# G-inflation: from the intermediate, logamediate and exponential models

## Abstract

The intermediate, logamediate and exponential inflationary models in the context of Galileon inflation or G-inflation are studied. By assuming a coupling of the form \(G(\phi ,X)\propto \phi ^{\nu }\,X^{n}\) in the action, we obtain different analytical solutions from the background cosmological perturbations assuming the slow-roll approximation. General conditions required for these models of G-inflation to be realizable are determined and discussed. In general, we analyze the condition of inflation and also we use recent astronomical and cosmological observations for constraining the parameters appearing in these G-inflationary models.

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the inflationary epoch [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] provides more than the mechanism for solving the problems of the hot big bang model (flatness, horizon etc). In this sense, one of the achievements of the inflationary universe is to provide the primordial curvature perturbations, which seed the observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropies [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] and the structure formation of the universe, that are generated from vacuum fluctuations of the scalar field which drives the accelerated expansion [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. One can test the inflationary paradigm by comparing the theoretical predictions for various models of inflation with current astrophysical and cosmological observations, in particular those that come from the CMB temperature anisotropies. In doing so, the predictions of representative inflationary models, given on the \(n_s-r\) plane, are compared with the allowed contour plots from the observational data. In this context, the BICEP2/Keck-Array collaboration [22] published new more precise data regarding the CMB temperature anisotropies, improving the upper bound on the tensor-to-scalar ratio to be \(r_{0.05} < 0.07\) (95% CL) in comparison to latest data of Planck [15], for which \(r_{0.002} < 0.11\) (95% CL).

*A*and

*f*are constant parameters, satisfying the conditions \(A>0\) and \(0<f<1\). This intermediate expansion law becomes slower than de Sitter inflation, but faster than power-law inflation instead. In addition, a generalized inflation model is provided by the model of logamediate inflation, in which the scale factor evolves as [27]

*B*and \(\lambda \) are dimensionless constant parameters such that \(B>0\) and \(\lambda >1\). Note that for the special case \(\lambda =1\) and \(B=p\), the logamediate inflation model reduces to power-law inflation with an exponential potential [23].

Originally, these inflationary models were studied as exact solutions of background evolution. However, the slow-roll formalism provides a better analysis regarding the dynamics of primordial perturbations. In practice, these models are completely ruled out by current observational data [15] in the standard canonical inflationary scenario. In particular, for the intermediate inflation model, it was found that for the special case \(f=2/3\), the scalar spectral index becomes \(n_s= 1\), corresponding to the Harrison-Zel’dovich spectrum, being not supported by current data. Also, an observational consequence is that for both inflationary models, the tensor-to-scalar ratio *r*, becomes significantly \(r\ne 0\), but this ratio is always \(r>0.1\), as it was shown in Refs. [26, 27]. If we go further the standard cold scenario, e.g., in the warm inflation scenario, both intermediate and logamediate models may be reconciled with current observations available at that time [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36].

On the other hand, going beyond the standard canonical inflation scenario, a non-canonical inflation model, whose Lagrangian contains higher derivative terms, has become of a special interest from the theoretical and observational points of view, yielding a large or small amount of non-Gaussianities and a non-trivial speed of sound. A special class of such a models, dubbed Galileon inflation models or G-inflation, were inspired by theories exhibiting “Galilean” symmetry, \(\partial _{\mu }\phi \,\rightarrow \,\partial _{\mu }\phi +b_{\mu }\) [38]. Interestingly, the field equations derived from such a theories still contain derivatives up to second order, avoiding ghosts [38]. Nevertheless, this feature holds only when the space-time is Minkowsi [39]. Although the “covariantization” of the Galileon achieved the equations of motion to keep of second order, the Galilean invariance is broken [39, 40]. This theory, as it was shown in Refs. [41, 42], is equivalent to Horndeski’s theory [43], which is stated as the most general scalar-tensor theory with second-order field equations. For a representative list of works on G-inflation, see Refs. [44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54].

*n*plays a fundamental role on the cosmological parameters in order to obtain the observational data.

The main goal of the present article is to explore the observational consequences of studying the intermediate, logamediate and exponential Hubble inflation models in the framework of the cubic Galileon and how these models are modified with the coupling \(G(\phi ,X)\). In doing so, we consider a coupling of the form \(G(\phi ,X)\propto \phi ^{\nu }X^n\), which generalizes the cases \(G(\phi ,X)\propto \phi X\) and \(G(\phi ,X)\propto X^n\) already studied in Refs. [49, 64], respectively. We will show that, for each inflation model studied, there exist a region in the space of parameters for which its predictions lie inside the allowed region from BICEP2/Keck-Array data, resurrecting these inflationary models. In addition, we will show that the allowed region in the space of parameters becomes different than the obtained in the case of intermediate model [64]. Here, following Ref. [65] the authors of [64], introduce an extra time that corresponds to a time of an unspecified reheating mechanism in order to induce to stop inflation and so evaluate the cosmological parameters.

We have organized this article as follows. In the next section, we present a brief review of G-inflation. In Sects. 3, 4, and 5 we study the background and perturbative dynamics of our concrete inflationary models under the slow-roll approximation. Contact between the predictions of the model and observations will be done by computing the power spectrum, the scalar spectral index as well as the tensor-to-scalar ratio. We summarize our findings and present our conclusions in Sect. 6. We chose units so that \(c=\hbar =8\pi G=1\).

## 2 G-inflation

*R*denotes the Ricci scalar and \(X=-g^{\mu \nu }\partial _{\mu }\phi \partial _{\nu }\phi /2\). The scalar field is denoted by \(\phi \) and the quantities

*K*and

*G*are arbitrary functions of

*X*and \(\phi \).

*a*denotes the scale factor. In the following, we will consider that the dots denote differentiation with respect to cosmic time and the notation \(K_X\) denotes \(K_X=\partial K/\partial X\), while \(K_{XX}\) corresponds to \(K_{XX}=\partial ^2K/\partial X^2\), and \(G_\phi \) means \(G_\phi =\partial G/\partial \phi \), etc.

*n*is such that \( n>0\). Also, in the following we will assume a power-law dependence on the scalar field for the coupling

*X*, \(|G_{X}H\dot{\phi } ^3|\) and \(|G_{\phi }X|\). Thus, under this approach, the Friedmann equation given by Eq. (6) can be approximated to

*t*for any model and, in particular, for any scale factor

*a*(

*t*) or Hubble rate

*H*(

*t*).

*n*is such that \(n\ge 2/3\). In the limit \(\mathcal{{A}}\gg 1\), the scalar power spectrum, given by Eq. (23), becomes approximately

*r*is approximated to

Regarding the shapes of NG, it can be determined several types which depend on the magnitudes of the wave vectors \(k_1\), \(k_2\), and \(k_3\), in the Fourier space with the constraint \(k_1+k_2+k_3=0\) [72]. For example, multi-field inflation [73] and curvaton scenarios [74] give rise a bispectrum that has a maximum in squeezed configuration or local shape (i.e. for \(k_3\ll k_1\simeq k_2\)) [75, 76]. In particular for non-canonical kinetic terms, the NG are well described by the equilateral (i.e. \(k_1=k_2=k_3\)) and ortogonal shapes (i.e. \(k_1=2k_2=2k_3\)) [77, 78]. An important linear combination of the equilateral and ortogonal shapes give rise to the so-called enfolded shape and this combination was determined from Planck data in Ref. [71].

Also, we find that the square of the speed of sound in this regime becomes \(c^2_s=\frac{2}{3n}\). Note that this speed only depends on the power *n* in the Galileon dominated regime. In this way, for values of \(n>1\) the speed of sound is reduced to \(c^2_s<1\), yielding values for NG such that \( |f_{NL}| \gtrsim 1\), as it can be seen from Eqs. (45)–(47).

In the following, we will study three different inflationary expansions; the intermediate, logamediate and exponential in the framework of G-inflation. In order to study these expansions we will assume the Galilean effect predominates over the standard inflation, i.e., in the limit \( |\mathcal{{A}}|\gg 1\).

## 3 Intermediate G-inflation

In the cosmological context, the effective potential characterizing the canonical variables of the cosmological perturbations promote that the comoving scale leaves the horizon during inflation. For models that have a standard reheating, this will correspond to around 60 e-folds before the end of inflation. However, during intermediate inflation the inflationary expansion never ends and the model presents the graceful exit problem. Equivalently, from the point of view of the potential \(V(\phi )\), we observe that this effective potential does not present a minimum, wherewith the usual mechanism introduced to achieve inflation to an end becomes useless. As it is well known, the standard reheating is described by the regime of oscillations of the scalar field. Since we do not know how the inflationary epoch ends in intermediate law for the cold stages, one cannot draw any further conclusions for this purpose, because the number of *e*-folds to address the end of inflation is unknown. A methodology used in Refs. [64, 65] in order to solve this problem consists in introducing a determined time which corresponds to unspecified reheating mechanism that triggered to stop inflation. Here the number of *e*-folding at the moment of horizon crossing is approximately 60 e-folds and the number of e-folds to unspecified reheating mechanism becomes zero.

*e*-folds and the other cosmological parameters. Following Refs. [24, 25, 26] the number of

*e*-folds

*N*between two different cosmic times \(t_{1}\) and \(t_{2}\) or, equivalently between two values of the inflaton field \(\phi _{1}\) and \(\phi _{2}\), is given by

*N*can be written as

*e*-folding is equal to \(N=0\) (unlike Ref. [64]), in which the slow roll parameter \(\varepsilon _1\equiv 1\) [24, 25]. In this context, in the following we will evaluate the cosmological observables in terms of the number of

*e*-folds

*N*which have took place since the beginning of inflationary epoch, where the number of

*e*-folding at the moment of horizon crossing is approximately 50-70

*e*-folds. Also, note that for large

*N*such that \(N\gg 1\), the slow-roll parameter \(\varepsilon _1\rightarrow 0\) and inflation never ends in the cold models of intermediate expansion for the case of a single field (inflaton).

*f*and

*A*.

*e*-folds

*N*as

*e*-folds

*N*in the form

*N*as

*e*-folds \(N=60\) and the spectral index \(n_s=0.967\), we obtain that the value of the parameter

*f*results \(f=0.398\simeq 0.4\).

*r*and the scalar spectral index \(n_s\) results

*n*through slope \(1/\sqrt{n}\), when compared to the results of \(r(n_s)\) in the standard intermediate model (recalled that \(n\ge 2/3\)). Thus, this dependence in the consistency relation (\(\propto n^{-1/2}\)) is fundamental in order to the theoretical predictions enter inside the allowed region of contour plot in the \(r-n_s\) plane imposed by BICEP2/Keck-Array data, resurrecting the intermediate inflation model.

From BICEP2/Keck-Array results data that the ratio \(r<0.07\), we find a lower bound for the power *n* given by \(n>61912(1-f)^2(1-n_s)^2/(2-3f)^2\). In particular, for the values \(f=0.4\) and \(n_s=0.967\), the lower limit for *n* yields \(n>38\). Also, we note that from Eq. (58), we can find a constraint for the parameter *A* of the intermediate model for given values of *f* and the power *n*, when the number of *e*-folds *N* and the amplitude of the scalar power spectrum \({\mathcal {P}}_{\mathcal {S}}\) are also given. Thus, in particular for the values \({\mathcal {P}}_{\mathcal {S}}=2.2\times 10^{-9}\), \(N=60\) and \(f=0.4\), we found that for \(n=38\), *A* becomes \(A=0.26\), while for the case \(n=55\), we found that \(A=0.25\). In relation to the initial value of the Hubble parameter \(H_1\), we find by considering Eq. (54) that for the value \(n=38\), (where \(A=0.26\) and \(f=0.4\)) corresponds to \(H_1=7.5 \times 10^{-3}\) (in units of Planck mass) and for the case in which \(n=55\) (in which \(A=0.25\) and \(f=0.4\)) we have \(H_1=6.8\times 10^{-3}\). In addition, from the condition \(\mathcal{{A}}\gg 1\) given by Eq. (55), we are able to find a lower bound for the parameter \(\gamma \), for different values of the parameter \(\nu \), when the number of *e*-folding *N*, *f* and *n* are given. Here, we mention that the parameter \(\mathcal{{A}}\) satisfies the condition \(\mathcal{{A}}=3ng(\phi )X^{n-1}H\dot{\phi }\gg 1\) as \(g(\phi )\gg (3nX^{n-1}H\dot{\phi })^{-1}\). In order to give an estimation for the coupling parameter *g*, we have that typically after of started the inflationary epoch, the Hubble rate \(H\sim 10^{-5}\) and \(\dot{\phi }\sim 10^{-5}\), thus we find that the coupling *g* has a lower bound given by \(g(\phi )\gg 10^{400}\) for \(n\sim 40\). This suggests that the coupling \(g(\phi )\) must have a very large value as lower bound (googol\(^4\)). In particular for the \(N=60\), \(f=0.4\) and \(n=38\), and since that \(g(\phi )=\gamma \phi ^{\nu }\), we find that for the case \(\nu =1\), the lower limit is found to be \(\gamma \gg 8\times 10^{403}\), while for \(\nu =0\) (or equivalently \(g(\phi )=\) const.) we have that \(\gamma \gg 10^{404}\). Finally, for the case \(\nu =-1\) (or \(g(\phi )\propto \phi ^{-1}\)), we found that \(\gamma \gg 10^{405}\).

In Fig. 1, the left panel shows the evolution of the slow-roll parameter \(\varepsilon _1\) in terms of the scalar field \(\phi \), while the right panel shows the contour plot for the consistency relation \(r(n_s)\). In both panels, we consider the cases where the power *n* has two different values in addition to the standard intermediate model. Here we have used the value \(f=0.4\). In order to write down values for the slow-roll parameter \(\varepsilon _1(N)\) and the ratio \(r=r(n_s)\), we have used Eqs. (50), (51) and (60), respectively. From left panel we show that the inflationary epoch never ends in the G-intermediate model (in the same form as it occurs in standard intermediate model), since during inflation the slow-roll parameter \(\varepsilon _1\) always is \(\varepsilon _1<1\) and tends to \(\varepsilon _1\rightarrow 0\) for large \(\phi \), see Fig. 1 (left panel). In this sense, we consider that inflationary stage begins at the earliest possible scenario when \(\varepsilon _1(\phi =\phi _1)=1\), where \(\phi _1\) is given by Eq. (51). Here, we have shown that the authors of Ref. [64] committed a mistake when they computed the time at which inflation ends in the intermediate G-model, since inflation never ends. As it can visualized from right panel of Fig. 1, for values of the power *n* satisfying \(n>38\), the model is well supported by the data. Also, we noted that when \(n\gg 1\), then the tensor-to-scalar ratio \(r\sim 0.\)

On the other hand, the predictions for the intermediate model regarding primordial NG, for the particular case \(n=38\), we find that the values of \(f_{NL}\) in the cases; equilateral, orthogonal, and enfolded configurations become \(f_{NL}^{equil }=-8.17\), \(f_{NL}^{ortho }=-5.48\), and \(f_{NL}^{enfold }=-1.34\), respectively. Finally, for \(n=55\), we have that \(f_{NL}^{equil }=-11.95\), \(f_{NL}^{ortho }=-8.03\), and \(f_{NL}^{enfold }=-1.96\), respectively. Here, we check that the primordial NG \(\mid f_{NL}\mid \gtrsim 1\). In this sense,

these values are within the current observational bounds set by Planck.

## 4 Logamediate G-inflation

*H*(

*t*) becomes \(H(t)=B\lambda {(\ln t)^\lambda \over t}\), and from Eq. (17), we find that the scalar field \(\phi (t)\) results

*e*-folds

*N*between two different values of the scalar field \(\phi _1\) and \(\phi _2\) is written as

*H*(

*t*) is given by \(H=B\lambda (\ln t)^{\lambda -1}/t\) and the slow roll parameter \(\varepsilon _1(t)=(B\lambda )^{-1}\ln t^{1-\lambda }\), thus we find that at the earliest possible stage in which \(\varepsilon _{1}(t=t_1)=1\), the Hubble parameter at beginning of inflation becomes \(H(t=t_1)=H_1=\exp [-(1/B\lambda )^{1/(\lambda -1)}]\), and this initial rate depends exclusively on the associated parameters

*B*and \(\lambda \) of the scale factor.

*e*-folds reads as

*e*-folds

*N*through the following expression

*n*, when we make the comparison with the results of \(r(n_s)\) in the standard logamediate model in the framework of GR. In this sense, the dependence on the power

*n*is crucial in order for the theoretical predictions of the model to enter in the allowed regions of the contour plot in the \(r-n_s\) plane. We also note that, for large values of the power

*n*such that \(n\gg 1\), the tensor-to-scalar ratio

*r*tends to zero. From BICEP2/Keck-Array data, we have that \(r<0.07\), then we find a lower bound for the power

*n*, given by \(n>15480(1-n_s)^2\). In particular, considering that the scalar spectral index takes the value \(n_s=0.967\), the lower limit for the power

*n*yields \(n>17\).

*B*and \(\lambda \), appearing in the logamediate model, when the power

*n*, the number of

*e*-folds

*N*, the power spectrum \({\mathcal {P}}_{\mathcal {S}}\) as well as \(n_s\) are given. Particularly, for \(N=60\) and considering the observational values \({\mathcal {P}}_{\mathcal {S}}=2.2\times 10^{-9}\) and \(n_s=0.967\), we found the values \(B=6.2\times 10^{-16}\) and \(\lambda =14.6\) when the power

*n*is fixed to be \(n=17\). On the other hand, for the case when \(n=30\), we obtain the values \(B=3.9\times 10^{-16}\) and \(\lambda =14.7\). In order to determine the initial value of the Hubble rate \(H_1\), we have that for the case \(n=17\), where \(B=6.2\times 10^{-6}\) and \(\lambda =14.6\) , we find that \(H_1=2.1\times 10^{-5}\) (in units of Planck mass) and for the case in which \(n=30\) corresponds to \(H_1=1.8\times 10^{-5}\).

Besides, considering the condition \(\mathcal{{A}}\gg 1\), given by Eq. (64), we find a lower bound for the parameter \(\gamma \) as in the case of intermediate inflation, by assuming different values of the parameter \(\nu \), when the number of *e*-folding *N*, \(\lambda \) and the power *n* are given. In particular, by fixing \(N=60\), \(\lambda =14.6\), \(n=17\), for \(\nu =1\) the lower limit on \(\gamma \) is found to be \(\gamma \gg 5\times 10^{181}\), while for \(\nu =0\) (or equivalently \(g(\phi )=\) constant) we have that \(\gamma \gg 6\times 10^{182}\). Finally, for \(\nu =-1\) (or \(g(\phi )\propto \phi ^{-1}\)), the lower limits yields \(\gamma \gg 6\times 10^{183}\).

In Fig. 2, we show the contour plot together with the consistency relation \(r(n_s)\). In this panel we consider two different values of the parameter *n* in the G-logamediate model and also we show the standard logamediate model. Here we have used the corresponding pair of values (*B*,\(\lambda \)) for a given value of the power *n*. Note that for values of the power *n* satisfying \(n>17\), the model is well supported by current data, as it can be seen from Fig. 2. Moreover, as in the intermediate model, for large values of the power \(n\gg 1\), the tensor-to-scalar ratio \(r\sim 0.\) Also, by considering the lower bound on *n* for this model, the predicted values for \(f_{NL}\) in the equilateral, orthogonal, and enfolded configurations become \(f_{NL}^{equil }|_{n=17}=-3.50\), \(f_{NL}^{ortho }|_{n=17}=-2.34\), and \(f_{NL}^{enfold }|_{n=17}=-0.58\), respectively. We also mention that for values of \(n>29\), the primordial NG \(|f_{NL}|\gtrsim 1\). Thus, for values of \(n\geqslant 17\), we find that parameter \(|f_{NL}|\) is in well agreement with current observational data.

## 5 Exponential G-inflation

*e*-folds

*N*between two different values of the scalar field \(\phi _1\) and \(\phi _2\) results

*N*can be written as

*H*(

*t*) is given by \(H=\alpha \exp [-\beta t]\) and the slow-roll parameter \(\varepsilon _1(t)=\beta \exp [\beta t]/\alpha \). Thus, we find that at the end of inflation in which \(\varepsilon _{1}(t=t_2)=1\), the Hubble parameter at this time becomes \(H(t=t_2)=H_2=\beta \).

Also, from the condition for inflation to occur in which \(\varepsilon _1<\)1, then the scalar field becomes \(\phi < (\beta k_3 )^{-1 \over \mu _3 } \left[ \ln ( \alpha / \beta ) \right] ^{1 \over \mu _3} \).

*N*as

*n*. As before, the introduction of the power

*n*in the model is fundamental in order to the theoretical predictions of this model enter in the allowed region of the contour plot in the \(r-n_s\) plane from [22]. Assuming the BICEP2/Keck-Array, for which \(r<0.07\), we obtain a lower bound for the power

*n*, given by \(n>6880(1-n_s)^2\). In particular assuming that the scalar spectral index \(n_s\) is given by \(n_s=0.967\), we find that the lower bound for the power

*n*corresponds to \(n>7\).

In addition, from the the amplitude of the scalar power spectrum given by Eq. (72), we can find a constraint for the parameter \(\beta \), appearing in the Hubble rate, for several values of *n* when the number of *e*-folds *N* and the observational value of the power spectrum \({\mathcal {P}}_{\mathcal {S}}\) are given. Thus, particularly for the values \({\mathcal {P}}_{\mathcal {S}}=2.2\times 10^{-9}\) and \(N=60\), for the case when the power *n* takes the value \(n=8\), we found the value \(\beta =2.9\times 10^{-13}\). As in the previous models, we can find a lower bound for the parameter \(\gamma \) from the condition \(\mathcal{{A}}\gg 1\) given by Eq. (71). In particular, for the values \(N=60\), \(\beta =2.9\times 10^{-13}\), \(\alpha =10^{-3}\) and \(n=8\), we obtain that for the case in which \(\nu =1\) (\(g(\phi )\propto \phi \)), the lower bound is \(\gamma \gg 3\times 10^{181}\), while for \(\nu =0\) (or \(g(\phi )=\) constant) we have that \(\gamma \gg 6\times 10^{183}\). Finally, for the specific case in which \(\nu =-1\) (or \(g(\phi )\propto \phi ^{-1}\)), we obtain that \(\gamma \gg 10^{186}\). As in the previous models, from the two-dimensional marginalized constraints on the \(r-n_s\) plane, this model becomes well supported by the Planck data when the power *n* satisfies \(n>7\) (figure not shown) and then the model works. We also mentioned that as the Hubble parameter at the end of inflation, is given by \(H_2=\beta \), then this rate at that time becomes \(H_2<\frac{0.1\pi ^2{\mathcal {P}}_{\mathcal {S}}}{(N+1)^3(1-n_s)^2}\). Here we have used Eq. (72) and the fact that \(n>6880(1-n_s)^2\). In particular, for the values \({{\mathcal {P}}}_{\mathcal {S}}=2.2\times 10^{-9}\), \(N=60\) and \(n_s=0.967\), we have that the lower bound for the Hubble parameter at the end of the inflationary epoch results \(H_2<3\times 10^{-13}\) (in units of Planck mass). In relation to the primordial NG, we obtain that for the lower bound of *n*, we have that \(f_{NL}^{equil }|_{n=7}=-1.27\), \(f_{NL}^{ortho }|_{n=7}=-0.85\), and \(f_{NL}^{enfold }|_{n=7}=-0.21\), respectively. Thus, for values of the power \(n>7\), the non-lineal parameter \(f_{NL}\) is well corroborated by Planck data.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have investigated the intermediate, logamediate and exponential inflation in the framework of a Galilean action with a coupling of the form \(G(\phi ,X)\propto \phi ^\nu \,X^n\). For a flat FRW universe, we have found solutions to the background and perturbative dynamics for each of these expansion laws under the slow-roll approximation. In particular, we have obtained explicit expressions for the corresponding scalar field, effective potential, number of *e*-folding as well as for the scalar power spectrum, scalar spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio. In order to bring about some analytical solutions, we have considered that the Galileon effect dominates over the standard inflation, in which the parameter \(\mathcal{{A}}=3H\dot{\phi }G_X\) satisfies the condition \(\mathcal{{A}}\gg 1\). In this context, we have found analytic expressions for the constraints on the \(r-n_s\) plane, and for all these G-inflation models we have obtained that the consistency relation \(r=r(n_s)\) depends on the power *n* which is crucial in order to the corresponding theoretical predictions enter on the two-dimensional marginalized constraints imposed by current BICEP2/Keck-Array data. In this sense, we have established that the inflationary models of intermediate, logamediate and exponential in the framework of G-inflation are well supported by the data, as could be seen from Figs. 1 and 2. In particular for the intermediate G-inflation, from the \(r-n_s\) plane, we have found a lower bound for the power *n*, given by \(n>38\). For the logamediate model we have obtained that \(n>17\) and finally, for the exponential model we have got \(n>7\) as lower limit. Also, we have found that for values of \(n\gg 1\), the tensor-to-scalar ratio \(r\rightarrow 0\). Also, from the amplitude of the scalar power spectrum \({\mathcal {P}}_{\mathcal {S}}(N)\) and the scalar spectral index \(n_s(N)\) as function of the number of *e*-folds, we have found constraints on the several parameters appearing in our models. Besides, considering that the Galileon effect dominates over GR given by the condition \(\mathcal{{A}}\gg 1\), we have found a very large value as a lower limit for the parameter \(\gamma \). The reason for this is due that typically \(H\sim \dot{\phi }\sim 10^{-5}\ll 1\), then from the condition \(\mathcal{{A}}\gg 1\) suggesting \(g(\phi )\gg (3nX^{n-1}H\dot{\phi })^{-1}\), thus we have found that \(g(\phi )\gg (3nX^{n-1}H\dot{\phi })^{-1}\sim \mathcal {O}(10^{400})\), e.g. for \(n=40\), and for \(n\sim 10\) we have got \(g(\phi )\gg (3nX^{n-1}H\dot{\phi })^{-1}\sim \mathcal {O}(10^{100})\) (googol). In relation to the primordial NG, we have found that for limit in which the Galilean dominated regime i.e., \(\mathcal{{A}}\gg 1\), the non-linear parameter \(\mid f_{NL}\mid \propto n\) and it is within the current observational bounds imposed by Planck data.

In this work, we have determined that the intermediate, logamediate and exponential models in the context of G-inflation, are less restricted than those in the framework of standard GR, due to the modification in the action by the Galilean term \(G(\phi ,X)\square \phi \propto \phi ^{\nu }\,X^n\square \phi \).

Finally, in this paper we have not addressed a mechanism to bring intermediate and logamediate G-inflation to an end and therefore to a study the mechanism of reheating, see Refs. [28, 80, 81, 82]. Also, we have not guided our investigation on the non-canonical K-inflation terms in order to discern its importance in relation to the cubic Galileon term for these expansions. We hope to return to address these points for these models of G-inflation in the near future.

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

R.H. was supported by Proyecto VRIEA-PUCV N\(_{0}\) 039.309/2018. N.V. acknowledges support from the Fondecyt de Iniciación project no. 11170162.

## References

- 1.A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B
**91**, 99 (1980)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.A. Guth, Phys. Rev. D
**23**, 347 (1981)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.K. Sato, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**195**, 467 (1981)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B
**108**, 389 (1982)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B
**129**, 177 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.A. Albrecht, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**48**, 1220 (1982)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B
**129**, 177 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 8.D. Larson et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.
**192**, 16 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.C.L. Bennett et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.
**192**, 17 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.N. Jarosik et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.
**192**, 14 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.G. Hinshaw et al., WMAP Collaboration. Astrophys. J. Suppl.
**208**, 19 (2013)Google Scholar - 12.P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck Collaboration. Astron. Astrophys.
**571**, A16 (2014)Google Scholar - 13.P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck Collaboration. Astron. Astrophys.
**571**, A22 (2014)Google Scholar - 14.P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck Collaboration. Astron. Astrophys.
**594**, A13 (2016)Google Scholar - 15.P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck Collaboration. Astron. Astrophys.
**594**, A20 (2016)Google Scholar - 16.A.A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett.
**30**, 682 (1979)ADSGoogle Scholar - 17.V.F. Mukhanov, G.V. Chibisov, JETP Lett.
**33**, 532 (1981)ADSGoogle Scholar - 18.S.W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B
**115**, 295 (1982)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.A. Guth, S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**49**, 1110 (1982)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B
**117**, 175 (1982)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 21.J.M. Bardeen, P.J. Steinhardt, M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D
**28**, 679 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.P.A.R. Ade et al., BICEP2 and Keck Array Collaborations. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**116**, 031302 (2016)Google Scholar - 23.F. Lucchin, S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D
**32**, 1316 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.J.D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B
**235**, 40 (1990)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.J.D. Barrow, A.R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D
**47**(12), R5219 (1993)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.J.D. Barrow, A.R. Liddle, C. Pahud, Phys. Rev. D
**74**, 127305 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.J.D. Barrow, N.J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D
**76**, 043501 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 28.R. Herrera, N. Videla, M. Olivares, Eur. Phys. J. C
**76**(1), 35 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.S. del Campo, R. Herrera, JCAP
**0904**, 005 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.S. del Campo, R. Herrera, Phys. Lett. B
**670**, 266 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 31.R. Herrera, N. Videla, M. Olivares, Eur. Phys. J. C
**75**(5), 205 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 32.C. Gonzalez, R. Herrera, Eur. Phys. J. C
**77**(9), 648 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 33.R. Herrera, E. San Martin, Eur. Phys. J. C
**71**, 1701 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 34.R. Herrera, E. San Martin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D
**22**, 1350008 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 35.R. Herrera, M. Olivares, N. Videla, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D
**23**(10), 1450080 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 36.R. Herrera, M. Olivares, N. Videla, Phys. Rev. D
**88**, 063535 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 37.R. Myrzakulov, L. Sebastiani, Astrophys. Space Sci.
**357**(1), 5 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 38.A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D
**79**, 064036 (2009)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 39.C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese, A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D
**79**, 084003 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 40.C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D.A. Steer, G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D
**84**, 064039 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 41.C. Charmousis, E.J. Copeland, A. Padilla, P.M. Saffin, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**108**, 051101 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 42.T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys.
**126**, 511 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 43.G.W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys.
**10**, 363 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 44.T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**105**, 231302 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 45.C. Burrage, C. de Rham, D. Seery, A.J. Tolley, JCAP
**1101**, 014 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 46.X. Gao, D.A. Steer, JCAP
**1112**, 019 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 47.T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D
**83**, 103524 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 48.K. Kamada, T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D
**83**, 083515 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 49.J. Ohashi, S. Tsujikawa, JCAP
**1210**, 035 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 50.S. Unnikrishnan, S. Shankaranarayanan, JCAP
**1407**, 003 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 51.S. Hirano, T. Kobayashi, S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D
**94**(10), 103515 (2016)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 52.H. Bazrafshan Moghaddam, R. Brandenberger, J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D
**95**(6), 063529 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 53.R. Herrera, JCAP
**1705**(05), 029 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 54.R. Herrera, arXiv:1805.01007 [gr-qc]
- 55.B.P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett.
**119**(16), 161101 (2017)Google Scholar - 56.B.P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo and Fermi-GBM and INTEGRAL Collaborations], Astrophys. J.
**848**(2), L13 (2017)Google Scholar - 57.T. Baker, E. Bellini, P.G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller, I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**119**(25), 251301 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 58.C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, A. Vikman, JCAP
**1010**, 026 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 59.O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, A. Vikman, JHEP
**156**, 1111 (2011)Google Scholar - 60.L. Lombriser, A. Taylor, JCAP
**1603**(03), 031 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 61.L. Lombriser, N.A. Lima, Phys. Lett. B
**765**, 382 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 62.J. Sakstein, B. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**119**(25), 251303 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 63.D. Langlois, R. Saito, D. Yamauchi, K. Noui, Phys. Rev. D
**97**(6), 061501 (2018)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 64.Z. Teimoori, K. Karami, Astrophys. J.
**864**(1), 41 (2018)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 65.J. Martin, C. Ringeval, V. Vennin, PDU
**5**, 75 (2014)ADSGoogle Scholar - 66.N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu, S. Matarrese, A. Riotto, Phys. Rep.
**402**, 103 (2004)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 67.S. Renaux-Petel, Comptes Rendus Physique
**16**, 969 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 68.A. Gangui, F. Lucchin, S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach, Astrophys. J.
**430**, 447 (1994)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 69.V. Acquaviva, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B
**667**, 119 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 70.J.M. Maldacena, JHEP
**0305**, 013 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 71.P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck Collaboration. Astron. Astrophys.
**594**, A17 (2016)Google Scholar - 72.D. Babich, P. Creminelli, M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP
**0408**, 009 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 73.D. Seery, J.E. Lidsey, JCAP
**0509**, 011 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 74.M. Sasaki, J. Valiviita, D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D
**74**, 103003 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 75.L.M. Wang, M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D
**61**, 063504 (2000)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 76.L. Verde, L.M. Wang, A. Heavens, M. Kamionkowski, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**313**, L141 (2000)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 77.X. Chen, M x Huang, S. Kachru, G. Shiu, JCAP
**0701**, 002 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 78.L. Senatore, K.M. Smith, M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP
**1001**, 028 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 79.A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, JCAP
**1303**, 030 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 80.C. Campuzano, S. del Campo, R. Herrera, Phys. Rev. D
**72**, 083515 (2005) (**Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 72, 109902 (2005)]**)Google Scholar - 81.C. Campuzano, S. del Campo, R. Herrera, Phys. Lett. B
**633**, 149 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 82.S. del Campo, R. Herrera, Phys. Rev. D
**76**, 103503 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**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 SCOAP^{3}