Symmetry-breaking inflation in non-minimal metric-affine gravity

Antonio Racioppi; Ioannis D. Gialamas

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Symmetry-breaking inflation in non-minimal metric-affine gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A non-minimal Holst coupling can make symmetry-breaking inflation fit current CMB data, even with a sub-Planckian vacuum expectation value.

desk verdict A clean parameter scan showing the Holst coupling can rescue symmetry-breaking inflation, but the projective-symmetry step needs scrutiny before trusting the metric-affine framing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17738 v2 pith:IHQTYHHE submitted 2024-12-23 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

Ioannis D. Gialamas , Antonio Racioppi This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-ph MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.Cq

keywords symmetry-breakinginflationmetric-affinegravityHolstinvariantnon-minimalcouplingEinstein-CartaninflationaryobservablesStarobinskylimitsub-Planckianvev

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 tries to establish that adding a non-minimal coupling between the inflaton and the Holst invariant of metric-affine gravity can rescue symmetry-breaking inflation, a model that Planck data had largely ruled out. It shows that the coupling generates a nontrivial kinetic function that flattens the inflaton potential through an inflection point, and that with suitable parameter choices both small-field and large-field inflation produce predictions inside the latest observational contours. The result matters because it opens a previously closed parameter region: even with a sub-Planckian vacuum expectation value, the model can agree with Planck, BICEP/Keck, and BAO data when the Holst coupling is large enough.

What carries the argument

The central object is the kinetic function $$k(\phi)=1+\frac{24\tilde{\xi}^{2}\$phi^{{2}}$$M_P^{{2}}$}{$M_P^{{4}}$+4(\delta_\$beta^{{2}}$$M_P^{{2}}$+\tilde{\xi}\$phi^{{2}}$)^{2}},$$ obtained after integrating out the non-dynamical torsion of the Einstein-Cartan connection. This function has a local maximum at $\phi_{\mathrm{max},k}$, which generates an inflection-point flattening of the canonically normalized potential; in the regime $|\tilde{\xi}|\to\infty$, $v\ll M_P$, it approaches the pole form $k(\phi)\approx 6M_P^2/\phi^2$, reproducing Starobinsky-like predictions. The mechanism carries the entire argument because it converts an otherwise steep, $\eta$-problem-plagued potential into one with a sufficiently flat region for slow-roll inflation.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to include the omitted torsion and non-metricity invariants with order-one coefficients: if the inflection-point flattening of the kinetic function, and the resulting $r$–$n_s$ agreement, disappears, the central claim fails. Conversely, a CMB measurement of $r$ at the $10^{-3}$ level that lands outside the predicted band for sub-Planckian small-field inflation would rule out the scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in the Einstein-Cartan version of metric-affine gravity, a non-minimal coupling $\beta(\phi)\tilde{\cal R}$ between the inflaton and the Holst invariant changes the effective kinetic term of the inflaton while leaving the potential in the Einstein frame unchanged. This kinetic function contains a local maximum that flattens the potential, and the flattening can occur either before or after the inflaton vev depending on the sign and size of the coupling $\tilde{\xi}$. Numerically, the small-field scenario with $v=0.1M_P$ and $\delta_\beta=0$ becomes compatible with current data once $|\tilde{\xi}|\gtrsim 10^3$, a case previously regarded as unattainable; the large-field scenario with $\delta_\beta=16$ and $\tilde{\xi}<0$ is also viable. In the limit of large $|\tilde{\xi}|$ and small $v$, the predictions converge to those of Starobinsky inflation.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands on the assumption that the metric-affine action contains only the Ricci and Holst curvature scalars, ignoring the 20 additional torsion and non-metricity invariants of the same mass dimension and setting non-metricity to zero by projective symmetry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Small-field symmetry-breaking inflation with a sub-Planckian vev $v=0.1M_P$ becomes consistent with Planck, BICEP/Keck, and BAO data once $|\tilde{\xi}|$ is of order $10^3$.
Both the small-field and large-field regimes approach Starobinsky inflation as $|\tilde{\xi}|$ grows and $v$ shrinks, giving a shared observational target.
For large-field inflation, the choice $\delta_\beta=16$, $\tilde{\xi}<0$ yields viable predictions, while $\tilde{\xi}>0$ leaves the standard symmetry-breaking results essentially unchanged.
The running of the spectral index $\alpha_s$ stays within the Planck legacy bound in the viable regions, unlike the naive small-field model with $\tilde{\xi}=0$.
Future CMB experiments sensitive to $\Delta r\sim 10^{-3}$ can distinguish the non-Starobinsky parts of the parameter space from the Starobinsky limit.

Reading between the lines

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

If the omitted torsion and non-metricity invariants are present with order-one coefficients, the kinetic function and the inflection-point flattening would be modified, so the rescue of symmetry-breaking inflation may not survive in a more complete metric-affine action.
Because the projective-symmetry argument equates the model to Einstein-Cartan gravity, the effect is carried entirely by torsion; an observational or theoretical constraint distinguishing Einstein-Cartan from metric gravity would directly test this scenario.
The same kinetic-flattening mechanism could plausibly apply to other hilltop or quartic potentials in metric-affine gravity, not only the sombrero-hat potential studied here.
The paper assumes instantaneous reheating, so a detailed reheating analysis could shift the number of e-folds and therefore the preferred parameter contours.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a straightforward parameter scan, but it lands on a genuinely new slice: xi=0, beta≠0 in symmetry-breaking inflation with a Holst coupling. The paper shows that with a large enough xi-tilde, sub-Planckian vevs, which were previously ruled out in SBI, produce predictions inside the Planck+BICEP/Keck+BAO contours. That's a real result, and to my reading the derivation from action (2.1) to the kinetic function k(phi) in Eq. (3.1) is algebraically sound. The slow-roll numerics follow standard practice, the Starobinsky limit is derived cleanly, and Appendix A checks that the inflaton mass stays sub-Planckian. The paper also does a fairly complete scan: small- and large-field, delta_beta = 0 and 16, both signs of xi-tilde. Credit where due.

The soft spots are two. First, no code or data are provided, so the figures are not reproducible from the paper alone. That's fixable and not unusual for this literature, but it is a real limitation for a numerical scan. Second, and more substantive, is the projective-symmetry step. The paper sets non-metricity to zero by invoking a projective symmetry of the action. The stress-test note convinced me that this is not valid for field-dependent beta(phi). The Holst term is not invariant under projective shifts once beta varies, so the reduction to Einstein-Cartan is not 'without loss of generality.' The model actually solved is the Q=0 sector, and if non-metricity is sourced, the kinetic function in Eq. (3.1) would be modified. That doesn't necessarily break the inflationary conclusions—the Q=0 sector is a legitimate Einstein-Cartan model—but it means the metric-affine framing in the title and abstract is stronger than what is demonstrated. The paper's own caveat about omitting the 20 torsion/non-metricity invariants does not repair this, because the issue arises within the truncated action itself.

The central claim is conditionally supported. I would send this to a serious referee, but with the expectation of a major comment: justify or drop the projective-symmetry argument, discuss the Q≠0 case, and provide enough numerical detail to reproduce the plots.

For whom: inflation model builders in Einstein-Cartan/metric-affine gravity, and to a lesser extent CMB people looking for discriminable predictions. I'd bring it to reading group only if someone is working on Holst couplings; otherwise it's a competent but not foundational addition.

Recommendation: accept for peer review, with revision likely.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies symmetry-breaking inflation (SBI) with a non-minimal coupling β(ϕ) to the Holst invariant R̃ in metric-affine gravity. Starting from the Jordan-frame action (2.1) with α(ϕ)R + β(ϕ)R̃, the authors integrate out the independent connection, obtaining the Einstein-frame action (2.4) with a non-canonical kinetic function k(ϕ) given in Eq. (3.1). They then numerically evaluate the slow-roll observables r, ns, αs for small-field and large-field inflation, scanning v = 0.1, 6, 15 MP, δβ = 0, 16, and both signs of ξ̃. The central claim is that the addition of the Holst coupling can bring SBI into agreement with Planck/BICEP/Keck/BAO data in both regimes, including sub-Planckian vevs when |ξ̃| is large, and that the predictions approach Starobinsky inflation in the large-|ξ̃| limit.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides an economical way to revive a simple, well-motivated inflationary potential that is otherwise highly constrained, with falsifiable predictions for the tensor-to-scalar ratio at the level of future CMB experiments. The derivation of the closed-form kinetic function (3.1) and the analytic large-ξ̃ pole approximation (4.8) are useful and clearly presented. The main caveat is that these results rest on the treatment of non-metricity: the claimed projective-symmetry reduction to Einstein-Cartan is the load-bearing step, and it is not established for the field-dependent couplings used here. The paper also explicitly truncates the metric-affine action to the Ricci and Holst scalars, so the phenomenological conclusions are conditional on that truncation.

major comments (2)

[2 (after Eq. (2.3))] The assertion that 'non-metricity can be set to zero without loss of generality due to a projective symmetry of the action' is not supported by the action (2.1) with the field-dependent couplings α(ϕ) and β(ϕ). Under a projective shift of the connection, the Ricci scalar α(ϕ)R changes by a boundary term only if α is constant; for α(ϕ) it produces a bulk term proportional to ∂μα A^μ, and the Holst term β(ϕ)R̃ likewise transforms with bulk pieces involving ∂μβ, since R̃ is not invariant under projective shifts. Consequently the projective mode of the distortion is physical and the equations of motion will generically source non-metricity. The derivation of the kinetic function in Eq. (3.1), which assumes Q=0, therefore corresponds to the Einstein-Cartan subsector of the theory rather than the full metric-affine action (2.1). This is load-bearing: the inflection-point flattening of Section 3 and the inflationary observables of Section 4 all depend on the specific form of k(ϕ). The authors must either exhibit a genuine projective (or extended projective) symmetry that survives the field dependence, or integrate out the connection including the non-metricity sector and show that Eq. (3.1) is unaffected, or provide the corrected k(ϕ) and repeat the analysis.
[2 (paragraph beginning 'In addition to the Ricci and Holst terms')] The paper's phenomenological claims, including the sub-Planckian viability result in the Abstract and Section 4.1, are conditional on neglecting the 20 additional torsion/non-metricity invariants of mass dimension 2. While the authors explicitly state this truncation, no argument is given for why these operators should be absent or naturally small (e.g., a symmetry, or a hierarchy of Wilson coefficients). Since these operators enter the same algebraic equation for the distortion, their inclusion would generically modify the kinetic function (3.1), the location of the inflection point (3.2), and the large-|ξ̃| limit. At minimum, the revision should spell out the EFT assumption under which the truncation is controlled, and ideally estimate the sensitivity of the inflationary observables to one representative omitted operator.

minor comments (6)

[2 (after Eq. (2.7))] 'form now on we work focus on ϕ >0' should be corrected to 'from now on we focus on ϕ > 0.'
[4.1 (after Eq. (4.8))] 'From this, we van see' should be 'From this, we can see.'
[Figure 4 caption] 'Figure 4 . r vs. ns zoom out' contains an extra space before the period; also the caption does not state the color code, referring instead to Figs. 2 and 3, which may be acceptable but could be made self-contained.
[Appendix A (around Eq. (A.1))] The symbol δv is used in Eq. (A.1) but defined only afterwards (δv = v/MP); moving the definition before the equation would improve readability.
[4.1 (small field, δβ = 0)] The threshold |ξ̃| ~ 10^3 for the sub-Planckian viable region is quoted in the text but not marked on any figure; adding a benchmark point to one of the panels would help the reader locate this regime.
[General] The paper does not provide a data/code repository for the numerical scans; since the numerical analysis is central to the claims, a short appendix with the benchmark values used in Figs. 2-9 (or a link to code) would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inflationary predictions are computed from the stated action and compared with external CMB data; the only self-citation [41] is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the Einstein-frame action (2.4) with kinetic function k(φ) in Eq. (3.1) is obtained from the stated metric-affine action (2.1) by integrating out the distortion tensor, and the inflationary observables r, ns, and αs are then computed numerically and compared with external Planck, BICEP/Keck, and BAO data. The amplitude As only fixes λ, which does not enter the leading-order shape predictions in Figs. 2-9. The citation of the authors' earlier work [41] for the qualitative statement that the kinetic function induces an inflection-point flat region is not load-bearing, because the same inflection point is derived in this paper through Eq. (3.2) and discussed explicitly. The projective-symmetry elimination of non-metricity and the omission of the 20 additional dimension-2 MAG invariants are physical and EFT assumptions; they may be questionable for a field-dependent β(φ), but they are not cases where a predicted quantity reduces by construction to a fitted input. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no observable is defined in terms of the target result. Therefore the paper displays no significant circularity; the score of 1 reflects only the minor self-citation that does not carry the argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the stated model choices: the truncated MAG action, the Einstein-Cartan equivalence, standard slow-roll numerics, and the instantaneous-reheating assumption for N*. The scanned parameters (v, delta_beta, xi_tilde, lambda) are free parameters of the model; none of them is fitted to the CMB shape observables, but lambda is normalized to the scalar amplitude.

free parameters (4)

lambda = not reported explicitly; set by As = 2.1e-9 normalization
The quartic coupling of the SBI potential is chosen so that the scalar amplitude matches the observed value; it does not affect the shape predictions for r and n_s at leading order.
v = 0.1, 6, and 15 M_P (reference values)
The inflaton vacuum expectation value is scanned by hand; the sub-Planckian value 0.1 M_P is central to the headline claim.
delta_beta = 0 and 16
Two reference values of the constant part of the Holst coupling are chosen to illustrate small and large constant contributions.
xi_tilde = scanned over roughly 10^-2 to 10^4
The coefficient of the phi^2 term in beta(phi) is scanned to find regions of agreement; large values around 10^3 are needed for sub-Planckian v.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The metric-affine action is restricted to the Ricci scalar and the Holst invariant, omitting the 20 other torsion and non-metricity scalars of the same dimension.
Invoked in Section 2 after Eq. (2.3): 'we omit them, assuming that the Riemann curvature is the fundamental object.' This truncation is load-bearing for the kinetic function in Eq. (3.1).
domain assumption Non-metricity can be set to zero without loss of generality via a projective symmetry.
Section 2: 'non-metricity can be set to zero without loss of generality due to a projective symmetry of the action.' This equates the theory to Einstein-Cartan; the equivalence would fail if non-metricity invariants were included.
domain assumption The slow-roll approximation with Hubble flow functions is sufficient for the observables; the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation is not solved.
Section 4: 'we rely on numerical solutions to the equations of motion under the slow-roll approximation, bypassing the need to solve the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation.'
domain assumption Instantaneous reheating is assumed when computing the number of e-folds N*.
Section 4: 'Assuming instantaneous reheating after inflation, N* is given by [46] Eq. (4.6).' A different reheating history would shift N* and hence the predictions.
standard math The reduction from the metric-affine action to the Einstein-frame action is taken from Refs. [29,31,44].
The paper states 'After some algebra, we obtain...' and cites prior work; the reduction is not re-derived in full.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-breaking inflation in non-minimal metric-affine gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHQTYHHE

@misc{pith2026241217738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-breaking inflation in non-minimal metric-affine gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHQTYHHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17738}
}

abstract

We study symmetry-breaking inflation within the framework of metric-affine gravity. By introducing a non-minimal coupling, $\beta(\phi)\tilde{\cal R}$, between the Holst invariant and the inflaton, both small-field and large-field inflationary predictions can be brought into agreement with the latest observational constraints. Remarkably, even for sub-Planckian vacuum expectation values, appropriately chosen values of $\beta(\phi)$ enable viable inflation, a scenario previously considered unattainable.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Torsion induced current-scalaron coupling in Einstein-Cartan gravity
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In Einstein-Cartan gravity, torsion-current couplings induce scalaron-current and scalaron Chern-Simons interactions, with explicit decay constants and a classification of their asymptotic behavior.
Inflationary assessment of $F(\mathcal{R},\tilde{\mathcal{R}})$ Einstein-Cartan models
gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Adding cubic Holst-invariant terms to F(R,R̃) Einstein-Cartan inflation models systematically lowers the predicted spectral index n_s and tensor-to-scalar ratio r, restoring data compatibility in parameter regions whe...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Kazanas, Dynamics of the Universe and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking , Astrophys

D. Kazanas, Dynamics of the Universe and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking , Astrophys. J. Lett. 241 (1980) L59–L63

work page 1980
[2]

Sato, First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe , Mon

K. Sato, First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195 (1981) 467–479

work page 1981
[3]

A. H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 347–356

1981
[4]

A. D. Linde, A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems , Phys. Lett. B 108 (1982) 389–393

1982
[5]

A. A. Starobinsky, Spectrum of relict gravitational radiation and the early state of the universe , – 15 – JETP Lett. 30 (1979) 682–685

work page 1979
[6]

V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, Quantum Fluctuations and a Nonsingular Universe , JETP Lett. 33 (1981) 532–535

work page 1981
[7]

S. W. Hawking, The Development of Irregularities in a Single Bubble Inflationary Universe , Phys. Lett. B 115 (1982) 295

work page 1982
[8]

A. A. Starobinsky, Dynamics of Phase Transition in the New Inflationary Universe Scenario and Generation of Perturbations , Phys. Lett. B 117 (1982) 175–178

1982

Show all 51 references

[9]

A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi, Fluctuations in the New Inflationary Universe , Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1110–1113

1982
[10]

J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Spontaneous Creation of Almost Scale - Free Density Perturbations in an Inflationary Universe , Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 679

1983
[11]

Akrami et al., Planck 2018 results

Planck Collaboration, Y. Akrami et al., Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A10, [ arXiv:1807.06211]

2020 arXiv
[12]

Albrecht and R

A. Albrecht and R. H. Brandenberger, On the Realization of New Inflation , Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 1225

1985
[13]

I. G. Moss, Primordial Inflation With Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking , Phys. Lett. B 154 (1985) 120–124

1985
[14]

Boubekeur and D

L. Boubekeur and D. H. Lyth, Hilltop inflation , JCAP 07 (2005) 010, [ hep-ph/0502047]

2005 arXiv
[15]

H. G. Lillepalu and A. Racioppi, Generalized hilltop inflation , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138 (2023), no. 10 894, [ arXiv:2211.02426]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Dine and A

M. Dine and A. Riotto, An Inflaton candidate in gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking , Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 2632–2635, [ hep-ph/9705386]

1997 arXiv
[17]

Riotto, Inflation and the nature of supersymmetry breaking , Nucl

A. Riotto, Inflation and the nature of supersymmetry breaking , Nucl. Phys. B 515 (1998) 413–435, [hep-ph/9707330]

1998 arXiv
[18]

F. S. Accetta, D. J. Zoller, and M. S. Turner, Induced Gravity Inflation, Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 3046

1985
[19]

Belfiglio, Y

A. Belfiglio, Y. Carloni, and O. Luongo, Particle production from non-minimal coupling in a symmetry breaking potential transporting vacuum energy , Phys. Dark Univ. 44 (2024) 101458, [arXiv:2307.04739]

2024 arXiv
[20]

Hojman, C

R. Hojman, C. Mukku, and W. A. Sayed, PARITY VIOLATION IN METRIC TORSION THEORIES OF GRA VITATION, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 1915–1921

1980
[21]

P. C. Nelson, Gravity With Propagating Pseudoscalar Torsion , Phys. Lett. A 79 (1980) 285

1980
[22]

Holst, Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert-Palatini action , Phys

S. Holst, Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert-Palatini action , Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 5966–5969, [ gr-qc/9511026]

1996 arXiv
[23]

Beltr´ an Jim´ enez and F

J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez and F. J. Maldonado Torralba,Revisiting the stability of quadratic Poincar´ e gauge gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020), no. 7 611, [ arXiv:1910.07506]

2020 arXiv
[24]

Langvik, J.-M

M. Langvik, J.-M. Ojanper¨ a, S. Raatikainen, and S. Rasanen, Higgs inflation with the Holst and the Nieh–Yan term , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), no. 8 083514, [ arXiv:2007.12595]

2021 arXiv
[25]

Shaposhnikov, A

M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, I. Timiryasov, and S. Zell, Einstein-Cartan Portal to Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021), no. 16 161301, [ arXiv:2008.11686]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 127, 169901 (2021)]

2021 arXiv
[26]

Shaposhnikov, A

M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, I. Timiryasov, and S. Zell, Higgs inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity, JCAP 02 (2021) 008, [ arXiv:2007.14978]. [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2021)]. – 16 –

2021 arXiv
[27]

Iosifidis and L

D. Iosifidis and L. Ravera, Parity Violating Metric-Affine Gravity Theories , Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021), no. 11 115003, [ arXiv:2009.03328]

2021 arXiv
[28]

Piani and J

M. Piani and J. Rubio, Higgs-Dilaton inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity , JCAP 05 (2022), no. 05 009, [ arXiv:2202.04665]

2022 arXiv
[29]

Pradisi and A

G. Pradisi and A. Salvio, (In)equivalence of metric-affine and metric effective field theories , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022), no. 9 840, [ arXiv:2206.15041]

2022 arXiv
[30]

Salvio, Inflating and reheating the Universe with an independent affine connection , Phys

A. Salvio, Inflating and reheating the Universe with an independent affine connection , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 10 103510, [ arXiv:2207.08830]

2022 arXiv
[31]

I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, Inflation in metric-affine quadratic gravity , JCAP 03 (2023) 042, [arXiv:2212.09896]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Di Marco, E

A. Di Marco, E. Orazi, and G. Pradisi, Einstein–Cartan pseudoscalaron inflation, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 2 146, [ arXiv:2309.11345]

2024 arXiv
[33]

M. He, M. Hong, and K. Mukaida, Starobinsky inflation and beyond in Einstein-Cartan gravity , JCAP 05 (2024) 107, [ arXiv:2402.05358]

2024 arXiv
[34]

Barker and S

W. Barker and S. Zell, Consistent particle physics in metric-affine gravity from extended projective symmetry, arXiv:2402.14917

arXiv
[35]

I. D. Gialamas, T. Katsoulas, and K. Tamvakis, Inflation and reheating in quadratic metric-affine gravity with derivative couplings , JCAP 06 (2024) 005, [ arXiv:2403.08530]

2024 arXiv
[36]

Racioppi and A

A. Racioppi and A. Salvio, Natural metric-affine inflation , JCAP 06 (2024) 033, [arXiv:2403.18004]

2024 arXiv
[37]

G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Zell, Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity: unifying the strong CP and hierarchy puzzles , JHEP 11 (2024) 146, [ arXiv:2406.11956]

2024 arXiv
[38]

Inagaki and N

T. Inagaki and N. Yoshioka, Nonthermal particle production in Einstein-Cartan gravity with modified Holst term and nonminimal couplings , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 10 103537, [arXiv:2406.14982]

2024 arXiv
[39]

Capozziello and M

S. Capozziello and M. Shokri, Comparing inflationary models in extended Metric-Affine theories of gravity , Phys. Dark Univ. 46 (2024) 101698, [ arXiv:2408.17415]

2024 arXiv
[40]

I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, Inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025), no. 4 044007, [ arXiv:2410.16364]

2025 arXiv
[41]

Racioppi, ˜ξ-attractors in metric-affine gravity , arXiv:2411.08031

A. Racioppi, ˜ξ-attractors in metric-affine gravity , arXiv:2411.08031

arXiv
[42]

Iosifidis, The full quadratic metric-affine gravity (including parity odd terms): exact solutions for the affine-connection , Class

D. Iosifidis, The full quadratic metric-affine gravity (including parity odd terms): exact solutions for the affine-connection , Class. Quant. Grav. 39 (2022), no. 9 095002, [ arXiv:2112.09154]

2022 arXiv
[43]

Rigouzzo and S

C. Rigouzzo and S. Zell, Coupling metric-affine gravity to a Higgs-like scalar field , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 2 024015, [ arXiv:2204.03003]

2022 arXiv
[44]

I. D. Gialamas and H. Veerm¨ ae,Electroweak vacuum decay in metric-affine gravity , Phys. Lett. B 844 (2023) 138109, [ arXiv:2305.07693]

2023 arXiv
[45]

BICEP , KeckCollaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021), no. 15 151301, [ arXiv:2110.00483]

2021
[46]

A. R. Liddle and S. M. Leach, How long before the end of inflation were observable perturbations produced?, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 103503, [ astro-ph/0305263]

2003 arXiv
[47]

Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, [ arXiv:1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]. – 17 –

2020 arXiv
[48]

A. A. Starobinsky, A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity , Phys. Lett. 91B (1980) 99–102

1980
[49]

Ade et al., The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts, JCAP 02 (2019) 056, [ arXiv:1808.07445]

Simons Observatory Collaboration, P. Ade et al., The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts, JCAP 02 (2019) 056, [ arXiv:1808.07445]

2019 arXiv
[50]

Abazajian et al., CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan , arXiv:1907.04473

K. Abazajian et al., CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan , arXiv:1907.04473

1907 arXiv
[51]

Hazumi et al., LiteBIRD: JAXA’s new strategic L-class mission for all-sky surveys of cosmic microwave background polarization , Proc

LiteBIRD Collaboration, M. Hazumi et al., LiteBIRD: JAXA’s new strategic L-class mission for all-sky surveys of cosmic microwave background polarization , Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 11443 (2020) 114432F, [ arXiv:2101.12449]. – 18 –

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Kazanas, Dynamics of the Universe and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking , Astrophys

D. Kazanas, Dynamics of the Universe and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking , Astrophys. J. Lett. 241 (1980) L59–L63

work page 1980

[2] [2]

Sato, First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe , Mon

K. Sato, First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195 (1981) 467–479

work page 1981

[3] [3]

A. H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 347–356

1981

[4] [4]

A. D. Linde, A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems , Phys. Lett. B 108 (1982) 389–393

1982

[5] [5]

A. A. Starobinsky, Spectrum of relict gravitational radiation and the early state of the universe , – 15 – JETP Lett. 30 (1979) 682–685

work page 1979

[6] [6]

V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, Quantum Fluctuations and a Nonsingular Universe , JETP Lett. 33 (1981) 532–535

work page 1981

[7] [7]

S. W. Hawking, The Development of Irregularities in a Single Bubble Inflationary Universe , Phys. Lett. B 115 (1982) 295

work page 1982

[8] [8]

A. A. Starobinsky, Dynamics of Phase Transition in the New Inflationary Universe Scenario and Generation of Perturbations , Phys. Lett. B 117 (1982) 175–178

1982