pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05212 · v2 · pith:B7WOKVWAnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · ⚛️ physics.gen-ph

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

G.G.L. Nashed , Sudan Hansraj , Amare Abebe This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 09:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.gen-ph
keywords inflationGauss-Bonnetscalar spectral indextensor-to-scalar ratioslow-rollf(R,G) gravityprimordial perturbationsconstrained models
0
0 comments X

The pith

A constrained scalar-Gauss-Bonnet model from f(R,G) gravity produces ns approximately 0.958 and r approximately 2.7 times 10 to the minus 4 while the exact constraint removes the scalar perturbation mode.

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

The paper develops an effective framework for inflation in a constrained scalar-Gauss-Bonnet theory drawn from a restricted sector of f(R,G) gravity. It uses unified parametrizations of the Hubble expansion rate and the Gauss-Bonnet coupling inside a generalized slow-roll formalism to obtain analytical expressions for the scalar spectral index ns and the tensor-to-scalar ratio r. The Hubble parametrization sets the main scalar tilt through the slow-roll parameter epsilon1, while the Gauss-Bonnet contribution epsilon4 can further adjust the tilt and drive r to very small values. A benchmark solution yields ns approximately 0.958 and r approximately 2.7 times 10 to the minus 4, lying near current observational limits. The work also shows that enforcing the constraint exactly forces the lapse perturbation to vanish and implies dot R equals zero, so no scalar degree of freedom propagates at linear order and the slow-roll treatment must be viewed as an effective description.

Core claim

The paper claims that the effective constrained scalar--Gauss--Bonnet framework provides a flexible and observationally viable description of inflation. The Hubble parametrization mainly controls the scalar sector through the slow-roll parameter epsilon1, while the Gauss-Bonnet-induced contribution epsilon4 can significantly affect the scalar tilt and strongly suppress primordial tensor modes, naturally leading to very small values of r. A representative benchmark solution yields ns approximately 0.958 and r approximately 2.7 times 10 to the minus 4, marginally compatible with current Planck, ACT, and BICEP/Keck constraints. In the exactly constrained theory the Lagrange-multiplier constrain

What carries the argument

Unified parametrizations of the Hubble expansion rate and the Gauss-Bonnet coupling function within a generalized slow-roll formalism, combined with the Lagrange-multiplier constraint that forces the lapse perturbation to vanish.

Load-bearing premise

The generalized slow-roll formalism remains a valid effective description of the softly constrained theory even though the exact constrained limit has no propagating scalar modes.

What would settle it

A direct linear-order calculation in the exactly constrained theory that finds a nonzero propagating scalar mode would falsify the claim that the constraint eliminates the scalar degree of freedom.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05212 by Amare Abebe, G.G.L. Nashed, Sudan Hansraj.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Behavior of the regularized Gauss–Bonnet couplin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Numerical evolution of the background and perturb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Filled contour plot in the ns–r plane displaying observational constraints together with the predictions of the present model. The green and blue regions correspond to the confidence contours from Planck and ACT data, respectively, while the red region represents the allowed parameter space of the model. The overlap between these regions indicates compatibility with current observational constraints. The o… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop an effective framework for inflation in a constrained scalar--Gauss--Bonnet theory motivated by a restricted sector of $f(R,\mathcal{G})$ gravity. Using unified parametrizations of the Hubble expansion rate and the Gauss--Bonnet coupling function within a generalized slow-roll formalism, we derive analytical expressions for the scalar spectral index $n_s$ and tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, and study their dependence on the model parameters. We show that the Hubble parametrization mainly controls the scalar sector through the slow-roll parameter $\epsilon_1$, while the Gauss--Bonnet-induced contribution $\epsilon_4$ can significantly affect the scalar tilt and strongly suppress primordial tensor modes, naturally leading to very small values of $r$. A representative benchmark solution yields $n_s \simeq 0.958$ and $r \simeq 2.7 \times 10^{-4}$, marginally compatible with current Planck, ACT, and BICEP/Keck constraints. We further investigate the scalar perturbation structure of the exactly constrained theory, where the Lagrange-multiplier constraint forces the lapse perturbation to vanish and, together with the gravitational momentum constraint, implies $\dot{\mathcal{R}}=0$, eliminating the propagating scalar degree of freedom at linear order. This exact result clarifies that the generalized slow-roll treatment should be interpreted as an effective softly constrained description. We also discuss perturbative stability conditions, including the positivity of the relevant kinetic coefficients and propagation speeds. Our results demonstrate that the effective constrained scalar--Gauss--Bonnet framework provides a flexible and observationally viable description of inflation while clarifying the distinction between the exact constrained limit and its effective slow-roll realization.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an effective framework for inflation in a constrained scalar-Gauss-Bonnet theory motivated by a restricted sector of f(R,G) gravity. Using unified parametrizations of the Hubble expansion rate and Gauss-Bonnet coupling within a generalized slow-roll formalism, it derives analytical expressions for the scalar spectral index ns and tensor-to-scalar ratio r. The Hubble parametrization controls the scalar sector via ε1 while the GB-induced ε4 strongly suppresses r. A benchmark solution yields ns ≃ 0.958 and r ≃ 2.7×10^{-4}, claimed to be marginally compatible with Planck, ACT, and BICEP/Keck data. The paper analyzes the exactly constrained theory, where the Lagrange-multiplier constraint forces the lapse perturbation to vanish and, with the momentum constraint, implies \dot R =0, eliminating the propagating scalar degree of freedom at linear order; the slow-roll results are therefore interpreted as applying only to an effective 'softly constrained' description. Perturbative stability conditions are also discussed.

Significance. If the effective softly constrained description holds and the generalized slow-roll expressions remain valid, the framework provides a mechanism for naturally small r via the ε4 term while producing viable ns, offering an observationally compatible inflationary model with analytical control. The explicit distinction drawn between the exact constrained limit (no scalar mode) and the effective treatment is a clarifying contribution. The provision of analytical ns,r expressions and a concrete benchmark are positive features.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and perturbation structure paragraph] Abstract and perturbation structure paragraph: The observational compatibility claim rests on the generalized slow-roll formalism (via ε1 and ε4) remaining valid in the 'softly constrained' regime. The manuscript shows that the exact constrained theory forces lapse perturbation =0 and \dot R =0, removing the propagating scalar mode. No explicit softening mechanism (dynamical multiplier, higher-derivative regulator, or potential term) is supplied to demonstrate that the same ε1,ε4 expressions continue to govern the curvature power spectrum once a scalar mode is restored. This assumption is load-bearing for the ns,r predictions and benchmark.
  2. [Generalized slow-roll formalism] Generalized slow-roll formalism and benchmark: The analytical expressions for ns and r are stated and a benchmark is given, but the specific functional forms of the parametrizations, the full derivation steps from the unified Hubble and GB functions to the slow-roll parameters, and the explicit data comparison are not supplied. This prevents independent verification of marginal compatibility with Planck/ACT/BICEP/Keck bounds.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the slow-roll parameters ε1 and ε4 could be defined more explicitly when first introduced to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the generalized formalism.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The observational compatibility claim rests on the generalized slow-roll formalism (via ε1 and ε4) remaining valid in the 'softly constrained' regime. The manuscript shows that the exact constrained theory forces lapse perturbation =0 and ˙R =0, removing the propagating scalar mode. No explicit softening mechanism (dynamical multiplier, higher-derivative regulator, or potential term) is supplied to demonstrate that the same ε1,ε4 expressions continue to govern the curvature power spectrum once a scalar mode is restored. This assumption is load-bearing for the ns,r predictions and benchmark.

    Authors: We agree that the validity of the generalized slow-roll expressions in the softly constrained regime is a key assumption underlying the ns and r predictions. The manuscript already emphasizes the distinction between the exact constrained theory (no propagating scalar mode) and the effective description, but we acknowledge that no explicit softening mechanism is detailed. In the revision we will add a subsection outlining possible realizations of the soft constraint, including small explicit breaking terms motivated by the underlying f(R,G) sector and effective-field-theory considerations, to better support the applicability of the ε1,ε4 formalism to the benchmark results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The analytical expressions for ns and r are stated and a benchmark is given, but the specific functional forms of the parametrizations, the full derivation steps from the unified Hubble and GB functions to the slow-roll parameters, and the explicit data comparison are not supplied. This prevents independent verification of marginal compatibility with Planck/ACT/BICEP/Keck bounds.

    Authors: We apologize for the lack of explicit detail on the functional forms and derivations. The unified parametrizations of the Hubble rate and Gauss-Bonnet coupling are introduced in the text, but the step-by-step passage to the slow-roll parameters and the direct comparison with observational bounds were not expanded. We will add an appendix that supplies the explicit parametrization functions, the complete derivation of ε1 and ε4, the resulting analytic expressions for ns and r, and the numerical evaluation against the Planck, ACT, and BICEP/Keck constraints for the benchmark parameter set. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives analytical expressions for ns and r from the generalized slow-roll parameters ε1 (Hubble parametrization) and ε4 (GB coupling) within an explicitly stated effective framework. The benchmark values are presented as a representative choice within the model parameter space that happens to lie near observational bounds, not as a parameter-free first-principles output. The abstract explicitly distinguishes the exact constrained limit (no propagating scalar mode) from the effective softly-constrained description used for the slow-roll calculation, so the central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text. The derivation chain remains independent of the target observables.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on chosen parametrizations of the Hubble rate and GB coupling that are tuned to produce the quoted ns and r; the slow-roll approximation is assumed to capture the effective dynamics even though the exact theory has no propagating scalar mode.

free parameters (1)
  • Parameters controlling the unified parametrizations of Hubble expansion rate and Gauss-Bonnet coupling
    These parameters are adjusted to obtain the benchmark spectral index and tensor ratio; their specific values are not derived from first principles.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Generalized slow-roll formalism applies to the effective softly constrained scalar-Gauss-Bonnet theory
    Invoked to derive closed-form expressions for ns and r from the parametrized Hubble rate and coupling.
  • domain assumption Lagrange-multiplier constraint forces lapse perturbation to vanish and, with the momentum constraint, implies ḋR=0 at linear order
    Central premise of the exact-theory perturbation analysis stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5842 in / 1702 out tokens · 44431 ms · 2026-06-29T09:13:11.497572+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    perturbatively consistent within the gene ralized slow-roll approximation

    removes the unwanted higher-derivative mode at the level of the background construction, but by itself it does not con stitute a complete proof of perturbative stability. A perturbatively consistent inflationary solution must also satisfy t he positivity of the kinetic coefficients and sound speeds of the propagating scalar and tensor perturbations. The refo...

    2018

  2. [2]

    975, r< 0

    95 ≲ns ≲ 0. 975, r< 0. 036. Configurations violating any of these conditions were excluded from the viable parameter space. For the numerical scan, the parameters were varied within the follo wing representative ranges: H0 ∈ [5, 20], A ∈ [0, 0. 5], p ∈ [10− 3, 10− 1], B ∈ [10− 7, 10− 3], m ∈ [1, 3], γh ∈ [10− 9, 10− 5], δ ∈ [10− 7, 10− 3], b ∈ [1, 4], c ∈ ...

  3. [3]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981) . 18

    1981

  4. [4]

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

    1982

  5. [5]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982)

    1982

  6. [6]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. 33, 532 (1981)

    1981

  7. [7]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 258 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cosmological inflation and large scale structure (2000)

    2000

  9. [9]

    B. A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa, and D. Wands, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 537 (2006) , arXiv:astro-ph/0507632

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    Baumann, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Partic le Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small (2011) pp

    D. Baumann, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Partic le Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small (2011) pp. 523–686, arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  12. [12]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [13]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020) , [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020) , arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Aiola et al

    S. Aiola et al. (ACT), JCAP 12, 047 (2020) , arXiv:2007.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 113 (2024) , arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Bitaj, N

    M. Bitaj, N. Rashidi, and K. Nozari, JHAP 3, 23 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, K. A. Olive, and S. Verner, Phys. Rev. D 113, 063571 (2026) , arXiv:2510.18656 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151301 (2021) , arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. 505, 59 (2011) , arXiv:1011.0544 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010) , arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010) , arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509, 167 (2011) , arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  24. [24]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012) , arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Phys. Dark Univ. 39, 101159 (2023) , arXiv:2212.05531 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 71, 123509 (2005) , arXiv:hep-th/0504052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 80, 063516 (2009) , arXiv:0907.1830 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    De Laurentis, M

    M. De Laurentis, M. Paolella, and S. Capozziello, Phys. Rev. D 91, 083531 (2015) , arXiv:1503.04659 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044009 (2020) , arXiv:2001.06830 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and T. Paul, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023540 (2020) , arXiv:2007.06829 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Capozziello and F

    S. Capozziello and F. Bajardi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31, 2230009 (2022) , arXiv:2201.04512 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Nojiri, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Kanti, J

    P. Kanti, J. Rizos, and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Rev. D 59, 083512 (1999) , arXiv:gr-qc/9806085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  34. [34]

    Satoh, S

    M. Satoh, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023526 (2008) , arXiv:0706.3585 [astro-ph] . 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    Guo and D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    Koh, B.-H

    S. Koh, B.-H. Lee, W. Lee, and G. Tumurtushaa, Phys. Rev. D 90, 063527 (2014) , arXiv:1404.6096 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044039 (2018) , arXiv:1808.05045 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and F. P. Fronimos, Nucl. Phys. B 958, 115135 (2020) , arXiv:2003.13724 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    V. K. Oikonomou, A. Gkioni, I. Sdranis, P. Tsyba, and O. R azina, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 075016 (2025) , arXiv:2503.17851 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Y. Zhu, Q. Gao, Y. Gong, and Z. Yi, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1227 (2025) , arXiv:2508.09707 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, P. Tsyba, O. Razina, and D. Rakhatov, (2026), arXiv:2604.18861 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Mudrunka and K

    K. Mudrunka and K. Nakayama, JCAP 02, 070 (2026) , arXiv:2504.01365 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    R. P. Woodard, Found. Phys. 44, 213 (2014) , arXiv:1401.0254 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    Langlois, R

    D. Langlois, R. Saito, D. Yamauchi, and K. Noui, Phys. Rev. D 97, 061501 (2018) , arXiv:1711.07403 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044050 (2019) , arXiv:1811.07790 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B 874, 140290 (2026) , arXiv:2601.07879 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

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

    1974

  48. [48]

    Gleyzes, D

    J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 211101 (2015) , arXiv:1404.6495 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Langlois, in 52nd Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation (2017) pp

    D. Langlois, in 52nd Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation (2017) pp. 221–228, arXiv:1707.03625 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Langlois, Int

    D. Langlois, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1942006 (2019) , arXiv:1811.06271 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124029 (2011) , arXiv:1008.4236 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [53]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP2, Keck Array), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221301 (2018) , arXiv:1810.05216 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [54]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ. 5-6, 75 (2014) , arXiv:1303.3787 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2014

  54. [55]

    Guo and D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  55. [56]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017) , arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [57]

    Tsujikawa, J

    S. Tsujikawa, J. Ohashi, S. Kuroyanagi, and A. De Felice , Phys. Rev. D 88, 023529 (2013) , arXiv:1305.3044 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [58]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  58. [59]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 84, 083504 (2011) , arXiv:1107.3917 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  59. [60]

    Kobayashi, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  60. [61]

    Kobayashi, Rep

    T. Kobayashi, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 086901 (2019) , arXiv:1901.04778 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  61. [62]

    Afshordi, D

    N. Afshordi, D. J. H. Chung, and G. Geshnizjani, Phys. Rev. D 75, 083513 (2007) , arXiv:hep-th/0609150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  62. [63]

    De Felice, R

    A. De Felice, R. Kase, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 92, 124060 (2015) , arXiv:1507.05584 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [64]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Lett. B 752, 302 (2016) , arXiv:1506.01594 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  64. [65]

    Langlois and K

    D. Langlois and K. Noui, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 034 (2016) , arXiv:1510.06930 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [66]

    Langlois, M

    D. Langlois, M. Mancarella, K. Noui, and F. Vernizzi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 064 (2019) , 20 arXiv:1803.09484 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019