Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Computational modeling study demonstrates non-linear dark energy reconstruction in single-scalar-field cosmological models, indicating improved feasibility for detailed cosmic simulations.
The large variety and number of dark energy (DE) theories make it impractical to perform detailed analyses on a case-by-case basis, which has motivated proposals to “parameterize” theories to reduce the size of theory space. The leading approach to do this is the effective field theory of dark energy (EFTofDE), which can describe general Horndeski-type theories with a small number of observationally accessible time-dependent functions. However, the EFTofDE primarily works for linear perturbations, and extending it to obtain a fully non-linear description of DE theories, which is critical for theories with screening mechanisms, is challenging. In this paper, we present a general method for reconstructing the non-linear DE Lagrangian from the background expansion history and certain linear-perturbation quantities, building upon the EFTofDE framework. Using numerical examples, we demonstrate that this method is applicable to a wide range of single-scalar-field dark energy and modified gravity theories, including quintessence, scalar-tensor theory, k-essence, and generalized cubic Galileon with shift symmetry. For each of these theories, we discuss the validity of the method and factors affecting its results. While this method involves solving differential equations, we find that the initial conditions are not important for quintessence, scalar-tensor theory and k-essence, while for shift-symmetric cubic Galileon, the generic tracker solution can help transform differential equations into algebraic equations. This offers a useful framework to connect cosmological observations at the background and linear-perturbation levels to the underlying non-linear dynamics of dark energy, and will enable cosmological simulations to analyze and examine DE theories systematically and in much greater detail.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: