Inflationary Dynamics of Mutated Hilltop Inflation in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity Under New Slow-Roll Approximations with Generalised Reheating

Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat; Kashif Ali Wani; Mehnaz Zahoor; Yogesh

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Inflationary Dynamics of Mutated Hilltop Inflation in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity Under New Slow-Roll Approximations with Generalised Reheating

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the Mutated Hilltop inflation model, coupled to Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, produces inflationary observables that remain inside the Planck'18 two-sigma bounds for 60 and 70 e-folds across the tested potential…

desk verdict Useful EGB inflation case study with a broken reheating section: Eq. (6.9) is off by ~10 orders of magnitude, so Fig. 4 and the T_re constraints are invalid as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11429 v1 pith:LQLSVOFU submitted 2025-05-16 astro-ph.CO

Yogesh , Mehnaz Zahoor , Kashif Ali Wani , Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords Einstein-Gauss-Bonnetgravitymutatedhilltopinflationslow-rollapproximationsscalarspectralindextensor-to-scalarratioreheatingtemperaturePlanck2018constraintsmodified

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the Mutated Hilltop potential, which is increasingly squeezed by Planck'18 data in standard cold inflation, becomes fully viable once the inflaton is coupled to the Gauss-Bonnet curvature invariant through a tanh coupling. Using two recently proposed slow-roll approximations plus a direct numerical integration of the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet field equations, it computes the scalar spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio over a range of potential parameters and e-fold numbers, and finds the predictions inside the Planck'18 two-sigma bounds. It further shows that the reheating phase can be constrained indirectly: for the Planck-permitted values of $n_s$, the reheating temperature and duration are pinned down for several equations of state. A reader should care because this is a concrete example of a model ruled out in the standard scenario being resurrected by modified gravity, with a prediction set that next-generation CMB experiments can test.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the new slow-roll approximations I and II: algebraic expressions that give $\delta_1(\phi)$, $Q(\phi)=H^2$, and $\chi(\phi)=\dot{\phi}/H$ as functions of the field once the effective potential $V_{\rm eff}=-U_0^2/V+\xi/3$ is known. These yield the slow-roll parameters $\varepsilon_1$, $\varepsilon_2$, $\delta_1$, and $\delta_2$ as explicit functions of $\phi$, which feed the observables $n_s$ and $r=8|2\varepsilon_1-\delta_1|$ through the paper's Eqs. (3.10) and (3.12). A direct numerical integration of the exact Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet dynamical system serves as a cross-check, and the paper finds that the numerical $(n_s,r)$ values are close to those of slow-roll approximation I.

What would settle it

Recompute $n_s$ and $r$ with other values of $(\xi_1,\xi_2)$, say $\xi_1=1$ and $\xi_2=0.1$, keeping $\Delta N=60$ and $A_s$ fixed; if the point falls outside the Planck'18 two-$\sigma$ region, the paper's compatibility claim is tuning rather than robust prediction. A future high-precision measurement of $n_s$ with uncertainty near $0.002$ would also separate the $\alpha$ values, since the model's $n_s$ predictions for different $\alpha$ spread over roughly that range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, with the Mutated Hilltop potential $V=V_0[1-\operatorname{sech}(\alpha\phi)]$ and the Gauss-Bonnet coupling $\xi(\phi)=(\xi_1/V_0)\tanh(\xi_2\phi)$, the observables $(n_s,r)$ lie inside the Planck'18 two-$\sigma$ region for $\alpha=0.5,1,3,5,10$ when the number of e-folds is 60 or 70, and for all tested e-fold counts when the new slow-roll approximation II is used. The paper also claims that reheating is not arbitrary: the number of reheating e-folds $N_{re}$ and the reheating temperature $T_{re}$ are expressible in terms of $n_s$ through the pivot scale, and the equations of state $\omega_{re}=2/3$ and $1$ stay within the two-$\sigma$ region over the entire allowed $T_{re}$ range. Throughout, the coupling constants are fixed at $\xi_1=5$ and $\xi_2=0.4$, values chosen explicitly so that the CMB constraints are satisfied.

Load-bearing premise

The fit to Planck'18 is obtained with the Gauss-Bonnet coupling constants $\xi_1=5$ and $\xi_2=0.4$, which are chosen specifically so that the model agrees with CMB data; if those constants are free parameters, the compatibility claim rests on that tuning rather than on a first-principles prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim is right, the Mutated Hilltop model, which is disfavoured in standard cold inflation, is observationally viable in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with a tanh coupling.
For $\Delta N=60$ and $70$, every tested value of $\alpha$ yields $(n_s,r)$ inside the Planck'18 two-sigma region; slow-roll approximation II extends this compatibility to $\Delta N=50$.
Reheating with $\omega_{re}=2/3$ or $1$ is consistent with the two-sigma bounds on $n_s$ between instantaneous reheating and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis temperatures, giving physical windows for $T_{re}$.
The numerical observables track slow-roll approximation I, so the analytic approximation is a reliable shortcut for this model in the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet background.
Future CMB experiments with spectral-index precision near $\Delta n_s \sim 0.002$ can separate the different $\alpha$ choices, as the paper notes in its conclusions.

Reading between the lines

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

The compatibility claim is conditional on the hand-chosen coupling $\xi_1=5$, $\xi_2=0.4$; varying these constants would shift $(n_s,r)$, and a scan over the coupling space would reveal how much of the parameter space actually survives the Planck'18 bounds.
The paper's 'numerical' calculation still inserts slow-roll expressions for $n_s$ and $r$; a fully independent test would compute the power spectra directly by solving the cosmological perturbation equations.
The same new slow-roll machinery could be applied to other potentials ruled out in standard cold inflation; if the pattern holds, the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet rescue is a generic effect rather than special to the hilltop form.
The reheating constraints assume a constant equation of state and $g_{re}\approx 226$; dropping those assumptions may broaden or shift the allowed $T_{re}$ windows.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. First, the core inflationary analysis—applying Pozdeeva et al.'s new slow-roll approximations to mutated hilltop in EGB and comparing with numerics—is a solid, useful exercise; the numerics and slow-roll I agree well. Second, the reheating analysis is broken. Eq. (6.9) gives H_k = sqrt(1/(2π² A_s r)), but their own Eq. (3.13) with U0=1/2 gives H_k = π sqrt(A_s r/2). For their numbers those differ by roughly ten orders of magnitude. Everything downstream—N_re, T_re, Fig. 4—inherits that error. That is not a cosmetic typo; it makes the reheating constraints quantitatively invalid.

What is genuinely new: the same potential and tanh coupling were studied in [90] using older slow-roll, and here they apply the new approximations from [1] and add a generalized reheating study. That is a reasonable extension, and the approximation comparison is useful for model builders. They are candid that ξ1=5 and ξ2=0.4 are chosen to satisfy Planck, so the headline "all observables inside Planck'18" is a demonstration of model flexibility, not an independent prediction. They should say that in the abstract and conclusions.

Two smaller issues. They call the numerical ns and r "exact" but Eqs. (3.10)–(3.12) are still slow-roll expressions; what is exact is the evolution of ε1 and δ1. And they do not compare with the older slow-roll results from [90], which would have made the claimed improvement concrete.

Bottom line: the inflationary dynamics half is worth a serious referee; the reheating half needs a corrected derivation before publication. I would send it to review, with a clear request to fix Eq. (6.9) and reframe the compatibility claim as a parameter fit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies mutated hilltop inflation in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, applying the new slow-roll approximation schemes of Pozdeeva et al. to compute the scalar spectral index n_s, tensor-to-scalar ratio r, and scalar amplitude A_s, and comparing these with a numerical integration of the exact background equations. It then derives constraints on the reheating duration N_re and reheating temperature T_re for several equations of state during reheating. The analysis is carried out for potential parameters α = 0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10 and e-fold numbers ΔN = 50, 60, 70, with the Gauss-Bonnet couplings fixed to ξ1 = 5 and ξ2 = 0.4. The paper concludes that the mutated hilltop model in EGB gravity is compatible with Planck'18 bounds on (n_s, r) and that certain reheating scenarios are allowed by the constraints.

Significance. The paper is a useful case study of the recently proposed slow-roll approximations in a modified-gravity setting: it gives explicit analytic slow-roll parameters, compares two approximation schemes with each other and with a numerical integration, and attempts to translate the inflationary results into reheating constraints. The explicit formulas and the three-way comparison are commendable and could be of interest to practitioners working with EGB inflation. However, the central compatibility claim is weakened by the admitted tuning of ξ1 and ξ2 to satisfy the CMB constraints, and the reheating analysis contains an internal inconsistency in the formula for H_k. These issues affect the quantitative conclusions, so the paper cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)

[Section VI, Eq. (6.9)] The expression H_k = sqrt(1/(2π² A_s r)) is inconsistent with the paper's own Eq. (3.13). With U0 = 1/2, Eq. (3.13) gives A_s = 2 H²/(π² r), hence H_k = π sqrt(A_s r / 2). The ratio between Eq. (6.9) and the correct value is 1/(π² A_s r) ≈ 10^10 for A_s ≈ 2.09×10^-9 and r ≈ 0.005. Because H_k enters N_re and T_re through Eqs. (6.7) and (6.8), the reheating constraints in Fig. 4 and the associated temperature ranges are quantitatively invalid and must be recomputed with the corrected H_k.
[Section V.A, Eqs. (3.10)–(3.12)] The statement that the numerical values of n_s and r are "exact values ... without using any approximations" is too strong: the numerical integration supplies ε1(N) and δ1(N), but n_s and r are then evaluated with the slow-roll expressions (3.10) and (3.12). These formulas are the standard slow-roll relations for EGB inflation, not exact definitions. The paper should either justify their exact status or soften the claim; otherwise the numerical column is not the approximation-free benchmark it is presented to be.
[Sections V.B and V.C] The choice ξ1 = 5, ξ2 = 0.4 is explicitly made so that the CMB constraints are satisfied. As these coupling parameters enter every computed observable and are not constrained by independent measurements, the resulting compatibility with Planck'18 is a demonstration of model flexibility rather than a predictive test. The paper should present a scan of the (ξ1, ξ2) parameter space and identify the allowed region, or clearly label the results as a fit, and the conclusion that "all the inflationary observables are well inside the Planck'18 bounds" should be qualified accordingly.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] Several equations use the notation "V 2" where V^2 is clearly intended (e.g., Eq. (2.8)); please use consistent superscript formatting.
[Appendix A] The equation numbers (6.1)–(6.8) in Appendix A duplicate the numbering of the reheating equations in Section VI; renumber the appendix equations as (A1) onward to avoid confusion.
[Abstract and Introduction] There are grammatical errors, e.g., "CMB observations, puts severe constraints" and "the reheating(e-folds during reheating) epoch"; these should be corrected.
[Figure 4 caption] The caption should state explicitly how the instantaneous reheating point N_re = 0 is identified and define the shaded regions in both panels, since the color coding alone is not sufficient for readers who access the paper in grayscale.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

CMB compatibility is partly built in by hand-picking the Gauss-Bonnet couplings ξ1 = 5 and ξ2 = 0.4; the reheating analysis has a separate H_k arithmetic inconsistency that is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue.

fitted input called prediction [Section V.B (and repeated in Section V.C), text before Tables II and III, using Eqs. (5.1)-(5.3) and (3.10)-(3.13)]
"In our analysis we take ξ1 = 5 and ξ2 = 0.4, these values of the coupling parameters are chosen so that the constraints on ns and r do not contradict the recent CMB observations."

The scalar spectral index n_s and tensor-to-scalar ratio r are outputs computed from the slow-roll parameters, which depend on the EGB coupling ξ(φ) = (ξ1/V0) tanh(ξ2 φ) given in Eq. (5.2). The two coupling constants ξ1 and ξ2 are explicitly selected so that the resulting (n_s, r) satisfy the Planck'18 bounds. The same computed (n_s, r) are then presented as the paper's compatibility claim: 'all the inflationary observables are well inside the Planck'18 bounds.' Because no independent measurement or theoretical constraint fixes ξ1 or ξ2, the agreement is imposed by the parameter choice rather than derived as a falsifiable prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is mostly self-contained: the action (Eq. 2.1), potential (Eq. 5.1), coupling (Eq. 5.2), slow-roll parameters (Eqs. 3.1-3.9), and observables (Eqs. 3.10-3.13) are presented explicitly, and the new slow-roll approximations are imported from the external, author-disjoint reference [1] rather than from a prior paper by the present authors. The numerical solution of system (2.10) and the comparison between the numerical, Slow-Roll-I, and Slow-Roll-II results are genuine internal consistency checks. The main circular step is the hand-picking of ξ1 = 5 and ξ2 = 0.4 to satisfy Planck'18 bounds on n_s and r; the conclusion that the model is compatible with Planck'18 is therefore a demonstration of model flexibility rather than an independent prediction. This fits pattern 2, fitted input called prediction, and supports a score of 6 rather than a lower score. The reheating section is not circular, but it contains an internal algebraic inconsistency: Eq. (6.9) gives H_k^2 = 1/(2π^2 A_s r), whereas the paper's own Eq. (3.13), A_s = Q/(π^2 U_0 r) with Q = H^2 and U_0 = 1/2, gives H_k^2 = π^2 A_s r / 2. These differ by roughly 1/(π^4 A_s^2 r^2) ≈ 10^10 for A_s ≈ 2.09×10^-9 and r ≈ 0.005, so the reheating temperatures and N_re values in Fig. 4 are quantitatively compromised; this is a correctness defect, not a circular reduction, and does not by itself raise the circularity score. The claim that the numerical n_s and r are 'exact' is also overstated because Eqs. (3.10) and (3.12) are slow-roll expressions, but again this is an overclaim about approximation error, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main extra input beyond the potential is the tanh-form Gauss-Bonnet coupling with two free constants. Those constants are tuned to keep the model inside Planck'18 bounds, which is the central circularity burden. No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced; the coupling is a function choice rather than an invented entity.

free parameters (6)

V0 = matched to As = 2.09e-9 at the pivot scale
The overall potential scale is fixed by normalizing the scalar power spectrum to Planck'18, a standard but data-dependent choice.
xi1 = 5
Chosen by hand so that the resulting ns and r do not contradict Planck'18; no independent constraint is given.
xi2 = 0.4
Chosen together with xi1 to keep the model inside the CMB bounds; no independent motivation is provided.
alpha = scanned over 0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10
The potential parameter is varied across a range to show robustness, but it is a free input of the model.
omega_re = scanned over -1/3, 0, 2/3, 1
The reheating equation of state is assumed constant and scanned over four values; this is an assumption about the post-inflationary phase.
g_re = 226
The effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom is set to 226, the supersymmetric value, in the reheating formulas.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet action (2.1) with scalar field coupled to the Gauss-Bonnet term is a valid classical description of the early universe.
The analysis is built on the EGB action without questioning its regime of validity.
domain assumption The slow-roll approximation formulas derived in Pozdeeva et al. [1] are valid for the Mutated Hilltop model and for the chosen coupling.
The paper adopts the new slow-roll approximations from [1] and does not re-derive their validity conditions for this specific potential.
domain assumption The standard slow-roll expressions for ns, r, and As (Eqs. 3.10 to 3.13) apply to EGB inflation.
These observable formulas are taken from earlier EGB literature and are used for both the numerical and analytic results.
domain assumption Reheating can be modeled with a constant equation of state, entropy conservation, and g_re = 226.
The reheating constraints in Section VI rely on these standard assumptions from Cook et al. [102].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inflationary Dynamics of Mutated Hilltop Inflation in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity Under New Slow-Roll Approximations with Generalised Reheating." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LQLSVOFU

@misc{pith2026250511429,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inflationary Dynamics of Mutated Hilltop Inflation in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity Under New Slow-Roll Approximations with Generalised Reheating},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LQLSVOFU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11429}
}

abstract

The advancement in the observational cosmology of the early universe such as Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) observations, puts severe constraints on the inflationary models. Many inflationary models have been ruled out by CMB, nevertheless the models ruled out in standard cold inflationary scenarios can be resurrected in modified gravity models. In this regard we examine the dynamics of inflation within the framework of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (EGB) Gravity using the new slow-roll approximation methods proposed in Pozdeeva et al. (2024). We consider the Mutated Hilltop inflation model (Pal et al., 2010; Pinhero and Pal, 2019) due to its origin from super-gravity, a naturally perfect choice to study the impact of EGB on inflationary observables such as tensor-to-scalar ratio ($r$) and scalar spectral index ($n_s$). The period of reheating following the inflationary phase is also examined, and for the {\it Planck'18} permitted values of $n_s$, constraints on the reheating temperature ($T_{re}$) are computed for various equations of states during reheating ($\omega_{re}$).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11429 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Plot for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Plot for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Plots illustrating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Constraining Quintessential Inflation with ACT: A Gauss-Bonnet Gateway
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.5 of 10

Exponential and sech Gauss–Bonnet couplings restore ACT-compatible ns and r for quintessential inflation, while tanh fails for a structural sign reason; reheating remains BBN-safe.
Reconciling Fractional Power Potential and EGB Gravity in the light of ACT
astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In EGB gravity, the V0 phi^n potential with n = 1/3 and 2/5 can produce ns and r within the 1 sigma ACT r-ns region for selected coupling values.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[90]

M. R. Gangopadhyay, H. A. Khan, and Yogesh, Phys. Dark Univ. 40, 101177 (2023), arXiv:2205.15261 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2023
[1]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. A. Skugoreva, A. V. Toporensky, and S. Y. Vernov, (2024), arXiv:2403.06147 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2024
[2]

B. K. Pal, S. Pal, and B. Basu, JCAP 01, 029 (2010), arXiv:0908.2302 [hep-th]

arXiv 2010
[3]

Pinhero and S

T. Pinhero and S. Pal, Phys. Lett. B 796, 220 (2019), arXiv:1905.04737 [hep-th]

arXiv 2019
[4]

A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cosmological inflation and large scale structure (2000)

2000
[5]

E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The early universe , Vol. 69 (1990)

1990
[6]

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

1981
[7]

A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

1982

Show all 119 references

[8]

V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. 33, 532 (1981)

1981
[9]

Sato, Mon

K. Sato, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195, 467 (1981)

1981
[10]

A. A. Starobinsky, in 30 Years of the Landau Institute , Vol. 11, edited by I. M. Khalatnikov and V. P. Mineev (1996) p. 771

1996
[11]

Albrecht and P

A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982)

1982
[12]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 117, 175 (1982)

1982
[13]

Hinshaw, D

G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, M. R. Nolta, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, N. Odegard, L. Page, K. M. Smith, J. L. Weiland, B. Gold, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright, The Astrophysica...

2013
[14]

P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A20 (2016), arXiv:1502.02114 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[15]

Akrami et al

Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[16]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP 06, 027 (2013), arXiv:1306.3211 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[17]

A. A. Starobinsky, Physics Letters B 117, 175 (1982)

1982
[18]

A. A. Starobinsky, Sov. Astron. Lett. 9, 302 (1983)

1983
[19]

A. O. Barvinsky and A. Y. Kamenshchik, Phys. Lett. B 332, 270 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9404062

1994 arXiv
[20]

J. L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen, Nucl. Phys. B 442, 391 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9505069

1995 arXiv
[21]

F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 659, 703 (2008), arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[22]

A. O. Barvinsky, A. Y. Kamenshchik, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 11, 021 (2008), arXiv:0809.2104 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[23]

De Simone, M

A. De Simone, M. P. Hertzberg, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 678, 1 (2009), arXiv:0812.4946 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[24]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Lykkas, and T. D. Pappas, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063522 (2020), arXiv:2008.06371 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[25]

F. L. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 675, 88 (2009), arXiv:0812.4950 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[26]

A. O. Barvinsky, A. Y. Kamenshchik, C. Kiefer, A. A. Starobinsky, and C. F. Steinwachs, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2219 (2012), arXiv:0910.1041 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[27]

Bezrukov, A

F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Sibiryakov, JHEP 01, 016 (2011), arXiv:1008.5157 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[28]

Bezrukov, Class

F. Bezrukov, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 214001 (2013), arXiv:1307.0708 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[29]

Rubio, Front

J. Rubio, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 5, 50 (2019), arXiv:1807.02376 [hep-ph]. 15

2019 arXiv
[30]

A. S. Koshelev, K. S. Kumar, and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29, 2043018 (2020), arXiv:2005.09550 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[31]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. D. Odintsov, E. O. Pozdeeva, and S. Y. Vernov, Phys. Rev. D 90, 084001 (2014), arXiv:1408.1285 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[32]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, T. D. Pappas, and E. Tomberg, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 20, 2330007 (2023), arXiv:2303.14148 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[33]

I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, JCAP 03, 042 (2023), arXiv:2212.09896 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[34]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, T. D. Pappas, and V. C. Spanos, Phys. Rev. D 104, 023521 (2021), arXiv:2104.04550 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[35]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, and A. Racioppi, JCAP 11, 014 (2020), arXiv:2006.09124 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[36]

van de Bruck and C

C. van de Bruck and C. Longden, Phys. Rev. D 93, 063519 (2016), arXiv:1512.04768 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[37]

Guo and D

Z.-K. Guo and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D 80, 063523 (2009), arXiv:0907.0427 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[38]

Guo and D

Z.-K. Guo and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123520 (2010), arXiv:1001.1897 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[39]

Koh, B.-H

S. Koh, B.-H. Lee, and G. Tumurtushaa, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123509 (2017), arXiv:1610.04360 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[40]

E. O. Pozdeeva, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 612 (2020), arXiv:2005.10133 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[41]

Satoh and J

M. Satoh and J. Soda, JCAP 09, 019 (2008), arXiv:0806.4594 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[42]

Jiang, J.-W

P.-X. Jiang, J.-W. Hu, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 88, 123508 (2013), arXiv:1310.5579 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[43]

Koh, B.-H

S. Koh, B.-H. Lee, W. Lee, and G. Tumurtushaa, Phys. Rev. D 90, 063527 (2014), arXiv:1404.6096 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[44]

Koh, B.-H

S. Koh, B.-H. Lee, and G. Tumurtushaa, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103511 (2018), arXiv:1807.04424 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[45]

Mathew and S

J. Mathew and S. Shankaranarayanan, Astropart. Phys. 84, 1 (2016), arXiv:1602.00411 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[46]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. R. Gangopadhyay, M. Sami, A. V. Toporensky, and S. Y. Vernov, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043525 (2020), arXiv:2006.08027 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[47]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. A. Skugoreva, A. V. Toporensky, and S. Y. Vernov, JCAP 12, 006 (2016), arXiv:1608.08214 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[48]

Nozari and N

K. Nozari and N. Rashidi, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123518 (2017), arXiv:1705.02617 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[49]

J. M. Armaleo, J. Osorio Morales, and O. Santillan, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 85 (2018), arXiv:1711.09484 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[50]

Z. Yi, Y. Gong, and M. Sabir, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083521 (2018), arXiv:1804.09116 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[51]

Yi and Y

Z. Yi and Y. Gong, Universe 5, 200 (2019), arXiv:1811.01625 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[52]

S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044039 (2018), arXiv:1808.05045 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[53]

I. V. Fomin and S. V. Chervon, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023511 (2019), arXiv:1903.03974 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[54]

Fomin, Eur

I. Fomin, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1145 (2020), arXiv:2004.08065 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[55]

Kleidis and V

K. Kleidis and V. K. Oikonomou, Nucl. Phys. B 948, 114765 (2019), arXiv:1909.05318 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[56]

Rashidi and K

N. Rashidi and K. Nozari, Astrophys. J. 890, 58 (2020), arXiv:2001.07012 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[57]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and F. P. Fronimos, Nucl. Phys. B 958, 115135 (2020), arXiv:2003.13724 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[58]

S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B 805, 135437 (2020), arXiv:2004.00479 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[59]

Kawai and J

S. Kawai and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043525 (2021), arXiv:2105.04386 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[60]

Kawai and J

S. Kawai and J. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 789, 145 (2019), arXiv:1702.07689 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[61]

V. K. Oikonomou, Astropart. Phys. 141, 102718 (2022), arXiv:2204.06304 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[62]

V. K. Oikonomou, P. D. Katzanis, and I. C. Papadimitriou, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 095008 (2022), arXiv:2203.09867 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[63]

Cognola, E

G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev. D 75, 086002 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0611198

2007 arXiv
[64]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and F. P. Fronimos, Annals Phys. 420, 168250 (2020), arXiv:2007.02309 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[65]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, F. P. Fronimos, and S. A. Venikoudis, Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100718 (2020), arXiv:2009.06113 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[66]

V. K. Oikonomou and F. P. Fronimos, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 035013 (2021), arXiv:2006.05512 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[67]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, N. Chatzarakis, and T. Paul, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 565 (2019), arXiv:1907.00403 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[68]

Ashrafzadeh, M

A. Ashrafzadeh, M. Solbi, S. Heydari, and K. Karami, (2024), arXiv:2407.15445 [hep-th]

2024
[69]

Solbi and K

M. Solbi and K. Karami, (2024), arXiv:2403.00021 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[70]

Ashrafzadeh and K

A. Ashrafzadeh and K. Karami, Astrophys. J. 965, 11 (2024), arXiv:2309.16356 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[71]

V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138890 (2024), arXiv:2407.12155 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[72]

V. K. Oikonomou, P. Tsyba, and O. Razina, Annals Phys. 462, 169597 (2024), arXiv:2401.11273 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[73]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, I. Giannakoudi, F. P. Fronimos, and E. C. Lymperiadou, Symmetry 15, 1701 (2023), arXiv:2307.16308 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[74]

Kawai and J

S. Kawai and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103537 (2023), arXiv:2308.13272 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[75]

Kawai and J

S. Kawai and J. Soda, Phys. Lett. B 460, 41 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9903017

1999 arXiv
[76]

Kawai, M.-a

S. Kawai, M.-a. Sakagami, and J. Soda, Phys. Lett. B 437, 284 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9802033

1998 arXiv
[77]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, (2024), arXiv:2406.12558 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[78]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Dark Univ. 45, 101538 (2024), arXiv:2404.18427 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[79]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Dark Univ. 45, 101536 (2024), arXiv:2312.02889 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[80]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, Phys. Dark Univ.41, 101238 (2023), arXiv:2304.08255 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[81]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and F. P. Fronimos, Phys. Rev. D 107, 08 (2023), arXiv:2303.14594 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[82]

S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137353 (2022), arXiv:2206.06024 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[83]

S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B 824, 136817 (2022), arXiv:2112.02584 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[84]

Kawai and J

S. Kawai and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083545 (2021), arXiv:2108.01340 [astro-ph.CO]. 16

2021 arXiv
[85]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. Sami, A. V. Toporensky, and S. Y. Vernov, Phys. Rev. D 100, 083527 (2019), arXiv:1905.05085 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[86]

S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101263 (2023), arXiv:2305.19110 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[87]

V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043516 (2023), arXiv:2306.17351 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[88]

Vernov and E

S. Vernov and E. Pozdeeva, Universe 7, 149 (2021), arXiv:2104.11111 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[89]

H. A. Khan and Yogesh, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063526 (2022), arXiv:2201.06439 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[91]

Yogesh, I. A. Bhat, and M. R. Gangopadhyay, (2024), arXiv:2408.01670 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[92]

Albrecht, P

A. Albrecht, P. J. Steinhardt, M. S. Turner, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1437 (1982)

1982
[93]

Kofman, A

L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3195 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9405187

1994 arXiv
[94]

Martin, C

J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 081303 (2015), arXiv:1410.7958 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[95]

Kofman, A

L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D 56, 3258 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704452

1997 arXiv
[96]

Shtanov, J

Y. Shtanov, J. H. Traschen, and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5438 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9407247

1995 arXiv
[97]

B. A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa, and D. Wands, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 537 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0507632

2006 arXiv
[98]

Rehagen and G

T. Rehagen and G. B. Gelmini, JCAP 06, 039 (2015), arXiv:1504.03768 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[99]

G. N. Felder, L. Kofman, and A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123517 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0106179

2001 arXiv
[100]

K. D. Lozanov, (2019), arXiv:1907.04402 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[101]

Kofman, in 3rd RESCEU International Symposium on Particle Cosmology (1997) pp

L. Kofman, in 3rd RESCEU International Symposium on Particle Cosmology (1997) pp. 1–8, arXiv:hep-ph/9802285

1997 arXiv
[102]

J. L. Cook, E. Dimastrogiovanni, D. A. Easson, and L. M. Krauss, JCAP 04, 047 (2015), arXiv:1502.04673 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[103]

Adhikari, M

R. Adhikari, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and Yogesh, Grav. Cosmol. 28, 1 (2022), arXiv:1909.07217 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[104]

S. S. Mishra, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 05, 075 (2021), arXiv:2101.00271 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[105]

I. D. Gialamas, T. Katsoulas, and K. Tamvakis, JCAP 06, 005 (2024), arXiv:2403.08530 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[106]

I. D. Gialamas and A. B. Lahanas, Phys. Rev. D 101, 084007 (2020), arXiv:1911.11513 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[107]

Yogesh and M. R. Gangopadhyay, JHEAp 44, 214 (2024)

2024
[108]

Cai, Z.-K

R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 92, 063506 (2015), arXiv:1501.07743 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[109]

J.-O. Gong, S. Pi, and G. Leung, JCAP 05, 027 (2015), arXiv:1501.03604 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[110]

K. N. Abazajian et al. (CMB-S4), (2016), arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[111]

Finelli et al

F. Finelli et al. (CORE), JCAP 04, 016 (2018), arXiv:1612.08270 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[112]

Bastero-Gil, A

M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos, and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 151301 (2016), arXiv:1604.08838 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[113]

Bastero-Gil, S

M. Bastero-Gil, S. Bhattacharya, K. Dutta, and M. R. Gangopadhyay, JCAP 02, 054 (2018), arXiv:1710.10008 [astro- ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[114]

M. R. Gangopadhyay et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 043505 (2021), arXiv:2011.09155 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[115]

Basak, S

S. Basak, S. Bhattacharya, M. R. Gangopadhyay, N. Jaman, R. Rangarajan, and M. Sami, JCAP 03, 063 (2022), arXiv:2110.00607 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[116]

Correa, M

M. Correa, M. R. Gangopadhyay, N. Jaman, and G. J. Mathews, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063539 (2024), arXiv:2306.09641 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[117]

Correa et al., Phys

M. Correa et al., Phys. Lett. B 835, 137510 (2022), arXiv:2207.10394 [gr-qc]. 17 Appendix A: Explicit Analytic Forms of Slow-Roll Parameters

2022 arXiv
[118]

New Slow Roll Approximation I The slow-roll parameters in the case of slow-roll approximation I are given below: δ1 =− ξ1ξ2(sech(αϕ)− 1)2sech2 (ξ2ϕ) 3α sinh(αϕ)csch4 αϕ 2 + 16ξ1ξ2sech2 (ξ2ϕ) 96ξ2 1ξ2 2 sinh4 αϕ 2 sech2(αϕ)sech4 (ξ2ϕ) + 9 (6.1) ε1 = 3sech2(αϕ) 16ξ1ξ2 sinh4 αϕ 2...
[119]

New Slow Roll Approximation II The slow-roll parameters in the case of slow-roll approximation II are given below: δ1 = 4ξ1ξ2 Sech(αϕ ) Sech(ξ2ϕ)2 16ξ1ξ2 Sech(αϕ ) Sech(ξ2ϕ)2 Sinh αϕ 2 4 + 3α Tanh(αϕ ) −9 + 18αξ 1ξ2 Sech(αϕ ) Sech(ξ2ϕ)2 Tanh(αϕ ) (6.5) ϵ1 =−1 A2 sech(αϕ) 16ξ1ξ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [90]

M. R. Gangopadhyay, H. A. Khan, and Yogesh, Phys. Dark Univ. 40, 101177 (2023), arXiv:2205.15261 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2023

[2] [1]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. A. Skugoreva, A. V. Toporensky, and S. Y. Vernov, (2024), arXiv:2403.06147 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2024

[3] [2]

B. K. Pal, S. Pal, and B. Basu, JCAP 01, 029 (2010), arXiv:0908.2302 [hep-th]

arXiv 2010

[4] [3]

Pinhero and S

T. Pinhero and S. Pal, Phys. Lett. B 796, 220 (2019), arXiv:1905.04737 [hep-th]

arXiv 2019

[5] [4]

A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cosmological inflation and large scale structure (2000)

2000

[6] [5]

E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The early universe , Vol. 69 (1990)

1990

[7] [6]

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

1981

[8] [7]

A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

1982