Cross-Modal Prototype Augmentation and Dual-Grained Prompt Learning for Social Media Popularity Prediction

Ao Zhou; Luping Wang; Mingsheng Tu; Qing Gu; Tenghao Sun; Yafeng Yin; Zhiwei Jiang; Zifeng Cheng

Cross-Modal Prototype Augmentation and Dual-Grained Prompt Learning for Social Media Popularity Prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The abstract announces a multimodal framework for social-media popularity prediction with state-of-the-art benchmark results, but the attached full text is an unrelated cosmology paper on reheating in Mexican-Hat-type potentials.

desk verdict The manuscript is unviewable as submitted: the full text is an unrelated cosmology paper, so the abstract's SOTA claim has no supporting method or data to check. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16147 v1 pith:IOXHJFOD submitted 2025-08-22 cs.IR

Ao Zhou , Mingsheng Tu , Luping Wang , Tenghao Sun , Zifeng Cheng , Yafeng Yin , Zhiwei Jiang , Qing Gu This is my paper

classification cs.IR

keywords socialmediapopularitypredictionmultimodallearningcontrastiveprompthierarchicalprototypescross-modalattentionpaper-textmismatchreheatingcosmology

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 indexed paper claims a feature-enhanced framework for social-media popularity prediction: hierarchical prototypes for structural enhancement, contrastive learning for image-text alignment, dual-grained prompt learning, and cross-modal attention, with state-of-the-art results on benchmark metrics. That claim would matter because popularity prediction is genuinely multimodal—posts interleave images, text, and metadata—and better image-text alignment is a real bottleneck. The supplied full text, however, is a different manuscript: a cosmology study of reheating in Mexican-Hat-type potentials, with no shared content, tables, or authors. A fair reader therefore cannot extract the method's mechanism or check its evidence from this document; the only statement the submission itself supports is the mismatch. The load-bearing premise—that the abstract and the body describe the same work—fails here.

What carries the argument

The abstract's named machinery has four components: hierarchical prototypes (cluster-level embeddings acting as structural anchors), contrastive learning (a training objective that pulls matched image-text pairs together), dual-grained prompt learning (prompts at coarse and fine granularity), and cross-modal attention (inter-modal token interaction). The full text's machinery is the reheating formalism of the paper's references [23-25], connecting reheating temperature, e-fold count, and the post-inflationary equation-of-state parameter to the scalar spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio, applied to the double-well and holographic Mexican-Hat potentials. No single mechanism carries the s

What would settle it

Compare the abstract's title and claims with the full text's title and content: searching the supplied text for 'prototype,' 'prompt,' 'popularity,' or 'benchmark' finds none, while the text's tables list e-fold counts and inflationary observables. That settles the document mismatch directly. For a repaired version, the decisive experiment would be a controlled ablation that removes the contrastive and dual-grained prompt components on the standard social-media popularity datasets, checking whether the reported gains survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The abstract's claim is to establish that one framework can improve multimodal social-media popularity prediction by clustering posts into hierarchical prototypes, aligning visual and textual representations with contrastive learning, and applying dual-grained prompts plus cross-modal attention. It further claims state-of-the-art benchmark performance and 'new reference standards.' The supplied full text, by contrast, is 'Reheating study of Mexican-Hat-type Potentials,' whose own finding is that reheating in the double-well Mexican-Hat potential can satisfy Planck18+BK18+BAO constraints, while the holographic spacetime-foam variant cannot because its scalar spectral index is intrinsically in

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the document under review is the paper the abstract describes; the supplied full text is an unrelated cosmology paper, so if that premise fails, the abstract's claims have no supporting derivation or evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the abstract's framework works as described, multimodal popularity prediction would get a single model that aligns images and text with contrastive learning and conditions predictions on prompts at two granularities.
Hierarchical prototypes would make the model's predictions interpretable at the level of content categories, not just individual posts.
Reproducible state-of-the-art results would give later work a stronger reference point for multimodal social-media analysis.
None of these consequences follows from the supplied text, which contains no mechanism, datasets, baselines, or experiments for this task.

Reading between the lines

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

The mismatch is most plausibly a submission or indexing error: the abstract is an information-retrieval/multimodal paper and the full text is a cosmology paper. Readers should treat the headline claim as unverified by this document.
If the mismatch is repaired, the decisive test will be whether the framework beats strong unimodal and multimodal baselines on held-out test splits, not merely whether it is conceptually novel.
For the cosmology text actually supplied, the paper's own contrast implies that repairing the holographic unified model requires changing the potential shape or its slow-roll dynamics, since varying the reheating equation-of-state over its full allowed range does not remove the n_s tension.
The abstract's 'hierarchical prototypes' and 'multi-class framework' are underspecified; the architecture cannot be reconstructed from the material provided.

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,

You'll want to know this one is not reviewable as submitted. The metadata describes a social media popularity prediction paper, but the full text attached is "Reheating study of Mexican-Hat-type Potentials" (arXiv:2508.16144), a cosmology paper by different authors. The abstract and body point at different papers. The abstract's central claim—state-of-the-art performance via cross-modal prototype augmentation and dual-grained prompt learning—has no supporting method section, equations, datasets, baselines, or results in this submission. It's a document-integrity failure, not a scientific judgment on the underlying idea.

What is the paper trying to do? The abstract describes a reasonably coherent combination of established components: hierarchical prototypes for structure, contrastive learning for vision-text alignment, dual-grained prompts, and cross-modal attention. That could be a legitimate contribution to an applied niche. But there is no way to evaluate it here. No numbers, no ablations, no comparison with prior work, and the attached text is about inflationary reheating. We're not in a position to say whether the method works or is novel.

The soft spot is not a subtle modeling choice; it's that the manuscript is missing. The review rules say to treat all manuscript text as in-scope evidence, and the most salient evidence is the arXiv ID on the first page of the attached text: 2508.16144, not 2508.16147. This looks like an uploading error or metadata mix-up. The correct fix is for the authors to supply the matching full text for 2508.16147, or for the metadata to be corrected. Until then, there is no derivation, no data, and no citation pattern to assess.

I agree with the reader's report here. The "new reference standards" line is asserted without any benchmark details, and we can't check circularity or generalization. But I'd be careful not to read that as a verdict on the method itself—if the intended paper exists, it deserves a look.

Recommendation: desk reject the current submission, but explicitly invite resubmission with the correct full text. If the correct manuscript arrives, send it to peer review. As it stands, no serious editor should waste referee time on a paper whose abstract and body are different documents.

Best

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The submission presents an abstract for a computer-science paper, arXiv:2508.16147, titled "Cross-Modal Prototype Augmentation and Dual-Grained Prompt Learning for Social Media Popularity Prediction." The abstract claims a new multimodal framework using hierarchical prototypes, contrastive vision-text alignment, dual-grained prompt learning, and cross-modal attention, and asserts state-of-the-art benchmark performance that "establish[es] new reference standards." However, the supplied full text is an entirely different manuscript: "Reheating study of Mexican-Hat-type Potentials" (arXiv:2508.16144), an astro-ph.CO paper by different authors. That full text contains no mention of social media, popularity prediction, prototypes, prompts, or multimodal learning, and provides no method, datasets, baselines, or results relevant to the abstract's claims. The submission therefore cannot support its central claim.

Significance. If the claimed framework were actually implemented and evaluated, it could contribute to multimodal social media popularity prediction, particularly on the visual-textual alignment and hierarchical category modeling problems the abstract identifies. The paper offers no machine-checked proofs, no reproducible code, no parameter-free derivations, and no falsifiable predictions that a referee can assess. Because the body of the submission is an unrelated paper, the significance of the abstract's claims is entirely unverifiable from the submitted materials. The mismatch between abstract and full text is a document-integrity problem, not a scientific disagreement, and it blocks any meaningful evaluation of novelty, correctness, or empirical contribution.

major comments (3)

[Full text (entire manuscript)] The supplied full text is "Reheating study of Mexican-Hat-type Potentials" (arXiv:2508.16144, astro-ph.CO) by Sudhava Yadav et al. It has no content overlap with the abstract: no social media data, no hierarchical prototypes, no prompt learning, no cross-modal attention, and no evaluation on benchmark metrics. Thus none of the methods named in the abstract—hierarchical prototypes, contrastive learning, dual-grained prompt learning, cross-modal attention—are defined, derived, or tested anywhere in the submission. The central claim of a novel framework is unsupported.
[Abstract, final sentence] The abstract states that "Experimental results demonstrate state-of-the-art performance on benchmark metrics, establishing new reference standards for multimodal social media analysis." No experimental results are present: there are no tables, no datasets, no baselines, no metrics, and no ablations. This is not a minor omission; it is the sole load-bearing evidence for the empirical superiority claim. The claim cannot be checked in any way from the submitted document.
[Abstract, first two sentences] Even the problem statement is not connected to the full text. The abstract says current approaches "suffer from inadequate visual-textual alignment" and "fail to capture the inherent cross-content correlations and hierarchical patterns," but the attached manuscript discusses reheating temperatures and inflationary observables. A referee cannot assess whether the proposed method addresses these gaps because the proposed method is never described beyond the abstract's terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; supplied full text is an unrelated cosmology paper, so the abstract's SOTA claim is unsupported rather than circular.

full rationale

The supplied full text is arXiv:2508.16144, 'Reheating study of Mexican-Hat-type Potentials' by Yadav, Yadav, and Venkataratnam, not the cross-modal popularity-prediction paper described in the abstract (arXiv:2508.16147). The abstract's assertion of 'state-of-the-art performance on benchmark metrics' therefore has no corresponding methods, datasets, baselines, or experimental results in the body. This is a document-integrity or missing-support problem, not a circular derivation. Walking the derivation that is actually present: Section 2 adopts the standard reheating parameterization from Refs. [18] and [23-25]; Eqs. (7)-(8) express T_re and N_re in terms of inflationary quantities, and the text then evaluates these for the double-well and holographic Mexican-Hat potentials, comparing the resulting n_s and r against Planck18+BK18+BAO. No step defines a predicted quantity as an input, fits a parameter and renames it as a prediction, or imports a uniqueness conclusion solely from the authors' prior work. The self-citations [23,25] are applications of the same standard formalism and are not load-bearing; the external Planck data and the standard reheating relations carry the derivation. Accordingly, no circularity is present under the stated definitions. The abstract/body mismatch should be flagged as a serious correctness and integrity concern, but it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The abstract alone exposes no free parameters or external benchmarks. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the predictability of popularity from content and about the validity of unnamed benchmarks, plus two internal model constructs whose design and effect are not described because the body text is a different paper. Once the real manuscript is available, the ledger should be repopulated with the model's hyperparameters, dataset splits, and any post-hoc selection rules.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption Social media popularity can be predicted from the posted content (images, text, and metadata) with practically useful accuracy.
This premise grounds the entire task framing in the abstract, which states the task requires integrating images, text, and structured information. No evidence in the submission establishes that content alone is predictive of popularity.
domain assumption The benchmark datasets used (unnamed in the abstract) provide popularity labels that generalize beyond the benchmark environment.
The abstract claims 'state-of-the-art performance on benchmark metrics' but names no datasets, so the validity and representativeness of the evaluation labels are assumed without evidence.

invented entities (2)

Hierarchical prototypes for structural enhancement
purpose: The abstract says these are introduced 'for structural enhancement' of a multi-class framework for popularity prediction.
The prototypes are internal model constructs with no falsifiable handle outside the paper; no definition, update rule, or evaluation is present.
Dual-grained prompt learning module
purpose: The abstract says it achieves 'precise multimodal representation through fine-grained category modeling'.
The prompt learning module is an internal architectural component without external evidence; no mechanism or experimental support is included in the submission.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-Modal Prototype Augmentation and Dual-Grained Prompt Learning for Social Media Popularity Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOXHJFOD

@misc{pith2026250816147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-Modal Prototype Augmentation and Dual-Grained Prompt Learning for Social Media Popularity Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOXHJFOD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16147}
}

read the original abstract

Social Media Popularity Prediction is a complex multimodal task that requires effective integration of images, text, and structured information. However, current approaches suffer from inadequate visual-textual alignment and fail to capture the inherent cross-content correlations and hierarchical patterns in social media data. To overcome these limitations, we establish a multi-class framework , introducing hierarchical prototypes for structural enhancement and contrastive learning for improved vision-text alignment. Furthermore, we propose a feature-enhanced framework integrating dual-grained prompt learning and cross-modal attention mechanisms, achieving precise multimodal representation through fine-grained category modeling. Experimental results demonstrate state-of-the-art performance on benchmark metrics, establishing new reference standards for multimodal social media analysis.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems,

A. H. Guth, “Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems,” �� , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 347–356, Jan. 1981. ��: ��

work page 1981
[2]

A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,

A. Starobinsky, “A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,” en, �� , vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 99–102, Mar. 1980, ��: 03702693. ��: ��

work page 1980
[3]

A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogene- ity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems,

A. Linde, “A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogene- ity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems,” en, �� , vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 389–393, Feb. 1982, ��: 03702693. ��: ��

work page 1982
[4]

Chaotic inflation,

A. Linde, “Chaotic inflation,” en, �� , vol. 129, no. 3-4, pp. 177–181, Sep. 1983, ��: 03702693. ��: ��

work page 1983
[5]

Inflation and the Theory of Cosmological Perturbations,

A. Riotto, “Inflation and the Theory of Cosmological Perturbations,” 2002. ��: ��

work page 2002
[6]

Quantum fluctuations and a nonsingular universe,

V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, “Quantum fluctuations and a nonsingular universe,” �� , vol. 33, pp. 549–553, May 1981, ADS Bibcode: 1981ZhPmR..33..549M

work page 1981
[7]

Dynamics of phase transition in the new inflationary universe scenario and generation of perturbations,

A. Starobinsky, “Dynamics of phase transition in the new inflationary universe scenario and generation of perturbations,” en, �� , vol. 117, no. 3-4, pp. 175–178, Nov. 1982, ��: 03702693. ��: ��

work page 1982
[8]

Quantum mechanics of the scalar field in the new inflationary universe,

A. H. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, “Quantum mechanics of the scalar field in the new inflationary universe,” en, �� , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1899–1920, Oct. 1985, ��: 0556-2821. ��: ��

work page 1920

Show all 43 references

[9]

Coherent scalar-field oscillations in an expanding universe,

M. S. Turner, “Coherent scalar-field oscillations in an expanding universe,” en, �� , vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1243–1247, Sep. 1983, ��: 0556-2821. ��: ��

1983
[10]

Particle production during out-of-equilibrium phase tran- sitions,

J. H. Traschen and R. H. Brandenberger, “Particle production during out-of-equilibrium phase tran- sitions,” en, �� , vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 2491–2504, Oct. 1990, ��: 0556-2821. ��: ��

1990
[11]

Reheating an Inflationary Universe,

A. Albrecht, P. J. Steinhardt, M. S. Turner, and F. Wilczek, “Reheating an Inflationary Universe,” en, �� , vol. 48, no. 20, pp. 1437–1440, May 1982, ��: 0031-9007. ��: �� . 9

1982
[12]

Reheating after Inflation,

L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Reheating after Inflation,” en, �� , vol. 73, no. 24, pp. 3195–3198, Dec. 1994, ��: 0031-9007. ��: ��

1994
[13]

Towards the theory of reheating after inflation,

L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Towards the theory of reheating after inflation,” en, �� , vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 3258–3295, Sep. 1997, ��: 0556-2821, 1089-4918. ��: ��

1997
[14]

The kinematics of cosmic reheating,

M. Drewes and J. U. Kang, “The kinematics of cosmic reheating,” en, �� , vol. 875, no. 2, pp. 315–350, Oct. 2013, ��: 05503213. ��: ��

2013
[15]

Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applications,

R. Allahverdi, R. Brandenberger, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and A. Mazumdar, “Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applications,” en, �� , vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 27–51, Nov. 2010,��: 0163-8998, 1545-4134. ��: ��...

2010
[16]

Observing Inflationary Reheating,

J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, “Observing Inflationary Reheating,” en, �� , vol. 114, no. 8, p. 081 303, Feb. 2015, ��: 0031-9007, 1079-7114. ��: ��

2015
[17]

First CMB constraints on the inflationary reheating temperature,

J. Martin and C. Ringeval, “First CMB constraints on the inflationary reheating temperature,” en, �� , vol. 82, no. 2, p. 023 511, Jul. 2010, ��: 1550-7998, 1550-2368. ��: ��

2010
[18]

Reheating Constraints to Inflationary Models,

L. Dai, M. Kamionkowski, and J. Wang, “Reheating Constraints to Inflationary Models,” en, �� , vol. 113, no. 4, p. 041 302, Jul. 2014, ��: 0031-9007, 1079-7114. ��: ��

2014
[19]

Inflation after WMAP3: Confronting the slow-roll and exact power spectra with CMB data,

J. Martin and C. Ringeval, “Inflation after WMAP3: Confronting the slow-roll and exact power spectra with CMB data,” �� , vol. 2006, no. 08, pp. 009–009, Aug. 2006, ��: 1475-7516. ��: ��

2006
[20]

Inflation and the scale dependent spectral index: Prospects and strategies,

P. Adshead, R. Easther, J. Pritchard, and A. Loeb, “Inflation and the scale dependent spectral index: Prospects and strategies,” �� , vol. 2011, no. 02, pp. 021– 021, Feb. 2011, ��: 1475-7516. ��: ��

2011
[21]

Reheating temperature from the CMB,

J. Mielczarek, “Reheating temperature from the CMB,” en, �� , vol. 83, no. 2, p. 023 502, Jan. 2011, ��: 1550-7998, 1550-2368. ��: ��

2011
[22]

Reheating predictions in single field inflation,

J. L. Cook, E. Dimastrogiovanni, D. A. Easson, and L. M. Krauss, “Reheating predictions in single field inflation,” �� , vol. 2015, no. 04, pp. 047–047, Apr. 2015, ��: 1475-7516. ��: ��

2015
[23]

Reheating constraints on modified quadratic chaotic inflation,

S. Yadav, R. Goswami, K. Venkataratnam, and U. A. Yajnik, “Reheating constraints on modified quadratic chaotic inflation,” �� , vol. 139, no. 2, p. 185, 2024

2024
[24]

Reconciling low multipole anomalies and reheating in single field inflationary models,

R. Goswami and U. A. Yajnik, “Reconciling low multipole anomalies and reheating in single field inflationary models,” �� , vol. 2018, no. 10, pp. 018–018, Oct. 2018, ��: 1475-7516. ��: ��

2018
[25]

Reheating constraints on mutated hilltop infla- tion,

S. Yadav, D. Gangal, and K. K. Venkataratnam, “Reheating constraints on mutated hilltop infla- tion,” �� , vol. 33, no. 11, p. 2 450 040, 2024. ��: ��

2024
[26]

Martin, C

J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, �� , arXiv:1303.3787 [astro-ph, physics:gr- qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th], Sep. 2013. ��: ��

2013 arXiv
[27]

Field theories with “superconductor

J. Goldstone, “Field theories with “superconductor” solutions,” �� , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 154–164, 1961. ��: ��

1961
[28]

Wkb approximation for inflationary cosmological perturbations,

J. Martin and D. J. Schwarz, “Wkb approximation for inflationary cosmological perturbations,” �� , vol. 67, no. 8, p. 083 512, 2003. ��: ��

2003
[29]

Mcmc analysis of wmap3 and sdss data points to broken symmetry inflaton potentials,

C. Destri, H. J. de Vega, and N. G. S´ anchez, “Mcmc analysis of wmap3 and sdss data points to broken symmetry inflaton potentials,” �� , vol. 77, p. 043 509, 2008. ��: �� . 10

2008
[30]

Inflationary predictions of double-well, coleman-weinberg, and hilltop potentials with non-minimal coupling,

N. Bostan, ¨O. G¨ ulery¨ uz, and V. N. S ¸eno˘ guz, “Inflationary predictions of double-well, coleman-weinberg, and hilltop potentials with non-minimal coupling,” �� , no. 10, p. 029, 2018. ��: ��

2018
[31]

Peter, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/9503408, Mar

P. Peter, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/9503408, Mar. 1995

1995 arXiv
[32]

Linde and D

A. Linde and D. Linde, �� , arXiv:hep-th/9402115, Feb. 1994

1994 arXiv
[33]

Ringeval, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/0007015, Dec

C. Ringeval, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/0007015, Dec. 2000

2000 arXiv
[34]

Superconducting strings,

E. Witten, “Superconducting strings,” �� , vol. 249, no. 4, pp. 557–592, 1985. ��: ��

1985
[35]

Peter, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/9312280, Dec

P. Peter, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/9312280, Dec. 1993

1993 arXiv
[36]

Carter and P

B. Carter and P. Peter, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/9411425, Nov. 1994

1994 arXiv
[37]

Peter and C

P. Peter and C. Ringeval, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/0011308, Nov. 2000

2000 arXiv
[38]

Ringeval, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/0106179, Nov

C. Ringeval, �� , arXiv:hep-ph/0106179, Nov. 2001

2001 arXiv
[39]

Vilenkin, �� , arXiv:hep-th/9402085, Feb

A. Vilenkin, �� , arXiv:hep-th/9402085, Feb. 1994

1994 arXiv
[40]

A unified model of inflation and dark energy based on the holographic spacetime foam,

D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar, “A unified model of inflation and dark energy based on the holographic spacetime foam,” �� , vol. 40, p. 101 229, 2023

2023
[41]

�� 2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters,

N. Aghanim �� , “�� 2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters,” �� , vol. 641, A6, Sep. 2020, ��: 0004-6361, 1432-0746. ��: ��

2018
[42]

�� 2018 results: X. Constraints on inflation,

Y. Akrami �� , “ �� 2018 results: X. Constraints on inflation,” �� , vol. 641, A10, Sep. 2020, ��: 0004-6361, 1432-0746. ��: ��

2018
[43]

Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using bicep and planck data,

M. Tristram �� , “Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using bicep and planck data,”�� , vol. 105, no. 8, p. 083 524, 2022. 11

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems,

A. H. Guth, “Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems,” �� , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 347–356, Jan. 1981. ��: ��

work page 1981

[2] [2]

A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,

A. Starobinsky, “A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,” en, �� , vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 99–102, Mar. 1980, ��: 03702693. ��: ��

work page 1980

[3] [3]

A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogene- ity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems,

A. Linde, “A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogene- ity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems,” en, �� , vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 389–393, Feb. 1982, ��: 03702693. ��: ��

work page 1982

[4] [4]

Chaotic inflation,

A. Linde, “Chaotic inflation,” en, �� , vol. 129, no. 3-4, pp. 177–181, Sep. 1983, ��: 03702693. ��: ��

work page 1983

[5] [5]

Inflation and the Theory of Cosmological Perturbations,

A. Riotto, “Inflation and the Theory of Cosmological Perturbations,” 2002. ��: ��

work page 2002

[6] [6]

Quantum fluctuations and a nonsingular universe,

V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, “Quantum fluctuations and a nonsingular universe,” �� , vol. 33, pp. 549–553, May 1981, ADS Bibcode: 1981ZhPmR..33..549M

work page 1981

[7] [7]

Dynamics of phase transition in the new inflationary universe scenario and generation of perturbations,

A. Starobinsky, “Dynamics of phase transition in the new inflationary universe scenario and generation of perturbations,” en, �� , vol. 117, no. 3-4, pp. 175–178, Nov. 1982, ��: 03702693. ��: ��

work page 1982

[8] [8]

Quantum mechanics of the scalar field in the new inflationary universe,

A. H. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, “Quantum mechanics of the scalar field in the new inflationary universe,” en, �� , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1899–1920, Oct. 1985, ��: 0556-2821. ��: ��

work page 1920