- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Cosmological constraints on Galileon dark energy with broken shift symmetry

William J. Wolf*, Pedro G. Ferreira†, and Carlos García-García‡

  • *Contact author: william.wolf@stx.ox.ac.uk
  • †Contact author: pedro.ferreira@physics.ox.ac.uk
  • ‡Contact author: carlos.garcia-garcia@physics.ox.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 023551 – Published 30 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/bxvj-bsv1

Abstract

Current cosmological data seem to show that dark energy is evolving in time and that it possibly crossed the phantom divide in the past. So far the only theories that lead to such a behavior involve a nontrivial coupling between dark energy, in the form of a scalar field, and the gravitational or matter sector. We show that there is another possibility involving both a nontrivial kinetic sector in a cubic Galileon theory and a scalar field potential that breaks the Galileon shift symmetry, which can lead to a similar phenomenology on large scales. We perform a full Bayesian analysis using the latest cosmological data, including DESI DR2 baryonic acoustic oscillation measurements, type Ia SNe measurements from DESY5, Union3, and Pantheon+, and cosmic microwave background data from Planck and ACT. We find that it is statistically strongly favored over a universe dominated by a cosmological constant (with a Bayes factor of logB≃6.5). Yet, as with other nonminimally coupled theories, it has severe ancillary gravitational effects. These can be mitigated to some extent, but as with other viable theories, the penalty is ever more elaborate scalar field models of dark energy.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Corrections

24 February, 2026

Correction: Minor errors in a value located in the text following Eq. (12), in the penultimate row, second column of Table I, and in an inline equation in the text following Fig. 2 have been fixed.

Article Text

References (148)

  1. M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and cosmological constraints, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083515 (2025).
  2. W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Underdetermination of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103519 (2023).
  3. W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Scant evidence for thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083528 (2024).
  4. D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Assessing observational constraints on dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138826 (2024).
  5. Y. Tada and T. Terada, Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations, Phys. Rev. D 109, L121305 (2024).
  6. G. Payeur, E. McDonough, and R. Brandenberger, Do observations prefer thawing quintessence?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123541 (2025).
  7. I. D. Gialamas, G. Hütsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, M. Vasar, and H. Veermäe, Quintessence and phantoms in light of DESI 2025, Phys. Rev. D 112, 063551 (2025).
  8. K. Lodha et al., Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083511 (2025).
  9. H. N. Luu, Y.-C. Qiu, and S. H. H. Tye, Dynamical dark energy from an ultralight axion, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023524 (2025).
  10. S. S. Mishra, W. L. Matthewson, V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and Y. Shtanov, Braneworld dark energy in light of DESI DR2, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2025) 018.
  11. S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2024) 073.
  12. H. Wang, Z.-Y. Peng, and Y.-S. Piao, Can recent DESI BAO measurements accommodate a negative cosmological constant?, Phys. Rev. D 111, L061306 (2025).
  13. A. Gómez-Valent and A. González-Fuentes, Effective phantom divide crossing with standard and negative quintessence, Phys. Lett. B 872, 140096 (2026).
  14. J. M. Cline and V. Muralidharan, Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations, Phys. Rev. D 112, 063539 (2025).
  15. W. Lin, L. Visinelli, and T. T. Yanagida, Testing quintessence axion dark energy with recent cosmological results, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2025) 023.
  16. L. W. K. Goh and A. N. Taylor, Phantom crossing with quintom models, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 3142, 3157 (2025).
  17. M. W. Hossain and A. Maqsood, Cosmological implications of tracker scalar fields as dynamical dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083504 (2025).
  18. W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. García-García, Matching current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 111, L041303 (2025).
  19. W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Assessing cosmological evidence for nonminimal coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 081001 (2025).
  20. G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Hints of nonminimally coupled gravity in DESI 2024 Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 181002 (2025).
  21. A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, Modified gravity interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI data, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123524 (2024).
  22. G. Ye and Y. Cai, NEC violation and ”beyond Horndeski” physics in light of DESI DR2, Phys. Rev. D 112, L121301 (2025).
  23. J. Pan and G. Ye, Non-minimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data, arXiv:2503.19898.
  24. S. Goldstein, M. Celoria, and F. Schmidt, Monodromic dark energy and DESI, arXiv:2507.16970.
  25. Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, and X. Zhang, The Quintom theory of dark energy after DESI DR2, arXiv:2505.24732.
  26. H. Adam, M. P. Hertzberg, D. Jiménez-Aguilar, and I. Khan, Comparing minimal and non-minimal quintessence models to 2025 DESI Data, arXiv:2509.13302.
  27. Z. Lu, T. Simon, and P. Zhang, Preference for evolving dark energy in light of the galaxy bispectrum, arXiv:2503.04602.
  28. M. Cataneo and K. Koyama, Non-parametric exploration of minimally coupled gravity with phantom crossing, arXiv:2512.13691.
  29. J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, Apparent w<−1 and a lower S8 from dark axion and dark baryons interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 181001 (2025).
  30. A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, S. Das, and K. Dutta, DESI results: Hint towards coupled dark matter and dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2025) 047.
  31. M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, I. Linear interacting dark energy: Analytical solutions and theoretical pathologies, Phys. Dark Universe 50, 102119 (2025).
  32. M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, II. Non-linear interacting dark energy: Analytical solutions and theoretical pathologies, Phys. Dark Universe 50, 102120 (2025).
  33. R. Shah, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal, Interacting dark sectors in light of DESI DR2, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 542, 2936 (2025).
  34. M. Braglia, X. Chen, and A. Loeb, Exotic dark matter and the DESI anomaly, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2025) 064.
  35. R. Chen, J. M. Cline, V. Muralidharan, and B. Salewicz, Quintessential dark energy crossing the phantom divide, arXiv:2508.19101.
  36. M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, III. Interacting dark energy: Summary of models, pathologies, and constraints, Phys. Dark Universe 50, 102121 (2025).
  37. D. Andriot, Phantom matters, Phys. Dark Universe 49, 102000 (2025).
  38. T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Constraints on interacting dark energy models from the DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation and DES supernovae data, Astrophys. J. 976, 1 (2024).
  39. W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, and P. G. Ferreira, Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2025) 034.
  40. D. Shlivko, P. J. Steinhardt, and C. L. Steinhardt, Optimal parameterizations for observational constraints on thawing dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2025) 054.
  41. W. Giarè, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, Robust preference for dynamical dark energy in DESI BAO and SN measurements, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 035.
  42. L. Giani, R. Von Marttens, and O. F. Piattella, The matter with(in) CPL, Open J. Astrophys. 8 (2025).
  43. B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, Physical vs phantom dark energy after DESI: thawing quintessence in a curved background, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.: Lett. 542, L31 (2025).
  44. P.-J. Wu, Comparison of dark energy models using late-universe observations, Phys. Rev. D 112, 043527 (2025).
  45. Y. Yang, Constraining deviations from ΛCDM in the Hubble expansion rate, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1350 (2025).
  46. D. H. Lee, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, and C. van de Bruck, The shape of dark energy: Constraining its evolution with a general parametrization, arXiv:2507.11432.
  47. T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, S.-H. Zhou, Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Robust evidence for dynamical dark energy in light of DESI DR2 and joint ACT, SPT, and Planck data, arXiv:2511.22512.
  48. B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, Model-agnostic assessment of dark energy after DESI DR1 BAO, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 120.
  49. R. Calderon et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024: Reconstructing dark energy using crossing statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 048.
  50. J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Nonparametric late-time expansion history reconstruction and implications for the Hubble tension in light of recent DESI and Type Ia supernovae data, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123519 (2024).
  51. M. Berti, E. Bellini, C. Bonvin, M. Kunz, M. Viel, and M. Zumalacarregui, Reconstructing the dark energy density in light of DESI BAO observations, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023518 (2025).
  52. J.-X. Li and S. Wang, Reconstructing dark energy with model independent methods after DESI DR2 BAO, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1308 (2025).
  53. G. Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 538, 875 (2025).
  54. G. Efstathiou, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a different angle, arXiv:2505.02658.
  55. Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023512 (2025).
  56. M. Vincenzi et al. (DES Collaboration), Comparing the DES-SN5YR and Pantheon+SN cosmology analyses: Investigation based on “Evolving Dark Energy or Supernovae systematics?”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 541, 2585 (2025).
  57. M. Cortês and A. R. Liddle, On DESI’s DR2 exclusion of ΛCDM, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett. 121, L125 (2025).
  58. H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, Dark energy in light of recent DESI BAO and Hubble tension, arXiv:2404.18579.
  59. L. Huang, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, The DESI 2024 hint for dynamical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 100413 (2025).
  60. I. D. Gialamas, G. Hütsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veermäe, Interpreting DESI 2024 BAO: Late-time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025).
  61. B. R. Dinda, R. Maartens, S. Saito, and C. Clarkson, Improved null tests of ΛCDM and FLRW in light of DESI DR2, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2025) 018.
  62. B. Ghosh and C. Bengaly, Consistency tests between SDSS and DESI BAO measurements, Phys. Dark Universe 46, 101699 (2024).
  63. P. Bansal and D. Huterer, Expansion-history preferences of DESI and external data, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023528 (2025).
  64. C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Pérez, and B. Ratra, Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially flat w0waCDM cosmological parametrization result, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123533 (2024).
  65. C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, and B. Ratra, Is the w0waCDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data?, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 34, 2550058 (2025).
  66. D.-C. Qiang, J.-Y. Jia, and H. Wei, New Insights into dark energy from DESI DR2 with CMB and SNIa, arXiv:2507.09981.
  67. H. Chaudhary, S. Capozziello, V. K. Sharma, and G. Mustafa, Does DESI DR2 challenge ΛCDM paradigm?, Astrophys. J. 992, 194 (2025).
  68. D. Camarena, K. Greene, J. Houghteling, and F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, DESIgning concordant distances in the age of precision cosmology: The impact of density fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083526 (2025).
  69. O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Model independent cosmographic constraints from DESI 2024, Astron. Astrophys. 690, A40 (2024).
  70. O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Dark energy reconstructions combining baryonic acoustic oscillation data with galaxy clusters and intermediate-redshift catalogs, Astron. Astrophys. 693, A187 (2025).
  71. A. Sousa-Neto, C. Bengaly, J. E. Gonzalez, and J. Alcaniz, Evidence for dynamical dark energy from DESI-DR2 and SN data? A symbolic regression analysis, Phys. Dark Universe 50, 102108 (2025).
  72. H. Chaudhary, S. Capozziello, V. K. Sharma, I. Gómez-Vargas, and G. Mustafa, Evidence for evolving dark energy from LRG1 and low-z SNe Ia data, arXiv:2508.10514.
  73. S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee, Hint towards inconsistency between BAO and Supernovae dataset: The evidence of redshift evolving dark energy from DESI DR2 is absent, arXiv:2504.16868.
  74. M. W. Toomey, G. Montefalcone, E. McDonough, and K. Freese, How theory-informed piors affect DESI evidence for evolving dark energy, arXiv:2509.13318.
  75. T. Adi, Lowering the horizon on dark energy: A late-time response to early solutions for the Hubble tension, arXiv:2509.12331.
  76. S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, Updated cosmological constraints in extended parameter space with Planck PR4, DESI BAO, and SN: Dynamical dark energy, neutrino masses, lensing anomaly, and the Hubble tension, Astrophys. J. Lett. 976, L11 (2024).
  77. S. Roy Choudhury, Cosmology in extended parameter space with DESI data release 2 Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: A 2σ+ detection of nonzero neutrino masses with an update on dynamical dark energy and lensing anomaly, Astrophys. J. Lett. 986, L31 (2025).
  78. E. V. Linder, Uplifting, depressing, and tilting dark energy, arXiv:2506.02122.
  79. E. Özülker, E. Di Valentino, and W. Giarè, Dark energy crosses the line: Quantifying and testing the evidence for phantom crossing, arXiv:2506.19053.
  80. M. Scherer, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and A. De Felice, Challenging the ΛCDM model: 5σ evidence for a dynamical dark energy late-time transition, Phys. Rev. D 112, 043513 (2025).
  81. R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, and W. L. Matthewson, Could we be fooled about phantom crossing?, arXiv:2506.15091.
  82. R. Liu, Y. Zhu, W. Hu, and V. Miranda, Phantom mirage from axion dark energy, arXiv:2510.14957.
  83. M. Park, K. M. Zurek, and S. Watson, A unified approach to cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. D 81, 124008 (2010).
  84. R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmological imprint of an energy component with general equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998).
  85. S. Tsujikawa, Quintessence: A review, Classical Quantum Gravity 30, 214003 (2013).
  86. B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988).
  87. E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006).
  88. E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003).
  89. M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001).
  90. R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, A. Ranquet, and A. A. Starobinsky, Scalar-tensor models of normal and phantom dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2006) 016.
  91. B. Boisseau, G. Esposito-Farese, D. Polarski, and A. A. Starobinsky, Reconstruction of a scalar tensor theory of gravity in an accelerating universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2236 (2000).
  92. R. R. Caldwell, A phantom menace?, Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002).
  93. D. F. Torres, Quintessence, superquintessence and observable quantities in Brans-Dicke and nonminimally coupled theories, Phys. Rev. D 66, 043522 (2002).
  94. C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese, and A. Vikman, Covariant Galileon, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084003 (2009).
  95. C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, Imperfect dark energy from kinetic gravity braiding, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2010) 026.
  96. A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, and E. Trincherini, The Galileon as a local modification of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064036 (2009).
  97. D. Traykova, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, C. García-García, J. Noller, and M. Zumalacárregui, Theoretical priors in scalar-tensor cosmologies: Shift-symmetric Horndeski models, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083502 (2021).
  98. A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Cosmology of a covariant Galileon field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 111301 (2010).
  99. G. Ye and A. Silvestri, Cubic Galileon gravity effects in the CMB, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023502 (2025).
  100. M. Zumalacarregui, Gravity in the era of equality: Towards solutions to the Hubble problem without fine-tuned initial conditions, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023523 (2020).
  101. S. Brahma and M. W. Hossain, Consistency of cubic Galileon cosmology: Model-independent bounds from background expansion and perturbative analyses, Universe 7, 167 (2021).
  102. A. Barreira, B. Li, C. M. Baugh, and S. Pascoli, Linear perturbations in Galileon gravity models, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124016 (2012).
  103. A. Barreira, B. Li, C. Baugh, and S. Pascoli, The observational status of Galileon gravity after Planck, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2014) 059.
  104. C. Leloup, V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, J. Neveu, and A. De Mattia, Observational status of the Galileon model general solution from cosmological data and gravitational waves, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2019) 011.
  105. J. Renk, M. Zumalacárregui, F. Montanari, and A. Barreira, Galileon gravity in light of ISW, CMB, BAO and H0 data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2017) 020.
  106. S. Peirone, G. Benevento, N. Frusciante, and S. Tsujikawa, Cosmological data favor Galileon ghost condensate over ΛCDM, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063540 (2019).
  107. N. Frusciante, S. Peirone, L. Atayde, and A. De Felice, Phenomenology of the generalized cubic covariant Galileon model and cosmological bounds, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064001 (2020).
  108. A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Conditions for the cosmological viability of the most general scalar-tensor theories and their applications to extended Galileon dark energy models, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2012) 007.
  109. D. J. Bartlett, H. Desmond, and P. G. Ferreira, Constraints on galileons from the positions of supermassive black holes, Phys. Rev. D 103, 023523 (2021).
  110. A. Barreira, B. Li, A. Sanchez, C. M. Baugh, and S. Pascoli, Parameter space in Galileon gravity models, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103511 (2013).
  111. S. Tsujikawa, Crossing the phantom divide in scalar-tensor and vector-tensor theories, arXiv:2508.17231.
  112. A. Samaddar and S. S. Singh, CPL-parametrized cosmic expansion in Galileon gravity: Constraints from recent data, Phys. Dark Universe 50, 102162 (2025).
  113. E. Bellini and I. Sawicki, Maximal freedom at minimum cost: Linear large-scale structure in general modifications of gravity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2014) 050.
  114. M. Zumalacárregui, E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, J. Lesgourgues, and P. G. Ferreira, hi_class: Horndeski in the cosmic linear anisotropy solving system, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2017) 019.
  115. E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, and M. Zumalacárregui, hi_class: Background evolution, initial conditions and approximation schemes, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2020) 008.
  116. C. García-García, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, D. Traykova, and M. Zumalacárregui, Theoretical priors in scalar-tensor cosmologies: Thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063508 (2020).
  117. D. Scolnic et al., The Pantheon+analysis: The full data set and light-curve release, Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022).
  118. D. Rubin et al., Union through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe using a unified Bayesian framework, Astrophys. J. 986, 231 (2025).
  119. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), The dark energy survey: Cosmology results with ∼1500 new high-redshift Type Ia supernovae using the Full 5 yr Data Set, Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024).
  120. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020).
  121. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  122. F. J. Qu et al. (ACT Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A measurement of the DR6 CMB lensing power spectrum and its implications for structure growth, Astrophys. J. 962, 112 (2024).
  123. M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 gravitational lensing map and cosmological parameters, Astrophys. J. 962, 113 (2024).
  124. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020).
  125. J. Torrado and A. Lewis, cobaya: Code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2021) 057.
  126. W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, polychord: Nested sampling for cosmology, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, L61 (2015).
  127. A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002).
  128. H. Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability, 1st ed., Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1939).
  129. R. Trotta, Applications of Bayesian model selection to cosmological parameters, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 378, 72 (2007).
  130. R. Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemp. Phys. 49, 71 (2008).
  131. K. P. Burnham and D. R. Anderson, Advanced issues and deeper insights, in Model Selection and Multimodel Inference (Springer, New York, 2nd ed.2002).
  132. A. R. Liddle, Information criteria for astrophysical model selection, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 377, L74 (2007).
  133. P. G. Ferreira, W. J. Wolf, and J. Read, The spectre of underdetermination in modern cosmology, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 3, 1 (2025).
  134. N. Shah, K. Koyama, and J. Noller, Dark energy constraints in light of theoretical priors, arXiv:2507.19450.
  135. M. Ishak et al., Modified gravity constraints from the full shape modeling of clustering measurements from DESI 2024, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2025) 053.
  136. J.-P. Uzan, Fundamental constants: From measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology, Living Rev. Relativity 28, 6 (2025).
  137. C. M. Will, The Confrontation between general relativity and experiment, Living Rev. Relativity 17, 4 (2014).
  138. J. Ke, J. Luo, C.-G. Shao, Y.-J. Tan, W.-H. Tan, and S.-Q. Yang, Combined test of the gravitational inverse-square law at the centimeter range, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 211101 (2021).
  139. A. Bassi, L. Cacciapuoti, S. Capozziello et al., A way forward for fundamental physics in space, npj Microgravity 8, 49 (2022).
  140. E. Babichev and C. Deffayet, An introduction to the Vainshtein mechanism, Classical Quantum Gravity 30, 184001 (2013).
  141. C. Burrage, B. Coltman, A. Padilla, D. Saadeh, and T. Wilson, Massive Ggalileons and Vainshtein screening, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2021) 050.
  142. E. Belgacem et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group), Testing modified gravity at cosmological distances with LISA standard sirens, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 007 (2019) 024.
  143. M. Lagos, M. Fishbach, P. Landry, and D. E. Holz, Standard sirens with a running Planck mass, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083504 (2019).
  144. W. J. Wolf and M. Lagos, Standard sirens as a novel probe of dark energy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 061101 (2020).
  145. J. A. Kable, G. Benevento, N. Frusciante, A. De Felice, and S. Tsujikawa, Probing modified gravity with integrated Sachs-Wolfe CMB and galaxy cross-correlations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2022) 002.
  146. Z. Yao, G. Ye, and A. Silvestri, A general model for dark energy crossing the phantom divide, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2025) 078.
  147. G. W. Horndeski, Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974).
  148. C. Charmousis, E. J. Copeland, A. Padilla, and P. M. Saffin, General second order scalar-tensor theory, self tuning, and the Fab Four, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 051101 (2012).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 023551– Published 30 January, 2026
  • Received 23 September 2025
  • Accepted 14 January 2026
  • Corrected 24 February 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation