Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Redshift space distortions in the presence of non-minimally coupled dark matter

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that redshift-space distortion measurements do not directly probe the matter growth rate when dark matter is non-minimally coupled to a scalar field; the measured rate acquires a coupling-dependent offset.

desk verdict Solid derivation of the effective growth rate for K-essence/disformal dark matter couplings, but the RSD forecasts rest on an unvalidated vg=vm velocity assignment and the code isn't public. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07173 v1 pith:EOTJYFOB submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.CO

Fabio Chibana , Rampei Kimura , Masahide Yamaguchi , Daisuke Yamauchi , Shuichiro Yokoyama This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords redshiftspacedistortionsnon-minimallycoupleddarkmatterconformalcouplingdisformaleffectivegrowthrateKaiserformulaquintessencecosmologicalperturbations
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that when cold dark matter is non-minimally coupled to a scalar field through conformal and disformal transformations of the matter metric, the standard Kaiser formula for redshift-space distortions must be modified: the growth rate that appears in the distortion factor is an effective rate $f_{\mathrm{eff}}^m = f_m + \Delta f_m$, not the true linear growth rate of total matter. The extra term $\Delta f_m$ is computed from the coupling functions and is generically nonzero. The paper derives this from linear perturbation theory in the quasi-static limit, solves the background and perturbation equations for two conformal and one disformal coupled quintessence model, and forecasts how well future galaxy surveys could constrain the coupling. A reader should care because RSD growth measurements are a primary way cosmologists test dark energy and modified gravity; if dark matter is coupled, those measurements silently measure something different from what they are usually assumed to measure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective growth rate $f_{\mathrm{eff}}^m = \omega_c (D_c/D_m) f_c^{\mathrm{eff}} + \omega_b (D_b/D_m) f_b$, with $f_c^{\mathrm{eff}} = f_c - [\Upsilon_2/(1-\Upsilon_1)](f_c - Q_0/(\mathcal{A} H \dot{\varphi}))$. Here $\Upsilon_1,\Upsilon_2,\Upsilon_3$ are background functions built from the conformal and disformal factors $A,B$ and their derivatives; they control the modified Hubble friction and gravitational coupling in the CDM growth equation. This effective rate is what enters the modified Kaiser formula, carrying the coupling-dependent extra term $\Delta f_m$ that separates the RSD-measured growth from the actual growth. The paper computes $\Delta f_m$ explicitly for three one-parameter coupling models, including one purely disformal model where the background is unmodified and the effect appears only through the perturbed equations.

What would settle it

Run a cosmological simulation of a conformally or disformally coupled dark matter model that resolves galaxy-scale halos and compare the galaxy velocity field with the total-matter and baryon velocity fields; if $v_g\neq v_m$, the modified Kaiser formula (81) fails. Alternatively, measure $f\sigma_8$ from RSD and the true growth from weak lensing in the same survey; a redshift-dependent $\Delta f_m$ with the predicted sign for conformal models would confirm the effect, while a null result would rule it out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a K-essence scalar field and a dark-matter metric $\bar{g}_{\mu\nu}=A(\varphi,X)g_{\mu\nu}+B(\varphi,X)\varphi_\mu\varphi_\nu$, the paper shows that in the quasi-static sub-horizon limit the DM continuity and Euler equations acquire coupling-dependent source terms. Solving these together with the baryon equations yields effective linear growth rates $f_c^{\mathrm{eff}}=f_c+\Delta f_c$ and $f_m^{\mathrm{eff}}=f_m+\Delta f_m$ (Eqs. 77\,–\,79), where $\Delta f_m$ contains a term from the modified CDM continuity equation and a term proportional to the background coupling $Q_0$ times the baryon\,--\,CDM growth difference. The paper then replaces $f_m$ by $f_m^{\mathrm{eff}}$ in the Kaiser formula, giving $P_{g,s}=[b_g+f_{\mathrm{eff}}^m\mu^2]^2 P_m$ (Eq. 81). In the two conformal models the effective growth rate exceeds the true one, so RSD would overstate growth, while in the disformal model the distortion is suppressed. The central claim is that RSD measurements therefore cease to be a direct probe of the linear growth rate of total matter.

Load-bearing premise

The formula's load-bearing premise is that the galaxy peculiar velocity equals the total-matter velocity, $v_g=v_m$; the paper cites support from $\Lambda$CDM simulations, not from coupled dark-matter models, so if galaxies instead follow the baryon velocity, the RSD distortion factor would be $f_b$ and the coupling signal would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RSD surveys measure $f_{\mathrm{eff}}^m$, so combining them with a probe of the true growth rate (e.g. tomographic weak lensing) becomes necessary to detect or constrain a DM\,--\,scalar coupling.
  • For the conformal model I, the coupling shifts matter-radiation equality and enhances small-scale power; the RSD distortion factor is increased, and the forecast gives percent-level constraints on the coupling constant from Euclid/SKA-like surveys.
  • For the conformal model II, tracker behavior is preserved and the coupling acts only at late times; larger couplings are needed for the same signal, yet the absence of coupling could still be probed at $1\sigma$.
  • For the disformal model III, the background is exactly the uncoupled quintessence one, $\Delta f_m<0$, and the distortion saturates for large $|\alpha|$; RSD measurements alone are forecast not to distinguish it from standard quintessence.
  • A summed conclusion: interpreting RSD data with the standard Kaiser formula in such models would mis-estimate the growth rate by an amount whose sign depends on the type of coupling.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same reasoning transfers to any interacting dark-sector model in which the total-matter continuity equation is modified; the effective-versus-actual growth difference is not an artefact of the conformal/disformal parametrization.
  • If galaxies actually trace the baryon velocity field rather than the total-matter one, the RSD factor would be set by $f_b$ and the predicted $\Delta f_m$ signal would not appear; the baryon-vs-CDM velocity split is therefore a testable fulcrum of the whole effect.
  • A clean consistency check would be to measure $\beta_{\mathrm{eff}} = f_{\mathrm{eff}}^m/b_g$ and independently measure $b_g$ from galaxy\,--\,lensing cross-correlation, then look for a redshift-dependent $\Delta\beta/\beta$; positive in conformal models, negative in the disformal model.
  • Beyond linear order, the velocity dispersion term in the observed power spectrum will mix with the coupling signal, so higher-order RSD models may either dilute or amplify $\Delta f_m$; forecasting its detectability at quasi-nonlinear scales would be a natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper considers cosmological models in which a K-essence scalar field is non-minimally coupled to dark matter through conformal and disformal metric transformations, while baryons and radiation remain minimally coupled. It derives the background equations and linear perturbation equations, reduces them in the quasi-static limit, and shows that the CDM continuity and Euler equations acquire coupling-dependent corrections characterized by the functions Υ_1, Υ_2, E_1, and E_2. The paper defines an effective CDM growth rate f_eff^c = f_c + Δf_c (Eq. 77) and an effective total-matter growth rate f_eff^m = f_m + Δf_m (Eqs. 78 and 79), and then replaces f_m by f_eff^m in the Kaiser formula (Eq. 81). Three concrete models are studied numerically: two conformally coupled models and one disformally coupled model, and Fisher forecasts for Euclid-like and SKA2-like surveys are presented for the coupling α and standard cosmological parameters. The central claim is that redshift-space distortion measurements no longer measure the true total-matter growth rate, because the distortion factor contains an additional, coupling-dependent term.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper is a useful generalization of the authors' earlier work to general K-essence and disformal couplings, with explicit numerical examples and forecasts. The derivation from the action is systematic, the quasi-static reduction is presented in detail, and the stability/sound-speed checks in Appendices B and C are valuable. The effective growth rate is computed from the coupling functions rather than fitted, and the paper makes falsifiable predictions for the redshift-space anisotropy amplitude. The main caveat to this significance is that the quantitative RSD prediction rests on an explicit but unvalidated assumption about the galaxy velocity field, which affects the headline claim and the forecasted constraints.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section IV C] The modified Kaiser formula assumes v_g = v_m, as stated explicitly after Eq. (81). In the models considered here, baryons and CDM obey different Euler equations, Eq. (57) versus Eq. (59), so v_b and v_c are not equal in general. The paper neither derives v_g = v_m from a galaxy formation or momentum-conservation model nor validates it with simulations of coupled dark matter; the cited ΛCDM simulation result [45] has v_b = v_c on linear scales and therefore cannot support the assumption in the coupled case. If galaxies trace the baryon velocity field, the RSD coefficient would be f_b D_b/D_m; if they trace CDM halos, it would be f_c^eff D_c/D_m; neither equals f_eff^m in general. The weaker statement in the paragraph after Eq. (81), that any galaxy velocity with a CDM component produces some coupling effect, is safe, but it does not establish the quantitative prediction in Eq. (81) or the forecasted errors on α in Table II. This velocity-assignment assumption is load-bearing for the paper's central claim and should be either derived for a concrete tracer model, tested in the coupled models, or explicitly marginalized over in the forecasts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V B 3] The text introducing disformal model III refers to 'the coupling functions (89)', but the disformal model is defined in Eq. (90); this cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Figures 5 and 8] The captions appear to swap 'Left panel' and 'Right panel': the ratio f_m/hat f_m is described as the right panel in the caption but is shown on the left, and the difference Δf_m/f_m is described as the left panel but is shown on the right.
  3. [Appendix C] The sentence 'since during matter epoch Ω_c ≪ Ω_φ' appears to be a typo; during matter domination the CDM density parameter exceeds that of the scalar field. The subsequent approximation φ̇^2/ρ_c ≈ 0 is still plausible at early times, but the stated inequality should be corrected.
  4. [Section V B] 'In what follow' should be 'In what follows'.
  5. [Table II] The header notation such as '10 2×σ(h)' is ambiguous; it should be typeset as 10^2 σ(h) to distinguish the multiplicative factor from an exponent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the effective growth rate is computed from the perturbed field equations, not fitted; the only questionable step is an explicit velocity-assignment assumption, which is a physical modeling choice rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the modified Kaiser formula Eq. (81) with f_eff^m from Eqs. (77)-(79), follows from the perturbed continuity and Euler equations (63)-(68) in the quasi-static limit, not from a fit or from the definition of the target quantity. The quantities Upsilon1, Upsilon2, Upsilon3, E1, and E2 are derived from the action and coupling functions; Delta f_c and Delta f_m are algebraic consequences of the velocity relation v_I = -a^2 H/k^2 f_eff^I delta_I (Eq. 76) and the total-matter definitions (21)-(22). The Fisher forecasts in Section VI use assumed fiducial values and predict future constraints, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Reference [42] is authored by four of the present authors, but the paper re-derives the quasi-static equations and recovers [42] as a special case (A = 1), so the self-citation is motivational rather than load-bearing. The explicit assumption v_g = v_m (Section IV C) is an unvalidated modeling choice in coupled-DM models, because the baryon and CDM Euler equations differ (Eqs. 57 and 59); however, this is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and the qualitative claim that RSD does not directly measure the standard total-matter growth rate survives even under a baryon-velocity tracer, since f_b also differs from f_m in these models. No circular step satisfying the quoted-reduction standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the model setup (K-essence scalar with conformal/disformal coupling to DM), the quasi-static approximation, the vg=vm assumption, and the chosen functional forms for A(phi,X) and B(phi,X). The coupling strengths and potential parameters are free parameters calibrated to fiducial cosmologies. No new particles or forces are posited beyond the scalar field and the known disformal metric construction.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (coupling constant) = 0.05 (model I), 0.1 (model II), -0.05 (model III)
    Dimensionless strength of the DM-scalar coupling; chosen as fiducial values for the forecasts, not derived from the theory.
  • n (potential slope) = 0.5
    Slope of the inverse-power-law potential V(phi)=M^2 phi^{-n}; fixed by hand to a value consistent with quintessence constraints.
  • M (potential amplitude) = Set by shooting method to obtain Omega_phi today
    Normalizes V(phi); computed so the present scalar density parameter matches the fiducial LCDM-like value.
  • Initial CDM density = Set by shooting method to obtain Omega_c today
    Boundary condition calibrated to the fiducial cosmology, not derived from first principles.
  • sigma_NL (velocity dispersion nuisance) = 7 Mpc
    Assumed value for line-of-sight smearing in the Fisher forecasts, marginalized over in the analysis.
  • Galaxy bias parameters b_g(z_i) = Euclid: sqrt(1+z); SKA2: c1 exp(c2 z) with constants from [65]
    Nuisance parameters in the Fisher forecast; marginalized over.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Einstein gravity plus a K-essence scalar field with baryons and radiation minimally coupled and DM coupled via conformal/disformal metric
    The model setup (Eqs. 1-3); defines the theory space being studied, not derived.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static approximation: time derivatives of metric and scalar perturbations are dropped on sub-horizon scales
    Adopted in Section IV A to obtain constraint equations; validity checked in Appendix C for the three models.
  • ad hoc to paper Galaxy peculiar velocity equals the total matter velocity, vg = vm
    Stated in Section IV C after Eq. (81); load-bearing for the modified Kaiser formula. Not derived from the coupled model and cited support is from LCDM simulations.
  • domain assumption Tracking-solution initial conditions for the scalar field at early times
    Section V: 'we set the initial conditions for the scalar field using the analytic expression for the tracker solution.' Assumes the universe reached the tracker before the coupling became important.
  • domain assumption Disformal transformation preserves Lorentzian signature and is invertible (A-2BX>0 etc.)
    Appendix A, Eq. (A2); standard consistency conditions for the disformal metric.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Redshift space distortions in the presence of non-minimally coupled dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EOTJYFOB

@misc{pith2026190807173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Redshift space distortions in the presence of non-minimally coupled dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EOTJYFOB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07173}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we fully investigate cosmological scenarios in which dark matter is non-minimally coupled to an extra scalar degree of freedom. The interaction is realized by means of conformal and disformal terms in the transformed gravitational metric. Considering linear perturbation theory, we show that the growth rate of dark matter differs from the uncoupled case and that the well-known Kaiser formula undergoes modification. As a result, redshift space distortion measurements cease to be a direct probe of the linear growth rate of total matter, since the distortion factor has an extra, coupling-dependent term. We study the effect of the coupling in three cosmological models, two conformally and one disformally coupled, and forecast the constraints on the coupling, and other cosmological parameters, from future galaxy surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07173 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Left panel (a): Evolution of the ratio between the coupled and uncoupled CDM energy density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Left panel (a): Evolution of the scalar field equation of state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Left panel (a): Evolution of the ratio between the coupled and uncoupled CDM energy density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Left panel (a): Evolution of the scalar field equation of state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Right panel (a): ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Linear matter power spectrum for conformal model I, Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Evolution of the additional Hubble friction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Left panel (a): ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Linear matter power spectrum for conformal model II, Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Evolution of the additional Hubble friction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Left panel (a): ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Left panel (a): linear matter power spectrum. Right panel (b): ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Confidence regions, 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Confidence regions, 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Confidence regions, 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Ratio between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    D. J. Bacon and others (SKA Cosmology SWG) (2018), 1811.02743

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    This kind of interaction was first proposed in the context of coupled quintessence in [53] and has been further investigated in [54–56]

    Conformal model I The conformal model I, characterized by the coupling functions (88), is an example of purely conformal metric transformation. This kind of interaction was first proposed in the context of coupled quintessence in [53] and has been further investigated in [54–56]. Imposing that both terms in the right hand side of Eq. (94) are constant lead...

    work page

  3. [2]

    In the uncoupled case, the equation of state of the scalar field follows the behavior of the dominant background fluid according 12 (a) (b) FIG

    Conformal model II As previously discussed, cosmological scenarios that admit scalar field tracking solutions are interesting. In the uncoupled case, the equation of state of the scalar field follows the behavior of the dominant background fluid according 12 (a) (b) FIG. 2: Left panel (a): Evolution of the scalar field equation of state, wφ =pφ/ρφ. Right pane...

    work page

  4. [3]

    In this case, there is no interaction at the background level, Q0 = 0

    Disformal model III As an example of purely disformal coupling, we consider model III, characterized by the coupling functions (89). In this case, there is no interaction at the background level, Q0 = 0. Hence, the energy density of cold dark matter evolves the usual way,ρc∝a−3, and the equation of motion for the scalar field is ¨φ + 3H ˙φ +Vφ = 0. (102) F...

    work page

  5. [4]

    (69), vanish and the equation of motion for the CDM growth function, Eq

    Conformal model I In model I, since the coupling is purely conformal, both Υ 1 and Υ2, given by Eq. (69), vanish and the equation of motion for the CDM growth function, Eq. (65), becomes ¨Dc + 2H(1−E 1) ˙Dc− 1 2 [(1−E 2)ρcDc +ρbDb] = 0, (103) with the the following contributions to the Hubble friction and gravitational constant terms, respectively: E1 = α...

    work page

  6. [5]

    (106) As in conformal model I, the modification to the Hubble friction term is related to the effective CDM equation of state byE1 = 3weff c /2

    Conformal model II In model II, once again, both Υ 1 and Υ 2 vanish and the modifications to the evolution of dark matter growth function appear through ¨Dc + 2H(1−E 1) ˙Dc− 1 2 [(1−E 2)ρcDc +ρbDb] = 0, (105) where E1 = αφ ˙φ 2H , E2 =−2α2φ2. (106) As in conformal model I, the modification to the Hubble friction term is related to the effective CDM equation ...

    work page

  7. [6]

    (90), one finds Υ 1 =−Υ2 =E2

    Disformal model III For model III, with conformal and disformal factors defined in Eq. (90), one finds Υ 1 =−Υ2 =E2. Hence, the equation of motion for the CDM growth function, Eq. (65), becomes ¨Dc + 2H(1−E 1) ˙Dc− 1 2 (1−E 2) (ρcDc +ρbDb) = 0, (107) where, E1 =− 2α2ρc ˙φ ( 3H ˙φ + 2Vφ ) H ( ˙φ2− 2αρc )[ (1− 2α) ˙φ2− 2αρc ], E2 = 2α ˙φ2 ˙φ2− 2αρc . (108) No...

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Gil-Mar´ ın, J

    H. Gil-Mar´ ın, J. Nore˜ na, L. Verde, W. J. Percival, C. Wagner, M. Manera, and D. P. Schneider, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451, 539 (2015), 1407.5668

    arXiv 2015

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    S. More, H. Miyatake, R. Mandelbaum, M. Takada, D. Spergel, J. Brownstein, and D. P. Schneider, Astrophys. J. 806, 2 (2015), 1407.1856

    2015 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Zwicky, Helvetica Physica Acta, 6, 110 (1933)

    F. Zwicky, Helvetica Physica Acta, 6, 110 (1933)

    1933

  3. [10]

    H. W. Babcock, Lick Observatory Bulletin 19, 41 (1939)

    1939

  4. [11]

    F. D. Kahn and L. Woltjer, ApJ 130, 705 (1959)

    1959

  5. [12]

    Clowe, A

    D. Clowe, A. Gonzalez, and M. Markevitch, Astrophys. J. 604, 596 (2004), astro-ph/0312273

    2004 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 29, 1351 (1997), astro-ph/9812473

    1997 arXiv

  7. [14]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), astro-ph/9805201

    1998 arXiv

  8. [15]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), 1502.01589

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Zlatev, L.-M

    I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896 (1999), astro-ph/9807002

    1999 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. Okabe, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D62, 023511 (2000), astro-ph/9912463

    2000 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4438 (2000), astro-ph/0004134

    2000 arXiv

  12. [19]

    S. M. Carroll, V. Duvvuri, M. Trodden, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D70, 043528 (2004), astro-ph/0306438. 27

    2004 arXiv

  13. [20]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 86, 157 (2007), 0706.2041

    2007 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D76, 064004 (2007), 0705.1158

    2007 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Carloni, and A. Troisi, Recent Res. Dev. Astron. Astrophys. 1, 625 (2003), astro-ph/0303041

    2003 arXiv

  16. [23]

    G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  17. [24]

    Deffayet, X

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D84, 064039 (2011), 1103.3260

    2011 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, and J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 126, 511 (2011), 1105.5723

    2011 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Gleyzes, D

    J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 211101 (2015), 1404.6495

    2015 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Langlois and K

    D. Langlois and K. Noui, JCAP 1602, 034 (2016), 1510.06930

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Tsujikawa, Lect

    S. Tsujikawa, Lect. Notes Phys. 800, 99 (2010), 1101.0191

    2010 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012), 1106.2476

    2012 arXiv

  23. [30]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D48, 3641 (1993), gr-qc/9211017

    1993 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Ben Achour, D

    J. Ben Achour, D. Langlois, and K. Noui, Phys. Rev. D93, 124005 (2016), 1602.08398

    2016 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Uzan, Rev

    J.-P. Uzan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 403 (2003), hep-ph/0205340

    2003 arXiv

  26. [33]

    D. J. Kapner, T. S. Cook, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, C. D. Hoyle, and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 021101 (2007), hep-ph/0611184

    2007 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004), astro-ph/0309300

    2004 arXiv

  28. [35]

    L. Hui, A. Nicolis, and C. Stubbs, Phys. Rev. D80, 104002 (2009), 0905.2966

    2009 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Dvali, New J

    G. Dvali, New J. Phys. 8, 326 (2006), hep-th/0610013

    2006 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Joyce, B

    A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rept. 568, 1 (2015), 1407.0059

    2015 arXiv

  31. [38]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 096901 (2016), 1603.08299

    2016 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Kaiser, Mon

    N. Kaiser, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 227, 1 (1987)

    1987

  33. [40]

    Takada, R

    M. Takada, R. S. Ellis, M. Chiba, J. E. Greene, H. Aihara, N. Arimoto, K. Bundy, J. Cohen, O. Dor´ e, G. Graves, et al., Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 66, R1 (2014), 1206.0737

    2014 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Delubac et al., Mon

    T. Delubac et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 1831 (2017), 1611.06934

    2017 arXiv

  35. [42]

    G. D. Racca, R. Laureijs, L. Stagnaro, J.-C. Salvignol, J. Lorenzo Alvarez, G. Saave- dra Criado, L. Gaspar Venancio, A. Short, P. Strada, T. B¨ onke, et al., in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave (2016), vol. 9904, p. 99040O, 1610.05508

    2016 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Spergel, N

    D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, C. Baltay, D. Bennett, J. Breckinridge, M. Donahue, A. Dressler, B. S. Gaudi, T. Greene, O. Guyon, et al., ArXiv e-prints (2015), 1503.03757

    2015 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Maartens, F

    R. Maartens, F. B. Abdalla, M. Jarvis, and M. G. Santos, PoS AASKA14, 016 (2015), 1501.04076

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Yamauchi et al., Publ

    D. Yamauchi et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 68, R2 (2016), 1603.01959

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck) (2018), 1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Kimura, T

    R. Kimura, T. Suyama, M. Yamaguchi, D. Yamauchi, and S. Yokoyama, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 70, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Volume 70, Issue 5, 1 October 2018, L5, https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psy083 (2018), 1709.09371

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Gleyzes, D

    J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, M. Mancarella, and F. Vernizzi, JCAP 1602, 056 (2016), 1509.02191

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Sawicki and E

    I. Sawicki and E. Bellini, Phys. Rev. D92, 084061 (2015), 1503.06831

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. Elia, A. D. Ludlow, and C. Porciani, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 421, 3472 (2012), 1111.4211

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hashimoto, A

    I. Hashimoto, A. Taruya, T. Matsubara, T. Namikawa, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D93, 103537 (2016), 1512.08352

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  46. [54]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998), astro-ph/9708069

    1998 arXiv

  47. [55]

    R. R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 141301 (2005), astro-ph/0505494

    2005 arXiv

  48. [56]

    P. J. Steinhardt, L.-M. Wang, and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D59, 123504 (1999), astro-ph/9812313

    1999 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press, Oxford New York, 2008), ISBN 978-0198526827

    S. Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press, Oxford New York, 2008), ISBN 978-0198526827

    2008

  50. [58]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP 1107, 034 (2011), 1104.2933

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000), astro-ph/9908023

    2000 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 196 (2001), astro-ph/0006300

    2001 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zhang, Phys

    X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B611, 1 (2005), astro-ph/0503075

    2005 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Amendola, M

    L. Amendola, M. Baldi, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. D78, 023015 (2008), 0706.3064

    2008 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Tegmark, Phys

    M. Tegmark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3806 (1997), astro-ph/9706198

    1997 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Seo and D

    H.-J. Seo and D. J. Eisenstein, Astrophys. J. 598, 720 (2003), astro-ph/0307460

    2003 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Alcock and B

    C. Alcock and B. Paczynski, Nature 281, 358 (1979)

    1979

  58. [66]

    White, Y.-S

    M. White, Y.-S. Song, and W. J. Percival, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 397, 1348 (2008), 0810.1518

    2008 arXiv

  59. [67]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A14 (2016), 1502.01590

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    C. Li, Y. P. Jing, G. Kauffmann, G. Boerner, X. Kang, and L. Wang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 376, 984 (2007), astro-ph/0701218

    2007 arXiv

  61. [69]

    P. Bull, P. G. Ferreira, P. Patel, and M. G. Santos, Astrophys. J. 803, 21 (2015), 1405.1452

    2015 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Amendola et al

    L. Amendola et al. (2016), 1606.00180

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Yahya, P

    S. Yahya, P. Bull, M. G. Santos, M. Silva, R. Maartens, P. Okouma, and B. Bassett, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, 2251 (2015), 1412.4700

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    R. E. Smith, J. A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, and H. M. P. Couchmann (VIRGO Consortium), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 341, 1311 (2003), astro-ph/0207664. 28

    2003 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Sprenger, M

    T. Sprenger, M. Archidiacono, T. Brinckmann, S. Clesse, and J. Lesgourgues (2018), 1801.08331

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.