- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

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

Assessing Cosmological Evidence for Nonminimal Coupling

William J. Wolf1,*, Carlos García-García1, Theodore Anton1,2, and Pedro G. Ferreira1

  • *Contact author: william.wolf@stx.ox.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 081001 – Published 19 August, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/jysf-k72m

Abstract

The recent observational evidence of deviations from the Lambda cold dark matter model points toward the presence of evolving dark energy. The simplest possibility consists of a cosmological scalar field φ, dubbed “quintessence,” driving the accelerated expansion. We assess the evidence for the existence of such a scalar field. We find that, if the accelerated expansion is driven by quintessence, the data favor a potential energy V(φ) that is concave, i.e., m2=d2V/dφ2<0. Furthermore, and more significantly, the data strongly favor a scalar field that is nonminimally coupled to gravity [Bayes factor log(B)=7.34±0.6], leading to time variations in the gravitational constant on cosmological scales, and the existence of fifth forces on smaller scales. The fact that we do not observe such fifth forces implies that either new physics must come into play on noncosmological scales or that quintessence is an unlikely explanation for the observed cosmic acceleration.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (135)

  1. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2025) 021.
  2. M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI DR2 results II: Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, arXiv:2503.14738.
  3. M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001).
  4. E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003).
  5. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  6. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020).
  7. 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).
  8. M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 gravitational lensing map and cosmological parameters, Astrophys. J. 962, 113 (2024).
  9. D. Scolnic et al., The pantheon+ analysis: The full data set and light-curve release, Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022).
  10. D. Rubin et al., Union through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe using a unified Bayesian framework, arXiv:2311.12098.
  11. 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).
  12. W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Scant evidence for thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083528 (2024).
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. K. Lodha et al., Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, arXiv:2503.14743.
  17. K. Lodha et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023532 (2025).
  18. G. Payeur, E. McDonough, and R. Brandenberger, Do observations prefer thawing quintessence?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123541 (2025).
  19. R. E. Keeley, K. N. Abazajian, M. Kaplinghat, and A. Shafieloo, The preference for evolving dark energy from cosmological distance measurements and possible signatures in the growth rate of perturbations, arXiv:2502.12667.
  20. S. Akthar and M. W. Hossain, General parametrization for energy density of quintessence field, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2025) 024.
  21. A. Alho and C. Uggla, New simple and accurate approximations for quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083549 (2025).
  22. 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.
  23. W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Underdetermination of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103519 (2023).
  24. P. G. Ferreira, W. J. Wolf, and J. Read, The spectre of underdetermination in modern cosmology, arXiv:2501.06095.
  25. M. Park, K. M. Zurek, and S. Watson, A unified approach to cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. D 81, 124008 (2010).
  26. K. V. Berghaus, J. A. Kable, and V. Miranda, Quantifying scalar field dynamics with DESI 2024 Y1 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103524 (2024).
  27. Y. Tada and T. Terada, Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations, Phys. Rev. D 109, L121305 (2024).
  28. D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Assessing observational constraints on dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138826 (2024).
  29. A. Notari, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, Consistent theories for the DESI dark energy fit, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2024) 025.
  30. G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Bounded dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023521 (2025).
  31. M. Berbig, Kick it like DESI: PNGB quintessence with a dynamically generated initial velocity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2025) 015.
  32. H. N. Luu, Y.-C. Qiu, and S. H. H. Tye, Dynamical dark energy from an ultralight axion, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023524 (2025).
  33. L. A. Ureña López et al. (DESI Collaboration), Updated cosmological constraints on axion dark energy with DESI, arXiv:2503.20178.
  34. 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.
  35. M. W. Hossain and A. Maqsood, Cosmological implications of Tracker scalar fields as dynamical dark energy, arXiv:2502.19274.
  36. 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).
  37. 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.
  38. G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, nonminimally coupled gravity as a physically viable fit to DESI 2024 BAO, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 181002 (2025).
  39. P. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, Model-independent cosmological inference post DESI DR1 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123502 (2024).
  40. A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Nonparametric reconstructions of dynamical dark energy via flexknots, arXiv:2503.08658.
  41. E. Moghtaderi, B. R. Hull, J. Quintin, and G. Geshnizjani, How much NEC breaking can the universe endure?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123552 (2025).
  42. G. Ye and Y. Cai, NEC violation and “beyond Horndeski” physics in light of DESI DR2, arXiv:2503.22515.
  43. G. Ye, Bridge the cosmological tensions with thawing gravity, arXiv:2411.11743.
  44. A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, Modified gravity interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI data, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123524 (2024).
  45. A. G. Ferrari, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, and D. Paoletti, Scalar-tensor gravity and DESI 2024 BAO data, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083523 (2025).
  46. A. Chudaykin, M. Kunz, and J. Carron, Modified gravity constraints with Planck ISW-lensing bispectrum, arXiv:2503.09893.
  47. J. Pan and G. Ye, nonminimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data, arXiv:2503.19898.
  48. 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.
  49. 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).
  50. 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).
  51. U. Andrade et al., Validation of the DESI DR2 measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars, arXiv:2503.14742.
  52. M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI DR2 results I: Baryon acoustic oscillations from the Lyman alpha forest, arXiv:2503.14739.
  53. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark Energy Survey: Implications for cosmological expansion models from the final DES baryon acoustic oscillation and supernova data, arXiv:2503.06712.
  54. J. Torrado and A. Lewis, cobaya: Code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2021) 057.
  55. W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, PolyChord: Nested sampling for cosmology, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, L61 (2015).
  56. H. Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability, Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1939), 1st ed.
  57. R. Trotta, Applications of Bayesian model selection to cosmological parameters, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 378, 72 (2007).
  58. S. Dutta and R. J. Scherrer, Hilltop quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 78, 123525 (2008).
  59. F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. Staveley-Smith, G. B. Poole, L. Campbell, Q. Parker, W. Saunders, and F. Watson, The 6dF galaxy survey: z≈0 measurements of the growth rate and σ8, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 423, 3430 (2012).
  60. T. Okumura et al., The Subaru FMOS galaxy redshift survey (FastSound). IV. New constraint on gravity theory from redshift space distortions at z∼1.4, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 68, 38 (2016).
  61. C. Blake et al., The WiggleZ dark energy survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z<1, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 425, 405 (2012).
  62. S. Alam et al. (BOSS Collaboration), The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017).
  63. B. E. Stahl, T. de Jaeger, S. S. Boruah, W. Zheng, A. V. Filippenko, and M. J. Hudson, Peculiar-velocity cosmology with Types Ia and II supernovae, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 505, 2349 (2021).
  64. F. G. Mohammad et al., The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS). An unbiased estimate of the growth rate of structure at ⟨z⟩=0.85 using the clustering of luminous blue galaxies, Astron. Astrophys. 610, A59 (2018).
  65. S. Alam et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021).
  66. W. J. Wolf and M. Lagos, Standard sirens as a novel probe of dark energy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 061101 (2020).
  67. M. Lagos and H. Zhu, Gravitational couplings in Chameleon models, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2020) 061.
  68. C. Dalang and L. Lombriser, Limitations on standard sirens tests of gravity from screening, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2019) 013.
  69. J.-P. Uzan, Fundamental constants: From measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology, arXiv:2410.07281.
  70. L. Pogosian, M. Raveri, K. Koyama, M. Martinelli, A. Silvestri, G.-B. Zhao, J. Li, S. Peirone, and A. Zucca, Imprints of cosmological tensions in reconstructed gravity, Nat. Astron. 6, 1484 (2022).
  71. E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, and A. E. Nelson, Tests of the gravitational inverse-square law, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53, 77121 (2003).
  72. C. M. Will, The confrontation between general relativity and experiment, Living Rev. Relativity 17, 4 (2014).
  73. B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft, Nature (London) 425, 374 (2003).
  74. R. S. Park et al., Precession of Mercury’s perihelion from ranging to the MESSENGER spacecraft, Astron. J. 153, 121 (2017).
  75. D. E. Smith et al., Gravity field and internal structure of Mercury from MESSENGER, Science 336, 214 (2012).
  76. J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Chameleon cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 69, 044026 (2004).
  77. P. Brax, S. Casas, H. Desmond, and B. Elder, Testing screened modified gravity, Universe 8, 11 (2021).
  78. J. Sakstein, Tests of gravity with future space-based experiments, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064028 (2018).
  79. V. Vardanyan and D. J. Bartlett, Modeling and testing screening mechanisms in the laboratory and in space, Universe 9, 340 (2023).
  80. C. Briddon, T. Clifton, and P. Fleury, Emergent cosmological expansion in scalar–tensor theories of gravity, Classical Quantum Gravity 42, 015013 (2025).
  81. A. I. Vainshtein, To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass, Phys. Lett. 39B, 393 (1972).
  82. T. Anton, P. G. Ferreira, C. García-García, and W. J. Wolf, Constructing observationally viable quintessence across cosmological and astrophysical scales (to be published).
  83. T. Kobayashi, Horndeski theory and beyond: A review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 086901 (2019).
  84. A. Gómez-Valent, V. Pettorino, and L. Amendola, Update on coupled dark energy and the H0 tension, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123513 (2020).
  85. L. Amendola, Coupled quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000).
  86. W. Giarè, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, Interacting dark energy after DESI baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 251003 (2024).
  87. A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, S. Das, and K. Dutta, DESI results: Hint towards coupled dark matter and dark energy, arXiv:2503.10806.
  88. R. Shah, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal, Interacting dark sectors in light of DESI DR2, arXiv:2503.21652.
  89. E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. S. Souza, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, New constraints on iInteracting dark energy from DESI DR2 BAO observations, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123511 (2025).
  90. J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, Apparent w<−1 and a lower S8 from dark axion and dark baryons interactions, arXiv:2503.16415.
  91. D. I. Kaiser, Nonminimal couplings in the early universe: Multifield models of inflation and the latest observations, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 183, 41 (2016).
  92. I. L. Buchbinder, Effective Action in Quantum Gravity (Routledge, 1992), 1st ed., 10.1201/9780203758922.
  93. N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1982).
  94. G. Esposito-Farese and D. Polarski, Scalar tensor gravity in an accelerating universe, Phys. Rev. D 63, 063504 (2001).
  95. C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, and R. Jackiw, A new improved energy—momentum tensor, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 59, 42 (1970).
  96. T. Markkanen and A. Tranberg, A simple method for one-loop renormalization in curved space-time, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2013) 045.
  97. S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: From F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models, Phys. Rep. 505, 59 (2011).
  98. T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Modified gravity and cosmology, Phys. Rep. 513, 1 (2012).
  99. T. Buchert and S. Räsänen, Backreaction in late-time cosmology, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 57 (2012).
  100. T. Buchert et al., Is there proof that backreaction of inhomogeneities is irrelevant in cosmology?, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 215021 (2015).
  101. S. Räsänen, Accelerated expansion from structure formation, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2006) 003.
  102. A. Heinesen, Multipole decomposition of the general luminosity distance Hubble law—A new framework for observational cosmology, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2021) 008.
  103. A. Seifert, Z. G. Lane, M. Galoppo, R. Ridden-Harper, and D. L. Wiltshire, Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.: Lett. 537, L55 (2024).
  104. G. Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 538, 875 (2025).
  105. E. O. Colgáin and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, DESI and SNe: Dynamical dark energy, Ωm tension or systematics?, arXiv:2412.12905.
  106. Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023512 (2025).
  107. 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).
  108. X. T. Tang, D. Brout, T. Karwal, C. Chang, V. Miranda, and M. Vincenzi, Uniting the observed dynamical dark energy preference with the discrepancies in Ωm and H0 across cosmological probes, Astrophys. J. Lett. 983, L27 (2025).
  109. M. Vincenzi et al. (DES Collaboration), Comparing the DES-SN5YR and pantheon+ SN cosmology analyses: Investigation based on “Evolving Dark Energy or Supernovae systematics?”, arXiv:2501.06664.
  110. B. Ghosh and C. Bengaly, Consistency tests between SDSS and DESI BAO measurements, Phys. Dark Universe 46, 101699 (2024).
  111. A. Notari, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, BAO vs. SN evidence for evolving dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2025) 048.
  112. H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, Dark energy in light of recent DESI BAO and Hubble tension, arXiv:2404.18579.
  113. D. Wang, The self-consistency of DESI analysis and Comment on “Does DESI 2024 confirm ΛCDM?”, arXiv:2404.13833.
  114. B. R. Dinda, A new diagnostic for the null test of dynamical dark energy in light of DESI 2024 and other BAO data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2024) 062.
  115. C.-G. Park, J. C. 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).
  116. 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?, arXiv:2410.13627.
  117. W. Giarè, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy, Phys. Dark Universe 48, 101906 (2025).
  118. I. Banik and V. Kalaitzidis, Testing the local void solution to the Hubble tension using baryon acoustic oscillation measurements over the last twenty years, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 540, 545 (2025).
  119. P. Bansal and D. Huterer, Expansion-history preferences of DESI and external data, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023528 (2025).
  120. B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, Model-agnostic assessment of dark energy after DESI DR1 BAO, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 120.
  121. M. Cortês and A. R. Liddle, Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2024) 007.
  122. S. Gao, Q. Gao, Y. Gong, and X. Lu, Null tests with Gaussian process, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 280408 (2025).
  123. Z.-Y. Peng and Y.-S. Piao, Dark energy and lensing anomaly in Planck CMB data, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023502 (2025).
  124. P. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, A new ∼5σ tension at characteristic redshift from DESI-DR1 BAO and DES-SN5YR Observations, arXiv:2503.02880.
  125. 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).
  126. L. Huang, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, The DESI 2024 hint for dynamical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae, arXiv:2502.04212.
  127. 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).
  128. B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, Physical vs phantom dark energy after DESI: thawing quintessence in a curved background (2025).
  129. N. J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar, and J. Colin, A test of the cosmological principle with quasars, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L51 (2021).
  130. N. J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, and S. Sarkar, A challenge to the standard cosmological model, Astrophys. J. Lett. 937, L31 (2022).
  131. A. Sah, M. Rameez, S. Sarkar, and C. G. Tsagas, Anisotropy in pantheon+ supernovae, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 596 (2025).
  132. 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.
  133. E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, and M. Zumalacárregui, hi_class background evolution, initial conditions and approximation schemes, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2020) 008.
  134. D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS). Part II: Approximation schemes, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2011) 034.
  135. M. S. Madsen, Scalar fields in curved space-times, Classical Quantum Gravity 5, 627 (1988).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 081001– Published 19 August, 2025
  • Received 14 April 2025
  • Revised 5 June 2025
  • Accepted 28 July 2025
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