Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Inflation with Nieh-Yan-like terms in metric-affine gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A generalized Nieh-Yan-like coupling, if its effective strength is positive and intermediate, can restore the compatibility of non-minimally coupled Palatini inflation with CMB observations.

desk verdict A serious and readable extension of Palatini inflation: the new effective coupling xibar can restore quartic and quadratic models against CMB data, but the key connection-equation solution is deferred to an unpublished companion, so the central claim is not yet checkable from the preprint alone. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07386 v1 pith:LUYTFMWT submitted 2026-08-07 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

Ilaria Andrei , Christian Dioguardi , Damianos Iosifidis , Laur Järv , Antonio Racioppi , Margus Saal This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-ph MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.Cq
keywords metric-affinegravityinflationNieh-YantermtorsionnonmetricityPalatinislow-rolltensor-to-scalarratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether derivative couplings of the inflaton to torsion and nonmetricity vectors can rescue the simplest non-minimally coupled (Palatini-style) inflationary models, which tend to sit outside the observationally allowed region of the spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio. Starting from a metric-affine action, it integrates out the independent connection and shows that the whole effect of these couplings is summarized by one effective parameter $\bar{\xi}$ controlling a modified Einstein-frame kinetic function. For a monomial Jordan-frame potential $\mathcal{V}\propto\phi^k$, a large positive $\bar{\xi}$ forces the canonical field to scale as $\chi\sim\phi^2$, so the Einstein-frame potential becomes $U\sim\chi^{k/2}$ and the field is sub-Planckian during inflation. At intermediate $\bar{\xi}$, the model's slow-roll predictions enter the region compatible with current CMB bounds, and for the quartic potential the tensor-to-scalar ratio lies within reach of next-generation CMB experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing piece is the effective Nieh-Yan-like coupling $\bar{\xi}=-3\xi\xi_3+\frac{9}{4}\xi_2\xi_3+\frac{9}{2}\xi_2^2-\frac{3}{32}\xi_3^2+6\xi_4^2$, which condenses all four derivative couplings to torsion and nonmetricity vectors into a single number in the Einstein frame. The paper obtains this by solving the connection field equations (20)-(21) for torsion and nonmetricity in terms of $\partial_\mu\phi$, imposing projective coherence via $C_1=\frac{1}{16}(-4C_2+3C_3)$, and then substituting back to get the kinetic function (26) and the canonical field relation (28). The key mechanism is that the scalar-field derivative couplings create a field-space kinetic term proportional to $\bar{\xi}\phi^2/(M_P^2+\xi\phi^2)^2$, which for large $\bar{\xi}$ dominates and forces $d\chi/d\phi\simeq\sqrt{\bar{\xi}}\phi/M_P$, hence $\chi\sim\phi^2$; this replaces one monomial potential by another with half the exponent in the Einstein frame.

What would settle it

Compute the torsion and nonmetricity tensors directly from the connection field equation (15) for the action (14), without invoking the companion solution (20)-(21): if the result differs from Eqs. (20)-(21) by any term that survives in the Einstein-frame kinetic function, the slow-roll predictions collapse. Observationally, a next-generation CMB measurement of $r$ that excludes the range predicted by the quartic model for $\bar{\xi}\lesssim10^4$ at $N_*=50$-$60$ would falsify the claimed compatibility.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a generalized Nieh-Yan coupling does not merely add a small correction to Palatini inflation but qualitatively changes the relation between the Jordan-frame and Einstein-frame fields. With the coupling ansatz $\mathcal{A}(\phi)=M_P^2+\xi\phi^2$, $B(\phi)=1$, and $\mathcal{C}_i(\phi)=\xi_i\phi$, the Einstein-frame kinetic function collapses to $\mathcal{K}(\phi)=M_P^2[M_P^2+(\xi+\bar{\xi})\phi^2]/(M_P^2+\xi\phi^2)^2$, so the sign and size of the single effective coupling $\bar{\xi}$ (defined in Eq. (32)) decide the model's behavior. In the large positive-$\bar{\xi}$ limit the canonical field satisfies $\chi\sim\phi^2$, and for $\mathcal{V}\propto\phi^k$ the Einstein-frame potential reduces to $U\sim\chi^{k/2}$; this reproduces the known quadratic- and linear-inflation attractors from the quartic and quadratic Jordan-frame potentials. Numerically, intermediate $\bar{\xi}$ values restore the compatibility of the quartic model with CMB data for $\bar{\xi}\lesssim10^4$ and cure the $\eta$-problem of the quadratic model for $10^{-2}\lesssim\bar{\xi}\lesssim10^2$, while the negative-$\bar{\xi}$ regime does not improve on standard Palatini inflation.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's entire slow-roll phenomenology rests on an algebraic solution for torsion and nonmetricity that is not derived in the paper but taken from an unpublished companion work; if that solution is wrong or missing terms, the Einstein-frame kinetic function and all subsequent predictions change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $\bar{\xi}$ is positive and at least $O(1)$-$O(10^4)$ depending on the potential, quartic Palatini inflation no longer overproduces tensor modes: for $\bar{\xi}\lesssim10^4$ the predicted $r$ falls in the window next-generation CMB experiments are designed to probe.
  • For a quadratic Jordan-frame potential, $\bar{\xi}\sim10^{-2}$-$10^2$ removes the $\eta$-problem that afflicts Palatini inflation for $\xi\gtrsim10^{-2}$, shifting both $n_s$ and $r$ into the observationally allowed region.
  • In the large-$\bar{\xi}$ limit the monomial potential index is effectively halved: $\mathcal{V}\propto\phi^k$ gives $U\propto\chi^{k/2}$, and the slow-roll observables approach $r\sim2k/N_*$ and $n_s\sim1-(4+k)/(4N_*)$, matching known quadratic- and linear-inflation attractors.
  • Because $\bar{\xi}\to\infty$ drives the Jordan-frame field values sub-Planckian during inflation, the model can be examined without invoking super-Planckian field displacements.
  • When $\xi+\bar{\xi}<0$, the kinetic function changes sign at large field values, so the model is unstable in that parameter region; the paper restricts attention to $\xi+\bar{\xi}\geq0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same $\chi\sim\phi^2$ mechanism is insensitive to the shape of $\mathcal{C}(\phi)$ in the limit of Eq. (33); replacing the linear ansatz $\mathcal{C}(\phi)=\phi$ by other choices would generalize the attractor relation $U\sim\chi^{k/2}$ to a wider family of Einstein-frame potentials, something the paper does not explore.
  • Because all predictions flow through the single effective coupling $\bar{\xi}$ defined in Eq. (32), four independent $\xi_i$ couplings are compressed into one observable direction; a measurement of $n_s$ and $r$ alone cannot separate them, so additional signals would be needed to pin down the individual couplings.
  • The central algebraic step that eliminates torsion and nonmetricity is borrowed from the unpublished companion work [79]; an independent re-derivation of Eqs. (20)-(21) is the quickest way to stress-test the full phenomenological chain, so the slow-roll predictions should be regarded as conditional until that check appears.
  • If next-generation CMB experiments detect a tensor-to-scalar ratio between the standard Palatini prediction and the quadratic-inflation value, the quartic model with $\bar{\xi}\lesssim10^4$ is a concrete target; a null detection would push the viable region toward large $\bar{\xi}$, where the potential asymptotes to $U\propto\chi^{k/2}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies single-field slow-roll inflation in metric-affine gravity, starting from an action in which a scalar field is non-minimally coupled to the non-Riemannian Ricci scalar and to derivative couplings of torsion and nonmetricity vector contractions (the Nieh-Yan-like terms). The authors impose projective coherence, solve the connection field equations to integrate out torsion and nonmetricity, and obtain an Einstein-frame formulation with a modified kinetic function K(phi) and potential U(phi). For the particular choices A(phi)=M_P^2+xi phi^2, C_i(phi)=xi_i phi, and a monomial Jordan-frame potential V proportional to phi^k, they derive that in the large positive xi-bar limit the canonical field behaves as chi ~ phi^2 and the Einstein-frame potential as U ~ chi^{k/2}. They then compute the slow-roll observables numerically for quartic and quadratic Jordan-frame potentials, compare them with Planck, BICEP/Keck, ACT, SPT, and DESI-based contours, and claim that intermediate xi-bar can restore compatibility of non-minimally coupled Palatini inflation: in the quartic case r is within reach of next-generation CMB experiments for xi-bar less than about 10^4, while in the quadratic case the eta-problem is cured for 10^-2 less than about xi-bar less than about 10^2. The negative xi-bar regime is also considered and is found not to improve on standard Palatini inflation.

Significance. If the central reduction is correct, the paper provides a nontrivial and phenomenologically testable extension of Palatini inflation: the Nieh-Yan-like couplings leave observable imprints even after the independent connection is integrated out, and the model makes falsifiable predictions for r and n_s with specific coupling ranges. The large-xi-bar analytical results, especially the closed-form expressions (49)-(53), are a clear strength, as is the careful treatment of the comparison with current data, including the distinction between constraints with and without BAO. The comparison is not circular in the core sense: r and n_s are predicted and then compared with data, while only the potential normalization (lambda or m) is fixed by A_s. However, the central derivation is not fully self-contained, because the load-bearing solution of the connection field equations is deferred to an unpublished companion paper, and the numerical claims for intermediate xi-bar are presented without code or detailed numerical data.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Eqs. (20)-(21)] The solution for the torsion and nonmetricity tensors is stated without derivation and is attributed to the unpublished companion paper [79]. This solution is the load-bearing step of the paper: substituting (20)-(21) into the action produces the kinetic function (23)/(26), the canonical field relation (43), and therefore every slow-roll prediction in Figs. 2-4. The hypermomentum (18) contains several independent tensor structures built from A', C_1, ..., C_4, and the constraints (19) plus the gauge q_mu=0 leave a nontrivial algebraic system, so a missing or mistyped term in (20)-(21) would directly change K(phi) and all subsequent observables. The manuscript should include the full derivation, at least in an appendix, or the companion paper [79] should be made publicly available and explicitly cross-referenced before the claims can be checked.
  2. [III, Eq. (19)] The projective coherence condition (19) is introduced as the result of taking the trace of the connection field equations, but the trace calculation is not shown. With the index conventions used in (18), the reader cannot verify why the A'(phi) contribution cancels or why the final condition contains only C_1, C_2, and C_3. Since (19) is imposed before the solution (20)-(21) is written down, an error or an omitted term in this condition would alter the entire Einstein-frame reduction. Please provide the explicit trace computation and state the precise definition of the dilation current used.
  3. [V.A, Figs. 2 and 3] The quantitative claims for intermediate values of xi-bar, such as the quartic case having r within reach of next-generation CMB experiments for xi-bar less than about 10^4 and the quadratic case being viable for 10^-2 less than about xi-bar less than about 10^2, are based on numerical evaluation of Eqs. (36)-(40). However, no code, data files, or numerical accuracy estimates are provided, and the implementation of the CMB contours from [20] is not specified (for example, the interpolation method, the treatment of the pivot scale, and the exact A_s normalization). For reproducibility, please provide the numerical code or at least a benchmark table of key parameter values and specify how the data contours were digitized and used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III, Eq. (22)] The boundary term in Eq. (22) is called explicit, but it is dropped without further comment when passing to the Einstein-frame action (25); please state explicitly that it is a total derivative and does not affect the equations of motion.
  2. [V.A, Eq. (45)] The inequality (45) gives the allowed range for xi_3 consistent with xi-bar greater than or equal to 0, but its derivation is not shown; a brief explanation or reference would help the reader understand how the underlying xi_i parameters are constrained.
  3. [V.B, Fig. 4] The analytical predictions (64)-(67) are said to lie outside the plot range for the chosen values of xi; since this is the regime where the analytical formulas are claimed to be valid, consider adding an inset or stating the numerical values explicitly.
  4. [V.A, Figs. 2 and 3] The text mentions specific asymptotic thresholds such as xi-bar approximately 10^3 for xi=0.1 and xi-bar approximately 10^6 for xi=5.5; these would be easier to verify if the figures included markers or a table of benchmark points.
  5. [Conclusions, Sec. VI] The abstract and conclusions present the ranges xi-bar less than about 10^4 and 10^-2 less than about xi-bar less than about 10^2 as robust findings, but the body of the paper presents them for N*=50 and N*=60; please clarify how sensitive these ranges are to the choice of N* and to the inclusion of BAO data.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central claim is not a fitted prediction, but the load-bearing connection-field solution (20)-(21) is deferred to the authors' own unpublished companion paper [79], making the derivation chain depend on an unverified self-citation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III, Eqs. (20)-(21); Sec. VI conclusion (ref. [79])]
    "Following the methods of [77,78], the tensorial equation (15) can be solved for the torsion and nonmetricity tensors. We obtain [79] ... A general theoretical treatment of non-minimally coupled scalar fields in metric-affine gravity ... will be presented in a separate work in preparation [79]."

    The solution (20)-(21) is the bridge from the metric-affine action (14) to the Einstein-frame kinetic function K(phi) in (23)/(26), hence to the canonical field relation (43) and all slow-roll observables in Figs. 2-4. The paper does not derive this solution; it attributes it to the unpublished companion [79] by overlapping authors, with method references [77,78] also by a co-author. Because [79] is unavailable, the central predictive chain is justified only by an unverified self-citation: the reader cannot check that (20)-(21) follow from (15), and any missing or mistyped term there would directly change K(phi) and the reported r and n_s. This is the load-bearing step of the model, not a peripheral citation.

full rationale

The slow-roll observables r and n_s are computed from the Einstein-frame action and compared with CMB data; they are not fitted to the data, and the normalization of lambda or m to the observed A_s does not feed back into r or n_s. The large-xibar limits chi ~ phi^2 and U ~ chi^{k/2} follow algebraically from the stated kinetic function (43), so those results are not circular in the sense of self-definition or of fitted inputs renamed as predictions. However, the entire Einstein-frame reformulation rests on the algebraic solution (20)-(21) to the connection equation (15), which the paper states without derivation and attributes to the authors' own in-preparation companion [79], with the cited methods [77,78] also from a co-author. The conclusion explicitly defers the general treatment to the same unpublished work, so the central predictive chain is load-bearing on an unverified self-citation. This is a genuine gap in the derivation chain, but it is not a case of a prediction reducing by construction to its inputs. A score of 4 reflects one load-bearing self-citation while the central phenomenological claim retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new particles, forces, or geometric entities beyond the torsion and nonmetricity vectors already present in metric-affine gravity. The new ingredients are coupling functions and the effective parameter xibar, which are not new entities but new terms in the action. The most significant reliance on unstated input is the unpublished solution (20)-(21), which is a mathematical result, not an invented entity.

free parameters (5)
  • xi = scanned over 0, 0.1, 5.5 (quartic) and 0, 10^-2, 10^-1 (quadratic)
    Non-minimal coupling to the Ricci scalar in A(phi) = M_P^2 + xi phi^2. It is a free coupling scanned over representative values.
  • xibar = scanned over a wide range, e.g. 10^-2 to 10^6
    Effective Nieh-Yan-like coupling defined by Eq. (32) from the individual couplings xi_2, xi_3, xi_4. It is the main new parameter controlling the phenomenology.
  • lambda (quartic) or m (quadratic) = fitted to A_s ~ 2.1x10^-9
    Potential normalization fixed by matching the observed scalar amplitude, as shown in Fig. 2(d) and Fig. 3(d).
  • N* = 50 and 60
    Number of e-folds chosen in the conventional range for the pivot scale.
  • k = 4 or 2
    Monomial Jordan-frame potential exponent V ~ phi^k, chosen for the two explicit case studies.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Projective coherence condition (19): C1 = (1/16)(-4 C2 + 3 C3)
    Imposed so that the matter sector is projectively invariant; without it, the trace of the connection equations gives partial phi = 0 and the scalar cannot propagate. This is a restriction on the allowed coupling functions.
  • domain assumption Connection solution (20)-(21) is correct
    The torsion and nonmetricity tensors after solving Eq. (15) are taken from the unpublished companion paper [79]. The derivation is not shown in this preprint, and the kinetic function (26) depends directly on these expressions.
  • ad hoc to paper Coupling restriction (30): A'(phi) = 2 xi C(phi), C_i(phi) = xi_i C(phi)
    The relationship between the non-minimal coupling and the derivative couplings is chosen by hand to make the model predictive. It is not derived from a deeper principle and limits the generality of the conclusions.
  • standard math Slow-roll approximation and first-order observables
    The standard slow-roll formulas (36)-(40) for r, n_s, A_s, and N* are used throughout. These are standard results in inflationary cosmology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inflation with Nieh-Yan-like terms in metric-affine gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LUYTFMWT

@misc{pith2026260807386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inflation with Nieh-Yan-like terms in metric-affine gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LUYTFMWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07386}
}
abstract

We study single-field slow-roll inflation in metric-affine gravity with a scalar field non-minimally coupled to the non-Riemannian Ricci scalar and to the divergences of the torsion and nonmetricity vectors, a structure that generalizes the well-known Nieh-Yan term. By imposing projective coherence of the matter sector and solving the connection field equations, we integrate out torsion and nonmetricity and obtain an equivalent Einstein-frame formulation in which the metric-affine couplings are encoded in a modified kinetic function and potential. For the choice of coupling functions $\mathcal{A}(\phi) = M_P^2 + \xi \phi^2$ to the non-Riemannian Ricci scalar, $\mathcal{C}_i(\phi) = \xi_i \phi$ to the Nieh-Yan-like terms and a monomial Jordan-frame potential $\mathcal{V} \propto \phi^k$, we show that in the limit of a large positive effective Nieh-Yan-like coupling $\bar{\xi}$ the canonical field satisfies $\chi \sim \phi^2$, the Jordan-frame field values during inflation become sub-Planckian, and the Einstein-frame potential reduces to $U \sim \chi^{k/2}$. We compute the slow-roll predictions numerically for quartic and quadratic Jordan-frame potentials and compare them with the current CMB constraints from Planck, BICEP/Keck, ACT, and SPT. We find that intermediate values of $\bar{\xi}$ can restore the compatibility of non-minimally coupled Palatini inflation with observations: in the quartic case, the model predicts a tensor-to-scalar ratio within reach of next-generation CMB experiments for $\bar{\xi}\lesssim10^4$, while in the quadratic case the coupling cures the $\eta$-problem arising for $\xi \gtrsim 10^{-2}$ and yields viable predictions for $10^{-2}\lesssim\bar{\xi}\lesssim 10^2$. In the negative $\bar{\xi}$ regime, the model does not improve upon standard Palatini inflation, though it can still produce distinct, testable predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Relation between the non-minimal coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Slow roll predictions for the quartic Jordan-frame potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Slow roll predictions for the quadratic Jordan-frame potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Slow-roll predictions for the quartic Jordan-frame potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [79]

    Scalar field with nonminimal couplings to metric-affine gravity,

    I. Andrei, D. Iosifidis, L. J¨ arv, and M. Saal, “Scalar field with nonminimal couplings to metric-affine gravity,” 2026. in preparation

    work page 2026

  2. [20]

    Inflation at the End of 2025: Constraints onrandn s Using the Latest CMB and BAO Data,

    L. Balkenhol et al., “Inflation at the End of 2025: Constraints onrandn s Using the Latest CMB and BAO Data,” arXiv:2512.10613 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    2 (a)rvs.n s, (b)rvs

    Quartic potential Let us first consider the quartic Jordan-frame potential V(ϕ) =λϕ 4.(54) We show in Fig. 2 (a)rvs.n s, (b)rvs. ¯ξ, (c)n s vs. ¯ξ, and (d)λvs. ¯ξforξ= 0 (orange), 0.1 (blue), 5.5 (red) for a quartic Jordan-frame potentialV(ϕ) =λϕ 4. The green lines show the non-minimal Palatini model (i.e. ¯ξ= 0).The black dots represent the predictions f...

  4. [2]

    Foundations of the Universe

    Quadratic potential Let us now consider the case of a quadratic Jordan-frame potential V(ϕ) =m 2ϕ2,(55) where we identifym 2 =λM 2 P in (48). We show in Fig.3 (a)rvs.n s, (b)rvs. ¯ξ, (c)n s vs. ¯ξ, and (d)m/M P vs. ¯ξfor ξ= 0 (orange), 10 −2 (red), 10−1 (blue) for a quadratic Jordan-frame potentialV(ϕ) =m 2ϕ2. The green lines show the non-minimal Palatini...

    arXiv 2020

  5. [3]

    The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,

    A. H. Guth, “The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,” Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 347–356

    1981

  6. [4]

    A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99–102

    1980

  7. [5]

    Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking,

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, “Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. Lett.48(1982) 1220–1223

    work page 1982

  8. [6]

    A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,

    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) 389–393

    work page 1982

Show all 81 references
  1. [8]

    Encyclopædia Inflationaris: Opiparous Edition,

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, “Encyclopædia Inflationaris: Opiparous Edition,” Phys. Dark Univ.5-6(2014) 75–235,arXiv:1303.3787 [astro-ph.CO]. [7]PlanckCollaboration, Y. Akrami et al., “Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,” Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A1...

    2014 arXiv

  2. [9]

    The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,

    F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, “The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,” Phys. Lett. B659(2008) 703–706,arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [12]

    These can be described by a scalar field non-minimally coupled to the Riemannian curvature scalar in the action (e.g., [13, 14] and references therein)

    as representatives of the most favoured class of models. These can be described by a scalar field non-minimally coupled to the Riemannian curvature scalar in the action (e.g., [13, 14] and references therein). Although the inclusion of recent ACT data shifts the preferred regi...

    2026 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors,

    M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, “Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114 no. 14, (2015) 141302,arXiv:1412.3797 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Frame-Independent Classification of Single-Field Inflationary Models,

    L. J¨ arv, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. R¨ unkla, M. Saal, and H. Veerm¨ ae, “Frame-Independent Classification of Single-Field Inflationary Models,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118no. 15, (2017) 151302,arXiv:1612.06863 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [15]

    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?,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 10, (2025) 103544,arXiv:2504.06002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  7. [16]

    Inflationary attractors and radiative corrections in light of ACT data,

    W. J. Wolf, “Inflationary attractors and radiative corrections in light of ACT data,” JCAP02(2026) 088, arXiv:2506.12436 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  8. [17]

    Effects of radiative corrections on Starobinsky inflation,

    J. Ellis, T. Gherghetta, K. Kaneta, W. Ke, and K. A. Olive, “Effects of radiative corrections on Starobinsky inflation,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 12, (2025) 123530,arXiv:2510.15137 [hep-ph]

    2025

  9. [18]

    Radiative-corrected Higgs inflation in light of the latest ACT observations,

    J. Yuennan, F. Atamurotov, and P. Channuie, “Radiative-corrected Higgs inflation in light of the latest ACT observations,” Phys. Lett. B871(2025) 139958,arXiv:2510.05770 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  10. [19]

    BAO-CMB tension and implications for inflation,

    E. G. M. Ferreira, E. McDonough, L. Balkenhol, R. Kallosh, L. Knox, and A. Linde, “BAO-CMB tension and implications for inflation,” Phys. Rev. D113no. 4, (2026) 043524,arXiv:2507.12459 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Inflation with Non-Minimal Coupling: Metric versus Palatini Formulations,

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

    2008 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Polynomialα-attractors,

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, “Polynomialα-attractors,” JCAP04no. 04, (2022) 017,arXiv:2202.06492 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Minimal but non-minimal inflation and electroweak symmetry breaking,

    L. Marzola and A. Racioppi, “Minimal but non-minimal inflation and electroweak symmetry breaking,” JCAP10(2016) 010,arXiv:1606.06887 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Palatini side of inflationary attractors,

    L. J¨ arv, A. Racioppi, and T. Tenkanen, “Palatini side of inflationary attractors,” Phys. Rev. D97no. 8, (2018) 083513, arXiv:1712.08471 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [25]

    New universal attractor in nonminimally coupled gravity: Linear inflation,

    A. Racioppi, “New universal attractor in nonminimally coupled gravity: Linear inflation,” Phys. Rev. D97no. 12, (2018) 123514,arXiv:1801.08810 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Inflation withR 2 term in the Palatini formalism,

    V.-M. Enckell, K. Enqvist, S. Rasanen, and L.-P. Wahlman, “Inflation withR 2 term in the Palatini formalism,” JCAP 02(2019) 022,arXiv:1810.05536 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Equivalence of inflationary models between the metric and Palatini formulation of scalar-tensor theories,

    L. J¨ arv, A. Karam, A. Kozak, A. Lykkas, A. Racioppi, and M. Saal, “Equivalence of inflationary models between the metric and Palatini formulation of scalar-tensor theories,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 4, (2020) 044029,arXiv:2005.14571 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Dynamically induced Planck scale and inflation in the Palatini formulation,

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

    2020 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Slow-roll inflation in Palatini F(R) gravity,

    C. Dioguardi, A. Racioppi, and E. Tomberg, “Slow-roll inflation in Palatini F(R) gravity,” JHEP06(2022) 106, arXiv:2112.12149 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Beyond (and back to) Palatini quadratic gravity and inflation,

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

    2024 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Palatini F(R,X): A new framework for inflationary attractors,

    C. Dioguardi and A. Racioppi, “Palatini F(R,X): A new framework for inflationary attractors,” Phys. Dark Univ.45 (2024) 101509,arXiv:2307.02963 [gr-qc]. 15

    2024 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Global portraits of nonminimal inflation: Metric and Palatini formalism,

    L. J¨ arv, S. Karamitsos, and M. Saal, “Global portraits of nonminimal inflation: Metric and Palatini formalism,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 8, (2024) 084073,arXiv:2401.12314 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [33]

    On a New Metric Affine Theory of Gravitation,

    F. W. Hehl, G. D. Kerlick, and P. Von Der Heyde, “On a New Metric Affine Theory of Gravitation,” Phys. Lett. B63 (1976) 446–448

    1976

  24. [34]

    General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations and Prospects,

    F. W. Hehl, P. Von Der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick, and J. M. Nester, “General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations and Prospects,” Rev. Mod. Phys.48(1976) 393–416

    1976

  25. [35]

    Metric affine gauge theory of gravity: Field equations, Noether identities, world spinors, and breaking of dilation invariance,

    F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke, and Y. Ne’eman, “Metric affine gauge theory of gravity: Field equations, Noether identities, world spinors, and breaking of dilation invariance,” Phys. Rept.258(1995) 1–171, arXiv:gr-qc/9402012

    1995 arXiv

  26. [36]

    On hypermomentum in general relativity i. the notion of hypermomentum,

    F. W. Hehl, G. D. Kerlick, and P. von der Heyde, “On hypermomentum in general relativity i. the notion of hypermomentum,” Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A31no. 2, (1976) 111–114

    1976

  27. [37]

    Hypermomentum in hadron dynamics and in gravitation,

    F. Hehl, E. Lord, and Y. Ne’Eman, “Hypermomentum in hadron dynamics and in gravitation,” Physical Review D17 no. 2, (1978) 428

    1978

  28. [38]

    The coupling of matter and spacetime geometry,

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, “The coupling of matter and spacetime geometry,”Class. Quant. Grav.37no. 19, (2020) 195013,arXiv:2004.04606 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Coupling metric-affine gravity to the standard model and dark matter fermions,

    C. Rigouzzo and S. Zell, “Coupling metric-affine gravity to the standard model and dark matter fermions,” Phys. Rev. D 108no. 12, (2023) 124067,arXiv:2306.13134 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Inflating and reheating the Universe with an independent affine connection,

    A. Salvio, “Inflating and reheating the Universe with an independent affine connection,” Phys. Rev. D106no. 10, (2022) 103510,arXiv:2207.08830 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Geometrical origin of inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    G. K. Karananas, “Geometrical origin of inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,” Phys. Lett. B862(2025) 139343,arXiv:2501.16416 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Independent connection in action during inflation,

    A. Salvio, “Independent connection in action during inflation,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 6, (2025) L061301, arXiv:2504.10488 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Ghosts in metric-affine higher order curvature gravity,

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez and A. Delhom, “Ghosts in metric-affine higher order curvature gravity,”Eur. Phys. J. C79no. 8, (2019) 656,arXiv:1901.08988 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [44]

    New class of ghost- and tachyon-free metric affine gravities,

    R. Percacci and E. Sezgin, “New class of ghost- and tachyon-free metric affine gravities,” Phys. Rev. D101no. 8, (2020) 084040,arXiv:1912.01023 [hep-th]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 111, 109902 (2025)]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Can metric-affine gravity be saved?,

    W. Barker, C. Marzo, and A. Santoni, “Can metric-affine gravity be saved?,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 4, (2025) 044032, arXiv:2505.23894 [hep-th]

    2025

  36. [46]

    Metric-affine Gravity and Inflation,

    K. Shimada, K. Aoki, and K.-i. Maeda, “Metric-affine Gravity and Inflation,” Phys. Rev. D99no. 10, (2019) 104020, arXiv:1812.03420 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Higgs inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, I. Timiryasov, and S. Zell, “Higgs inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,” JCAP02(2021) 008,arXiv:2007.14978 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2021)]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Einstein-Cartan gravity, matter, and scale-invariant generalization ,

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

    2020 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Conformal inflation in the metric-affine geometry,

    Y. Mikura, Y. Tada, and S. Yokoyama, “Conformal inflation in the metric-affine geometry,” EPL132no. 3, (2020) 39001,arXiv:2008.00628 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Minimalk-inflation in light of the conformal metric-affine geometry,

    Y. Mikura, Y. Tada, and S. Yokoyama, “Minimalk-inflation in light of the conformal metric-affine geometry,” Phys. Rev. D103no. 10, (2021) L101303,arXiv:2103.13045 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Coupling metric-affine gravity to a Higgs-like scalar field,

    C. Rigouzzo and S. Zell, “Coupling metric-affine gravity to a Higgs-like scalar field,” Phys. Rev. D106no. 2, (2022) 024015,arXiv:2204.03003 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Inflation in metric-affine quadratic gravity,

    I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, “Inflation in metric-affine quadratic gravity,” JCAP03(2023) 042,arXiv:2212.09896 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Einstein–Cartan pseudoscalaron inflation,

    A. Di Marco, E. Orazi, and G. Pradisi, “Einstein–Cartan pseudoscalaron inflation,” Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 2, (2024) 146, arXiv:2309.11345 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Inflation and reheating in quadratic metric-affine gravity with derivative couplings,

    I. D. Gialamas, T. Katsoulas, and K. Tamvakis, “Inflation and reheating in quadratic metric-affine gravity with derivative couplings,” JCAP06(2024) 005,arXiv:2403.08530 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Comparing inflationary models in extended Metric-Affine theories of gravity,

    S. Capozziello and M. Shokri, “Comparing inflationary models in extended Metric-Affine theories of gravity,” Phys. Dark Univ.46(2024) 101698,arXiv:2408.17415 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [56]

    Inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, “Inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,” Phys. Rev. D111no. 4, (2025) 044007,arXiv:2410.16364 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [57]

    ˜ξ-attractors in metric-affine gravity,

    A. Racioppi, “ ˜ξ-attractors in metric-affine gravity,” JCAP04(2025) 084,arXiv:2411.08031 [gr-qc]. [Erratum: JCAP 08, E01 (2025)]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Symmetry-breaking inflation in non-minimal metric-affine gravity,

    I. D. Gialamas and A. Racioppi, “Symmetry-breaking inflation in non-minimal metric-affine gravity,” JCAP05(2025) 072,arXiv:2412.17738 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Increase of ns in regularized pole inflation & Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    M. He, M. Hong, and K. Mukaida, “Increase of ns in regularized pole inflation & Einstein-Cartan gravity,” JCAP09 (2025) 080,arXiv:2504.16069 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  50. [60]

    Pole inflation from extended metric-affine gravity,

    D. Iosifidis and S. Karamitsos, “Pole inflation from extended metric-affine gravity,”arXiv:2510.20585 [gr-qc]

  51. [61]

    Inflationary assessment of F(R,R˜) Einstein-Cartan models,

    T. Katsoulas and K. Tamvakis, “Inflationary assessment of F(R,R˜) Einstein-Cartan models,” Phys. Rev. D113no. 12, (2026) 124010,arXiv:2512.02847 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Quasi-pole inflation in metric-affine gravity,

    A. Racioppi, “Quasi-pole inflation in metric-affine gravity,” Gen. Rel. Grav.58no. 4, (2026) 44,arXiv:2512.16815 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Quasi-pole quintessential inflation in metric-affine gravity,

    K. Dimopoulos, C. Dioguardi, I. D. Gialamas, and A. Racioppi, “Quasi-pole quintessential inflation in metric-affine gravity,”arXiv:2603.15776 [gr-qc]. 16

  54. [64]

    Natural Metric-Affine Inflation: Reloaded,

    D. Kraiko and A. Racioppi, “Natural Metric-Affine Inflation: Reloaded,”arXiv:2605.23827 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  55. [65]

    Natural metric-affine inflation,

    A. Racioppi and A. Salvio, “Natural metric-affine inflation,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024 no. 06, (2024) 033,arXiv:2403.18004 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Inflation with nondynamic distortion to leading order in slow roll,

    A. Hassan, “Inflation with nondynamic distortion to leading order in slow roll,”arXiv:2607.03566 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  57. [67]

    Cosmological Hyperfluids, Torsion and Non-metricity,

    D. Iosifidis, “Cosmological Hyperfluids, Torsion and Non-metricity,” Eur. Phys. J. C80no. 11, (2020) 1042, arXiv:2003.07384 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [68]

    The Perfect Hyperfluid of Metric-Affine Gravity: The Foundation,

    D. Iosifidis, “The Perfect Hyperfluid of Metric-Affine Gravity: The Foundation,” JCAP04(2021) 072, arXiv:2101.07289 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Friedmann cosmology with hyperfluids,

    I. Andrei, D. Iosifidis, L. J¨ arv, and M. Saal, “Friedmann cosmology with hyperfluids,” Phys. Rev. D111no. 6, (2025) 064063,arXiv:2411.19127 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Friedmann cosmology with fluids and hyperfluids,

    I. Andrei, D. Iosifidis, L. J¨ arv, and M. Saal, “Friedmann cosmology with fluids and hyperfluids,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 3177no. 1, (2026) 012033,arXiv:2604.03343 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Higgs inflation with the Holst and the Nieh–Yan term,

    M. L˚ angvik, J.-M. Ojanper¨ a, S. Raatikainen, and S. Rasanen, “Higgs inflation with the Holst and the Nieh–Yan term,” Phys. Rev. D103no. 8, (2021) 083514,arXiv:2007.12595 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Higgs-Dilaton inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    M. Piani and J. Rubio, “Higgs-Dilaton inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,” JCAP05no. 05, (2022) 009, arXiv:2202.04665 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [73]

    Starobinsky inflation and beyond in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    M. He, M. Hong, and K. Mukaida, “Starobinsky inflation and beyond in Einstein-Cartan gravity,” JCAP05(2024) 107, arXiv:2402.05358 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [74]

    L. P. Eisenhart, Non-Riemannian Geometry, vol. 8 of American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, New York, 1927

    1927

  65. [75]

    T. P. Sotiriou, Modified Actions for Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology. PhD thesis, SISSA, Trieste, 2007. arXiv:0710.4438 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  66. [76]

    The dynamics of metric-affine gravity,

    V. Vitagliano, T. P. Sotiriou, and S. Liberati, “The dynamics of metric-affine gravity,” Annals Phys.326(2011) 1259–1273,arXiv:1008.0171 [gr-qc]. [Erratum: Annals Phys. 329, 186–187 (2013)]

    2011 arXiv

  67. [77]

    Exactly solvable connections in metric-affine gravity,

    D. Iosifidis, “Exactly solvable connections in metric-affine gravity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity36no. 8, (2019) 085001

    2019

  68. [78]

    Solving Linear Tensor Equations,

    D. Iosifidis, “Solving Linear Tensor Equations,”arXiv:2109.08893 [math-ph]

    arXiv

  69. [80]

    Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation with kinetic terms for the metric,

    S. Rasanen, “Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation with kinetic terms for the metric,” Open J. Astrophys.2no. 1, (2019) 1,arXiv:1811.09514 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [81]

    Non-Minimal (Self-)Running Inflation: Metric vs. Palatini Formulation,

    A. Racioppi, “Non-Minimal (Self-)Running Inflation: Metric vs. Palatini Formulation,” JHEP21(2020) 011, arXiv:1912.10038 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [82]

    Scale-invariance, dynamically induced Planck scale and inflation in the Palatini formulation,

    I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, T. D. Pappas, A. Racioppi, and V. C. Spanos, “Scale-invariance, dynamically induced Planck scale and inflation in the Palatini formulation,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2105no. 1, (2021) 012005,arXiv:2107.04408 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [83]

    Palatini linear attractors are back in action,

    C. Dioguardi and A. Karam, “Palatini linear attractors are back in action,” Phys. Rev. D111no. 12, (2025) 123521, arXiv:2504.12937 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [84]

    Resurrecting Quadratic Inflation with a non-minimal coupling to gravity,

    T. Tenkanen, “Resurrecting Quadratic Inflation with a non-minimal coupling to gravity,” JCAP12(2017) 001, arXiv:1710.02758 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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