Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Inflaton Effective Potential for General $\epsilon$

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

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

Pith's one-line read One-loop quantum corrections to the inflaton potential in a general slow-roll universe split into a local piece fixed by instantaneous $H$ and $\epsilon$ and a nonlocal piece fixed by past geometry, so no local counterterm in $\phi$ and…

desk verdict Local part is a real step beyond de Sitter, but the nonlocal tail is off by hundreds: Eq. (55) uses the massless frozen amplitude where the massive mode is still ~e^6 below it. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03814 v2 pith:TKO6FE4Y submitted 2019-08-10 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

A. Kyriazis (U. Crete) , S. P. Miao (NCKU) , N. C. Tsamis (U. Crete) , R. P. Woodard (UF) This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83F0581T20 PACS 04.50.Kd95.35.+d98.62.-g
keywords inflationColeman-Weinbergpotentialinflatoneffectiveslow-rollparametersscalarpropagatornonlocalquantumcorrectionsmodifiedFriedmannequationsfieldtheoryincurvedspacetime
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

The paper asks how the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg correction to the inflaton effective potential behaves when inflation is not exact de Sitter space but a general slow-roll expansion. It develops an analytic approximation for the amplitude of a scalar mode in a spatially flat, homogeneous, isotropic background, treating the mode as massless at short distances and massive once the coupling to the inflaton dominates. The central result is that the correction consists of a local part depending only on the instantaneous Hubble parameter $H$ and the first slow-roll parameter $\epsilon$, plus a nonlocal part that integrates over the past geometry; no local counterterm constructed from the inflaton and the Ricci scalar can remove the nonlocal part. This matters because such corrections are not suppressed by the gravitational scale, so knowing exactly how they depend on the geometry determines whether inflationary models can survive reheating-era couplings.

What carries the argument

The central object is the three-phase analytic approximation to $M(n,\kappa,\mu) = \ln(|u(t,k,M)|^2\sqrt{8\pi G})$, the logarithm of the norm-squared of the scalar mode function, evolved in e-folding time $n$. The machinery is a matched sequence of approximations: $M_1$, the ultraviolet form written as a Hankel function of the first kind with slowly varying argument and index; $M_2$, the steady-decline form written with $\tanh$ of an integrated frequency $\omega$; and $M_3$, the oscillatory-decline form written with $\tan$ of an integrated frequency $\Omega$, joined at $n_\kappa+4$ and $n_\mu+4$. This decomposition isolates the ultraviolet divergences in $M_1$, allows the infrared contribution to factor into a wave-number part inherited from $M_1$ plus geometric functions $f_{2,3}$ that carry the memory of the past, and yields the nonlocal integral (56). The same vary-then-specialize procedure, together with stress-energy conservation, produces the modified Friedmann equations for a Lagrangian $a^3 f(H,\epsilon)$.

What would settle it

Solve the mode equation (16) numerically for a slow-roll model not used in the calibration, for instance a linear inflaton potential, over the same range of wave numbers and masses, and compare the exact coincidence limit with the sum of (53) and (59). If the difference is not within the claimed approximation, or if direct evaluation of the exponentials in (57)-(58) shows they are not small, the decomposition fails. A more targeted check is to evaluate the integral (56) exactly for a plateau potential and see whether it reproduces the simple negative integral (59).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a decomposition of the one-loop inflaton effective potential for general slow-roll FRW backgrounds. Working with the logarithm $M(n,\kappa,\mu)$ of the norm-squared of the mode function of a minimally coupled scalar, it shows that $M$ is well described by three consecutive approximations: an ultraviolet form involving a Hankel function with slowly varying argument and index, a steady-decline form involving $\tanh$ of an integrated frequency, and an oscillatory-decline form involving $\tan$ of an integrated frequency, with transitions at about four e-foldings after horizon crossing and four e-foldings after mass domination. After renormalization with the conformal and quartic counterterms, the resulting effective potential consists of a local piece, expression (53), depending on instantaneous $H$, $\epsilon$, and $z = h^2\phi^2/(2H^2)$, plus a nonlocal piece, expression (59), equal to $(1/4)h^2\phi^2$ times a negative integral over past e-foldings of $(1-\epsilon)H^2$. Because the local piece is not a function of $R = 6(2-\epsilon)H^2$ alone and the nonlocal piece cannot be reproduced by any local action, no subtraction that is local in $\phi$ and $R$ can completely remove the correction.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the mode amplitude always moves through the same three stages, ultraviolet, steady decline, and oscillatory decline, with the switch points at four e-foldings after horizon crossing and four e-foldings after mass domination, and that the leftover exponential factors in the nonlocal part are negligibly small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The one-loop potential is not a function of $\phi$ and $R$ alone, so the two previously considered subtraction schemes (a function of the inflaton only, or a function of the inflaton and the Ricci scalar) cannot remove the correction.
  • The nonlocal piece is a negative contribution to the inflaton mass-squared; for the quadratic model it subtracts roughly $75h^2/(16\pi^2)$ of the inflaton mass, which can be absorbed by changing the bare mass but not by a local counterterm.
  • Because the correction is not suppressed by the gravitational scale, the paper concludes that unless the coupling $h$ is very small, the modified Friedmann equations change the background enough to make viable classical inflation difficult, and that cancellation between bosonic and fermionic contributions is a more promising route.
  • The generalized Friedmann equations (64) and (62) reduce to the standard $F(R)$ equations when $f$ is restricted to the Ricci scalar, and to the earlier no-$\epsilon$-dependence result when $f$ is independent of $\epsilon$.
  • The three-phase approximation also applies to plateau-type potentials, with the mass-domination phase occurring for only a narrow range of mass parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the claim that the approximation is independent of the classical potential predicts that the same three-phase rule will hold for other slow-roll models, such as linear or natural inflation; checking the transition times there would be a direct test of universality.
  • Editorial inference: the nonlocal memory term, if small but nonzero, implies that primordial perturbation observables like the spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio could be altered not only through the background $H$ and $\epsilon$ but also through changes to the linearized perturbation equations, a computation the paper leaves open.
  • Editorial inference: the modified Friedmann equations contain higher time derivatives, and although the paper argues quantum corrections should be treated as perturbations rather than new degrees of freedom, a systematic derivation of the back-reaction equations for the nonlocal term (59) would be the next step toward quantitative predictions.
  • Editorial inference: the negative mass-squared from the nonlocal piece might be combined with positive contributions from bosonic couplings to design models where the total correction is small; the paper mentions this possibility but offers no concrete model.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytic approximation for the logarithm of the norm-squared mode function of a massive, minimally coupled scalar in a spatially flat FRW background, organized into three phases: ultraviolet, steady decline, and oscillatory decline. It uses this approximation to compute the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg correction to the inflaton effective potential from the coupling (6). The claimed result consists of a local part (53) depending on the instantaneous Hubble parameter and slow-roll parameter, plus a nonlocal part (59) obtained from the infrared integral (56), with the nonlocal part argued to be small. The paper also derives modified Friedmann equations (64) and (62) for Lagrangians depending locally on H and epsilon, and it checks the mode-function approximations numerically for the quadratic and Starobinsky potentials.

Significance. If the central result holds, this paper would close a known gap in earlier de Sitter-based studies by showing explicitly how the one-loop inflaton effective potential depends on a general slow-roll geometry, and it would strengthen the argument that local counterterms involving only the inflaton and the Ricci scalar cannot fully remove the correction. The paper contains genuine analytic derivations in Section 2.3, numerical validation of the phase approximations for two inflaton potentials, recovery of the flat-space Coleman-Weinberg limit, and consistent F(R) limits for the generalized Friedmann equations. However, the quantitative nonlocal formula (59) is not yet supported because of the prefactor issue identified below, so the present version cannot be accepted as a finished calculation of the nonlocal part.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (54)-(55)] The step from (54) to (55) replaces the massive amplitude e^{M1(n_kappa+4, kappa, mu)} by the massless frozen value H^2(t_kappa)/(2 sqrt(8 pi G) k^3). This omits the massive post-horizon suppression. For the paper's own mu = 1.2 chi_0 case, with n_kappa = 8.32 and n_2 = 12.32, the small-z evaluation of (21) gives nu approximately 0.6, so e^{M1(n_2)} is approximately e^{-5.5} H^2(t_kappa)/(2 sqrt(8 pi G) k^3). The replacement therefore overstates the infrared integrand by a factor of order e^{5.5} approximately 250 for these modes, and by more for earlier-crossing modes. Because this replacement feeds directly into (56) and hence into (59), the quantitative nonlocal result and the associated claim that the nonlocal part is small are not controlled by the mode-function approximations derived in the paper. The local part (53) and the generalized Friedmann equations (62) and (64) are not affected by this issue.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 3, transition times n_2 and n_3] The choice of transition times n_2 = n_kappa + 4 and n_3 = n_mu + 4 is calibrated by visual inspection of numerical plots for the quadratic potential, and no sensitivity study or error estimate is provided. The prefactor e^{M1(n_2)} in (54) and the nonlocal exponentials (57)-(58) depend on these offsets, so the extension of the approximation to arbitrary slow-roll backgrounds is not established by the two tested models. A derivation of the offset, or at least a quantitative bound on the error it induces, is needed to support the general-epsilon claim.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (59)] The reduction of the nonlocal part to the simple expression (59) is made under the stated 'expected' assumption that the factors in (57)-(58) are small, but no estimate, bound, or numerical check of this smallness is supplied. Given the prefactor problem in the transition from (54) to (55), the smallness of the nonlocal contribution needs independent verification before (59) can be used as a quantitative result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Epilogue] There are typos: 'mass ive scalar' in the abstract and 'Coelman-Weinberg' in the Epilogue; these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.2, Figure captions] The text states that Delta M(n, mu) rapidly freezes to a constant after horizon crossing, but the middle and right panels of Figure 8 and all of Figure 9 show non-constant or oscillatory late-time behavior; the captions or the surrounding discussion should be clarified to distinguish the regimes in which the freezing claim holds.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (43)] The transition wave number K(n) is defined by K(n) = e^{n-4} chi(n-4) sqrt(8 pi G), which amounts to exactly four e-foldings after horizon crossing; this is a natural definition, but the paper should state explicitly that the factor of four is the same visually calibrated offset used elsewhere, and should note the residual uncertainty from that calibration.
  4. [Section 4] The statement that F(R) models are the unique local and invariant modification of general relativity avoiding kinetic instabilities should be attributed more carefully to the cited review [12], since it depends on specific assumptions about the Lagrangian class considered.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The effective-potential calculation is self-contained: the mode-function approximations are derived analytically and checked against numerical integration, and prior self-citations are motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation of the one-loop inflaton effective potential is not circular. The mode-function amplitude M(n,κ,μ) is obtained from the nonlinear equation (16) with WKB initial conditions (18), and the three phase approximations M1, M2, and M3 are validated against direct numerical integration in Figures 1-9. The M1 form is also given an independent analytic derivation in Section 2.3 through the expansion in equations (30)-(32). The local part (53) and the nonlocal part (56)-(59) are then computed from these approximations by explicit integration and dimensional regularization, and the flat-space Coleman-Weinberg limit is recovered as a check. Prior self-cited work enters only as motivation, such as the de Sitter result [9] and the Hubble-effective-potential motivation [16], or as context for applications in [10]-[12]; none of these citations supplies the central computational input. The conclusion that no local counterterm depending only on φ and R can remove the correction follows from the explicit factors of H and ε visible in (53), combined with the standard external uniqueness statement [12], rather than from a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The skeptical concern that equation (55) overstates the infrared integrand is a numerical-accuracy critique of an approximation, not a demonstration that the result is equivalent by construction to its input. The paper also explicitly flags the smallness assumption needed for equation (59), which is an assumption rather than a circular step. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard QFT in curved spacetime plus three domain assumptions specific to this paper: the slow-roll FRW background, the universality of the 4-e-folding phase offsets, and the smallness of the nonlocal exponentials. The only hand-chosen numerical parameter is the transition offset; the model parameters c, ψ0, and M² are inputs from observations and prior literature used only for illustration.

free parameters (1)
  • phase transition offset Δn = 4 e-foldings
    The boundary between the ultraviolet and steady-decline approximations is set at n2 = nκ + 4, the boundary for oscillatory decline at n3 = nµ + 4, and the IR/UV split at K(n) = e^{n−4}χ(n−4). These choices are made by inspecting numerical plots in Section 2.2 for the quadratic model; the nonlocal contribution (59) inherits the offset through the integration endpoint n − 4.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The background geometry is a spatially flat FRW metric with slowly varying H and ε such that the slow-roll expressions (14) are accurate and the WKB initial conditions (17-18) apply at the start of inflation.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to set initial conditions for M(n,κ,µ) and in the epilogue to justify applying the approximations to plateau potentials.
  • domain assumption The phase-transition offsets n2 = nκ + 4 and n3 = nµ + 4 are universal for arbitrary slow-roll models, not only the quadratic and Starobinsky potentials tested numerically.
    Used in Section 3 to define K(n) in (43) and to factor the κ-dependence through M1 in (26-27); the paper calibrates the offset on the quadratic model and does not prove universality.
  • domain assumption The exponentials of f2(n,µ) and f3(n,µ) in (57-58) are small enough that expanding them to leading order gives the nonlocal result (59).
    The paper explicitly labels this '(expected)' after Eq. (58) and does not provide a numerical bound or check; the result (59) and its mass-shift interpretation rest on it.
  • standard math Palais's theorem and stress-energy conservation allow reconstructing the g00 Friedmann equation from the gij equation for an action specialized to FRW.
    Invoked in Section 4 to derive Eq. (64) from Eq. (62) via relation (63).
  • standard math Dimensional regularization and the standard scalar mode-function Wronskian normalization (9) govern the ultraviolet computation.
    Used throughout Section 3 to evaluate the coincidence limit in D dimensions and to renormalize with counterterms (49-50).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Inflaton Effective Potential for General $\epsilon$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TKO6FE4Y

@misc{pith2026190803814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Inflaton Effective Potential for General $\epsilon$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TKO6FE4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03814}
}
read the original abstract

We develop an analytic approximation for the coincidence limit of a massive scalar propagator in an arbitrary spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic geometry. We employ this to compute the one loop corrections to the inflaton effective potential from a quadratic coupling to a minimally coupled scalar. We also extend the Friedmann equations to cover potentials that depend locally on the Hubble parameter and the first slow roll parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03814 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. compares the slow roll approximations (14) with exact numerical evolution of (12-13).            [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Both plots concern κ = 3800χ0 (with nκ ≃ 8.32) and ω 2 (n, µ) < 0 throughout inflation. The left hand graph compares the numerical result for M(n, κ, µ) (in blue dots) with the approximation M1(n, κ, µ) (in long yellow dashes) given in expression (21) for µ = 10χ0. The right hand makes the same comparison for µ = 2χ0. For smaller values of µ the onset of mass domination occurs after horizon crossing and the ultravio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Both plots concern κ = 3800χ0 (with nκ ≃ 8.32) and µ = 1.2χ0 (with nµ ≃ 20.25). The left hand graph shows the numerical result for M(n, κ, µ). The right hand graph compares this (in blue dots) with the approximation M1(n, κ, µ) (in long yellow dashes) given in expression (21). In these cases it is useful to define differential frequency functions which are real on either side of mass domination, ω 2 (n, µ) ≡ 9 4 − µ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Like the previous figure, these plots deal concern κ = 3800χ0 (with nκ ≃ 8.32) and µ = 1.2χ0 (with nµ ≃ 20.25). The left hand graph compares the numerical result for M(n, κ, µ) (in blue dots) with the “Steady Decline” approximation M2(n, κ, µ) (in long yellow dashes) g…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Both plots concern κ = 3800χ0 (with nκ ≃ 8.32) and µ = 0.6χ0 (with nµ ≃ 47.25). The left hand graph compares M(n, κ, µ) (in blue dots) with the approxima￾tion M1(n, κ, µ) (in long yellow dashes) given in expression (21). The right hand graph compares M(n, κ, µ) (in blu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Both plots concern κ = 3800χ0 (with nκ ≃ 8.32) and µ = 0.1χ0 (with nµ > 50). The left hand graph compares M(n, κ, µ) (in blue dots) with the approxima￾tion M1(n, κ, µ) (in long yellow dashes) given in expression (21). The right hand graph compares M(n, κ, µ) (in blue d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The left hand graph gives the difference of M(n, κ, µ) between κ = 3800χ0 (with nκ ≃ 8.32) and κ = 520χ0 (with nκ ≃ 6.31) for µ = 0.1χ0. The middle and right hand graphs show the same difference for the cases of µ = 0.6χ0 and µ = χ0, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: gives three plots of ∆M(n, µ) for the intermediate values of µ over which the other phases drop out. 10 20 30 40 n -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 Δ 1.2 χ0 10 20 30 40 50 n -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 Δ 1.3 χ0 10 20 30 40 50 n -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 Δ 1.35 χ0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The left hand graph gives the difference of M(n, κ, µ) between κ = 3800χ0 (horizon crossing at nκ ≃ 8.32) and κ = 520χ0 (horizon crossing at nκ ≃ 6.31) for µ = 1.5χ0. For this case the average post-horizon difference has become centered on zero while the fluctuations h…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: These graphs show the Starobinsky potential U(ψ) of expression (69), as well as the dimensionless Hubble parameter χ(n) and the first slow roll parameter ǫ(n) for inflation starting from ψ0 = 5.3. All our approximations continue to apply to this model, but the extreme…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: , which compares M(n, κ, µ) with the M1(n, κ, µ) approximation (21) for three different values of µ. 10 20 30 40 50 n -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 M(n) μ = 2χ0 10 20 30 40 50 n -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 M(n) μ = 1.48χ0 10 20 30 40 50 n -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 M(n) μ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Ricci Subtraction for Cosmological Coleman-Weinberg Potentials

    gr-qc 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Ricci-scalar subtraction of cosmological Coleman-Weinberg potentials introduces a higher-derivative degree of freedom that ends inflation within roughly one e-folding.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Ijjas, P

    A. Ijjas, P. J. Steinhardt and A. Loeb, Phys. Lett. B 723, 261 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.023 [arXiv:1304.2785 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    A. H. Guth, D. I. Kaiser and Y. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B 733, 112 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.03.020 [arXiv:1312.7619 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Linde, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728856.003.0006 arXiv:1402.0526 [hep-th]

    A. Linde, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728856.003.0006 arXiv:1402.0526 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    A Cosmic Controversy,

    A. H. Guth et al. [33 co-authors], “A Cosmic Controversy,” (Letter to the Editor), Scientific American (May 10, 2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Ijjas, P

    A. Ijjas, P. J. Steinhardt and A. Loeb, Phys. Lett. B 736, 142 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.07.012 [arXiv:1402.6980 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 7, 1888 (1973). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.1888 1973

  8. [8]

    D. R. Green, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103504 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.103504 [arXiv:0707.3832 [hep-th]]. 24

    arXiv 2007

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, JCAP 1509, no. 09, 022 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/09/022, 10.1088/1475-7516/201 5/9/022 [arXiv:1506.07306 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. H. Liao, S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 10, 103522 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103522 [arXiv:1806.02533 [g r- qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. P. Miao, S. Park and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.10, 103503 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103503 [arXiv:1908.05558 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    R. P. Woodard, Lect. Notes Phys. 720, 403 (2007) doi:10.1007/978-3- 540-71013-4 14 [astro-ph/0601672]

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Finelli, G

    F. Finelli, G. Marozzi, A. A. Starobinsky, G. P. Vacca and G. Ven- turi, Phys. Rev. D 79, 044007 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.044007 [arXiv:0808.1786 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. G. Romania, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, JCAP 1208, 029 (2012) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/08/029 [arXiv:1207.3227 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D. J. Brooker, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 4, 043503 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.043503 [arXiv:1507.0745 2 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016

  8. [16]

    T. M. Janssen, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, JCA P 0905, 003 (2009) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/05/003 [arXiv:0904.115 1 [gr-qc]]

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series a nd Prod- ucts, 4th Edition, (New York, Academic Press, 1965)

    1965

  10. [18]

    R. S. Palais, Commun. Math. Phys. 69, no. 1, 19 (1979). doi:10.1007/BF01941322

    1979 doi

  11. [19]

    J. Z. Simon, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3720 (1990). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.41.3720

    1990 doi

  12. [20]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. 3, 130-133 (1987) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X 25

    1987 doi

  13. [21]

    D. J. Brooker, S. D. Odintsov and R. P. Woodard, Nucl. Phys. B 911, 318-337 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.08.010 [arXiv:1606.058 79 [gr-qc]]

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Candelas and D

    P. Candelas and D. J. Raine, Phys. Rev. D 12, 965 (1975). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.965

    1975 doi

  15. [23]

    S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 74, 044019 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.044019 [gr-qc/0602110]

    2006 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Allen, Nucl

    B. Allen, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 228 (1983). doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(83)90470-4

    1983 doi

  17. [25]

    Prokopec, N

    T. Prokopec, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Annals Phys. 323, 1324 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2007.08.008 [arXiv:0707.0847 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Sivasankaran and R

    A. Sivasankaran and R. P. Woodard, [arXiv:2007.11567 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. J. Brooker, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.10, 103531 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103531 [arXiv:1708.03253 [g r- qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    D. J. Brooker, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, JCAP 04, 003 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/003 [arXiv:1712.03462 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. Basu, D. J. Brooker, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.6, 063525 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063525 [arXiv:1905.12140 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. P. Miao, L. Tan and R. P. Woodard, [arXiv:2003.03752 [gr-qc]]

    2003 arXiv

  23. [31]

    E. O. Kahya and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124005 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.124005 [arXiv:0709.0536 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  24. [32]

    E. O. Kahya and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 77, 084012 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.084012 [arXiv:0710.5282 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2621 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.2621 [hep-ph/9602317]. 26

    1996 arXiv

Pith tools

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