Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The paper argues that a kinetic dependence of the cubic Horndeski interaction, g(X)=A e^{-nX}, can induce an ultra-slow-roll phase and amplify curvature perturbations, producing asteroid-mass primordial black holes that could constitute abo

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:27 UTC pith:TITEOL3Z

load-bearing objection Genuinely new Horndeski mechanism for PBH production, but the f_PBH ~0.9 headline is not supported until non-Gaussian corrections and the broken Klein-Gordon equation are sorted out. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.25044 v2 pith:TITEOL3Z submitted 2025-12-31 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Primordial black hole dark matter from ultra-slow-roll inflation in Horndeski gravity

Despina Totolou , Theodoros Papanikolaou , Emmanuel N. Saridakis This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO
keywords primordial black holesdark matterultra-slow-roll inflationHorndeski gravitykinetic gravity braidingcurvature power spectrumscalar-induced gravitational wavesGW170817
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to show that a large fraction of dark matter—up to about 90%—can be made of primordial black holes (PBHs) from inflation, without needing any special feature in the inflaton potential. The mechanism is a cubic Horndeski interaction whose kinetic dependence, g(X)=A e^{-nX}, acts as an effective friction on the inflaton when the kinetic energy X becomes small. That friction triggers a brief ultra-slow-roll phase, which amplifies the curvature power spectrum to about 1e-2 on small scales. The resulting PBHs are asteroid-mass, around 10^-16 solar masses, and can constitute nearly all of the dark matter while satisfying constraints from the CMB, BBN, mu-distortion, and white-dwarf survival. The key payoff is a single-field, gravitational-wave-speed-compatible pathway to PBH dark matter that keeps the potential smooth and requires only moderate parameter tuning.

Core claim

The central claim is that the cubic Horndeski function G3(phi,X)=f(phi)g(X) with exponential kinetic dependence g(X)=A e^{-nX} modifies the effective friction in the inflaton's equation of motion. During slow-roll, as X decreases, the G3-induced friction rises sharply, driving a transient ultra-slow-roll phase embedded in an otherwise standard evolution. The paper shows this happens with a smooth logarithmic potential and a mild, localized phi-dependence f(phi) that controls when the friction turns on. Numerically solving the curvature perturbation equation, they find a sharp peak in the scalar power spectrum at k about 10^14 Mpc^{-1} with P_zeta about 1e-2, while CMB-scale predictions remai

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cubic Horndeski term G3(phi,X)=f(phi)g(X) with g(X)=A e^{-nX}. This is the kinetic gravity braiding interaction; its derivatives G3,X and G3,phi enter the Friedmann and Klein-Gordon equations as an effective, X-dependent friction (encoded in the D1 and D2 functions). The exponential form is chosen so the friction is negligible during normal slow-roll but switches on when X becomes tiny, creating a fast, controlled ultra-slow-roll phase. The phi-dependent factor is taken as f(phi)=-B C arcsinh((phi-phi_c)/C), a smooth function whose derivative is a localized bell-shaped curve; B sets the friction amplitude and C sets the phase duration. The paper then maps the r

Load-bearing premise

The abundance f_PBH about 0.9 is computed assuming the curvature perturbation is Gaussian; the paper itself notes that ultra-slow-roll phases can generate sizable non-Gaussianities that may change the estimate by orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

Compute the three-point function (bispectrum) of the curvature perturbation in the ultra-slow-roll phase of this model and compare the resulting collapse fraction to the Gaussian tail integral used in Eq. (37). If the non-Gaussian correction shifts the abundance by more than an order of magnitude, the near-total dark-matter claim collapses. Also, verify that the printed Klein-Gordon equations (12)-(13) reduce to the standard phi-double-dot + 3H phi-dot + V_phi = 0 when G3=0; if they do not, the numerical power spectrum cannot be reproduced from the text as written.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A scalar-induced gravitational-wave background is expected with a peak frequency near 1 Hz, potentially detectable by future space- and ground-based interferometers.
  • The mechanism can produce different PBH mass scales; one representative case shows two mass windows with a lower abundance, demonstrating flexibility.
  • PBH formation from this model would fill the asteroid-mass window, the last open window where PBHs could be essentially all of the dark matter.
  • Because the enhancement comes from G3(X) rather than potential features, the model can be combined with any smooth potential that matches CMB observations.
  • CMB-scale predictions (n_s=0.967, r=0.038) remain unchanged, so the model is consistent with standard inflationary observables by construction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct next step would be to quantify non-Gaussian corrections to the PBH abundance; given the exponential sensitivity, the reported f_PBH about 0.9 could shift by orders of magnitude, either up or down.
  • The same kinetic-friction mechanism could be tried with plateau or alpha-attractor potentials, which may reduce the moderate fine-tuning in the peak's location and height.
  • The oscillatory high-k tail of the power spectrum is a distinctive fingerprint that, if observed in the scalar-induced gravitational-wave background, could distinguish this class of models from potential-feature scenarios.
  • A reader attempting to reproduce the numerics would first need to verify that the Klein-Gordon equations (12)-(13) reduce to the standard canonical form in the limit G3->0, which is not transparent from the printed text.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mechanism for primordial black hole (PBH) dark matter within Horndeski gravity, taking into account the GW170817 constraint on the gravitational-wave speed (c_T=1) and a constant Ricci coupling. The authors choose the cubic Horndeski term G3(ϕ,X)=f(ϕ)g(X) with g(X)=A e^{−nX}, which enhances the effective friction on the inflaton and induces a transient ultra-slow-roll (USR) phase without features in the potential. For two representative parameter choices (cases (a) and (b) in Table I), they numerically solve the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation (Eq. (16)) to obtain the curvature power spectrum, finding peaks of order P_ζ∼10^{−2} on small scales. Using a Press-Schechter approach with Gaussian statistics, they translate these peaks into PBH abundances, reporting f_PBH≃0.92 for asteroid-mass PBHs around M∼10^{−16}M⊙, while claiming consistency with CMB, PTA, BBN, μ-distortion, and white-dwarf constraints. The paper also notes that the resulting scalar-induced gravitational waves may be observable by LISA/ET.

Significance. If the quantitative claim were fully established, this would be a novel and interesting single-field, GW170817-compatible production mechanism for a substantial dark-matter fraction that does not rely on features in the inflationary potential. The conceptual idea that a kinetic dependence of G3 can enhance friction and trigger USR is plausible and fits into a well-motivated modified-gravity context. The paper is transparent about its key approximation: the final paragraph of Sec. IV concedes that USR phases can generate sizable non-Gaussianities, which may affect abundance estimates. However, the headline f_PBH≈0.9 is exponentially sensitive to the statistics used, so without a non-Gaussian calculation or at least a conservative quantification, the main quantitative result is not yet supported. The numerical integration of the background and perturbations is also not reproducible from the text as written because of an apparent error in the printed Klein-Gordon equation. The paper is therefore a promising proof-of-concept, but its central quantitative claim requires substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (12)–(13)] The Klein-Gordon equation does not reduce to the canonical form when G3=0. Setting G3=0 gives A=1, B=V_ϕ, C=1, and Eq. (12) becomes ¨ϕ + 3H ˙ϕ/V_ϕ + 1/V_ϕ = 0, rather than the standard ¨ϕ + 3H ˙ϕ + V_ϕ = 0. Since the numerical background solution and the subsequent Mukhanov-Sasaki integration used for Table I rest on this equation, the reported power spectra and PBH abundances cannot be independently reproduced from the text. Please correct the definitions of A, B, C, state clearly the exact equation that was integrated, and, ideally, provide the code or a derivation of the correct coefficients.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (37)–(38)] The headline f_PBH≈0.92 is obtained from the Gaussian-tail integral assumed in Eq. (37), with σ approximated by Eq. (38) as σ≃(4/9)√P_ζ. The final paragraph of Sec. IV concedes that USR phases 'potentially generate sizable non-Gaussianities ... which may affect primordial black hole abundance estimates based on Gaussian statistics.' Because β depends exponentially on −μ_c²/(2P_ζ), even O(1) non-Gaussianity can alter the abundance by orders of magnitude. The paper should either compute the non-Gaussian corrections (e.g., via the δN formalism) or explicitly reframe f_PBH as a Gaussian-order-of-magnitude estimate, not a prediction. Additionally, Eq. (38) replaces the full windowed variance integral (35) with a single-scale approximation; for the sharply peaked spectra shown in Fig. 3 this replacement should be validated numerically, since the exponential sensitivity amplifies any inaccuracy
  3. [Sec. III A and Table I] The claim that the exponential ansatz (22) is 'uniquely capable' among standard X-dependences is an assertion, not a demonstrated result. The paper tests only a few functional forms (1/ϕ^n, ϕ, ln ϕ, etc.) by inspection. A brief systematic scan or a more formal argument (e.g., based on the asymptotic behavior of Eq. (25) as X→0) would strengthen the claim. This is not fatal, but it is load-bearing for the mechanism's novelty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV] Typographical errors: 'Asssuming' and 'apparoximation' in the text around Eq. (37); 'liy-ing' in Sec. IV; reference [68] appears to duplicate reference [60]. These should be corrected.
  2. [Table I] Case (b) is difficult to parse: the entries for k_peak, P_ζ,peak, M_PBH, and f_PBH are interleaved with parenthetical 'secondary' values. Please reformat the table to clearly separate primary and secondary peaks.
  3. [Eq. (29)] The expression for n_s−1 contains D2ϕ and √ϵV; it would help to define D2ϕ explicitly (presumably ∂D2/∂ϕ) and to check the prefactor (1+D2)^{-1}, since a similar structure appears in Eq. (28). Minor clarity point.
  4. [Appendix A] The coefficient functions F_s and G_s are given in a generic form that includes G4X and G5 terms that are absent in the model. It would be useful to state explicitly the simplified expressions used in the numerics after imposing G4=M_Pl²/2 and G5=0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the PBH abundance is a downstream consequence of the numerically obtained power spectrum, not an input that defines the model.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: choose a GW170817-compatible Horndeski action (Sec. II), specify G3(phi,X)=f(phi) A exp(-nX) and a logarithmic potential (Sec. III), solve the background and Mukhanov-Sasaki equation numerically to obtain P_zeta,peak ~ 1e-2, and then convert that spectrum into beta(M) and f_PBH using the standard Press-Schechter formulas (33), (37) and (38). The parameters in Table I are selected, as the paper states, because 'Achieving the enhancement necessary for PBH formation on small scales requires A B = O(10^8)', i.e. they are tuned to make P_zeta large. But f_PBH is not used to fix any parameter; it is derived from the chosen power spectrum. Thus f_PBH ~ 0.9 is a consistency demonstration rather than an independent prediction, but it is not circular in the derivation-chain sense. The self-citations [25] and [29] are background references and are not load-bearing for the main claim. The paper also explicitly flags the Gaussian-statistics limitation in the final paragraph of Sec. IV, noting that USR phases 'potentially generate sizable non-Gaussianities ... which may affect primordial black hole abundance estimates based on Gaussian statistics'; this is a quantitative weakness, not circularity. I also note in passing that the printed Klein-Gordon equation (12)-(13) does not reduce to the standard form when G3=0, which hinders reproduction but is not a circular step. No step of the derivation reduces to its inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or fundamental entities are introduced; the customized G3(phi,X) function is a Lagrangian ingredient rather than an invented physical entity. The central claim depends on a set of hand-chosen model parameters (V0, phi_in, A, n, B, C, phi_c) plus standard assumptions about the vacuum, the PBH collapse threshold, and Gaussian statistics.

free parameters (7)
  • V0 = 0.656e-9 (case a), 1.9e-9 (case b) [Planck units]
    Normalized to match CMB P_zeta ~ 2.1e-9 at k_CMB = 0.05 Mpc^-1.
  • phi_in = 6.2
    Initial field value chosen so that ns = 0.9673 and r = 0.038 agree with CMB observations.
  • A = 10^3
    Amplitude in g(X)=A e^{-nX}; chosen by hand with B to satisfy A*B ~ 1e8 for the PBH-scale enhancement.
  • n = 1
    Exponent in g(X); chosen by hand as a representative value.
  • B = 3.84e5 (case a), 2.09e5 (case b)
    Controls the amplitude of the friction feature; set to obtain P_zeta,peak ~ 1e-2, the value needed for PBH formation.
  • C = 1.52e-10 (case a), 1.40e-10 (case b)
    Width of the f(phi) Lorentzian derivative; chosen to set the USR duration and peak width.
  • phi_c = 2.7 (case a), 4.82 (case b)
    Field value at which the USR phase is triggered; sets the peak scale k_peak.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Horndeski action and FLRW background equations (Eqs. 1-11)
    The framework is taken from the Horndeski/Kobayashi literature; the paper relies on these equations as unproved background.
  • domain assumption GW170817 requires G4,X = G5 = 0, so only K and G3 survive (Eq. 8)
    Standard constraint from the LIGO/Virgo measurement; used to truncate the Horndeski action.
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential ansatz g(X)=A e^{-nX} is the only standard X-dependence that works (Eq. 22)
    The authors rule out other X-dependences qualitatively and adopt the exponential form; this ansatz is load-bearing for the USR mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper D1 << D2 during the relevant evolution (Sec. III A)
    Used to simplify the slow-roll formulas; not demonstrated through the full USR phase.
  • domain assumption Gaussian statistics for PBH abundance (Sec. IV, Eqs. 34 and 37)
    Central to f_PBH; the paper admits USR non-Gaussianities may affect this and leaves the analysis to future work.
  • domain assumption Press-Schechter parameters delta_c = 0.4 and gamma = 0.36, with a Gaussian window (Sec. IV)
    Adopted from simulations; f_PBH is exponentially sensitive to these choices.
  • standard math Bunch-Davies vacuum initial conditions for the Mukhanov-Sasaki modes (Eq. 32)
    Standard choice; assumed without proof.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13507 in / 23758 out tokens · 231055 ms · 2026-08-04T06:27:34.194938+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Primordial black holes (PBHs) provide a well-motivated non-particle candidate for dark matter, requiring an enhancement of curvature perturbations on small inflationary scales consistent with observational constraints. In this work we study PBH production within Horndeski gravity, accounting for compatibility with the GW170817 constraint on the gravitational-wave (GW) speed and imposing a constant coupling to the Ricci scalar. Under these conditions, and assuming an inflaton field characterised by a canonical kinetic term and a smooth potential, the inflationary dynamics is controlled by the cubic Horndeski interaction. By investigating standard functional forms of the latter we identify the specific kinetic structure that allows enhancement of the effective friction on the inflaton, thereby inducing a transient ultra-slow-roll phase embedded within a standard slow-roll evolution. For representative parameter choices we find that pronounced amplifications in the scalar power spectrum are generated, leading to the formation of asteroid-mass PBHs with masses of order $\mathcal{O}(10^{-16})\,M_\odot$, which can account for a substantial fraction of the dark matter abundance, reaching $f_{\rm PBH}\simeq 0.9$, while satisfying current observational constraints. The resulting characteristic features in the scalar power spectrum also imply potentially observable scalar-induced gravitational-wave (SIGW) signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.25044 by Despina Totolou, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, Theodoros Papanikolaou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Rotating Black Holes with Primary Scalar Hair: Shadow Signatures in Beyond Horndeski Gravity

    gr-qc 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Rotating black holes with primary scalar hair in beyond Horndeski gravity produce shadows whose diameter increases for negative Q and whose distortion increases for positive Q, with EHT bounds on M87* restricting but ...

  2. Running into tension: primordial black holes from ultra-slow-roll inflation, spectral running, and the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    EDE models increase inferred α_s from CMB data, strengthening tension with USR PBH models that predict negative running.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 79 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck) (2018), 1807.06209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48, 495 (2010), 1003.0904

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, Sov. Astron.10, 602 (1967)

    1967

  5. [5]

    Hawking, Mon

    S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  6. [6]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399 (1974)

    1974

  7. [7]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 063001 (2018), 1801.05235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 116902 (2021), 2002.12778

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48, 043001 (2021), 2007.10722

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Escriv` a, F

    A. Escriv` a, F. Kuhnel, and Y. Tada (2022), 2211.05767

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Ivanov, P

    P. Ivanov, P. Naselsky, and I. Novikov, Phys. Rev. D50, 7173 (1994)

    1994

  12. [12]

    Inomata, M

    K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, Y. Tada, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D96, 043504 (2017), 1701.02544

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    S. S. Mishra and V. Sahni, JCAP04, 007 (2020), 1911.00057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    ¨Ozsoy, S

    O. ¨Ozsoy, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala (2018), 1803.07626

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Heydari and K

    S. Heydari and K. Karami, JCAP02, 047 (2024), 2309.01239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Garcia-Bellido, A

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A. D. Linde, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D54, 6040 (1996), astro-ph/9605094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  17. [17]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, Phys. Rev.D92, 023524 (2015), 1501.07565

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D69, 084005 (2004), astro-ph/0307463

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  19. [19]

    W. H. Kinney, Phys. Rev.D72, 023515 (2005), gr- qc/0503017

    arXiv 2005

  20. [20]

    Martin, H

    J. Martin, H. Motohashi, and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D 87, 023514 (2013), 1211.0083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Garcia-Bellido and E

    J. Garcia-Bellido and E. Ruiz Morales (2017), 1702.03901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Germani and T

    C. Germani and T. Prokopec (2017), 1706.04226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Motohashi and W

    H. Motohashi and W. Hu (2017), 1706.06784

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    A. Y. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, T. Vardanyan, and G. Venturi, Phys. Rev. D99, 023528 (2019), 1812.02547

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Papanikolaou, A

    T. Papanikolaou, A. Lymperis, S. Lola, and E. N. Sari- dakis, JCAP03, 003 (2023), 2211.14900

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Heydari and K

    S. Heydari and K. Karami, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 127 (2024), 2310.11030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    A. E. Romano and S. A. Severino, Phys. Rev. D94, 043513 (2016), 1606.02377

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    K. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett.B775, 262 (2017), 1707.05644

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    E. N. Saridakis et al. (CANTATA),Modified Gravity and Cosmology. An Update by the CANTATA Network (Springer, 2021), ISBN 978-3-030-83715-0, 2105.12582

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012), 1106.2476

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept.505, 59 (2011), 1011.0544

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509, 167 (2011), 1108.6266

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [33]

    Y.-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, and E. N. Saridakis, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 106901 (2016), 1511.07586

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Di Valentino et al

    E. Di Valentino et al. (CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), 2504.01669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

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

    1974

  36. [36]

    Deffayet, X

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D84, 064039 (2011), 1103.3260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, and J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys.126, 511 (2011), 1105.5723

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    Deffayet and D

    C. Deffayet and D. A. Steer, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 214006 (2013), 1307.2450

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D90, 044073 (2014), 1407.0794

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [40]

    Tsujikawa, JCAP04, 043 (2015), 1412.6210

    S. Tsujikawa, JCAP04, 043 (2015), 1412.6210

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Arroja, N

    F. Arroja, N. Bartolo, P. Karmakar, and S. Matarrese, JCAP04, 042 (2016), 1512.09374

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Bellini, A

    E. Bellini, A. J. Cuesta, R. Jimenez, and L. Verde, JCAP02, 053 (2016), [Erratum: JCAP 06, E01 (2016)], 1509.07816

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    De Felice, K

    A. De Felice, K. Koyama, and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP05, 058 (2015), 1503.06539

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    Babichev, C

    E. Babichev, C. Charmousis, and A. Leh´ ebel, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 154002 (2016), 1604.06402

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Ben Achour, D

    J. Ben Achour, D. Langlois, and K. Noui, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124005 (2016), 1602.08398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    Pogosian and A

    L. Pogosian and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. D94, 104014 (2016), 1606.05339

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    Arroja, T

    F. Arroja, T. Okumura, N. Bartolo, P. Karmakar, and S. Matarrese, JCAP05, 050 (2018), 1708.01850

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Ijjas, JCAP02, 007 (2018), 1710.05990

    A. Ijjas, JCAP02, 007 (2018), 1710.05990

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Capozziello, K

    S. Capozziello, K. F. Dialektopoulos, and S. V. Sushkov, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 447 (2018), 1803.01429

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Frusciante, S

    N. Frusciante, S. Peirone, S. Casas, and N. A. Lima, Phys. Rev. D99, 063538 (2019), 1810.10521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Franchini and T

    N. Franchini and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D101, 064068 (2020), 1903.05427

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Heisenberg, M

    L. Heisenberg, M. Bartelmann, R. Brandenberger, and A. Refregier, Phys. Rev. D99, 124020 (2019), 1902.03939

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Destounis, R

    K. Destounis, R. D. B. Fontana, F. C. Mena, and E. Pa- pantonopoulos, JHEP10, 280 (2019), 1908.09842

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Ilyas, M

    A. Ilyas, M. Zhu, Y. Zheng, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Sari- dakis, JCAP09, 002 (2020), 2002.08269

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    V. K. Oikonomou and F. P. Fronimos, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 035013 (2021), 2006.05512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    K. F. Dialektopoulos, J. L. Said, and Z. Oikonomopoulou, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 259 (2022), 2112.15045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Petronikolou, S

    M. Petronikolou, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D106, 124051 (2022), 2110.01338

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Takahashi, M

    K. Takahashi, M. Minamitsuji, and H. Motohashi, PTEP 2023, 013E01 (2023), 2209.02176

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    G. W. Horndeski and A. Silvestri, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 63, 38 (2024), 2402.07538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [61]

    Dalianis, A

    I. Dalianis, A. Kehagias, and G. Tringas, JCAP01, 037 (2019), 1805.09483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [62]

    J. Lin, Q. Gao, Y. Gong, Y. Lu, C. Zhang, and F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D101, 103515 (2020), 2001.05909. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [63]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), 1710.05832

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  63. [64]

    Creminelli and F

    P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 251302 (2017), 1710.05877

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [65]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 251304 (2017), 1710.05901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [66]

    Z. Yi, Y. Gong, B. Wang, and Z.-L. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 063534 (2021), 2007.09957

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [67]

    Zhang, J

    F. Zhang, J. Lin, and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. D104, 063526 (2021), 2106.10729

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [68]

    C. Fu, P. Wu, and H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D100, 063532 (2019), 1907.05042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  68. [69]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP02, 007 (2012), 1110.3878

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  69. [70]

    Akama and T

    S. Akama and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D99, 043522 (2019), 1810.01863

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [71]

    Wands, K

    D. Wands, K. A. Malik, D. H. Lyth, and A. R. Liddle, Phys.Rev.D62, 043527 (2000), astro-ph/0003278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  71. [72]

    Baumann and L

    D. Baumann and L. McAllister,Inflation and String The- ory, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015), ISBN 978-1-107- 08969-3, 978-1-316-23718-2, 1404.2601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  72. [73]

    Ballesteros and C

    G. Ballesteros and C. Tamarit, JHEP02, 153 (2016), 1510.05669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [74]

    W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Astrophys. J.187, 425 (1974)

    1974

  74. [75]

    Musco,Numerical Simulations of Primordial Black Holes(2025)

    I. Musco,Numerical Simulations of Primordial Black Holes(2025)

    2025

  75. [76]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, M. Peloso, A. Riotto, and C. ¨Unal, JCAP07, 048 (2019), 1904.00970

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [77]

    Young, I

    S. Young, I. Musco, and C. T. Byrnes, JCAP11, 012 (2019), 1904.00984

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [78]

    Young, C

    S. Young, C. T. Byrnes, and M. Sasaki, JCAP1407, 045 (2014), 1405.7023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  78. [79]

    Musco, Phys

    I. Musco, Phys. Rev. D100, 123524 (2019), 1809.02127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [80]

    Niikura et al., Nature Astron.3, 524 (2019), 1701.02151

    H. Niikura et al., Nature Astron.3, 524 (2019), 1701.02151

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [81]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 061101 (2016), [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.121,no.5,059901(2018)], 1603.08338

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

Showing first 80 references.