Reconstruction and exact solutions for cosmological perturbations from a generalized gravity theory

Carlos Gonz\'alez; Jos\'e Antonio Belinch\'on; Ram\'on Herrera

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 46 references

Reconstruction and exact solutions for cosmological perturbations from a generalized gravity theory

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

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

Pith's one-line read A scalar-tensor inflation model with a chosen ansatz yields exact Whittaker-function perturbation modes that match recent CMB data.

desk verdict Solid exact-solution work whose Planck 'corroboration' is undone by its own equations: r is independent of the A_t^1 normalization it is claimed to select. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02037 v1 pith:HJEVHTAZ submitted 2019-09-04 gr-qc

José Antonio Belinchón , Carlos González , Ramón Herrera This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc PACS 98.80.Cq

keywords cosmologicalperturbationsscalar-tensorgravityinflationexactsolutionsWhittakerfunctionspowerspectratensor-to-scalarratiobackgroundreconstruction

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 tries to show that in a generalized scalar-tensor theory, a particular choice for the ratio of the scalar and tensor perturbation variables leads to exact, analytic solutions for inflationary perturbations and for the background geometry. It studies two choices: a constant ratio $z_s \propto z_t$, which it finds produces a tensor-to-scalar ratio too large for current CMB bounds, and a conformal-time-dependent ratio whose scalar and tensor modes are Whittaker functions. For the second model, fixing three parameters near $\beta \approx -1.36$, $C_0 \approx 3.9 \times 10^{-3}$, and $A_{t1} \approx 0.1$ reproduces the observed scalar tilt and amplitude and predicts a very small tensor-to-scalar ratio $r \approx 0.0015$. If correct, the paper supplies an exact reconstruction of the scale factor, potential, and coupling function without invoking the slow-roll approximation, and a concrete target for future B-mode searches.

What carries the argument

The engine is Eq. (20), a differential relation between $z_s$ and $z_t$ derived from the background field equations, together with the ansatz Eq. (32) for their ratio. Inserting $z_s = z_t f(\eta)$ turns Eq. (20) into an integral expression for $z_t$; the chosen $f(\eta)$ makes $z_t$ a power times an exponential in $|\eta|$. As a result, the effective potentials $z_s''/z_s$ and $z_t''/z_t$ take the three-term form $C_0 + C_1/|\eta| + C_2/\eta^2$, the canonical form whose solutions are Whittaker functions $W_{\alpha,\beta}$. These Whittaker modes, matched to vacuum initial conditions in the small-scale limit, produce the analytic spectra and spectral indices that are then compared with CMB data.

What would settle it

Measure the tensor-to-scalar ratio at a pivot scale near $k = 0.002\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ with precision better than $\sim 0.001$: the model's best-fit parameters predict $r \approx 0.0015$, so an observed $r$ above $0.01$ would exclude this parameter set. Likewise, a measured scalar tilt $n_s$ outside the $0.96$--$0.97$ window at that scale would contradict the analytic spectrum, since the paper's allowed parameter region is very narrow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the relation $z_s^2 = 2 z_t^2 [1 + (z_t/z_t')']$ between the scalar and tensor perturbation variables can be solved in closed form once the ratio $z_s/z_t$ is chosen. The paper's second model takes $f(\eta) = \sqrt{2}\, [1 + \beta_1/(\beta_1 - \alpha_1|\eta|)^2]^{1/2}$; this makes $z_t \propto |\eta|^{\beta_1} e^{-\alpha_1|\eta|}$, so both the tensor and scalar perturbation equations reduce to Whittaker's equation with effective potentials $C_0 + C_1/|\eta| + C_2/\eta^2$. Writing the Fourier modes as Whittaker functions, the paper derives analytic power spectra for curvature and tensor perturbations, the scalar spectral index $n_s$, and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, then uses the observed $n_s \approx 0.964$ and scalar amplitude $P_R \approx 2.2 \times 10^{-9}$ to fix $\beta \approx -1.36$, $C_0 \approx 3.95 \times 10^{-3}$, $A_{t1} \approx 0.1$, predicting $r \approx 0.0015$. The same solution reconstructs $F(\phi) \propto \phi^2$, a scale factor with positive acceleration, and an effective potential $V(\phi)$, all analytically.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the ad hoc functional form $f(\eta) = \sqrt{2}\,[1 + \beta_1/(\beta_1 - \alpha_1|\eta|)^2]^{1/2}$, chosen because it makes the perturbation equations solvable by Whittaker functions; nothing in the theory selects this form, so if it does not match the physical ratio of scalar and tensor variables, the exact solutions and the CMB fit do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is correct, the tensor-to-scalar ratio is pinned near $r \approx 0.0015$ at the pivot scale, a value well below current upper limits but within reach of next-generation B-mode surveys.
The reconstructed background does not rely on slow roll: the scale factor, coupling function, and potential are obtained analytically, giving an exact non-slow-roll inflationary solution in a scalar-tensor theory.
The proportional case $z_s \propto z_t$ is excluded within the paper's framework, since it predicts $r$ of order $0.3$ or larger.
Because the parameter space that fits current CMB data is very narrow, the model makes sharp, testable predictions: small changes in $A_{t1}$ drive $r$ to negative values or above $0.1$.

Reading between the lines

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

Choosing other functions $f(\eta)$ in Eq. (31) would generate a family of exact scalar-tensor inflation models; the paper explores only one nontrivial choice, so its technique is a template for building models with different $n_s$ and $r$ predictions.
If a future B-mode measurement lands near $r \approx 0.0015$, that would support the physical relevance of the ansatz; if it lands well above $0.01$, the reconstruction route is disfavored.
The assumption $F(\phi) \propto \phi^2$ is introduced for convenience; repeating the reconstruction with other coupling functions could reveal how much of the CMB compatibility comes from the ansatz alone and how much from that coupling choice.
The exact expressions for $a(\eta)$ and $V(\phi)$ make it straightforward to compute the number of e-folds and the end of inflation, which the paper does not do; that calculation would connect the model to observable curvature perturbations at the end of inflation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know about this one.

First, the exact-solution program is real. The paper works in the Jordan frame with a generalized scalar-tensor theory and derives the relation z_s^2 = 2 z_t^2 [1 + (z_t/z_t')'] (Eq. 20). From there, Model I (z_s ∝ z_t) is dispatched cleanly and honestly rejected against Planck (r ≈ 0.3 or worse). For Model II, the ansatz z_s = z_t f(η) with the specific f given by Eq. (32) leads to Whittaker-function solutions for both scalar and tensor modes, and — unlike the earlier Einstein-frame effective-potential work of Refs. [24] and [25], where background reconstruction was numerical — the authors obtain an analytical background reconstruction for F(φ) ∝ φ^2. That is a genuine extension of the reconstruction literature.

Second, the load-bearing observational claim does not survive contact with the paper's own equations. From Eqs. (35)–(52), z_t and z_s both scale as A_t^1, while the mode functions B_1, B_2, and A_0 are normalized independently of A_t^1. So P_g and P_R both scale as 1/(A_t^1)^2, and r = P_g/P_R is independent of A_t^1. The text says A_t^1 selects the model (A_t^1 ≈ 0.1 "well corroborated by Planck", A_t^1 > 0.1 makes r negative), but that is a normalization artifact, and the negative-r statement is doubly suspect: a ratio of positive power spectra cannot be negative, and it contradicts the paper's own quoted values (r = 0.138 at A_t^1 = 0.99, r = 0.0016 at A_t^1 = 0.999). The three lines in Fig. 1 differ through β and C_t^0, not through A_t^1. On top of that, n_s and P_R are supplied as inputs to fix β and C_t^0, so reporting them as agreement with Planck is a restatement. The genuine outputs are r and the reconstructed background; the "parameter-space is very small" statement comes with no error bars or likelihood.

Weaker points, in proportion: the f(η) ansatz is chosen for Whittaker-solvability with no physical selection mechanism, and F ∝ φ^2 is assumed for simplicity — these limit significance but are the normal cost of reconstruction work. The citation pattern is fine.

Who it is for: people working on exact semi-analytical perturbation spectra in scalar-tensor inflation. The math deserves a serious referee; a good one will catch the A_t^1 normalization issue. My advice: send to peer review with the expectation that the Model II observational section is either fixed or cut. I would not cite it until a corrected version appears.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies scalar and tensor cosmological perturbations in a generalized scalar-tensor theory in the Jordan frame. It introduces a method based on the relation z_s = z_t f(η), where z_t and z_s are the standard perturbation variables. In Model I, f is constant, which yields power-law solutions z ∝ η^q and closed-form expressions for the spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio; the authors find this model inconsistent with Planck 2018 data (r too large). In Model II, f(η) is chosen as in Eq. (32), leading to Whittaker-function solutions for both scalar and tensor modes, analytical expressions for the power spectra and spectral index, and a reconstruction of the background scale factor and potential under an assumed F(φ) ∝ φ² coupling. The authors then use Planck 2018 values n_s = 0.964 and P_R = 2.2×10⁻⁹ at k = 0.002 Mpc⁻¹ to fix β and C_t^0, and report that with A_t^1 ≈ 0.1 the model gives r ≈ 0.0015 and is well corroborated by Planck data.

Significance. If the analytical and observational claims are correct, the paper would supply one of the few exact, non-slow-roll reconstructions of inflationary perturbations and background quantities in a generalized scalar-tensor theory. The algebraic core—the relation (20), the Whittaker solutions, and the closed-form spectra for Model I—is a useful technical contribution, and the paper honestly reports that Model I is disfavored. However, the observational section is not yet reliable: the Planck 'agreement' is partly circular because n_s and P_R are used as inputs, and the central claim that A_t^1 is selected by r is not supported by the displayed formulas. The manuscript is therefore of interest but needs substantive revision before the observational conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Section V, Eqs. (43), (52), (36), and Fig. 1] The displayed formulas do not support the claimed A_t^1 dependence of r. For fixed β, C_t^0, and η_i, both P_g in Eq. (43) and P_R in Eq. (52) scale as A_t^1^{-2}, because C_0 in Eq. (36) is proportional to A_t^1. Hence r = P_g/P_R is independent of A_t^1. The selection A_t^1 ≈ 0.1 from r and the three curves in Fig. 1 therefore require additional A_t^1-dependent factors that are not shown. As written, the only way the curves can differ is by refitting β and C_t^0 to keep n_s and P_R fixed, in which case A_t^1 is a free input rather than a parameter selected by the data. In addition, the statement that 'for values of A_t^1 > 0.1 the tensor-to-scalar ratio r becomes negative' contradicts Eq. (19), since P_g and P_R are positive-definite power spectra. This issue is load-bearing for the paper's central claim of Planck corroboration.
[Section V, fitting procedure] The values n_s = 0.964 and P_R = 2.2×10⁻⁹ are used as inputs to solve for β and C_t^0 (the text states explicitly: 'Here we have used the values of P_R = 2.2×10⁻⁹ and n_s = 0.964'). Reporting these same numbers as agreement with Planck is therefore circular. The only genuinely predicted quantity is r, and even that prediction is clouded by the A_t^1 issue above. The authors should reframe the observational test as a fit of (β, C_t^0, A_t^1) to (n_s, P_R) and state clearly that n_s and P_R are not independent predictions; or, if a parameter-free relation r = r(n_s) is intended, derive and display it explicitly.
[Section V, Eqs. (37)-(43) and the pivot scale] The small-scale normalization in Eqs. (40)-(42) requires k_t^eff = sqrt(k² - C_t^0) to be real and positive. At the stated pivot k = 0.002 Mpc⁻¹ and fitted C_t^0 ≈ 3.947×10⁻³, one has k² ≪ C_t^0 unless a very specific and unstated unit system is used; no conversion between Mpc and the mass units in which C_t^0 is measured is provided. The numerical results r = 0.0015, 0.0016, and 0.138 are therefore not reproducible from the manuscript as written. Please specify the units of α_1 and k, and justify the asymptotic conditions used at the pivot scale.
[Section IV, observational comparison] In the paragraph following Eq. (25), the text states n_s ≈ 0.964 but then uses n_s = 0.94 to compute q = −1.02 and q = 2.02. This inconsistency should be corrected, and the conclusion that Model I is disfavored should be checked with the actual Planck value n_s = 0.964.

minor comments (3)

[Global] The manuscript contains numerous grammatical and typographical errors (e.g., 'analyze' should be 'analysis', 'an ansatz' is used inconsistently, and some equation labels are ambiguous). A thorough language edit is needed.
[Section V, Eq. (58)] The reconstruction of the scale factor and potential in Fig. 2 relies on the ad hoc choice F(φ) ∝ φ² and constant ω. This is stated as 'for simplicity', but the limitations should be made more prominent so that the reader does not infer a unique reconstruction from the perturbation data.
[Section V, numerical details] The paper does not describe the numerical procedure used to solve the transcendental equations for β and C_t^0, nor the initial value η_i = 400.000 except in one sentence. Enough detail should be given to reproduce Fig. 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Planck values are used as inputs to fit parameters; the r prediction is an independent output.

full rationale

The paper does not present ns or PR as predictions. It explicitly states that the Planck 2018 values PR=2.2e-9 and ns=0.964 are used to determine the parameters beta and C0^t, and then computes r as an output (Section V). This is a fit plus one independent consistency check, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The ansatz f(eta) in Eq. (32) is openly introduced as an assumption to make the perturbation equations Whittaker-solvable; the solutions then follow by solving the stated ODEs (Eqs. 37 and 46), so there is no hidden import of the result through the ansatz. The background reconstruction is derived algebraically under the explicit simplifying assumption F(phi) proportional to phi^2 (Eq. 58), which is a stated model choice rather than a circular step. Self-citations such as Refs. [17] and [25] appear only as background examples and are not load-bearing for the present derivation. The apparent At1-dependence of r noted by the skeptic is a potential normalization or internal-consistency issue in the numerical calculation, but it is a correctness concern rather than a circularity: the paper's own equations are not being used to define the claimed prediction in terms of the fitted inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results rest on the standard scalar-tensor perturbation formalism, on an ad hoc ansatz for the ratio zs/zt, and on a simplifying choice F(phi) proportional to phi^2 for the background reconstruction. The free parameters are tuned to Planck 2018 values rather than fixed by the theory, so the observational support is weaker than the prose suggests.

free parameters (6)

beta (or beta1 = 1/2 - beta) = beta = -1.35997 (beta1 = 1.85997)
Numerically fixed using Planck 2018 inputs PR=2.2e-9 and ns=0.964 at k=0.002 Mpc^-1 (Section V after Eq. 53); not predicted by the theory.
C_t^0 = alpha1^2 = C_t^0 = 3.947e-3 (alpha1 about 0.063)
Fixed together with beta in the same numerical fit to Planck amplitudes; enters the effective potentials of scalar and tensor modes.
A_t^1 (Whittaker normalization constant) = A_t^1 = 0.1 (also tested 0.99 and 0.999)
Integration constant from Eq. (35) that controls the tensor power spectrum amplitude and hence r; chosen to place the model in the Planck-allowed r-ns region, with contradictory statements about its allowed range.
eta_i (initial conformal time) = |eta_i| = 400.000 (as stated in the paper)
Initial time for the mode functions in Eqs. (40)-(42); r depends on it, and its value is chosen rather than derived.
D0 = sqrt(2B0/(6B0+omega)) = D0 = 1 in Fig. 2
Coupling combination used in the background reconstruction (Eq. 58); set to 1 for the plots of a(eta) and V(phi), not constrained by data.
q (Model I) = q = -1.02 or 2.02 from ns = 0.94
Model I parameter that fixes ns and gives r near 0.3 or 24; the model is rejected, but q is still a free constant chosen from data.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Action (1) and resulting background equations (3)-(6) for generalized scalar-tensor gravity in the Jordan frame are correct.
All perturbation and reconstruction results build on these equations from Refs. [32,34].
domain assumption The Mukhanov-Sasaki equations (12) and (16) with zs and zt defined by (11) and (17) describe scalar and tensor perturbations.
Standard perturbative formalism from Refs. [34,35]; the paper does not rederive it.
domain assumption The modes satisfy Bunch-Davies-type vacuum initial conditions: Wronskian condition and positive frequency as eta approaches negative infinity, with initial values (40).
Needed to fix the Whittaker integration constants B1 and B2 in Eqs. (41)-(42).
ad hoc to paper The ansatz f(eta) = sqrt(2) [1 + beta1/(beta1 - alpha1|eta|)^2]^(1/2) in Eq. (32) is valid.
Imposed to make zt and the potentials take solvable Whittaker form; no physical derivation is offered.
ad hoc to paper For the background reconstruction, F(phi) proportional to phi^2 and omega constant are assumed.
Chosen for simplicity (Section V, after Eq. 57) to integrate Eq. (58); not a consequence of the perturbation analysis.
domain assumption Asymptotic and large-scale limits of the Whittaker functions give the growing modes that are frozen after horizon exit.
Standard asymptotic analysis; small and large scale limits are applied without explicit error control.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstruction and exact solutions for cosmological perturbations from a generalized gravity theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HJEVHTAZ

@misc{pith2026190902037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstruction and exact solutions for cosmological perturbations from a generalized gravity theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HJEVHTAZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02037}
}

abstract

Scalar and tensor cosmological perturbations during an inflationary universe scenario in the context of the a generalized gravity theory are studied. This analyze is carried out considering an ansatz on the variables associated to scalar and tensor perturbation ($z_s$ and $z_t$) in the Jordan frame. In this context, we analyze two different Ansatze for the ratio $z_s/z_t$, and we study in great detail the analytical and exact solutions for the cosmological perturbations together with the corresponding reconstruction of the background variables. Recent observational data from the Planck 2018 results are employed to constrain the parameters of each of the models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02037 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: In the left panel we show the scale factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[24]

Lukash, Pis’ma Zh

V. Lukash, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 49, 631 (1980); G. Chibisov and V. Mukhanov, Galaxy and phonons P.N. Lebedev Phys. Inst. 162 (1980); G. Chibisov and V. Mukhanov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 200, 535 (1982)

work page 1980
[25]

Lucchin and S

F. Lucchin and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1316 (1985)

1985
[1]

In the plot the dashed, solid and dotted lines correspo nd to the values of parameter At 1 = 0.99, At 1 = 0.999 and At 1 = 0.1, respectively

In this panel we have considered the two- marginalized constraints joint 68% and 95% CL at k = 0.002 Mpc −1 from the Planck 2018 results [31]. In the plot the dashed, solid and dotted lines correspo nd to the values of parameter At 1 = 0.99, At 1 = 0.999 and At 1 = 0.1, respectively. r = r(ns) (at 68% and 95% CL at k = 0 .002 Mpc −1 ) from the new Planck ...

work page 2018
[2]

From the particular solution given by Eq.(21) and considering of the v ariable zt (see Eq.(17)), we ﬁnd that the arbitrary function F becomes F ∝ η2q a2

Note that in the particular case 9 in which γ = ± √ 2, we have the solution zs ∝ zt ∝ ecη, in which c = constant. From the particular solution given by Eq.(21) and considering of the v ariable zt (see Eq.(17)), we ﬁnd that the arbitrary function F becomes F ∝ η2q a2 . (22) In this form, in order to reconstruct the function F in terms of the scalar ﬁeld ϕ ...

work page
[3]

> 0. In this way, the power spectrum of the tensor perturbation in the large scale limit (or equivalently | η |→ 0) from Eq.(39) becomes Pg(k) = 2k3 π2At2 1 | Γ(1 /2 + β − αt) |2 ( kt2 ef f C t 0 ) 1/2−β [ |B1|2 | Γ(1 /2 + β − ˜αt) |2 + |B2|2 | Γ(1 /2 + β + ˜αt) |2 + (−1)1/2−βRe ( 2B1B∗ 2 Γ(1 /2 + β − ˜αt)Γ ∗(1/2 + β + ˜αt) ) ] . (43) 14 On the other hand...

work page
[4]

(48) Redeﬁning the conformal time η together with the constants C s 0, C s 1 and C s 2 (or β) such that; ˜η ≡ 2iks ef f | η | in which ks ef f ≡ √ k2 − C s 0 > 0, ˜αs ≡ Cs 1 i 2ks ef f and C s 2 (see Eq.(48)), we have that the general solution of Eq.(46) for the Fourier modes vk is given by vk(˜η) = A0 W ˜αs,β(˜η) + A1 W− ˜αs,β(−˜η), (49) in which A0 and ...

work page
[5]

Here we have used the values of PR = 2 .2 × 10−9 and ns = 0.964 at k = 0.002Mpc−1

correspond to the parameter At 1 = 0 .1 (dotted line). Here we have used the values of PR = 2 .2 × 10−9 and ns = 0.964 at k = 0.002Mpc−1. Also, we ﬁnd that the tensor to scalar ratio for these values at k = 0 .002Mpc−1 is given by r(k = 0 .002) = 0 .0015. Analogously, we numerically ﬁnd that for the value At 1 = 0.999, we have the parameters β = −1.35998 ...

work page 2018
[6]

Starobinsky, Phys

A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980); A. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

work page 1980

Show all 46 references

[7]

Linde, Phys

A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982). 21

1982
[8]

Larson et al

D. Larson et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 16 (2011); C. L. Bennett et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 17 (2011)

2011
[9]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys. 594, A20 (2016)

2016
[10]

S. W. Hawking,Phys. Lett. B 115, 295 (1982);A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 117, 175 (1982); J.M. Bardeen, P.J. Steinhardt and M.S. Turner, Phys . Rev.D 28, 679 (1983)

1982
[11]

Jordan, Z

P. Jordan, Z. Phys. 157, 112 (1959)

1959
[12]

Brans and R.H

C. Brans and R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)

1961
[13]

P. G. Bergmann Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1, 25-36 (1968); R. V. Wagoner Phys. Rev. D 1, 3209-16 (1970)

1968
[14]

Chernikov, E.A

N.A. Chernikov, E.A. Tagirov, Quantum theory of scalar ﬁ eld in de Sitter space. Ann. Inst. H. Poincare A 9, 109171411 (1968)

1968
[15]

Clifton, P

T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, Ph ys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012)

2012
[16]

Zee, Phys

A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 703 (1980); F. Cooper, G. Venturi, Phys. Rev. D 24, 3338 (1981); C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B 302, 668 (1988)

1980
[17]

Spokoiny, Phys

B.L. Spokoiny, Phys. Lett. B 147, 39 (1984); R. Fakir, W.G. Unruh, Astrophys. J 394, 396 (1992); V. Faraoni, E. Gunzig, P. Nardone, Fund. Cosmic Phys . 20, 121 (1999); E. Komatsu, T. Futamase, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064029 (1999)

1984
[18]

Damour and K

T. Damour and K. Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2217 (1993); J. Garcia-Bellido and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 52, 6739 (1995); J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ. 5-6, 75 -235 (2014)

1993
[19]

L. Jarv, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Runkla, M. Saal and H. Veermae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no. 15, 151302 (2017)

2017
[20]

D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D 52, 4295 (1995)

1995
[21]

Faraoni, Phys

V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6813 (1996); V. Faraoni, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 139 (2004)

1996
[22]

J. A. Casas, J. Garcia-Bellido and M. Quiros, Class. Qua nt. Grav. 9, 1371 (1992);A. M. Green and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2557 (1996); X. l. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 60, 104036 (1999); C. Campuzano, S. del Campo and R. Herrera, JC AP 0606, 017 (2006); S. C...

1992
[23]

Garcia-Bellido and A

J. Garcia-Bellido and A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 52, 6730 (1995); J. Garcia-Bellido and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5636 (1995); D. F. Torres, Phys. Lett. A 225, 13 (1997); S. Tsu- 22 jikawa, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043512 (2000); A. A. Starobinsky, S. Tsujikawa and J. Yokoy ama, Nucl....

1995
[26]

D. H. Lyth and E. D. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B 274, 168 (1992) ; E. D. Stewart and D. H. Lyth, Phys. Lett. B 302, 171 (1993)

1992
[27]

V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Brandenbarger, P hys. Rep. 215, 203 (1992)

1992
[28]

Easther, Class

R. Easther, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 1775 (1996)

1996
[29]

Martin, D

J. Martin, D. Schwarz, Phys.Lett.B 500, 1-7 (2001)

2001
[30]

Herrera and R

R. Herrera and R. G. Perez, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 6, 063516 (2016)

2016
[31]

I. J. Grivell and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D 54, 7191 (1996); A. Makarov, Phys. Rev. D 72, 083517 (2005)

1996
[32]

A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 82, 169 (2005); [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 82, 187 (2005)]

2005
[33]

Boisseau, G

B. Boisseau, G. Esposito-Farese, D. Polarski and A. A. S tarobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2236 (2000)

2000
[34]

J. O. Gong and E. D. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B 510, 1 (2001); E. D. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103508 (2002); J. Choe, J. O. Gong and E. D. Stewart, JCAP 0407, 012 (2004)

2001
[35]

H. Wei, R. G. Cai and A. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 603, 95 (2004)

2004
[36]

Akrami et al

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

arXiv
[37]

P. G. Bergmann, Int. J. Theor. Phys 1 , 25 (1968); K. Nordtvedt, Astrophys. J 161 , 1059 (1970); R. Wagoner, Phys. Rev. D 1 , 3209 (1970)

1968
[38]

Bardeen, Phys

J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. D 22, 1882 (1980)

1980
[39]

B 515, 231-237 (2001)

H.Noh and J.Hwang, Phys.Lett. B 515, 231-237 (2001)

2001
[40]

S.Tsujikawa and B.Gumjudpai, Phys.Rev.D 69, 123523 (2004)

2004
[41]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP2 and Keck Array Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 031302 (2016). 23

2016
[42]

Kaiser, Phys

D. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084044 (2010)

2010
[43]

B. L. Spokoiny, Phys. Lett. B 147, 39 (1984); F. S. Accetta, D. J. Zoller, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 31, 3046 (1985)

1984
[44]

Fakir and W

R. Fakir and W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1792 (1990); D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6347 (1994); J. L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen, Phys. Rev. D 51, 395 (1995)

1990
[45]

and Stegun, I

Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A. (Eds.). Handbook of Mat hematical Functions with Formu- las, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, 9th printing. New Yor k: Dover, (1972)

1972
[46]

Introductory review of cosmic inﬂation ,

S. Tsujikawa, “Introductory review of cosmic inﬂation ,” hep-ph/0304257. 24

arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [24]

Lukash, Pis’ma Zh

V. Lukash, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 49, 631 (1980); G. Chibisov and V. Mukhanov, Galaxy and phonons P.N. Lebedev Phys. Inst. 162 (1980); G. Chibisov and V. Mukhanov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 200, 535 (1982)

work page 1980

[2] [25]

Lucchin and S

F. Lucchin and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1316 (1985)

1985

[3] [1]

In the plot the dashed, solid and dotted lines correspo nd to the values of parameter At 1 = 0.99, At 1 = 0.999 and At 1 = 0.1, respectively

In this panel we have considered the two- marginalized constraints joint 68% and 95% CL at k = 0.002 Mpc −1 from the Planck 2018 results [31]. In the plot the dashed, solid and dotted lines correspo nd to the values of parameter At 1 = 0.99, At 1 = 0.999 and At 1 = 0.1, respectively. r = r(ns) (at 68% and 95% CL at k = 0 .002 Mpc −1 ) from the new Planck ...

work page 2018

[4] [2]

From the particular solution given by Eq.(21) and considering of the v ariable zt (see Eq.(17)), we ﬁnd that the arbitrary function F becomes F ∝ η2q a2

Note that in the particular case 9 in which γ = ± √ 2, we have the solution zs ∝ zt ∝ ecη, in which c = constant. From the particular solution given by Eq.(21) and considering of the v ariable zt (see Eq.(17)), we ﬁnd that the arbitrary function F becomes F ∝ η2q a2 . (22) In this form, in order to reconstruct the function F in terms of the scalar ﬁeld ϕ ...

work page

[5] [3]

> 0. In this way, the power spectrum of the tensor perturbation in the large scale limit (or equivalently | η |→ 0) from Eq.(39) becomes Pg(k) = 2k3 π2At2 1 | Γ(1 /2 + β − αt) |2 ( kt2 ef f C t 0 ) 1/2−β [ |B1|2 | Γ(1 /2 + β − ˜αt) |2 + |B2|2 | Γ(1 /2 + β + ˜αt) |2 + (−1)1/2−βRe ( 2B1B∗ 2 Γ(1 /2 + β − ˜αt)Γ ∗(1/2 + β + ˜αt) ) ] . (43) 14 On the other hand...

work page

[6] [4]

(48) Redeﬁning the conformal time η together with the constants C s 0, C s 1 and C s 2 (or β) such that; ˜η ≡ 2iks ef f | η | in which ks ef f ≡ √ k2 − C s 0 > 0, ˜αs ≡ Cs 1 i 2ks ef f and C s 2 (see Eq.(48)), we have that the general solution of Eq.(46) for the Fourier modes vk is given by vk(˜η) = A0 W ˜αs,β(˜η) + A1 W− ˜αs,β(−˜η), (49) in which A0 and ...

work page

[7] [5]

Here we have used the values of PR = 2 .2 × 10−9 and ns = 0.964 at k = 0.002Mpc−1

correspond to the parameter At 1 = 0 .1 (dotted line). Here we have used the values of PR = 2 .2 × 10−9 and ns = 0.964 at k = 0.002Mpc−1. Also, we ﬁnd that the tensor to scalar ratio for these values at k = 0 .002Mpc−1 is given by r(k = 0 .002) = 0 .0015. Analogously, we numerically ﬁnd that for the value At 1 = 0.999, we have the parameters β = −1.35998 ...

work page 2018

[8] [6]

Starobinsky, Phys

A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980); A. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

work page 1980