Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 62 references

The Inflationary Quartic Hilltop Model in a Modified Gravity and Its Comparison with the Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that adding an F(phi)T coupling to Einstein gravity lets the quartic hilltop inflation model fit Planck/BICEP/Keck data with the hilltop mass scale as low as 10 M_Pl, instead of requiring m >> 10 M_Pl.

desk verdict A plausibly useful parameter study of quartic hilltop inflation in F(phi)T gravity, but the Planck fit rests on un-derived perturbation formulas and needs major revision before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15812 v1 pith:7YCQW5TX submitted 2025-07-21 gr-qc

Feyzollah Younesizadeh , Davoud Kamani This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 98.80.Cq04.50.Kd
keywords InflationModifiedgravityQuartichilltopmodelSlow-rollparametersF(phi)TScalarspectralindexTensor-to-scalarratioPlanck/BICEP/Keck
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 claims that a small non-minimal coupling between the inflaton field and the trace of the energy-momentum tensor, added to Einstein gravity as $f(\phi,T) = \beta F(\phi)T$ with $F(\phi) = (\phi/\mu)(1 + \lambda \ln(\phi/m))$, can make the quartic hilltop inflation model compatible with Planck and BICEP/Keck data at hilltop mass scales $m = 10\,M_{\rm Pl}$ and even $5\,M_{\rm Pl}$. The standard quartic hilltop model would need $m \gg 10\,M_{\rm Pl}$ to agree with observation, so the modified gravity term is being used to relax that scale requirement. For $\beta = 0.02$, $\lambda = 4$, $m = 10\,M_{\rm Pl}$ and $\mu \in [2.6, 3.6]$, the model produces $n_s = 0.9669$--$0.9732$ and $r = 0.00079$--$0.01567$ at $N = 60$, which falls inside the Planck/BICEP/Keck $2\sigma$ region. A second parameter set with $\beta = 0.002$, $m = 5$, $\lambda = 3$ also keeps the predictions in the favored region, and the paper presents the enlarged coverage of the $(n_s, r)$ plane as the payoff.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified-gravity action $S = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g}[R/2\kappa + \beta F(\phi)T + \mathcal{L}_m]$, where $T$ is the trace of the inflaton's energy-momentum tensor and $F(\phi) = (\phi/\mu)(1 + \lambda \ln(\phi/m))$. This coupling changes the effective energy density and pressure, producing modified Friedmann and Klein-Gordon equations and modified slow-roll parameters $\epsilon_V$ and $\eta_V$ in place of the Einstein-gravity ones. The observables are obtained from the standard single-field slow-roll dictionary $n_s = 1 + 2\eta_V - 6\epsilon_V$, $r = 16\epsilon_V$, with the number of e-folds $N$ computed from a $\beta$-dependent integral; varying $\beta$, $\lambda$, $\mu$, and $m$ moves the quartic hilltop model around the $(n_s, r)$ plane.

What would settle it

Derive the scalar and tensor perturbation spectra directly from the action with $f(\phi,T) = \beta F(\phi)T$ instead of importing the Einstein-gravity slow-roll dictionary; if the resulting $(n_s, r)$ for $\beta = 0.02$, $\lambda = 4$, $m = 10\,M_{\rm Pl}$, $\mu \in [2.6, 3.6]$, $N = 60$ departs from the quoted band and leaves the Planck/BICEP/Keck $2\sigma$ region, the central claim collapses. Observationally, a future B-mode measurement finding $r > 0.016$ would exclude the upper end of that parameter line, and $r < 0.0008$ would exclude the lower end.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the quartic hilltop potential $V(\phi) = V_0(1 - \phi^4/m^4)$, which in Einstein gravity is observationally ruled out unless $m \gg 10\,M_{\rm Pl}$, becomes viable for $m = 10\,M_{\rm Pl}$ or $5\,M_{\rm Pl}$ once gravity is modified by the term $\beta F(\phi)T$. The functional $F(\phi) = (\phi/\mu)(1 + \lambda \ln(\phi/m))$ is chosen so that the coupling vanishes at $\phi \to 0$ and reduces to the simple $F(\phi) \propto \phi$ form in the $\lambda \to 0$, $\phi/m \ll 1$ limit. The modified Friedmann and Klein-Gordon equations produce slow-roll parameters $\epsilon_V$ and $\eta_V$ that reduce to the Einstein values when $\beta \to 0$, and through the standard dictionary $n_s = 1 + 2\eta_V - 6\epsilon_V$, $r = 16\epsilon_V$ they shift the hilltop predictions from roughly $n_s \sim 0.95$ toward $n_s \sim 0.97$, into the central Planck region. The conclusion is that a small $\beta$ is enough to place the model inside the observed $2\sigma$ contour and cover a wider slice of the $(n_s, r)$ plane than the unmodified hilltop model.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the usual slow-roll formulas connecting the potential's shape to the observed spectral index and tensor ratio remain valid in the modified gravity, even though it never derives the curvature perturbation spectrum in this theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $N = 60$ with $\beta = 0.02$, varying $\mu$ from 3.6 to 2.6 moves $r$ from 0.00079 to 0.01567, so one parameter sweeps a continuous line through the $2\sigma$ region rather than matching a single point.
  • The hilltop scale can be lowered to $m = 5\,M_{\rm Pl}$ using $\beta = 0.002$ and $\lambda = 3$, placing the potential in the sub-Planckian field range preferred by small-field effective field theory.
  • Because all expressions reduce to the Einstein-gravity forms when $\beta \to 0$, the model contains the original quartic hilltop predictions as a limit and needs only a small modification to enter the observed region.
  • The two parameter sets shown in the $(n_s, r)$ plane both stay inside the Planck/BICEP/Keck $2\sigma$ contour, so the mechanism offers a family of viable single-field hilltop models rather than one isolated point.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: The perturbation spectrum in $F(\phi)T$ gravity is never derived in the paper; computing the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation for this action would show whether the standard $n_s$ and $r$ formulas survive the coupling, and if they do not, the quoted parameter windows would shift.
  • Extension: The same logarithmic $F(\phi)$ can be tried on the $n = 2$ hilltop model or the squared sombrero-hat potential; if the scale-lowering effect persists, it would suggest the mechanism is generic rather than special to $n = 4$.
  • Extension: Since $\beta F(\phi)T$ is a non-minimal matter-gravity coupling, one could test whether the improved fit is equivalent to a field-dependent conformal rescaling; if so, the reduction of $m$ might be a frame artifact rather than a physical relaxation of the hilltop constraint.
  • Extension: The logarithmic term has a mild singularity at $\phi/m \sim 1$; a stability analysis of scalar perturbations near that point would show whether the fitted parameter choices lie in a physically allowed region.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies quartic hilltop inflation, V(φ)=V0(1−φ⁴/m⁴), in a modified gravity with action S=∫d⁴x√−g[R/2κ+βF(φ)T+Lm], where T is the trace of the matter energy-momentum tensor and F(φ)=(φ/μ)(1+λ ln(φ/m)). The authors derive effective Friedmann and Klein-Gordon equations, define slow-roll parameters ϵV and ηV, and then use standard canonical slow-roll formulas to compute the scalar spectral index ns and tensor-to-scalar ratio r. For N=60, β=0.02, λ=4, m=10 M_Pl, and μ in [2.6,3.6], they find ns≈0.9669–0.9732 and r≈0.00079–0.01567, which lie inside the Planck/BICEP/Keck 2σ region. They conclude that the F(φ)T term allows the hilltop scale m to be reduced below the usual m≫10 M_Pl requirement. The paper also includes a second set of points with β=0.002, m=5, λ=3, μ∈[1.5,2.5], and a table for N=50 that is not discussed as being in tension with Planck.

Significance. If the slow-roll perturbation relations used in the paper were justified in the F(φ)T theory, the result would be an interesting demonstration that a non-minimal matter-trace coupling can bring the quartic hilltop model into the observationally favored (ns,r) region at sub-Planckian m. The paper provides explicit analytic expressions for the slow-roll parameters, which is a useful starting point. However, the central numerical claim currently rests on two unverified pillars: the standard single-field power spectra are imported without derivation, and the slow-roll parameters themselves contain an internal factor inconsistency. The paper also acknowledges in its own Discussion that the logarithmic coupling may lead to instabilities, but it does not test that possibility for the parameter values used. Because the claimed agreement with Planck/BICEP/Keck is an existence claim obtained by scanning several free parameters, the title's 'comparison with the observations' is better described as a fit than an independent prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (2.24)–(2.29)] The scalar and tensor power spectra are imported from canonical single-field slow-roll inflation without derivation in the F(φ)T theory. Equations (2.24), (2.25), (2.28), and (2.29) assume As=κ²(1+4βF)V/(24π²ϵV), ns=1+2ηV−6ϵV, At=2κ²(1+4βF)V/(3π²), and r=16ϵV, with ϵV and ηV built from potential derivatives. The βF(φ)T coupling in action (2.1) modifies the gravitational sector and the kinetic structure of the perturbations; there is no guarantee that the canonical z(τ), c_s=1 formulas apply. Until the second-order action for curvature and tensor perturbations is computed from (2.1), every (ns,r) value in Tables 1–2 and Fig. 2 rests on an unverified assumption. This is the load-bearing step for the paper's central claim.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (2.17) and (2.21)] Equations (2.17) and (2.21) are inconsistent with the preceding equations. Starting from (2.14)–(2.16) and the continuity equation for ρeff, the full Klein-Gordon equation is (1+2βF)¨φ + βF′˙φ² + (1+4βF)V′ + 4βF′V + 3H(1+2βF)˙φ = 0; Eq. (2.17) drops the (1+2βF) factor on the ¨φ term. Similarly, combining (2.16), (2.18), and (2.19) gives ϵ = −˙H/H² = [1/(2κ(1+2βF))][V′/V + 4βF′/(1+4βF)]², not Eq. (2.21), which contains (1+2βF). The two versions differ by a factor (1+2βF)² in r=16ϵV; for β=0.02 and |F| of order 1, this is a several-to-tens-of-percent effect on r. The numerical tables therefore do not follow from the stated equations as they stand.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 reports N=50 values ns=0.9492–0.9531, which are more than 3σ below the Planck 2018 central value ns=0.9663 quoted in Eq. (2.32) and lie outside the corresponding 2σ interval (0.9581–0.9745). The text introduces Table 1 without noting that these points are excluded by the very observational data the paper uses. Since N=50 is a standard benchmark for inflationary e-fold counts, the comparison of the model with observations should either explicitly restrict the claim to N=60 with justification or discuss the N=50 discrepancy.
  4. [§4 Discussion] The Discussion concedes that the logarithmic term in F(φ) 'might lead to theoretical instabilities or singularities, particularly for small values of φ or φ/m≈1', and that fine-tuning may be required. No stability analysis is provided for the parameter ranges used in Tables 1–2 (e.g., β=0.02, λ=4, m=10, μ∈[2.6,3.6]). For λ=4 and φ/m<e^{−1/4}≈0.78, F(φ)=(φ/μ)(1+4 ln(φ/m)) is negative, so the effective couplings 1+2βF and 1+4βF in Eqs. (2.12)–(2.13) deviate from unity; whether ghosts, gradient instabilities, or singularities appear in this region is left unexamined. This is a missing validation of the parameter space rather than a purely cosmetic caveat.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The phrase 'tensor-to-scale ratio' should be 'tensor-to-scalar ratio'.
  2. [§2, Eq. (2.31)] Equation (2.31) repeats the standard slow-roll expressions already given in (2.25) and (2.29) but with ϵE and ηE; the distinction between the Einstein-gravity slow-roll parameters and the modified-theory ones should be stated more clearly.
  3. [§3, Eqs. (3.7)–(3.10)] The explicit expressions for ϵV, ηV, r, and ns are extremely lengthy and are presented as unnumbered display equations; moving them to an appendix or presenting a short numerical algorithm would improve readability.
  4. [Abstract and §4] The parameters β, λ, μ, and m are selected after inspecting the Planck contours, so the language of 'prediction' overstates what is achieved; the paper should describe these as scans or fits, not as independent predictions.
  5. [§2, Eq. (2.26)] The amplitude constraint As=(2.10±0.03)×10⁻⁹ is quoted but never used; since As depends on V0 and on (1+4βF)/ϵV, the model could be further tested by fixing V0 through this constraint.
  6. [§3, Tables 1–2] The tables repeat the values of N, β, λ, and m in every row; a compact notation with a single header would make the parameter scan easier to read.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed Planck/BICEP/Keck agreement is a fitted input presented as a prediction: the paper selects F(phi) and scans beta, lambda, mu, m using the observed ns, r region, then reports compatibility with that same region.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, paragraph after Fig. 2, and Section 4, Conclusions]
    "By choosing suitable values for the parameters “β”, “µ”, “λ” and “m”, the term F(ϕ)T enabled us to cover the region in the (ns, r)-space that is favored by the Planck 2018. ... Using the cosmological observations like “ns” and “r”, we selected F(ϕ) in the form (3.4). Thus, both “ns” and “r” are compatible with the Planck 2018."

    The observed (ns, r) values are used as the selection criterion for the functional form F(ϕ) and for the parameters (β = 0.02, λ = 4, m = 10, μ ∈ [2.6, 3.6] in Table 2), and the paper then reports that the same (ns, r) points fall inside the Planck/BICEP/Keck 2σ region. The agreement is therefore not an independent prediction of the modified-gravity action; it is a restatement of the choice made to enter the data region. The paper's own phrase 'we selected F(ϕ)' makes this selection explicit, so the 'better prediction' claimed in the abstract reduces to a parameter scan guided by the target contour.

full rationale

The central result—that the quartic hilltop model with F(ϕ)= (ϕ/μ)[1+λ ln(ϕ/m)] gives ns and r inside the Planck 2018 constraints and allows m to be lowered to 5–10 M_Pl—is obtained by choosing the free parameters after seeing the observational contours, and the conclusion explicitly states that F(ϕ) was selected using ns and r. That is a fitted input renamed as a prediction, not a first-principles derivation. The paper itself acknowledges the issue: it says fine-tuning may reduce predictive power and that the parameters β, λ, µ, m complicate fitting. The self-citations ([35], [54]) are peripheral and not load-bearing. The use of the standard GR slow-roll spectrum formulas (2.24)–(2.29) without deriving the perturbation action in F(ϕ)T gravity is a consistency gap rather than circularity, and the apparent sign discrepancy between the direct slow-roll reconstruction and Eq. (2.21) is a correctness risk, so neither is counted toward the circularity score. Because the agreement with observations is forced by parameter choice, the score is 6.

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

The central fit relies on four free parameters (beta, mu, lambda, m) and several unproven domain assumptions about slow-roll power spectra and potential truncation. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • beta = 0.02, 0.002
    Coupling constant of the F(phi)T term; chosen by hand to place (ns,r) in the Planck/BICEP/Keck region (Tables 1-2, Fig. 2).
  • mu = 3.6 to 2.6 (yellow), 2.5 to 1.5 (red)
    Mass scale inside F(phi); scanned over ranges to cover the favored (ns,r) region.
  • lambda = 4 (yellow), 3 (red)
    Logarithmic coefficient in F(phi); chosen to widen coverage of the Planck contours.
  • m = 10 M_Pl (yellow), 5 M_Pl (red)
    Hilltop scale in V=V0(1-phi^4/m^4); the paper's main point is that this scale can be smaller than the standard m >> 10 M_Pl.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Single homogeneous scalar field on FRW background with Lm=0.5 phi_dot^2 - V(phi).
    Sec. 2, Eq. (2.2).
  • domain assumption Slow-roll conditions phi_dot^2 << V, phi_ddot << H phi_dot, F' phi_dot^2 << H phi_dot, and standard power-spectrum formulas ns=1+2 eta_V-6 epsilon_V, r=16 epsilon_V.
    Secs. 2.17-2.29; not derived for F(phi)T gravity.
  • domain assumption The quartic hilltop potential can be truncated to V=V0(1-phi^4/m^4) during inflation, with stabilization terms irrelevant.
    Sec. 3, Eq. (3.3); the potential is unbounded below.
  • ad hoc to paper F(phi)=(phi/mu)(1+lambda ln(phi/m)) is a valid coupling with no instabilities.
    Sec. 3, Eq. (3.4); chosen to fit data, and the authors admit possible instabilities or singularities for small phi or phi/m near 1 in the Discussion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Inflationary Quartic Hilltop Model in a Modified Gravity and Its Comparison with the Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YCQW5TX

@misc{pith2026250715812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Inflationary Quartic Hilltop Model in a Modified Gravity and Its Comparison with the Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YCQW5TX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15812}
}
abstract

We investigate the inflation for the quartic hilltop model via a certain type of modified gravity. Precisely, we analyze the $F(\phi) T$ term in the Einstein's gravity to examine the quartic hilltop inflation model. $T$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor, and $\phi$ is the inflaton field. Next, we calculate the inflation dynamics for the foregoing model and obtain the slow-roll parameters, i.e., the scalar spectral index ``$n_s$'' and the tensor-to-scale ratio ``$r$'', which these parameters exhibit high sensitivity to the $F(\phi) T$ term. This modified form of the gravity is not only in accordance with the predictions of the original model but also allows for better prediction of the Planck/BICEP/Keck data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15812 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Using the Planck data alone, BK15 data, and or BK15+BAO data, the marginalized joint 68% and 95% CL areas for “ns” and “r” at k = 0.002M pc−1 were compared with the theoretical predictions of specific inflationary theories. It should be noted that dns/dlnk = 0 is assumed in the combined 68% and 95% CL areas. Here, we put away the higher-order terms that stabilize the potential. In other words, they become significan… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The index “ns” and the ratio “r” in the modified gravity are predicted by the hilltop inflation theories. For comparison, the Einstein’s gravity result (see indigo bar) has been shown. In the present case, the red colors for β = 0.002, m = 5, λ = 3 with 2.5 ≤ µ ≤ 1.5, and the yellow colors for β = 0.02, m = 10, λ = 4 with 3.6 ≤ µ ≤ 2.6 have been used in our model. The parameters “ns” and “r” at k = 0.002M pc−1 have … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The sensitivity diagrams of ns in terms of the parameters β, λ and µ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The sensitivity diagrams of r in terms of the parameters β, λ and µ. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Zhang, C

    X. Zhang, C. Y. Chen and Y. Reyimuaji. Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 043514

    2022

  2. [1]

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

    1981

  3. [2]

    Linde, Phys

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

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Albrecht and P.J

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

    1982

  5. [5]

    D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Phys. Rept. 314 (1999) 1-146

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Cosmological inflation and large-scale structure

    A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, “ Cosmological inflation and large-scale structure ”, Cambridge University Press, UK (2000). 17

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    BICEP, Keck collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 151301

    2021

  8. [8]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, “ Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters ”, A&A 641, A6 (2020), [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, “ Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters ”, A&A 571, A16 (2014), [arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Boubekeur and D

    L. Boubekeur and D. Lyth, JCAP 0507 (2005) 010

    2005

  3. [11]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. D. Linde, JCAP 09 (2019) 030

    2019

  4. [12]

    C. M. Lin, JCAP 06 (2020) 015

    2020

  5. [13]

    Kohri, C

    K. Kohri, C. M. Lin and D. H. Lyth, JCAP 12 (2007) 004

    2007

  6. [14]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    K. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 809 (2020) 135688

    2020

  7. [15]

    German, JCAP 02 (2021) 034

    G. German, JCAP 02 (2021) 034

    2021

  8. [17]

    Hoffmann, D

    J. Hoffmann, D. Sloan, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 123542

    2021

  9. [18]

    K. A. Olive, Phys. Rept. 190 (1990) 307–403

    1990

  10. [19]

    Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP

    M. Tegmark et al. [SDSS Collaboration], “ Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP ” Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 103501 [astro-ph/0310723]

    2004 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Polchinski, Phys

    J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4727

    1995

  12. [21]

    Kachru, R

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, et al. JCAP 013 (2003) 0310; G. Dvali, Q. Shafi and S. Solganik, Phys. Lett. B 450 (2001) 72-82

    2003

  13. [22]

    C. P. Burgess, M. Majumdar, D. Nolte, F. Quevedo, G. Rajesh and R. J. Zhang, JHEP 07 (2001) 047; S. Teymourtashlou and D. Kamani, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 761

    2001

  14. [23]

    Garcia-Bellido, R

    J. Garcia-Bellido, R. Rabadan and F. Zamora, JHEP 01 (2002) 036. 18

    2002

  15. [24]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ. 5-6 (2014) 75-235

    2014

  16. [25]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and Y. Yamada, JHEP 01 (2019) 008

    2019

  17. [26]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde and A. Roest, JHEP 198 (2013)1311

    2013

  18. [27]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JHEP 10 (2015) 147

    2015

  19. [28]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 083528

    2015

  20. [29]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019) 134970

    2019

  21. [30]

    Galante, R

    M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 141302

    2015

  22. [31]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 129 (1983) 177

    1983

  23. [32]

    Freese, J

    K. Freese, J. A. Frieman and A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 3233

    1990

  24. [33]

    F. C. Adams, J. R. Bond, K. Freese, J. A. Frieman and A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 426

    1993

  25. [34]

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

    1980

  26. [35]

    Younesizadeh and A

    Y. Younesizadeh and A. Rezaie. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37 (2022) 2250040

    2022

  27. [36]

    Goncharov and A

    A. Goncharov and A. D. Linde, Sov. Phys. JETP 59 (1984) 930; G. Dvali and S.H. Tye, Phys. Lett. B 450 (1999) 72-82

    1984

  28. [37]

    E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. Lett 92 (2004) 07110

    2004

  29. [38]

    Ferraris, M

    M. Ferraris, M. Francaviglia and I. Volovich. Class. Quant. Grav. 11 (1994) 1505- 1517

    1994

  30. [39]

    G. R. Bengochea and R. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 124019

    2009

  31. [40]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 631 (2005), 1-6

    2005

  32. [41]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 599 (2004) 173

    2004

  33. [42]

    A. R. Liddle, P. Parsons and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 7222-7232. 19

    1994

  34. [43]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 104016

    2007

  35. [45]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Kleihaus et al, Eur.Phys. J. C 74, (2014) 2743

    2014

  36. [46]

    X. Liu, T. Harko, S. D. Liang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 420

    2016

  37. [47]

    C. Y. Chen, Y. H. Kung, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.04853

    arXiv

  38. [48]

    J, Wetterich

    Rubio. J, Wetterich. C, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 063509

    2017

  39. [49]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 571 , (2014) A22

    2014

  40. [50]

    Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation

    Planck Collaboration, “ Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation ”, A&A 641, A10 (2019), [arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [51]

    V. F. Mukhanov, Int. J. Theor. Phys, 43 (2004) 623-668

    2004

  42. [52]

    J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 679-693

    1983

  43. [53]

    J. C. Hwang and H. Noh, Phys. Lett. B 506 (2001) 13-19; H. Noh and J. C Hwang, Phys. Lett. B 515 (2001) 231

    2001

  44. [54]

    Younesizadeh and F

    Y. Younesizadeh and F. Younesizadeh. Astrophysics and Space Science 366 (2021) 1-5

    2021

  45. [55]

    Models of inflation, supersymmetry breaking and observational con- straints,

    L. Covi, “ Models of inflation, supersymmetry breaking and observational con- straints,”, in 3rd International Heidelberg Conference on Dark Matter in Astro and Particle Physics, 7 (2000)

    2000

  46. [56]

    Kawasaki and M

    M. Kawasaki and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 103518

    2002

  47. [57]

    J. A. Adams, G. G. Ross and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. b 391 (1997) 271-280

    1997

  48. [58]

    K. I. Izawa and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. b 393 (1997) 331-336

    1997

  49. [59]

    Knox and A

    L. Knox and A. Olinto, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 946-949. 20

    1993

  50. [60]

    Bin´ etruy and M

    P. Bin´ etruy and M. K. Gaillard, Phys. Rev.D 34 (1986) 3069-3083

    1986

  51. [61]

    W. H. Kinney and K. T. Mahanthappa, Phys. Rev. B 383 (1996) 24-27

    1996

  52. [62]

    W. H. Kinney and K. T. Mahanthappa, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 5455-5467

    1996

  53. [63]

    D. H. Lyth, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, (2007) 81-118

    2007

  54. [64]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ. 5-6 (2014) 75-235. 21

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.