Higher-Order Analytical Expansion of Thawing Dark Energy with an Exponential Potential

Kazunori Kohri; Naoto Maki

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 68 references

Higher-Order Analytical Expansion of Thawing Dark Energy with an Exponential Potential

T0 review · 2 major / 2 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 For exponential-potential thawing quintessence, the equation of state can be written to fourth order in λ, and the added terms cut the prediction error in 1+w at z=1 from 13.9% to 1.6%.

desk verdict The O(λ^4) coefficient f4 is a genuine extension, but Eq. (40) is an incorrect antiderivative, and the claimed 13.9%→1.6% accuracy gain is not supported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13488 v1 pith:XXXZ4LMV submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Naoto Maki , Kazunori Kohri This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th

keywords thawingquintessenceexponentialpotentialequationofstatelambdaexpansionbackgroundcorrectiondarkenergyanalyticalapproximation

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 extends the standard analytical treatment of thawing quintessence with an exponential potential $V=V_0e^{-\lambda\phi/m_{\mathrm{pl}}}$ from leading order in $\lambda$ to the next order. It derives the closed-form coefficient $f_4(\Omega_\phi)$ and, crucially, the $O(\lambda^2)$ correction to the background density parameter $\Omega_\phi$, showing that a consistent $O(\lambda^4)$ equation of state requires both. The resulting expression for $w_\phi(z)$ is accurate enough that the relative error in $1+w_\phi$ at $z=1$ drops from 13.9% to 1.6% for $\lambda=1$, $\Omega_{\phi 0}=0.70$. This gives a fast analytic map from the present-day parameters to the predicted redshift evolution, a useful benchmark for distinguishing this model from other dark-energy models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pair of coefficient functions $f_2(\Omega_\phi)$ and $f_4(\Omega_\phi)$, together with the background correction $\Omega^{(2)}(\Omega_\phi)$. The derivation substitutes the ansatz $1+w_\phi=\sum_n f_{2n}(\Omega_\phi)\lambda^{2n}$ into the flow equation for $w_\phi$, solves the resulting linear first-order equations for $f_2$ and $f_4$, and then expands $\Omega_\phi$ itself in powers of $\lambda$ with odd corrections vanishing under the boundary condition that today's density parameter is $\Omega_{\phi 0}$. This double expansion is what carries the $O(\lambda^4)$ redshift dependence.

What would settle it

Integrate the exact background and scalar-field equations numerically for a denser grid in $\lambda$ (for example 0.5, 1.5, and 2) and $\Omega_{\phi 0}$ (for example 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8), then compare the predicted $1+w_\phi(z)$ from Eq. (42) or Eq. (49) at redshifts near $z=1$; if the relative error is not far smaller than the leading-order 13.9% or worsens with $\lambda$, the claimed $O(\lambda^4)$ improvement fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for the exponential potential, the thawing equation of state is, through $O(\lambda^4)$, $w_\phi = -1 + f_2(\Omega_\phi)\lambda^2 + [f_2'(\Omega_\phi)\Omega^{(2)} + f_4(\Omega_\phi)]\lambda^4 + O(\lambda^6)$, where $\Omega^{(2)}$ is the $\lambda^2$ correction to the background density parameter and $f_4$ is a new closed-form function. Evaluating $f_2$ on the $\Lambda$CDM background alone is consistent only at leading order; at fourth order the background correction enters through $f_2'\Omega^{(2)}$. After eliminating $\lambda$ in favor of the present values, $1+w_\phi$ becomes a series in $1+w_{\phi 0}$ through second order. Numerical comparison shows this expression is more accurate than the leading-order result.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that truncating the $\lambda$ expansion at fourth order (equivalently, at second order in $1+w_{\phi 0}$) is accurate across the parameter range of interest; the paper demonstrates that only for one parameter set, $\lambda=1$ and $\Omega_{\phi 0}=0.70$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Eq. (49) gives $w_\phi(z)$ directly from $\Omega_{\phi 0}$ and $w_{\phi 0}$, without solving the scalar-field equations numerically.
Including the $O(\lambda^4)$ term reduces the relative error in $1+w_\phi$ at $z=1$ from 13.9% to 1.6% for $\lambda=1$, $\Omega_{\phi 0}=0.70$.
A consistent $O(\lambda^4)$ redshift dependence requires the background correction $\Omega^{(2)}$; evaluating $f_2$ on the $\Lambda$CDM background alone is incomplete at that order.
The new coefficient $f_4$ reproduces the $\Omega_\phi$-expansion coefficients of Eq. (14), so the $\lambda$ expansion and the $\Omega_\phi$ expansion describe the same thawing branch.
The closed-form expression is a candidate tool for distinguishing exponential quintessence from other dark-energy models in future observations.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next check is the radius of convergence: the paper quantifies accuracy at one parameter point, but comparing $O(\lambda^4)$ with $O(\lambda^6)$ truncations over the observationally allowed $\lambda$ range would show where the series breaks down.
The same background-correction procedure should extend to potentials with a slowly varying $\lambda$, since the derivation's structure only requires $\lambda$ to be nearly constant; testing it on hilltop or cosine potentials would show whether the $O(\lambda^4)$ gain is generic.
If the closed form survives those checks, forecast pipelines could replace per-model numerical integration with this expression, making large scans over $(\Omega_{\phi 0}, w_{\phi 0})$ fast enough for Monte Carlo likelihood analyses.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's first main result—the closed-form O(λ^4) coefficient f4(Ω) in Eq. (23)—is real and consistent with the known Ω-expansion. The derivation through the linear ODE and the integral representation in Appendix A is systematic, and the series check against Eq. (14) is a nice sanity test. That part deserves credit.

The second main piece, the background correction Ω^(2), does not survive. Eq. (40) claims ∫ f2/[Ω(1−Ω)] dΩ = −f2/2 + (1/3)√Ω L + C. Differentiating the RHS gives −f2′/2 + (1/3)(L/(2√Ω) + 1/(1−Ω)). Using the paper's own ODE for f2, Eq. (16), this derivative does not reproduce the integrand. The antiderivative is wrong: the second term should be L/√Ω, not √Ω L. With that fix the derivative works out to the integrand exactly.

The error propagates. Eq. (41), Eq. (44), and therefore Eq. (49) all inherit the wrong Ω^(2). Since f2′(Ω^(0)) Ω^(2) appears at O(λ^4) in Eq. (42), every redshift-dependent O(λ^4) curve in Figs. 1–3 is based on this incorrect background correction. For Ω_φ0 = 0.7 at z = 1, the printed Ω^(2) is about −0.032; the corrected antiderivative gives about −0.022. That is a material difference, not a cosmetic one. The numerical validation in Fig. 1 is also thin—one parameter set, no solver details—but that is secondary; the main issue is the algebra.

There is nothing wrong with the overall strategy. The observation that a consistent O(λ^4) calculation requires the background correction is correct and important, and the f4 coefficient alone is a solid extension of Scherrer–Sen. The paper is clearly written, and the comparison with Ref. [33] is honest and appropriately self-aware. The error looks fixable—replace √Ω L with L/√Ω in Eqs. (40), (41), and (44), and redo the figures—but until that is done the central accuracy claim is unsupported.

This is a paper for readers doing model-specific forecasts for exponential quintessence. With the correction it would be a useful tool; as is, the w(z) formula should not be used. I would send it to peer review because the fix is concrete and the f4 result is worth publishing, but any referee should be specifically asked to verify Eq. (40) and re-evaluate the numerical comparison.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a fourth-order expansion in the potential-slope parameter λ for thawing quintessence with V = V0 e^{-λφ/mpl}. It obtains a closed form for the O(λ^4) coefficient f4(Ωφ), expands Ωφ in powers of λ around its ΛCDM value to include background corrections, and then eliminates λ in favor of the present-day observables wφ0 and Ωφ0. The paper reports that the O(λ^4) approximation reduces the relative error in 1+wφ at z=1 from 13.9% at leading order to 1.6% for λ=1 and Ωφ0=0.70.

Significance. If the derivation is corrected, this is a useful analytic extension of the Scherrer-Sen leading-order result for exponential-potential quintessence. The closed-form f4(Ωφ) and the consistent background correction provide an explicit, falsifiable prediction wφ(z; wφ0, Ωφ0). The agreement of f4 with the λ^4 terms in the earlier Ω-expansion of Ref. [33] is a strong cross-check of the main calculation. The main weaknesses are the incorrect antiderivative in the background-correction step and the limited numerical validation.

major comments (2)

[Sec. IV, Eq. (40)] The stated antiderivative is incorrect. Direct differentiation of the right-hand side of Eq. (40) gives -f2'/2 + L/(6√Ω) + 1/[3(1−Ω)], with L=ln[(1+√Ω)/(1−√Ω)], which is not equal to f2/[Ω(1−Ω)]. The correct antiderivative is -f2/2 + L/(3√Ω); its derivative is -f2'/2 - L/(6Ω^{3/2}) + 1/[3Ω(1−Ω)], which equals f2/[Ω(1−Ω)] using Eq. (16). A concrete symptom is the Ω→0 limit: the integrand tends to 4/27, whereas the derivative of the printed right-hand side tends to 16/27. Consequently Eq. (41), Eq. (44), and every Ω^(2)-dependent O(λ^4) term in Eqs. (42) and (49) are incorrect as written. Because f2'(Ω^(0))Ω^(2) enters at the same order as f4, the numerical comparison in Fig. 1 and the quoted 1.6% relative error do not support the central claim until the background correction is rederived and the calculation repeated.
[Sec. IV, Fig. 1] The accuracy claim is validated for a single parameter set (λ=1, Ωφ0=0.70) and a single redshift (z=1). The paper states generally that the O(λ^4) expansion is more accurate than leading order, but it does not quantify the truncation error for other values of λ and Ωφ0. The corrected Ω^(2) from the previous comment will shift the results. Please add a quantitative convergence test, such as a table of relative errors as functions of λ and Ωφ0 or a check at several redshifts, before claiming general improvement.

minor comments (2)

[Figs. 2 and 3] The figure labels 'w0 = 0.8' should read 'wφ0 = −0.8'; the minus signs are missing in the printed labels.
[Sec. IV] The notation Ω^(0)ϕ is used both for the function of the scale factor and for its evaluation at a given redshift; introducing an explicit argument, e.g., Ω^(0)ϕ(a), would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the O(lambda^4) expansion and the Omega_phi^(2) background correction are solved from the field equations; self-citations are attribution/consistency checks, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The expansion w_phi = -1 + f2(lambda^2) + f4(lambda^4) is substituted into the exact flow equation (11); f2 solves Eq. (16) and f4 solves Eq. (22), both integrated in closed form in the paper. The background correction Omega_phi^(2) solves Eq. (38), an ODE sourced by the already-derived f2, with the boundary condition Omega_phi^(2)(a=1)=0; it is not set equal to the final 1+w_phi expression. The final replacement of lambda by 1+w_phi0 via Eqs. (47)-(48) is a standard boundary-condition reparametrization: w_phi0 is an input label, so no quantity is predicted from itself. The authors' self-citation to Ref. [33] supplies Eq. (14), but the paper states that Eq. (14) is obtained by substituting and comparing coefficients in Eq. (11), and uses it only as a consistency check for the series forms of f2 and f4; the differential-equation derivations do not depend on it. The skeptic's claim that Eq. (40) is an incorrect antiderivative would be a correctness defect in the derivation as written, not a circular reduction to the paper's inputs, and thus does not change the circularity verdict. The numerical comparison in Fig. 1 uses the model's own analytic value of w_phi0 for a fixed lambda, which tests the truncation error rather than importing the target prediction from the data.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claim relies on standard cosmology plus three modeling choices: exponential potential with constant lambda, thawing boundary condition, and truncating a perturbative expansion in lambda about the LambdaCDM background. No new entities are invented. The parameters lambda, Omega_phi0, and w_phi0 are inputs from prior model or observations rather than derived quantities.

free parameters (3)

lambda
Potential slope in V = V0 exp(-lambda phi/m_pl); the perturbative expansion parameter. In the final expression it is replaced by w_phi0 via Eq. (48), so it is an input model parameter rather than a derived number.
Omega_phi0
Present-day density parameter, used as the boundary condition Omega_phi0 = Omega_phi(a=1) and as the argument of f2, f4. Not derived in the paper.
w_phi0
Present equation of state; used in Eq. (47) to eliminate lambda. The final formula is a function of w_phi0 and Omega_phi0.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Spatially flat FRW universe containing pressureless matter and a canonical scalar field.
Used in the Friedmann equations (5)-(7); ignores radiation, curvature, and interactions for the late-time thawing phase.
domain assumption Exponential potential V = V0 exp(-lambda phi/m_pl) with constant lambda > 0 and V0 > 0.
Model definition in Eq. (12); all later expansions assume lambda is constant.
standard math w_phi and Omega_phi are analytic in their expansion variables, so coefficients of powers of Omega_phi and lambda can be equated.
Coefficient matching in Eqs. (13)-(15), (21)-(22), and (26)-(30).
domain assumption Thawing branch boundary condition: 1+w_phi -> 0 as Omega_phi -> 0; integration constants that diverge in this limit are set to zero.
Used after Eqs. (18) and (23) to select the thawing solution.
domain assumption The expansion in lambda is truncated at O(lambda^4) and the expansion in (1+w_phi0) at second order; these truncations are assumed accurate for observationally relevant parameters.
Underlies Eqs. (42), (47)-(49); numerically tested only for lambda=1, Omega_phi0=0.70.
domain assumption Boundary conditions at a=1: Omega_phi(a=1) = Omega_phi0 and Omega_phi^(i)(a=1) = 0 for i >= 1.
Eq. (32) defines the normalization of the background expansion; sets integration constants in Eqs. (33) and (41).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher-Order Analytical Expansion of Thawing Dark Energy with an Exponential Potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XXXZ4LMV

@misc{pith2026260813488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher-Order Analytical Expansion of Thawing Dark Energy with an Exponential Potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XXXZ4LMV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13488}
}

abstract

Motivated by recent DESI results suggesting dynamical dark energy, we investigate the thawing scenario in quintessence with an exponential potential, $V=V_0e^{-\lambda\phi/m_{\mathrm{pl}}}$, by analytically expanding the deviation of the equation of state parameter $w_{\phi}$ from $-1$ in powers of $\lambda$. In addition to the previously known leading-order result at $O(\lambda^2)$, we derive the $O(\lambda^4)$ correction as a function of the density parameter $\Omega_\phi$. We show that a consistent determination of the redshift dependence of $w_\phi$ through $O(\lambda^4)$ requires corrections to the background expansion. We obtain the required correction by expanding $\Omega_\phi$ in powers of $\lambda$ around its $\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ value. Comparison with numerical solutions demonstrates that the $O(\lambda^4)$ expansion provides a more accurate approximation than the leading-order result. Our analytical approximation, which consistently incorporates the $O(\lambda^4)$ correction, will provide a potentially useful tool for distinguishing the exponential quintessence model from other dark energy models in future observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13488 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Redshift evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Redshift evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[33]

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

N. Maki and K. Kohri, Exponential Quintessence: Analytic Relationship Between the Current Equation of State Parameter and the Potential Parameter (2026), arXiv:2605.05122 [astro- ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2026
[1]

A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024
[2]

Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results

M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic os- cillations and cosmological constraints, Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025
[3]

Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys

K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025
[4]

Tada and T

Y. Tada and T. Terada, Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations, Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024
[5]

Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, Quintom cosmology and modified gravity after DESI 2024, Sci. Bull.69, 2698 (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024
[6]

I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Interpreting DESI 2024 BAO: Late-time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?, Phys. Rev. D111, 043540 (2025), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025
[7]

Roy Choudhury, T

S. Roy Choudhury, T. Okumura, and K. Umetsu, Cosmological Constraints on Nonphantom Dynamical Dark Energy with DESI Data Release 2 Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: A 3σ+ Lensing Anomaly, Astrophys. J. Lett.994, L26 (2025), arXiv:2509.26144 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

Show all 68 references

[8]

Maqsood and T

A. Maqsood and T. Duary, Model-independent reconstruction of cosmic thermodynamics and dark energy dynamics (2026), arXiv:2604.18723 [astro-ph.CO]

2026 arXiv
[9]

H. Woo, W. L. Matthewson, and A. Shafieloo, Model-independent consistency tests of DESI DR2 BAO and SN Ia (2026), arXiv:2604.19393 [astro-ph.CO]

2026 arXiv
[10]

E. ´O. Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin, How much has DESI dark energy evolved since DR1?, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102268 (2026), arXiv:2504.04417 [astro- ph.CO]

2026
[11]

Li, G.-H

T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, H. Wang, Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Dark Energy in the DESI Era: A Brief Review of Evidence, Beyond-ΛCDM Interpretations, and Tensions (2026), arXiv:2606.21826 [astro-ph.CO]. 17

2026 arXiv
[12]

R. R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, The Limits of quintessence, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 141301 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505494

2005 arXiv
[13]

E. V. Linder, The paths of quintessence, Phys. Rev. D73, 063010 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0601052

2006
[14]

Obied, H

G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko, and C. Vafa, De Sitter Space and the Swampland (2018), arXiv:1806.08362 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[15]

Cicoli, J

M. Cicoli, J. P. Conlon, A. Maharana, S. Parameswaran, F. Quevedo, and I. Zavala, String cosmology: From the early universe to today, Phys. Rept.1059, 1 (2024), arXiv:2303.04819 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[16]

Nitta and K

M. Nitta and K. Uzawa, Dynamical de Sitter conjecture and quintessence model (2025), arXiv:2501.02258 [hep-th]

2025
[17]

J. J. Halliwell, Scalar Fields in Cosmology with an Exponential Potential, Phys. Lett. B185, 341 (1987)

1987
[18]

A. B. Burd and J. D. Barrow, Inflationary Models with Exponential Potentials, Nucl. Phys. B308, 929 (1988), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 324, 276–276 (1989)]

1988
[19]

P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, Cosmology with a primordial scaling field, Phys. Rev. D58, 023503 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9711102

1998 arXiv
[20]

E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, and D. Wands, Exponential potentials and cosmological scaling solutions, Phys. Rev. D57, 4686 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9711068

1998 arXiv
[21]

R. J. van den Hoogen, A. A. Coley, and D. Wands, Scaling solutions in Robertson-Walker space-times, Class. Quant. Grav.16, 1843 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9901014

1999 arXiv
[22]

C. F. Kolda and W. Lahneman, Exponential quintessence and the end of acceleration (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0105300

2001 arXiv
[23]

E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

2006 arXiv
[24]

C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, and S. V. Sabau, Jacobi stability analysis of dynamical sys- tems: Applications in gravitation and cosmology, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.16, 1145 (2012), arXiv:1010.5464 [math-ph]

2012 arXiv
[25]

L. A. Urena-Lopez, Unified description of the dynamics of quintessential scalar fields, JCAP 03, 035, arXiv:1108.4712 [astro-ph.CO]. 18

arXiv
[26]

Tamanini, Dynamics of cosmological scalar fields, Phys

N. Tamanini, Dynamics of cosmological scalar fields, Phys. Rev. D89, 083521 (2014), arXiv:1401.6339 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[27]

Gosenca and P

M. Gosenca and P. Coles, Dynamical Analysis of Scalar Field Cosmologies with Spatial Cur- vature, Open J. Astrophys.1, 1 (2016), arXiv:1502.04020 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[28]

Bahamonde, C

S. Bahamonde, C. G. B¨ ohmer, S. Carloni, E. J. Copeland, W. Fang, and N. Tamanini, Dynam- ical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity, Phys. Rept.775-777, 1 (2018), arXiv:1712.03107 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[29]

Sava¸ s Arapo˘ glu and A

A. Sava¸ s Arapo˘ glu and A. Emrah Y¨ ukselci, Dynamical System Analysis of Quintessence Models with Exponential Potential - Revisited, Mod. Phys. Lett. A34, 1950069 (2019), arXiv:1711.03824 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[30]

Andriot, S

D. Andriot, S. Parameswaran, D. Tsimpis, T. Wrase, and I. Zavala, Exponential quintessence: curved, steep and stringy?, JHEP08, 117, arXiv:2405.09323 [hep-th]

arXiv
[31]

Andriot, Dark energy from string theory: an introductory review (2026), arXiv:2603.25797 [hep-th]

D. Andriot, Dark energy from string theory: an introductory review (2026), arXiv:2603.25797 [hep-th]

2026 arXiv
[32]

Andriot, Quintessence: An Analytical Study, With Theoretical and Observational Appli- cations, Fortsch

D. Andriot, Quintessence: An Analytical Study, With Theoretical and Observational Appli- cations, Fortsch. Phys.73, e70007 (2025), arXiv:2410.17182 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[34]

Tsimpis and G

D. Tsimpis and G. Venugopal, Analytic results for slow-roll curved-space inflation and expo- nential potentials (2026), arXiv:2606.16906 [astro-ph.CO]

2026
[35]

S. D. Sadatian and S. M. R. Hosseini, Bouncing Scenario in thef(T) Modified Gravity Model with Dynamical System Analysis (2024), arXiv:2410.04062 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[36]

M. Hong, K. Mukaida, and T. T. Yanagida, No-scale Brans-Dicke Gravity – ultralight scalar boson & heavy inflaton (2025), arXiv:2503.18648 [hep-ph]

2025
[37]

Y. K. Devi, R. Bhagat, and B. Mishra, Phase space analysis inf(R, L m) gravity with scalar field (2026), arXiv:2603.29337 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[38]

M. C. Pookkillath and S. Tsujikawa, Phantom-divide crossing and suppressed structure growth in kinetically braided dark energy with momentum exchange (2026), arXiv:2607.26447 [astro- ph.CO]. 19

2026 arXiv
[39]

Ratra, Quantum Mechanics of Exponential Potential Inflation, Phys

B. Ratra, Quantum Mechanics of Exponential Potential Inflation, Phys. Rev. D40, 3939 (1989)

1989
[40]

A. P. Rebesh and B. I. Lev, Analytical solutions of the classical and quantum cosmological models with an exponential potential, Phys. Rev. D100, 123533 (2019)

2019
[41]

Maki, C.-M

N. Maki, C.-M. Lin, and K. Kohri, Simple Analytical Solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt Equa- tion in the Classical Hamilton-Jacobi Limit (2026), arXiv:2604.25240 [hep-th]

2026 arXiv
[42]

A. R. Liddle, A. Mazumdar, and F. E. Schunck, Assisted inflation, Phys. Rev. D58, 061301 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9804177

1998 arXiv
[43]

K. A. Malik and D. Wands, Dynamics of assisted inflation, Phys. Rev. D59, 123501 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812204

1999 arXiv
[44]

Chiba, A

T. Chiba, A. De Felice, and S. Tsujikawa, Cosmological Scaling Solutions for Multiple Scalar Fields, Phys. Rev. D90, 023516 (2014), arXiv:1403.7604 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[45]

Alestas, M

G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, I. Ocampo, S. Nesseris, and S. Tsujikawa, DESI constraints on two-field quintessence with exponential potentials (2025), arXiv:2510.21627 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[46]

Nozari and N

K. Nozari and N. Behrouz, An Interacting Dark Energy Model with Nonminimal Derivative Coupling, Phys. Dark Univ.13, 92 (2016), arXiv:1605.06028 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[47]

Pourtsidou, Exponential quintessence with momentum coupling to dark matter, JCAP02, 014, arXiv:2509.15091 [astro-ph.CO]

A. Pourtsidou, Exponential quintessence with momentum coupling to dark matter, JCAP02, 014, arXiv:2509.15091 [astro-ph.CO]
[48]

Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, K

J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, K. Ichiki, X. Liu, F. A. Teppa Pannia, and S. Tsujikawa, Revisiting observational constraints on coupled exponential quintessence with energy and momentum transfers: degeneracy with massive neutrinos (2026), arXiv:2603.15805 [astro-ph.CO]

2026 arXiv
[49]

J. Wang, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Phantom-Divide Crossing in Exponentially Coupled Quintessence and the Role of Neutrino-Mass Freedom (2026), arXiv:2606.22023 [astro-ph.CO]

2026 arXiv
[50]

Tzanni and J

K. Tzanni and J. Miritzis, Coupled quintessence with double exponential potentials, Phys. Rev. D89, 103540 (2014), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 129902 (2014)], arXiv:1403.6618 [gr- qc]

2014 arXiv
[51]

Wang, R.-G

J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, Y.-H. Li, S.-J. Wang, and X. Zhang, Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction (2026), arXiv:2604.02204 [astro-ph.CO]

2026 arXiv
[52]

Maki and K

N. Maki and K. Kohri, Exponential quintessence model: Analytical quantification of the fine- tuning problem in dark energy, Phys. Rev. D113, 123528 (2026), arXiv:2602.19118 [astro- ph.CO]. 20

2026 arXiv
[53]

Bhattacharya, G

S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence, JCAP09, 073, arXiv:2405.17396 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv
[54]

O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, DESI constraints on exponential quintessence, Phys. Rev. D110, L041303 (2024), arXiv:2405.18747 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[55]

Akrami, G

Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, and S. Nesseris, Has DESI detected exponential quintessence? (2025), arXiv:2504.04226 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[56]

Bayat and M

Z. Bayat and M. P. Hertzberg, Examining quintessence models with DESI data, JCAP08, 065, arXiv:2505.18937 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[57]

Sultana and S

S. Sultana and S. Chattopadhyay, Cosmological dynamics of exponential quintessence con- strained by BAO, cosmic chronometers, and DES-SN5YR/Pantheon + data, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 408 (2026), arXiv:2604.06941 [astro-ph.CO]

2026 arXiv
[58]

S´ anchez L´ opez, A

S. S´ anchez L´ opez, A. Karam, and D. K. Hazra, Non-Minimally Coupled Quintessence in Light of DESI (2025), arXiv:2510.14941 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[59]

R. J. Scherrer and A. A. Sen, Thawing quintessence with a nearly flat potential, Phys. Rev. D77, 083515 (2008), arXiv:0712.3450 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[60]

R. J. Scherrer and A. A. Sen, Phantom Dark Energy Models with a Nearly Flat Potential, Phys. Rev. D78, 067303 (2008), arXiv:0808.1880 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[61]

Gupta, E

G. Gupta, E. N. Saridakis, and A. A. Sen, Non-minimal quintessence and phantom with nearly flat potentials, Phys. Rev. D79, 123013 (2009), arXiv:0905.2348 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[62]

del Campo, V

S. del Campo, V. H. Cardenas, and R. Herrera, The effect of curvature in thawing models, Phys. Lett. B694, 279 (2011), arXiv:1010.2477 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[63]

Li and R

D. Li and R. J. Scherrer, Classifying the behavior of noncanonical quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083509 (2016), arXiv:1602.05065 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[64]

Chakraborty, P

S. Chakraborty, P. K. S. Dunsby, and R. J. Scherrer, Reconstructing the slope of a nearly flat quintessence potential from cosmography (2026), arXiv:2606.21127 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[65]

Alho and C

A. Alho and C. Uggla, New simple and accurate quintessence approximations, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083549 (2025), arXiv:2407.14378 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[66]

R. N. Cahn, R. de Putter, and E. V. Linder, Field Flows of Dark Energy, JCAP11, 015, arXiv:0807.1346 [astro-ph]. 21

arXiv
[67]

Chiba, Slow-Roll Thawing Quintessence, Phys

T. Chiba, Slow-Roll Thawing Quintessence, Phys. Rev. D79, 083517 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 80, 109902 (2009)], arXiv:0902.4037 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[68]

Dutta and R

S. Dutta and R. J. Scherrer, Hilltop Quintessence, Phys. Rev. D78, 123525 (2008), arXiv:0809.4441 [astro-ph]. 22

2008 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [33]

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

N. Maki and K. Kohri, Exponential Quintessence: Analytic Relationship Between the Current Equation of State Parameter and the Potential Parameter (2026), arXiv:2605.05122 [astro- ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2026

[2] [1]

A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024

[3] [2]

Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results

M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic os- cillations and cosmological constraints, Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

[4] [3]

Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys

K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

[5] [4]

Tada and T

Y. Tada and T. Terada, Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations, Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024

[6] [5]

Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, Quintom cosmology and modified gravity after DESI 2024, Sci. Bull.69, 2698 (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024

[7] [6]

I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Interpreting DESI 2024 BAO: Late-time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?, Phys. Rev. D111, 043540 (2025), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

[8] [7]

Roy Choudhury, T

S. Roy Choudhury, T. Okumura, and K. Umetsu, Cosmological Constraints on Nonphantom Dynamical Dark Energy with DESI Data Release 2 Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: A 3σ+ Lensing Anomaly, Astrophys. J. Lett.994, L26 (2025), arXiv:2509.26144 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025