# Probing gravitational non-minimal coupling with dark energy surveys

- 315 Downloads

## Abstract

We investigate observational constraints on a specific one-parameter extension to the minimal quintessence model, where the quintessence field acquires a quadratic coupling to the scalar curvature through a coupling constant \(\xi \). The value of \(\xi \) is highly suppressed in typical tracker models if the late-time cosmic acceleration is driven at some field values near the Planck scale. We test \(\xi \) in a second class of models in which the field value today becomes a free model parameter. We use the combined data from type-Ia supernovae, cosmic microwave background, baryon acoustic oscillations and matter power spectrum, to weak lensing measurements and find a best-fit value \(\xi {>}0.289\) where \(\xi = 0\) is excluded outside the 95% confidence region. The effective gravitational constant \(G_\mathrm{eff}\) subject to the hint of a non-zero \(\xi \) is constrained to \(-0.003< 1- G_\mathrm{eff}/G < 0.033\) at the same confidence level on cosmological scales, and it can be narrowed down to \(1- G_\mathrm{eff}/G < 2.2 \times 10^{-5}\) when combining with Solar System tests.

## 1 Introduction

Cosmological observations in support of the late-time cosmic acceleration, such as measurements for the Type-Ia supernovae [1, 2], the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation [3, 4], the large-scale structure and baryon acoustic oscillations [5, 6], strongly suggest that the current universe density must consist of some unfamiliar “negative pressure matter,” namely, dark energy. Dark energy can be explained by a cosmological constant (\(\Lambda \)) with an extremely tiny density \(\rho _{\Lambda }\approx 10^{-47}\) \(\mathrm {GeV}^4\), compared with the typical energy scales in particle physics. Another possible candidate for such a source, as legitimate as imposing \(\Lambda \), is referred to a quintessence component whose dynamics is described by a scalar field \(\phi \) [7].

Quintessence with sufficiently flat potentials exhibits attractor solutions such that wide ranges of initial conditions approach the scalar field dominated universe (\(\Omega _\phi =1\)). One of the common forms is the exponential potential \(V(\phi )\sim e^{-\lambda \kappa \phi }\) with \(\kappa ^2 = 8 \pi G\), where the cosmic acceleration is realized if \(\lambda ^2 < 2\) [8, 9, 10, 11]. These late-time attractor solutions, however, require nearly fixed values of the quintessence density \(\rho _\phi \) all along the evolution history of the universe. The fact that \(\rho _\phi \) coincides with the (dust-like) matter density today implies that the initial densities of the two species have to be in some huge yet precise hierarchy, leading to the cosmic coincidence problem [12].

On the other hand, tracker fields are introduced as a specific class of quintessence aiming to solve the cosmic coincidence problem [12, 13]. The main advantage of a tracker field is that the initial value of \(\Omega _\phi \) can be close to unity to within few orders of magnitude, and thus it accepts the assumption of equipartition after inflation [12, 13]. Typical tracker solutions have been found in potentials of the inverse power-law \(V(\phi )\sim \phi ^{-\alpha }\) with \(\alpha > 0\) [8, 14, 15]. Unfortunately, recent observational constraints on the tracker fields require \(\alpha \ll 1\) [16, 17, 18, 19], which significantly narrows down the tracking basin of attraction [20]. To mimic a cosmological constant by taking \(\alpha \rightarrow 0\), the present energy density must be realized from the fine-tuned initial condition \(\rho _\phi \simeq 10^{-47}\) \(\mathrm {GeV}^4\), only to duplicate the cosmic coincidence problem.

Given these considerations, many efforts have been made to address the extended scenario in which the quintessence field is non-minimally coupled to the scalar curvature *R* ([21, 22]; see also [23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]) through a non-minimal coupling \(\xi R \phi ^2\), where \(\xi \) is the coupling constant. There exist tracking solutions purely induced by the non-minimal coupling such that a very wide range of initial values of \(\rho _\phi \) can evolve toward the late-time attractor of the cosmic acceleration, even if the potential is extremely flat [32]. This gravitational effect is manifest under conditions of the R-boost [22] or the slow-roll [33]. In either case, the gravitational tracker solutions are obtained without assuming particular forms of the potentials.

A fine-tuned potential, however, is needed to achieve a preferable cosmic acceleration, despite that the gravitational tracker solutions help to relax the cosmic coincidence problem. In particular, when the potential is exactly flat the extended quintessence model [21] can be cast into the prototype Brans–Dicke (PBD) theory [34, 35] but with a time-varying Brans–Dicke parameter \(\omega \) depending on the value of \(\phi \). Constraints on the value of \(\omega \) have been widely studied from the CMB anisotropy and structure formations [36, 37, 38, 39, 40], the parametrized post-Newtonian parameters [41, 42, 43, 44], and the big-bang nucleosynthesis [45, 46, 47]. These constraints in terms put a tight bound on the non-minimal coupling as \(\vert \xi \vert < 10^{-2}\) in the inverse power-law model of the [14] type, given that the scalar field must reach a Planck scale by now (\(\phi _0 \sim 10^{19}\) GeV) after rolling on the track from arbitrary initial conditions [22].

In this work, we show that the restriction on \(\xi \) shall be significantly reduced in other types of potentials where the present day value of field can be freely determined by its initial conditions. As a concrete example, we put the quintessence field in the slow-roll exponential potential type [8, 9, 10, 11] where the field value is nearly frozen all along the expansion history when \(\lambda \rightarrow 0\). We investigate the effects of \(\xi \) from an analytic approach to the background equation of state *w* and to the effective gravitational constants on cosmological scales or inside the Solar System. These modified gravitational constants are sketched by the phenomenological functions \(\mu \) and \(\Sigma \), which can be useful for testing the deviation from the \(\Lambda \)CDM model [48, 49, 50]. We then confront the exponential model with the recent observational data to fit the most preferable value of \(\xi \) on cosmological scales. We pick up the absolutely flat model (\(\lambda = 0 \)) as our paradigm for which its background dynamics is identical to that of \(\Lambda \)CDM where \(\xi \) only modifies the growth dynamics through \(\mu \) or \(\Sigma \). It is also interesting that the flat model with a constant potential has only the same free parameters as that of the PBD theory. Finally, we study the possible near future cosmic evolution based on a non-zero \(\xi \).

This article is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, we review basic equations of a non-minimally coupled scalar field. In Sect. 3, we provide the analytic and numerical results of the field evolution in the exponential potential model, including the constant potential model as a special case. We use observational data to obtain the best-fit or constraints on the model parameters, as shown in Sect. 4. We present a summary and discussions in Sect. 5.

## 2 Extended quintessence models

### 2.1 Background equations

*R*given by the action

*a*(

*t*), the background field equations are given by

### 2.2 Perturbation functions

Let us characterize the effects of the non-minimal coupling to the gravitational constants in the linear density perturbations. The full perturbed Einstein equations are provided in Sect. Appendix A: (see also [51, 52]). For the study of non-linear perturbations one may refer to [53, 54]

## 3 Model parameters

*w*is basically indistinguishable from that of the \(\Lambda \)CDM model, but

*w*may notably deviate from \(-1\) in the near future if \(\xi > 0\); see the upper panel of Fig. 1. In cases where \(\lambda > 0\), the actual value of

*w*given by the numerical result in the lower panel of Fig. 1 can differ from that of the \(\Lambda \)CDM model, and the difference is enhanced if \(\xi > 0\). Viable cosmic expansions can be realized even if \(\xi > 1.5\), but the tracking basin of attraction is tightly restricted. For \(\lambda \ge 0\), the \(\Sigma \) function tends to deviate from (converge to) unity since matter became to dominate the universe, given that \(\phi \) is governed by an increasing (decreasing) mode when \(\xi > 0\) (\(\xi < 0\)), as shown in Fig. 2.

### 3.1 Constant potential models

^{1}

*w*is a constant, this equation can be exactly solved as

#### 3.1.1 (a) \(\xi \le 0\)

If \(\xi = 0\), \(\phi \) is governed by a constant mode and the kinetic energy decays rapidly. Eventually, we find \(\rho _\phi = V_0\) and \(w_\phi = -1\) for arbitrary initial conditions. In this limit the quintessence field reproduces the result of a cosmological constant.

^{2}

Given that \(w_\phi > 0\) in MD when \(\xi < 0\), \(\rho _\phi \) decays faster than the matter density as \(\phi \) approaches zero. Eventually, the value of \(\phi \) is frozen around zero and one reproduces the behavior of a cosmological constant with \(w_\phi \rightarrow -1\) as \(\rho _\phi \rightarrow V_0\).

#### 3.1.2 (b) \(0 < \xi \le 3/2\)

- (i)During RD or MD where \(\rho _\phi \) is subdominant, the energy density is increasing with time. To see this, we may denote the solution at this stage aswhere the decreasing mode has been neglected and \((C_{1},L_{1}) = (C_{+},L_{+})\). The energy density with \(\phi =\phi _1\) takes the form$$\begin{aligned} \phi _1 = C_{1} e^{L_{1} N}, \end{aligned}$$(36)where it can be checked that \(\rho _\phi < 0\) in both RD and MD. One may deduce \(w_\phi = w_1\) from Eq. (37) as \(w_1(w,\xi ) = w-\frac{2}{3}L_1(w,\xi )\), which gives$$\begin{aligned} \rho _\phi = \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\left( \frac{L_1^2}{2} - 3 \xi - 6 \xi L_1 \right) H^2 \phi _1^2 , \end{aligned}$$(37)where \(-1 \le w_1 < 0\) in MD for \(0 < \xi \le 3/2\).$$\begin{aligned} w_1= \frac{1}{3}\;\;\;(\mathrm {RD})\;\;\;\mathrm {and}\;\;\; w_1 =\frac{1}{2} - \sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+\frac{4}{3}\xi }\;\;\;(\mathrm {MD}), \end{aligned}$$(38)
- (ii)Once the density of \(V_0\) is dominant, the universe will undergo a de Sitter expansion. Consequently, we can assume that \(w = -1\) with \(H^\prime = 0\) so that \(H = H_{\mathrm {ds}}\) is a constant. Accordingly, Eq. (15) is simplified asThe corresponding solution (keeping only the increasing mode) reads$$\begin{aligned} \phi ^{\prime \prime } + 3 \phi ^\prime - 12 \xi \phi = 0. \end{aligned}$$(39)where$$\begin{aligned} \phi _2 = C_{2} e^{L_{2} N}, \end{aligned}$$(40)and the energy density (10) is of the form$$\begin{aligned} L_{2}= - \frac{3}{2} + \sqrt{\frac{9}{4} + 12\xi }, \end{aligned}$$(41)Note that \(L_2 > 0\) since \(\xi > 0\) and therefore, \(\phi \) remains increasing with time during the \(V_0\) domination epoch.$$\begin{aligned} \rho _\phi = V_0 + \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\left( \frac{L_2^2}{2} - 3 \xi - 6 \xi L_2 \right) H_{\mathrm {ds}}^2 \phi _2^2 . \end{aligned}$$(42)
- (iii)Since \(\phi _2^2\propto a^{2L_2}\) is increasing with time, the subdominant energy density of \(\rho _\phi \) (the second term in the right-hand side of Eq. (42)) eventually becomes comparable with \(V_0\), where the de Sitter expansion is interrupted. To calculate the cosmological evolution after the \(V_0\)-domination, we study the asymptotic universe, which has a constant equation of state \(w=w_3\), satisfying$$\begin{aligned} \phi ^{\prime \prime } + \frac{3}{2}( 1 - w_3 ) \phi ^\prime - 3 \xi \left( 1 - 3 w_3 \right) \phi = 0. \end{aligned}$$(43)

*N*such that \(\phi _3 \gg 6/(L_3^2 - 6 \xi - 12 \xi L_3)\), the left-hand side of Eq. (46) is negligible and the lowest order of the Friedmann equation gives \(\rho _\phi = V_0+\rho _\phi ^{nc}=0\). The asymptotic solution shows a fine cancelation between \(V_0\) and \(\rho _\phi ^{nc}\) (the second term in the right-hand side of Eq. (47)). This cancelation implies \(\phi _3^2\sim H^{-2}\propto a^{3(1+w_3)}\), which leads to

#### 3.1.3 (c) \(\xi > 3/2\)

If the initial value of \(\rho _\phi \) is too small such that it remains negative during MD, Eq. (38) shows that \(w_1 < -1\) for \(\xi > 3/2\) and therefore, the energy density \(\rho _\phi \) will always be dominated by the non-minimal coupling term (\(\rho _\phi ^{nc}\)) as given by Eq. (37). In this case, \(\rho _\phi \) is always negative, and the constant potential \(V_0\) is never important so that there exhibits no epoch of the cosmic acceleration.

On the other hand, if \(\rho _\phi \) can be positive before MD, \(V_0\) will dominate the universe and drive a de Sitter expansion. Similarly, this de Sitter expansion shall be interrupted with the growths of \(\phi \) and \(\vert \rho _\phi ^{nc}\vert \), where the resulting solution has \(w=w_\phi =(-3+2\xi )/[3(1+2\xi )]\). However, since \(w_\phi > 0\) for \(\xi > 3/2\), the matter density \(\rho _M\) may eventually catch up with \(\rho _\phi \) and become one of the dominant density components.

### 3.2 Exponential potential models

*w*is the background equation of state, the asymptotic attractor is a scaling solution with \(\Omega _\phi =3(1+w)/\lambda ^2\) and \(w_\phi = w\). For \(0< \lambda ^2 < 3(1+w)\), the \(\phi \)-domination solution is stable, and the final state gives \(\Omega _\phi =1\) with \(w_\phi = -1+\lambda ^2/3\). One can see that the cosmic acceleration can be realized in the regime \(0< \lambda < \sqrt{2}\), where the asymptotic attractor solution conducts \(-1< w_\phi < -1/3\).

Since \(V_0\) corresponds to the energy scale of the dark energy domination, one finds that the potential term is negligibly small in the early time (\(N\ll 0\)), where the equation of motion (50) coincides with that of the constant potential, as given by Eq. (29). For simplicity, we assume that \(\phi \) is released from rest so that the solution (32) can be applied with the evolutions discussed as follows.

#### 3.2.1 (a) \(\xi < 0\)

For \(\xi < 0\), the non-minimal coupling term in the Klein–Gordon equation tends to pull back the scalar field from rolling down the potential, and the solution of \(\phi \) is a constant mode in RD and a decreasing mode in MD (see Sect. III A). Even if \(\phi \) is initially at rest, \(\rho _\phi \) can be much greater than the potential energy, and it takes the form of Eq. (34) with a nearly constant equation of state as given by Eq. (35). In this case \(\rho _\phi \) is decaying with time for \(N\ll 0\), and eventually approaches \(V(\phi )\) as \(\phi \rightarrow 0\).

Whenever \(\rho _\phi = V(\phi )\) is reached, the \(\phi \)-field will be temporarily frozen by the friction of the Hubble expansion with \(w_\phi \simeq -1\) until \(\rho _\phi \) starts to dominate the universe.

#### 3.2.2 (b) \(\xi > 0\)

- (i)
For \(\xi > 0\), a wide range of initial conditions can lead to a negative energy density during RD and MD with \(\vert \rho _\phi \vert > V(\phi )\), where \(\rho _\phi \) is given by Eq. (37) and increasing toward \(V(\phi )\). Once \(\rho _\phi = V(\phi )\) is reached, the energy density becomes positive and the value of \(\phi \) remains increasing due to the effect of the non-minimal coupling.

- (ii)
Once the \(\phi \)-field dominates the total energy density, the universe experiences a (quasi) de Sitter expansion for a sufficiently small \(\lambda \). The solution and the energy density of \(\phi \) at this stage are given by Eqs. (40) and (42), respectively.

- (iii)
Similar to the case of a constant potential, this de Sitter expansion is going to be interrupted with the increase of \(\phi \), once the contribution of the non-minimal coupling term in \(\rho _\phi \) is comparable with \(V(\phi )\). For \(0< \xi < 3/2\), the solution that follows the de Sitter expansion is a power-law expansion with \(w = w_\phi = (-3+2\xi )/[3(1+2\xi )]\) from a temporary fine cancelation of the energy density (that is, \(\rho _\phi =0\); see Eq. (48)).

- (iv)As \(\phi \) keeps growing, \(V(\phi )\) is exponentially decaying with time so that at some epoch the potential energy suddenly transits to the kinetic energy, leading to a phase of the super kinetic-energy domination with \(w_\phi > 1\). Given that \(V(\phi )\) becomes negligible, the lowest order of the Friedmann equation giveswhere \(\phi _4 = C_4 e^{L_4 N}\) is the solution of the Klein–Gordon equation with the potential term neglected, and \(L_4= -3/4(1-w_4)+\sqrt{9/16(1-w_4)^2 + 3\xi (1-3w_4)}\). Since Eq. (53) implies \(L_4 = 6\xi +\sqrt{6\xi (1+6\xi )}\), one can find that$$\begin{aligned} 0 = \frac{1}{\kappa ^2} \left( \frac{L_4^2}{2}-3\xi -6\xi L_4\right) H^2\phi _4^2, \end{aligned}$$(53)$$\begin{aligned} w_4 = 1 + 8\xi + 4\sqrt{\frac{2\xi }{3}(1+6\xi )}. \end{aligned}$$(54)
- (v)The density \(\rho _\phi \) once again turns into negative when \(V(\phi )\) is subsidiary with the increase of \(\phi \). We may denote the solution at the final stage as \(\phi _5= C_5 e^{L_5 N}\), where \(L_5= -3/4(1-w_5)+\sqrt{9/16(1-w_5)^2 + 3\xi (1-3w_5)}\). The asymptotic attractor is a scaling solution in which the density of the \(\phi \)-field closely tracks that of the dust-like matter, that is, \(\rho _\phi = -\rho _M \propto a^{-3}\), while the total energy density of the universe \(\rho _{\mathrm {tot}}\ll \rho _M\) is always positive. Since \(\rho _\phi \propto H^2\phi _5^2 \propto a^{-3}\), we can obtain$$\begin{aligned} w_5=\frac{4\xi }{3(1+4\xi )}, \quad \mathrm {and} \quad L_5=\frac{2\xi }{1+4\xi }, \quad (\xi > 0). \end{aligned}$$(55)

## 4 Observational constraints

In this section we confront the extended quintessence model with cosmological observations. We define \(\varepsilon \equiv \Omega _V/\Omega _\phi -1\) to parametrize the fraction of the dark energy density in addition to the potential. The density fraction induced by the non-minimal coupling is then given by \(\vert \Omega _{\phi }^{nc}\vert \equiv \vert \varepsilon \,\Omega _\phi \vert \), where \(\varepsilon \) is positive (negative) for \(\xi > 0\) (\(\xi < 0\)). Given that in the potential (26) a constant shift of the field value \(\phi \) can be absorbed into a redefined \(V_0\), we will fix \(V_0\) and treat \(\phi _0\) as a free parameter to be determined by the present day value \(\varepsilon = \varepsilon _0\). To do so we have to further fix \(\lambda \) so that the exponential model has in total 2 + 6 parameters, which are \(\xi \) and \(\varepsilon _0\) plus the six parameters of the standard spatially flat \(\Lambda \)CDM model [3]. Our optimal choice for the potential is \(\lambda = 0\) where the background expansion closely reproduces that of the \(\Lambda \)CDM model. The prior \(\xi > 0 \) is chosen due to the enhancement on the value of \(\phi \) at low redshifts, which results in interesting modifications of *w* and \(\Sigma \) to the values in the \(\Lambda \)CDM model (see Sect. 3). On the other hand each sample with \(\xi < 0\) eventually converges to the result of \(\Lambda \)CDM.

We fit the model parameters by virtue of the Markov-chain Monte Carlo approach through the cosmomc program [59]. The background and linear perturbation equations given in Sect. 2 and Appendix Appendix A: are numerically solved by the mgcamb package [60, 61], where formalisms in both the conformal Newtonian gauge and the synchronous gauge are used. We have included both the scalar and the tensor mode perturbations in our code, as considered in [62, 63].

We use the selected data sets from the Planck 2015 full-mission release [64, 65] for the CMB temperature and polarizations (and partially for the gravitational lensing [66]); the 6dF Galaxy Survey [67], the SDSS DR7 [68], the SDSS-III (BOSS) DR10 and 11 [6] for the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO); the SDSS DR4 and WiggleZ [69] for the matter power spectrum (MPK); the SCP Union 2.1 [70] for the supernova survey; and the CFHTLenS [71] for the weak lensing effect.

Upper bounds of the model parameters \(\varepsilon _0\) and \(\Sigma m_{\nu }\) in the constant potential model with the fixed non-minimal coupling parameter \(\xi \) by using the combined PLANCK, BAO, MPK, SNIa, and WL data

\(\xi = 0.1\) | \(\xi = 0.3\) | \(\xi = 0.5\) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

68% | 95% | 68% | 95% | 68% | 95% | |

\(\varepsilon _0\) | 0.016 | 0.035 | 0.051 | 0.114 | 0.085 | 0.201 |

\(\Sigma m_{\nu }\,(\mathrm {eV})\;\;\;\;\; \) | 0.092 | 0.181 | 0.089 | 0.177 | 0.083 | 0.163 |

Constraints of the model parameters at the 95% confidence level in the constant potential model with the fixed non-minimal coupling parameter \(\xi \) by using the combined PLANCK, BAO, MPK, SNIa, and WL data

\(\xi = 0.1\) | \(\xi = 0.3\) | \(\xi = 0.5\) | |
---|---|---|---|

\(100\,\Omega _bh^2\) | \({2.230}_{-0.026}^{+0.027}\) | \({2.230}\pm 0.027\) | \({2.232}\pm 0.027\) |

\(100\,\Omega _ch^2\) | \({11.842}^{+0.217}_{-0.213}\) | \({11.815}\pm 0.207\) | \({11.791}^{+0.198}_{-0.197}\) |

\(100\,\theta _\mathrm{MC}\) | \({1.0408}\pm 0.0006\) | \({1.0409}\pm 0.0006\) | \({1.0409}_{-0.0005}^{+0.0006}\) |

\(\tau \) | \({0.069}^{+0.028}_{-0.026}\) | \({0.068}^{+0.028}_{-0.026}\) | \({0.069}\pm 0.026\) |

\( n_s \) | \(0.969_{-0.008}^{+0.007}\) | \(0.969_{-0.007}^{+0.008}\) | \(0.970_{-0.008}^{+0.007}\) |

\(\ln \, (10^{10} \mathrm {A_s}) \) | \(3.069_{-0.049}^{+0.052}\) | \(3.066_{-0.049}^{+0.052}\) | \(3.066_{-0.048}^{+0.051}\) |

\(\Sigma _0\) | \(0.993_{-0.011}^{+0.008}\) | \(0.986_{-0.022}^{+0.016}\) | \(0.983_{-0.032}^{+0.021}\) |

We then treat \(\xi \) as a free parameter and perform the fitting with respect to various combinations of data sets. The best-fit value for \(\epsilon _0\) is less than 0.2 in the first two sets of results based on PLANCK + BAO and their combination with MPK. The best-fit value becomes less than 0.1 when the SNIa and WL data are included in sequence, as shown in Fig. 4. In particular, we find \(\epsilon _0 < \{ 0.223, 0.456 \}\) at the 68 and 95% confidence levels from the PLANCK + BAO + MPK data, and the constraints are narrow down to \(\epsilon _0 < \{ 0.077, 0.180 \}\) by adding SNIa. Given that \(\epsilon _0 = 0\) is located inside the \(1\sigma \) limit in all four sets of results, we conclude that there is no hint for the existence of the additional density \(\Omega _{\phi }^{nc}\), or namely \(\Omega _\phi = \Omega _V\) today.

## 5 Summary and discussions

We have considered one of the simplest extensions to the \(\Lambda \)CDM model based on a quintessence field with a non-minimal coupling \(\xi \) to gravity. Our principal goal has been to identify the compatibility of such gravitational effect in current observations. We have in particular focused on the class of models with very weak restrictions on the today’s field value \(\phi _0\) so that both \(\xi \) and \(\phi _0\) can be treated as free model parameters. This condition is suitable for the slow-roll type model \(V(\phi ) = V_0 e^{-\lambda \kappa \phi }\), where the potential energy is insensitive to the field value \(\phi \) with a sufficiently small \(\lambda \). In the absolutely flat limit where \(\lambda =0\), the theory coincides with the \(\alpha = 0\) limit of the tracker model \(V(\phi ) = V_0 (\kappa \phi )^{-\alpha }\), which has a completely vanishing tracking basin of attraction. However, in general cases the tracker models with \(\alpha > 0\) only realize the cosmic acceleration when \(\phi _0\sim 1/\kappa \), provided that \(V_0\) is responsible for the energy scale of the dark energy domination [12, 13, 22].

Constraints of the model parameters \(\xi \) and \(\epsilon _0\) and the marginalized results of \(\Sigma \) in the constant potential models

\(\xi \) lower bound | \(\epsilon _0\) upper bound | \(\Sigma _0\) | \(H_0\) (\(\mathrm km\, s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}\)) | Age (Gyr) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

68% | 95% | 68% | 95% | 68% | 95% | 68% | 95% | 68% | |

PLANCK + BAO | 1.043 | 0.503 | 0.200 | 0.415 | \(0.976^{+0.023}_{-0.008}\) | \(0.976^{+0.029}_{-0.038}\) | \(66.1^{+1.6}_{-1.0}\) | \(66.1^{+2.4}_{-2.7}\) | \(13.81\pm 0.03\) |

PLANCK + BAO + MPK | 1.071 | 0.519 | 0.224 | 0.450 | \(0.974^{+0.025}_{-0.009}\) | \(0.974^{+0.030}_{-0.040}\) | \(66.0^{+1.6}_{-1.0}\) | \(66.0^{+2.4}_{-2.7}\) | \(13.81\pm 0.03\) |

PLANCK + BAO + MPK + SNIa | 0.436 | 0.289 | 0.077 | 0.180 | \(0.989^{+0.012}_{-0.004}\) | \(0.989^{+0.014}_{-0.023}\) | \(67.3^{+0.9}_{-0.6}\) | \(67.3\pm 1.5\) | \(13.80\pm 0.03\) |

PLANCK + BAO + MPK + SNIa + WL | 0.794 | 0.300 | 0.076 | 0.183 | \(0.989^{+0.011}_{-0.003}\) | \(0.989^{+0.014}_{-0.023}\) | \(67.4^{+0.9}_{-0.6}\) | \(67.4^{+1.5}_{-1.4}\) | \(13.80^{+0.02}_{-0.04}\) |

To probe the existence of \(\xi \), we have taken the combined data from type-Ia supernovae (Union 2.1), cosmic microwave background (Planck 2015), baryon acoustic oscillations and matter power spectrum (6dF Galaxy Survey, BOSS and WiggleZ), to the weak lensing (CFHTLenS) measurements. With the optimal choice \(\lambda =0\) of the model, the background evolution is identical to the fiducial \(\Lambda \)CDM scenario and the number of the model parameters is the same as that of the PBD research [40]. We have confimed that the most preferable value of \(\epsilon _0\) is zero so that there is no hint for the dark energy density additional to that of a pure cosmological constant. This result is true whether we fix a constant value to \(\xi \) or treat it as a free parameter. Nevertheless, we have demonstrated that the current observations prefer a non-zero value \(\xi > 0.289\) for a variable \(\xi \), where \(\xi = 0\) is excluded outside the 95% confidence region. This is in contrast to the extended tracker model [22] where a strong constraint \(\vert \xi \vert \ll 1\) was found. Meanwhile, the central value of the effective gravitational constant \(\Sigma = G_\mathrm{{eff}}/G\) today is found to be slightly less than unity as \(\Sigma _0 = 0.989^{+0.014}_{-0.023}\) at 95% level, consistent with the hint of a positive \(\xi \). It is noteworthy that the best-fit sample with a variable \(\xi \) parameter brings a slightly better \(\chi ^2\) results than those with fixed values of \(\xi \). However, a \(\xi > 0\) prior always leads to marginally larger \(\chi ^2\) than the \(\Lambda \)CDM (\(\xi = 0\)) case.

It is noteworthy that the current observations [4] (see also [73]) on the dark energy equation of state indicate a nearly \(2\sigma \) preference in the phantom domain, i.e. \(w_\mathrm{DE} < -1\). This result implies the importance to probe the constraint on \(\xi \) with a slightly phantom-type background expansion, as a straightforward extension to our current study. Note that the non-minimal theory given by (2) cannot cross the phantom divide due to its conformal equivalence to the coupled quintessence model [52]. In addition, it has been found that the gravitational non-minimal coupling \(\xi \) can act as a cosmological attractor for not only the early-time [74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79] but also for the late-time [80] cosmic accelerations. In this class of models one may go beyond the slow-roll conditions for \(V(\phi )\), and one may obtain a significant density fraction \(\vert \Omega _\phi ^{nc}/\Omega _V\vert \sim \mathscr {O}(1)\) today.

We also emphasize that the working frame used in this study is based on the matter point of view [81, 82] (see also [83, 84]) in which both matter and radiation are minimally coupled with gravity and the dark energy field. This physical frame appears to be the most natural choice when performing the fitting with the cosmological priors given in Table 1, whereas the possible distinction on observables in different conformal frames is an issue goes beyond the scope of the current paper.

Finally, we remark that if a future measurement would confirm \(1 - \Sigma _0 > 0\), it can support the existence of a positive coupling \(\xi \) but will falsify at the same time the contribution of many types of screening mechanisms near the Solar System [72]. On the other hand, a future measurement with \(1 - \Sigma _0 < 0\) (as already hinted in [56]) will not be in favor of a negative \(\xi \) but instead can rule out the whole class of massless extended quintessence models, given that \(\xi < 0\) only leads to the decay of the field value so that \(\Sigma \) always converges to the \(\Lambda \)CDM limit where \(\Sigma _0 = 1\).

## Footnotes

- 1.
We assume the background equation of state is a constant with \(w=1/3\) during the epoch of radiation domination (RD) and \(w=0\) during matter domination (MD).

- 2.
Initial conditions with \(C_+=0\) and \(C_- \ne 0\) imply \(\phi = - \phi ^\prime \) at the initial time. Since \(L_- =-1\) during RD, one finds that \(\phi \propto e^{L_- N}\propto 1/a\) and \(\rho _\phi \propto H^2\phi ^2\propto a^{-6}\), similar to the case in which the initial energy density is dominated by the kinetic energy (\(\rho _\phi \approx \dot{\phi }^2/2\)).

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Shinji Tsujikawa for helpful comments. The work was supported in part by National Center for Theoretical Sciences, MoST (MoST-104-2112-M-007-003-MY3), National Science Council (NSC-101-2112-M-007-006-MY3) and National Tsing Hua University (104N2724E1).

### References

- 1.A.G. Riess et al., Supernova Search Team Collaboration, Astron. J.
**116**, 1009 (1998)Google Scholar - 2.S. Perlmutter et al., Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration, Astrophys. J.
**517**, 565 (1999). doi: 10.1086/307221. arXiv:astro-ph/9812133 - 3.P.A.R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys.
**571**, A16 (2014). doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591. arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO] - 4.P.A.R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys.
**594**, A13 (2016). doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830. arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO] - 5.L. Anderson et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**427**(4), 3435 (2013). doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22066.x. arXiv:1203.6594 [astro-ph.CO] - 6.L. Anderson et al. [BOSS Collaboration], Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**441**(1), 24 (2014). doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu523. arXiv:1312.4877 [astro-ph.CO] - 7.R.R. Caldwell, R. Dave, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**80**, 1582 (1998). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1582. arXiv:astro-ph/9708069 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 8.P.G. Ferreira, M. Joyce, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**79**, 4740 (1997). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.4740. arXiv:astro-ph/9707286 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.P.G. Ferreira, M. Joyce, Phys. Rev. D
**58**, 023503 (1998). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.023503. arXiv:astro-ph/9711102 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.E.J. Copeland, A.R. Liddle, D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D
**57**, 4686 (1998). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4686. arXiv:gr-qc/9711068 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.A.P. Billyard, A.A. Coley, R.J. van den Hoogen, Phys. Rev. D
**58**, 123501 (1998). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.123501. arXiv:gr-qc/9805085 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.I. Zlatev, L.M. Wang, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**82**, 896 (1999). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.896. arXiv:astro-ph/9807002 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.P.J. Steinhardt, L.M. Wang, I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D
**59**, 123504 (1999). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.123504. arXiv:astro-ph/9812313 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.B. Ratra, P.J.E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D
**37**, 3406 (1988). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.P.J.E. Peebles, B. Ratra, Astrophys. J.
**325**, L17 (1988). doi: 10.1086/185100 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.T. Chiba, Phys. Rev. D
**81**, 023515 (2010). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.023515. arXiv:0909.4365 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.T. Chiba, A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D
**87**(8), 083505 (2013). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.083505. arXiv:1210.3859 [astro-ph.CO] - 18.S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav.
**30**, 214003 (2013). doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/21/214003. arXiv:1304.1961 [gr-qc]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.P.Y. Wang, C.W. Chen, P. Chen, JCAP
**1202**, 016 (2012). doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/02/016. arXiv:1108.1424 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.S.A. Bludman, Phys. Rev. D
**69**, 122002 (2004). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.122002. arXiv:astro-ph/0403526 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 21.F. Perrotta, C. Baccigalupi, S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D
**61**, 023507 (1999). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.61.023507. arXiv:astro-ph/9906066 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.C. Baccigalupi, S. Matarrese, F. Perrotta, Phys. Rev. D
**62**, 123510 (2000). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.123510. arXiv:astro-ph/0005543 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 23.R. de Ritis, A.A. Marino, C. Rubano, P. Scudellaro, Phys. Rev. D
**62**, 043506 (2000). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043506. arXiv:hep-th/9907198 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D
**60**, 043501 (1999). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.043501. arXiv:astro-ph/9904120 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.J.P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D
**59**, 123510 (1999). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.123510. arXiv:gr-qc/9903004 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.T. Chiba, Phys. Rev. D
**60**, 083508 (1999). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.083508. arXiv:gr-qc/9903094 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.N. Bartolo, M. Pietroni, Phys. Rev. D
**61**, 023518 (2000). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.61.023518. arXiv:hep-ph/9908521 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 28.V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D
**62**, 023504 (2000). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.023504. arXiv:gr-qc/0002091 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.F.C. Carvalho, A. Saa, Phys. Rev. D
**70**, 087302 (2004). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.087302. arXiv:astro-ph/0408013 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.A.A. Sen, G. Gupta, S. Das, JCAP
**0909**, 027 (2009). doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/09/027. arXiv:0901.0173 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 31.G. Gupta, E.N. Saridakis, A.A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D
**79**, 123013 (2009). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.123013. arXiv:0905.2348 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 32.S. Matarrese, C. Baccigalupi, F. Perrotta, Phys. Rev. D
**70**, 061301 (2004). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.061301. arXiv:astro-ph/0403480 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 33.T. Chiba, M. Siino, M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D
**81**, 083530 (2010). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.083530. arXiv:1002.2986 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 34.C. Brans, R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.
**124**, 925 (1961). doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.124.925 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 35.T. Clifton, P.G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, C. Skordis, Phys. Rept.
**513**, 1 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001. arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 36.R. Nagata, T. Chiba, N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D
**69**, 083512 (2004). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.083512. arXiv:astro-ph/0311274 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 37.V. Acquaviva, C. Baccigalupi, S.M. Leach, A.R. Liddle, F. Perrotta, Phys. Rev. D
**71**, 104025 (2005). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.104025. arXiv:astro-ph/0412052 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 38.F. Wu, X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D
**82**, 083003 (2010). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.083003. arXiv:0903.0385 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 39.Y.C. Li, F.Q. Wu, X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D
**88**, 084053 (2013). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.084053. arXiv:1305.0055 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 40.A. Avilez, C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**113**(1), 011101 (2014). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.011101. arXiv:1303.4330 [astro-ph.CO] - 41.B. Bertotti, L. Iess, P. Tortora, Nature
**425**, 374 (2003). doi: 10.1038/nature01997 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 42.J.G. Williams, S.G. Turyshev, D.H. Boggs, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**93**, 261101 (2004). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.261101. arXiv:gr-qc/0411113 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 43.J.G. Williams, S.G. Turyshev, D.H. Boggs, J.T. Ratcliff, Adv. Space Res.
**37**, 67 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.05.013. arXiv:gr-qc/0412049 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 44.L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D
**81**, 047501 (2010). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.047501. arXiv:0911.3401 [gr-qc]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 45.T. Clifton, J.D. Barrow, R.J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D
**71**, 123526 (2005). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123526. arXiv:astro-ph/0504418 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 46.A. Coc, K.A. Olive, J.P. Uzan, E. Vangioni, Phys. Rev. D
**73**, 083525 (2006). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.083525. arXiv:astro-ph/0601299 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 47.A. Coc, K.A. Olive, J.P. Uzan, E. Vangioni, Phys. Rev. D
**79**, 103512 (2009). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.103512. arXiv:0811.1845 [astro-ph]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 48.L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, K. Koyama, G.B. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D
**81**, 104023 (2010). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.104023. arXiv:1002.2382 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 49.A. Hojjati, G.B. Zhao, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, R. Crittenden, K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D
**85**, 043508 (2012). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.043508. arXiv:1111.3960 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 50.J. Zuntz, T. Baker, P. Ferreira, C. Skordis, JCAP
**1206**, 032 (2012). doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/06/032. arXiv:1110.3830 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 51.S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D
**76**, 023514 (2007). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.023514. arXiv:0705.1032 [astro-ph]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 52.V. Pettorino, C. Baccigalupi, Phys. Rev. D
**77**, 103003 (2008). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.103003. arXiv:0802.1086 [astro-ph]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 53.F. Pace, L. Moscardini, R. Crittenden, M. Bartelmann, V. Pettorino, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**437**(1), 547 (2014). doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1907. arXiv:1307.7026 [astro-ph.CO] - 54.Y. Fan, P. Wu, H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D
**92**(8), 083529 (2015). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083529. arXiv:1510.04010 [gr-qc] - 55.F. Simpson et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**429**, 2249 (2013). doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts493. arXiv:1212.3339 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 56.P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys.
**594**, A14 (2016). doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525814. arXiv:1502.01590 [astro-ph.CO] - 57.T. Damour, K. Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**70**, 2217 (1993). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.2217 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 58.T. Damour, K. Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. D
**48**, 3436 (1993). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.48.3436 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 59.A. Lewis, S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D
**66**, 103511 (2002). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511. arXiv:astro-ph/0205436 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 60.A. Lewis, A. Challinor, A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J.
**538**, 473 (2000). doi: 10.1086/309179. arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 61.A. Hojjati, L. Pogosian, G.B. Zhao, JCAP
**1108**, 005 (2011). doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/08/005. arXiv:1106.4543 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 62.J. c. Hwang, H. Noh, Phys. Rev. D
**54**, 1460 (1996). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.1460 - 63.X.Y. Zhou, J.H. He, Commun. Theor. Phys.
**62**, 102 (2014). doi: 10.1088/0253-6102/62/1/18. arXiv:1406.6822 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 64.R. Adam et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys.
**594**, A10 (2016). doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525967. arXiv:1502.01588 [astro-ph.CO] - 65.N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys.
**594**, A11 (2016). doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526926. arXiv:1507.02704 [astro-ph.CO] - 66.P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys.
**594**, A15 (2016). doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525941. arXiv:1502.01591 [astro-ph.CO] - 67.F. Beutler et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**416**, 3017 (2011). doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x. arXiv:1106.3366 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 68.A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Burden, M. Manera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.
**449**(1), 835 (2015). doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv154. arXiv:1409.3242 [astro-ph.CO] - 69.C. Blake et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**418**, 1707 (2011). doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19592.x. arXiv:1108.2635 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 70.N. Suzuki et al., Astrophys. J.
**746**, 85 (2012). doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/85. arXiv:1105.3470 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 71.C. Heymans et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**432**, 2433 (2013). doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt601. arXiv:1303.1808 [astro-ph.CO]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 72.L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. D
**94**(10), 104014 (2016). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.104014. arXiv:1606.05339 [astro-ph.CO] - 73.D.N. Spergel et al., WMAP Collaboration. Astrophys. J. Suppl.
**170**, 377 (2007). doi: 10.1086/513700. arXiv:astro-ph/0603449 - 74.R. Kallosh, A. Linde, D. Roest, JHEP
**1311**, 198 (2013). doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2013)198. arXiv:1311.0472 [hep-th]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 75.R. Kallosh, A. Linde, JCAP
**1307**, 002 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 76.S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, M. Porrati, Phys. Rev. D
**88**(8), 085038 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 77.M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, D. Roest, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**114**(14), 141302 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 78.S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, arXiv:1611.00738 [gr-qc]
- 79.S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D
**94**(12), 124026 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 80.E.V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D
**91**(12), 123012 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 81.G. DomÃĺnech, M. Sasaki, JCAP
**1504**(04), 022 (2015). arXiv:1501.07699 [gr-qc] - 82.G. DomÃĺnech, M. Sasaki, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D
**25**(13), 1645006 (2016). arXiv:1602.06332 [gr-qc] - 83.S. Bahamonde, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, M. Wright, Ann. Phys.
**373**, 96 (2016). arXiv:1603.05113 [gr-qc]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 84.S. Bahamonde, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, P.V. Tretyakov, arXiv:1701.02381 [gr-qc]

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP^{3}