Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

A simple supergravity model of inflation constrained with Planck 2018 data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A one-parameter supergravity inflation model survives the 2018 CMB data.

desk verdict Releasing one slope parameter in an old supergravity inflation model makes it compatible with Planck 2018; the paper is solid model building but the single-field reduction and the data-informed prior need closer scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02019 v2 pith:EROUISTZ submitted 2019-09-04 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Gabriel Germán , Juan Carlos Hidalgo , Francisco X. Linares Cedeño , Ariadna Montiel , J. Alberto Vázquez This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th PACS 98.80.Cq04.65.+e
keywords single-fieldinflationsupergravityslow-rollapproximationspectralindextensor-to-scalarratiorunningfieldredefinitioninvarianceBayesianparameterestimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper seeks to show that a simple inflation model built from $\mathcal{N}=1$ supergravity, with only one effective parameter, remains compatible with current CMB temperature measurements. The free parameter is the slope $s$ of the potential at the origin, fixed by Bayesian estimation to $s \simeq -8.3 \times 10^{-5}$, equivalently $\phi_0=\sqrt{2}+s/8 \simeq 1.414203$. The resulting predictions are $n_s = 0.9661 \pm 0.0037$, a tensor-to-scalar ratio $r < 0.065$ at 95% confidence, and a negative running $n_{sk} = -0.0017 \pm 0.00009$. The same model with the slope set exactly to zero had been ruled out; this paper argues that a small nonzero slope revives it, and that a field transformation leaves the observables unchanged.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the field transformation $\phi\to -\phi+\phi_0$, equivalently $z\to -z+z_0$, which sends the Kähler potential to the canonical form $K=zz^*$ and the superpotential to $W=\Lambda(z-z_0)^2$. The slow-roll parameters are built from products in which odd derivatives of $V$ appear an even number of times, so translation and reflection leave $\epsilon$, $\eta$, $\xi^2$, and $\xi^3$ unchanged even though odd derivatives change sign. This invariance lets the authors work with the inflection-point presentation (Eq. 14), where the field value at horizon crossing $\phi_H$ and the e-fold number $N$ have simple analytic approximations, and then constrain the single slope parameter $s$ by Bayesian estimation.

What would settle it

A two-field numerical evolution of the full potential (Eqs. 7 and 8) that includes perturbations of $\chi$ would settle the question: if $\chi$ leaves the minimum before $N=60$, or if its perturbations add curvature or isocurvature power that moves $n_s$ by more than the quoted $0.0037$, the single-field reduction fails. A simpler observational falsification is a measured running $n_{sk}$ that excludes $-0.0017$ or a tensor ratio above $0.065$, either of which would rule out the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the single-field supergravity potential $V(\phi)=\Lambda^2 e^{\phi^2/2}(\phi-\phi_0)^2 [2+\frac{1}{8}(\phi-\phi_0)(6\phi_0+\phi(2+\phi^2-\phi\phi_0))]$, with $\phi_0=\sqrt{2}+s/8$, fits the Planck temperature data when $s$ is small and negative. At $s=0$ the origin is flat, $V'(0)=0$, and the model is disfavoured; with $s\simeq -8.3\times10^{-5}$ the flatness is slightly tilted, the slow-roll phase lasts roughly 60 e-folds, and the observables land within the measured ranges. The paper also establishes that this potential is a mirror-shifted, reparametrised version of the original potential (Eq. 9), and that the slow-roll parameters $\epsilon,\eta,\xi^2,\xi^3$ are invariant under that transformation, so both presentations give identical observables.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the imaginary field direction stays exactly at $\chi=0$ and remains stable throughout inflation, so the dynamics is truly single-field; if $\chi$ is excited or becomes tachyonic, the predicted spectra would change and the comparison with CMB data would no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the tensor-to-scalar ratio is bounded below 0.065 at 95% confidence, so it will be tested by upcoming B-mode surveys without requiring large tensors.
  • The spectral index is predicted at $n_s=0.9661\pm0.0037$, consistent with the measured value; a future measurement of the running $n_{sk}\simeq -0.0017$ would provide a sharper test.
  • The number of observable e-folds is constrained to $N=58.5\pm8.3$, so inflation is a transient episode whose total duration is roughly three times the observable minimum.
  • Because the two potential presentations are equivalent, all constraints and predictions are independent of which frame is used; only the value of the slope parameter matters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to drop the exact $\chi=0$ assumption and evolve the full two-field system; if the $\chi$ direction is only weakly stabilized, isocurvature perturbations would appear and the single-field predictions would shift.
  • The tiny required value $s\simeq -8.3\times10^{-5}$ indicates fine-tuning; scanning other superpotential forms with the same mirror-shift symmetry could show whether such small slopes are natural or generic.
  • The same Bayesian pipeline applied here could be reused on other ruled-out supergravity or inflection-point potentials; any potential with a flat origin and a small adjustable slope may be revived by the same mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies an N=1 supergravity model with a canonical Kähler potential and superpotential W=Λ z^2. Under a linear field transformation z→−z+z0, the potential is mapped to a previously considered supergravity model whose original parameter choice (φ0=√2, equivalently s=0) is ruled out by Planck data. The authors introduce a small parameter s that tilts the potential at the origin, show that the slow-roll parameters and observables are invariant under the transformation, derive approximate expressions for the field value at horizon crossing, and perform a Bayesian analysis with CosmoMC/CAMB using Planck 2015 and 2018 data, BICEP2/Keck, and BAO. They report φ0=1.414202±1.1×10^-6 (for N=60), ns=0.9661±0.0037, nsk=−0.0017±0.00009, and r<0.065 at 95% C.L., concluding that the model is a viable single-field inflation model.

Significance. The paper's core observation—that the observables are invariant under the specific field redefinition connecting Eq. (9) and Eq. (14)—is correct and useful, as it links two apparently different potentials and simplifies analytic approximations. If the single-field reduction is valid, the model is an economical SUGRA inflation model with one effective shape parameter, and it makes concrete, falsifiable predictions of a very small tensor-to-scalar ratio (r≈10^-8) and a negative running nsk≈−0.0017. The Bayesian analysis is broadly standard and uses up-to-date data. However, the significance is currently qualified by two unverified points: the stability of the transverse χ direction is only illustrated by a figure, and the role of the tensor-to-scalar ratio in the likelihood pipeline is unclear. These points need to be resolved before the Planck-compatibility claim can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eq. (7), Fig. 1] The reduction of the two-field model to the single field φ is the backbone of the analysis, but the stability of the χ direction is only asserted and shown in a figure. The manuscript should provide a quantitative check: the effective mass squared m_χ² = ∂²V/∂χ² at χ=0 (or the Hessian eigenvalue) as a function of φ along the inflationary trajectory, and the ratio m_χ²/H² during the last 60 e-folds. If this ratio is not ≫1, the isocurvature perturbations cannot be neglected and the spectra obtained from the single-field slow-roll formulas (20)–(24) are not the model's predictions. A quantitative stability analysis is required before the Planck fit can be interpreted as a test of a single-field model.
  2. [V, Table II, Eqs. (16)–(24)] The statistical implementation is unclear about which quantities are derived from the potential. Table II lists both φ0 and r02 as sampled parameters with priors, yet the model predicts r=16ϵ (Eq. (20)) as a function of φ0. If r02 is sampled independently, then the reported upper limit r<0.065 is a data-driven constraint rather than a prediction of the model, whose value is r≈8×10^-8 (Table I). The manuscript should specify how the modified CAMB code computes the primordial scalar and tensor spectra from V(φ): if it evaluates the slow-roll parameters and uses the consistency relation, r02 should not be an independent parameter; if it uses a phenomenological parameterization with free r, the analysis is not a direct test of the model. This needs to be clarified and, if necessary, the pipeline corrected.
  3. [IV–V, Eq. (25), Table II] The prior range on φ0 is not presented transparently. The analytical estimate s≈−8.3×10^-5 is obtained by requiring N=60 and the Planck central value ns=0.9649, and the Bayesian analysis then constrains φ0 in a narrow interval around the corresponding value. The table entry for φ0 (showing, e.g., '[1.414 –] [190,210] 202±1.3') mixes prior range and posterior values in a way that is not self-explanatory. The text should state the actual prior range in the same units as the posterior, acknowledge that this prior was informed by the analytical calculation in Section IV, and discuss whether the posterior is prior-dominated. Without this, the claim of compatibility with Planck data is difficult to evaluate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I and Section V] The sign of nsk is inconsistent: Table I lists nsk = 1.7×10^-3 as positive, while Section V reports nsk = −0.0017 ± 0.00009 as negative. This should be reconciled.
  2. [Section III] The invariance argument for the slow-roll parameters relies on the specific field redefinition φ→−φ+φ0, which has a constant Jacobian. The paper should state this explicitly rather than phrasing the result as a general frame independence.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'the potential an all its even-number of derivatives' in the Introduction, 'MSSN' for MSSM, 'Ec.' for Eq., and 'Joo' for João in Ref. [15]. These should be corrected.
  4. [Table II] The r02 upper limit for Dataset II with free N is shown as 0.921, which exceeds the stated prior upper bound of 0.5. This is presumably a formatting error and should be corrected.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract states that the model 'essentially depends on one effective parameter,' but the analysis also varies Λ (through As) and, in one run, N. The wording should be refined to say that one parameter controls the shape of the inflationary potential.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Bayesian 'ruling out' of phi0 = sqrt(2) is built into the narrow phi0 prior; the slow-roll predictions for r and nsk remain independent outputs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (Table I, Eqs. (25)-(30)), Section V (Table II), Section VI (conclusions)]
    "Observables obtained with the value s = −8.3×10−5, equivalently φ0 = 1.414203. This value of s is first obtained from the requirement of 60 e-folds of inflation using the central value for the spectral index ns = 0.9649 through Eqs. (29) and (30). ... φ0 [1.414 –] [190 , 210] 202 ± 1.3 202 ± 1.1 ... As shown in Fig. 4, the value φ0 = √2 is ruled out by more than three standard deviations."

    The parameter s is first fixed by demanding N=60 and ns=0.9649, Planck's central value. The MCMC prior on φ0 is then set to the offset interval [1.414+190×10^-6, 1.414+210×10^-6]; since √2 = 1.4142136 exceeds the upper edge 1.414210, the value φ0=√2 is excluded before any likelihood is evaluated. The later statement that φ0=√2 is 'ruled out by more than three standard deviations' is therefore a consequence of the prior, not of the Planck data. In addition, the posterior ns≈0.9661 partly reflects the analytic fit already built into the narrow prior. The circularity is only partial: the potential, via Eqs. (20)-(23), still independently fixes r, ntk, and nsk, which were not used to choose s.

full rationale

The core slow-roll calculation is not circular: the observables are computed from the explicit supergravity potential, and fitting the single free parameter s to Planck is normal model testing rather than a prediction from the model. The field transformation between Eq. (9) and Eq. (14) is an explicit mathematical identity, so the claimed equivalence is genuine. The one exhibited reduction-by-construction is the narrow φ0 prior: it is centered on an s value obtained from the central Planck ns and its support excludes φ0=√2, making the '√2 ruled out' statement true by prior choice. I did not count the χ-stability assertion in Section II — 'we find that the χ-direction is a stable direction of the full potential, shown in Fig. 1', later citing [7,8,10] — as a circular step, because the stability is directly checkable from Eq. (7) and the paper's own potential; however, the quantitative Hessian check is omitted, which is a correctness risk rather than a circularity. Self-citations [6] and [10] are not load-bearing for the main derivation. Overall: partial circularity from the fitted prior, but with independent content in r and the running, so score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model rests on the standard supergravity scalar potential, a canonical Kahler form truncated at second order, a specific superpotential, and slow-roll formulas to map potential derivatives to CMB observables. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free parameters are the slope s (equivalent to phi0) and the overall scale Lambda, both fit to data.

free parameters (3)
  • s (equivalently phi0) = s approximately -8.3e-5, phi0 approximately 1.414202
    Controls the slope of the potential at the origin; central parameter of the model, fit to Planck 2018 data through Bayesian analysis. The prior range is centered using the Planck value of ns.
  • Lambda (scale of superpotential/inflation) = Lambda approximately 5.5e14 GeV (Table I)
    Set by matching the scalar amplitude As via Eq. (24).
  • N (e-folds to end of inflation, when free) = 58.5 +/- 8.3 (Dataset II)
    Left free in one analysis; constrained by the data. In the main analysis it is fixed to 60.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption F-term scalar potential of N=1 supergravity, Eq. (2)
    Adopts standard supergravity construction; not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption Canonical Kahler potential K=(z-z0)(z*-z0*) truncated at second order (Eq. 5)
    Higher-order Kahler corrections are neglected; this defines the inflationary potential.
  • ad hoc to paper Superpotential W=Lambda z^2 (Eq. 6)
    Chosen to yield a simple potential; no dynamical origin given.
  • standard math Slow-roll approximation formulas for ns, r, nsk, As (Eqs. 20-24)
    Standard first-order slow-roll results used to map potential derivatives to observables.
  • domain assumption Stability of chi direction at chi=0 (Section II, Fig. 1)
    Allows single-field treatment; supported only by a figure, not analytically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A simple supergravity model of inflation constrained with Planck 2018 data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EROUISTZ

@misc{pith2026190902019,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A simple supergravity model of inflation constrained with Planck 2018 data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EROUISTZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02019}
}
abstract

We study a model of inflation based on $\mathcal{N}=1$ supergravity essentially depending on one effective parameter. Under a field transformation we show that this model turns out to be equivalent to a previously studied supergravity model known to be ruled out with the original choice of the parameter. Such parameter measures the slope of the potential at observable scales. Through a Bayesian parameter estimation, it is shown how this model is compatible with recent CMB temperature measurements by {\it Planck 2018} giving rise to a simple, viable, single field model of inflation. The tensor to scalar ratio constraint is found to be $r_{0.002}<0.065$ with negative running. We discuss how observables are invariant under the field transformation which leaves unaltered the slow-roll parameters. As a consequence the use of one presentation of the model or its field-transformed version is purely a matter of convenience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02019 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: 2D probability posterior distributions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: 2D probability posterior distributions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Approximated, analytic expressions are easier to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The scalar potential becomes V = Λ2e|z−z0|2 |z|2( −3|z|2 +|2 +|z|2−z0z∗|2)

    +··· , (5) with superpotential W (z) =f(z0)z2, (6) wheref(z0) is a constant with dimensions of mass which we simple take as Λ. The scalar potential becomes V = Λ2e|z−z0|2 |z|2( −3|z|2 +|2 +|z|2−z0z∗|2) . (7) Writingz in terms of real components z = 1√ 2(φ +iχ), (8) we find that the χ-direction is a stable direction of the full potential, shown in Fig. 1. T...

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Equivalently we can can shift the origin away from the minimum at φ = 0 and make a reflection around the new origin i.e., by making the field transfor- mation φ→−φ +φ0

    To make further analytical progress we would have to find φH perhaps through an expansion of the spectral index for φ−φ0 small. Equivalently we can can shift the origin away from the minimum at φ = 0 and make a reflection around the new origin i.e., by making the field transfor- mation φ→−φ +φ0. In terms of the original field z we have that z→−z +z0 then K(z,...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Here we use Planck-2018 data to fix the slope at the origin. The fact that a viable model (according to Planck-2018 data) does not require V′ = 0 at the origin makes us to abandon the idea that the potential (14) originates from a phase transition from a high energy symmetric potential where thermal effects keep the inflaton initially at the origin. Instead ...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Encyclopdia Inflationaris

    Jerome Martin, Christophe Ringeval, and Vincent Ven- nin. Encyclopdia Inflationaris. Phys. Dark Univ., 5-6:75– 235, 2014, astro-ph/1303.3787

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. 2018, astro-ph/1807.06209

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation. 2018, astro-ph/1807.06211

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Alan H. Guth. The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems. Phys. Rev., D23:347–356, 1981. [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cos- mol.3,139(1987)]

    work page 1987

  8. [8]

    Successful Supersymmetric Inflation

    Graham G. Ross and Subir Sarkar. Successful super- symmetric inflation. Nucl. Phys. , B461:597–624, 1996, hep-ph/9506283. 8

    work page Pith review arXiv 1996

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. Improved Constraints on Cosmol- ogy and Foregrounds from BICEP2 and Keck Array Cos- mic Microwave Background Data with Inclusion of 95 GHz Band. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 116:031302, 2016, astro- ph/1510.09217

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gabriel Germn, Alfredo Herrera-Aguilar, Juan Carlos Hi- dalgo, and Roberto A. Sussman. Canonical single field slow-roll inflation with a non-monotonic tensor-to-scalar ratio. JCAP, 1605(05):025, 2016, astro-ph/1512.03105

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ellis, Dimitri V

    John R. Ellis, Dimitri V. Nanopoulos, Keith A. Olive, and K. Tamvakis. Fluctuations in a Supersymmetric In- flationary Universe. Phys. Lett., 120B:331–334, 1983. Dimitri V. Nanopoulos, Keith A. Olive, M. Srednicki, and K. Tamvakis. Primordial Inflation in Simple Super- gravity. ...

    1983

  4. [12]

    MSSM flat di- rection inflation: Slow roll, stability, fine tunning and reheating

    Rouzbeh Allahverdi, Kari Enqvist, Juan Garcia-Bellido, Asko Jokinen, and Anupam Mazumdar. MSSM flat di- rection inflation: Slow roll, stability, fine tunning and reheating. JCAP, 0706:019, 2007, hep-ph/0610134

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cremmer, S

    E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, and Antoine Van Proeyen. Yang-Mills Theories with Local Super- symmetry: Lagrangian, Transformation Laws and Super- Higgs Effect. Nucl. Phys., B212:413, 1983. [413(1982)]

    1982

  6. [14]

    German and Axel de la Macorra

    G. German and Axel de la Macorra. A Model of inflation independent of the initial conditions, with bounded num- ber of e-folds and n(s) larger or smaller than one. Phys. Rev., D70:103521, 2004, astro-ph/0410133

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. C. Bueno Sanchez, Konstantinos Dimopoulos, and David H. Lyth. A-term inflation and the MSSM. JCAP, 0701:015, 2007, hep-ph/0608299

    2007 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Liddle, Paul Parsons, and John D

    Andrew R. Liddle, Paul Parsons, and John D. Bar- row. Formalizing the slow roll approximation in inflation. Phys. Rev., D50:7222–7232, 1994, astro-ph/9408015

    1994 arXiv

  9. [17]

    David H. Lyth. MSSM inflation. JCAP, 0704:006, 2007, hep-ph/0605283

    2007 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gauge invariant MSSM infla- ton

    Rouzbeh Allahverdi, Kari Enqvist, Juan Garcia-Bellido, and Anupam Mazumdar. Gauge invariant MSSM infla- ton. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97:191304, 2006, hep-ph/0605035

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cludio Gomes, Orfeu Bertolami, and Joo G. Rosa. In- flation with Planck data: A survey of some exotic infla- tionary models. Phys. Rev., D97(10):104061, 2018, hep- th/1803.08084

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2015 results. XX. Constraints on inflation. Astron. Astrophys., 594:A20, 2016, astro- ph/1502.02114

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lyth and Antonio Riotto

    David H. Lyth and Antonio Riotto. Particle physics mod- els of inflation and the cosmological density perturbation. Phys. Rept., 314:1–146, 1999, hep-ph/9807278. Andrew R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth. Cosmological inflation and large scale structure . 2000

    1999 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Alberto Vzquez, Luis E

    J. Alberto Vzquez, Luis E. Padilla, and Tonatiuh Matos. Inflationary Cosmology: From Theory to Observations. 2018, astro-ph/1810.09934

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2013 results. XXII. Constraints on inflation. Astron. Astrophys., 571:A22, 2014, astro- ph/1303.5082

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models

    Antony Lewis, Anthony Challinor, and Anthony Lasenby. Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models. Astrophys. J. , 538:473–476, 2000, astro- ph/9911177

    2000

  17. [25]

    Brian A. Powell. Scalar runnings and a test of slow roll from CMB distortions. 2012, astro-ph/1209.2024

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Alberto Vazquez, A

    J. Alberto Vazquez, A. N. Lasenby, M. Bridges, and M. P. Hobson. A Bayesian study of the primordial power spec- trum from a novel closed universe model. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 422:1948–1956, 2012, astro-ph/1103.4619

    1948 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Alberto Vazquez, M

    J. Alberto Vazquez, M. Bridges, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby. Model selection applied to reconstruction of the Primordial Power Spectrum. JCAP, 1206:006, 2012, astro-ph/1203.1252

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples

    Lauren Anderson et al. The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 441(1):24–62, 2014, astro-ph/1312.4877

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cosmological parame- ters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach

    Antony Lewis and Sarah Bridle. Cosmological parame- ters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach. Phys. Rev., D66:103511, 2002, astro-ph/0205436

    2002 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmo- logical parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 594:A13, 2016, astro-ph/1502.01589

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. Joint Analysis of BICEP2/KeckArray and Planck Data. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 114:101301, 2015, astro-ph/1502.00612

    2015 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Work in progress, 2019

    Gabriel German, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, and Ariadna Montiel. Work in progress, 2019

    2019

  25. [256]

    Previous works [7, 8] takes = 0 giving a model presently ruled out by the data [15]

    (26) Thuss measures the slope of the potential at the origin. Previous works [7, 8] takes = 0 giving a model presently ruled out by the data [15]. Given that there is no spe- cial reason (apart from simplicity) to fix V′(φ) = 0 at the origin. We perform a Bayesian parameter fitt...

    2018

Pith tools

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