Slow-roll approximations in Einstein--Gauss--Bonnet gravity formulated in terms of e-folding numbers

E.O. Pozdeeva

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Slow-roll approximations in Einstein--Gauss--Bonnet gravity formulated in terms of e-folding numbers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One extended slow-roll approximation reproduces the exact scalar field in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet inflation.

desk verdict The core identity is correct and actually general, not an artifact of the exponential model; the paper is worth a referee round, but needs to fix inconsistent parameter values and soften the GW170817 claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16194 v4 pith:PUKWCZEI submitted 2024-11-25 gr-qc

E.O. Pozdeeva This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Cq04.50.Kd

keywords Einstein-Gauss-Bonnetgravityslow-rollapproximatione-foldingnumberinflationarycosmologypotentialreconstructionGauss-Bonnetcouplingeffectivescalarfielddynamics

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

This paper asks how accurately three slow-roll approximations can reconstruct the scalar field and the effective potential in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet (EGB) inflation, working with the e-folding number $N$ (a time variable counting cosmic expansion) in a model where the squared Hubble parameter falls exponentially with the inverse e-folding number. The central result is that the extended slow-roll potential $V_2=6U_0(1-\delta_1)Q$, with $\delta_1=-2Q\xi'/U_0$ (the prime is a derivative with respect to $N$) the first-order Gauss–Bonnet correction, makes the slow-roll field equation produce exactly the same $\Phi=(d\phi/dN)^2$ as the exact equations, so the reconstructed field $\phi_2(N)$ coincides with the exact solution. The standard slow-roll potential $V_{\rm sl}=6U_0Q$ matches the exact field only up to about five e-folds before the end of inflation and then deviates increasingly. The paper concludes that this extended approximation is a more accurate tool for generating EGB inflation models when exact analytic treatment is impractical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended slow-roll potential $V_2=6U_0(1-\delta_1)Q$, where $\delta_1=-2Q\xi'/U_0$ is the first-order slow-roll parameter proportional to the derivative of the Gauss–Bonnet coupling $\xi$ with respect to the e-folding number $N$ (so $\xi'=d\xi/dN$). Substituting this form into the slow-roll-reduced field equation cancels all terms beyond those of the exact expression $\Phi_{\rm exact}$, so the identity $\Phi_2=\Phi_{\rm exact}$ holds and the field reconstruction becomes exact. The standard approximation $V_{\rm sl}=6U_0Q$ corresponds to dropping $\delta_1$ entirely, while $V_1=6U_0Q/(1+\delta_1)$ is the inverse-first-order version; only $V_2$ achieves the cancellation.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the full field equation with the potential V2 for the exponential model and compare the resulting field with the field reconstructed from the square root of the exact field-kinetic expression; if the full solution departs before inflation ends, where the slow-roll parameters grow, the exactness of the extended approximation is an artifact of the slow-roll truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the exponential model defined by $Q=Q_0\exp(-3C_\beta/(2(N+N_0)))$ and $\xi=\xi_0Q_0/Q$, the paper shows that substituting the extended slow-roll potential $V_2=6U_0(1-\delta_1)Q$ into the reduced field equation $\Phi=(V'+12Q\xi'(-Q'/2+Q))/(3Q)$ yields $\Phi_2=\Phi_{\rm exact}$, where $\Phi_{\rm exact}=(2U_0Q'+6QQ'\xi'+4Q^2(\xi''+\xi'))/Q$ follows from the exact Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet equations (primes denote $N$-derivatives). Therefore the field obtained by integrating $\sqrt{\Phi_2}$ equals the exact field for the whole inflationary range studied, while the standard slow-roll approximation reproduces the exact field only for $N$ between about 58 and 5 e-folds. The alternative extension $V_1=6U_0Q/(1+\delta_1)$ does not lead to an analytic expression for $\phi_1(N)$ in this model. All reconstructed potentials preserve the exponential form of the standard slow-roll potential, and all approximations reproduce the exact effective potential accurately up to $N\approx 5$; afterward only the exact effective potential possesses a minimum.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's recommendation that the extended approximation can be used more generally rests on a single exponential ansatz for the squared Hubble parameter and the Gauss-Bonnet coupling; if that ansatz is special, the exact coincidence found here may not carry over to other EGB models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Using the extended potential V2 in the slow-roll field equation reproduces the exact field–e-folding relation, so model builders can reconstruct the scalar field with the same accuracy as the exact solution without solving the full system.
The standard slow-roll approximation remains accurate for the first roughly 53 e-folds but misplaces the field near the end of inflation, which can shift the predicted total number of e-folds in numerical tests.
The effective potential reconstructed with V2 tracks the exact one up to about five e-folds before the end of inflation, and afterward only the exact effective potential has a well, so post-inflationary evolution should be studied with the exact expressions.
The alternative extension V1 gives no analytic field for this model, making V2 the preferred higher-accuracy option among the two extensions.

Reading between the lines

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

The cancellation that makes the V2 reconstruction exact is algebraic and does not use the exponential form of the squared Hubble parameter; the paper verifies it in one model, but the same cancellation should occur in any EGB model where V2 is used as the potential, so the exponential case is a demonstration rather than the unique case.
Because the field is reproduced exactly while the potential itself is not, the extended approximation buys exact field reconstruction at the cost of an approximate potential; the reconstructed V2 is a slow-roll effective quantity rather than the potential that satisfies the full Friedmann constraint.
Integrating the full field equation with the potential V2 would separate the algebraic identity from the slow-roll reduction's validity; if the identity is general, the same agreement should appear in other EGB models, such as those with monomial potentials studied in the cited earlier work.

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

Short version: the central identity is correct and actually more general than the paper states, and the numerical comparison supports the qualitative claims. The paper needs editing and a few claims need softening, but it deserves a proper referee.

The new thing here is the observation that the extended slow-roll potential V2 = 6U0(1 - delta1)Q, inserted into the slow-roll field equation (9), reproduces the exact Phi_exact identically. The stress-test note is right: this is an algebraic identity for arbitrary differentiable Q(N) and xi(N), not a special property of the exponential ansatz. The paper doesn't emphasize this generality, but it is a nice consistency result: the 'second extended' approximation is not just an improvement over Vsl, it is exactly the right potential for reconstructing the field in this reconstruction scheme. That is worth knowing.

The paper also does something useful: it shows quantitatively that the standard slow-roll approximation Vsl = 6U0Q deviates from the exact field evolution about 5 e-folds before the end of inflation for this exponential model, while the extended approximation tracks the exact solution through the end. The numerical work is simple but the comparison is honest, including the effective potential plots.

Where it is soft: the parameter values change between figures without explanation. Section 3 gives Q0 ~ 1.8861e-12 pi^2 and xi0 ~ 1.6788e10/pi^2, but Fig.2 uses xi0 = 1.6569e10/pi^2, and Fig.4 switches to Q0 ~ 1.9299e-12 pi^2 and xi0 ~ 1.6192e10/pi^2, with Nb = 57 instead of 57.787. This looks like the author re-ran the numbers with slightly different inputs and didn't update the text. It is confusing and should be fixed. The GW170817 statement is too hand-wavy: saying 'we can suppose' the model does not contradict the bound because cT approaches 1 at large |N| does not demonstrate a workable post-inflation transition to cT = 1. Either show the full evolution or drop the claim. The nT blue tilt is interesting but is just a model prediction, not a phenomenological discovery.

Minor: there are typos and awkward phrases (e.g., 'Graititude', 'diviation'), and the English needs light editing. The reference list is extensive and the author is appropriately building on prior work; self-citation here is not padding, the approximations really do come from [38].

Bottom line: a modest but correct paper with one clean algebraic result and a clear numerical demonstration. I would send it to a referee; with the parameter inconsistency and the GW170817 claim addressed, it is publishable in a specialist journal. For a general reader it is skippable.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies slow-roll approximations for Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet inflation in terms of the e-folding number N. Starting from the exact Friedmann-type equations, the author writes exact expressions for (dφ/dN)^2 and the potential V in Eqs. (5)-(6), and then considers the standard slow-roll approximation Vsl=6U0Q together with two extended approximations V1≈6U0Q/(1+δ1) and V2≈6U0Q(1−δ1). The central algebraic result, stated in Section 1, is that substituting V2 into the slow-roll formula for Φ yields the exact expression Φexact, so the scalar field as a function of N obtained from V2 coincides with the exact solution. The paper then applies the three approximations to the exponential model Q=Q0exp(−2N0^2/(N+N0)), ξ=ξ0Q0/Q, derives the reconstructed potentials and inflationary observables, and numerically compares the field and the effective potential. The conclusion is that V2 reproduces the exact field, while the standard slow-roll approximation is accurate only up to roughly N≈5 e-folds before the end of inflation.

Significance. The identity Φ2=Φexact is correct and, as direct substitution shows, holds for arbitrary differentiable Q(N) and ξ(N), not only for the exponential ansatz used in Section 2; this makes the result model-independent and is a genuine strength of the paper. The numerical comparison for the exponential model is a reasonable illustration of the result. The paper would be improved by stating the generality of the identity explicitly. However, the quantitative connection to observations contains an algebraic error in the tensor-to-scalar ratio (Eq. 18), which propagates into the derived parameter values, and the GW170817 consistency claim in Section 3.1 is not demonstrated. These issues affect the observational claims but not the core algebraic result.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eq. (18)] Equation (18) contains an algebraic error: from 2ϵ1=2N0^2/(N+N0)^2 and δ1=4ξ0Q0N0^2/(U0(N+N0)^2) one obtains 2ϵ1−δ1=2N0^2/(N+N0)^2 (1−2ξ0Q0/U0), so the factor in the absolute value should be 1−2ξ0Q0/U0, not 1−4ξ0Q0/U0. This error propagates to Eq. (28) and to the derived values of ξ0 and Q0; with the stated Fig. 2 parameters the corrected formula gives r≈0.0040 at N=Nb instead of the quoted 0.0035. The comparison with the observational bound r<0.028 is unaffected at the qualitative level, but the numerical parameter values used in all figures do not realize the stated attractor relation r=12Cα/(N+N0)^2.
[Section 3.1] The claim that the model does not contradict the GW170817 event is not supported by the presented calculation. Figure 4 shows c_T^2 during inflation, and the text states that the model becomes invalid after N≈−0.8, after which General Relativity is applied. Since the GW170817 constraint applies at redshifts much smaller than those corresponding to N≈−0.8, the statement that 'at present c_A^2≈1, c_T^2≈1' depends on an assumed transition to GR, not on a calculation within the EGB model. The author should either model the transition and show c_T^2=1 throughout the relevant period, or remove the claim.
[Section 3, Figs. 1-4] The numerical parameter values change between figures without explanation. Figure 1 uses ξ0=1.6788×10^{10}/π^2, Figures 2 and 3 use ξ0=1.6569×10^{10}/π^2, while Figure 4 uses ξ0≈1.6192×10^{10}/π^2, Q0≈1.9299×10^{-12}π^2, and Nb=57 instead of Nb=57.787. Because the quantitative results (for example, the N at which the standard slow-roll approximation deviates and the size of the c_T^2 deviation) depend on these parameters, the figures cannot be directly compared as presented. Please specify one consistent parameter set for all numerical results or justify the differences.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Graititude' for 'Gratitude', 'diviation' for 'deviation', 'numeral simulations' for 'numerical simulations', and 'closed to zero' for 'close to zero'.
[Section 2, Eq. (19)] Equation (19) as displayed is only valid for N0=1; the general expression should read ns≈1−2/(N+N0)−2N0^2/(N+N0)^2.
[Section 2, Φ1 expression] The displayed expression for Φ1 in Section 2 is garbled and unreadable; it should be typeset cleanly.
[Section 1, after Eq. (13)] After deriving Φ2=Φexact, the paper could note explicitly that the identity is independent of the specific form of Q and ξ, which would make the scope of the result clearer.
[Conclusion] The statement that the extended approximation with V∼(1+δ1)^−1 'does not lead to an analytical dependence of the field' is a property of the particular exponential model, not a general theorem; this should be phrased more carefully.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the identity Φ2 = Φexact is an algebraic consequence of the definitions, and the predicted nT is not a fitted quantity.

full rationale

The central claim that the extended slow-roll approximation V2 = 6U0(1−δ1)Q reproduces the exact field is a direct algebraic identity, not a fitted or self-referential result. Substituting V2 = 6U0Q + 12Q^2ξ' into the slow-roll field equation (9), with δ1 = −2Qξ'/U0, gives exactly the expression Φexact of Eq. (5); this cancellation holds for arbitrary differentiable Q(N) and ξ(N), and it does not rely on the specific exponential ansatz (14)–(15). The paper itself derives V1 and V2 in Appendix A.1 from the slow-roll reduction of the exact Friedmann relation, so the citation to [38] is informational rather than load-bearing. The exponential model is an explicit example, not a hidden input, and no parameter is fitted to force the equality Φ2 = Φexact. The observational parameters Q0 and ξ0 are fixed using As, ns, and r from CMB data, while nT is subsequently computed from those parameters, making it a genuine prediction rather than a fitted quantity. The comparisons with the exact solution provide an internal benchmark, and the limitations noted (e.g., the model entering a regime where c^2A and c^2T deviate from unity) do not undermine the algebraic identity. Self-citations appear, but they do not carry the derivation; therefore the paper shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model parameters Q0 and ξ0 are fixed by matching As, ns, and r to CMB observations, so they are calibrated rather than free fitting constants. The genuinely hand-picked quantities are N0 and Cα. The central comparison of approximations is analytic and does not depend on the precise parameter values. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

N0 = 1
E-folding shift in the exponential ansatz; set to N0=1 by hand in Section 3 and used to fix Cβ = 4N0²/3, Nb ≈ 57.787, and all subsequent parameter values.
Cα = 1
Attractor normalization constant from r = 12 Cα/(Nb+N0)²; chosen as Cα=1 to match the R+R2 Starobinsky model rather than derived from the EGB action.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The EGB action (1) with Friedmann equations (3)-(4) correctly describes the background dynamics of the model.
The paper starts from this action and derives (5)-(6) without proving the equations of motion; they are standard results in EGB cosmology.
domain assumption The slow-roll regime is defined by dropping φ¨, equivalently Q/2 Φ' + Q'/2 Φ ≪ 3QΦ, in deriving equation (9).
Section 1, paragraph before Eq. (8); if this truncation fails, equation (9) is not valid.
domain assumption The deviations δ1 ≪ 1 and kinetic energy ≪ 6U0H² justify the potential approximations V1 and V2 in Appendix A.1.
Appendix A.1, Eqs. (43)-(46); these are the same smallness assumptions used in standard slow-roll models.
domain assumption The exponential ansatz (14)-(15) is the model under study, and conclusions about approximation accuracy are drawn from this single model.
Section 2, Eqs. (14)-(15); the generality of the conclusions depends on this ansatz being representative.
standard math Perturbation formulas (18)-(20) and (39)-(41) from refs. [40,41,43] give correct predictions for r, ns, As, cA², cT², and nT.
These are imported from external references; the paper does not re-derive them.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Slow-roll approximations in Einstein--Gauss--Bonnet gravity formulated in terms of e-folding numbers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUKWCZEI

@misc{pith2026241116194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Slow-roll approximations in Einstein--Gauss--Bonnet gravity formulated in terms of e-folding numbers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUKWCZEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16194}
}

abstract

In the Einstein--Gauss--Bonnet (EGB) gravity models, the slow-roll approximation has been extended by taking into account the first-order slow-roll parameter $\delta_1 =-2\,H^2\,\xi^\prime/U_0$, which is proportional to the first derivative of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling function $\xi$ with respect to the e-folding number. These extensions lead to the question of the accuracy of effective potential reconstruction during the generalization of attractors in EGB gravity. We have reconstructed models using the extended slow-roll approximations and compared them with the exact expressions and the standard slow-roll approximation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16194 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The behavior of V˜ ef f during inflation for slow-roll approximations (the gray line corresponds to the standard slow-roll approximation, the blue line – to the approximation (12), the green line – to the approximation (13)) and the exact considerations (orange line) at the following values of the parameters: N0 = 1, Nb = 57.787, ξ0 = 1.6788 · 1010/π2 , Q0 ≈ 1.8861 · 10−12π 2 , U0 = M2 P l/2, MP l = 1. We calculate … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The dependence of e-folding number form fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The graphical behavior of effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: There are slow-roll parameters ϵ1 (black lines), δ1 (yellow lines) and squares of the wave speed of the perturbed field c 2 A (magenta line), speed of GW (blue line) at the following values of parameters: N0 = 1, Nb = 57, ξ0 ≈ 1.6192 · 1010/π2 , Q0 ≈ 1.9299 · 10−12π 2 …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The behavior nT (N) during inflation is in left picture, the graphical dependence of H2 (N) is in the central picture, H2 (ϕ) is in the right picture at the following values of parameters: N0 = 1, Nb = 57, ξ0 ≈ 1.6192 · 1010/π2 , Q0 ≈ 1.9299 · 10−12π 2 , U0 = M2 P l/2,…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The Gauss-bonnet coupling function ξ(ϕ) is in first three pictures (the gray line corresponds to the standard slow-roll approximation, the blue line – to the approximation (12), the green line – to the approximation (13), the exact consideration coincides with green li…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The behavior of dependence V · ξ on the field ϕ (the gray line corresponds to the standard slow-roll approximation, the blue line – to the approximation (12), the green line – to the approximation (13) ) , the exact considerations (orange line) and Q · ξ (black line) f…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The behavior of dependence V · ξ (the gray line corresponds to the standard slow-roll approximation, the blue line – to the approximation (12), the green line – to the approximation (13) , the exact considerations – to orange line) and Q · ξ (black line) on the field …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The behavior ϵ1(ϕ) (the gray line corresponds to the standard slow-roll approximation, the blue line – to the approximation (12), the green line – to the approximation (13) and the exact behavior coincides with green line) at the following values of the parameters: c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Non-Standard Thermal History and Formation of Primordial Black Holes in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity
gr-qc 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A tuned Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet inflation model can create primordial black holes from asteroid-sized to tens of solar masses and secondary gravitational waves, with abundances that change dramatically in a stiff post-i...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[38]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. A. Skugoreva, A. V. Toporensky and S. Y. Vernov, JCAP09 (2024), 050 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/050 [arXiv:2403.06147 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2024
[1]

Zahoor, K

Yogesh, M. Zahoor, K. A. Wani and I. A. Bhat, Phys. Dark Univ. 47 (2025), 101732 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101732

arXiv 2025
[2]

V. K. Oikonomou, P. Tsyba and O. Razina, Annals Phys. 462 (2024), 169597 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2024.169597 [arXiv:2401.11273 [gr-qc]]

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

Mudrunka and K

K. Mudrunka and K. Nakayama, JCAP 05 (2024), 069 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/05/069 [arXiv:2312.15766 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2024
[4]

S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Phys. Dark Univ. 42 (2023), 101263 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101263 [arXiv:2305.19110 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2023
[5]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, Phys. Dark Univ. 41 (2023), 101238 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101238 [arXiv:2304.08255 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2023
[6]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and F. P. Fronimos, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), 08 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.084007 [arXiv:2303.14594 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2023
[7]

Kawaguchi and S

R. Kawaguchi and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.6, 063508 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063508 [arXiv:2211.13364 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2023

Show all 56 references

[8]

S. D. Odintsov, D. Saez-Chillon Gomez and G. S. Sharov, Phys. Dark Univ. 37 (2022), 101100 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2022.101100 [arXiv:2207.08513 [gr-qc]]

2022
[9]

M. R. Gangopadhyay, H. A. Khan and Yogesh, Phys. Dark Univ. 40 (2023), 101177 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101177 [arXiv:2205.15261 [astro-ph.CO]]

2023
[10]

V. K. Oikonomou, P. D. Katzanis and I. C. Papadimitriou, Class. Quant. Grav. 39 (2022) no.9, 095008 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac5eba [arXiv:2203.09867 [gr-qc]]

2022 arXiv
[11]

Younesizadeh and F

Y. Younesizadeh and F. Younesizadeh, Astrophys. Space Sci. 366 (2021) no.10, 96 doi:10.1007/s10509-021-04001-w

2021 doi
[12]

V. K. Oikonomou, Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) no.19, 195025 doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/ac2168 [arXiv:2108.10460 [gr-qc]]

2021 arXiv
[13]

Kawai and J

S. Kawai and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.8, 083545 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083545 [arXiv:2108.01340 [astro-ph.CO]]

2021 arXiv
[14]

Kawai and J

S. Kawai and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.4, 043525 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.043525 [arXiv:2105.04386 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[15]

E. O. Pozdeeva, Universe 7 (2021) no.6, 181 doi:10.3390/universe7060181 [arXiv:2105.02772 [gr-qc]]

2021 arXiv
[16]

Rashidi and K

N. Rashidi and K. Nozari, Astrophys. J. 890, 58 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a10 [arXiv:2001.07012 [astro-ph.CO]]

2001 arXiv
[17]

Kleidis and V

K. Kleidis and V. K. Oikonomou, Nucl. Phys. B 948 (2019), 114765 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114765 [arXiv:1909.05318 [gr-qc]]. 13

2019
[18]

S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019), 134874 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134874 [arXiv:1908.07555 [gr-qc]]

2019
[19]

S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.4, 044039 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044039 [arXiv:1808.05045 [gr-qc]]

2018 arXiv
[20]

S. Koh, B. H. Lee and G. Tumurtushaa, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.10, 103511 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103511 [arXiv:1807.04424 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[21]

Z. Yi, Y. Gong and M. Sabir, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.8, 083521 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083521 [arXiv:1804.09116 [gr-qc]]

2018 arXiv
[22]

Chakraborty, T

S. Chakraborty, T. Paul and S. SenGupta, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.8, 083539 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083539 [arXiv:1804.03004 [gr-qc]]

2018 arXiv
[23]

S. Koh, B. H. Lee and G. Tumurtushaa, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.12, 123509 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.123509 [arXiv:1610.04360 [gr-qc]]

2017 arXiv
[24]

van de Bruck, K

C. van de Bruck, K. Dimopoulos and C. Longden, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.2, 023506 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023506 [arXiv:1605.06350 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[25]

Mathew and S

J. Mathew and S. Shankaranarayanan, Astropart. Phys. 84 (2016), 1-7 doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.07.004 [arXiv:1602.00411 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[26]

Hikmawan, J

G. Hikmawan, J. Soda, A. Suroso and F. P. Zen, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.6, 068301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.068301 [arXiv:1512.00222 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[27]

S. Koh, B. H. Lee, W. Lee and G. Tumurtushaa, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no.6, 063527 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.063527 [arXiv:1404.6096 [gr-qc]]

2014 arXiv
[28]

P. X. Jiang, J. W. Hu and Z. K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), 123508 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.123508 [arXiv:1310.5579 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[29]

Z. K. Guo and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009), 063523 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.063523 [arXiv:0907.0427 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[30]

Tsujikawa and M

S. Tsujikawa and M. Sami, JCAP 01 (2007), 006 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/01/006 [arXiv:hep-th/0608178 [hep-th]]

2007 arXiv
[31]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. R. Gangopadhyay, M. Sami, A. V. Toporensky and S. Y. Ver- nov, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.4, 043525 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043525 [arXiv:2006.08027 [gr-qc]]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Torii, H

T. Torii, H. Yajima and K. i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997), 739-753 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.739 [arXiv:gr-qc/9606034 [gr-qc]]

1997 arXiv
[33]

E. O. Pozdeeva, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.7, 612 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8176- 3 [arXiv:2005.10133 [gr-qc]]

2020 arXiv
[34]

Galante, R

M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) no.14, 141302 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.141302 [arXiv:1412.3797 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[35]

Mukhanov, Eur

V. Mukhanov, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013), 2486 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2486-7 [arXiv:1303.3925 [astro-ph.CO]]. 14

2013 arXiv
[36]

F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008), 703-706 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.11.072 [arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]]

2008 arXiv
[37]

E. O. Pozdeeva and S. Y. Vernov, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.7, 633 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09435-8 [arXiv:2104.04995 [gr-qc]]

2021 arXiv
[39]

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

arXiv
[40]

van de Bruck and C

C. van de Bruck and C. Longden, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.6, 063519 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.063519 [arXiv:1512.04768 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[41]

Z. K. Guo and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 123520 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.123520 [arXiv:1001.1897 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[43]

Hwang and H

J.-c. Hwang and H. Noh, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005), 063536 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063536 [arXiv:gr-qc/0412126 [gr-qc]]

2005 arXiv
[44]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980), 99-102 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

1980 doi
[45]

Akrami et al

Y. Akrami et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020), A10 doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201833887 [arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[46]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP and Keck], Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) no.15, 151301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151301 [arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]]

2021
[47]

Galloni, N

G. Galloni, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Migliaccio, A. Ricciardone and N. Vitto- rio, JCAP 04 (2023), 062 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/062 [arXiv:2208.00188 [astro- ph.CO]]

2023 arXiv
[48]

V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B 856 (2024), 138890 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138890 [arXiv:2407.12155 [gr-qc]]

2024
[49]

B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no.16, 161101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 [arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]]

2017 arXiv
[50]

B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM and INTEGRAL], Astrophys. J. Lett. 848 (2017) no.2, L13 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c [arXiv:1710.05834 [astro- ph.HE]]

2017 arXiv
[51]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. Sami, A. V. Toporensky and S. Y. Vernov, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.8, 083527 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083527 [arXiv:1905.05085 [gr-qc]]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Vernov and E

S. Vernov and E. Pozdeeva, Universe 7 (2021) no.5, 149 doi:10.3390/universe7050149 [arXiv:2104.11111 [gr-qc]]

2021 arXiv
[53]

J. J. Terente D ´ ıaz, K. Dimopoulos, M. Karˇ ciauskas and A. Racioppi, JCAP10 (2023), 031 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/031 [arXiv:2307.06163 [astro-ph.CO]]. 15

2023 arXiv
[54]

M. A. S. Pinto and J. L. Rosa, [arXiv:2411.04066 [gr-qc]]
[55]

Stewart and R

A. Stewart and R. Brandenberger, JCAP 08 (2008), 012 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2008/08/012 [arXiv:0711.4602 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[56]

V. K. Oikonomou, P. Tsyba and O. Razina, EPL 145 (2024) no.4, 49001 doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ad239c [arXiv:2402.02049 [gr-qc]]

2024 arXiv
[57]

Wang and W

Y. Wang and W. Xue, JCAP 10 (2014), 075 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/075 [arXiv:1403.5817 [astro-ph.CO]]. 16

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [38]

E. O. Pozdeeva, M. A. Skugoreva, A. V. Toporensky and S. Y. Vernov, JCAP09 (2024), 050 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/050 [arXiv:2403.06147 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Zahoor, K

Yogesh, M. Zahoor, K. A. Wani and I. A. Bhat, Phys. Dark Univ. 47 (2025), 101732 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101732

arXiv 2025

[3] [2]

V. K. Oikonomou, P. Tsyba and O. Razina, Annals Phys. 462 (2024), 169597 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2024.169597 [arXiv:2401.11273 [gr-qc]]

work page arXiv 2024

[4] [3]

Mudrunka and K

K. Mudrunka and K. Nakayama, JCAP 05 (2024), 069 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/05/069 [arXiv:2312.15766 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Phys. Dark Univ. 42 (2023), 101263 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101263 [arXiv:2305.19110 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2023

[6] [5]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, Phys. Dark Univ. 41 (2023), 101238 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101238 [arXiv:2304.08255 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2023

[7] [6]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and F. P. Fronimos, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), 08 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.084007 [arXiv:2303.14594 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2023

[8] [7]

Kawaguchi and S

R. Kawaguchi and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.6, 063508 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063508 [arXiv:2211.13364 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2023