The Scale Factor Potential Approach to Inflation

David Benisty; Eduardo I. Guendelman; Emmanuel N. Saridakis

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 86 references

The Scale Factor Potential Approach to Inflation

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a scale-factor potential pinpoints the end of inflation and reproduces the observed spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio.

desk verdict The scale-factor-potential formalism is a clean but non-new repackaging of standard slow-roll, but the worked example fails on its own criterion: the claimed Nf=60 end is a local maximum, not the first minimum, and the path to it crosses a singularity. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01982 v2 pith:6K6BQGWQ submitted 2019-09-04 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

David Benisty , Eduardo I. Guendelman , Emmanuel N. Saridakis This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th

keywords scalefactorpotentialinflatione-foldingnumberslow-rollapproximationspectralindextensor-to-scalarratioreconstructionPlanck2018

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 introduces a “scale factor potential” $U(a)$, defined so that the square of the Hubble expansion rate and $U(a)$ sum to zero. It claims that inflation ends exactly at the first (and, in the studied models, global) minimum of this potential, giving a clean condition $U'(a_f)=0$, and that all slow-roll observables can be written directly in terms of the logarithm $P(N)$ of $U$ expressed in e-folding number $N$. Using a simple parametrization of $P(N)$, the paper reconstructs an analytic class of scalar-field potentials for which the spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio come out as $n_s\approx 0.965$ and $r\approx 0.0046$ at 60 e-folds, inside the Planck 2018 contour.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scale-factor potential $U(a)$, defined by $\dot{a}^2 + U(a)=0$, together with its logarithmic reparametrization $P(N)=-\ln[U(a)/U(a_i)]$ in e-folding time $N$. The single organizing identity is $U'(a_f)=0$ for the end of inflation, and the set of relations (21)–(24) expressing $r$, $n_s$, $\alpha_s$, and $n_T$ in terms of $P'(0)$ and higher derivatives. The concrete ansatz $P(N)=-2(1/(N_0+N)+N)$ carries the example: it makes all slow-roll parameters small by construction and yields closed-form observables and an analytic reconstructed $V(\phi)$.

What would settle it

For the model $P(N)=-2(1/(N_0+N)+N)$ with $N_0=-59$, solve $P'(N)=2/(N_0+N)^2-2=0$; the roots are $N=58$ and $N=60$, and $H(N)$ diverges at the singularity $N=59$. Checking whether the earliest stationary point of $U$ — which the paper identifies with the end of inflation — is at $N=58$ rather than $N=60$ would settle the claim; a direct computation of the first minimum of $U(a)$ for the reconstructed potential in Eq. (44) suffices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the scale-factor potential $U(a)$, defined through $\dot{a}^2 + U(a)=0$, encodes the inflationary exit: because inflation begins near de Sitter, $U(a)$ opens as a downward parabola, and the first stationary point after that maximum must be a minimum, giving the sharp end condition $U'(a_f)=0$. All slow-roll observables can then be expressed through $P(N)=-\ln[U/U(a_i)]$ with $N=\ln(a/a_i)$, with $\epsilon_1=1+P'(N)/2$ and the higher $\epsilon_n$ following from derivatives of $P$. The paper chooses the parametrization $P(N)=-2\left(1/(N_0+N)+N\right)$, which automatically satisfies the slow-roll inequalities, and derives $r=16/(N_f-1)^2$ and $n_s=((N_f-4)N_f+1)/(N_f-1)^2$, where $N_f$ is the e-folding number at the end. For $N_f=60$ these give $r\approx 0.00459$ and $n_s\approx 0.9655$, and the relation $r=-8(n_s-2+\sqrt{3-2n_s})$ traces a curve that the paper shows inside the Planck 2018 $1\sigma$ region. The same construction yields an explicit analytic single-field potential $V(\phi)$ whose asymptotics are $V\to 3H_0^2$ for $\phi\to\infty$ and $V\to 0$ for $\phi\to -\infty$, which the paper presents as a new class of inflationary potentials reproducing the observed observables.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that, for the chosen model parameter, the end of inflation is the 60-e-fold solution rather than the other solution of the same equation, and it does not give a physical reason for that selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the scale-factor potential formalism is correct, the end of inflation is fixed by a first-minimum condition that can be read off without solving the full field dynamics.
The parametrization $P(N)=-2(1/(N_0+N)+N)$ produces a closed-form relation between $n_s$ and $r$, allowing quick comparison with any new CMB constraint.
The same framework reconstructs explicit scalar potentials from any prescribed or measured values of the inflationary observables, not only from this ansatz.
The asymptotic limits $V\to 3H_0^2$ for large $\phi$ and $V\to 0$ for negative $\phi$ tie the energy scale of inflation directly to the reconstructed potential.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step would be to test whether the first-minimum condition $U'(a_f)=0$ agrees with $\epsilon_1=1$ for known models to better than slow-roll accuracy, since the paper checks the formalism only for the Starobinsky example.
The root-selection issue in the example suggests that, even within this framework, the physical end of inflation may depend on which stationary point of $U$ is reachable from the initial de Sitter branch without crossing a singularity; checking reachability would make the reconstruction fully self-consistent.
Because the observable formulas depend only on derivatives of $P$ at $N=0$, the approach could be applied to any model that supplies a $U(a)$, including modified-gravity realizations, a point the paper states but does not develop.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Bottom line: the scale-factor-potential idea is a clean but non-new repackaging of the standard Hubble slow-roll hierarchy, and the paper is readable; however, the worked example fails on the paper's own criterion. Eq. (33) selects Nf=60 as the end of inflation, but P''(60) is negative, so that point is a local maximum, not the first minimum. The first minimum is at N=58, and the interval (58,59) contains a singularity in H(N) where the reconstructed V(phi) turns negative. The claimed predictions for 60 e-folds therefore belong to no well-defined model, and the abstract's r~10^-4 does not match the body's r=0.00459.

What the paper does well: the definitions U(a)=-a^2H^2 and P(N)=-ln(U/U_i) are clearly laid out, the slow-roll formulas (18)-(20) are mostly correct (Eq. (20) may have an extra +2), and the Starobinsky example nicely illustrates the end-of-inflation point. The reconstruction formulas (41)-(42) are standard but derived cleanly. The paper cites Lidsey et al. and does not pretend the reconstruction is new.

Soft spots, in order: (1) The root-selection error is load-bearing. The end condition P'=0 has two solutions, and the one they choose violates their own 'first minimum' definition. This is not a stylistic complaint; it kills the example. (2) The abstract/body r mismatch is sloppy and would confuse any reader. (3) The novelty is limited: U is just -a^2H^2, and P(N) is a logarithmic reparametrization of the Hubble slow-roll parameter. The parametrization (32) is a new example, but it is reverse-engineered to hit the desired observables, which the paper acknowledges.

My take: the general formalism is worth having on record, and the flaw is fixable by choosing the other root (or changing the ansatz so the first minimum lands at the intended Nf). But as presented, the central claim does not hold. I'd send this to a referee rather than desk-reject, because the formalism is sound and the error is concrete; a serious referee could prescribe the fix. For my own work, I wouldn't cite the example, and I'd only cite the formalism if I needed that particular packaging. Bring to reading group? Maybe, as a case study in how a root-selection slip can gut an inflationary model.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a 'scale factor potential' U(a) defined by \dot a^2 + U(a) = 0 and uses the variable P(N) = -ln[U(a)/U(a_i)] to rewrite the Hubble parameter and the slow-roll parameters in terms of the e-folding number N. It proposes the one-parameter ansatz P(N) = -2(1/(N_0+N) + N), claims the end of inflation is the first (global) minimum of U, and uses N_f = 60, N_0 = -59 to obtain n_s ≈ 0.9655 and r = 0.00459 (with the abstract quoting r ∼ 10^{-4}). The paper further claims to reconstruct analytically the corresponding scalar-field potential V(φ) and to find agreement with Planck 2018 data.

Significance. The formalism has a genuinely appealing feature: the relation H(N) = H(0) exp[-N - P(N)/2] and the compact slow-roll expressions (18)-(20) reduce inflationary observables to local properties of P at N = 0, and the paper is transparent that N_f = 60 is an input convention rather than a fitted quantity. However, the central worked example is internally inconsistent: the claimed endpoint N_f = 60 is not the first minimum of P, the intervening evolution crosses a singularity of H, the reconstructed V(φ) is not the correct inversion of the N-space expression, and the abstract's r ∼ 10^{-4} disagrees with the value computed in the body. These are load-bearing, not stylistic, defects.

major comments (4)

[§IV, Eq. (33)] The condition P'(N_f) = 0 applied to the ansatz (32) gives (N_0 + N_f)^2 = 1, hence two roots. For the example N_f = 60, N_0 = -59, these are N_f = 58 and N_f = 60. Since P''(58) = 4 > 0 and P''(60) = -4 < 0, the first (and global) minimum of P on the physical branch is at N_f = 58, while N_f = 60 is a maximum. Equation (33) therefore selects the wrong root, and the assertion that the ansatz yields 60 e-folds of inflation ending at the minimum of U is not correct.
[§IV, Eqs. (44)-(46)] With N_0 = -59, H(N) = H_0 exp[1/(N-59)] diverges at N = 59, so the interval between the first minimum at N = 58 and the claimed endpoint N = 60 contains a singularity of the Hubble parameter. In addition, V(φ(N)) in (44) is negative for a range of N inside (58,59) (wherever 1/(N-59)^2 > 3). Thus the reconstructed potential does not describe a continuous, positive-energy 60-e-fold inflationary phase, and the trajectory cannot reach the advertised endpoint.
[§IV, Eq. (45)] The claimed analytic inversion of (44) is not algebraically correct. Substituting N_0 + N = N_0 e^{φ/√2} into (44) gives an additional factor 1/N_0^2 in the prefactor relative to (45); consequently the asymptotic value quoted in (46) would be 3H_0^2 N_0^2, not 3H_0^2. The reconstructed scalar potential therefore does not have the stated limits, and the analytic formulas for V(φ) are inconsistent with the N-space expression.
[Abstract and §IV, Eq. (37)] The abstract's headline prediction r ∼ 10^{-4} for 60 e-folds is not what the paper computes. Equation (37) gives r = 0.00459 for N_f = 60, and the first minimum actually occurs at N_f = 58, not 60. This discrepancy concerns the main observable and the claimed agreement with observations, so it cannot be dismissed as a simple typo in the abstract.

minor comments (3)

[Acknowledgments] The phrase 'we thanks to David Vasak' should read 'we thank David Vasak'.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains stray '/s48' style tokens and does not state whether the plotted curve is Eq. (38); please clean the caption and label the N_f values at the endpoints.
[§III, Eq. (15)] The derivation of (15) would be easier to follow if the recursion (5) were used explicitly; as printed, the expression is very difficult to check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the formalism is a self-contained reparametrization and the constructed potential's observables are genuine outputs, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The scale-factor potential U(a) is defined by U = -dot(a)^2, which is an identity with the Friedmann equation, and the slow-roll parameters and observables are then derived algebraically from standard definitions. The ansatz P(N) = -2[1/(N0+N)+N] is an explicit model choice with one free parameter N0; the end-of-inflation condition P'(Nf)=0 and the chosen e-folding number Nf=60 determine N0=-59, and the reported ns and r follow as outputs, not as quantities fitted to CMB data. Equations (26)-(27) express what P'(0) and P''(0) would need to be for given observables, but the paper does not use observed ns and r to fix the ansatz; it computes them afterward. The self-citations in the bibliography are contextual and not load-bearing. There is an internal correctness problem in the root selection: for N0=-59, P'(N)=0 has roots N=58 and N=60, with N=58 the first minimum and N=60 a maximum, and H(N) diverges at N=59, so the claimed Nf=60 trajectory is not well defined. That is a mathematical flaw in the model's execution, not circular reasoning, and it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observable predictions depend on one free parameter N0, an ansatz for P(N), and the slow-roll mapping. The paper invents no new physical entities. The main hidden assumption is the root choice in Eq. (33), which determines whether the model yields 60 e-folds with a positive potential.

free parameters (1)

N0 (or equivalently Nf) = -59 for Nf=60 in the paper's example
The ansatz (32) contains one free constant N0. The paper fixes it through Eq. (33) using an assumed end e-folding number Nf=60. The reported ns and r depend directly on this choice; choosing the other root N0=-61 changes r from 0.00459 to 0.00430 and ns from 0.9655 to 0.9667.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The FRW background and the slow-roll approximations encoded in Eqs. (5)-(12) are valid.
The observables r, ns, alpha_s, and n_T are computed from the first three Hubble slow-roll parameters and assume single-field slow-roll inflation. The paper applies these formulas throughout.
domain assumption The physical end of inflation is the first (and global) minimum of U(a), reached when epsilon1=1.
The condition U'(af)=0 is exact for adotdot=0, but the identification of this point as the global minimum and the choice of which root of P'(Nf)=0 to use is an assumption; Eq. (33) selects a root that is not the first minimum.
ad hoc to paper The ansatz P(N)=-2(1/(N0+N)+N) is an acceptable generating function for a real scalar-field potential.
No derivation is given for this form. It is introduced ad hoc so that slow-roll parameters are simple powers of 1/(N0+N). The reconstructed V(phi) from this ansatz can become negative near the end for the paper's chosen root.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Scale Factor Potential Approach to Inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6K6BQGWQ

@misc{pith2026190901982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Scale Factor Potential Approach to Inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6K6BQGWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01982}
}

abstract

We propose a new approach to investigate inflation in a model-independent way, and in particular to elaborate the involved observables, through the introduction of the "scale factor potential". Through its use one can immediately determine the inflation end, which corresponds to its first (and global) minimum. Additionally, we express the inflationary observables in terms of its logarithm, using as independent variable the e-folding number. As an example, we construct a new class of scalar potentials that can lead to the desired spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio, namely $n_s \approx 0.965$ and $r \sim 10^{-4}$ for 60 $e$-folds, in agreement with observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01982 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 30, 682 (1979), [,767(1979)]

1979
[2]

Kazanas, Astrophys

D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J.241, L59 (1980)

1980
[3]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. 91B, 99 (1980), [,771(1980)]

1980
[4]

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev.D23, 347 (1981), [Adv. Ser. As- trophys. Cosmol.3,139(1987)]

1981
[5]

A. D. Linde, QUANTUM COSMOLOGY , Phys. Lett. 108B, 389 (1982), [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cos- mol.3,149(1987)]

1982
[6]

Albrecht and P

A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1220 (1982), [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol.3,158(1987)]

1982
[7]

J. D. Barrow and A. C. Ottewill, J. Phys.A16, 2757 (1983)

work page 1983
[8]

S. K. Blau, E. I. Guendelman, and A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D35, 1747 (1987)

1987

Show all 86 references

[9]

J. D. Barrow and A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Rev. D94, 083518 (2016), arXiv:1609.01126 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[10]

J. D. Barrow and A. Paliathanasis, Gen. Rel. Grav.50, 82 (2018), arXiv:1611.06680 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[11]

K. A. Olive, Phys. Rept.190, 307 (1990)

1990
[12]

A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev.D49, 748 (1994), arXiv:astro- ph/9307002 [astro-ph]

1994
[13]

A. R. Liddle, P. Parsons, and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D50, 7222 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9408015 [astro-ph]

1994 arXiv
[14]

J. E. Lidsey, A. R. Liddle, E. W. Kolb, E. J. Copeland, T. Barreiro, and M. Abney, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 373 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9508078 [astro-ph]

1997 arXiv
[15]

J. L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen, Nucl. Phys.B442, 391 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9505069 [astro-ph]

1995 arXiv
[16]

Berera, Phys

A. Berera, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3218 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9509049 [astro-ph]

1995
[17]

Armendariz-Picon, T

C. Armendariz-Picon, T. Damour, and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B458, 209 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9904075 [hep-th]

1999 arXiv
[18]

Kanti and K

P. Kanti and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett.B464, 192 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9906331 [hep-ph]

1999 arXiv
[19]

Garriga and V

J. Garriga and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett.B458, 219 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9904176 [hep-th]

1999 arXiv
[20]

Gordon, D

C. Gordon, D. Wands, B. A. Bassett, and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev.D63, 023506 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0009131 [astro-ph]

2000 arXiv
[21]

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

2006 arXiv
[22]

Chen and Y

X. Chen and Y. Wang, JCAP 1004, 027 (2010), arXiv:0911.3380 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[23]

Germani and A

C. Germani and A. Kehagias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 011302 (2010), arXiv:1003.2635 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[24]

Kobayashi, M

T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 231302 (2010), arXiv:1008.0603 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[25]

Feng, X.-Z

C.-J. Feng, X.-Z. Li, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D82, 023526 (2010), arXiv:1004.1874 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[26]

Burrage, C

C. Burrage, C. de Rham, D. Seery, and A. J. Tolley, JCAP 1101, 014 (2011), arXiv:1009.2497 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[27]

Kobayashi, M

T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, and J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 126, 511 (2011), arXiv:1105.5723 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[28]

Ohashi and S

J. Ohashi and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP 1210, 035 (2012), arXiv:1207.4879 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[29]

M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and E. N. Sari- dakis, Phys. Rev. D90, 023512 (2014), arXiv:1402.6661 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[30]

Wali Hossain, R

M. Wali Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and E. N. Saridakis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1410.6100 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[31]

Cai, J.-O

Y.-F. Cai, J.-O. Gong, S. Pi, E. N. Saridakis, and S.- Y. Wu, Nucl. Phys.B900, 517 (2015), arXiv:1412.7241 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[32]

C.-Q. Geng, M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D92, 023522 (2015), arXiv:1502.03597 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[33]

Kamali, S

V. Kamali, S. Basilakos, and A. Mehrabi, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 525 (2016), arXiv:1604.05434 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[34]

Geng, C.-C

C.-Q. Geng, C.-C. Lee, M. Sami, E. N. Saridakis, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 1706, 011 (2017), arXiv:1705.01329 [gr-qc]. 7

2017 arXiv
[35]

Benisty and E

D. Benisty and E. I. Guendelman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1850119 (2018), arXiv:1710.10588 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[36]

Dalianis, A

I. Dalianis, A. Kehagias, and G. Tringas, JCAP1901, 037 (2019), arXiv:1805.09483 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[37]

Dalianis and G

I. Dalianis and G. Tringas, Phys. Rev. D100, 083512 (2019), arXiv:1905.01741 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[38]

Benisty, E

D. Benisty, E. Guendelman, E. Nissimov, and S. Pacheva, (2020), arXiv:2003.04723 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Benisty, (2019), arXiv:1912.11124 [gr-qc]

D. Benisty, (2019), arXiv:1912.11124 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[40]

Benisty, E

D. Benisty, E. I. Guendelman, E. Nissimov, and S. Pacheva, (2019), arXiv:1907.07625 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[41]

Benisty, E

D. Benisty, E. Guendelman, E. Nissimov, and S. Pacheva, (2019), arXiv:1906.06691 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[42]

Staicova and M

D. Staicova and M. Stoilov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A34, 1950099 (2019), arXiv:1906.08516 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[43]

Staicova, Proceedings, 10th International Physics Conference of the Balkan Physical Union (BPU-10): Soﬁa, Bulgaria, August 26-30, 2018, AIP Conf

D. Staicova, Proceedings, 10th International Physics Conference of the Balkan Physical Union (BPU-10): Soﬁa, Bulgaria, August 26-30, 2018, AIP Conf. Proc. 2075, 100003 (2019), arXiv:1808.08890 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[44]

Staicova and M

D. Staicova and M. Stoilov, Symmetry11, 1387 (2019), arXiv:1806.08199 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[45]

E. I. Guendelman, Mod. Phys. Lett.A14, 1397 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/0106084 [hep-th]

1999 arXiv
[46]

Guendelman, R

E. Guendelman, R. Herrera, P. Labrana, E. Nissi- mov, and S. Pacheva, Gen. Rel. Grav. 47, 10 (2015), arXiv:1408.5344 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[47]

T. Qiu, T. Katsuragawa, and S. Ni, (2020), arXiv:2003.12755 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[48]

G. R. Dvali and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Lett. B450, 72 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9812483 [hep-ph]

1999 arXiv
[49]

Kawasaki, M

M. Kawasaki, M. Yamaguchi, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3572 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004243 [hep- ph]

2000 arXiv
[50]

Bojowald, Phys

M. Bojowald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 261301 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0206054 [gr-qc]

2002 arXiv
[51]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev.D68, 123512 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0307288 [hep-th]

2003 arXiv
[52]

Kachru, R

S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, J. M. Maldacena, L. P. McAllister, and S. P. Trivedi, JCAP 0310, 013 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0308055 [hep-th]

2003 arXiv
[53]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Gen. Rel. Grav.38, 1285 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0506212 [hep-th]

2006 arXiv
[54]

Ferraro and F

R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. D75, 084031 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610067 [gr-qc]

2007 arXiv
[55]

Cognola, E

G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, L. Se- bastiani, and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev.D77, 046009 (2008), arXiv:0712.4017 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[56]

Cai and E

Y.-F. Cai and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett.B697, 280 (2011), arXiv:1011.1245 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[57]

Ashtekar and D

A. Ashtekar and D. Sloan, Gen. Rel. Grav. 43, 3619 (2011), arXiv:1103.2475 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[58]

Qiu and E

T. Qiu and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D85, 043504 (2012), arXiv:1107.1013 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[59]

Briscese, A

F. Briscese, A. MarcianÃš, L. Modesto, and E. N. Sari- dakis, Phys. Rev. D87, 083507 (2013), arXiv:1212.3611 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[60]

Ellis, D

J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 111301 (2013), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.111,no.12,129902(2013)], arXiv:1305.1247 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[61]

Basilakos, J

S. Basilakos, J. A. S. Lima, and J. Sola, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D22, 1342008 (2013), arXiv:1307.6251 [astro- ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[62]

Sebastiani, G

L. Sebastiani, G. Cognola, R. Myrzakulov, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev. D89, 023518 (2014), arXiv:1311.0744 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[63]

D.BaumannandL.McAllister, Inﬂation and String The- ory, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015) arXiv:1404.2601 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[64]

Dalianis and F

I. Dalianis and F. Farakos, JCAP 1507, 044 (2015), arXiv:1502.01246 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[65]

Kanti, R

P. Kanti, R. Gannouji, and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev.D92, 041302 (2015), arXiv:1503.01579 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[66]

De Laurentis, M

M. De Laurentis, M. Paolella, and S. Capozziello, Phys. Rev. D91, 083531 (2015), arXiv:1503.04659 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[67]

Basilakos, N

S. Basilakos, N. E. Mavromatos, and J. SolÃă, Universe 2, 14 (2016), arXiv:1505.04434 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[68]

Bonanno and A

A. Bonanno and A. Platania, Phys. Lett. B750, 638 (2015), arXiv:1507.03375 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[69]

A. S. Koshelev, L. Modesto, L. Rachwal, and A. A. Starobinsky, JHEP 11, 067 (2016), arXiv:1604.03127 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[70]

Bamba, S

K. Bamba, S. D. Odintsov, and E. N. Saridakis, Mod. Phys. Lett. A32, 1750114 (2017), arXiv:1605.02461 [gr- qc]

2017 arXiv
[71]

Motohashi and A

H. Motohashi and A. A. Starobinsky, Eur. Phys. J.C77, 538 (2017), arXiv:1704.08188 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[72]

V. K. Oikonomou, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D27, 1850059 (2018), arXiv:1711.03389 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[73]

Benisty and E

D. Benisty and E. I. Guendelman, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 095001 (2019), arXiv:1809.09866 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[74]

Antoniadis, A

I. Antoniadis, A. Karam, A. Lykkas, and K. Tamvakis, JCAP 1811, 028 (2018), arXiv:1810.10418 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[75]

Karam, T

A. Karam, T. Pappas, and K. Tamvakis, Proceed- ings, 18th Hellenic School and Workshops on Ele- mentary Particle Physics and Gravity (CORFU2018): Corfu, Corfu, Greece, PoS CORFU2018, 064 (2019), arXiv:1903.03548 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[76]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B797, 134829 (2019), arXiv:1904.01345 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[77]

Benisty, E

D. Benisty, E. I. Guendelman, E. N. Saridakis, H. Stoecker, J. Struckmeier, and D. Vasak, (2019), arXiv:1905.03731 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[78]

Mukhanov, Eur

V. Mukhanov, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2486 (2013), arXiv:1303.3925 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[79]

V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett.33, 532 (1981), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.33,549(1981)]

1981
[80]

A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982)

1982
[81]

Martin, C

J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ. 5-6, 75 (2014), arXiv:1303.3787 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[82]

J. D. Barrow and S. Cotsakis, Phys. Lett. B214, 515 (1988)

1988
[83]

J. D. Barrow, Nucl. Phys.B296, 697 (1988)

1988
[84]

Kofman, A

L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D56, 3258 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704452 [hep-ph]

1997 arXiv
[85]

Akrami et al

Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), (2018), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[86]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), (2018), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 30, 682 (1979), [,767(1979)]

1979

[2] [2]

Kazanas, Astrophys

D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J.241, L59 (1980)

1980

[3] [3]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. 91B, 99 (1980), [,771(1980)]

1980

[4] [4]

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev.D23, 347 (1981), [Adv. Ser. As- trophys. Cosmol.3,139(1987)]

1981

[5] [5]

A. D. Linde, QUANTUM COSMOLOGY , Phys. Lett. 108B, 389 (1982), [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cos- mol.3,149(1987)]

1982

[6] [6]

Albrecht and P

A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1220 (1982), [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol.3,158(1987)]

1982

[7] [7]

J. D. Barrow and A. C. Ottewill, J. Phys.A16, 2757 (1983)

work page 1983

[8] [8]

S. K. Blau, E. I. Guendelman, and A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D35, 1747 (1987)

1987