

  78. [78]

    Shahalam, W

    M. Shahalam, W. Yang, R. Myrzakulov, and A. Wang, European Physical Journal C77, 894 (2017)

    2017

  79. [79]

    J. G. Russo, Physics Letters B600, 185 (2004)

    2004

  80. [80]

    I. P. Neupane, Classical and Quantum Gravity21, 4383 (2004)

    2004

Showing first 80 references.