Reconciling Fractional Power Potential and EGB Gravity in the light of ACT

Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat; Mehnaz Zahoor; Suhail Khan

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

Reconciling Fractional Power Potential and EGB Gravity in the light of ACT

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 In a modified gravity, a simple power-law potential fits the new ACT data within 1 sigma.

desk verdict A legitimate but under-verified EGB rescue of fractional monomial potentials: the numbers may be right, but the slow-roll validity check and an inconsistent N definition need fixing before I would trust the ACT-compatibility claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18684 v1 pith:T5ZSICC2 submitted 2025-07-24 astro-ph.CO

Mehnaz Zahoor , Suhail Khan , Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 98.80.Cq04.50.Kd

keywords fractionalpowerpotentialEinstein-Gauss-Bonnetgravityscalarspectralindextensor-to-scalarratioACTconstraintsreheatingtemperatureinflationnon-minimalcoupling

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 show that the fractional power-law scalar potential $V(\phi)=V_0\phi^n$, long disfavored in Einstein gravity, becomes observationally viable when the scalar field couples nonminimally to the Gauss-Bonnet term. With hyperbolic and exponential couplings, the predicted spectral index $n_s$ and tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ land inside the $1\sigma$ region of the ACT $r$-$n_s$ constraints for $n=1/3$ and $2/5$. The same parameter choices keep the spectral running small and allow reheating temperatures above the BBN bound, so the model offers a complete inflationary history. The paper is an extension move: it identifies a version of a standard potential that survives the newly raised scalar spectral index.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the effective potential method, which replaces the scalar potential and Gauss-Bonnet coupling by $V_{\rm eff}=-1/(4V)+1/(3\xi)$, following Refs. [109, 146, 147]. Under the slow-roll approximation, the inflaton trajectory is set by $dN/d\phi\simeq -(1/(4V))V_{{\rm eff},\phi}$, with $H^2\simeq V/3$ and $\chi\simeq -4V_{{\rm eff},\phi}$; the observables then follow from the standard slow-roll parameters plus the Gauss-Bonnet slow-roll parameter $\delta_1=4\xi_{,\phi}H^2\chi$ through $n_s=1-2\epsilon_1-(2\epsilon_1\epsilon_2+\delta_1\delta_2)/(2\epsilon_1-\delta_1)$ and $r=8|2\epsilon_1-\delta_1|$. This machinery is what converts the otherwise complicated Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet dynamics into a single-field-like calculation that can be compared directly with the ACT contour.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the full Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet dynamical system for the same coupling parameters and check whether $\epsilon_1$, $\delta_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\delta_2$ stay small through the last 60 e-folds; if $\delta_1$ grows or changes sign, the reported $n_s$ and $r$ values are not the model's actual predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, adding a Gauss-Bonnet coupling $\xi(\phi)\propto\tanh(\xi_2\phi)$ or $\xi(\phi)\propto\exp(-\xi_2\phi)$ shifts $n_s$ upward and lowers $r$ enough that monomial powers $n=1/3$ and $2/5$ match ACT's $n_s=0.9743\pm0.0034$ at the $1\sigma$ level. At $N=60$ e-folds, the tanh coupling gives $n_s=0.97265$, $r=0.01707$ for $n=1/3$ and $n_s=0.97344$, $r=0.01885$ for $n=2/5$; the exponential coupling gives $n_s=0.97738$, $r=0.01618$ for $n=1/3$. The running of the spectral index stays below about $10^{-3}$ in magnitude, and the reheating analysis requires the reheating equation-of-state parameter to satisfy $\omega_{\rm re}>1/3$ to meet both the ACT value of $n_s$ and the BBN lower bound on reheating temperature. If these results hold, potentials that are ruled out in standard gravity become viable in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole fit rests on assuming that the slow-roll approximation used to compute $n_s$ and $r$ is still accurate at the large Gauss-Bonnet couplings the model needs, such as $\xi_1=15$ and $\xi_2=0.255$ for the tanh case, but the paper does not verify that the Gauss-Bonnet slow-roll parameter $\delta_1$ and its partners remain small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, fractional monomial potentials with $n=1/3$ and $2/5$ become viable inflationary models under the ACT value of $n_s$, a status they do not enjoy in Einstein gravity.
The model predicts a tensor-to-scalar ratio around $r\simeq0.017$ for the tanh coupling at $N=60$, a level that future CMB polarization searches could detect or rule out.
The reheating bound forces $\omega_{\rm re}>1/3$, meaning successful reheating in this model must be stiff enough to keep reheating temperatures above the BBN floor.
Across the scanned parameter space, small values of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling parameters are disfavored, while larger $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ values more easily satisfy the ACT $1\sigma$ constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the same effective potential method could be applied to other monomial powers and other coupling shapes, converting the ACT compatibility question into a broader search over $n$ and the coupling form.
If the slow-roll caveat is resolved, the near-degenerate $r$ predictions near $0.017$ across both couplings suggest that discriminating this class of models will require high-precision tensor measurements rather than improved $n_s$ data alone.
The preference for large coupling parameters could be checked against stability conditions for the Gauss-Bonnet sector, since strong couplings risk ghost or instability regimes that the paper does not examine.
A natural extension would be to compute the full numerical power spectra from the exact equations of motion for the same parameter sets, since the paper only uses the slow-roll formulas on which the whole fit depends.

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

Short version: this is a contained, mostly standard EGB inflation study, not a framework changer. The new bit is applying the effective-potential slow-roll machinery of Pozdeeva et al. to the fractional monomial V0 phi^n (n = 1/3, 2/5, 2/3, 4/3) with tanh and exponential Gauss-Bonnet couplings, and putting the predicted (ns, r) directly on the ACT DR6 P-ACT-LB-BK18 plot. I have not seen that exact combination elsewhere, and the framing is honest: the authors know the potential is disfavored in Einstein gravity and are asking whether GB corrections rescue it. That is a legitimate model-building exercise.

What it does well: the background equations and slow-roll formulas are quoted from the right sources, both coupling functions are standard, the parameter-space scans in Figs. 2 and 5 give a useful picture of how much freedom lives in xi1 and xi2, and the reheating section at least checks the BBN lower bound. The citation pattern covers the relevant EGB and ACT literature; the self-citations are concentrated in the actual subject area and are not a red flag. No code or data is shipped, so the support is analytical only.

The soft spots are real but not all equal. The one that matters is the slow-roll validity check. The paper reduces the exact system (5) to (13)-(14) and then uses Eq. (9), which contains delta1 and delta2, but it never evaluates delta1 or delta2 at the headline point xi1 = 15, xi2 = 0.255. The stress-test note is right that delta1 has a term scaling like xi1 xi2 / phi, which diverges as phi -> 0. That divergence sits at the end of inflation, where slow-roll is expected to fail, so it is not by itself disqualifying; my rough estimate at 60 e-folds puts phi large enough that delta1 may well be small. But 'may well be' is not a proof, and the paper should show delta1 and delta2 along the trajectory and, ideally, integrate the full system (5) once to confirm. The second issue is the N convention: the paper defines N = ln(a/ae) earlier, which sets N = 0 at the end, then in Sec. IV says N* = 0 at horizon crossing and inflation ends at N = 60. Those are opposite conventions, and Table I is hard to interpret as written. The running spectral index numbers appear without a derivation and without a direct comparison to an ACT bound; the abstract's claim that running reinforces consistency is currently unsupported. Finally, the agreement with ACT is parameter-dependent and partly fitted; that is normal in this literature, but the abstract's 'good agreement' overstates what a scan can show.

Who this is for: EGB inflation model-builders. If the slow-roll check is done and the N convention fixed, this is a publishable, if contained, viability study. I would send it to a referee rather than desk reject; the referee should ask for the delta1/delta2 evaluation, a consistent N convention, and a derivation of alpha_s. If the full system disagrees with the slow-roll formulas, the central claim falls, so the check is genuinely load-bearing.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies single-field inflation with the fractional power-law potential V = V0 φ^n (n = 1/3, 2/5, 2/3, 4/3) in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet (EGB) gravity, using a scalar–GB coupling of tanh or exponential form. It adopts the effective-potential slow-roll approximation from Refs. [109,146,147] and the slow-roll formulas for n_s and r from Ref. [143], solves Eq. (13) for φ(N), and compares the resulting (n_s, r) pairs with Planck and ACT contours. For tanh coupling with ξ1 = 15, ξ2 = 0.255 and N = 60, the model yields n_s ≈ 0.97265 and r ≈ 0.01707 for n = 1/3, inside the 1σ P-ACT-LB-BK18 region, and n = 2/5 is also inside. For exponential coupling with ξ1 = 0.5, ξ2 = 0.01, the n = 1/3 and n = 2/5 cases lie in the 1σ region. The paper also presents parameter-space scans in the ξ1–ξ2 plane, values for the running spectral index α_s, and a reheating analysis showing T_re above BBN for ω_re > 1/3. It concludes that fractional power potentials, disfavored in Einstein gravity, are viable in EGB gravity.

Significance. If the computation is sound, the result is of interest: it offers a modified-gravity mechanism that rescues monomial potentials from the recent ACT preference for higher n_s. The paper usefully maps the allowed ξ1–ξ2 regions for both coupling functions and shows that reheating can be accommodated. However, the significance is limited by two features. First, the central numbers rely on an unverified slow-roll reduction at large couplings, with no check of the EGB slow-roll parameters or numerical integration of the exact system (5). Second, the agreement with ACT is obtained by scanning the coupling parameters against the same contours, so it is a fit rather than an independent prediction, and no prior or fine-tuning measure is provided. The paper includes no machine-checked code or proofs, but it does provide a systematic comparison of two coupling choices and a self-contained reheating analysis.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III, Eqs. (7)–(9), (12)–(14); Table I] The headline n_s and r values are obtained from slow-roll formulas that contain δ1 and δ2, but the paper never evaluates these parameters at the adopted couplings. Since δ1 = 4 ξ,φ H² χ, using the approximations (14) for the tanh coupling gives terms proportional to ξ1 ξ2 and ξ2², with a contribution that scales as φ^{-1} and is not obviously small at ξ1 = 15, ξ2 = 0.255. The paper also does not check ε1 or higher-order slow-roll parameters, and the exact system (5) is quoted but never integrated. Thus the tabulated 1σ agreement may be an artifact of the approximation, and the central claim of the paper is currently unverified.
[Sec. II and Sec. IV] The definition of the e-fold number is internally inconsistent. Section II defines N = ln(a/a_e), which implies N = 0 at the end of inflation and N > 0 at earlier times/horizon crossing. Section IV states instead that "the number of e-folds at horizon crossing is N* = 0, and inflation ends at N = 60." These two conventions lead to opposite assignments for N = 0 and N = 60. Since Table I and Figs. 1 and 4 report results at N = 50 and N = 60, and since the reheating formulas (15)–(16) depend on N_k, the convention must be fixed and used consistently.
[Secs. IV–V, Figs. 2 and 5] The parameter-space scans select ξ1 and ξ2 by requiring that the computed n_s and r fall inside the 1σ ACT contour, so the agreement reported in the abstract and conclusion is partly a fit rather than an independent prediction. The text acknowledges that no direct bound can be placed on the couplings, yet it also concludes that the model "shows good agreement" and that higher couplings are preferred. The authors should frame the results as allowed regions constrained by ACT data, quantify what fraction of the scanned parameter space is allowed, and discuss the degree of fine-tuning involved.
[Sec. III, Eq. (13) and text after Eq. (14)] The end-of-inflation condition is imposed as ε1(φ_e) = 1, but the paper does not verify that the standard single-field slow-roll end condition remains the correct condition in the EGB system, where the coupling corrections modify the Friedmann equations and the slow-roll parameters. Since φ_e determines the field range and hence the mapping between N and φ, an incorrect end condition would shift all computed observables. At minimum, the authors should display ε1 and δ1 along the trajectory and confirm that ε1 = 1 is the appropriate termination criterion.

minor comments (6)

[Introduction] The text contains the typo "Eisenstein gravity" where "Einstein gravity" is intended; this should be corrected.
[Sec. III heading] The heading uses "EBG" instead of "EGB"; the acronym should be consistent throughout.
[Sec. V] The sentence "eventually the nr and r points move out 1σ region" should read "the n_s and r points move out of the 1σ region."
[Eq. (9)] The expression for n_s is ambiguous as printed; parentheses should clarify whether the second term is (2 ε1 ε2 − δ1 δ2)/(2 ε1 − δ1) or another grouping.
[Conclusion] The conclusion states that the exponential coupling is ξ(φ) ∝ exp(ξ2 φ), while Eq. (11) defines it as ξ(φ) ∝ exp(−ξ2 φ); the sign should be made consistent.
[Secs. IV–V, running spectral index] The values of α_s are listed without a definition or derivation; the authors should state how α_s is computed from the slow-roll solution, since this is needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

ACT agreement is partly a selection effect: the coupling parameters are scanned to satisfy the same 1σ contour that is later reported as a prediction, though reheating and running provide some independent content.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV (hyperbolic coupling), Figs. 1-2, Table I; abstract]
"It is observed that for the values of n = 1/3, 2/5 , and setting e-folds to N = 60 the prediction lies well within the 1σ of the P-ACT-LB-BK18 constraints. ... For the analysis we scanned the parametric space from 0.001 to 15 for both ξ1 and ξ2. The blue dots represent combinations of (ξ1,ξ2) for which the resulting values of ns and r lie within the 1σ confidence region of the ACT data."

The free couplings ξ1 and ξ2 are not fixed by independent physics; they are chosen from a scan whose selection criterion is precisely whether (ns,r) falls inside the ACT 1σ contour. The headline values ξ1=15, ξ2=0.255 are then reported as producing predictions 'well within the 1σ' region. That agreement is therefore a selection effect: the parameters were picked from the set already satisfying the same constraint that the paper presents as confirmed. The central claim 'the predictions lie within 1σ' thus reduces, for the chosen point, to the scan's own acceptance condition. This is partial circularity rather than full equivalence, because the reheating temperature and running spectral index are computed at these parameters without being used in the selection.

full rationale

The derivation from the action to ns and r is not itself defined in terms of the ACT data: the paper imports the effective-potential slow-roll method (Eqs. 12-14) and the EGB slow-roll expressions for ns and r (Eq. 9) from external references, and no author-specific uniqueness theorem is invoked. The self-citations present (e.g., Refs. 99 and 138) are used only to motivate the coupling forms and are not load-bearing. The main circularity is the fitted-input pattern: the parameter scan in Figs. 2 and 5 selects (ξ1,ξ2) by the ACT 1σ condition, and the same condition is then quoted as the model's successful prediction. Because the scan is transparent and the reheating and running results are not part of the selection, the circularity is moderate rather than total. Separately, the paper assumes without verification that the EGB slow-roll parameters (Eq. 8), including δ1, are small at the adopted large couplings; that is a serious validity concern for the quoted numbers, but it is a correctness risk, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has four free coupling parameters chosen by scanning parameter space to match ACT, plus the e-fold number N and the reheating equation of state chosen from standard ranges. The analysis imports the effective potential and slow-roll machinery from prior work and does not independently justify its validity at the selected parameter values. No new entities are introduced beyond the existing scalar field and GB coupling functions.

free parameters (4)

xi1 (hyperbolic coupling) = 15
Chosen in Sec. IV to place the n = 1/3 and 2/5 predictions inside the ACT 1 sigma contour; no prior or derivation is given.
xi2 (hyperbolic coupling) = 0.255
Chosen together with xi1 = 15 to match the ACT data in Sec. IV.
xi1 (exponential coupling) = 0.5
Chosen in Sec. V to bring the n = 1/3 and 2/5 predictions into the ACT 1 sigma region.
xi2 (exponential coupling) = 0.01
Chosen together with xi1 = 0.5 to match ACT in Sec. V.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The EGB action (Eq. 1) with a scalar field non-minimally coupled to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant describes the early universe.
The paper assumes this action as the theory of inflation without deriving it from string theory or another UV completion.
ad hoc to paper The slow-roll approximation, including the effective potential method of Eqs. (12) to (14), is valid for the chosen potential and couplings.
The method is imported from Refs. [109, 146, 147] and used without checking that all slow-roll parameters, including delta1 from Eq. (8), are small at the adopted xi values. The full system (5) is never integrated.
domain assumption The reheating phase has a constant equation-of-state parameter omega_re during the post-inflationary period.
Used in Eqs. (15) and (16), standard in the literature but unverified for this particular model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconciling Fractional Power Potential and EGB Gravity in the light of ACT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T5ZSICC2

@misc{pith2026250718684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconciling Fractional Power Potential and EGB Gravity in the light of ACT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T5ZSICC2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18684}
}

abstract

Recent results from the ACT collaboration indicate a higher value for the scalar spectral index, with $n_s = 0.9743 \pm 0.0034$, which sets tighter constraints on inflationary models, and these shifts are not in favor of many pre existing scenarios, including the widely studied and accepted standard Starobinsky model. In this paper, we examine the fractional power scalar potential within the framework of Einstein Gauss Bonnet (EGB) gravity, incorporating standard slow roll approximation. The EGB theory, motivated by higher dimensional models, introduces quadratic curvature corrections and a coupling between the scalar field and the Gauss Bonnet term, thereby modifying the cosmological dynamics. The results show good agreement with observational data, placing the predictions within the $1 \sigma$ region of the ACT $r-n_s$ constraint plot. Furthermore, incorporating the running of the scalar spectral index reinforces the models consistency with observational bounds. We also explore the parameter space of the EGB couplings and identify the range of free parameters for which the results of $n_s$ and $r$ values remain within the $1 \sigma$ region of the ACT constraints. Finally, we also investigate the reheating phase, demonstrating that the model not only agrees with ACT data but also satisfies the lower bound on the reheating temperature, thereby ensuring a consistent and viable cosmological scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18684 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The plot shows the relation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. The plot illustrates the predictions of the model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Exponential Coupling:- The plot shows the allowed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The relation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

Adiabatic Perturbations in GW170817-Compatible Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Inflation
gr-qc 2026-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

In Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet inflation, the unconstrained GW170817-compatible models keep perturbations adiabatic, while the constrained class violates adiabaticity in the last few e-foldings.
Fibre Inflation Meets Quintessence: Implications of Perturbative Stabilisation
hep-th 2025-11 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

Adding a base-modulus redefinition to fibre inflation in perturbative LVS shifts (ns, r) into ACT-allowed territory and yields an axion quintessence companion.
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.
Starobinsky Inflation in k-Essence Framework: Attractor Dynamics, Reheating, and Consistency with ACT DR6
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A power-law non-canonical kinetic coupling F(φ)=1+Aφ^n revives the Starobinsky inflation potential's consistency with ACT DR6 CMB data while preserving attractor dynamics and yielding viable reheating.
ACT-DR6 consistent inflation in generalised entropic cosmology and $f(Q)$ gravity
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Reconstruction produces explicit f(Q) and generalised-entropic inflation models (and scalar-coupled versions) whose slow-roll parameters match ACT-DR6 + Planck-BAO constraints on n_s and r.
(Lovelock)$^2$ inflation: explaining the ACT data and equivalence to Higgs-Gauss-Bonnet inflation
gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A quadratic f(L) gravity with a negative Gauss-Bonnet coupling shifts Starobinsky inflation's (n_s, r) predictions toward the ACT-preferred higher n_s, at the cost of a larger tensor-to-scalar ratio.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

151 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

[143]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. A. Skugoreva, A. V. Toporensky, and S. Y. Vernov, JCAP 09, 050 (2024), arXiv:2403.06147 [gr- qc]

arXiv 2024
[1]

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

1981
[2]

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

1982
[3]

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

1981
[4]

Sato, Mon

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

1981
[5]

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
[6]

Albrecht and P

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

1982
[7]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

1980

Show all 151 references

[8]

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

1982
[9]

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

1983
[10]

Hinshaw et al

G. Hinshaw et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[11]

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

2016 arXiv
[12]

Akrami et al

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

2020 arXiv
[13]

Barenboim and W

G. Barenboim and W. H. Kinney, JCAP 0703, 014 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701343 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[14]

Franche, R

P. Franche, R. Gwyn, B. Underwood, and A. Wissanji, Phys. Rev. D82, 063528 (2010), arXiv:1002.2639 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[15]

Unnikrishnan, V

S. Unnikrishnan, V. Sahni, and A. Toporensky, JCAP 1208, 018 (2012), arXiv:1205.0786 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[16]

Saaidi, A

K. Saaidi, A. Mohammadi, and T. Golanbari, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 926807 (2015), arXiv:1708.03675 [gr- qc]

2015 arXiv
[17]

Mohammadi, Z

A. Mohammadi, Z. Ossoulian, T. Golanbari, and K. Saaidi, Astrophys. Space Sci. 359, 7 (2015)

2015
[18]

Fairbairn and M

M. Fairbairn and M. H. G. Tytgat, Phys. Lett. B546, 1 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0204070 [hep-th]

2002 arXiv
[19]

Aghamohammadi, A

A. Aghamohammadi, A. Mohammadi, T. Golanbari, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Rev. D90, 084028 (2014), arXiv:1502.07578 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[20]

Bessada, W

D. Bessada, W. H. Kinney, and K. Tzirakis, JCAP 0909, 031 (2009), arXiv:0907.1311 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[21]

J. M. Weller, C. van de Bruck, and D. F. Mota, JCAP 1206, 002 (2012), arXiv:1111.0237 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[22]

Nazavari, A

N. Nazavari, A. Mohammadi, Z. Ossoulian, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Rev. D93, 123504 (2016), arXiv:1708.03676 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[23]

Amani, K

R. Amani, K. Rezazadeh, A. Abdolmaleki, and K. Karami, Astrophys. J. 853, 188 (2018), arXiv:1802.06075 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[24]

Golanbari, A

T. Golanbari, A. Mohammadi, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Dark Univ. 27, 100456 (2020), arXiv:1808.07246 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[25]

Berera, Physical Review Letters 75, 3218 (1995)

A. Berera, Physical Review Letters 75, 3218 (1995)

1995
[26]

Berera, Nuclear Physics B 585, 666 (2000)

A. Berera, Nuclear Physics B 585, 666 (2000)

2000
[27]

Bastero-Gil and A

M. Bastero-Gil and A. Berera, Phys. Rev. D71, 063515 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411144 [hep-ph]

2005 arXiv
[28]

Sayar, A

K. Sayar, A. Mohammadi, L. Akhtari, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Rev. D95, 023501 (2017), arXiv:1708.01714 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[29]

Akhtari, A

L. Akhtari, A. Mohammadi, K. Sayar, and K. Saaidi, Astropart. Phys. 90, 28 (2017), arXiv:1710.05793 [astro- ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[30]

Sheikhahmadi, A

H. Sheikhahmadi, A. Mohammadi, A. Aghamohammadi, T. Harko, R. Herrera, C. Corda, A. Abebe, and K. Saaidi, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 1038 (2019), arXiv:1907.10966 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[31]

Motohashi, A

H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, JCAP 1509, 018 (2015), arXiv:1411.5021 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[32]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and L. Sebastiani, Nucl. Phys. B923, 608 (2017), arXiv:1708.08346 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[33]

V. K. Oikonomou, Mod. Phys. Lett. A32, 1750172 (2017), arXiv:1706.00507 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[34]

Mohammadi, T

A. Mohammadi, T. Golanbari, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Dark Univ. 28, 100505 (2020), arXiv:1912.07006 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Mohammadi, T

A. Mohammadi, T. Golanbari, S. Nasri, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123537 (2020), arXiv:2004.12137 [gr- qc]. 8

2020 arXiv
[36]

Mohammadi, Phys

A. Mohammadi, Phys. Dark Univ. 36, 101055 (2022), arXiv:2203.06643 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[37]

Adhikari, M

R. Adhikari, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and Yogesh, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 899 (2020), arXiv:2002.07061 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[38]

Mohammadi and F

A. Mohammadi and F. Kheirandish, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101362 (2023)

2023
[39]

Louis et al

T. Louis et al. (ACT), arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[40]

Calabrese et al

E. Calabrese et al. (ACT), arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[41]

Kallosh, A

R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, (2025), arXiv:2503.21030 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[42]

S. Aoki, H. Otsuka, and R. Yanagita, (2025), arXiv:2504.01622 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[43]

Dioguardi, A

C. Dioguardi, A. J. Iovino, and A. Racioppi, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139664 (2025), arXiv:2504.02809 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[44]

Salvio, (2025), arXiv:2504.10488 [hep-ph]

A. Salvio, (2025), arXiv:2504.10488 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[45]

Brahma and J

S. Brahma and J. Calder´ on-Figueroa, (2025), arXiv:2504.02746 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[46]

Q. Gao, Y. Gong, Z. Yi, and F. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2504.15218 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[47]

Drees and Y

M. Drees and Y. Xu, (2025), arXiv:2504.20757 [astro- ph.CO]

2025
[49]

Yin, (2025), arXiv:2505.03004 [hep-ph]

W. Yin, (2025), arXiv:2505.03004 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[50]

L. Liu, Z. Yi, and Y. Gong, (2025), arXiv:2505.02407 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[51]

I. D. Gialamas, T. Katsoulas, and K. Tamvakis, (2025), arXiv:2505.03608 [gr-qc]

2025
[52]

M. R. Haque, S. Pal, and D. Paul, (2025), arXiv:2505.01517 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[53]

M. R. Haque, S. Pal, and D. Paul, (2025), arXiv:2505.04615 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[54]

Dioguardi and A

C. Dioguardi and A. Karam, (2025), arXiv:2504.12937 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[55]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Racioppi, and M. Raidal, (2025), arXiv:2504.06002 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[56]

Mohammadi, Q

Yogesh, A. Mohammadi, Q. Wu, and T. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2505.05363 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[58]

N. S. Risdianto, R. H. S. Budhi, N. Shobcha, and A. S. Adam, (2025), arXiv:2507.12868 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[59]

E. G. Ferreira, E. McDonough, L. Balkenhol, R. Kallosh, and L. Knox, (2025), arXiv:2507.12459 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[60]

Mohammadi, Yogesh, and A

A. Mohammadi, Yogesh, and A. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2507.06544 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[61]

Pallis, (2025), arXiv:2507.02219 [hep-ph]

C. Pallis, (2025), arXiv:2507.02219 [hep-ph]

2025
[62]

Q. Gao, Y. Qian, Y. Gong, and Z. Yi, (2025), arXiv:2506.18456 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[63]

Okada and O

N. Okada and O. Seto, (2025), arXiv:2506.15965 [hep-ph]

2025
[64]

McDonald, (2025), arXiv:2506.12916 [hep-ph]

J. McDonald, (2025), arXiv:2506.12916 [hep-ph]

2025
[65]

Bianchi and M

E. Bianchi and M. Gamonal, (2025), arXiv:2506.10081 [gr-qc]

2025
[66]

Odintsov and V

S. Odintsov and V. Oikonomou, (2025), arXiv:2506.08193 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[67]

Kohri and X

K. Kohri and X. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2506.06797 [astro- ph.CO]

2025
[68]

Chakraborty, D

A. Chakraborty, D. Maity, and R. Mondal, (2025), arXiv:2506.02141 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[69]

Pallis, (2025), arXiv:2505.23243 [hep-ph]

C. Pallis, (2025), arXiv:2505.23243 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[70]

Frolovsky and S

D. Frolovsky and S. V. Ketov, (2025), arXiv:2505.17514 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[71]

M. R. Haque and D. maity, (2025), arXiv:2505.18267 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[72]

Peng, Z.-C

Z.-Z. Peng, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2505.12816 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[73]

R. C. Bernardo, S. Koh, and G. Tumurtushaa, (2025), arXiv:2505.10235 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[74]

Z. Yi, X. Wang, Q. Gao, and Y. Gong, (2025), arXiv:2505.10268 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[75]

Addazi, Y

A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergenov, and S. V. Ketov, (2025), arXiv:2505.10305 [gr-qc]

2025
[76]

Maity, (2025), arXiv:2505.10534 [astro-ph.CO]

S. Maity, (2025), arXiv:2505.10534 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[77]

C. T. Byrnes, M. Cortˆ es, and A. R. Liddle, (2025), arXiv:2505.09682 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[78]

Zharov, O

D. Zharov, O. Sobol, and S. Vilchinskii, (2025), arXiv:2505.01129 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[79]

Kofman, A

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

1994 arXiv
[80]

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

2019 arXiv
[81]

Kofman, in 3rd RESCEU International Sympo- sium on Particle Cosmology (1997) pp

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

1997
[82]

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

2008 arXiv
[83]

Bezrukov, A

F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Sibiryakov, JHEP01, 016 (2011), arXiv:1008.5157 [hep- ph]

2011 arXiv
[84]

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

1994 arXiv
[85]

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

1995 arXiv
[86]

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

2008 arXiv
[87]

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
[88]

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

2020 arXiv
[89]

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

2009 arXiv
[90]

Kallosh and A

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

2013 arXiv
[91]

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
[92]

Rubio, Front

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

2019 arXiv
[93]

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
[94]

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

2023 arXiv
[95]

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
[96]

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

2020 arXiv
[97]

J. Kim, Z. Yang, and Y.-l. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2503.16907 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[98]

J. Kim, X. Wang, Y.-l. Zhang, and Z. Ren, (2025), arXiv:2504.12035 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[99]

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

2024 arXiv
[100]

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

2024
[101]

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
[102]

van de Bruck and C

C. van de Bruck and C. Longden, Phys. Rev. D 93, 063519 (2016), arXiv:1512.04768 [hep-ph]. 9

2016 arXiv
[103]

Guo and D

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

2009 arXiv
[104]

Koh, B.-H

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

2017 arXiv
[105]

Satoh and J

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

2008 arXiv
[106]

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
[107]

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
[108]

Mathew and S

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

2016 arXiv
[109]

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
[110]

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

2016 arXiv
[111]

Nozari and N

K. Nozari and N. Rashidi, Phys. Rev. D95, 123518 (2017), arXiv:1705.02617 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[112]

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

2018 arXiv
[113]

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

2019 arXiv
[114]

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

2020 arXiv
[115]

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

2020 arXiv
[116]

Kawai and J

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

2021 arXiv
[117]

Kawai and J

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

2019 arXiv
[118]

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

2022 arXiv
[119]

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

2022 arXiv
[120]

Cognola, E

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

2007
[121]

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

2020 arXiv
[122]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, N. Chatzarakis, and T. Paul, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 565 (2019), arXiv:1907.00403 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[123]

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

2024 arXiv
[124]

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

2024 arXiv
[125]

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
[126]

Kawai, M.-a

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

1998 arXiv
[127]

Nojiri and S

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

2024 arXiv
[128]

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
[129]

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
[130]

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

2023 arXiv
[131]

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

2022 arXiv
[132]

Kawai and J

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

2023 arXiv
[133]

Mohammadi, Astrophys

Yogesh and A. Mohammadi, Astrophys. J. 986, 35 (2025), arXiv:2501.01867 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[134]

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

2022 arXiv
[135]

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

2023 arXiv
[136]

Kawai and J

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

2021 arXiv
[137]

Ashrafzadeh and K

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

2024 arXiv
[138]

Zahoor, K

Yogesh, M. Zahoor, K. A. Wani, and I. A. Bhat, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101732 (2025), arXiv:2505.11429 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[139]

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

2020 arXiv
[140]

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

2018 arXiv
[141]

Kleidis and V

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

2019 arXiv
[142]

Rashidi and K

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

2020 arXiv
[144]

Harigaya, M

K. Harigaya, M. Ibe, K. Schmitz, and T. T. Yanagida, Physical Review D 90 (2014), 10.1103/phys- revd.90.123524

2014 doi
[145]

Ashrafzadeh and K

A. Ashrafzadeh and K. Karami, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 965, 11 (2024)

2024
[146]

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
[147]

Vernov and E

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

2021 arXiv
[148]

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

2015 arXiv
[149]

Adhikari, M

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

2022 arXiv
[150]

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

2020 arXiv
[151]

Yogesh, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and A. Wang, (2024), arXiv:2408.00316 [gr-qc]

2024
[152]

M. R. Gangopadhyay, V. V. Godithi, R. Inui, K. Ichiki, T. Kajino, A. Manusankar, G. J. Mathews, and Yo- gesh, JHEAp 47, 100358 (2025), arXiv:2309.03101 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[153]

M. R. Gangopadhyay, J. C. Jain, D. Sharma, and Yogesh, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 849 (2022), arXiv:2108.13839 [astro- ph.CO]

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [143]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. A. Skugoreva, A. V. Toporensky, and S. Y. Vernov, JCAP 09, 050 (2024), arXiv:2403.06147 [gr- qc]

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

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

1981

[3] [2]

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

1982

[4] [3]

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

1981

[5] [4]

Sato, Mon

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

1981

[6] [5]

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

[7] [6]

Albrecht and P

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

1982

[8] [7]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

1980