Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 5 cited by

String-inspired Gauss-Bonnet Gravity Inflation and ACT

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sixteen Gauss-Bonnet inflation models all yield the observed red tilt ns ≈ 0.97 at 60 e-folds.

desk verdict The paper adds one new hybrid coupling function to a set of string-inspired Gauss-Bonnet models and runs standard MCMC fits against Planck plus ACT, but leaves the ghost-free status unverified at the actual best-fit points. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.18861 v1 submitted 2026-04-20 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

S.D. Odintsov , V.K. Oikonomou , Pyotr Tsyba , Olga Razina , Dauren Rakhatov This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th
keywords Gauss-Bonnetgravityinflationstring-inspiredmodelsspectralindexMCMCanalysisCMBobservationsghost-freeHubbleparametrization
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 performs a Bayesian MCMC analysis with the Cobaya code on sixteen variants of a ghost-free string-inspired f(R, G) gravity model for inflation. Each variant pairs one of four Hubble parameter forms with one of four coupling functions (power-law, exponential, hybrid, inverse logarithmic) that link the Gauss-Bonnet invariant to an auxiliary scalar field. All sixteen combinations are confronted with Planck 2018 and Atacama Cosmology Telescope data. Every model returns a scalar spectral index near 0.97 at sixty e-folds, while the parameter μ remains near 0.1 and the preference between datasets tracks the Hubble choice more than the coupling choice.

What carries the argument

The ghost-free string-inspired f(R, G) model in which the Gauss-Bonnet invariant is non-minimally coupled to an auxiliary scalar field χ through the function h(χ), together with four Hubble parametrizations and the four coupling forms (including the hybrid interpolation).

What would settle it

A future CMB measurement that finds the scalar spectral index ns at sixty e-folds lying well outside the range near 0.97, or a clear instability in the value of μ.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Systematic observational verification shows that all sixteen models reproduce the red spectral tilt of scalar perturbations consistent with CMB data, yielding ns ≈ 0.97 at N = 60 e-folds. The hybrid coupling h(χ) = γ e^{b1 χ} χ^{b2} interpolates between power-law and exponential forms. Dataset preference is set by the Hubble parametrization rather than the coupling function, and the parameter μ ≈ 0.1 stays stable across every configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The models are assumed to remain ghost-free for the chosen Hubble parametrizations and coupling functions throughout inflation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The stability of μ ≈ 0.1 across all models indicates it plays a fundamental role inside the ghost-free formalism.
  • Hubble parametrization choice controls which dataset is preferred, allowing model selection to be guided by data type.
  • The hybrid coupling supplies extra flexibility for tuning the Gauss-Bonnet contribution at different stages of inflation.
  • Every combination remains viable for producing the observed red tilt of scalar perturbations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Future high-precision CMB polarization data could separate the four Hubble parametrizations.
  • The framework may be tested in post-inflationary epochs to check whether the same couplings remain consistent.
  • The stable μ value offers a concrete target for string-theory compactification searches that seek similar effective parameters.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a systematic Bayesian MCMC analysis using the Cobaya code of sixteen string-inspired f(R, G) gravity inflation models. These models combine four Hubble parameter parametrizations with four coupling functions h(χ) for the Gauss-Bonnet term, including a newly introduced hybrid form h(χ) = γ e^{b1 χ} χ^{b2}. The analysis compares the models to Planck 2018 and Atacama Cosmology Telescope data, claiming that all sixteen combinations yield a scalar spectral index ns ≈ 0.97 at 60 e-folds, consistent with observations, with the parameter μ ≈ 0.1 stable across all cases, and the models remaining ghost-free based on prior phenomenological studies.

Significance. If the results hold, particularly the ghost-free nature for the fitted parameters, this work offers the first detailed observational confrontation of this class of models with recent CMB data. The stability of μ and the viability of the hybrid coupling are notable strengths, as is the systematic exploration of multiple Hubble and coupling combinations. The use of standard MCMC tools adds reproducibility to the parameter constraints.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results section] The claim that all sixteen models are observationally viable and ghost-free relies on the no-ghost conditions (positive kinetic coefficients for scalar and tensor modes) holding for the MCMC best-fit values of μ, γ, b1, b2. However, the manuscript invokes prior phenomenological verification without reporting an explicit re-derivation or numerical check of these conditions using the posterior means or chains from Cobaya for each of the 16 Hubble+coupling pairs. This is load-bearing for the central claim of viability.
  2. [MCMC analysis] The abstract reports ns ≈ 0.97 without accompanying error bars or confidence intervals from the MCMC posteriors, and no posterior plots are mentioned or described, which weakens the quantitative support for the stability of μ ≈ 0.1 across models.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The hybrid coupling function is introduced as new in this context, but a brief comparison to existing literature on similar hybrid forms in other modified gravity models would enhance context.
  2. [Conclusion] The preference for the dataset being determined by Hubble parametrization rather than coupling function is an interesting finding; clarifying how this is quantified (e.g., via Bayes factors) would be helpful.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address each major comment below and will make the necessary revisions to enhance the manuscript's clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results section] The claim that all sixteen models are observationally viable and ghost-free relies on the no-ghost conditions (positive kinetic coefficients for scalar and tensor modes) holding for the MCMC best-fit values of μ, γ, b1, b2. However, the manuscript invokes prior phenomenological verification without reporting an explicit re-derivation or numerical check of these conditions using the posterior means or chains from Cobaya for each of the 16 Hubble+coupling pairs. This is load-bearing for the central claim of viability.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that explicitly verifying the no-ghost conditions at the MCMC-derived parameter values would provide stronger support for the viability claim. Although our previous phenomenological studies established the conditions for a range of parameters including μ ≈ 0.1, we will revise the manuscript to include a dedicated numerical check. Specifically, we will compute the kinetic coefficients for scalar and tensor modes using the best-fit values from the Cobaya chains for each of the 16 models and confirm they remain positive, reporting the results in a new table or appendix. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [MCMC analysis] The abstract reports ns ≈ 0.97 without accompanying error bars or confidence intervals from the MCMC posteriors, and no posterior plots are mentioned or described, which weakens the quantitative support for the stability of μ ≈ 0.1 across models.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract's presentation of ns ≈ 0.97 lacks the associated uncertainties from the MCMC analysis. In the revised version, we will update the abstract to report ns with its 1σ confidence interval derived from the posterior distributions. Furthermore, we will include a description of the posterior plots in the results section and ensure that figures showing the marginalized posteriors for μ and other parameters across the models are referenced, thereby better demonstrating the stability of μ ≈ 0.1. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; MCMC analysis yields independent empirical results

full rationale

The paper performs a Bayesian MCMC analysis via Cobaya on sixteen combinations of Hubble parametrizations and coupling functions (including a new hybrid form) to constrain parameters against Planck 2018 and ACT data. It reports that all models can be fitted to produce ns ≈ 0.97 at N=60 with μ ≈ 0.1 stable. This constitutes standard parameter estimation against external observations rather than any derivation that reduces by construction to its own inputs. The ghost-free property is referenced to prior studies but is not claimed to be re-derived here; the current work focuses on observational viability under that maintained assumption. No self-definitional loops, fitted quantities renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The reported outcomes remain falsifiable by the CMB datasets.

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

The central claim rests on the assumption that the chosen Hubble parametrizations and coupling functions keep the theory ghost-free, on the validity of the slow-roll approximation during inflation, and on the standard ΛCDM background plus linear perturbations used in the MCMC likelihood. No new entities are postulated beyond the auxiliary scalar χ already present in prior f(R,G) literature.

free parameters (2)
  • μ
    Appears in all sixteen models and is reported stable near 0.1 after fitting to CMB data.
  • γ, b1, b2
    Parameters of the hybrid coupling function h(χ) = γ e^{b1 χ} χ^{b2} that are adjusted during MCMC.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The f(R,G) action with non-minimal Gauss-Bonnet coupling remains ghost-free for the chosen Hubble and coupling forms.
    Invoked to justify the theoretical viability of the sixteen models before data comparison.
  • domain assumption Slow-roll inflation with N = 60 e-folds is an adequate description of the early universe for these models.
    Used to evaluate the scalar spectral index ns at horizon exit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of String-inspired Gauss-Bonnet Gravity Inflation and ACT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.18861

@misc{pith2026260418861,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: String-inspired Gauss-Bonnet Gravity Inflation and ACT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.18861}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.18861}
}
abstract

In this article we present a systematic observational verification of the ghost-free string-inspired $f(R,\mathcal{G})$ model, where the Gauss-Bonnet invariant is non-minimally coupled to an auxiliary scalar field $\chi$ through the coupling function $h(\chi)$. Previous studies confirmed the theoretical viability of this framework using phenomenological parameter choices. In this work, for the first time, a systematic comparison with observational data from Planck 2018 and the Atacama Comsology Telescope is carried out via a Bayesian MCMC analysis using the Cobaya code. We explore an extended set of sixteen models constructed from four types of the Hubble parameter combined with power-law, exponential, hybrid, and inverse logarithmic coupling functions $h(\chi)$. The hybrid coupling $h(\chi) = \gamma e^{b_1\chi}\chi^{b_2}$, introduced in this context, allows for interpolation between the power-law and exponential forms, providing additional flexibility in controlling the Gauss-Bonnet contribution at different stages of inflation. All sixteen models reproduce the red spectral tilt of scalar perturbations consistent with CMB observations, yielding $n_s \approx 0.97$ at $N = 60$ e-folds. We find that the preference for the dataset is systematically determined by the choice of Hubble parametrization rather than by the coupling function. The parameter $\mu\approx0.1$ remains stable in all configurations, suggesting its fundamental role within the ghost-free formalism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18861 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Coupling function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Model 1.1: power-law coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Model 1.2: exponential coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Model 1.3: hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The dynamics of the spectral index of scalar perturbations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Model 1.4: inverse logarithmic coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Model 2.1: power-law coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Model 2.2: exponential coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Model 2.3 with hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Marginalized constraints for Model 2.3 on the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Marginalized constraints for Model 2.4* on the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Model 2.4: inverse logarithmic coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Model 3.1: power-law coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Model 3.1: power-law coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Model 3.2: exponential coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Model 3.3: hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The dynamics of the spectral index of scalar perturbations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Model 3.4: inverse logarithmic coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Model 4.1: power-law coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Model 4.2: exponential coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Model 4.3: hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Model 4.3: hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Model 4.4: inverse logarithmic coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Marginalized constraints on the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_24.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. 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.

  2. Running into tension: primordial black holes from ultra-slow-roll inflation, spectral running, and the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    EDE models increase inferred α_s from CMB data, strengthening tension with USR PBH models that predict negative running.

  3. Effective Constrained Scalar--Gauss--Bonnet Inflation Motivated by $f(R,\mathcal{G})$ Gravity

    physics.gen-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Effective constrained scalar-Gauss-Bonnet inflation yields ns ≃ 0.958 and r ≃ 2.7×10^{-4} with the exact theory eliminating propagating scalar degrees of freedom via vanishing lapse perturbation and ḋR=0.

  4. ACT Data and Positive Running of the Spectral Index for Scalar Theory and Modified Gravity

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Positive running of the spectral index is achievable in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with viable inflation, unlike standard scalar field and F(R) models which face challenges.

  5. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. D. Linde, Lect. Notes Phys.738(2008) 1 [arXiv:0705.0164 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    Introduction to the theory of the early universe: Cosmological pertur- bations and inflationary theory,

    D. S. Gorbunov and V. A. Rubakov, “Introduction to the theory of the early universe: Cosmological pertur- bations and inflationary theory,” Hackensack, USA: World Scientific (2011) 489 p

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Inflationary Cosmology after Planck 2013

    A. Linde, arXiv:1402.0526 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [4]

    D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Phys. Rept.314(1999) 1 [hep-ph/9807278]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    Modified gravity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept.692(2017) 1 [arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509, 167 (2011); V. Faraoni and S. Capozziello, Fundam. Theor. Phys.170(2010)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, eConfC0602061, 06 (2006) [Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.4, 115 (2007)]

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept.505, 59 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    J. c. Hwang and H. Noh, Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 063536 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063536 [gr-qc/0412126]

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 046004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.046004 [hep-th/0605039]

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Cognola, E

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 086002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.086002 [hep-th/0611198]

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 123509 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123509 [hep-th/0504052]

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B631(2005) 1 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.10.010 [hep-th/0508049]. 21

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    Satoh, S

    M. Satoh, S. Kanno and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 023526 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023526 [arXiv:0706.3585 [astro-ph]]

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    Bamba, A

    K. Bamba, A. N. Makarenko, A. N. Myagky and S. D. Odintsov, JCAP1504(2015) 001 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2015/04/001 [arXiv:1411.3852 [hep-th]]

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Z. Yi, Y. Gong and M. Sabir, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.8, 083521 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083521 [arXiv:1804.09116 [gr-qc]]

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Z. K. Guo and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 063523 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.063523 [arXiv:0907.0427 [hep-th]]

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    Z. K. Guo and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 123520 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.123520 [arXiv:1001.1897 [hep-th]]

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    P. X. Jiang, J. W. Hu and Z. K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 123508 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.123508 [arXiv:1310.5579 [hep-th]]

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    van de Bruck, K

    C. van de Bruck, K. Dimopoulos, C. Longden and C. Owen, arXiv:1707.06839 [astro-ph.CO]

  13. [21]

    E. O. Pozdeeva, M. R. Gangopadhyay, M. Sami, A. V. Toporensky and S. Y. Vernov, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) no.4, 043525 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043525 [arXiv:2006.08027 [gr-qc]]

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Vernov and E

    S. Vernov and E. Pozdeeva, Universe7(2021) no.5, 149 doi:10.3390/universe7050149 [arXiv:2104.11111 [gr- qc]]

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    E. O. Pozdeeva and S. Y. Vernov, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) no.7, 633 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09435-8 [arXiv:2104.04995 [gr-qc]]

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Fomin, Eur

    I. Fomin, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) no.12, 1145 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08718-w [arXiv:2004.08065 [gr-qc]]

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    De Laurentis, M

    M. De Laurentis, M. Paolella and S. Capozziello, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) no.8, 083531 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.083531 [arXiv:1503.04659 [gr-qc]]

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Chervon, I

    Scalar Field Cosmology, S. Chervon, I. Fomin, V. Yurov and A. Yurov, World Scientific 2019, doi:10.1142/11405

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Nozari and N

    K. Nozari and N. Rashidi, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) no.12, 123518 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.123518 [arXiv:1705.02617 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.4, 044039 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044039 [arXiv:1808.05045 [gr-qc]]

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Kawai, M

    S. Kawai, M. a. Sakagami and J. Soda, Phys. Lett. B437, 284 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00925-3 [gr-qc/9802033]

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    Yi and Y

    Z. Yi and Y. Gong, Universe5(2019) no.9, 200 doi:10.3390/universe5090200 [arXiv:1811.01625 [gr-qc]]

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    van de Bruck, K

    C. van de Bruck, K. Dimopoulos and C. Longden, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) no.2, 023506 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023506 [arXiv:1605.06350 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    K. i. Maeda, N. Ohta and R. Wakebe, Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1949 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1949-6 [arXiv:1111.3251 [hep-th]]

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    W. Y. Ai, Commun. Theor. Phys.72(2020) no.9, 095402 doi:10.1088/1572-9494/aba242 [arXiv:2004.02858 [gr-qc]]

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Easther and K

    R. Easther and K. i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 7252 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.7252 [hep-th/9605173]

    1996 doi

  27. [35]

    Codello and R

    A. Codello and R. K. Jain, Class. Quant. Grav.33(2016) no.22, 225006 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/22/225006 [arXiv:1507.06308 [gr-qc]]

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

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

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and F. P. Fronimos, Nucl. Phys. B958(2020), 115135 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115135 [arXiv:2003.13724 [gr-qc]]

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B856(2024), 138890 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138890 [arXiv:2407.12155 [gr-qc]]

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    J. Fier, H. Han, B. Li, K. Lin, S. Mukohyama and A. Wang, [arXiv:2503.01975 [gr-qc]]

  32. [40]

    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 doi

  33. [41]

    V. K. Oikonomou, Astropart. Phys.141(2022), 102718 doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2022.102718 [arXiv:2204.06304 [gr-qc]]

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and A. A. Popov, Nucl. Phys. B973(2021), 115617 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115617 [arXiv:2111.09457 [gr-qc]]

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, N. Chatzarakis and T. Paul, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) no.7, 565 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7080-1 [arXiv:1907.00403 [gr-qc]]

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Akramiet al.[Planck], Astron

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

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    P. A. R. Adeet 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 doi

  38. [46]

    Louiset al.[ACT], [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]]

    T. Louiset al.[ACT], [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]]

  39. [47]

    Calabreseet al.[ACT], [arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]]

    E. Calabreseet al.[ACT], [arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]]

  40. [48]

    Kallosh, A

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

  41. [49]

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

  42. [50]

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

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mohammadi, Q

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

  44. [52]

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

  45. [53]

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

  46. [54]

    Yin, [arXiv:2505.03004 [hep-ph]]

    W. Yin, [arXiv:2505.03004 [hep-ph]]. 22

  47. [55]

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

  48. [56]

    W. J. Wolf, [arXiv:2506.12436 [astro-ph.CO]]

  49. [57]

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

  50. [58]

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

  51. [59]

    Zahoor, S

    M. Zahoor, S. Khan and I. A. Bhat, [arXiv:2507.18684 [astro-ph.CO]]

  52. [60]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, E. McDonough, L. Balkenhol, R. Kallosh, L. Knox and A. Linde, [arXiv:2507.12459 [astro-ph.CO]]

  53. [61]

    Mohammadi, Yogesh and A

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

  54. [62]

    Choudhury, G

    S. Choudhury, G. Bauyrzhan, S. K. Singh and K. Yerzhanov, [arXiv:2506.15407 [astro-ph.CO]]

  55. [63]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B868(2025), 139779 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139779 [arXiv:2506.08193 [gr-qc]]

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    R. D. A. Q., J. Chagoya and A. A. Roque, [arXiv:2508.13273 [gr-qc]]

  57. [65]

    Y. Zhu, Q. Gao, Y. Gong and Z. Yi, [arXiv:2508.09707 [astro-ph.CO]]

  58. [66]

    Kouniatalis and E

    G. Kouniatalis and E. N. Saridakis, [arXiv:2507.17721 [astro-ph.CO]]

  59. [67]

    M. Hai, A. R. Kamal, N. F. Shamma and M. S. J. Shuvo, [arXiv:2506.08083 [hep-th]]

  60. [68]

    Dioguardi, A

    C. Dioguardi, A. J. Iovino and A. Racioppi, Phys. Lett. B868(2025), 139664 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139664 [arXiv:2504.02809 [gr-qc]]

    2025 doi

  61. [69]

    Yuennan, P

    J. Yuennan, P. Koad, F. Atamurotov and P. Channuie, [arXiv:2508.17263 [astro-ph.CO]]

  62. [70]

    H. J. Kuralkar, S. Panda and A. Vidyarthi, [arXiv:2504.15061 [gr-qc]]

  63. [71]

    H. J. Kuralkar, S. Panda and A. Vidyarthi, JCAP05(2025), 073 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/073 [arXiv:2502.03573 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 doi

  64. [72]

    Modak, [arXiv:2509.02979 [astro-ph.CO]]

    T. Modak, [arXiv:2509.02979 [astro-ph.CO]]

  65. [73]

    V. K. Oikonomou, [arXiv:2508.19196 [gr-qc]]

  66. [74]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, [arXiv:2508.17358 [gr-qc]]

  67. [75]

    S. Aoki, H. Otsuka and R. Yanagita, [arXiv:2509.06739 [hep-ph]]

  68. [76]

    Ahghari and M

    Z. Ahghari and M. Farhoudi, [arXiv:2512.12286 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    McDonough and E

    E. McDonough and E. G. M. Ferreira, [arXiv:2512.05108 [astro-ph.CO]]

  70. [78]

    Chakraborty, M

    D. Chakraborty, M. Hai, S. T. Jahan, A. R. Kamal and M. S. J. Shuvo, [arXiv:2511.19610 [hep-th]]

  71. [79]

    Noori Gashti, M

    S. Noori Gashti, M. A. S. Afshar, M. R. Alipour, B. Pourhassan and J. Sadeghi, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.11, 1343 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-15066-0

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    Yuennan, F

    J. Yuennan, F. Atamurotov and P. Channuie, [arXiv:2511.17216 [astro-ph.CO]]

  73. [81]

    Deb and A

    B. Deb and A. Deshamukhya, [arXiv:2511.06453 [gr-qc]]

  74. [82]

    M. A. S. Afshar, S. Noori Gashti, M. R. Alipour, B. Pourhassan, I. Sakalli and J. Sadeghi, [arXiv:2510.20876 [astro-ph.CO]]

  75. [83]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, K. A. Olive and S. Verner, [arXiv:2510.18656 [hep-ph]]

  76. [84]

    Yuennan, F

    J. Yuennan, F. Atamurotov and P. Channuie, Phys. Lett. B872(2026), 140065 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140065 [arXiv:2509.23329 [gr-qc]]

    2026 doi

  77. [85]

    Q. Y. Wang, [arXiv:2512.10862 [astro-ph.CO]]

  78. [86]

    Z. C. Qiu, Y. H. Pang and Q. G. Huang, [arXiv:2510.18320 [astro-ph.CO]]

  79. [87]

    X. Wang, K. Kohri and T. T. Yanagida, [arXiv:2506.06797 [astro-ph.CO]]

  80. [88]

    Asaka, S

    T. Asaka, S. Iso, H. Kawai, K. Kohri, T. Noumi and T. Terada, PTEP2016(2016) no.12, 123E01 doi:10.1093/ptep/ptw161 [arXiv:1507.04344 [hep-th]]

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B871(2025), 139972 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139972 [arXiv:2508.17363 [gr-qc]]

    2025 doi

  82. [90]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. K. Singh and S. K. Sahoo, [arXiv:2511.19898 [gr-qc]]

  83. [91]

    S. K. Singh, [arXiv:2511.05545 [hep-ph]]

  84. [92]

    J. Kim, X. Wang, Y. l. Zhang and Z. Ren, JCAP09(2025), 011 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/09/011 [arXiv:2504.12035 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 doi

  85. [93]

    Z. Y. Peng, H. S. Yuan, Q. Lai, J. Q. Jiang, G. Ye, J. Zhang and Y. S. Piao, [arXiv:2601.14288 [astro-ph.CO]]

  86. [94]

    Yuennan, F

    J. Yuennan, F. Atamurotov, S. Capozziello and P. Channuie, Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) no.3, 237 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15461-1 [arXiv:2602.17380 [gr-qc]]

    2026 doi

  87. [95]

    Yogesh, I. A. Bhat, M. R. Gangopadhyay and M. Sami, [arXiv:2604.14659 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J.538(2000), 473-476 doi:10.1086/309179 [arXiv:astro- ph/9911177 [astro-ph]]

    2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.