Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 151 references

The same field-space geometry that sets inflation's departure from Starobinsky predicts dark energy's thawing signal, giving (w0, w_a) ≈ (−0.992, −0.011).

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

2026-08-01 21:01 UTC pith:2HVNK4SG

load-bearing objection Clean construction and a real early-late consistency relation, but the whole DE prediction rides on an admittedly tuned λ=0 branch that the paper cannot protect. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16405 v1 pith:2HVNK4SG submitted 2026-07-17 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

The Goldstone Awakens: Unimodular dark energy in scale-invariant R² gravity

Mariaveronica De Angelis , Javier Rubio This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th
keywords scale invarianceunimodular gravityR^2 gravityinflationdark energythawing quintessenceGoldstone bosonearly-late consistency relation
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 a single scale-invariant geometry can account for two epochs of cosmic acceleration: inflation and late-time dark energy. The central claim is that the Goldstone boson of spontaneously broken scale symmetry, frozen during inflation by the conserved scale-symmetry Noether current, is later lifted by the unimodular integration constant into a thawing quintessence field whose exponential-potential slope is fixed by the same non-minimal coupling that controls the inflationary spectral tilt. If true, the model removes the free dark-energy slope parameter and predicts a quantitative consistency relation between early- and late-Universe observables: (1−n_s)^2 − r/3 ≃ [3(1+w0)/(2F(Ω_DE))]^2 with F≈0.45, giving (w0, w_a) ≈ (−0.992, −0.011) for the representative benchmark. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns dark energy into a testable consequence of inflationary geometry rather than an independent ingredient: joint future measurements of the spectral tilt, tensor-to-scalar ratio, and present equation of state would directly test whether departures from pure Starobinsky inflation and from a cosmological constant share a common origin. The framework also excludes matter-era tracking throughout its parameter space and places the entire inflationary viability window in the accelerating thawing regime.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Goldstone boson of dilatations plays two sharply distinct cosmological roles governed by one geometry. During inflation, conservation of the scale-symmetry Noether current confines the trajectory to a one-dimensional orbit, freezing the Goldstone direction and rendering the dynamics effectively single-field. After inflation, the unimodular integration constant — a free constant of the equations of motion rather than a parameter — lifts the flat Goldstone direction into an exponential potential with slope γ = sqrt(ξ/[3(1+2ξ)]) on the Minkowski branch, where the scale-invariant sector leaves zero residual vacuum energy. The same coupl

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-field sigma model with field-space metric G_IJ = diag(e^{2b(f)}, 6e^{-2b(f)}) and the conserved Noether current of scale symmetry, whose kernel K ≡ M_P^2/2 (ϕ^2/M_P^2 + 6M_P^2/f^2) confines the trajectory to an elliptic orbit f = √6 M_P / sqrt(2M_P^2 − ϕ^2). On this orbit the Goldstone field χ is frozen during inflation, and the unimodular integration constant Λ0 lifts the flat direction after the radial field settles at its minimum, generating the exponential potential V(Ψ) = V_DE^(0) e^{−4γΨ/M_P}. The slope γ ≡ e^{−b(ρ_min)} is fixed by the field-space geometry at the post-inflationary attractor, and on the Minkowski branch satisfies γ^2 = ξ/[3(1+2ξ)]. Th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Minkowski branch λ=0 holds at the quantum level, so the scale-invariant sector contributes exactly zero residual vacuum energy and dark energy comes purely from the unimodular integration constant; if radiative corrections generate λ≠0, the predicted w0 and the consistency relation shift.

What would settle it

Measure the spectral tilt, tensor-to-scalar ratio, and present dark-energy equation of state with sufficient precision and test whether (1−n_s)^2 − r/3 equals [3(1+w0)/(2F(Ω_DE))]^2 with F(0.69)≈0.45. Concretely: if a future CMB polarisation experiment pins down r and n_s, and a dark-energy survey measures |1+w0| ≲ 10^{-3}, then an exact w0 = −1 would falsify the model, since the exponential potential always predicts a positive thawing signal; alternatively, a violation of the equality at the few-percent level would falsify the common-geometry claim.

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

If this is right

  • The dark-energy equation of state is not a free parameter: for the benchmark the model predicts (w0, w_a) ≈ (−0.992, −0.011), deep in the thawing regime and close to ΛCDM.
  • The consistency relation (1.1) makes the dark-energy sector testable through inflation: a larger thawing departure corresponds to a lower spectral index n_s, while n_s closer to unity drives the model toward ΛCDM; improved measurements of n_s, r, and w0 directly probe the common origin.
  • The model structurally excludes matter-era tracking (γ ≤ 1/√6) and freezes the quintessence field until near the present epoch, so BBN and early cosmology are indistinguishable from ΛCDM, with the field's energy fraction at BBN around 10^{-35}.
  • The rigidity of the connection — the same ξ sets both the inflationary spectral tilt and the dark-energy slope — means the model cannot independently adjust the two epochs; a spectral tilt closer to unity than the benchmark would drive w0 closer to −1.
  • Current late-time observations cannot meaningfully distinguish the predicted |1+w0| ≈ 8×10^{-3} from zero, since it is about seven times smaller than the present uncertainty; the decisive test requires future surveys with percent-level sensitivity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the consistency relation is correct, the two-way connection works in both directions: a precise measurement of the inflationary pair (n_s, r) would predict the present dark-energy equation of state, and a precise measurement of w0 would predict the inflationary tilt — a cross-check the paper mentions but does not fully develop.
  • The bound γ ≤ 1/√6 implies the model can never give exactly w0 = −1; even in the limit ξ → 0 the exponential potential keeps 1+w0 > 0, so a future measurement establishing an exact cosmological constant would falsify the entire unimodular-lifting class.
  • Because the paper shows the consistency relation matches, at leading order, that of a sibling scale-invariant construction after a coupling redefinition, a plausible broader inference is that any scale-invariant unimodular theory whose inflaton and dark-energy field share the same field-space geometry will exhibit an analogous early–late relation.
  • A natural testable extension is to compute the one-loop effective potential on the Minkowski branch: the paper admits λ=0 is a tuned renormalisation condition, so estimating the radiative shift of λ would quantify how much residual vacuum energy can be tolerated before the predicted w0 and the relation (1.1) are displaced beyond observational reach.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scale-invariant $R^2$-gravity model combined with unimodular gravity, in which the Goldstone boson of spontaneously broken scale invariance is frozen during inflation by the conserved scale current, and is later lifted by the unimodular integration constant to produce an exponential quintessence potential. The exponential slope is set by the same non-minimal coupling $\xi$ that controls the departure from Starobinsky inflation, yielding a consistency relation (1.1) between the spectral index, tensor-to-scalar ratio, and the present dark-energy equation-of-state parameter. The authors present analytic and numerical results for the inflationary observables, reheating, and late-time thawing dynamics, obtaining $(w_0,w_a)\simeq(-0.992,-0.011)$ for a benchmark with $\xi=0.01$, and compare these predictions with Planck/BK18 and DESI data. The manuscript is transparent about the tuned nature of the Minkowski branch and about the tension with recent ACT-based determinations of $n_s$.

Significance. If the Minkowski branch can be maintained, the model provides a rare quantitative connection between inflationary observables and the dark-energy equation of state. The analytic approximation (5.7) and its numerical confirmation (5.3) are clean, and the consistency relation (5.8) is a concrete, falsifiable target for upcoming CMB experiments and dark-energy surveys. The authors also provide a complete thermal history and clearly identify the remaining theoretical free parameters. However, the central predictive power of the model rests on an unproven assumption of quantum stability of the $\lambda=0$ branch, as the paper explicitly acknowledges. The work would be strengthened by either a concrete mechanism protecting this branch or a clear framing of the results as tree-level and conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2, §6, Eq. (2.16)] The Minkowski branch $\lambda=0$ (equivalently $\Omega=\xi^2$) is essential for the model's claim that dark energy is purely unimodular and for the derivation of the consistency relation (5.7)–(5.8). However, the operator $\lambda\phi^4$ is fully scale-invariant, and setting $\lambda=0$ restores no additional symmetry. Radiative corrections may generate a nonzero effective $\lambda$, in which case Eq. (2.16) yields a residual vacuum energy $V(\rho_{\rm min})=9M_P^4\lambda/(4\Omega)$, adding a constant to the DE potential (2.24). This would shift $w_0$ and invalidate the derivation of (5.7) and hence (5.8). The paper itself states in §2.2 that the Minkowski condition 'remains a tuned choice at the quantum level,' and §6 only lists possible future mechanisms. Since the central early–late connection is conditional on this unverified assumption, I ask the authors to either supply a concrete
  2. [§5.2, Eq. (5.8)] The consistency relation (5.8) combines the analytic inflation approximation (3.7), which is valid on $\Omega=\xi^2$ and in the small-$\xi$ limit, with the late-time expression (5.7). While Fig. 4 indicates good agreement for the benchmark $\xi=0.01$, the paper does not quantify the error in (5.8) across the full inflationary viability region (e.g., for $\xi$ values near the upper bound of Eq. (2.26)). Since the paper emphasizes a 'tight correlation' between early- and late-time observables, I recommend a quantitative comparison of the left- and right-hand sides of (5.8) against full numerical solutions of the slow-roll integrals (3.4)–(3.5) and the field equation (5.1)–(5.3) for several representative $\xi$ values. This would confirm the relation's claimed accuracy and clarify its range of applicability.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.1] Typo: 'estabilished' should be 'established'. Also, the footnote 'That's not how the Force works!' is informal for a journal article; consider removing it.
  2. [§3.1, Fig. 4] The benchmark $n_s=0.9584$ is disfavored by more than $4.8\sigma$ under the P-ACT-LB-BK18 combination. The manuscript's discussion of the BAO-CMB tension is balanced, but because the model's early–late rigidity prevents raising $n_s$ while keeping a non-negligible $w_0$ departure, readers may need a more explicit statement of whether the model is considered viable only under the Planck 2018 reference.
  3. [§4.2] The normalization of the matter density to the observed $\Omega_m=0.31$ is used to fix $\rho_m(N_{\rm reh})$. This input is not listed among the model parameters in the text; please add it to the parameter summary for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained and the consistency relation is a parameter mapping, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation from the Jordan-frame action (2.1) through the field redefinition (2.11), the inflationary slow-roll predictions (3.4)-(3.7), the unimodular lifting (2.18)-(2.24), and the late-time integration (5.1)-(5.7). No equation is equivalent to its own input by construction. The late-time potential amplitude V_DE^(0) is normalized to the observed present DE density (2.22), and the slope gamma is fixed by the inflationary parameters xi and Omega through (2.25)/(5.5); w0 comes from integrating the field equation, not from fitting w0. Equation (5.8) is obtained by eliminating xi between the inflationary approximation (3.7) and the thawing formula (5.7), so it is a genuine consistency relation among independent observables ns, r, and w0. The self-citations to Refs. [31], [21], [37] supply slow-roll and Higgs-Dilaton results that are independently checkable and are not used to forbid alternatives; the paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 5.2 that its consistency relation coincides with the earlier Higgs-Dilaton relation after a coupling redefinition. This is prior-art overlap, not a circular derivation. The paper also flags the Minkowski-branch condition lambda=0 as a tuned renormalization condition in Section 2.2 and lists radiative stability as an open question in Section 6. That is an admitted robustness limitation -- if lambda != 0 the central early-late connection is lost -- but it is not a circularity, because the paper does not claim to derive lambda=0 from the symmetry. Overall, the predictions are conditional on a small set of explicit inputs, but the derivation chain itself is not self-referential.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The Goldstone boson is a pre-existing degree of freedom of the scale-invariant R² model, and Λ0 is a unimodular integration constant. The main ledger entries are the fitted DE amplitude, the hand-picked inflationary couplings, and the tuned Minkowski branch.

free parameters (5)
  • Λ0 (unimodular integration constant) = ≈10^-120 M_P^4 (effective)
    Normalized to the observed DE density via Eq. (2.22); sets the amplitude of the DE potential, which is not predicted by the model.
  • α (R² coefficient) = 2.496×10^10 (N*=55), 3.056×10^10 (N*=60)
    Fixed by matching the observed scalar amplitude A_s≈2.1×10^-9 in §3.1; does not enter the late-time slope but sets the inflationary scale.
  • ξ (non-minimal coupling) = 0.01 (benchmark)
    Hand-picked representative satisfying the viability window; controls both n_s and the DE slope γ through Eq. (2.25).
  • Ω (quartic combination Ω=αλ+ξ²) = 10^-4 with Ω=ξ²
    Minkowski-branch tuning λ=0; chosen to make residual vacuum energy vanish, not derived from symmetry or data.
  • Γ (inflaton decay rate) = 10^-6 M_P
    Phenomenological reheating rate used in §3.2; shifts N* by about 0.4 e-folds per order of magnitude but does not affect the late-time slope.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The unimodular constraint implies Λ(x)=Λ0 constant (Appendix B), and Λ0 enters the Einstein-frame potential as V_UG(f)=Λ0 f^4/M_P^4.
    Used in Eq. (2.18)/(2.21) to build the DE potential; the formula is taken from Refs. [21,37,51] and not re-derived in detail here.
  • domain assumption The conserved Noether current of scale symmetry confines the dynamics to the ellipse (2.6) and freezes χ=0.
    Central to the effective single-field inflation and the subsequent Goldstone lifting; relies on the decaying c2 mode in Eq. (2.5).
  • ad hoc to paper The Minkowski branch λ=0 (Ω=ξ²) has vanishing residual vacuum energy and survives quantum corrections.
    The paper admits in §2.2 that this is a tuned renormalization condition, not a symmetry-protected choice; Eq. (2.16) shows λ≠0 gives V∝λ.
  • standard math Slow-roll formulas (3.3)-(3.5) and the analytic relation 3(1−n_s)^2−r≈64ξ²/3 (3.7).
    Used to connect n_s and r to ξ; standard single-field slow-roll inflation, evaluated numerically for the benchmark.
  • standard math Thawing/tracker thresholds of exponential quintessence (γ<1/(2√2) for acceleration, γ>√3/4 for matter tracking) from Refs. [59,92-95].
    Used to argue that the field-space geometry excludes the tracker branch and places the model in the thawing regime.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26487 in / 16228 out tokens · 138693 ms · 2026-08-01T21:01:43.396445+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We construct an $R^2$ cosmology based on scale invariance and unimodular gravity in which the Goldstone boson of dilatations establishes a predictive connection between inflation and dark energy. The conservation of the corresponding Noether current confines the inflationary trajectory to a one-dimensional orbit in field space, freezing the Goldstone direction and rendering the inflationary dynamics effectively single field. After inflation, the system settles on a Minkowski vacuum manifold. The unimodular integration constant, already present in the full theory but negligible during inflation, lifts the flat Goldstone direction, generating an exponential potential for the canonically normalised field. Unlike in phenomenological quintessence models, its slope is not a free DE parameter, but is instead fixed by the field-space geometry inherited from the inflationary attractor. This geometry excludes matter-era tracking and, throughout the inflationary viability region, places the field in the thawing regime compatible with accelerated expansion. For a representative inflationary benchmark, the now pseudo-Goldstone field remains frozen until close to the present epoch, yielding DE equation-of-state parameters $(w_0,w_a)\simeq(-0.992,-0.011)$ in the CPL parametrisation $w(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$. More generally, the same parameter controlling the inflationary spectral tilt also fixes the slope of the DE potential, leading to a tight correlation between early- and late-Universe observables: increasing the thawing signal lowers $n_s$, while values of $n_s$ closer to unity drive the model towards $\Lambda$CDM.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

151 extracted references · 120 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Fujii,Scalar-tensor theory of gravitation and spontaneous breakdown of scale invariance, Phys

    Y. Fujii,Scalar-tensor theory of gravitation and spontaneous breakdown of scale invariance, Phys. Rev. D9(1974) 874

    1974

  2. [2]

    Englert, C

    F. Englert, C. Truffin and R. Gastmans,Conformal invariance in quantum gravity,Nucl. Phys. B117(1976) 407

    1976

  3. [3]

    ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci. B59(1980) 135

    1980

  4. [4]

    Wetterich,Cosmology and the fate of dilatation symmetry,Nucl

    C. Wetterich,Cosmology and the fate of dilatation symmetry,Nucl. Phys. B302(1988) 668

    1988

  5. [5]

    Bardeen,On naturalness in the standard model, inOntake Summer Institute on Particle Physics, 8, 1995

    W.A. Bardeen,On naturalness in the standard model, inOntake Summer Institute on Particle Physics, 8, 1995

    1995

  6. [6]

    Meissner and H

    K.A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,Conformal symmetry and the standard model,Phys. Lett. B 648(2007) 312 [hep-th/0612165]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Einhorn and D.R.T

    M.B. Einhorn and D.R.T. Jones,Naturalness and Dimensional Transmutation in Classically Scale-Invariant Gravity,JHEP03(2015) 047 [1410.8513]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Shaposhnikov and A

    M. Shaposhnikov and A. Shkerin,Conformal symmetry: towards the link between the Fermi and the Planck scales,Phys. Lett. B783(2018) 253 [1803.08907]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Shaposhnikov and A

    M. Shaposhnikov and A. Shkerin,Gravity, Scale Invariance and the Hierarchy Problem,JHEP 10(2018) 024 [1804.06376]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Shaposhnikov, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Karananas, M

    G.K. Karananas, M. Michel and J. Rubio,One residue to rule them all: Electroweak symmetry breaking, inflation and field-space geometry,Phys. Lett. B811(2020) 135876 [2006.11290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Bezrukov and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [13]

    Shaposhnikov and C

    M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich,Asymptotic safety of gravity and the Higgs boson mass, Phys. Lett. B683(2010) 196 [0912.0208]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Salvio and A

    A. Salvio and A. Strumia,Agravity,JHEP06(2014) 080 [1403.4226]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Bezrukov, M

    F. Bezrukov, M. Pauly and J. Rubio,On the robustness of the primordial power spectrum in renormalized Higgs inflation,JCAP02(2018) 040 [1706.05007]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    D. Blas, M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern,Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 044001 [1104.1392]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    Karananas and J

    G.K. Karananas and J. Rubio,On the geometrical interpretation of scale-invariant models of inflation,Phys. Lett. B761(2016) 223 [1606.08848]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Rubio and C

    J. Rubio and C. Wetterich,Emergent scale symmetry: Connecting inflation and dark energy, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 063509 [1705.00552]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Tambalo and M

    G. Tambalo and M. Rinaldi,Inflation and reheating in scale-invariant scalar-tensor gravity, Gen. Rel. Grav.49(2017) 52 [1610.06478]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Ferreira, C.T

    P.G. Ferreira, C.T. Hill, J. Noller and G.G. Ross,Inflation in a scale invariant universe, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 123516 [1802.06069]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Casas, G.K

    S. Casas, G.K. Karananas, M. Pauly and J. Rubio,Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity. III. The inflation–dark-energy connection,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 063512 [1811.05984]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Rubio,Higgs inflation,Front

    J. Rubio,Higgs inflation,Front. Astron. Space Sci.5(2019) 50 [1807.02376]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Ferreira, C.T

    P.G. Ferreira, C.T. Hill, J. Noller and G.G. Ross,Scale-independent R2 inflation,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 123516 [1906.03415]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Ghilencea,Weyl R2 inflation with an emergent planck scale,JHEP10(2019) 209 [1906.11572]

    D.M. Ghilencea,Weyl R2 inflation with an emergent planck scale,JHEP10(2019) 209 [1906.11572]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Karam, T

    A. Karam, T. Pappas and K. Tamvakis,Nonminimal Coleman–Weinberg Inflation with anR2 term,JCAP02(2019) 006 [1810.12884]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Shaposhnikov, A

    M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, I. Timiryasov and S. Zell,Einstein-Cartan gravity, matter, and scale-invariant generalization,JHEP10(2020) 177 [2007.16158]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Ghilencea,Palatini quadratic gravity: spontaneous breaking of gauged scale symmetry and inflation,Eur

    D.M. Ghilencea,Palatini quadratic gravity: spontaneous breaking of gauged scale symmetry and inflation,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 1147 [2003.08516]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Bettoni and J

    D. Bettoni and J. Rubio,Quintessential Inflation: A Tale of Emergent and Broken Symmetries,Galaxies10(2022) 22 [2112.11948]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    van de Bruck and R

    C. van de Bruck and R. Daniel,Inflation and scale-invariant R2 gravity,Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 123506 [2102.11719]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Rinaldi, C

    M. Rinaldi, C. Cecchini, A. Ghoshal and D. Mukherjee,Scale-invariant inflation,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2531(2023) 012012 [2303.16107]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Cecchini, M

    C. Cecchini, M. De Angelis, W. Giarè, M. Rinaldi and S. Vagnozzi,Testing scale-invariant inflation against cosmological data,JCAP07(2024) 058 [2403.04316]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Karananas, M

    G.K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov and S. Zell,Weyl-invariant Einstein–Cartan gravity with a heavy ALP: Higgs inflation andα-attractors,Phys. Lett. B873(2026) 140151 [2507.15927]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Rinaldi, G

    M. Rinaldi, G. Cognola, L. Vanzo and S. Zerbini,Inflation in scale-invariant theories of gravity,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 123527 [1410.0631]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    CMB-S4 Collaboration,CMB-S4 science book, first edition,1610.02743

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    LiteBIRD Collaboration,Probing cosmic inflation with the LiteBIRD cosmic microwave background polarization survey,PTEP2023(2023) 042F01 [2202.02773]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Simons Observatory Collaboration,The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts, JCAP02(2019) 056 [1808.07445]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Garcia-Bellido, J

    J. Garcia-Bellido, J. Rubio, M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern,Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: From the Early to the Late Universe,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 123504 [1107.2163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    Anderson and D

    J.L. Anderson and D. Finkelstein,Cosmological constant and fundamental length,Am. J. Phys.39(1971) 901

    1971

  39. [39]

    Buchmüller and N

    W. Buchmüller and N. Dragon,Einstein gravity from restricted coordinate invariance,Phys. Lett. B207(1988) 292

    1988

  40. [40]

    Unruh,A unimodular theory of canonical quantum gravity,Phys

    W.G. Unruh,A unimodular theory of canonical quantum gravity,Phys. Rev. D40(1989) 1048

    1989

  41. [41]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim,The cosmological constant and general covariance,Phys. Lett. B222(1989) 195

    1989

  42. [42]

    van der Bij, H

    J.J. van der Bij, H. van Dam and Y.J. Ng,The exchange of massless spin-two particles, Physica116A(1982) 307

    1982

  43. [43]

    Percacci,Unimodular quantum gravity and the cosmological constant,Found

    R. Percacci,Unimodular quantum gravity and the cosmological constant,Found. Phys.48 (2018) 1364 [1712.09903]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Ellis et al.,On the trace-free Einstein equations as a viable alternative to general relativity,Class

    G.F.R. Ellis et al.,On the trace-free Einstein equations as a viable alternative to general relativity,Class. Quant. Grav.28(2011) 225007 [1008.1196]. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Alvarez,Can one tell Einstein’s unimodular theory from Einstein’s general relativity?, JHEP03(2005) 002 [hep-th/0501146]

    E. Alvarez,Can one tell Einstein’s unimodular theory from Einstein’s general relativity?, JHEP03(2005) 002 [hep-th/0501146]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  46. [46]

    Carballo-Rubio, L.J

    R. Carballo-Rubio, L.J. Garay and G. García-Moreno,Unimodular gravity vs general relativity: a status report,Class. Quant. Grav.39(2022) 243001 [2207.08499]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Weinberg,The cosmological constant problems,astro-ph/0005265

    S. Weinberg,The cosmological constant problems,astro-ph/0005265

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Nobbenhuis,Categorizing different approaches to the cosmological constant problem,Found

    S. Nobbenhuis,Categorizing different approaches to the cosmological constant problem,Found. Phys.36(2006) 613 [gr-qc/0411093]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  49. [49]

    Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem,Rev

    S. Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem,Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989) 1

    1989

  50. [50]

    Cecchini and M

    C. Cecchini and M. Rinaldi,The unavoidable de Sitter fate of a scale-invariant Universe, 2606.31472

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Shaposhnikov and D

    M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern,Scale invariance, unimodular gravity and dark energy, Phys. Lett. B671(2009) 187 [0809.3395]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    Garcia-Bellido, J

    J. Garcia-Bellido, J. Rubio and M. Shaposhnikov,Higgs-Dilaton cosmology: Are there extra relativistic species?,Phys. Lett. B718(2012) 507 [1209.2119]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    Bezrukov, G.K

    F. Bezrukov, G.K. Karananas, J. Rubio and M. Shaposhnikov,Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: an effective field theory approach,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 096001 [1212.4148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [54]

    Rubio and M

    J. Rubio and M. Shaposhnikov,Higgs-Dilaton cosmology: Universality versus criticality,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 027307 [1406.5182]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  55. [55]

    Trashorras, S

    M. Trashorras, S. Nesseris and J. Garcia-Bellido,Cosmological Constraints on Higgs-Dilaton Inflation,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 063511 [1604.06760]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    Casas, M

    S. Casas, M. Pauly and J. Rubio,Higgs-dilaton cosmology: An inflation–dark-energy connection and forecasts for future galaxy surveys,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 043520 [1712.04956]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    Rubio,Scale symmetry, the Higgs and the Cosmos,PoSCORFU2019(2020) 074 [2004.00039]

    J. Rubio,Scale symmetry, the Higgs and the Cosmos,PoSCORFU2019(2020) 074 [2004.00039]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Piani and J

    M. Piani and J. Rubio,Higgs-Dilaton inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,JCAP05(2022) 009 [2202.04665]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Caldwell and E.V

    R.R. Caldwell and E.V. Linder,The Limits of quintessence,Phys. Rev. Lett.95(2005) 141301 [astro-ph/0505494]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [60]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15 (2006) 1753 [hep-th/0603057]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  61. [61]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10(2001) 213 [gr-qc/0009008]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  62. [62]

    Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe,Phys

    E.V. Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  63. [63]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu and A. Silvestri,Hints of Nonminimally Coupled Gravity in DESI 2024 Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 181002 [2407.15832]. [64]DEScollaboration,The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Cali...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [65]

    Karananas, M

    G.K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin and S. Zell,Scale and Weyl invariance in Einstein-Cartan gravity,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 124014 [2108.05897]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [66]

    De Angelis,Modified gravity and alternatives to single field inflation, Ph.D

    M. De Angelis,Modified gravity and alternatives to single field inflation, Ph.D. thesis, U. Sheffield (main), 2025. – 28 –

    2025

  66. [67]

    Starobinsky,A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,Phys

    A.A. Starobinsky,A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99

    1980

  67. [68]

    Ferreira, C.T

    P.G. Ferreira, C.T. Hill and G.G. Ross,Weyl Current, Scale-Invariant Inflation and Planck Scale Generation,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 043507 [1610.09243]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [69]

    Ferreira, C.T

    P.G. Ferreira, C.T. Hill and G.G. Ross,Inertial Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Quantum Scale Invariance,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 116012 [1801.07676]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [70]

    Galante, R

    M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest,Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 141302 [1412.3797]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [71]

    Artymowski and J

    M. Artymowski and J. Rubio,Endlessly flat scalar potentials andα-attractors,Phys. Lett. B 761(2016) 111 [1607.00398]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  71. [72]

    Karananas and M

    G.K. Karananas and M. Shaposhnikov,Scale invariant alternatives to general relativity. II. Dilaton properties,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 084052 [1603.01274]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [73]

    Ferreira, C.T

    P.G. Ferreira, C.T. Hill and G.G. Ross,No fifth force in a scale invariant universe,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 064038 [1612.03157]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [74]

    Allen and A

    B. Allen and A. Folacci,The Massless Minimally Coupled Scalar Field in De Sitter Space, Phys. Rev. D35(1987) 3771

    1987

  74. [75]

    Bizon and A

    P. Bizon and A. Rostworowski,On weakly turbulent instability of anti-de Sitter space,Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 031102 [1104.3702]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  75. [76]

    Antoniadis, J

    I. Antoniadis, J. Iliopoulos and T.N. Tomaras,Quantum Instability of De Sitter Space,Phys. Rev. Lett.56(1986) 1319

    1986

  76. [77]

    Tsamis and R.P

    N.C. Tsamis and R.P. Woodard,Relaxing the cosmological constant,Phys. Lett. B301(1993) 351

    1993

  77. [78]

    Tsamis and R.P

    N.C. Tsamis and R.P. Woodard,Strong infrared effects in quantum gravity,Annals Phys.238 (1995) 1

    1995

  78. [79]

    Antoniadis, P.O

    I. Antoniadis, P.O. Mazur and E. Mottola,Cosmological dark energy: Prospects for a dynamical theory,New J. Phys.9(2007) 11 [gr-qc/0612068]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  79. [80]

    Polyakov,Decay of Vacuum Energy,Nucl

    A.M. Polyakov,Decay of Vacuum Energy,Nucl. Phys. B834(2010) 316 [0912.5503]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  80. [81]

    Shaposhnikov and D

    M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern,Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy problem,Phys. Lett. B671(2009) 162 [0809.3406]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

Showing first 80 references.