Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Starobinsky Inflation and the Latest CMB Data: A Subtle Tension?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Starobinsky inflation remains consistent with the latest Planck and ACT CMB data once its dynamics are implemented self-consistently in a Boltzmann solver; a mild residual tension remains, which a cubic R^3 term could

desk verdict Full CLASS implementation and a timely question, but the 'excellent agreement' claim ignores the paper's own reheating bound and the α0 prior/posterior do not match. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.06640 v3 pith:62O5ZII7 submitted 2025-11-10 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

J. Bezerra-Sobrinho , L. G. Medeiros This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords StarobinskyinflationR^3curvaturecorrectionsCMBanisotropyACTDR6Planckscalarspectralindexreheatingnumberofe-folds
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 re-tests the Starobinsky inflation model against the newest CMB data, which at first glance exclude it at about 2σ because ACT DR6 measures the scalar spectral index (ns = 0.9743 ± 0.0034) higher than the model's canonical prediction. The authors argue that this exclusion is an artifact of comparing a slow-roll prediction with a ΛCDM-derived spectral index at an arbitrarily chosen e-fold count. They derive a physically motivated window for the number of e-folds, 53 < N_k < 59, from reheating considerations, and then implement the inflationary potential directly in a Boltzmann code, treating N_k as a free parameter without the slow-roll approximation. In this self-consistent treatment, the Starobinsky model fits Planck at 1σ and Planck+ACT at 2σ — a mild tension rather than an exclusion. Adding a cubic R^3 term shifts the preferred e-fold count into the reheating window for both datasets, making the extension marginally favored though not statistically preferred.

What carries the argument

Two pieces carry the argument. The first is a reheating-based derivation of the allowed number of e-folds N_k: connecting the inflationary scale to present-day observables through entropy conservation, a reheating equation-of-state parameter between 0 and 1/3, and inflaton decay into Higgs and gluon channels yields 53 < N_k < 59. The second is a modified Boltzmann solver in which the inflationary potential is Taylor-expanded to fourth order and integrated numerically, with N_k and the curvature coefficient κ0 as primary parameters and the scalar amplitude and spectral index as derived quantities. The R^3 model adds a single parameter α0; its potential reduces exactly to the Starobinsky poten

What would settle it

Run the full Boltzmann analysis with the reheating window 53 < N_k < 59 imposed as a hard prior instead of the wide scan: if the Planck+ACT posterior for the spectral index then sits at the 2σ edge of the Starobinsky prediction, the mild tension becomes a real exclusion. Conversely, a future CMB measurement of ns centered near 0.965 with σ ≈ 0.01 would falsify the reported preference for a negative R^3 coefficient. A reader can also check Eq. (79): as printed, the missing coefficient makes the lower bound N_k ≥ 53 uncomputable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the apparent 2σ exclusion of Starobinsky inflation by the ACT DR6 spectral-index measurement is not a genuine failure of the model. When the Starobinsky potential is embedded directly into a full Boltzmann solver, without the slow-roll approximation, and the number of e-folds N_k is varied under a prior consistent with reheating physics, the model yields spectral indices (0.9679 for Planck-only data, 0.9692 for Planck+ACT) that agree with the data at 1σ and 2σ respectively. The authors derive a theoretically motivated range 53 < N_k < 59 from reheating considerations and find that the Planck-only posterior lies within this window at 1σ, while the Planck+ACT posterio

Load-bearing premise

The claimed level of tension, and the improvement from the R^3 term, both rest on the reheating-derived range 53 < N_k < 59, which assumes a single uninterrupted period of slow-roll inflation, a conventional reheating phase with a monotonic equation of state between 0 and 1/3, and standard-model inflaton decay channels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, ACT DR6 does not rule out Starobinsky inflation; the apparent exclusion is an artifact of the simplified parameter mapping rather than a data-model conflict.
  • The reheating-motivated e-fold window 53 < N_k < 59 becomes a sharp, testable prediction that future CMB data can verify or overturn.
  • A negative R^3 coefficient of order −10⁻⁵ shifts the spectral index toward the ACT-preferred value while keeping the Starobinsky limit (α0 = 0) inside the credible region.
  • CMB experiments reaching σ(ns) ≈ 0.01 will translate into percent-level constraints on N_k, sufficient to distinguish pure Starobinsky inflation from its R^3 deformation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The resolution of the tension is partly a consequence of liberalizing the parameterization — with N_k free over a wide prior, the data can pull the model toward higher ns; the 'agreement' is therefore only as strong as the reheating window and priors adopted.
  • Editorial: Equation (79), which feeds the claimed lower bound N_k ≥ 53, is garbled as printed (the numerical coefficient before ×10⁻⁶ is missing), so the printed derivation cannot be reproduced step by step.
  • Editorial: Applying the same full-Boltzmann treatment to other plateau models (e.g., Higgs inflation) would show whether the disappearing tension is generic to treating N_k as a free parameter rather than specific to Starobinsky.
  • Editorial: The paper declines to quote a Bayes factor between the R^3 model and pure Starobinsky; computing it with a proper penalty for the extra parameter would settle whether the negative-α0 preference with Planck+ACT data is real or prior-driven.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Starobinsky R+R^2 inflation and an R^3 extension against Planck, ACT DR6, DESI BAO, and lensing data. In a first, simplified step, the authors derive a reheating-motivated window 53 < N_k < 59 and use it to compare slow-roll predictions with ΛCDM-derived n_s contours, finding an apparent >2σ exclusion of pure Starobinsky with ACT. In the second step, they implement the inflationary potentials directly in CLASS with N_k and κ0 (and α0 for R^3) as free parameters. They report that pure Starobinsky remains consistent ('excellent agreement') once the dynamics are integrated numerically, although a mild tension is acknowledged, and that an R^3 term shifts N_k into the reheating window and is marginally favored by the combined data.

Significance. If the results were fully supported, the paper would be a valuable contribution: it goes beyond the usual slow-roll mapping, provides a physically motivated reheating-based prior window for N_k, makes its modified CLASS code publicly available, and gives a nontrivial test of a well-known inflationary model against new ACT data. The R^3 extension is a natural and simple deformation with a smooth Starobinsky limit. However, two load-bearing issues currently prevent those conclusions from being accepted as stated: the CLASS analysis does not enforce the paper's own reheating window, and the reported R^3 constraints appear incompatible with the stated prior on α0. These are fixable with re-analysis, but they are central rather than cosmetic.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.B, Table II, Eq. (74), Eq. (82)] The paper's central claim that Starobinsky shows 'excellent agreement' with P-ACT-LB is not supported by the analysis as presented. Table II gives N_k = 63^{+5.0}_{-4.3} for P-ACT-LB, but the paper's own reheating condition N_re ≥ 0 in Eq. (72) implies N_k ≤ 59 (Eq. 74), and Eq. (82) gives 53 < N_k < 59. The flat prior N_k ∈ [30,200] in Table I never enforces this theoretical window, so the posterior lies mostly in a region where the standard reheating phase would have negative duration. The 'excellent agreement' is therefore obtained with N_k as a free fit parameter, not as a consistency test of Starobinsky inflation with the standard reheating history described in Section III. Please re-run the analysis with the theoretical window imposed (or with an explicit reheating likelihood that excludes N_re < 0) and report whether the conclusion survives.
  2. [Eq. (79), (81), (82)] The derivation of the lower bound N_k ≥ 53 cannot be reproduced as printed. Eq. (79) contains '≥ ×10^{-6}' with a missing numerical coefficient, and Eq. (81) repeats the omission. Since Eq. (82) is used to interpret the level of tension in Figures 1–3 and to compare with the CLASS posteriors, this is a load-bearing gap. The correct prefactor and the numerical evaluation leading to N_k ≥ 53 must be provided.
  3. [Table I vs Table III (α0 prior)] The prior on α0 is listed in Table I as [-3,3]×10^{-10}, but Table III reports posterior means α0 = -2.6^{+2.5}_{-2.4}×10^{-5} for P-LB and α0 = -8.1^{+4.3}_{-4.7}×10^{-5} for P-ACT-LB, with uncertainties of order 10^{-5}. These values are many orders of magnitude outside the stated prior range. Either the prior range is a typo (probably 10^{-5} rather than 10^{-10}), or the reported R^3 constraints are invalid. The authors must correct the prior table and rerun the analysis as needed; as it stands, the R^3 model comparison is not credible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V, Conclusion] The sentence 'The current uncertainty in the scalar spectral index from Planck is σ(n_s) = 0.040' appears to be a typo; the Planck 2018 value quoted elsewhere in the paper is σ(n_s) = 0.0042 (or 0.0040 as often stated), not 0.040.
  2. [Tables II and III captions] The table captions say '65% confidence intervals'; presumably 68% is intended. Please check whether these are 1σ intervals and label them consistently.
  3. [Eq. (75)–(77) and notation] The notation 'MP l' after several equations should be 'M_Pl' or 'M_P' for consistency with the rest of the paper. Also Eq. (77) should specify units explicitly (GeV) before the numerical estimate.
  4. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'The constraints on r are driven by the BK18 data'; the text should define BK18 on first use and clarify whether this is the same dataset as BICEP/Keck 2018 used elsewhere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CLASS-based 'excellent agreement' is a parameter-fit consistency check rather than an independent prediction, and the paper does not conceal that n_s and A_s are derived quantities; the main weakness is an internal prior-consistency mismatch (fit N_k falls above the paper's own reheating upper bound), not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's principal derivations are self-contained. Section III derives the reheating-motivated window 53<N_k<59 (Eq. 82) from standard inputs (A_s, g_re, g_0, k/a0T0) and the model equations, without using CMB measurements of n_s; the simplified comparison in that section is therefore a genuine prediction and yields tension. The CLASS implementation in Section IV treats N_k and κ0 as free parameters with a flat prior [30,200] (Table I) and reports n_s as a derived quantity; this is a parameter-estimation consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The paper does not disguise the fit: it explicitly labels n_s and A_s as 'derived quantities' and discloses a mild tension for P-ACT-LB. Self-citations to Refs. [39,40] supply the R^3 formalism, but the relevant expressions are reproduced in Sections II.B and the cited derivation does not contain the target ACT result, so the self-citation is independent support rather than load-bearing circularity. Two issues are flagged but are not circularity: (i) the credibility of the 'excellent agreement' headline is weakened because the P-ACT-LB posterior N_k=63^{+5.0}_{-4.3} (Table II) lies above the paper's own upper bound N_k≤59 from Eq. (74), and Table I's flat prior never enforces Eq. (82); this is an internal prior-consistency/correctness problem. (ii) Eq. (79) is garbled (the prefactor before ×10^{-6} is missing), so the printed lower-bound derivation is incomplete; numerically secondary, it does not by itself create circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, fields, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The R³ term is an existing higher-curvature operator imported from the prior f(R) literature. The central quantitative work is the choice of free parameters (N_k, κ0, α0) and the reheating-model assumptions that determine the preferred N_k window.

free parameters (6)
  • N_k = ≈61–63 (Starobinsky P-LB/P-ACT-LB); ≈57–58 (R³)
    Number of e-folds between horizon exit and end of inflation; treated as a primary parameter with flat prior [30,200] and fitted to CMB data.
  • κ0 = ≈1.4–2.2×10⁻¹³
    Coefficient of the R² term, sets the inflationary scale/amplitude; fitted with flat prior [1,100]×10⁻¹⁴.
  • α0 = ≈ -2.6×10⁻⁵ (P-LB), -8.1×10⁻⁵ (P-ACT-LB)
    Dimensionless coefficient of the R³ term; fitted to data. The reported posterior values are inconsistent with the stated Table I prior of [-3,3]×10⁻¹⁰, indicating a unit/typographical problem.
  • ω_a (average reheating equation-of-state parameter) = assumed 0 < ω_a < 1/3; lower bound uses ω_a → 0
    Chosen by hand based on monotonic reheating EoS; controls the N_k lower bound through Eq. (79).
  • ξ (Higgs nonminimal coupling) = set to 1/6 (conformal) for the conservative lower bound
    Appears in the inflaton decay rate Eq. (75); the conformal value is chosen to obtain a conservative T_re^min.
  • α_s (QCD coupling at reheating scale) = 0.01 ≲ α_s ≲ 0.03
    Extrapolated from low-energy measurements; used in the decay rate and T_re^min estimate.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Friedmann equations, slow-roll relations, and the standard scalar/tensor perturbation formulas, Eqs. (4)–(19), correctly describe inflationary observables.
    This is the standard single-field inflation framework used throughout Section II.
  • domain assumption The post-inflationary history is a single conventional reheating phase followed by radiation domination, with no extra phases before BBN.
    Used to derive the cosmological scale and the e-fold range, Eqs. (52)–(65). The authors explicitly state in the Conclusion that the N_k range is invalid if this is violated.
  • domain assumption The reheating equation of state is monotonic and satisfies 0 < ω_a < 1/3.
    Section III, Eq. (60); justified by lattice reheating simulations Refs. [51–53].
  • domain assumption The inflaton decays through minimal Standard Model couplings (Higgs and gluon channels), with decay rate Eq. (75), and with g_re = 106.75, g_0 = 3.94.
    Determines T_re^min and the lower bound N_k ≥ 53 in Eqs. (77)–(81).
  • domain assumption The R³ extension is ghost-free and equivalent to a single scalar field with potential Eq. (37), as established in Refs. [39,42–44].
    The R³ analysis imports this equivalence from prior work rather than re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption Expanding the inflationary potential in a Taylor series up to fourth derivatives in CLASS captures the relevant primordial power spectra.
    Section IV states this expansion is used; no convergence test or comparison with a full numerical potential is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Starobinsky Inflation and the Latest CMB Data: A Subtle Tension?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/62O5ZII7

@misc{pith2026251106640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Starobinsky Inflation and the Latest CMB Data: A Subtle Tension?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/62O5ZII7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.06640}
}
abstract

We analyze the Starobinsky inflation model and the impact of curvature corrections, particularly a cubic $R^3$ term, to assess their behavior in light of the latest observational results from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT). With the recent sixth data release (DR6), the scalar spectral index was measured to be $n_s=0.9743 \pm 0.0034$, which appears to exclude the pure Starobinsky model at approximately the $2\sigma$ level. In this paper, we implement the Starobinsky inflationary potential directly into the CLASS code, without relying on the slow-roll approximation, and we constrain the number of e-folds of inflation $N_k$ using a theoretically motivated range derived from reheating considerations and standard couplings between matter fields and gravity. We show that it is still possible to identify a significant region of parameter space where the Starobinsky model remains highly consistent with the latest observational data. While the pure Starobinsky model remains a compelling candidate for cosmic inflation, we explore how including a cubic $R^3$ term can shift its predictions to better align with the Planck and ACT measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.06640 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Constraints on the scalar and tensor primordial power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Confidence regions for the Starobinsky model using P-LB (blue contours) and P-ACT-LB (red contours) datasets. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Confidence regions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Unstable de Sitter inflationary solution in sixth-order gravity

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For the sixth-order gravity action (2.1), the exact FLRW de Sitter solution is unstable whenever 3γ1+γ2<0, while the second-order limit admits a stable de Sitter attractor.

  2. Probing inflationary particle production with the CMB power spectrum

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Authors derive CMB power spectra from burst particle production in inflation, report a mild 2σ hint in joint Planck+ACT data for features on 3-10 Mpc scales, and show power-spectrum constraints outperform matched filt...

  3. DeepInflation: an AI agent for research and model discovery of inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM agent with symbolic regression finds simple inflation potentials that match target CMB observables, but the outputs are fitted to the targets rather than independently predicted.

  4. Bayesian analysis of $\alpha$-Starobinsky model with Planck, ACT and DESI data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    With Planck+ACT+DESI, pure Starobinsky requires N*>60 while free α shows a 1σ preference for log10 α>0; ACT lensing adds little to the primordial constraints.

  5. ACT-DR6 consistent inflation in generalised entropic cosmology and $f(Q)$ gravity

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Reconstruction produces explicit f(Q) and generalised-entropic inflation models (and scalar-coupled versions) whose slow-roll parameters match ACT-DR6 + Planck-BAO constraints on n_s and r.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [39]

    Rodrigues-da Silva, J

    G. Rodrigues-da Silva, J. Bezerra-Sobrinho, and L. G. Medeiros, Higher-order extension of starobinsky infla- tion, Phys. Rev. D105, 063504 (2022), arXiv:2110.15502 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    A. H. Guth, The inflationary universe: a possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  3. [2]

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

    1983

  4. [3]

    Mukhanov,Physical Foundations of Cosmology(Cam- bridge University Press, 2005)

    V. Mukhanov,Physical Foundations of Cosmology(Cam- bridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  5. [4]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Encyclopæ- dia inflationaris, Phys. Dark Univ.5–6, 75 (2014), arXiv:1303.3787 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [5]

    Myrzakulov, S

    R. Myrzakulov, S. D. Odintsov, and L. Sebastiani, Infla- tionary universe from higher-derivative quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D91, 083529 (2015), arXiv:1412.1073 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [6]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, and R. Myrza- kulov, Beyond-one-loop quantum gravity action yielding both inflation and late-time acceleration, Nucl. Phys. B 921, 411 (2017), arXiv:1706.01879 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

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

    1980

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    Planck Collaboration and Y. A. et al., Planck 2018 re- sults. x. constraints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    BICEP/Keck Collaboration and P. A. R. A. et al., Im- proved constraints on primordial gravitational waves us- ing planck, wmap, and bicep/keck observations through the 2018 observing season, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph]

    2018

  3. [10]

    ACT Collaboration and T. L. et al., The atacama cosmol- ogy telescope: Dr6 power spectra, likelihoods andλcdm parameters (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    ACT Collaboration and E. C. et al., The atacama cosmol- ogy telescope: Dr6 constraints on extended cosmological models (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    DESI Collaboration and K. L. et al., Extended dark en- ergy analysis using desi dr2 bao measurements (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    D. S. Zharov, O. O. Sobol, and S. I. Vilchinskii, Re- heating acts on starobinsky and higgs inflation (2025), arXiv:2505.01129 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  7. [15]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergenov, and S. V. Ketov, Cur- vature corrections to starobinsky inflation can explain the act results, Phys. Lett. B869, 139883 (2025), arXiv:2505.10305 [gr-qc]

    2025

  8. [16]

    McDonough and E

    E. McDonough and E. G. M. Ferreira, The spectrum ofn s constraints from desi and cmb data (2025), arXiv:2512.05108 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  9. [17]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, K. A. Olive, and S. Verner, Constraints on attractor models of inflation and reheat- ing from planck, bicep/keck, act dr6, and spt-3g data (2025), arXiv:2510.18656 [hep-ph]

    2025

  10. [18]

    S. Aoki, H. Otsuka, and R. Yanagita, Heavy field ef- fects on inflationary models in light of act data (2025), arXiv:2509.06739 [hep-ph]

    2025

  11. [19]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Power-lawf(r) gravity as deformations to starobinsky inflation in view of act, Phys. Lett. B870, 139907 (2025), arXiv:2509.06251 [gr-qc]

    2025

  12. [20]

    D. Y. Cheong, M. G. Park, and S. C. Park, Beyond the starobinsky model after act (2025), arXiv:2509.04105 [hep-ph]

    2025

  13. [21]

    Linde, Alexei starobinsky and modern cosmology (2025), arXiv:2509.01675 [hep-th]

    A. Linde, Alexei starobinsky and modern cosmology (2025), arXiv:2509.01675 [hep-th]

    2025

  14. [22]

    Yuennan, P

    J. Yuennan, P. Koad, F. Atamurotov, and P. Channuie, Quantum-correctedϕ 4 inflation in light of act observa- tions, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1307 (2025), arXiv:2508.17263 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  15. [23]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, On the present status of infla- tionary cosmology (2025), arXiv:2505.13646 [hep-th]

    2025

  16. [24]

    Drees and Y

    M. Drees and Y. Xu, Refined predictions for starobin- sky inflation and post-inflationary constraints in light of act, Phys. Lett. B867, 139612 (2025), arXiv:2504.20757 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  17. [25]

    I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Racioppi, and M. Raidal, Has act measured radiative corrections to the tree-level higgs-like inflation?, Phys. Rev. D112, 103544 (2025), arXiv:2505.03608 [gr-qc]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Kouniatalis and E

    G. Kouniatalis and E. N. Saridakis, Has act measured radiative corrections to the tree-level higgs-like inflation?, JCAP11, 038, arXiv:2507.17721 [astro-ph.CO]

  19. [27]

    Lesgourgues, The cosmic linear anisotropy solving sys- tem (class) i: Overview, (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro- ph]

    J. Lesgourgues, The cosmic linear anisotropy solving sys- tem (class) i: Overview, (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro- ph]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, The cosmic lin- ear anisotropy solving system (class) ii: Approximation schemes, JCAP07, 034, arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph]. 15

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lovelock, The einstein tensor and its generalizations, J

    D. Lovelock, The einstein tensor and its generalizations, J. Math. Phys.12, 498 (1971)

    1971

  22. [30]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Sko- rdis, Modified gravity and cosmology, Phys. Rep.513, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

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

    1974

  24. [32]

    R. R. Cuzinatto, C. A. M. de Melo, L. G. Medeiros, and P. Pompeia, Gauge formulation for higher order gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C53, 99 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0611116

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    R. R. Cuzinatto, C. A. M. de Melo, L. G. Medeiros, and P. Pompeia, Scalar-multi-tensorial equivalence for higher orderf(r,∇ µr,∇ µ1 ∇µ2 r, . . .) theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D93, 124034 (2016), arXiv:1603.01563 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D´ ecanini and A

    Y. D´ ecanini and A. Folacci, Irreducible forms for the metric variations of the action terms of sixth-order grav- ity and approximated stress–energy tensor, Class. Quant. Grav.24, 4777 (2007), arXiv:0706.0691 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S. A. Fulling, R. C. King, B. G. Wybourne, and C. J. Cummins, Normal forms for tensor polynomials. i. the riemann tensor, Class. Quant. Grav.9, 1151 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    De Felice, R

    A. De Felice, R. Kawaguchi, K. Mizui, and S. Tsujikawa, Starobinsky inflation with a quadratic weyl tensor, Phys. Rev. D108, 123524 (2023), arXiv:2309.01835 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    O. F. Piattella, Lecture notes in cosmology, arXiv:1803.00070 [astro-ph] (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Baumann, Primordial cosmology, PoS TASI2017 , 009 (2018), arXiv:1807.03098 [hep-ph]

    D. Baumann, Primordial cosmology, PoS TASI2017 , 009 (2018), arXiv:1807.03098 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Bezerra-Sobrinho and L

    J. Bezerra-Sobrinho and L. G. Medeiros, Modified starobinsky inflation by therln(□)rterm, JCAP01, 039, arXiv:2202.13308 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  32. [41]

    S. S. Mishra, D. M¨ uller, and A. V. Toporensky, General- ity of starobinsky and higgs inflation in the jordan frame, Phys. Rev. D102, 063523 (2020), arXiv:1912.01654 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [42]

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

    2020 arXiv

  34. [44]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergeno, and S. V. Ketov, Cur- vature corrections to starobinsky inflation can explain the act results, Phys. Lett. B869, 139883 (2025), arXiv:2111.09058 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [45]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz and M. Kamionkowski, Equation-of-state parameter for reheating, Phys. Rev. D91, 043521 (2015), arXiv:1412.0656 [astro-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [46]

    S. S. Mishra, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky, Cur- ing inflationary degeneracies using reheating predic- tions and relic gravitational waves, JCAP05, 075, arXiv:2101.00271 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  37. [47]

    Husdal, On effective degrees of freedom in the early universe, Galaxies4, 78 (2016), arXiv:1609.04979 [gr-qc]

    L. Husdal, On effective degrees of freedom in the early universe, Galaxies4, 78 (2016), arXiv:1609.04979 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [48]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe, Vol. 69 (Frontiers of Physics, 1990)

    1990

  39. [49]

    M. A. Amin, M. P. Hertzberg, D. I. Kaiser, and J. Karouby, Nonperturbative dynamics of reheating af- ter inflation: A review, Phys. Rev. D24, 1530003 (2014), arXiv:1410.3808 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [50]

    K. D. Lozanov, Lectures on reheating after inflation, arXiv:1907.04402 [astro-ph] (2019)

    1907 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Maity and P

    D. Maity and P. Saha, (p)reheating after minimal plateau inflation and constraints from cmb, JCAP07, 018, arXiv:1811.11173 [astro-ph]

    arXiv

  42. [52]

    K. D. Lozanov and M. A. Amin, The equation of state and duration to radiation domination after inflation, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 061301 (2017), arXiv:1608.01213 [astro-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [53]

    K. D. Lozanov and M. A. Amin, Self-resonance after in- flation: oscillons, transients and radiation domination, Phys. Rev. D97, 023533 (2018), arXiv:1710.06851 [astro- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [54]

    S. A. Abel and S. Sarkar, Cosmological constraints on perturbative supersymmetry breaking, Phys. Lett. B342 (1995), arXiv:9409350 [hep-ph]

    1995

  45. [55]

    N. A. et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmo- logical parameters, Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [56]

    Gorbunov and A

    D. Gorbunov and A. Tokareva,r 2-inflation with con- formal sm higgs field, JCAP12, 021, arXiv:1212.4466 [astro-ph]

    arXiv

  47. [57]

    Bernal, J

    N. Bernal, J. Rubio, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Uv freeze-in in starobinsky inflation, JCAP10, 021, arXiv:2006.02442 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  48. [58]

    C. G. Callan, S. Coleman, and R. Jackiw, A new im- proved energy-momentum tensor, Annals of Physics59, 42 (1970)

    1970

  49. [59]

    d’Enterria et al., High-precisionα s measurements from lhc to fcc-ee, (2015), arXiv:1512.05194 [hep-ph]

    D. d’Enterria et al., High-precisionα s measurements from lhc to fcc-ee, (2015), arXiv:1512.05194 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Towards the theory of reheating after inflation, Phys. Rev. D56, 3258 (1997), arXiv:9704452 [hep-ph]

    1997

  51. [61]

    N. A. et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. viii. grav- itational lensing, Astron. Astrophys.641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [62]

    F. J. Q. et al. (ACT), The atacama cosmology tele- scope: A measurement of the dr6 cmb lensing power spec- trum and its implications for structure growth, (2023), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [63]

    P. A. R. A. et al. (Planck), Planck 2013 results. xvi. cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.571, A16 (2013), arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [64]

    N. A. et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. v. cmb power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Delouis, L

    J.-M. Delouis, L. Pagano, S. Mottet, J.-L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Sroll2: an improved mapmaking approach to reduce large-scale systematic effects in the planck high frequency instrument legacy maps, Astron. Astrophys. 629, A38 (2019), arXiv:1901.11386 [astro-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Cobaya: Code for bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05, 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Cosmological parameters from cmb and other data: A monte carlo approach, Phys. Rev. D66, 103511 (2002), arXiv:0205436 [astro-ph]

    2002

  58. [68]

    Lewis, Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmo- logical parameters, Phys

    A. Lewis, Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmo- logical parameters, Phys. Rev. D87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences, Statistical Science 7(1992). 16

    1992

  60. [70]

    Lewis, Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples, JCAP08, 025, arXiv:1910.13970 [astro- ph]

    A. Lewis, Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples, JCAP08, 025, arXiv:1910.13970 [astro- ph]

    1910 arXiv

  61. [71]

    M. A. et al. (Simons Observatory), The simons observa- tory: Science goals and forecasts for the enhanced large aperture telescope, JCAP08, 034, arXiv:2503.00636 [astro-ph]

    arXiv

  62. [72]

    W. L. K. Wu, J. Errard, C. Dvorkin, C. L. Kuo, A. T. Lee, P. McDonald, A. Slosar, and O. Zahn, A guide to designing future ground-based cmb experiments, Astro- phys. J.788, 1384 (2014), arXiv:1402.4108 [astro-ph]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.