Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Strong coupling and instabilities in singularity-free inflation from an infinite sum of curvature corrections

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper contends that the singularity-free inflationary solution $\dot{\phi}=H$ in the infinite-sum Lovelock theory is illegitimate because the scalar kinetic term vanishes at all times and tensor modes are unstable.

desk verdict The infinite-Lovelock singularity-free inflation model has a genuine strong coupling problem; the core no-go result is solid and deserves peer review, but the C≠0 section has a contradictory exponent. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20586 v2 pith:XUZOL7KU submitted 2025-05-26 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

Shinji Tsujikawa This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-phhep-th MSC 83F0583D0583C25 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.Cq
keywords strongcouplingsingularity-freeinflationHorndeskitheoriesLovelockgravityconformalregularizationcosmologicalperturbationsLaplacianinstability4DEinstein-Gauss-Bonnet
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 examines a four-dimensional gravitational theory built from an infinite sum of regularized Lovelock curvature invariants, which is equivalent to a shift-symmetric Horndeski theory and admits an inflationary solution that avoids the Big Bang singularity. The author shows that along the inflationary background $\dot{\phi}=H$ the kinetic coefficient of linear scalar perturbations vanishes identically for all times, which is a severe strong-coupling problem: nonlinear fluctuations dominate, so perturbation theory on the homogeneous background breaks down. Tensor perturbations during inflation have negative squared sound speed in all considered models, giving Laplacian instabilities. Even when the initial condition is slightly perturbed so $\dot{\phi}\neq H$, the scalar kinetic coefficient and sound speed diverge at the onset of inflation while tensor instabilities persist. The message is that the homogeneous FLRW background used to describe this singularity-free inflation is not a legitimate description because inhomogeneities overwhelm it.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the Horndeski functions $G_{2,3,4,5}(X)$ built from the conformal rescaling $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}=e^{-2\phi}g_{\mu\nu}$ and the dimensional limit $d\to 2n$ of the Lovelock invariants $L^{(n)}$, summed over $n=2,3,\ldots$. The key identity is the scalar current $J=C/a^3$ with $J\propto (\dot{\phi}-H)^3$ for each power $n$, which yields the solution $\dot{\phi}=H$ when $C=0$. The central diagnostic is the kinetic coefficient $q_s^{(u)}=\dot{\phi}^2 q_t q_s / (2H q_t - \dot{\phi} D_6)^2$, which is proportional to $(\dot{\phi}-H)^2$ along the background, so it vanishes identically when $\dot{\phi}=H$; the same proportionality holds for each finite $n$ and survives the infinite sum. The tensor sector is controlled by $q_t$ and $c_t^2$, which are evaluated on the explicit solutions for $H(a)$ in each model to show $c_t^2<0$ during inflation.

What would settle it

Derive the perturbation action directly from the parent higher-dimensional Lovelock action before taking the dimension and conformal-rescaling limits, then compare the coefficient of the scalar kinetic term in the four-dimensional reduction; if that coefficient is nonzero, the vanishing derived here is an artifact of the order of limits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the background solution $\dot{\phi}=H$, which is the unique $C=0$ solution of the scalar-current equation $J=C/a^3$ and which drives the singularity-free inflationary phase with $H$ bounded by $\ell^{-1}$, has $q_s^{(u)}=0$ at all times in the unitary gauge (and $q_s^{(f)}=0$ in the flat gauge). This means the quadratic kinetic term for the curvature perturbation $\zeta$ drops out of the action, so linear perturbation theory is not a good starting point: the theory is infinitely strongly coupled throughout the entire cosmological evolution, not just in the asymptotic past. In addition, the paper derives $c_t^2<0$ during inflation for all three choices of coefficients $c_n$ (Models 1, 2, 3), with $c_t^2\to -7$, $-\infty$, $-\infty$ respectively as $a\to 0$, indicating Laplacian instability of tensor modes. For $C\neq 0$, the scalar kinetic coefficient and $c_s^2$ diverge as $a\to 0$, and the energy density of scalar perturbations diverges even though the background derivative $\dot{\phi}$ stays finite.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the standard small-fluctuation equations remain trustworthy even in the regime where the theory's own coupling functions blow up as the scale factor approaches zero; if the theory has already stopped being valid there, the claim that strong coupling lasts forever may not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The singularity-free inflationary background cannot support a consistent linear perturbation analysis, so any prediction for the spectrum of primordial fluctuations derived from it is unreliable.
  • Because $q_s^{(u)}=0$ holds at all times rather than only in the asymptotic past, the strong-coupling problem cannot be cured by the high strong-coupling scale mechanism used for some Horndeski genesis and bounce models.
  • The tensor Laplacian instability with $c_t^2<0$ during inflation means small-scale gravitational waves grow rapidly, independently of the scalar-sector problem.
  • The failure is independent of the coefficients $c_n$ because $q_s^{(u)}$ is proportional to $(\dot{\phi}-H)^2$ for every power $n$ separately, so taking the infinite sum does not remove the pathology already present in the $n=2$ (4DEGB) case.
  • For $C\neq 0$, the divergence of $q_s^{(u)}$ and $c_s^2$ at the onset of inflation again destroys the validity of the homogeneous background description.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same order-of-limits question likely affects other results built from the conformal regularization at $d\to 2n$: the divergence of the Horndeski functions as $\ell H\to 1$ may signal that the effective four-dimensional description ceases to be valid before the strong-coupling conclusion applies.
  • The diagnostic $q_s\propto (\dot{\phi}-H)^2$ could serve as a quick filter on any shift-symmetric Horndeski model with a similar current structure to identify solutions whose kinetic term vanishes before computing the full action.
  • If one instead starts from the higher-dimensional Lovelock action and reduces the dimension before taking the conformal-rescaling limit, the scalar kinetic term may be nonzero; that would indicate the pathology is an artifact of the regularization procedure rather than of the infinite curvature tower.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies four-dimensional gravity obtained from an infinite sum of dimensionally regularized Lovelock curvature invariants, which is known to reduce to a subclass of shift-symmetric Horndeski theories. On a spatially flat FLRW background, earlier work found a singularity-free inflationary solution with Hubble rate bounded by ℓ^{-1}, realized by the condition φdot = H. Using the standard Horndeski linear perturbation formalism, the author computes the kinetic coefficient q_s^(u) of scalar perturbations and the tensor sound speed squared c_t^2. The central results are that q_s^(u) vanishes identically along φdot = H in Models 1, 2, and 3 (Eqs. 4.20, 4.31, and A.10), and that c_t^2 becomes negative during inflation in all three models. For the branch C ≠ 0, the paper claims that q_s^(u) and c_s^2 diverge at the onset of inflation, with negative c_s^2 in Models 2 and 3. The author concludes that linear perturbation theory breaks down and that the homogeneous FLRW background is illegitimate in this theory.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this is a significant no-go result for a class of quantum-gravity-inspired, singularity-free inflationary models. The paper's main strength is that the strong-coupling identity q_s^(u) = 0 along φdot = H is an exact, finite-time algebraic statement, not an asymptotic or fitted result; it is backed by explicit closed-form background solutions and explicit Horndeski functions. The worry that the effective theory may break down as a → 0, where some G_i diverge, does not undercut the finite-time identity, because Eqs. (4.20), (4.31), and (4.36) hold at every regular finite scale factor. The result is falsifiable in the sense that any proposed ultraviolet completion of this Lovelock tower must alter the perturbation sector or the background solution. The main caveats are an internal inconsistency in the C ≠ 0 branch of Model 1 and an overgeneralization from the per-power calculation to arbitrary coefficients c_n.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (4.25)] The displayed leading-order expression is c_s^2 = [20/(27 ϵ0 a_m1^4)] a^{1/3} + O(a^0), which tends to 0 as a → 0, but the text immediately afterwards states that c_s^2 diverges as a^{-1/3} → ∞. These two statements are mutually inconsistent. Because the Abstract and Conclusions rely on the claim that both the kinetic coefficient and the scalar sound speed diverge at the onset of inflation for H ≠ φdot, the correct power and the consequent statements must be fixed.
  2. [Sec. IV.C and Sec. V] The general claim that the strong-coupling property persists 'for arbitrary coefficients c_n' is not established by the calculation. Equation (4.36) gives q_s^(u) for a single power n, but the total q_s^(u) is a nonlinear functional of the resummed Horndeski functions G_i and is not the sum of the per-n expressions. The paper verifies the infinite-sum cancellation only in Models 1, 2, and 3. I ask the author to either prove the general resummed statement or restrict the Conclusions to the models explicitly treated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (4.21)] The statement that c_s^2 is 'generally undetermined' on the φdot = H branch is acceptable, but the paper should explicitly note that this does not affect the strong-coupling conclusion, which relies only on q_s^(u) = 0, not on c_s^2.
  2. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (4.31)] The notation 'l4' appears in the numerator instead of ℓ^4; please make the notation uniform throughout the paper.
  3. [Sec. IV.B and Sec. IV.C] There are typos in 'substitite' and 'undertermined'; both should be corrected to 'substitute' and 'undetermined'.
  4. [Sec. IV.A, text after Eq. (4.20)] The phrase 'from the onset of inflation' could be read as referring to the singular limit a → 0; since the identity holds for all finite a, the wording 'for all finite a' would be more precise and would avoid conflation with the asymptotic-past domain-of-validity question.
  5. [References] References [43] and [44] are cited as arXiv preprints; if published versions exist, they should be updated for the reader's convenience.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the strong-coupling identity q_s^(u)=0 is a derived on-shell algebraic result, not an input to the calculation.

full rationale

The central result, q_s^(u)=0 along the solution phi_dot=H, is obtained by substituting the known background solution into the standard Horndeski no-ghost coefficient, not by assuming the conclusion. Equations (4.19)-(4.20), (4.31), and (4.36) explicitly exhibit a factor (phi_dot-H)^2, and setting this factor to zero follows from the C=0 background equation; the proportionality itself is a nontrivial algebraic consequence of the specific Horndeski functions in Eqs. (2.12) and (2.14). No parameter is fitted to data, and no quantity is called a prediction that is statistically forced by a fit. The perturbation formalism is imported from Refs. [19,64,65,66], two of which include the author, but these are standard, peer-reviewed quadratic-action formulas for Horndeski theories and are used independently of the present conclusion. The infinite-sum background solution is taken from the prior work of Fernandes, Ref. [44], not from the author. The possible domain-of-validity concern at a->0, where some Horndeski functions diverge, and the apparent typographical inconsistency in Eq. (4.25) are correctness issues rather than circularity. The derivation is self-contained with respect to its stated inputs, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central no-go rests on three ingredients inherited from prior work: the Horndeski equivalence, the perturbation formalism, and the FLRW background. No free parameters are fitted to data; the model coefficients c_n are choices, and the strong coupling conclusion is stated to be independent of them.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The infinite-sum Lovelock action after conformal regularization is equivalent to the shift-symmetric Horndeski theory with G_i(X) given by Eqs. (2.7)-(2.10), from Refs. [43,44].
    This equivalence is the starting point; the paper does not re-derive it. If the limit d->2n does not commute with the sum over n, the theory is not well-defined.
  • standard math The linear perturbation theory for Horndeski theories with a perfect fluid, including the expressions for q_s^(u), c_s^2, and c_t^2, is valid (Refs. [19,64,65,66]).
    The paper relies on these well-established results for the no-ghost and no-Laplacian-instability conditions.
  • domain assumption The FLRW background with a radiation fluid and the scalar field is the cosmological background of interest.
    The paper restricts to spatially flat FLRW and a perfect fluid with w_m = 1/3, following the singularity-free inflation proposal.
  • ad hoc to paper The perturbative expansion around the homogeneous background is valid enough to diagnose the background, even where the theory's coupling functions diverge (e.g., G5 containing logarithms as ℓH -> 1).
    The paper applies the stability criteria in the limit a -> 0 without discussing the EFT cutoff. If the theory itself is singular at the boundary, the interpretation of strong coupling at all times may need revision.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong coupling and instabilities in singularity-free inflation from an infinite sum of curvature corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUZOL7KU

@misc{pith2026250520586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong coupling and instabilities in singularity-free inflation from an infinite sum of curvature corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUZOL7KU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20586}
}
abstract

Four-dimensional gravitational theories derived from an infinite sum of Lovelock curvature invariants, combined with a conformal rescaling of the metric, are equivalent to a subclass of shift-symmetric Horndeski theories that possess a single scalar degree of freedom. Under the assumption of a homogeneous and isotropic cosmological background, the theory admits an inflationary solution that replaces the Big Bang singularity. This can be achieved by a solution where the Hubble expansion rate $H$ is equal to the time derivative of the scalar field $\dot{\phi}$. We show that the solution $H=\dot{\phi}$ suffers from a strong coupling problem, characterized by the vanishing kinetic term of linear scalar perturbations at all times. Consequently, nonlinear scalar perturbations remain uncontrolled from the onset of inflation throughout the subsequent cosmological evolution. Moreover, tensor perturbations are generally subject to Laplacian instabilities during inflation. This instability in the tensor sector also persists under background initial conditions where $H \neq \dot{\phi}$. In the latter case, both the coefficient of the kinetic term for scalar perturbations and the scalar sound speed diverge at the onset of inflation. Thus, the dominance of inhomogeneities in this theory renders the homogeneous background solution illegitimate.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The action Sm describes the matter fields Ψ m, which are assumed to be minimally coupled to gravity

    We will consider the dynamics on a time-dependent, isotropic cosmological background, in which case X is positive2. The action Sm describes the matter fields Ψ m, which are assumed to be minimally coupled to gravity. Taking the infinite sum of G(n) i over n = 2, 3, · · ·, the resulting theory is characterized by the following coupling functions: G2(X) = −...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 57 (1965)

    1965

  3. [3]

    S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 314, 529 (1970)

    1970

  4. [4]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5056 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9911046

    arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Phys. Lett. B 493, 149 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0009077

    arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    K. A. Bronnikov, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044005 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0006014

    arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Dymnikova, Class

    I. Dymnikova, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 4417 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407072

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 081401 (2025), arXiv:2410.00314 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D111, 064051 (2025), arXiv:2412.04754 [gr-qc]

    2025

  2. [10]

    Veneziano, Phys

    G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B265, 287 (1991)

    1991

  3. [11]

    Gasperini and G

    M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Astropart. Phys.1, 317 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9211021

    1993 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Khoury, B

    J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, P. J. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D64, 123522 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0103239

    2001 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gasperini, M

    M. Gasperini, M. Maggiore, and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 494, 315 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9611039

    1997 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Brustein and R

    R. Brustein and R. Madden, Phys. Rev. D57, 712 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9708046

    1998 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Foffa, M

    S. Foffa, M. Maggiore, and R. Sturani, Nucl. Phys. B 552, 395 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9903008

    1999 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Cartier, E

    C. Cartier, E. J. Copeland, and R. Madden, JHEP 01, 035 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9910169

    2000 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Tsujikawa, R

    S. Tsujikawa, R. Brandenberger, and F. Finelli, Phys. Rev. D 66, 083513 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0207228

    2002 arXiv

  10. [18]

    G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys.10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  11. [19]

    Deffayet, X

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, and G. Zahariade,Phys. Rev. D 84, 064039 (2011), arXiv:1103.3260 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kobayashi, M

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

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Charmousis, E

    C. Charmousis, E. J. Copeland, A. Padilla, and P. M. Saf- fin, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 051101 (2012), arXiv:1106.2000 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T. Qiu, J. Evslin, Y.-F. Cai, M. Li, and X. Zhang, JCAP 10, 036 (2011), arXiv:1108.0593 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    D. A. Easson, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, JCAP 11, 021 (2011), arXiv:1109.1047 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y.-F. Cai, D. A. Easson, and R. Brandenberger, JCAP 08, 020 (2012), arXiv:1206.2382 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Osipov and V

    M. Osipov and V. Rubakov, JCAP 11, 031 (2013), arXiv:1303.1221 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    T. Qiu, X. Gao, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 88, 043525 (2013), arXiv:1303.2372 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Koehn, J.-L

    M. Koehn, J.-L. Lehners, and B. A. Ovrut, Phys. Rev. D 90, 025005 (2014), arXiv:1310.7577 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ijjas and P

    A. Ijjas and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 121304 (2016), arXiv:1606.08880 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Creminelli, A

    P. Creminelli, A. Nicolis, and E. Trincherini, JCAP 11, 021 (2010), arXiv:1007.0027 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Creminelli, K

    P. Creminelli, K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, A. Nico- lis, and E. Trincherini, JHEP 02, 006 (2013), arXiv:1209.3768 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hinterbichler, A

    K. Hinterbichler, A. Joyce, J. Khoury, and G. E. J. Miller, JCAP 12, 030 (2012), arXiv:1209.5742 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Nishi and T

    S. Nishi and T. Kobayashi, JCAP 03, 057 (2015), arXiv:1501.02553 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, and J. Yokoyama, JCAP 07, 017 (2015), arXiv:1504.05710 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Libanov, S

    M. Libanov, S. Mironov, and V. Rubakov, JCAP 08, 037 (2016), arXiv:1605.05992 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kobayashi, Phys

    T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D 94, 043511 (2016), arXiv:1606.05831 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Pirtskhalava, L

    D. Pirtskhalava, L. Santoni, E. Trincherini, and P. Utta- yarat, JHEP 12, 151 (2014), arXiv:1410.0882 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Creminelli, M

    P. Creminelli, M. A. Luty, A. Nicolis, and L. Senatore, JHEP 12, 080 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0606090

    2006 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Koehn, J.-L

    M. Koehn, J.-L. Lehners, and B. Ovrut, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103501 (2016), arXiv:1512.03807 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    de Rham and S

    C. de Rham and S. Melville, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123523 (2017), arXiv:1703.00025 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Heisenberg, R

    L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123504 (2018), arXiv:1807.07202 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ageeva, O

    Y. Ageeva, O. Evseev, O. Melichev, and V. Rubakov, Phys. Rev. D102, 023519 (2020), arXiv:2003.01202 [hep- th]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ageeva, P

    Y. Ageeva, P. Petrov, and V. Rubakov, JHEP 12, 107 (2020), arXiv:2009.05071 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ageeva, P

    Y. Ageeva, P. Petrov, and V. Rubakov, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063530 (2021), arXiv:2104.13412 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Coll´ eaux, arXiv:2010.14174 [gr-qc]

    A. Coll´ eaux, arXiv:2010.14174 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    P. G. S. Fernandes, arXiv:2504.07692 [gr-qc]

  38. [46]

    P. G. S. Fernandes, arXiv:2504.08565 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bueno, P

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, and R. A. Hennigar, Phys. Lett. B 861, 139260 (2025), arXiv:2403.04827 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bueno, P

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, R. A. Hennigar, and A. J. Murcia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 181401 (2025), arXiv:2412.02742 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Lovelock, J

    D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys.12, 498 (1971)

    1971

  42. [50]

    Lovelock, J

    D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys.13, 874 (1972)

    1972

  43. [51]

    Glavan and C

    D. Glavan and C. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 081301 (2020), arXiv:1905.03601 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Arrechea, A

    J. Arrechea, A. Delhom, and A. Jim´ enez-Cano, Chin. Phys. C 45, 013107 (2021), arXiv:2004.12998 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Arrechea, A

    J. Arrechea, A. Delhom, and A. Jim´ enez-Cano, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 149002 (2020), arXiv:2009.10715 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    G¨ urses, T

    M. G¨ urses, T. c. S ¸i¸ sman, and B. Tekin,Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 647 (2020), arXiv:2004.03390 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Gurses, T

    M. Gurses, T. c. S ¸i¸ sman, and B. Tekin,Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 149001 (2020), arXiv:2009.13508 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    P. G. S. Fernandes, P. Carrilho, T. Clifton, and D. J. Mul- ryne, Phys. Rev. D102, 024025 (2020), arXiv:2004.08362 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    R. A. Hennigar, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, R. B. Mann, and C. Pol- lack, JHEP 07, 027 (2020), arXiv:2004.09472 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Lu and Y

    H. Lu and Y. Pang, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135717 (2020), arXiv:2003.11552 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Kobayashi, JCAP 07, 013 (2020), arXiv:2003.12771 [gr-qc]

    T. Kobayashi, JCAP 07, 013 (2020), arXiv:2003.12771 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ma and H

    L. Ma and H. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1209 (2020), arXiv:2004.14738 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    R. J. Riegert, Phys. Lett. B134, 56 (1984)

    1984

  54. [62]

    Tsujikawa, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137329 (2022), arXiv:2205.09932 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bonifacio, K

    J. Bonifacio, K. Hinterbichler, and L. A. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024029 (2020), arXiv:2004.10716 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    K. Aoki, M. A. Gorji, and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Lett. B 810, 135843 (2020), arXiv:2005.03859 [gr-qc]. 14

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    De Felice, T

    A. De Felice, T. Kobayashi, and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Lett. B 706, 123 (2011), arXiv:1108.4242 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  58. [66]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP 02, 007 (2012), arXiv:1110.3878 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1942005 (2019), arXiv:1809.08735 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi- GBM, INTEGRAL), Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Motohashi, and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D 85, 084025 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 109903 (2017)], arXiv:1202.4893 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Motohashi, and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084042 (2014), arXiv:1402.6740 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024059 (2022), arXiv:2110.12728 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104045 (2023), arXiv:2301.10362 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    K. Aoki, M. A. Gorji, S. Mizuno, and S. Mukohyama, JCAP 01, 054 (2021), arXiv:2010.03973 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Gabadadze, Phys

    G. Gabadadze, Phys. Lett. B 843, 138031 (2023), arXiv:2301.13265 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Tsujikawa, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Lett. B 843, 138054 (2023), arXiv:2304.10019 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.