Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 7 cited by

Adding a Gauss-Bonnet term to the Starobinsky R^2 action shifts the scalar spectral index upward, relieving the tension with ACT data.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:10 UTC pith:T3S3X7VT

load-bearing objection The equivalence to Higgs–Gauss–Bonnet inflation is a nice result, but the ACT-fit claim relies on perturbation theory outside its own validity range, so the quantitative headline is not yet supported. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.21167 v2 pith:T3S3X7VT submitted 2025-12-24 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

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

Andrea Addazi , Yermek Aldabergenov , Daulet Berkimbayev , Yifu Cai This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th PACS 98.80.Cq
keywords Starobinsky inflationLovelock gravityGauss-Bonnet termscalar spectral indextensor-to-scalar ratioACT dataHorndeski gravityHiggs inflation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the slight mismatch between the Starobinsky model's predicted scalar spectral index and the slightly larger value reported by the Atacama Cosmology Telescope can be removed by adding a single new parameter: the strength α of the Gauss-Bonnet term in a quadratic Lovelock gravity action. Using f(L)=L+L^2/(6M^2) with L=R+(α/4)G, the authors derive a scalar-tensor theory that reduces to Starobinsky inflation when α=0, and show that a negative α shifts (n_s, r) along a trajectory favored by ACT. The model is shown to be equivalent to Higgs inflation coupled to the Gauss-Bonnet term and to belong to the ghost-free Horndeski class. If correct, the model preserves the successes of Starobinsky inflation while making a slightly larger tensor-to-scalar ratio, which future CMB experiments can test.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a one-parameter generalization of Starobinsky inflation, based on the 4D Lovelock invariant L = R + (α/4)G, with action f(L) = L + L^2/(6M^2). The scalar-tensor dual of this theory is a single scalar field with the Starobinsky potential plus non-minimal derivative and Gauss-Bonnet couplings, belonging to the Horndeski class and hence ghost-free. Within a perturbative slow-roll expansion in the dimensionless coupling α̂ = αM², the inflationary observables reduce to n_s ≈ 1 - (2/N_e)(1 + (8/27)α̂ N_e²) and r ≈ (12/N_e²)(1 - (8/27)α̂ N_e²). A negative α̂ therefore increases both n_s and r, which the authors show brings the model into better agr

What carries the argument

The central object is the 4D Lovelock invariant L = R + (α/4)G, with G the Gauss-Bonnet term, used in the quadratic action f(L) = L + L^2/(6M^2). The argument is carried by the scalar-tensor dual obtained through the Weyl transformation g_{\mu\nu} → f'(Z)^{-1} g_{\mu\nu}, which produces a single scalar (the scalaron) with the Starobinsky potential plus couplings of the scalar to G, the Einstein tensor, and derivative self-interactions. These additional interaction terms are what modify the slow-roll dynamics; in the perturbative regime they yield the shift formulas for n_s and r. The same action falls in the Horndeski/galileon class, which guarantees second-order field equations and no Ostro

Load-bearing premise

The paper's perturbative slow-roll solution assumes |α̂| N_e^2 ≪ 1, yet the coupling values that best fit the ACT data give |α̂| N_e^2 on the order of 1, so the analytic predictions are used outside the regime where the paper has established their validity.

What would settle it

Integrate the full background equations (14)-(16) numerically for α̂ = -3×10^-3 and N_e = 55 and extract n_s and r from the exact perturbation equations; if the results deviate from Eqs. (32)-(33) by more than about 0.003 in n_s, the claimed ACT reconciliation is an artifact of the linear expansion. A future CMB measurement of r significantly above the Starobinsky value at N_e = 55 would confirm the mechanism; a null result at that level would exclude it.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For α̂ negative with magnitude around 10^-4 to 10^-3 at N_e ≈ 50-60, the predicted spectral index increases by roughly 0.005-0.01, moving the Starobinsky prediction to the center of the ACT likelihood.
  • The tensor-to-scalar ratio r rises by a few parts per mille relative to pure Starobinsky, a level that next-generation CMB experiments are expected to distinguish.
  • Normalizing the scalar amplitude fixes the inflaton mass M ≈ (1.3-1.5)×10^-5, which implies a Gauss-Bonnet mass scale M_G ≈ 10^15 GeV, well above the inflationary scale.
  • The equivalence to Higgs-Gauss-Bonnet inflation extends the known Starobinsky/Higgs duality, so the same mechanism can be embedded in a particle-physics context.
  • Because the theory belongs to the Horndeski class, the inflationary predictions are not spoiled by Ostrogradsky ghosts or higher-derivative instabilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper's Fig. 1 shows the analytic and numerical curves diverging just where the text places the ACT-preferred coupling, a fully numerical computation of n_s and r for α̂ ≈ -3×10^-3 is the natural next step to confirm the mechanism outside the perturbative regime.
  • The equivalence to Higgs inflation coupled to Gauss-Bonnet suggests the same parameter α could be probed in particle-physics contexts, where the Higgs non-minimal coupling is fixed by the equivalence.
  • A measurement of the running of the spectral index, which the model predicts to be small and negative, could distinguish it from other ACT-motivated modifications that change n_s through reheating physics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers a quadratic function of the 4D Lovelock invariant, f(L)=L+L^2/(6M^2) with L=-2λ+R+α/4 G. After a conformal transformation it obtains an Einstein-frame scalar-tensor action with a Starobinsky-type potential plus Gauss-Bonnet and derivative couplings, identifies the model with a Horndeski/galileon theory, and claims an equivalence to Higgs-Gauss-Bonnet inflation in the large-field limit. Using slow-roll and a perturbative expansion in α̂=αM^2, it derives analytic formulas for n_s and r, Eqs. (32)-(33), and argues that a negative GB coupling shifts (n_s,r) toward the ACT-preferred region. The paper also gives an estimate of the GB mass scale M_G~10^15 GeV. The central observational claim is that this one-parameter extension of Starobinsky inflation improves agreement with ACT data.

Significance. The theoretical construction is timely and the explicit mapping of f(L) gravity to Horndeski/Higgs-GB type actions is a useful contribution. The paper is transparent about its perturbative assumptions and provides compact formulas that are easy to reproduce. However, the main observational claim is not yet established: no likelihood analysis is performed, and the parameter region highlighted for the ACT fit lies outside the domain of validity of the analytic expansion. The paper would be significantly strengthened by a full numerical solution of the linear perturbation equations in this Horndeski model and a proper comparison with ACT/Planck data. The claimed equivalence to Higgs-Gauss-Bonnet inflation also needs to be stated with the large-field caveat made explicit.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.A–B, Eq. (25) and discussion after Eq. (33)] The analytic predictions are derived under the assumption |α̂|N_e^2 ≪ 1, stated explicitly after Eq. (25). For the plotted range |α̂| ≤ 4×10^-4 and N_e=55, |α̂|N_e^2 ≈ 1.2, so the expansion parameter is not small. For the text's suggested α̂ ≈ -3×10^-3, |α̂|N_e^2 ≈ 9, and Eq. (32) gives n_s ≈ 1.06 for N_e=55, which exceeds unity and demonstrates that the first-order formula is being extrapolated far beyond its controlled domain. The numerical curves in Fig. 1 are described as solving only the background equations (14)-(16); the observables n_s and r still rely on the slow-roll perturbation formulas (26)-(30), which are not validated against a full solution of the linear perturbation equations at these values of α̂. Thus the claimed shift toward the ACT region is not supported by a controlled calculation.
  2. [§III.B, Fig. 1] The abstract and conclusions claim 'better agreement with the ACT likelihood', but no likelihood analysis is actually performed. The paper plots contours taken from external references and reads off that a particular α̂ region lies inside them, but it does not compute a Δχ², does not vary the e-fold number N_e in a likelihood sense, and does not propagate the observational covariance. The value α̂ ≈ -3×10^-3 mentioned after Eq. (33) is inconsistent with Fig. 1, which only shows |α̂| ≤ 4×10^-4. A quantitative comparison, including Planck-only versus Planck+ACT and a proper treatment of N_e/reheating uncertainty, is required to support the central 'explaining the ACT data' claim.
  3. [§II, abstract and conclusions] The abstract and conclusions state that the model 'is equivalent to Higgs inflation coupled to the Gauss-Bonnet term' without qualification. In the body, the equivalence is only claimed 'in the large field limit' when identifying the action with Eq. (2.18) of Ref. [64]. Higgs inflation and the Starobinsky-type potential differ away from the large-field regime, so the equivalence is not exact. The abstract/conclusions should be reworded to state the precise nature of the correspondence, or the full map to the Higgs-GB action should be provided. This is load-bearing because the equivalence is advertised as a main theoretical result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says the solid lines are from numerical integration of the background equations, but n_s and r are perturbation quantities. Clarify whether the numerical background solution is substituted into the slow-roll perturbation formulas (26)-(30) for the solid curves, or whether the full linear perturbation equations are solved. If the latter, state this explicitly.
  2. [After Eq. (33)] The text says 'Figure 1 implies that for a better fit with Planck+ACT constraints, α̂ should be close to -3×10^-3', but Fig. 1 only displays values down to -4×10^-4. Please resolve this inconsistency, and also note that at α̂=-3×10^-3, N_e=55, Eq. (32) gives n_s>1.
  3. [Eq. (11)] The potential term proportional to λ is written as λe^{-√{2/3}} in the text after Eq. (11); it should be λe^{-√{2/3}φ}. A typo of this kind makes the equation harder to follow.
  4. [Fig. 1, running] The running index dns/dlnk is plotted but no formula for it is stated in the text. State explicitly how the running is computed from the slow-roll solution (e.g., -dn_s/dN using Eq. (32)) so the plot is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the α-shift of (n_s, r) is a genuine model prediction; the claimed best-fit regime is a correctness concern, not a circular one.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The model is defined by the input action f(L)=L+L^2/(6M^2) with a free parameter α (Eq. 9). The Einstein-frame action (7), slow-roll equation (23), perturbative solution (25), and observables (32)–(33) are obtained by explicit algebra from that input, with the perturbation formulas (26)–(30) adopted from independent external papers [64,66] (no author overlap with the present paper). Choosing negative α̂ to move n_s toward the ACT value is parameter estimation, not a disguised identity: the same α̂ independently predicts r via Eq. (33), the running dns/dlnk, and the normalization range (35); these are not fixed by the n_s fit. The self-citations [27] and [50] appear only in the related-work list and are not load-bearing. The manuscript itself flags a limitation: "Significant deviations from it occur when |α̂| approaches 10−3 from below ..., at which point the perturbative solution breaks down", yet later says "Figure 1 implies that for a better fit with Planck+ACT constraints, α̂ should be close to −3×10−3". For N_e≈55 this gives |α̂|N_e^2≈9, outside the assumed |α̂|N_e^2≪1 domain. That is a validity/control problem for the claimed best-fit point, but not a circularity: no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model's predictions depend on the quadratic truncation of f(L), the Weyl scalar-tensor dictionary, the slow-roll perturbative expansion in α̂, and the assumption that ACT's n_s shift is cosmological. Of these, the most fragile is the perturbativity of the expansion in the claimed fit region.

free parameters (2)
  • α̂ = α M² (dimensionless Gauss-Bonnet coupling) = ≈ −3×10⁻⁴ to −10⁻³ (text inconsistent; Fig. 1 uses −4×10⁻⁴)
    Chosen to move n_s toward the ACT value; not independently measured or predicted. It controls all deviations from Starobinsky inflation in Eqs. (32)–(33).
  • λ (constant term in L = −2λ + R + α/4 G) = 0
    Set to zero by hand in §II as 'irrelevant for inflation'; no dynamical mechanism fixes it. It does not affect the inflationary analysis but is an excluded input.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Truncation f(L)=L+L²/(6M²) with no higher-order terms and no matter sector
    The model is chosen by analogy with Starobinsky gravity; no principle fixes the quadratic truncation. Introduced in Eq. (9).
  • domain assumption Einstein-frame scalar-tensor action (7) is the correct starting point, including the Weyl transformation f' = e^{√(2/3)φ} with f'>0, and the perturbation formulas from Refs. [64,66] apply
    The equations of motion and scalar/tensor perturbation formulas are taken from Horndeski and generalized-gravity literature, not re-derived from first principles in this paper. See §II and Eqs. (26)–(30).
  • ad hoc to paper Slow-roll and perturbative expansion in α̂ with |α̂|N_e² ≪ 1 is valid in the ACT-preferred region
    The paper's own estimate |α̂| ~ 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ with N_e = 50–60 violates the stated smallness; see Eq. (25) and comments after Eq. (33). This is the most load-bearing mathematical assumption.
  • domain assumption The ACT-reported n_s shift is a genuine cosmological signal rather than a systematic or analysis artifact
    The motivation relies on ACT DR6 n_s = 0.9743 ± 0.0034 from Refs. [3,4]. If the ACT preference shifts with future data, the central motivation weakens.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11114 in / 14708 out tokens · 142422 ms · 2026-08-03T14:10:33.560307+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We revisit the Starobinsky model of inflation in light of recent data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT), which indicates a potential preference for a slightly larger scalar spectral index $n_s$ than predicted by the standard $R^2$ scenario. We demonstrate that a natural one-parameter generalization to a quadratic model $\sim L+L^2$ in the Lovelock invariant $L=R+\frac{\alpha}{4}{\cal G}$ ($\cal G$ is the Gauss--Bonnet term), can effectively resolve this minor tension. Scalar-tensor formulation of this theory yields an Einstein-frame Starobinsky-type scalar potential augmented by Gauss--Bonnet and derivative couplings, which modify the inflationary slow-roll dynamics. We show that a non-zero coupling $\alpha$ for the Gauss-Bonnet term can shift $(n_s, r)$ along a trajectory that brings the predictions into better agreement with the ACT likelihood. We also find that $L+L^2$ gravity, in its scalar-tensor formulation, is equivalent to Higgs inflation coupled to the Gauss--Bonnet term, and belongs to the Horndeski/galileon class of modified gravities. This work establishes the quadratic $f(L)$ gravity as a compelling and physically motivated extension that preserves the successes of Starobinsky inflation while improving its fit to modern precision cosmological data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.21167 by Andrea Addazi, Daulet Berkimbayev, Yermek Aldabergenov, Yifu Cai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Predictions of (Lovelock) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational waves from self-resonance during reheating with a quantum-corrected inflaton potential

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A Coleman-Weinberg correction that cancels the inflaton's quadratic term at the potential minimum triggers quartic self-resonance and a peaked GW background at 10^8-10^10 Hz; a negative quadratic term instead gives a ...

  2. DESI and Dynamical Dark Energy from Extended Pre-geometric Gravity

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A quadratic extension of pre-geometric gravity yields a gravi-axion that naturally realizes dynamical dark energy and fits DESI observations with chi-squared_red = 1.394.

  3. Running into tension: primordial black holes from ultra-slow-roll inflation, spectral running, and the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    EDE models increase inferred α_s from CMB data, strengthening tension with USR PBH models that predict negative running.

  4. Reviving Motivated Inflationary Potentials with $K$-inflation in the light of ACT

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    K-inflation with non-canonical kinetic term G(φ) shifts α-attractor T-models and natural inflation into the Planck-ACT-LB-BK18 allowed region while satisfying Swampland conjectures and producing testable GW spectra.

  5. Induced-Gravity Palatini-Like Higgs Inflation in Supergravity Confronts ACT DR6

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    A Palatini-supergravity Higgs-inflation model with induced gravity predicts a scalar spectral index ns≈0.972-0.974, consistent with ACT DR6, and favors split supersymmetry with gravitino mass 40-60 PeV.

  6. Conventional and Unitarity-Conserving Peccei-Quinn Inflation Models and ACT

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Unitarity-conserving Peccei-Quinn inflation agrees with ACT data within 1 sigma and allows axion decay constants up to 6.4e13 GeV without post-inflation symmetry restoration, unlike the conventional model.

  7. Induced-Gravity Palatini-Like Higgs Inflation in Supergravity Confronts ACT DR6

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A Palatini-inspired induced-gravity inflation model in supergravity fits ACT DR6 data while embedding into a B-L extended MSSM with split SUSY and leptogenesis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 36 linked inside Pith · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Althoughf(L) is a subset off(R,G) gravity, it is ghost-free, unlike the generalf(R,G) case which typically contains ghost modes

  2. [2]

    The theory defined byf(L) =L+L 2/(6M 2) is equivalent to Higgs–Gauss–Bonnet inflation [64], as seen from Eq. (7). Additionally, its higher-derivative sector belongs to the generalized galileon/Horndeski class [65] (for example, from (13) one can show that all higher derivatives of φcancel out, and the equations are second-order). These non-trivial dualiti...

  3. [3]

    This means that the GB cou- plingαshould be of the order 10 6 or so, if we want to explain the recent ACT data within this model

    And since the original GB coupling is given by α≡ˆα/M 2, for, e.g., ˆα=−4×10 −4 andM= 1.5×10 −5 we getα≈ −1.8×10 6. This means that the GB cou- plingαshould be of the order 10 6 or so, if we want to explain the recent ACT data within this model. Let us now estimate how this translates into the energy/mass scale associated with the Gauss–Bonnet corrections...

    2021

  4. [4]

    A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,”Phys. Lett. B 91no. 1, (1980) 99 – 102

    1980

  5. [5]

    On Legacy of Starobinsky Inflation,

    S. V. Ketov, “On Legacy of Starobinsky Inflation,” 1, 2025.arXiv:2501.06451 [gr-qc]. [3]ACTCollaboration, T. Louiset al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and ΛCDM Parameters,”arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]. [4]ACTCollaboration, E. Calabreseet al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological M...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [7]

    A simple scenario for the last ACT,

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, “A simple scenario for the last ACT,”arXiv:2503.21030 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [8]

    Higgs-Modular Inflation,

    S. Aoki, H. Otsuka, and R. Yanagita, “Higgs-Modular Inflation,”arXiv:2504.01622 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [9]

    The early universe isACT-ingwarm,

    A. Berera, S. Brahma, Z. Qiu, R. O. Ramos, and G. S. Rodrigues, “The early universe isACT-ingwarm,” arXiv:2504.02655 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  9. [10]

    Is the CMB revealing signs of pre-inflationary physics?,

    S. Brahma and J. Calder´ on-Figueroa, “Is the CMB revealing signs of pre-inflationary physics?,” arXiv:2504.02746 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [11]

    Fractional attractors in light of the latest ACT observations,

    C. Dioguardi, A. J. Iovino, and A. Racioppi, “Fractional attractors in light of the latest ACT observations,” arXiv:2504.02809 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [12]

    Has ACT measured radiative corrections to the tree-level Higgs-like inflation?,

    I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Racioppi, and M. Raidal, “Has ACT measured radiative corrections to the tree-level Higgs-like inflation?,”arXiv:2504.06002 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  12. [13]

    Independent connection in ACTion during inflation,

    A. Salvio, “Independent connection in ACTion during inflation,”arXiv:2504.10488 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [14]

    Enhancement of primordial curvature perturbations in R3-corrected Starobinsky-Higgs inflation,

    J. Kim, X. Wang, Y.-l. Zhang, and Z. Ren, “Enhancement of primordial curvature perturbations in R3-corrected Starobinsky-Higgs inflation,” arXiv:2504.12035 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [15]

    How Accidental was Inflation?,

    I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis, W. Ke, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, “How Accidental was Inflation?,” arXiv:2504.12283 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [16]

    Palatini Linear Attractors Are Back in ACTion,

    C. Dioguardi and A. Karam, “Palatini Linear Attractors Are Back in ACTion,”arXiv:2504.12937 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [17]

    Non-minimal coupling in light of ACT,

    Q. Gao, Y. Gong, Z. Yi, and F. Zhang, “Non-minimal coupling in light of ACT,”arXiv:2504.15218 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  17. [18]

    F-Term Hybrid Inflation, Metastable Cosmic Strings and Low Reheating in View of ACT,

    C. Pallis, “F-Term Hybrid Inflation, Metastable Cosmic Strings and Low Reheating in View of ACT,” in18th International Workshop on the Dark Side of the Universe. 4, 2025.arXiv:2504.20273 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [19]

    Refined Predictions for Starobinsky Inflation and Post-inflationary Constraints in Light of ACT,

    M. Drees and Y. Xu, “Refined Predictions for Starobinsky Inflation and Post-inflationary Constraints in Light of ACT,”arXiv:2504.20757 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  19. [20]

    Reheating ACTs on Starobinsky and Higgs inflation,

    D. S. Zharov, O. O. Sobol, and S. I. Vilchinskii, “Reheating ACTs on Starobinsky and Higgs inflation,” arXiv:2505.01129 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  20. [21]

    ACT DR6 Insights on the Inflationary Attractor models and Reheating,

    M. R. Haque, S. Pal, and D. Paul, “ACT DR6 Insights on the Inflationary Attractor models and Reheating,” arXiv:2505.01517 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [22]

    Reconciling Higgs Inflation with ACT Observations through Reheating,

    L. Liu, Z. Yi, and Y. Gong, “Reconciling Higgs Inflation with ACT Observations through Reheating,” arXiv:2505.02407 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [23]

    Pressure Parametrization of Dark Energy: First and Second-Order Constraints with Latest Cosmological Data,

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen, and L. Visinelli, “Pressure Parametrization of Dark Energy: First and Second-Order Constraints with Latest Cosmological Data,”arXiv:2505.02932 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  23. [24]

    Higgs-like inflation under ACTivated mass,

    W. Yin, “Higgs-like inflation under ACTivated mass,” arXiv:2505.03004 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [25]

    Keeping the relation between the Starobinsky model and no-scale supergravity ACTive,

    I. D. Gialamas, T. Katsoulas, and K. Tamvakis, 7 “Keeping the relation between the Starobinsky model and no-scale supergravity ACTive,”arXiv:2505.03608 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  25. [26]

    Improved Predictions on Higgs-Starobinsky Inflation and Reheating with ACT DR6 and Primordial Gravitational Waves,

    M. R. Haque, S. Pal, and D. Paul, “Improved Predictions on Higgs-Starobinsky Inflation and Reheating with ACT DR6 and Primordial Gravitational Waves,”arXiv:2505.04615 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [27]

    Curvature corrections to Starobinsky inflation can explain the ACT results,

    A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergenov, and S. V. Ketov, “Curvature corrections to Starobinsky inflation can explain the ACT results,”Phys. Lett. B869(2025) 139883,arXiv:2505.10305 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [28]

    The polynomial potential inflation in light of ACT observations,

    Z.-Z. Peng, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu, “The polynomial potential inflation in light of ACT observations,” arXiv:2505.12816 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  28. [29]

    Are single-field models of inflation and PBHs production ruled out by ACT observations?,

    D. Frolovsky and S. V. Ketov, “Are single-field models of inflation and PBHs production ruled out by ACT observations?,”arXiv:2505.17514 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  29. [30]

    Kinetically modified Palatini inflation meets ACT data,

    C. Pallis, “Kinetically modified Palatini inflation meets ACT data,”Phys. Lett. B868(2025) 139739, arXiv:2505.23243 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    Primordial Black Holes SaveR 2 Inflation,

    X. Wang, K. Kohri, and T. T. Yanagida, “Primordial Black Holes SaveR 2 Inflation,”arXiv:2506.06797 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  31. [32]

    Inflationary attractors and radiative corrections in light of ACT data,

    W. J. Wolf, “Inflationary attractors and radiative corrections in light of ACT data,”arXiv:2506.12436 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  32. [33]

    Unitarity-Conserving Non-Minimally Coupled Inflation and the ACT Spectral Index,

    J. McDonald, “Unitarity-Conserving Non-Minimally Coupled Inflation and the ACT Spectral Index,” arXiv:2506.12916 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  33. [34]

    What new physics can we extract from inflation using the ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 Observations?,

    S. Choudhury, G. Bauyrzhan, S. K. Singh, and K. Yerzhanov, “What new physics can we extract from inflation using the ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 Observations?,”arXiv:2506.15407 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [35]

    Observational constraints on inflationary models with non-minimally derivative coupling by ACT,

    Q. Gao, Y. Qian, Y. Gong, and Z. Yi, “Observational constraints on inflationary models with non-minimally derivative coupling by ACT,”JCAP08(2025) 083, arXiv:2506.18456 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    ACT-inspired K¨ ahler-based inflationary attractors,

    C. Pallis, “ACT-inspired K¨ ahler-based inflationary attractors,”JCAP09(2025) 061,arXiv:2507.02219 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [37]

    The Preheating Stage on The Starobinsky Inflation after ACT,

    N. Sidik Risdianto, R. H. S. Budhi, N. Shobcha, and A. Salim Adam, “The Preheating Stage on The Starobinsky Inflation after ACT,”arXiv:2507.12868 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [38]

    Reconciling fractional power potential and EGB gravity in the light of ACT,

    M. Zahoor, S. Khan, and I. A. Bhat, “Reconciling fractional power potential and EGB gravity in the light of ACT,”JHEAp49(2026) 100458,arXiv:2507.18684 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [39]

    Confronting Inflation and Reheating with Observations: Improved Predictions Beyond Slow-Roll,

    Y.-Y. Ye and B.-M. Gu, “Confronting Inflation and Reheating with Observations: Improved Predictions Beyond Slow-Roll,”arXiv:2507.20307 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  39. [40]

    Inflation inF(R) gravity models revisited after ACT,

    S. V. Ketov, E. O. Pozdeeva, and S. Y. Vernov, “Inflation inF(R) gravity models revisited after ACT,” arXiv:2508.08927 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  40. [41]

    Inflationary Models with Gauss-Bonnet Coupling in Light of ACT Observations,

    Y. Zhu, Q. Gao, Y. Gong, and Z. Yi, “Inflationary Models with Gauss-Bonnet Coupling in Light of ACT Observations,”arXiv:2508.09707 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  41. [42]

    Deformations of Starobinsky Inflation in No-Scale SU(5) and SO(10) GUTs,

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garc ´ ıa, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, “Deformations of Starobinsky Inflation in No-Scale SU(5) and SO(10) GUTs,” arXiv:2508.13279 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [43]

    Inflationary Slow-Roll Parameters in the Jordan Frame for Cosmological F(R) Gravity Models,

    V. R. Ivanov, “Inflationary Slow-Roll Parameters in the Jordan Frame for Cosmological F(R) Gravity Models,” arXiv:2508.14250 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [44]

    Quantum-Correctedϕ 4 Inflation in Light of ACT Observations,

    J. Yuennan, P. Koad, F. Atamurotov, and P. Channuie, “Quantum-Correctedϕ 4 Inflation in Light of ACT Observations,”arXiv:2508.17263 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  44. [45]

    TheR 2-Higgs inflation:R 3 contribution and preheating after ACT and SPT data,

    T. Modak, “TheR 2-Higgs inflation:R 3 contribution and preheating after ACT and SPT data,” arXiv:2509.02979 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  45. [46]

    Genesis–Starobinsky inflation can explain the ACT data,

    H. G. Choi, P. Petrov, and S. C. Park, “Genesis–Starobinsky inflation can explain the ACT data,”arXiv:2509.04832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [47]

    Power-law F(R) gravity as deformations to Starobinsky inflation in view of ACT,

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, “Power-law F(R) gravity as deformations to Starobinsky inflation in view of ACT,”Phys. Lett. B870(2025) 139907, arXiv:2509.06251 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    Heavy Field Effects on Inflationary Models in Light of ACT Data,

    S. Aoki, H. Otsuka, and R. Yanagita, “Heavy Field Effects on Inflationary Models in Light of ACT Data,” arXiv:2509.06739 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  48. [49]

    Updating GUT-Scale Pole Higgs Inflation After ACT,

    C. Pallis, “Updating GUT-Scale Pole Higgs Inflation After ACT,”arXiv:2510.02083 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  49. [50]

    Single-field D-type inflation in the minimal supergravity in light of Planck-ACT-SPT data,

    Y. Aldabergenov and S. V. Ketov, “Single-field D-type inflation in the minimal supergravity in light of Planck-ACT-SPT data,”arXiv:2512.08760 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  50. [51]

    Extended Theories of Gravity and their Cosmological and Astrophysical Applications,

    S. Capozziello and M. Francaviglia, “Extended Theories of Gravity and their Cosmological and Astrophysical Applications,”Gen. Rel. Grav.40(2008) 357–420, arXiv:0706.1146 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  51. [52]

    Extended Theories of Gravity,

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, “Extended Theories of Gravity,”Phys. Rept.509(2011) 167–321, arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [53]

    f(R) theories,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [54]

    Modified f(R) gravity consistent with realistic cosmology: From matter dominated epoch to dark energy universe,

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, “Modified f(R) gravity consistent with realistic cosmology: From matter dominated epoch to dark energy universe,”Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 086005,arXiv:hep-th/0608008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  54. [55]

    f(Lovelock) theories of gravity,

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, A. O. Lasso, and P. F. Ram ´ ırez, “f(Lovelock) theories of gravity,”JHEP04(2016) 028, arXiv:1602.07310 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [56]

    Inevitable ghost and the degrees of freedom in f(R,G) gravity,

    A. De Felice and T. Tanaka, “Inevitable ghost and the degrees of freedom in f(R,G) gravity,”Prog. Theor. Phys.124(2010) 503–515,arXiv:1006.4399 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  56. [57]

    Finite-time future singularities in modified Gauss-Bonnet and F(R,G) gravity and singularity avoidance,

    K. Bamba, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, and S. Zerbini, “Finite-time future singularities in modified Gauss-Bonnet and F(R,G) gravity and singularity avoidance,”Eur. Phys. J. C67(2010) 295–310, arXiv:0911.4390 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [58]

    LambdaCDM epoch reconstruction from F(R,G) and modified Gauss-Bonnet gravities,

    E. Elizalde, R. Myrzakulov, V. V. Obukhov, and D. Saez-Gomez, “LambdaCDM epoch reconstruction from F(R,G) and modified Gauss-Bonnet gravities,” Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 095007, arXiv:1001.3636 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  58. [59]

    Energy conditions in f(R, G) gravity,

    K. Atazadeh and F. Darabi, “Energy conditions in f(R, G) gravity,”Gen. Rel. Grav.46(2014) 1664, arXiv:1302.0466 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [60]

    Ghost-freeF(R,G) gravity,

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and A. A. Popov, “Ghost-freeF(R,G) gravity,”Nucl. Phys. B 973(2021) 115617,arXiv:2111.09457 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [61]

    Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,

    G. W. Horndeski, “Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,”Int. J. Theor. Phys.10(1974) 363–384

    1974

  61. [62]

    From k-essence to generalised Galileons,

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, and G. Zahariade, “From k-essence to generalised Galileons,”Phys. Rev. D 84(2011) 064039,arXiv:1103.3260 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  62. [63]

    Horndeski theory and beyond: a 8 review,

    T. Kobayashi, “Horndeski theory and beyond: a 8 review,”Rept. Prog. Phys.82no. 8, (2019) 086901, arXiv:1901.07183 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [64]

    Higgs inflation with a Gauss-Bonnet term,

    S. Koh, S. C. Park, and G. Tumurtushaa, “Higgs inflation with a Gauss-Bonnet term,”Phys. Rev. D110 no. 2, (2024) 023523,arXiv:2308.00897 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [65]

    A formal introduction to Horndeski and Galileon theories and their generalizations,

    C. Deffayet and D. A. Steer, “A formal introduction to Horndeski and Galileon theories and their generalizations,”Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013) 214006, arXiv:1307.2450 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  65. [66]

    Classical evolution and quantum generation in generalized gravity theories including string corrections and tachyon: Unified analyses,

    J.-c. Hwang and H. Noh, “Classical evolution and quantum generation in generalized gravity theories including string corrections and tachyon: Unified analyses,”Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 063536, arXiv:gr-qc/0412126

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005