Abstract
We consider a D-dimensional gravitational model with a Gauss–Bonnet term and the cosmological term \(\Lambda \). We restrict the metrics to diagonal cosmological ones and find for certain \(\Lambda \) a class of solutions with exponential time dependence of three scale factors, governed by three non-coinciding Hubble-like parameters \(H >0\), \(h_1\) and \(h_2\), corresponding to factor spaces of dimensions \(m > 2\), \(k_1 > 1\) and \(k_2 > 1\), respectively, with \(k_1 \ne k_2\) and \(D = 1 + m + k_1 + k_2\). Any of these solutions describes an exponential expansion of 3d subspace with Hubble parameter H and zero variation of the effective gravitational constant G. We prove the stability of these solutions in a class of cosmological solutions with diagonal metrics.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In this paper we consider a D-dimensional gravitational model with Gauss–Bonnet term and cosmological term \(\Lambda \). The so-called Gauss–Bonnet term appeared in string theory as a first order correction (in \(\alpha '\)) to the effective action [1,2,3,4].
We note that at present the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet (EGB) gravitational model and its modifications, see [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] and the references therein, are intensively studied in cosmology, e.g. for possible explanation of accelerating expansion of the Universe which follow from supernova (type Ia) observational data [29,30,31].
In Ref. [28] we were dealing with the cosmological solutions with diagonal metrics governed by \(n >3\) scale factors depending upon one variable, which is the synchronous time variable. We have restricted ourselves by the solutions with exponential dependence of scale factors and have presented a class of such solutions with two scale factors, governed by two Hubble-like parameters \(H >0\) and \(h < 0\), which correspond to factor spaces of dimensions \(m > 3\) and \(l > 1\), respectively, with \(D = 1 + m + l\) and \((m,l) \ne (6,6), (7,4), (9,3)\). Any of these solutions describes an exponential expansion of 3d subspace with Hubble parameters \(H > 0\) [32] and has a constant volume factor of \((m - 3 + l)\)-dimensional internal space, which implies zero variation of the effective gravitational constant G either in a Jordan or in an Einstein frame [33, 34]; see also [35,36,37] and the references therein. These solutions satisfy the most severe restrictions on variation of G [38]. We have studied the stability of these solutions in a class of cosmological solutions with diagonal metrics by using results of Refs. [24, 26] (see also approach of Ref. [22]) and have shown that all solutions, presented in Ref. [28], are stable. It should be noted that two special solutions for \(D = 22, 28\) and \(\Lambda = 0\) were found earlier in Ref. [21]; in Ref. [24] it was proved that these solutions are stable. Another set of six stable exponential solutions, five in dimensions \(D = 7, 8, 9, 13\) and two for \(D = 14\), were considered earlier in [27].
In this paper we extend the results of Ref. [28] to the case of solutions with three non-coinciding Hubble-like parameters. The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 we present a setup. A class of exact cosmological solutions with diagonal metrics is found for certain \(\Lambda \) in Sect. 3. Any of these solutions describes an exponential expansion of 3-dimensional subspace with Hubble parameter H and zero variation of the effective gravitational constant G. In Sect. 4 we prove the stability of the solutions in a class of cosmological solutions with diagonal metrics. Certain examples are presented in Sect. 5.
2 The cosmological model
The action of the model reads
where \(g = g_{MN} \mathrm{d}z^{M} \otimes dz^{N}\) is the metric defined on the manifold M, \({\dim M} = D\), \(|g| = |\det (g_{MN})|\), \(\Lambda \) is the cosmological term, R[g] is scalar curvature,
is the standard Gauss–Bonnet term and \(\alpha _1\), \(\alpha _2\) are nonzero constants.
We consider the manifold
with the metric
where \(B_i > 0\) are arbitrary constants, \(i = 1, \dots , n\), and \(M_1, \dots , M_n\) are 1-dimensional manifolds (either \( {\mathbb R} \) or \(S^1\)) and \(n > 3\).
The equations of motion for the action (2.1) give us the set of polynomial equations [24]
\(i = 1,\ldots , n\), where \(\alpha = \alpha _2/\alpha _1\). Here
are, respectively, the components of two metrics on \( {\mathbb R} ^{n}\) [16, 17]. The first one is a 2-metric and the second one is a Finslerian 4-metric. For \(n > 3\) we get a set of fourth-order polynomial equations.
We note that for \(\Lambda =0\) and \(n > 3\) the set of Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5) has an isotropic solution \(v^1 = \cdots = v^n = H\) only if \(\alpha < 0\) [16, 17]. This solution was generalized in [19] to the case \(\Lambda \ne 0\).
It was shown in [16, 17] that there are no more than three different numbers among \(v^1,\dots ,v^n\) when \(\Lambda =0\). This is valid also for \(\Lambda \ne 0\) if \(\sum _{i = 1}^{n} v^i \ne 0\) [26].
3 Solutions with constant G
In this section we present a class of solutions to the set of equations (2.4), (2.5) of the following form:
where H is the Hubble-like parameter corresponding to an m-dimensional factor space with \(m > 2\), \(h_1\) is the Hubble-like parameter corresponding to an \(k_1\)-dimensional factor space with \(k_1 > 1\) and \(h_2\) \((h_2 \ne h_1)\) is the Hubble-like parameter corresponding to an \(k_2\)-dimensional factor space with \(k_2 > 1\). We split the m-dimensional factor space into the product of two subspaces of dimensions 3 and \(m-3\), respectively. The first one is identified with “our” 3d space, while the second one is considered as a subspace of \((m-3 + k_1 + k_2)\)-dimensional internal space.
We put
for a description of an accelerated expansion of a 3-dimensional subspace (which may describe our Universe) and also put
for a description of a zero variation of the effective gravitational constant G.
We remind the reader that the effective gravitational constant \(G = G_{eff}\) in the Brans–Dicke–Jordan (or simply Jordan) frame [33] (see also [34]) is proportional to the inverse volume scale factor of the internal space; see [35,36,37] and references therein.
Due to (3.1) “our” 3d space expands isotropically with Hubble parameter H, while the \((m -3)\)-dimensional part of the internal space expands isotropically with the same Hubble parameter H too. Here, like in Ref. [28], we consider for cosmological applications (in our epoch) the internal space to be a compact one, i.e. we put in (2.2) \(M_4 = \cdots = M_n = S^1\). We put the internal scale factors corresponding to present time \(t_0\): \(a_j (t_0) = B_j^{1/2} \exp (v^j t_0) \), \(j =4, \ldots , n\), (see (2.3)) to be small enough in comparison with the scale factor of “our” space for \(t = t_0\): \( a (t_0) = B^{1/2} \exp (H t_0) \), where \(B_1 = B_2 = B_3 = B\).
According to the ansatz (3.1), the m-dimensional factor space is expanding with the Hubble parameter \(H >0\), while the \(k_i\)-dimensional factor space is contracting with the Hubble-like parameter \(h_i < 0\), where i is either 1 or 2.
Now we consider the ansatz (3.1) with three Hubble parameters H, \(h_1\) and \(h_2\) which obey the following restrictions:
The first inequality in (3.4) is valid since \(S_1 = 3H > 0\) due to (3.2) and (3.3).
In this case the set of \(n+1\) equations (2.4), (2.5) is equivalent to the set of three equations
where
for all \(\mu = 1, \dots , m\); \(\alpha = m + 1, \dots , m + k_1\) and \(a = m + k_1 + 1, \dots , n\). These relations follow from the definition of \(Y_{i}\) in (2.5) and the identities [16, 17]
\(i = 1,\ldots , n\), where here and in what follows
Due to (2.5), (3.7), (3.8) we obtain
where
\(i \ne j\); \(i,j =0,1,2\) and \(h_0 = H\). Equations (3.4), (3.5) and (3.10) imply
\(i \ne j\) and \(i,j =0,1,2\).
Due to \(S_1 = m H + k_1 h_1 + k_2 h_2 \ne 0\) the set of equations (3.5) is equivalent to the following set of equations:
The last relation in (3.13) may be omitted since \(E = 0\) implies \(Y_{i}h^i = m H Y_H + k_1 h_1 Y_{h_1} + k_2 h_2 Y_{h_2} = 0\) [26]. Using this fact and Eqs. (3.4) and (3.10) we reduce the system (3.13) to the following one:
Using the identity
we reduce the set of equations (3.14) to the equivalent set
Here we put \(Q = Q_{h_1 h_2}\), though other choices, \(Q = Q_{H h_1}\) or \(Q = Q_{H h_2}\), give us equivalent sets of equations. Thus the set of \((n + 1)\) polynomial equations (2.4), (2.5) under ansatz (3.1) and restrictions (3.4) imposed is reduced to a set (3.16) of three polynomial equations (of fourth, second and first orders). This reduction is a special case of the more general prescription from Ref. [20].
Using the condition (3.3) of zero variation of G and the linear equation from (3.16) we obtain for \(k_1 \ne k_2\),
For \(k_1 = k_2\) we get \(H=0\), which is not appropriate for our consideration.
The substitution of (3.17) into relation \(Q_{h_1 h_2} = - \frac{1}{2 \alpha }\) gives us the following relation:
for \(k_1 \ne k_2\), where
which implies
It may be readily verified that
for all \(m > 2\), \(k_1 > 1\), \(k_2 > 1\), \(k_1 \ne k_2\) and hence our solutions take place for \(\alpha > 0\).
The substitution of (3.17) into (3.5) gives us
where
and
Using Eqs. (3.20), (3.22), (3.23), (3.24) we obtain
where \(P = P(m,k_1,k_2)\) is defined in (3.19).
The function \(\Lambda (m,k_1,k_2)\) in (3.25) is symmetric with respect to \(k_1\) and \(k_2\), i.e.
For \(k_2 =0\) we get a function \(\Lambda (m,k_1,0) = \Lambda (m,k_1)\), where \(\Lambda (m,k_1)\) was obtained in Ref. [28] for the case of two different Hubble-like parameters.
It may be readily verified that for \(k_1(k) = n_1 k +q_1\) and \(k_2(k) = n_2 k +q_2\), where \(k, n_1>0, q_1, n_2>0, q_2\) are integer numbers, we get
as \(k \rightarrow + \infty \) for any fixed \(m \ge 3\). We note that the limit (3.27) is positive and does not depend upon m. For fixed integer \(m > 2\) and \(k_2 \ge 1\) we are led to the following limit:
as \(k_1 \rightarrow + \infty \) and there is an analogous relation (due to (3.26)) for fixed \(m > 2\), \(k_1 \ge 1\) and \(k_2 \rightarrow + \infty \). It can be easily verified that, for these values of m, \(k_1\) we get \(\Lambda (m,\infty ,k_2) > 0\).
Equations (3.27) and (3.28) may be used in a context of (1 / D)-expansion for large D in the model under consideration; see [25] and the references therein.
4 The proof of stability
Here, as in [28], we have due to (3.3)
Let us put the restriction
on the matrix
We recall that, for a general cosmological setup with the metric
we have the set of equations [24]
where \(h^i = \dot{\beta }^i\),
\(i = 1,\ldots , n\).
Due to the results of Ref. [26] a fixed point solution \((h^i(t)) = (v^i)\) (\(i = 1, \dots , n\); \(n >3\)) to Eqs. (4.5), (4.6) obeying restrictions (4.1), (4.2) is stable under perturbations,
\(i = 1,\ldots , n\), as \(t \rightarrow + \infty \).
In order to prove the stability of solutions we should prove Eq. (4.2). First, we show that for the vector v from (3.1), obeying Eqs. (3.4) the matrix L has a block-diagonal form,
where here and in what follows: \(\mu , \nu = 1, \dots , m\); \(\alpha , \beta = m + 1, \dots , m + k_1\) and \(a, b = m + k_1 + 1, \dots , n\).
Indeed, denoting \(S_{ij} = G_{ijkl} v^k v^l\) we get from (3.8)
Here we use the notation \(S_k = \sum _{i =1}^{n} (v^i)^k\) and the identity \( \frac{\partial }{\partial v^j} S_k = k (v^j)^{k - 1}\). It follows from (3.11) and (4.10) that
and hence \(L_{\mu \alpha } = L_{ \alpha \mu } = 0\), \(L_{\mu a} = L_{a \mu } = 0\) and \(L_{\alpha a} = L_{a \alpha } = 0\) due to Eq. (3.12). Thus, the matrix \((L_{ij})\) is block-diagonal.
For the other three blocks we have
where
\(i = 0,1,2\) and \(h_0 = H\). Here we denote \(S_{HH} = S_{\mu \nu }\), \(\mu \ne \nu \); \(S_{h_1 h_1} = S_{\alpha \beta }\), \(\alpha \ne \beta \) and \(S_{h_1 h_1} = S_{a b}\), \(a \ne b\).
Due to Eqs. (4.9), (4.14), (4.15), (4.16) the matrix (4.9) is invertible if and only if \(m > 1\), \(k_1 > 1\), \(k_2 > 1\) and
\(i = 0,1,2\).
Now, we prove that inequalities (4.18) are satisfied for the solutions under consideration. Let us suppose that (4.18) is not satisfied for some \(i_0 \in \{0,1,2 \}\), i.e.
Let \(i_1 \in \{0,1,2 \}\) and \(i_1 \ne i_0\). Then using Eqs. (3.11) and (3.12) we get
which implies
But due to (3.16)
where \(i_2 \in \{0,1,2 \}\) and \(i_2 \ne i_0\), \(i_2 \ne i_1\). Subtracting (4.22) from (4.21) we obtain \(h_{i_0} - h_{i_2} = 0\), i.e. \(h_{i_0} = h_{i_2}\). But due to restrictions (3.4) we have \(h_{i_0} \ne h_{i_2}\). We are led to a contradiction, which proves the inequalities (4.18) and hence the matrix L from (4.9) is invertible (\(m > 2\), \(k_1 > 1\), \(k_2 > 1\)), i.e. Eq. (4.2) is obeyed. Thus, the solutions under consideration are stable.
5 Examples
Here we present several examples of stable solutions under consideration.
5.1 The case \(m =3\)
Let us consider the case \(m =3\). From (3.25) we get
For \((m,k_1,k_2) = (3,3,2)\) we have \(P = -70\),
and
Now we put \((m,k_1,k_2) = (3,4,2)\). We obtain \(P = -120\),
and
According to our analysis from the previous section both solutions are stable.
5.2 Examples for \(m =4\) and \(m= 5\)
Now we present other examples of stable solutions for \(m =4\) and \(m= 5\).
First we put \((m,k_1,k_2) = (4,3,2)\). We find \(P = -102\) and
In this case we obtain
Now we enlarge the value of m by putting \((m,k_1,k_2) = (5,3,2)\). We find \(P = -140\),
and
We note that in all examples above \(\Lambda >0\).
6 Conclusions
We have considered the D-dimensional Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet (EGB) model with the \(\Lambda \)-term and two constants \(\alpha _1\) and \(\alpha _2\). By using the ansatz with diagonal cosmological metrics, we have found, for certain \(\Lambda = \Lambda (m,k_1.k_2)\) and \(\alpha = \alpha _2 / \alpha _1 < 0\), a class of solutions with exponential time dependence of three scale factors, governed by three different Hubble-like parameters \(H >0\), \(h_1\) and \(h_2\), corresponding to submanifolds of dimensions \(m > 2\), \(k_1 > 1\), \(k_2 > 1\), respectively, with \( k_1 \ne k_2\) and \(D = 1 + m + k_1 + k_2 \). Here \(m > 2\) is the dimension of the expanding subspace.
Any of these solutions describes an exponential expansion of “our” 3-dimensional subspace with the Hubble parameter \(H > 0\) and anisotropic behaviour of \((m-3+ k_1 + k_2)\)-dimensional internal space: expanding in \((m-3)\) dimensions (with Hubble-like parameter H) and either contracting in \(k_1\) dimensions (with Hubble-like parameter \(h_1\)) and expanding in \(k_2\) dimensions (with Hubble-like parameter \(h_2\)) for \(k_1 > k_2\) or expanding in \(k_1\) dimensions and contracting in \(k_2\) dimensions for \(k_1 < k_2\). Each solution has a constant volume factor of internal space and hence it describes zero variation of the effective gravitational constant G. By using the results of Ref. [26] we have proved that all these solutions are stable as \(t \rightarrow + \infty \). We have presented several examples of stable solutions for \(m = 3,4,5\).
References
B. Zwiebach, Curvature squared terms and string theories. Phys. Lett. B 156, 315 (1985)
E.S. Fradkin, A.A. Tseytlin, Effective field theory from quantized strings. Phys. Lett. B 158, 316–322 (1985)
E.S. Fradkin, A.A. Tseytlin, Effective action approach to superstring theory. Phys. Lett. B 160, 69–76 (1985)
D. Gross, E. Witten, Superstrings modifications of Einstein’s equations. Nucl. Phys. B 277, 1 (1986)
H. Ishihara, Cosmological solutions of the extended Einstein gravity with the Gauss–Bonnet term. Phys. Lett. B 179, 217 (1986)
N. Deruelle, On the approach to the cosmological singularity in quadratic theories of gravity: the Kasner regimes. Nucl. Phys. B 327, 253–266 (1989)
S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for Dark Energy. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 4, 115–146 (2007). arXiv:hep-th/0601213
G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, S. Zerbini, One-loop effective action for non-local modified Gauss–Bonnet gravity in de Sitter space. Eur. Phys. J. C 64(3), 483–494 (2009). arXiv:0905.0543
E. Elizalde, A.N. Makarenko, V.V. Obukhov, K.E. Osetrin, A.E. Filippov, Stationary vs. singular points in an accelerating FRW cosmology derived from six-dimensional Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity. Phys. Lett. B 644, 1–6 (2007). arXiv:hep-th/0611213
K. Bamba, Z.-K. Guo, N. Ohta, Accelerating cosmologies in the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet theory with dilaton. Progr. Theor. Phys. 118, 879–892 (2007). arXiv:0707.4334
A. Toporensky, P. Tretyakov, Power-law anisotropic cosmological solution in 5+1 dimensional Gauss–Bonnet gravity. Gravit. Cosmol. 13, 207–210 (2007). arXiv:0705.1346
S.A. Pavluchenko, A.V. Toporensky, A note on differences between \((4+1)\)- and \((5+1)\)-dimensional anisotropic cosmology in the presence of the Gauss-Bonnet term. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 24, 513–521 (2009)
I.V. Kirnos, A.N. Makarenko, Accelerating cosmologies in Lovelock gravity with dilaton. Open Astron. J. 3, 37–48 (2010). arXiv:0903.0083
S.A. Pavluchenko, On the general features of Bianchi-I cosmological models in Lovelock gravity. Phys. Rev. D 80, 107501 (2009). arXiv:0906.0141
I.V. Kirnos, A.N. Makarenko, S.A. Pavluchenko, A.V. Toporensky, The nature of singularity in multidimensional anisotropic Gauss–Bonnet cosmology with a perfect fluid. Gen. Relat. Gravit. 42, 2633–2641 (2010). arXiv:0906.0140
V.D. Ivashchuk, On anisotropic Gauss–Bonnet cosmologies in (n + 1) dimensions, governed by an n-dimensional Finslerian 4-metric. Gravit. Cosmol. 16(2), 118–125 (2010). arXiv:0909.5462
V.D. Ivashchuk, On cosmological-type solutions in multidimensional model with Gauss–Bonnet term. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 7(5), 797–819 (2010). arXiv:0910.3426
K.-I. Maeda, N. Ohta, Cosmic acceleration with a negative cosmological constant in higher dimensions. JHEP 1406, 095 (2014). arXiv:1404.0561
D. Chirkov, S. Pavluchenko, A. Toporensky, Exact exponential solutions in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet flat anisotropic cosmology. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1450093 (11 pages) (2014). arXiv:1401.2962
D. Chirkov, S.A. Pavluchenko, A. Toporensky, Non-constant volume exponential solutions in higher-dimensional Lovelock cosmologies. Gen. Relat. Gravit. 47, 137 (33 pages) (2015). arXiv:1501.04360
V.D. Ivashchuk, A.A. Kobtsev, On exponential cosmological type solutions in the model with Gauss–Bonnet term and variation of gravitational constant. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 177 (12 pages) (2015). arXiv:1503.00860
S.A. Pavluchenko, Stability analysis of exponential solutions in Lovelock cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D 92, 104017 (2015). arXiv:1507.01871
S.A. Pavluchenko, Cosmological dynamics of spatially flat Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet models in various dimensions: low-dimensional \(\Lambda \)-term case. Phys. Rev. D 94, 084019 (2016). arXiv:1607.07347
K.K. Ernazarov, V.D. Ivashchuk, A.A. Kobtsev, On exponential solutions in the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet cosmology, stability and variation of G. Gravit. Cosmol. 22(3), 245–250 (2016)
F. Canfora, A. Giacomini, S.A. Pavluchenko, A. Toporensky, Friedmann dynamics recovered from compactified Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet cosmology. arXiv:1605.00041
V.D. Ivashchuk, On stability of exponential cosmological solutions with non-static volume factor in the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet model. Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 431 (2016). arXiv:1607.01244v2
V.D. Ivashchuk, On stable exponential solutions in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet cosmology with zero variation of G. Gravit. Cosmol. 22(4), 329–332 (2016). See corrected version in arXiv:1612.07178
K.K. Ernazarov, V.D. Ivashchuk, Stable exponential cosmological solutions with zero variation of G in the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet model with a \(\Lambda \)-term. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 89 (2017). arXiv:1612.08451
A.G. Riess et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. Astron. J. 116, 1009–1038 (1998)
S. Perlmutter et al., Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high-redshift supernovae. Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586 (1999)
M. Kowalski, D. Rubin et al., Improved cosmological constraints from new, old and combined supernova datasets. Astrophys. J. 686(2), 749–778 (2008). arXiv:0804.4142
P.A.R. Ade et al., [Planck Collaboration], Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results. Astron. Astrophys. 571, A1 (2014). arXiv:1303.5076
M. Rainer, A. Zhuk, Einstein and Brans–Dicke frames in multidimensional cosmology. Gen. Relat. Gravit. 32, 79–104 (2000). arXiv:gr-qc/9808073
V.D. Ivashchuk, V.N. Melnikov, Multidimensional gravity with Einstein internal spaces. Gravit. Cosmol. 2(3), 211–220 (1996). arXiv:hep-th/9612054
K.A. Bronnikov, V.D. Ivashchuk, V.N. Melnikov, Time variation of gravitational constant in multidimensional cosmology. Nuovo Cimento B 102, 209–215 (1998)
V.N. Melnikov, Models of G time variations in diverse dimensions. Front. Phys. Chin. 4, 75–93 (2009)
V.D. Ivashchuk, V.N. Melnikov, On time variations of gravitational and Yang–Mills constants in a cosmological model of superstring origin. Gravit. Cosmol. 20(1), 26–29 (2014). arXiv:1401.5491
E.V. Pitjeva, Updated IAA RAS planetary ephemerides-EPM2011 and their use in scientific research. Astron. Vestnik 47(5), 419–435 (2013). arXiv:1308.6416
Acknowledgements
This paper was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in the Program to increase the competitiveness of Peoples Friendship University (RUDN University) among the world’s leading research and education centers in the 2016–2020 and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Grant No.16-02-00602.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Funded by SCOAP3.
About this article
Cite this article
Ernazarov, K.K., Ivashchuk, V.D. Stable exponential cosmological solutions with zero variation of G and three different Hubble-like parameters in the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet model with a \(\Lambda \)-term. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 402 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4974-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4974-7