Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A β-exponential inflaton in Palatini R+R² gravity can satisfy current CMB bounds under constant-roll dynamics.

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 10:34 UTC pith:OFNTG2F4

load-bearing objection The claimed sign error is a false alarm, but the abstract's non-Gaussianity promise is unsupported and the ACT/Planck 'agreement' is a parameter fit, not a prediction. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.09664 v2 pith:OFNTG2F4 submitted 2026-01-14 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

Constant-roll β-exponential inflation: Palatini formalism

Ozan Sarg{\i}n This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 98.80.Cq04.50.Kd
keywords constant-roll inflationPalatini formalismβ-exponential potentialk-inflationnon-minimal couplingR^2 gravityspectral indextensor-to-scalar ratio
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 constant-roll inflation, not just slow-roll, keeps the β-exponential potential viable when the scalar field is non-minimally coupled to quadratic gravity in the Palatini formalism. By reducing the dynamics to a cubic algebraic equation for the field velocity, it derives the spectral index n_s and tensor-to-scalar ratio r as functions of the field, then scans the five model parameters. It reports parameter regions where the predictions fall inside the 68% or 95% confidence contours of ACT DR6, Planck, and BICEP/Keck data. It also asserts that constant-roll dynamics generate a distinct primordial non-Gaussianity that could be observed. The importance: a non-slow-roll, modified-gravity inflationary model remains observationally alive and makes a falsifiable prediction beyond the tilt and tensor ratio.

Core claim

On the author's own terms, the paper's discovery is that the Palatini action with a non-minimally coupled scalar and an R² term maps to a generalized k-inflation model whose field velocity, under the constant-roll ansatz φ̈ = κHφ̇, is given by the real root of a cubic equation. Feeding this root into the slow-roll parameters and computing n_s and r for the β-exponential potential V = V₀[1 − βλφ]^(1/β), the paper finds curves in the n_s–r plane that cross the observationally allowed regions for a range of (β, λ, κ, ξ, α). The abstract's further claim is that the constant-roll dynamics yield a non-Gaussian signature that is distinct from slow-roll k-inflation and observationally viable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Einstein-frame effective Lagrangian L(ϕ,X) = A(ϕ)X + B(ϕ)X² − U(ϕ), a generalized k-inflation theory obtained by solving the auxiliary-field constraint in Palatini R+R² gravity with non-minimal coupling. Under the constant-roll ansatz, the scalar equation becomes a cubic in ϕ̇ whose real root (expressed via the standard cubic formula) supplies all slow-roll parameters, the sound speed C_s, and hence n_s, r, and the power spectrum. The β-exponential potential V = V₀[1 − βλϕ]^(1/β) then converts the parameter scan into a five-parameter family of predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the constant-roll condition φ̈ = κHφ̇ with κ constant holds for the whole observationally relevant e-fold window, and never demonstrates that such a fine-tuned trajectory is reached from generic initial conditions.

What would settle it

Run the unconstrained background equations for the same (β, λ, κ, ξ, α) values, start ϕ̇ off the constant-roll solution, and see whether the trajectory converges to φ̈ = κHφ̇ with constant κ within a few e-folds and remains there for 50–60 e-folds; if it does not, the n_s–r predictions for those parameters do not match any realizable history. Alternatively, measure the CMB bispectrum: if the constant-roll non-Gaussian signature—once its shape and amplitude are quantified—is excluded, the model as presented is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • The model identifies specific intervals for β, λ, κ, ξ, α that are consistent with ACT DR6, Planck, and BICEP/Keck data; if the model is right, these are the parameter regions to probe further.
  • Constant-roll k-inflation predicts a non-Gaussian signature that future CMB experiments can search for in the bispectrum, unlike slow-roll dynamics.
  • The Palatini formulation changes the predictions relative to the metric formulation for the same potential, offering a way to discriminate between the two formalisms using n_s and r.
  • The derived cubic-root procedure provides an explicit algorithm for computing observables in any Palatini R+R² model with a specified potential, extending beyond the β-exponential case.
  • The iterative e-fold matching between instant reheating and field integration gives a concrete numerical pipeline that can be reused for other potentials in the same gravity framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to check whether the constant-roll trajectory is an attractor: if generic initial conditions do not settle onto φ̈ = κHφ̇ with the same κ over the observable 50–60 e-folds, the reported n_s–r curves would be too optimistic. This is not tested in the paper.
  • The non-Gaussian signature is asserted qualitatively; computing its shape (local, equilateral, or folded) and amplitude (f_NL) for the reported parameter region would turn the claim into a sharper, testable prediction.
  • The same machinery could be applied to other potentials (e.g., power-law, natural inflation) in Palatini R+R², charting a reusable route from Jordan-frame action to constant-roll observables.
  • The paper's iterative algorithm matching N_* from instant reheating with the integrated e-fold count could be cross-checked by an independent numerical integration of the full background equations, a test that would confirm or refute the reported α-dependence of r.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies constant-roll inflation driven by the β-exponential potential in Palatini f(R, φ) gravity with an R² term. After conformal transformation, the effective Einstein-frame theory is written as a generalized k-inflation Lagrangian L(φ,X)=A(φ)X+B(φ)X²−U(φ), with explicit form (2.10). The authors derive the scalar field equation, impose the constant-roll condition φ̈=κHφ̇, solve the resulting cubic for φ̇[φ], and compute the spectral index n_s and tensor-to-scalar ratio r. They scan the parameters (β, λ, κ, ξ, α) with V₀ fixed by the scalar power-spectrum amplitude, and claim that selected curves agree with ACT DR6, Planck, and BK18 constraints. The abstract additionally claims that a non-Gaussianity evaluation confirms a distinct observational signature.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a useful parameter scan of a Palatini constant-roll model and identify regions of parameter space compatible with current CMB data. The analytic setup (generalized k-inflation from Palatini R+R²) and the explicit formulas for A, B, U are potentially reusable. However, the central derivation contains a sign error in the field equation that invalidates the numerical pipeline, and the non-Gaussianity claim is not backed by any calculation in the paper. The agreement with observations is obtained by scanning five free parameters and fixing a sixth from the amplitude, so the claimed 'excellent agreement' is a multi-parameter fit rather than a sharp falsifiable prediction. In its current form, the paper does not support its main conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2.17)] The scalar field equation has the wrong signs for the potential and kinetic-gradient terms. For L=A(φ)X+B(φ)X²−U(φ), the correct Euler–Lagrange equation in FLRW is (A+6BX)φ̈+3H(A+2BX)φ̇+A'X+3B'X²+U'=0. Setting A=1, B=0, U=V gives φ̈+3Hφ̇+V'=0. Equation (2.17) instead gives φ̈+3Hφ̇−A'X−3B'X²=U', which reduces to φ̈+3Hφ̇=V' in the canonical limit. This is a load-bearing error: it propagates directly into Eq. (3.10) and hence into the cubic solution (3.17) used for every n_s–r curve in Figs. 1–5.
  2. [Eq. (3.10)] Even taking Eq. (2.17) as printed, substituting the constant-roll condition (3.1) yields 4Hφ̇A(κ+3)+12Hφ̇³B(κ+1)−2A'φ̇²−3B'φ̇⁴−4U'=0. The printed Eq. (3.10) has −12Hφ̇³B(κ+1) and +2A'φ̇², so it is not the result of substituting (3.1) into (2.17). Since (3.10) is the basis for the polynomial (3.11) and its solution (3.17), the numerical predictions in Figs. 1–5 rest on an internally inconsistent dynamical equation, independent of the canonical-limit sign issue.
  3. [Abstract / Sec. 6] The abstract claims that 'an evaluation of the primordial non-Gaussianity confirms that the constant-roll dynamics generate a distinct, observationally viable phenomenological signature.' No non-Gaussianity computation, bispectrum estimate, or related expression appears anywhere in the manuscript. The only mentions are motivational remarks in Sec. 1. This is a central claim of the paper as advertised and is unsupported by the actual content.
  4. [Secs. 3–5] The constant-roll condition (3.1) is imposed globally over the observable e-fold window, but the paper never checks whether such trajectories are dynamical attractors of the full system or whether the solution φ̇[φ] obtained from (3.17) actually satisfies φ̈=κHφ̇ consistently. The predictions are obtained by scanning five free parameters and fixing V₀ from the scalar amplitude; the figures show continuous curves with one parameter varied while others are held fixed. This makes the apparent agreement with ACT/Planck/BK18 a multi-parameter fit rather than a model prediction. The paper should either validate the attractor property and quantify the statistical weight of the scanned region, or temper the claim of 'excellent agreement.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 6] The first paragraph writes '¨ϕ∼βHϕ̇'; the constant-roll parameter is κ elsewhere, so this appears to be a typo.
  2. [Eq. (3.10)] Beyond the physics, the signs in (3.10) are inconsistent with the preceding (2.17); a careful re-derivation of the complete chain (2.17)→(3.10)→(3.17) is needed.
  3. [Figs. 1–5] The figures show continuous curves with α or κ varied, but not the density of the parameter scan or the location of individual model points inside the confidence contours. A table of representative parameter points and a statement of how many scan points fall inside each contour would substantially improve transparency.
  4. [References] Reference [124] is listed as 'Nucl. Phys. D994' which is not a standard journal abbreviation; please verify the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's predictions are conditional model outputs compared to external CMB data, not constructed from those data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Einstein-frame Lagrangian L(phi,X)=A(phi)X+B(phi)X^2-U(phi) is obtained from the Jordan-frame action by explicit Weyl rescaling and solving the auxiliary-field constraint, not by assuming the final observables. The equations of motion, constant-roll condition (3.1), cubic solution for phidot (3.17), and the standard formulas for n_s, r, C_s, and P_S are combined to compute observables as functions of the field and parameters. Fixing V0 via P_S≈2.1e-9 only normalizes the amplitude; it does not determine n_s or r. Scanning (beta, lambda, kappa, xi, alpha) and plotting the resulting curves against ACT/Planck/BK18 contours is standard parameter-space exploration, not a construction that forces agreement: the plotted n_s-r relation is a nontrivial output of solving the equations, including the e-fold matching (3.8) and (5.1)-(5.2). The constant-roll ansatz is a dynamical assumption about the trajectory, not an input fitted to the observational targets; lack of an attractor check is a validity concern, not circularity. The self-citations [22] and [67] appear in literature surveys and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The abstract's claim of an 'evaluation' of primordial non-Gaussianity is unsupported by any computation in the manuscript, and Eq. (2.17) has an apparent sign inconsistency that propagates to (3.10); these are significant correctness/falsifiability issues, but they are not cases of a prediction reducing by construction to its input. Therefore no circular step is established.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the standard Palatini R² technology, the Hwang–Noh perturbation formulas, and the β-exponential potential from the literature, then adds a constant-roll ansatz and scans six free parameters. No new entities are introduced; the radion/Tsallis interpretations are only motivations. The central claim rests on fitted parameter ranges rather than a first-principles derivation.

free parameters (6)
  • β = 0.25, 0.5, 0.8 (discrete scan)
    β-exponential deformation parameter; varied to shift n_s–r curves toward observational contours.
  • λ = 0.001–1.0 (scan)
    Exponent parameter of the potential; scanned, with larger λ moving n_s rightward.
  • κ = 1e-5–1.1e-2; fixed at 0.005 in Fig. 1
    Constant-roll parameter; chosen small to keep n_s in the observed range.
  • ξ = 1e-4–1e-2 (discrete values)
    Non-minimal coupling between ϕ and R; scanned, with decreasing ξ lowering n_s.
  • α = 1e5–8e10
    Starobinsky R² coefficient; scanned; controls the suppression of r.
  • V0 = set by scalar power spectrum Δ²_R ≈ 2.1e-9
    Potential normalization fixed iteratively through the amplitude constraint; technically a fit to the observed power.
axioms (5)
  • standard math The auxiliary field χ can be eliminated on-shell to yield L(ϕ,X) = A(ϕ)X + B(ϕ)X² − U(ϕ) (Eqs. 2.6–2.10).
    This is the standard Palatini R² result, previously derived in refs. [36,39,161]; the paper re-derives it without modifying it.
  • domain assumption Hwang–Noh first-order slow-roll formulas for n_s and r (Eqs. 3.4–3.5) apply to this generalized k-inflation theory.
    The perturbation theory is imported from refs. [162–164]; its validity at first order in the slow-roll parameters is assumed, not re-established for the large-α regime.
  • ad hoc to paper Constant-roll condition φ̈ = κHφ̇ holds with κ constant over the whole observable window (Eq. 3.1).
    This is imposed, not derived from the potential; no check is made that such trajectories are attractors of the full dynamics or that inflation exits inflation properly.
  • domain assumption Instant-reheating e-fold formula N* ≈ 64.7 + ½lnρ* − ¼lnρ_e (Eq. 5.1) fixes the pivot-scale crossing.
    The standard instant-reheating assumption is used without sensitivity analysis; different reheating histories would shift N* and the curves.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective field theory remains weakly coupled and unitary at the inflationary energy scale for α up to 8×10^10 and ξ up to 1e-2.
    No unitarity or cutoff analysis is provided; the large α range is selected to fit the data, not derived from physical constraints.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17774 in / 38160 out tokens · 330337 ms · 2026-08-03T10:34:36.346110+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the inflationary dynamics of a $\beta$-exponential potential model within the framework of non-minimally coupled quadratic $(R+R^2)$ gravity. The functional form of the adopted potential provides a well-motivated framework; its physical origin can be interpreted either as the stabilization dynamics of a radion field determining the size of the extra dimension in braneworld cosmology, or as a manifestation of the $q$-exponential function emerging naturally from Tsallis non-extensive thermodynamics. Utilizing the Palatini formalism, we derive an effective Einstein-frame generalized k-inflation theory and analyze its evolution under the constant-roll condition. We perform a comprehensive scan of the parameter space to obtain predictions for the spectral index $n_s$ and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$. Our results demonstrate that for specific viable ranges of the model parameters, the inflationary observables are in excellent agreement with the latest observational data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) DR6 and the Planck mission, thereby identifying the physically consistent regions of the parameter space. Furthermore, an evaluation of the primordial non-Gaussianity confirms that the constant-roll dynamics generate a distinct, observationally viable phenomenological signature.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

165 extracted references · 139 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    1980

  2. [2]

    A. H. Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 347

    1981

  3. [3]

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

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

    1981

  4. [4]

    A. D. Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems, Phys. Lett. B108(1982) 389

    1982

  5. [5]

    Albrecht and P.J

    A. Albrecht and P.J. Steinhardt,Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. Lett.48(1982) 1220

    1982

  6. [6]

    Linde,Chaotic Inflation, Phys

    A.D. Linde,Chaotic Inflation, Phys. Lett. B129(1983) 177

    1983

  7. [7]

    D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto,Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density perturbation, Physics Reports314(1999), no. 1, 1–146

    1999

  8. [8]

    A. A. Starobinsky,Spectrum of relict gravitational radiation and the early state of the universe, JETP Lett.30(1979) 682–685. [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.30,719(1979); ,767(1979)]

    1979

  9. [9]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov,Quantum Fluctuations and a Nonsingular Universe, JETP Lett.33(1981) 532–535. [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.33,549(1981)]

    1981

  10. [10]

    S. W. Hawking,The development of irregularities in a single bubble inflationary universe, Phys. Lett. B, 115 (1982), 295

    1982

  11. [11]

    S. W. Hawking and I. G. Moss,Fluctuations in the Inflationary Universe, Nucl. Phys. B224 (1983) 180

    1983

  12. [12]

    A. A. Starobinsky,Dynamics of Phase Transition in the New Inflationary Universe Scenario and Generation of Perturbations, Phys. Lett. B117(1982) 175–178

    1982

  13. [13]

    A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi,Fluctuations in the New Inflationary Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.49 (1982) 1110–1113. [14]PlanckCollaboration, Y. Akrami et al.,Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation, [arXiv:1807.06211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1982

  14. [15]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP, Keck],Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season, Phys. Rev. Lett.151301, 127, 15 (2021), [arXiv:2110.00483]

    arXiv 2018

  15. [16]

    Calabrese et al

    E. Calabrese et al. [ACT collaboration],The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models, JCAP11(2025), 063, [arXiv:2503.14454]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [17]

    De Felice and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [18]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni,f(R) Theories Of Gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 451–497, [arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [19]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis,Extended Theories of Gravity, Phys. Rept.509(2011) 167–321, [arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]]. – 12 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [20]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis,Modified Gravity and Cosmology, Phys. Rept.513(2012) 1–189, [arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [21]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou,Inflationaryα-attractors fromF(R)gravity, Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 12 124026, [arXiv:1612.01126]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [22]

    Bostan, C

    N. Bostan, C. Karahan and O. Sargın,Inflation in symmergent metric-Palatini gravity, JCAP 02(2024) 028, [arXiv:2308.04507]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [23]

    Palatini,Deduzione invariantiva delle equazioni gravitazionali dal principio di hamilton, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940)43(Dec, 1919) 203–212

    A. Palatini,Deduzione invariantiva delle equazioni gravitazionali dal principio di hamilton, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940)43(Dec, 1919) 203–212

    1940

  23. [24]

    Bauer and D

    F. Bauer and D. A. Demir,Inflation with Non-Minimal Coupling: Metric versus Palatini Formulations, Phys. Lett. B,665, 222-226 (2008), [arXiv:0803.2664]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [25]

    Borunda, B

    M. Borunda, B. Janssen, and M. Bastero-Gil,Palatini versus metric formulation in higher curvature gravity, JCAP11(2008) 008, [arXiv:0804.4440]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  25. [26]

    Bauer and D

    F. Bauer and D. A. Demir,Higgs-Palatini Inflation and Unitarity, Phys. Lett. B698(2011) 425–429, [arXiv:1012.2900]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [27]

    Tamanini and C

    N. Tamanini and C. R. Contaldi,Inflationary Perturbations in Palatini Generalised Gravity, Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 044018, [arXiv:1010.0689]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  27. [28]

    Enqvist, T

    K. Enqvist, T. Koivisto, and G. Rigopoulos,Non-metric chaotic inflation, JCAP05(2012) 023, [arXiv:1107.3739]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [29]

    Borowiec, M

    A. Borowiec, M. Kamionka, A. Kurek, and M. Szydlowski,Cosmic acceleration from modified gravity with Palatini formalism, JCAP02(2012) 027, [arXiv:1109.3420]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [30]

    Racioppi,Coleman-Weinberg linear inflation: metric vs

    A. Racioppi,Coleman-Weinberg linear inflation: metric vs. Palatini formulation, JCAP12 (2017) 041, [arXiv:1710.04853]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [31]

    Rasanen and P

    S. Rasanen and P. Wahlman,Higgs inflation with loop corrections in the Palatini formulation, JCAP11, (2017) 047 , [arXiv:1709.07853]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [32]

    C. Fu, P. Wu, and H. Yu,Inflationary dynamics and preheating of the nonminimally coupled inflaton field in the metric and Palatini formalisms, Phys. Rev. D96(2017), 103542, [arXiv:1801.04089]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [33]

    Stachowski, M

    A. Stachowski, M. Szyd lowski, and A. Borowiec,Starobinsky cosmological model in Palatini formalism, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017), 406, [arXiv:1608.03196]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [34]

    Azri and D

    H. Azri and D. Demir,Affine Inflation, Phys. Rev. D95(2017), 124007, [arXiv:1705.05822]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [35]

    Enckell, K

    V.-M. Enckell, K. Enqvist, S. Rasanen, and E. Tomberg,Higgs inflation at the hilltop, JCAP 06(2018), 005, [arXiv:1802.09299]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [36]

    Enckell, K

    V.-M. Enckell, K. Enqvist, S. Rasanen and L.-P. Wahlman,Inflation withR 2 term in the Palatini formulation, JCAP02(2019) 022, [arXiv:1810.05536]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [37]

    J¨ arv, A

    L. J¨ arv, A. Racioppi, and T. Tenkanen,Palatini side of inflationary attractors, Phys. Rev. D 97(2018), 083513, [arXiv:1712.08471]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [38]

    Rasanen,Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation with kinetic terms for the metric, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, vol.2, 2019, [arXiv:1811.09514]

    S. Rasanen,Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation with kinetic terms for the metric, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, vol.2, 2019, [arXiv:1811.09514]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [39]

    Antoniadis, A

    I. Antoniadis, A. Karam, A. Lykkas and K. Tamvakis,Palatini inflation in models with anR 2 term, JCAP,11, (2018) 028 , [arXiv:1810.10418]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [40]

    Rasanen and E

    S. Rasanen and E. Tomberg,Planck scale black hole dark matter from Higgs inflation, JCAP, 01, (2019) 038 , [arXiv:1810.12608]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [41]

    Antoniadis, A

    I. Antoniadis, A. Karam, A. Lykkas, T. Pappas and K. Tamvakis,Rescuing Quartic and Natural Inflation in the Palatini Formalism, JCAP,03, (2019) 005, [arXiv:1812.00847]. – 13 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [42]

    Racioppi,Non-Minimal (Self-)Running Inflation: Metric vs

    A. Racioppi,Non-Minimal (Self-)Running Inflation: Metric vs. Palatini Formulation, JHEP, 01(2021) 011, [arXiv:1912.10038]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [43]

    Shimada, K

    K. Shimada, K. Aoki, and K. Maeda,Metric-affine Gravity and Inflation, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), 104020, [arXiv:1812.03420]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [44]

    Jinno, K

    R. Jinno, K. Kaneta, K.-y. Oda, and S. C. Park,Hillclimbing inflation in metric and Palatini formulations, Phys. Lett. B791, (2019) 396-402, [arXiv:1812.11077]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [45]

    Tenkanen,Minimal Higgs inflation with anR 2 term in Palatini gravity, Phys

    T. Tenkanen,Minimal Higgs inflation with anR 2 term in Palatini gravity, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), 063528, [arXiv:1901.01794]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [46]

    Rubio and E

    J. Rubio and E. S. Tomberg,Preheating in Palatini Higgs inflation, JCAP04(2019), 021, [arXiv:1902.10148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [47]

    I. D. Gialamas and A. B. Lahanas,Reheating inR 2 Palatini inflationary models, Phys. Rev. D, 101(2020) 084007, [arXiv:1911.11513]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [48]

    Tenkanen,Tracing the high energy theory of gravity: an introduction to Palatini inflation, Gen

    T. Tenkanen,Tracing the high energy theory of gravity: an introduction to Palatini inflation, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.52, (2020) 33, [arXiv:2001.10135]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [49]

    Shaposhnikov, A

    M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell,Standard Model Meets Gravity: Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and Inflation, Phys. Rev. D103, (2021) 033006, [arXiv:2001.09088]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [50]

    Tenkanen and E

    T. Tenkanen and E. Tomberg,Initial conditions for plateau inflation, JCAP04(2020) 050, [arXiv:2002.02420]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [51]

    Shaposhnikov, A

    M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell,Quantum Effects in Palatini Higgs Inflation, JCAP 07(2020) 064, [arXiv:2002.07105]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [52]

    Lloyd-Stubbs and J

    A. Lloyd-Stubbs and J. McDonald,Sub-Planckianϕ 2 Inflation in the Palatini Formulation of Gravity with anR 2 term, Phys. Rev. D101, (2020) 123515, [arXiv:2002.08324]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [53]

    I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Racioppi,Dynamically induced Planck scale and inflation in the Palatini formulation, JCAP11(2020) 014, [arXiv:2006.09124]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [54]

    I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Lykkas, T. D. Pappas,Palatini-Higgs inflation with non-minimal derivative coupling, Phys. Rev. D102, (2020) 063522, [arXiv:2008.06371]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [55]

    Bostan,Palatini Higgs and Coleman-Weinberg inflation with non-minimal coupling, JCAP 04(2021) 042, [arXiv:2009.04406]

    N. Bostan,Palatini Higgs and Coleman-Weinberg inflation with non-minimal coupling, JCAP 04(2021) 042, [arXiv:2009.04406]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [56]

    Bekov, K

    S. Bekov, K. Myrzakulov, R. Myrzakulov, D. S. G´ omez,General Slow-Roll Inflation inf(R) Gravity under the Palatini Approach, Symmetry12, (2020) 1958, [arXiv:2010.12360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [57]

    Dimopoulos, S

    K. Dimopoulos, S. S. L´ opez,Quintessential inflation in Palatinif(R)gravity, Phys. Rev. D 103, (2020) 043533, [arXiv:2012.06831]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [58]

    I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, T. D. Pappas, V. C. Spanos,Scale-invariant quadratic gravity and inflation in the Palatini formalism, Phys. Rev. D104, (2020) 023521, [arXiv:2104.04550]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [59]

    Annala, S

    J. Annala, S. Rasanen,Inflation withR (αβ) terms in the Palatini formulation, JCAP09(2021) 032, [arXiv:2106.12422]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [60]

    Dioguardi, A

    C. Dioguardi, A. Racioppi and E. Tomberg,Slow-roll inflation in PalatiniF(R)gravity, JHEP06(2022) 106, [arXiv:2112.12149]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [61]

    Bostan,Non-minimally coupled Natural Inflation: Palatini and Metric formalism with the recent BICEP/Keck, JCAP02(2023) 063, [arXiv:2209.02434]

    N. Bostan,Non-minimally coupled Natural Inflation: Palatini and Metric formalism with the recent BICEP/Keck, JCAP02(2023) 063, [arXiv:2209.02434]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [62]

    Dioguardi, A

    C. Dioguardi, A. Racioppi and E. Tomberg,Beyond (and back to) Palatini quadratic gravity and inflation, JCAP03(2024) 041, [arXiv:2212.11869]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [63]

    Eadkhong, P

    T. Eadkhong, P. Dam-O, P. Channuie, D. Momeni,Nonminimally-coupled warm Higgs inflation: Metric vs. Palatini formulations, Nucl. Phys. D994(2023) 116289, [arXiv:2303.00572]. – 14 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [64]

    I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, T. D. Pappas, and E. Tomberg,Implications of Palatini gravity for inflation and beyond, Int. J. of Geo. Meth. in Mod. Phys.20, (2023) 13, 2330007, [arXiv:2303.14148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [65]

    J¨ arv, S

    L. J¨ arv, S. Karamitsos, and M. Saal,Global portraits of nonminimal inflation: Metric and Palatini formalism, Phys. Rev. D109, (2024) 084073, [arXiv:2401.12314]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [66]

    Hassan and S

    A. Hassan and S. R¨ as¨ anen,Inflation with the Chern-Simons term in the Palatini formulation, JCAP01(2025) 087, [arXiv:2408.14983]

    arXiv 2025

  66. [67]

    Bostan, C

    N. Bostan, C. Karahan and O. Sargın,Large field polynomial inflation in Palatinif(R, ϕ) gravity, JCAP01(2025) 115, [arXiv:2411.07995]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [68]

    Bombacigno, M

    F. Bombacigno, M. De Angelis, C. van de Bruck and W. Giar` e,Inflation in non-local hybrid metric-Palatini gravity, JCAP05(2025) 025, [arXiv:2412.15064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [69]

    Bostan, R

    N. Bostan, R. H. Dejrah, C. Dioguardi and A. Racioppi,Natural inflation in PalatiniF(R, X), JCAP07(2025) 082, [arXiv:2503.16324]

    arXiv 2025

  69. [70]

    Dimopoulos, C

    K. Dimopoulos, C. Dioguardi, G. H¨ utsi, A. Racioppi,Quintessential inflation in Palatini F(R, X)gravity, Eur. Phys. J. P140(2025) 1109, [arXiv:2503.21610]

    arXiv 2025

  70. [71]

    Pallis,Kinetically modified Palatini inflation meets ACT data, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [72]

    Bostan, R

    N. Bostan, R. H. Dejrah, C. Dioguardi and A. Racioppi,Natural inflation in PalatiniF(R), [arXiv:2511.20557]

    arXiv

  72. [73]

    Armendariz-Picon, T

    C. Armendariz-Picon, T. Damour, and V. F. Mukhanov,k-inflation, Phys. Lett. B458(1999) 209–218, [arXiv:hep-th/9904075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  73. [74]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. Okabe, and M. Yamaguchi,Kinetically driven quintessence, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 023511, [arXiv:astro-ph/9912463]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  74. [75]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov, and P. J. Steinhardt,A Dynamical solution to the problem of a small cosmological constant and late time cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. Lett.85 (2000) 4438–4441, [arXiv:astro-ph/0004134]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  75. [76]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. F. Mukhanov, and P. J. Steinhardt,Essentials of k-essence, Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 103510, [arXiv:astro-ph/0006373]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  76. [77]

    Chiba,Tracking k-essence, Phys

    T. Chiba,Tracking k-essence, Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 063514, [arXiv:astro-ph/0206298]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  77. [78]

    Malquarti, E

    M. Malquarti, E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, and M. Trodden,A New view of k-essence, Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 123503, [arXiv:astro-ph/0302279]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  78. [79]

    Malquarti, E

    M. Malquarti, E. J. Copeland, and A. R. Liddle,k-essence and the coincidence problem, Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 023512, [arXiv:astro-ph/0304277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  79. [80]

    L. P. Chimento and A. Feinstein,Power-law expansion in k-essence cosmology, Mod. Phys. Lett. A19(2004) 761–768, [arXiv:astro-ph/0305007]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  80. [81]

    L. P. Chimento,Extended tachyon field, Chaplygin gas and solvable k-essence cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 123517, [arXiv:astro-ph/0311613]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

Showing first 80 references.