Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Genesis--Starobinsky inflation can explain the ACT data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Genesis phase before inflation shifts Starobinsky's predictions into the ACT-preferred region of the n_s-r plane.

desk verdict A well-built Genesis-to-Starobinsky construction with a genuine non-polynomial f(R) correction, but the 'robustly enhance n_s' claim rests on one hand-picked transition and a parameter scan, so the ACT agreement is a fit, not a prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04832 v1 pith:DWMDC4YM submitted 2025-09-05 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Han Gil Choi , Pavel Petrov , Seong Chan Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th PACS 98.80.Cq04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords GenesiscosmologyStarobinskyinflationHorndeskigravityscalarspectralindexAtacamaTelescopenon-singularf(R)corrections
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

Starobinsky inflation is in tension with the latest ACT-era CMB data: it predicts a scalar spectral index $n_s\simeq0.965$, while the combination of ACT, Planck, lensing, BAO, and BICEP/Keck data favours $n_s\simeq0.975\pm0.003$, disfavouring the vanilla model at about the $2\sigma$ level. This paper proposes that the mismatch is not a failure of Starobinsky inflation but a signal of what came before it. The authors construct a three-stage Horndeski cosmology that begins in an asymptotically flat Genesis phase, transitions briefly back to general relativity, and then enters Starobinsky inflation. The Genesis phase leaves a calculable correction to the inflationary potential that raises $n_s$ and moves the model inside the observed $n_s$--$r$ contours, while keeping the theory stable and weakly coupled throughout. If correct, the result turns the observational tension into evidence for a non-singular pre-inflationary beginning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ADM-form Horndeski Lagrangian whose coefficients are $$A_2=\frac{1}{2}f(t)^{-2\mu-2-\delta}\left(-\frac{g}{$N^{2}$}+\frac{g}{$3N^{4}$}\right)(1-U(t))+\left(-\frac{$3M_0^{2}$}{4}+\frac{1}{$3N^{2}$\tau(t)^2}+\frac{$3M_0^{2}$(c\tau(t))^{2/3}}{$2e^{{2n/3}}$}-\frac{3(c\tau(t))^{4/3}$M_0^{2}$}{$4e^{{4n/3}}$}\right)U(t),\qquad A_4=-\frac{1}{2}f(t)^{-2\mu},$$ with interpolating functions $f(t)=\frac{c}{2}(\ln[2\cosh(st)]/s-t)+1$ and $U(t)=e^{st}/(e^{st}+1)$. Here $f$ acts as the effective Planck mass during Genesis and $U$ suppresses the higher-derivative terms; their asymptotics recover the Genesis Lagrangian as $t\to-\infty$ and the Starobinsky Lagrangian as $t\to\infty$. The observable shift is then computed from the slow-variation formulas $n_s=1-2\epsilon_H-\delta_F-\eta_s-s$ and $r=16u_S\epsilon_s$, with the Genesis correction entering through the modified background evolution encoded in the potential above.

What would settle it

Recompute $\Delta n_s=n_s(\text{Genesis--Starobinsky})-n_s(\text{Starobinsky})$ at 50--60 e-folds before the end of inflation using a different admissible transition, for instance replacing the logistic $U(t)$ and hyperbolic-log $f(t)$ with error-function or polynomial interpolants that keep $G_S>0$, $F_S>0$, and $u_S\le1$. If any such transition yields $\Delta n_s\le0$, the paper's central robustness claim is false; if the positive sign persists over a family of transitions, the explanation of the ACT data is generic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a non-singular Genesis stage preceding Starobinsky inflation leaves a calculable imprint on the inflationary potential, and that this imprint moves the predictions toward the values favoured by ACT. The leading correction to the Einstein-frame potential is $$V_\psi(\psi)=\frac{3}{4}$M_0^{2}$$e^{{-2\sqrt{2/3}}$\,\psi}\left($e^{{\sqrt{2/3}}$\,\psi}-1\right)^2+\frac{$3gM_0^{2}$\left($e^{{\sqrt{2/3}}$\,\psi}-1\right)$e^{{-se^n-\sqrt{3/2}}$\,\psi/c-7\psi/\sqrt6}\left(c\,$e^{{\sqrt{3/2}}$\,\psi}+e^ns\right)}{$4cs^{2}$},$$ and in $f(R)$ form the same correction contains non-polynomial factors such as $(R/M_0^2+3)^{3/2}$, so it cannot be reproduced by $\sum_i c_iR^i$ additions. Because the Genesis parameter $g$ is positive, as required for an expanding Genesis phase, the correction always increases the scalar spectral index: for the benchmark parameters $\mu=0.7$, $\delta=0.1$, $c=5\times10^{-5}$, $s=2\times10^{-5}$, $g=5\times10^{-8}$, $M_0=10^{-5}$, $n=10.4$, the authors find $\Delta n_s>0$ for modes that froze out 50--60 e-folds before the end of inflation, shifting $n_s$ from the vanilla Starobinsky value $0.965$ toward the observed $0.975\pm0.003$ while $r$ stays below the ACT/BICEP bound. The same parameter choices keep the theory free of ghosts and gradient instabilities, with subluminal scalar and luminal tensor speeds throughout the entire evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of robustness rests on the two hand-picked transition functions $f(t)$ and $U(t)$; the paper verifies the $n_s$ enhancement for this particular matching, and if other viable transition shapes produce a smaller or opposite shift, the ACT explanation is not generic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A positive $\Delta n_s$ across the allowed $(g,n)$ parameter region explains the ACT-era preference for $n_s\approx0.975$ without adding fields or tuning the Starobinsky potential.
  • The non-polynomial form of the correction means bounds on polynomial $R^i$ extensions of Starobinsky inflation do not apply; the scenario must be constrained on its own predictions.
  • The same construction provides a stable, weakly coupled, non-singular cosmology whose late-time behaviour is Starobinsky inflation, so precision CMB measurements constrain the initial-condition phase rather than only the attractor.
  • Large values of the transition parameter $n$ continuously recover vanilla Starobinsky inflation, so future data can constrain $n$ and thereby the duration of the pre-inflationary Genesis phase.
  • The sign of the shift is tied to the sign of $g/c$; a negative $g/c$ would move $n_s$ downward, but such values are excluded because the Hubble parameter must stay positive during Genesis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural first test is to repeat the numerical pipeline with other smooth interpolations sharing the same asymptotics; the robustness claim stands only if $\Delta n_s$ stays positive over that family.
  • The proportionality of the correction to $g$ suggests a broader principle: the expansion rate and duration of the pre-inflationary phase control the spectral tilt. A useful cross-check would be a similar matching onto a different inflationary potential to see whether the tilt shift is a general feature of Genesis initial conditions.
  • The non-polynomial $f(R)$ correction predicts distinctive higher-curvature behaviour at the transition scale; measuring the running of $n_s$ or the shape of non-Gaussianity in future large-scale CMB surveys could distinguish this scenario from polynomial $R^n$ modifications.
  • The authors restrict attention to mode freeze-out well after the transition. If a pivot mode instead crossed the horizon during the transition, the correction would be much larger and possibly scale-dependent; computing that case would give a sharp observational test.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a non-singular cosmological scenario in Horndeski gravity with three stages: an asymptotically flat Genesis phase, a brief transition, and Starobinsky inflation. The authors propose explicit transition functions f(t) and U(t) to interpolate between the Genesis and Starobinsky Lagrangians, solve the background numerically for one parameter set, and check stability (GS>0, FS>0, subluminal scalar speed). They then scan the parameters n and g, compute the scalar spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio using generalized slow-roll formulas, and show that the model can reach the region favored by ACT DR6, whereas Starobinsky inflation alone is disfavored. An analytic leading-order correction is derived in Appendix B and recast as a non-polynomial f(R) correction.

Significance. If the construction is correct and the robustness claims hold, the paper offers a conceptually interesting way to embed Starobinsky inflation in a non-singular Genesis framework and to generate an upward shift in n_s from the pre-inflationary phase. The explicit numerical stability check, the analytic leading-order correction, and the claim that the correction cannot be represented by a finite polynomial in R are valuable and testable elements. However, the central observational conclusion is currently supported only for a particular hand-chosen transition and for a scanned region in (n,g); no likelihood is given, no code or data are released, and the Genesis building block is taken from an unpublished preprint. The paper is therefore more a proof-of-principle than a robust explanation of the ACT data.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eqs. (26)–(27)] The central claim that the Genesis corrections "robustly" enhance n_s is supported only for the particular transition functions f(t) and U(t) chosen in Eqs. (26)–(27), and the paper itself concedes in Section 5 that only "a particular subclass of transition functions" was studied. Since Appendix B shows that the leading correction carries a g/s^2 prefactor and depends on the full time integrals of f and U, neither the sign nor the magnitude of the shift is guaranteed by the asymptotic limits alone. A different smooth step with the same asymptotics could plausibly reduce or reverse the effect. Please add a robustness study varying the transition shape and the width parameter s, and show that Δn_s>0 and the ACT-compatible region persist, or alternatively temper the claim of robustness.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 1, and §4, Fig. 7] Stability in the sense of GS>0, FS>0 and subluminal scalar propagation is demonstrated for the single parameter set in Eq. (30), but the light-blue region in Fig. 7 is selected only by the slow-roll conditions in Eq. (52) and by N_e∈(50,60). It is not shown that ghost and gradient instabilities are absent throughout this entire (g,n) region, nor that the no-go theorem of Refs. [3,4] is avoided there. Please verify stability over the full claimed parameter range, or restrict the allowed region accordingly.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.4)] There is an inconsistency in the time-shift used for the analytic leading-order correction. From Eq. (26), f(t)→1 as t→∞, so τ(t)=2f(t)/c+t→t+2/c, whereas Appendix B states τ(t)→t+c/2. Since the terms δA_2^τ, the effective potential Vψ in Eq. (53), and the f(R) expression below it all depend on this shift, the analytic correction as written is not consistent with the full model defined by Eq. (28). Please correct this calculation and recheck the comparison in Fig. 8; until then the analytic leading-order result cannot be used to validate the numerical claim.
  4. [§4, Figs. 3, 4, and 7] The paper presents the ACT agreement as an explanatory result, but the observable shift in n_s is obtained by scanning the free parameters n and g, with the other parameters fixed. No likelihood or goodness-of-fit is provided, so the plot in Fig. 7 demonstrates existence of a fitting region rather than a prediction. Please clarify what is genuinely predicted by the model—for example, correlations between n_s, r, and N_e—and what is used to fit the data, or the claimed resolution of the ACT tension will be read as a postdiction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Eq. (2)] The mathematical expression "∑_i c_i R^i" appears as broken text in the abstract and in the main text; please fix the rendering.
  2. [Fig. 7] The construction of the light-blue allowed region is under-specified: please state explicitly whether it is the union of all scanned points satisfying the slow-roll conditions and N_e∈(50,60), and whether stability has been checked there.
  3. [Ref. [11]] The Genesis construction, including its stability and strong-coupling properties, is taken from Ref. [11], which is an unpublished preprint by overlapping authors. Please make the dependence explicit in the text so that the reader can identify which results are established here and which are imported.
  4. [Eq. (41)] The formula for N_max appears to have unbalanced parentheses; please recheck the typesetting and the placement of the closing bracket.
  5. [Fig. 1] The top axis labels such as "800c^{-1}" should be written as "800 c^{-1}" or "800/c" to avoid ambiguity with a product of c and t.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The ACT correction calculation is new and not by-construction equivalent to its inputs, but the Genesis starting block is a load-bearing self-citation to an overlapping-author preprint.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2 (eq. 3) and Section 3.1 (model construction)]
    "The Lagrangian for the Genesis model from Ref. [11] at early times in the Jordan frame is written as: ... However, as demonstrated in Ref. [11], such issues do not arise in this particular Genesis scenario. For an appropriate parameter range [see eq. (21)], the strong-coupling scale always remains well above the energy scale of the background evolution."

    Ref. [11] is an unpublished arXiv preprint by two of the present authors (Choi and Petrov) and Yamaguchi. The paper adopts its Genesis Lagrangian and its viability claims (no-go evasion, weak coupling, unitarity) as input without rederiving them. The central setup of the paper, a weakly coupled non-singular Genesis phase preceding Starobinsky inflation, therefore rests on a self-citation chain for its starting block. The new ACT-correction calculation is built on this imported input, so the self-citation is load-bearing. However, the correction computation itself is new and not identical to the cited result; hence this is partial rather than full circularity.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the Genesis ansatz is specified in eqs. (15)-(19), the transition is introduced explicitly through the auxiliary functions f(t) and U(t) in eqs. (26)-(29), the leading-order correction to the potential is computed in Appendix B, and the spectral index is obtained from the slow-variation formulas in eqs. (43)-(45). None of these steps sets an output equal to an input by construction: V_psi(psi) follows algebraically from the chosen A2, and the numerical enhancement of n_s is a consequence of the evolution for the chosen parameters. The paper's own admission in the Conclusion that only 'a particular subclass of transition functions' was studied is a limitation on the robustness of the claimed effect, but it is not a circular step. Likewise, scanning the free parameters g and n in Fig. 7 and identifying a region consistent with ACT is parameter-region comparison, not a fit-then-predict cycle in which a fitted value is renamed a prediction. The main circularity-relevant issue is the load-bearing reliance on Ref. [11], an overlapping-author preprint that supplies the Genesis model and its viability; that raises the score above the minor-citation level, but the central Starobinsky-correction analysis remains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of free parameters (especially n and g) that set the magnitude of the n_s shift, on an ad hoc choice of transition functions, and on taking the Genesis model of Ref [11] as a validated input. The model introduces no new particles or forces; the invented structure is the specific transition functions, which are not derived from a more fundamental principle.

free parameters (7)
  • g = 5e-8 to 1e-6, fiducial 5e-8, example 5.5e-8
    Controls the Genesis Hubble scale h0 (eq. 33) and the strength of the correction to the potential (eq. 53); scanned in figures 4 and 7 to produce agreement with ACT.
  • n = 9 to 12, fiducial 10.4
    Sets the field value at the transition and determines the magnitude of the n_s shift; scanned in figures 4 and 7 to match the observed spectral index.
  • M0 = 1e-5 Planck units
    Chosen so that the scalar power spectrum amplitude matches CMB observations, setting the overall inflationary scale.
  • s = 2e-5 Planck units
    Determines the width of the transition; chosen by hand close to M0 and enters the correction terms in eqs. (B.4) and (53).
  • c = 5e-5 Planck units
    Mass scale of the Genesis phase; chosen close to M0 and sets the end of the Genesis regime through t ~ c^{-1}.
  • mu = 0.7
    Genesis Lagrangian parameter; chosen inside the window allowed by eqs. (20) and (21) to evade the no-go theorem and strong coupling.
  • delta = 0.1
    Genesis Lagrangian parameter; chosen with mu to satisfy 2mu > 1+delta > 1 and mu + 3delta/2 < 1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Horndeski action (6) restricted to G2, G3, G4 describes the full gravitational dynamics.
    The model is built in this subclass of Horndeski gravity; this is the framework of the analysis.
  • domain assumption The Genesis model of Ref [11] remains weakly coupled and free from ghosts and gradient instabilities when extended to the full transition.
    The paper relies on the same authors' unpublished analysis for the weak-coupling property and does not re-derive the strong-coupling scale for the transition phase.
  • ad hoc to paper The transition functions f(t) and U(t) in eqs. (26) and (27) faithfully represent the Genesis-to-Starobinsky transition.
    These functions are chosen by hand; no derivation is given and the claimed robustness of the n_s shift is only demonstrated for this specific choice.
  • ad hoc to paper CMB modes freeze out during the Starobinsky phase at 50 < N_e < 60, well after the transition at N_e > 60.
    Section 4 explicitly assumes mode freeze-out far from the transition and assumes a reheating history that yields this e-fold range.
  • standard math The linear perturbation formulas (11)-(14) from Ref [45] apply in the ADM formalism for this model.
    Standard Horndeski perturbation theory; the paper uses established formulas without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Genesis--Starobinsky inflation can explain the ACT data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWMDC4YM

@misc{pith2026250904832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Genesis--Starobinsky inflation can explain the ACT data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWMDC4YM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04832}
}
abstract

We propose a novel non-singular cosmological scenario within the framework of Horndeski gravity, consisting of three successive stages: (i) a Genesis phase, in which the Universe slowly expands from an asymptotically flat spacetime; (ii) a brief transition stage restoring General Relativity; and (iii) a Starobinsky inflationary phase. This construction is fully consistent within a viable parameter space: it remains weakly coupled, free from ghost and gradient instabilities, with luminal tensor and subluminal scalar perturbations throughout the entire evolution. Importantly, the Genesis phase induces characteristic corrections to the Starobinsky potential, which cannot be captured by simple $\sum_i c_i R^i$-type modifications. These corrections robustly enhance the scalar spectral index, thereby improving the agreement of Starobinsky inflation with recent CMB measurements, in particular the data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) Evolution of H in our model (Genesis to inflation) and in the Starobinsky model as a function of Ne. The values of H at the beginning of the universe (t = −∞), and at the moment of transition (t = 0) are indicated with arrows. (Right) Evolution of GS, FS, and u 2 S as a function of Ne. ADM time coordinates at selected points are shown along the top horizontal axis. In both panels, the evolution is computed wi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of the slow-roll and the slow-variation parameters for 50 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contours of Nmax in the g-n parameter space. The other model parameters are fixed as µ = 0.7, δ = 0.1, c = 5 × 10−5 , s = 2 × 10−5 , and M0 = 10−5 . 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 g ×10−6 10.40 10.45 10.50 10.55 10.60 10.65 10.70 n 0.00025 0.001 0.01 H or |ηH| > 0.1 ∆ ns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contours of ∆ns = ns − n st s which is evaluated at Ne = 60. ns is from our model, and n st s is from the Starobinsky model. The blue region is excluded due to violation of the slow-roll condition ϵH, |ηH| < 0.1. The same parameter values as in figure 3 are used. 16 […
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) The potential with (blue curve) and without (red curve) Genesis corrections. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustrative example of ρ as a function of ϕ, comparing our model (solid curve) with the Starobinsky model (dotted curve). The same parameter values as in figure 1 are used. It is also noteworthy that the increase or decrease of the spectral index ns is connected to th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Region in the ns-r plane allowed by our model (shaded in blue). The regions correspond￾ing to the constraints from recent observations [14] are also shown (shaded in light purple for 1σ and dark purple for 2σ). The prediction from Starobinsky inflation is shown as a bl…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of ns values from different models. In the left panel, we show the results from the Starobinsky model, the full model, and the Starobinsky model including the corrections δAτ 2 + δAGX 2 + δAGX2 2 . In the right panel, we compare the ψ model (Vψ) with the oth…

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

  1. Robustness of Starobinsky inflation in a minimal two-field scalar-tensor completion

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Nearby trajectories in a minimal two-field scalar-tensor completion of Starobinsky inflation relax to an attractor where entropy sourcing is negligible, so observables remain effectively Starobinsky-like.

  2. (Lovelock)$^2$ inflation: explaining the ACT data and equivalence to Higgs-Gauss-Bonnet inflation

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A quadratic f(L) gravity with a negative Gauss-Bonnet coupling shifts Starobinsky inflation's (n_s, r) predictions toward the ACT-preferred higher n_s, at the cost of a larger tensor-to-scalar ratio.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [11]

    Can Horndeski Genesis be Nonpathological?

    H. Gil Choi, P. Petrov and M. Yamaguchi,Can Horndeski Genesis be Nonpathological?, arXiv:2503.02626. [12]Planckcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A1 [arXiv:1807.06205]. [13]ACTcollaboration, T. Louis et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Borde and A

    A. Borde and A. Vilenkin,Singularities in inflationary cosmology: A Review, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D5(1996) 813 [arXiv:gr-qc/9612036]

    arXiv 1996

  3. [2]

    G. W. Horndeski,Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space, Int. J. Theor. Phys.10(1974) 363

    work page 1974

  4. [3]

    Kobayashi,Generic instabilities of nonsingular cosmologies in Horndeski theory: A no-go theorem, Phys

    T. Kobayashi,Generic instabilities of nonsingular cosmologies in Horndeski theory: A no-go theorem, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 043511 [arXiv:1606.05831]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    Libanov, S

    M. Libanov, S. Mironov and V. Rubakov,Generalized Galileons: instabilities of bouncing and Genesis cosmologies and modified Genesis, JCAP08(2016) 037 [arXiv:1605.05992]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    Zumalac´ arregui and J

    M. Zumalac´ arregui and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido,Transforming gravity: from derivative couplings to matter to second-order scalar-tensor theories beyond the Horndeski Lagrangian, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 064046 [arXiv:1308.4685]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [6]

    Gleyzes, D

    J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, F. Piazza and F. Vernizzi,Healthy theories beyond Horndeski, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 211101 [arXiv:1404.6495]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [7]

    Langlois and K

    D. Langlois and K. Noui,Degenerate higher derivative theories beyond Horndeski: evading the Ostrogradski instability, JCAP02(2016) 034 [arXiv:1510.06930]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Ageeva, P

    Y. Ageeva, P. Petrov and V. Rubakov,Nonsingular cosmological models with strong gravity in the past, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 063530 [arXiv:2104.13412]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Ageeva, P

    Y. Ageeva, P. Petrov and V. Rubakov,Generating cosmological perturbations in non-singular Horndeski cosmologies, JHEP01(2023) 026 [arXiv:2207.04071]. 24

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Akama and S

    S. Akama and S. Hirano,Primordial non-Gaussianity from Galilean Genesis without strong coupling problem, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 063504 [arXiv:2211.00388]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [15]

    A. A. Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity, Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99

    1980

  5. [16]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval and V. Vennin,Encyclopædia Inflationaris: Opiparous Edition, Phys. Dark Univ.5-6(2014) 75 [arXiv:1303.3787]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [17]

    S. V. Ketov,On Legacy of Starobinsky Inflation, 1, 2025,arXiv:2501.06451

    2025 arXiv

  7. [18]

    F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov,The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton, Phys. Lett. B659(2008) 703 [arXiv:0710.3755]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [19]

    Futamase and K.-i

    T. Futamase and K.-i. Maeda,Chaotic Inflationary Scenario in Models Having Nonminimal Coupling With Curvature, Phys. Rev. D39(1989) 399

    1989

  9. [20]

    S. C. Park and S. Yamaguchi,Inflation by non-minimal coupling, JCAP08(2008) 009 [arXiv:0801.1722]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [21]

    S. C. Hyun, J. Kim, S. C. Park and T. Takahashi,Non-minimally assisted chaotic inflation, JCAP05(2022) 045 [arXiv:2203.09201]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [22]

    S. C. Hyun, J. Kim, T. Kodama, S. C. Park and T. Takahashi,Nonminimally assisted inflation: a general analysis, JCAP05(2023) 050 [arXiv:2302.05866]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [23]

    Hamada, H

    Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, K.-y. Oda and S. C. Park,Higgs Inflation is Still Alive after the Results from BICEP2, Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 241301 [arXiv:1403.5043]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [24]

    Hamada, H

    Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, K.-y. Oda and S. C. Park,Higgs inflation from Standard Model criticality, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 053008 [arXiv:1408.4864]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [25]

    M. He, R. Jinno, K. Kamada, S. C. Park, A. A. Starobinsky and J. Yokoyama,On the violent preheating in the mixed Higgs-R 2 inflationary model, Phys. Lett. B791(2019) 36 [arXiv:1812.10099]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [26]

    D. Y. Cheong, K. Kohri and S. C. Park,The inflaton that could: primordial black holes and second order gravitational waves from tachyonic instability induced in Higgs-R 2 inflation, JCAP10(2022) 015 [arXiv:2205.14813]. 25

    2022 arXiv

  16. [27]

    D. Y. Cheong, S. M. Lee and S. C. Park,Primordial black holes in Higgs-R 2 inflation as the whole of dark matter, JCAP01(2021) 032 [arXiv:1912.12032]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [28]

    Ema,Higgs Scalaron Mixed Inflation, Phys

    Y. Ema,Higgs Scalaron Mixed Inflation, Phys. Lett. B770(2017) 403 [arXiv:1701.07665]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [29]

    Jinno, M

    R. Jinno, M. Kubota, K.-y. Oda and S. C. Park,Higgs inflation in metric and Palatini formalisms: Required suppression of higher dimensional operators, JCAP03(2020) 063 [arXiv:1904.05699]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [30]

    S. Koh, S. C. Park and G. Tumurtushaa,Higgs inflation with a Gauss-Bonnet term, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 023523 [arXiv:2308.00897]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [31]

    D. Y. Cheong, S. M. Lee and S. C. Park,Higgs Inflation and the Refined dS Conjecture, Phys. Lett. B789(2019) 336 [arXiv:1811.03622]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [32]

    S. M. Lee, K.-y. Oda and S. C. Park,Spontaneous Leptogenesis in Higgs Inflation, JHEP03 (2021) 083 [arXiv:2010.07563]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [33]

    S. C. Park,Non-minimally coupled quintessential inflation,arXiv:2412.08833

  23. [34]

    D. Y. Cheong, S. M. Lee and S. C. Park,Progress in Higgs inflation, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 78(2021) 897 [arXiv:2103.00177]. [35]Planckcollaboration, Y. Akrami et al.,Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A10 [arXiv:1807.06211]. [36]BICEP, ...

    2021 arXiv

  24. [37]

    Penrose,Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities, Phys

    R. Penrose,Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities, Phys. Rev. Lett.14(1965) 57

    1965

  25. [38]

    Borde, A

    A. Borde, A. H. Guth and A. Vilenkin,Inflationary space-times are incompletein past directions, Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 151301 [arXiv:gr-qc/0110012]

    2003 arXiv

  26. [39]

    J. E. Lesnefsky, D. A. Easson and P. C. W. Davies,Past-completeness of inflationary spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 044024 [arXiv:2207.00955]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [40]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis and C. Vafa,The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force, JHEP06(2007) 060 [arXiv:hep-th/0601001]

    2007 arXiv

  28. [41]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama,Generalized G-inflation: Inflation with the most general second-order field equations, Prog. Theor. Phys.126(2011) 511 [arXiv:1105.5723]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [42]

    Deffayet, O

    C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman,Imperfect Dark Energy from Kinetic Gravity Braiding, JCAP10(2010) 026 [arXiv:1008.0048]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [43]

    Kobayashi,Horndeski theory and beyond: a review, Rept

    T. Kobayashi,Horndeski theory and beyond: a review, Rept. Prog. Phys.82(2019) 086901 [arXiv:1901.07183]. 26

    2019 arXiv

  31. [44]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,Inflationary gravitational waves in the effective field theory of modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 103506 [arXiv:1411.0736]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [45]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama,Galilean Creation of the Inflationary Universe, JCAP07(2015) 017 [arXiv:1504.05710]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [46]

    Y. A. Ageeva, O. A. Evseev, O. I. Melichev and V. A. Rubakov,Horndeski Genesis: strong coupling and absence thereof, EPJ Web Conf.191(2018) 07010 [arXiv:1810.00465]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [47]

    Ageeva, O

    Y. Ageeva, O. Evseev, O. Melichev and V. Rubakov,Toward evading the strong coupling problem in Horndeski genesis, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 023519 [arXiv:2003.01202]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [48]

    D. H. Coule and M. B. Mijic,Quantum Fluctuations and Eternal Inflation in ther 2 Model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A3(1988) 617

    1988

  36. [49]

    Maeda,Inflation as a Transient Attractor in R**2 Cosmology, Phys

    K.-i. Maeda,Inflation as a Transient Attractor in R**2 Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 858

    1988

  37. [50]

    A. A. Starobinsky,The Perturbation Spectrum Evolving from a Nonsingular Initially De-Sitter Cosmology and the Microwave Background Anisotropy, Sov. Astron. Lett.9(1983) 302

    1983

  38. [51]

    J. M. Maldacena,Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models, JHEP05(2003) 013 [arXiv:astro-ph/0210603]

    2003 arXiv

  39. [52]

    Drees and Y

    M. Drees and Y. Xu,Refined predictions for Starobinsky inflation and post-inflationary constraints in light of ACT, Phys. Lett. B867(2025) 139612 [arXiv:2504.20757]

    2025

  40. [53]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergenov and S. V. Ketov,Curvature corrections to Starobinsky inflation can explain the ACT results,arXiv:2505.10305

  41. [54]

    Dioguardi and A

    C. Dioguardi and A. Karam,Palatini linear attractors are back in action, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 123521 [arXiv:2504.12937]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [55]

    M. He, M. Hong and K. Mukaida,Increase ofn s in regularized pole inflation & Einstein-Cartan gravity,arXiv:2504.16069

  43. [56]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,Primordial non-Gaussianities in general modified gravitational models of inflation, JCAP04(2011) 029 [arXiv:1103.1172]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [57]

    D. Y. Cheong, H. M. Lee and S. C. Park,Beyond the Starobinsky model for inflation, Phys. Lett. B805(2020) 135453 [arXiv:2002.07981]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [58]

    Rodrigues-da Silva and L

    G. Rodrigues-da Silva and L. G. Medeiros,Second-order corrections to Starobinsky inflation, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 1032 [arXiv:2207.02103]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [59]

    J. Kim, X. Wang, Y.-l. Zhang and Z. Ren,Enhancement of primordial curvature perturbations inR 3-corrected Starobinsky-Higgs inflation,arXiv:2504.12035

    arXiv

  47. [60]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,f(R) theories, Living Rev. Rel.13(2010) 3 [arXiv:1002.4928]. 27

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.