arxiv: 2604.18861 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO· hep-th

Recognition: unknown

String-inspired Gauss-Bonnet Gravity Inflation and ACT

S.D. Odintsov , V.K. Oikonomou , Pyotr Tsyba , Olga Razina , Dauren Rakhatov

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

keywords Gauss-Bonnet gravityinflationstring-inspired modelsspectral indexMCMC analysisCMB observationsghost-free gravityHubble parametrization

0 comments

The pith

Sixteen Gauss-Bonnet inflation models all yield the observed red tilt ns ≈ 0.97 at 60 e-folds.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are 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.

Load-bearing premise

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

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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18861 by Dauren Rakhatov, Olga Razina, Pyotr Tsyba, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou.

**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 ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Model 1.3: hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The dynamics of the spectral index of scalar perturbations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Model 1.4: inverse logarithmic coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Model 2.1: power-law coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Model 2.2: exponential coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Model 2.3 with hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Marginalized constraints for Model 2.3 on the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Marginalized constraints for Model 2.4* on the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Model 2.4: inverse logarithmic coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Model 3.1: power-law coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14. Model 3.1: power-law coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15. Model 3.2: exponential coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: FIG. 16. Model 3.3: hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: FIG. 17. The dynamics of the spectral index of scalar perturbations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: FIG. 18. Model 3.4: inverse logarithmic coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: FIG. 19. Model 4.1: power-law coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_19.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: FIG. 20. Model 4.2: exponential coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_20.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: FIG. 21. Model 4.3: hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_21.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: FIG. 22. Model 4.3: hybrid coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_22.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 23.** Figure 23: FIG. 23. Model 4.4: inverse logarithmic coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_23.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 24.** Figure 24: FIG. 24. Marginalized constraints on the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_24.png] view at source ↗

read the original 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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

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

This work takes sixteen combinations of four Hubble parametrizations and four coupling functions, including the new hybrid h(χ) = γ e^{b1 χ} χ^{b2}, and fits them to Planck 2018 and ACT data with Cobaya. Every combination returns ns ≈ 0.97 at N=60 and keeps μ near 0.1, with the data preference driven more by the Hubble choice than by the coupling form. The hybrid term is the only clear addition; it simply interpolates between power-law and exponential cases already studied in earlier papers on the same framework. The MCMC pipeline itself is routine and produces results consistent with the datasets. The main limitation is that the ghost-free property is taken from prior phenomenological checks rather than re-derived or numerically confirmed for the posterior means or chains in each of the sixteen cases. If the scalar or tensor kinetic coefficients change sign once the fitted μ, γ, b1, b2 are inserted, the model is ruled out regardless of the spectral tilt. The reported stability of μ also appears tied to the specific Hubble forms chosen by hand. Readers already working on observational constraints for f(R,G) inflation will find the systematic comparison useful as a quick filter on viable parametrizations. The paper is coherent on its own terms and engages the literature through concrete numerics, so it merits a serious referee. I would send it for review but ask the authors to add explicit no-ghost checks evaluated at the MCMC best-fits.

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)

[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.
[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)

[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.
[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

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
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

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.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 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.

axioms (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.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5585 in / 1653 out tokens · 23323 ms · 2026-05-10T03:35:09.951249+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[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

2011
[3]

Inflationary cosmology after planck 2013.arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.0526, 2014

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

work page arXiv
[4]

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

work page Pith review arXiv 1999
[5]

Nojiri, S

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

work page arXiv 2017
[6]

Capozziello, M

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

2011
[7]

Nojiri, S.D

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

2006
[8]

Nojiri, S.D

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

2011
[9]

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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.063536 2005
[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]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.046004 2006
[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]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.086002 2007
[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]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.123509 2005
[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

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.10.010 2005
[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]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.023526 2008
[15]

Saikawa, J

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]]

work page doi:10.1088/1475- 2015
[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]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.083521 2018
[17]

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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.063523 2009
[18]

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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.123520 2010
[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]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.123508 2013
[20]

van de Bruck, K

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

work page arXiv
[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]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.043525 2020
[22]

Vernov and E

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

work page doi:10.3390/universe7050149 2021
[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]]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09435-8 2021
[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]]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08718-w 2020
[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]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.083531 2015
[26]

Chervon, I

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

work page doi:10.1142/11405 2019
[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]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.123518 2017
[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]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.044039 2018
[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]

work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00925-3 1998
[30]

Yi and Y

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

work page doi:10.3390/universe5090200 2019
[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]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.023506 2016
[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]]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1949-6 2012
[33]

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

work page doi:10.1088/1572-9494/aba242 2020
[34]

Easther and K

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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.54.7252 1996
[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]]

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/22/225006 2016
[36]

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

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac2168 2021
[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]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115135 2020
[38]

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

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138890 2024
[39]

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

work page arXiv
[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]]

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac5eba 2022
[41]

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

work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2022.102718 2022
[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]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115617 2021
[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]]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7080-1 2019
[44]

Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation

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

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887 2020
[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]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.151301 2021
[46]

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and $\Lambda$CDM Parameters

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[47]

C., Jense, H

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

work page arXiv
[48]

Kallosh, A

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

work page arXiv
[49]

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

work page arXiv
[50]

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[51]

Mohammadi, Q

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

work page arXiv
[52]

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

work page arXiv
[53]

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

work page arXiv
[54]

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

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

work page arXiv
[55]

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

work page arXiv
[56]

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

work page arXiv
[57]

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

work page arXiv
[58]

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

work page arXiv
[59]

Zahoor, S

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

work page arXiv
[60]

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

work page arXiv
[61]

Mohammadi, Yogesh and A

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

work page arXiv
[62]

What new physics can we extract from inflation using the

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

work page arXiv
[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]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139779 2025
[64]

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

work page arXiv
[65]

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

work page arXiv
[66]

Kouniatalis and E

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

work page arXiv
[67]

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

work page arXiv
[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]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139664 2025
[69]

Yuennan, P

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

work page arXiv
[70]

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

work page arXiv
[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]]

work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/073 2025
[72]

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

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

work page arXiv
[73]

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

work page arXiv
[74]

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

work page arXiv
[75]

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

work page arXiv
[76]

Inflation with Gauss-Bonnet Correction and Higgs Potential

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[77]

McDonough and E

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

work page arXiv
[78]

Chakraborty, M

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

work page arXiv
[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

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-15066-0 2025
[80]

Yuennan, F

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

work page arXiv

Showing first 80 references.