Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Confronting Mukhanov Parametrization of Inflationary Equation-of-State with ACT-DR6

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mukhanov equation-of-state inflation fits the ACT-DR6 data, with $\alpha$ set by the scalar tilt and $\beta$ by the gravitational-wave amplitude.

desk verdict A straightforward application of a known EOS parametrization to ACT-DR6-era data, with plausible qualitative results but no quantitative fit statistic and an over-reliance on fixed N and independent 2-sigma cuts. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05648 v2 pith:IB4C5BIH submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Barun Kumar Pal This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords MukhanovparametrizationinflationaryequationofstateACT-DR6Hamilton-Jacobicosmologyscalarspectralindextensor-to-scalarratioLiteBIRDCMB-S4
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

This paper tries to establish that a minimal, model-independent description of inflation—the Mukhanov equation-of-state $1+\omega=\beta/(N+1)^\alpha$—remains consistent with the latest ACT-DR6-era data. Working in the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation, the author derives the inflationary Hubble parameter and potential from the equation of state, then reads off the scalar spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio. The result is a clean division of labor: the parameter $\alpha$ is pinned down mainly by $n_s$, while $\beta$ is pinned down mainly by $r$. If true, the parametrization is a compact way to classify inflationary models and to predict what next-generation CMB experiments will do to each class.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parametrized equation of state $1+\omega=\beta/(N+1)^\alpha$, where $N$ counts e-foldings before the end of inflation and $\alpha,\beta$ are positive constants. The paper embeds this in the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism ($[H']^2 - (3/2M_P^2)H^2 = -V/(2M_P^4)$, $\dot\phi=-2M_P^2 H'$) to recover the Hubble parameter and the scalar potential in closed form (Eqs. (4.4)–(4.6)). The load-bearing step is the slow-roll mapping to observables, $n_S\simeq 1-3\beta/(1+N)^\alpha-\alpha/(1+N)$ and $r\simeq 24\beta/(1+N)^\alpha$, because it converts measured bounds on $n_s$ and $r$ into the two inequalities, Eqs. (6.4) and (6.5), that define the allowed $(\alpha,\beta)$ region.

What would settle it

Recompute the allowed $(\alpha,\beta)$ region using the full P-ACT-LB+BK18 joint likelihood in $(n_s,r)$ rather than the box approximation in Eqs. (6.4)–(6.5), at each e-fold number; if Starobinsky ($\alpha=2$) falls outside the 95% contour or if the $\alpha\simeq1$ region disappears, the paper's headline conclusions would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Mukhanov parametrization of the inflationary equation-of-state, $1+\omega=\beta/(N+1)^\alpha$, provides a close fit to the combined ACT-DR6, Planck-2018, DESI-Y1, and BICEP/Keck data when analyzed through the Hamilton-Jacobi equations. The paper derives the correspondence between the equation-of-state parameters and the two main observables: $n_S\simeq 1-3\beta/(1+N)^\alpha-\alpha/(1+N)$ and $r\simeq 24\beta/(1+N)^\alpha$. From these, and from 2-$\sigma$ bounds on $n_s$ together with $r<0.032$, it extracts the observationally viable $(\alpha,\beta)$ region. The main results are that monomial-like models with $\alpha\simeq 1$ become viable again under the P-ACT-LB+BK18 combination (for small $\beta$), that $\alpha\gtrsim 2$ small-field or hilltop models are pushed outside the 95% contour, and that Starobinsky inflation at $\alpha=2$ sits just inside that contour, with the verdict sensitive to the choice of e-folding number $N=50$ or $N=60$. It also finds that a future non-detection of primordial gravitational waves by LiteBIRD or CMB-S4 would compress $\beta$ to around $10^{-3}$–$10^{-1}$ while leaving the viable $\alpha$ range essentially unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that fixing the duration of inflation to 50 or 60 e-foldings and applying separate 2-$\sigma$ bounds on $n_s$ with hard upper cuts on $r$ (Eqs. (6.4)–(6.5)) gives the same answer as the full analysis of the data; if the real e-fold number is outside 50–60, or the $n_s$–$r$ correlation matters, the allowed $(\alpha,\beta)$ regions would move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the P-ACT-LB+BK18 combination, monomial or power-law inflation in the Mukhanov parametrization ($\alpha\simeq1$) re-enters the allowed region, but only if $\beta$ is small; Planck-2018 alone would have excluded it.
  • Small-field and hilltop models with $\alpha\gtrsim 2$ fall outside the 95% contour, while Starobinsky inflation ($\alpha=2$) survives only near the boundary, and its status depends on whether $N=50$ or $N=60$.
  • If LiteBIRD or CMB-S4 fails to detect primordial gravitational waves, the viable range of $\beta$ is compressed to roughly $10^{-3}$–$10^{-1}$, while the allowed range of $\alpha$ changes little.
  • If one of those experiments detects tensor modes with $0.003<r<0.032$, the $\alpha$ window is unchanged but $\beta$ is bounded from both below and above, narrowing the parameter strip.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read as a forecast, the paper implies that LiteBIRD and CMB-S4 are mainly $\beta$-measuring experiments inside this parametrization: a tensor-mode bound translates directly into $\beta\lesssim(1+N)^\alpha r_{\rm upper}/24$, so a non-detection would tighten $\beta$ while leaving the $\alpha$ classification largely as it is.
  • Because the analysis fixes $N=50$ or $N=60$ and treats $n_s$ and $r$ as independent intervals, the quoted viability of Starobinsky inflation could shift if a full joint likelihood on $(n_s,r,N)$ were computed; the paper does not perform that computation.
  • The same inequality machinery could be inverted into a cheap model-selection test: given a future measured $r$, any potential whose Mukhanov parameters fall outside the resulting $\beta$ strip would be ruled out without running a new cosmological parameter estimation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper confronts the Mukhanov parametrization of the inflationary equation of state, 1+omega = beta/(N+1)^alpha, with recent CMB data. Using the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism, the author derives the associated Hubble parameter and scalar potential, then obtains approximate expressions for the scalar spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio. These are confronted with Planck-2018 and ACT-DR6+Planck+DESI-based constraints by imposing independent 2-sigma bounds on n_s and upper bounds on r, for fixed N=50 and N=60. The paper claims that the EOS formalism gives an excellent fit to ACT-DR6 data, that alpha~1 (monomial-like) models become viable, that alpha>2 (small-field/hilltop) models are excluded, and that the Starobinsky model lies near the 95% boundary of the combined constraints. It also studies the effect of future LiteBIRD and CMB-S4 detection/non-detection scenarios on the allowed (alpha,beta) region.

Significance. If the statistical treatment were rigorous, the paper would provide a useful phenomenological update of the Mukhanov EOS framework in light of ACT-DR6 and DESI data. The analytic machinery connecting the EOS parameters to n_s and r is standard and internally consistent, and the paper makes a clear pedagogical presentation of the potential reconstruction. The claimed qualitative conclusions, however, are not supported by the actual analysis: the constraints are not derived from a joint likelihood, N is not marginalized, and no goodness-of-fit statistic is computed. The paper therefore currently reads as a re-parametrization of the quoted n_s and r limits rather than a genuine model fit. With a proper likelihood treatment, the central questions (does alpha~1 become viable, is alpha>2 excluded, where exactly does Starobinsky sit) can be answered convincingly; the present version does not demonstrate them.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6, Eqs. (6.4)-(6.5)] The constraints on alpha and beta are obtained by applying independent 2-sigma bounds on n_s and a hard upper cut on r. These are marginal constraints and do not represent the joint n_s-r likelihood. The P-ACT-LB contours shown in Figs. 9-16 are correlated, and for a model like the Mukhanov EOS, n_s and r are not independent parameters; fixing one range and then cutting the other can exclude or include regions that the actual two-dimensional posterior would treat differently. This is a load-bearing issue because the central claims - that alpha~1 is viable, that alpha>2 is excluded, and that Starobinsky sits at the 95% boundary - all follow from these separate cuts rather than from a fit to the joint data.
  2. [Secs. 6.1-6.2 and Figs. 1-16] The number of e-foldings is fixed to N=50 and N=60, and no marginalization over N is performed. The conclusions are sensitive to this choice: for example, at N=60 the alpha=2 prediction n_s = 1 - 2/61 ~ 0.9672 sits close to the P-ACT-LB 2-sigma lower bound, whereas at N=50 the Starobinsky point is further from the allowed region. Since N is not predicted by the EOS parametrization and depends on the post-inflationary reheating history, the analysis should marginalize over N or at least demonstrate that the qualitative conclusions are robust to the full allowed range of e-foldings. As written, the 'boundary' claim for Starobinsky and the exclusion of alpha>2 are conditional on an arbitrary choice.
  3. [Abstract, Sec. 6.2, Sec. 7] The paper repeatedly states that the EOS parametrization provides an 'excellent fit' to ACT-DR6 data, but no goodness-of-fit statistic is ever computed. No chi-squared, log-likelihood, or model-comparison quantity is presented; the argument is only that some model curves pass through 2-sigma contours. This is not a fit in any statistical sense. The authors should either compute a proper likelihood-based statistic (e.g., Delta chi^2 relative to the best-fit model, or a profile likelihood over alpha and beta) or substantially soften the 'excellent fit' and 'stringent constraint' language.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Several typos and inconsistent spellings appear: 'Starobinsy' (Sec. 7), 'CMS-S4' (captions of Figs. 7 and 8), 'LitBIRD' (Sec. 6.2), and 'P-ACT-LB' is used before it is formally defined. A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 7] Sentences such as 'renders excellent fit' and 'beta is resting heavily on the restriction' are grammatically awkward and should be rephrased for a journal submission.
  3. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption says 'Variation of the tensor-to-scalar ratio, r, with the scalar spectral index, nS', but the dashed and dot-dashed curves are model predictions at fixed alpha and varied beta, not a data-derived variation. The caption should clarify that these are theory curves.
  4. [Sec. 6.2, paragraph after Fig. 12] The interval '1 <= alpha < 2' is written as '1 = alpha < 2' in the text; this is presumably a typo for '1 < alpha < 2' or '1 <= alpha < 2'.
  5. [Sec. 5] Equations (5.1)-(5.5) give expressions for the running of the scalar spectral index and tensor observables, but the paper never uses or discusses them. Either include a sentence explaining why these are not used in the confrontation with data, or omit them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the constraints on α and β are obtained by applying external observational bounds to explicit model predictions, which is standard parameter estimation rather than a construction-equivalent derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The observables nS and r are computed from the Mukhanov EOS parametrization via Eqs. (5.1)–(5.3), giving Eqs. (6.1)–(6.2); the inequalities (6.4)–(6.5) then invert these model relations against external 2σ bounds on nS and upper limits on r. This is ordinary parameter estimation: the model parameters are free, the observables are predicted by the model, and the data are then used to restrict the parameters. The model does contain an independent predictive relation, Eq. (6.3), r/8 = (1−nS) − α/(1+N), which is compared with the data in the r−nS planes rather than being fitted pointwise to the data. The paper's statistical weaknesses—fixed N=50,60, independent nS and r cuts instead of a joint likelihood, and the absence of any χ² or goodness-of-fit statistic—are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity. The self-citation to Ref. [61] is used for potential reconstruction in Section 4, but the observable constraints do not depend on that reconstruction, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled via citation, or renaming of a known result is used to force the conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two free parameters alpha and beta plus a fixed choice of N=50/60; no new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The background dynamics and slow-roll formulas are standard but domain-assumption heavy, and the observational constraints are treated as independent 2-sigma bounds.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = dataset-dependent allowed range, roughly 1 to less than 2 under P-ACT-LB+BK18
    Controls the scalar tilt through Eq. (6.1); its allowed range is obtained by enforcing 2-sigma n_s bounds.
  • beta = roughly 10^-2 for non-detection forecasts; up to O(1) in some detection scenarios
    Controls the tensor amplitude via Eq. (6.2); bounded by r constraints, especially r less than 0.032, 0.002, and 0.001.
  • N (e-folds at horizon crossing) = 50 and 60 (fixed choices, not marginalized)
    The paper evaluates all observables at N=50 and N=60 and notes constraints depend strongly on N; a full analysis would marginalize over reheating.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Single-field inflation is governed by the Hamilton-Jacobi equations (2.1)-(2.2).
    Used in Section 2 as the background framework; textbook result.
  • domain assumption First-order slow-roll formulas n_s approximately 1 - 3(1+omega) + d ln(1+omega)/dN and r approximately 24(1+omega).
    Eqs. (5.1)-(5.3), Section 5. Assumes slow roll at horizon crossing and drops higher-order corrections.
  • domain assumption The Mukhanov parametrization 1+omega = beta/(N+1)^alpha with alpha, beta greater than 0 describes the inflationary epoch.
    Eq. (3.1), Section 3. This is the model under test, not a derived result.
  • domain assumption Observable modes crossed the horizon at N=50 or N=60 e-folds before the end of inflation.
    Section 6 evaluates all constraints only at these two values; reheating uncertainties are not marginalized.
  • domain assumption Independent 2-sigma ranges on n_s and hard upper bounds on r approximate the joint observational constraint.
    Eqs. (6.4)-(6.5), Section 6. Correlations between n_s and r in the real likelihood are ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confronting Mukhanov Parametrization of Inflationary Equation-of-State with ACT-DR6." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IB4C5BIH

@misc{pith2026250705648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confronting Mukhanov Parametrization of Inflationary Equation-of-State with ACT-DR6},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IB4C5BIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05648}
}
abstract

We provide a simple yet effective semi-analytical approach to confront Mukhanov Parametrization of inflationary equation-of-state, $1+\omega =\frac{\beta}{({N}+1)^\alpha}$, with the latest ACT-DR6 data employing Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. We find that equation-of-state formalism comes up with excellent fit to the latest data. In the process we are also able to put stringent constraint on the two model parameters. In order to get the bounds of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ we have also made use of the recent finding $r<0.032$. We have further utilized results from the joint analysis of ACT-DR6, Planck-2018 and DESI-Y1 data to find the observationally viable region for $\alpha$ and $\beta$. We have also employed the predictions on primordial gravity waves from forthcoming CMB missions in the likes of CMB-S4 and LiteBIRD along with results from the combination of ACT-DR6, Planck-2018 and DESI-Y1 data to further restrict the model parameters. We find that detection of gravity waves would help us narrow the viable parameter space for Mukhanov parametrization. But in the absence of detection of primordial gravity waves signal by those CMB missions parameter space is reduced significantly for $\beta$, while the range for $\alpha$ is slightly increased. In addition we observe that, $\alpha$ is primarily dependent on the observationally viable range for scalar spectral index while other model parameter $\beta$ is resting heavily on the restriction upon the amplitude of primordial gravity waves. We find that equation-of-state formalism has a wide range of parameter values consistent with recent observational data set along with futuristic CMB missions in the likes of CMB-S4 and LiteBIRD.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. N. Spergel et. al. Three-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for Cosmology.Astrophys. J. Suppl.,170: 377, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Planck 2018 results-x

    Yashar Akrami, Frederico Arroja, M Ashdown, J Aumont, Carlo Baccigalupi, M Ballardini, Anthony J Banday, RB Barreiro, N Bartolo, S Basak, et al. Planck 2018 results-x. constraints on inflation.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641:A10, 2020

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Planck 2018 results-vi

    Nabila Aghanim, Yashar Akrami, Mark Ashdown, J Aumont, C Baccigalupi, M Ballardini, AJ Banday, RB Barreiro, N Bartolo, S Basak, et al. Planck 2018 results-vi. cosmological parameters.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641:A6, 2020

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    – 19 – (a) N=50: CMB-S4 No-Detection (b) N=60: CMB-S4 No-Detection Figure 15: The68%and95%confidence regions in ther–n S plane obtained from the joint analysis P-ACT-LB+BK18

    Peter AR Ade, N Aghanim, C Armitage-Caplan, M Arnaud, M Ashdown, F Atrio-Barandela, J Aumont, C Baccigalupi, Anthony J Banday, RB Barreiro, et al. – 19 – (a) N=50: CMB-S4 No-Detection (b) N=60: CMB-S4 No-Detection Figure 15: The68%and95%confidence regions in ther–n S plane obtained from the joint analysis P-ACT-LB+BK18. The dashed curves denote the EOS in...

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using bicep and planck data

    M Tristram et al. Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using bicep and planck data. PRD, 105(8):083524, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 power spectra, likelihoods andlambda-cdm parameters

    Thibaut Louis, Adrien La Posta, Zachary Atkins, Hidde T Jense, Irene Abril-Cabezas, Graeme E Addison, Peter AR Ade, Simone Aiola, Tommy Alford, David Alonso, et al. The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 power spectra, likelihoods andlambda-cdm parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14452, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 constraints on extended cosmological models

    Erminia Calabrese, J Colin Hill, Hidde T Jense, Adrien La Posta, Irene Abril-Cabezas, Graeme E Addison, Peter AR Ade, Simone Aiola, Tommy Alford, David Alonso, et al. The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 constraints on extended cosmological models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14454, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Duivenvoorden, Matthew Hasselfield, Yaqiong Wang, and et al

    Sigurd Næss, Yu Guan, Adriaan J. Duivenvoorden, Matthew Hasselfield, Yaqiong Wang, and et al. The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 maps.arXiv e-prints, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Richard Bond, Erminia Calabrese, Adriaan Duivenvoorden, Joanna Dunkley, Sigurd Næss, and et al

    Zachary Atkins, Yuxuan Li, David Alonso, J. Richard Bond, Erminia Calabrese, Adriaan Duivenvoorden, Joanna Dunkley, Sigurd Næss, and et al. The atacama cosmology telescope: Semi-analytic covariance matrices for the dr6 cmb power spectra. arXiv e-prints

  2. [10]

    Cosmological parameters derived from the final planck data release (pr4).Astronomy & Astrophysics, 682:A37, 2024

    Matthieu Tristram, Anthony J Banday, M Douspis, X Garrido, KM Górski, S Henrot-Versillé, LT Hergt, S Ilić, R Keskitalo, G Lagache, et al. Cosmological parameters derived from the final planck data release (pr4).Astronomy & Astrophysics, 682:A37, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Desi 2024 vi: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025(02):021, 2025

    AG Adame, J Aguilar, S Ahlen, S Alam, DM Alexander, M Alvarez, O Alves, A Anand, U Andrade, E Armengaud, et al. Desi 2024 vi: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025(02):021, 2025

    2024

  4. [12]

    Desi 2024 iii: Baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025(04):012, 2025

    AG Adame, J Aguilar, S Ahlen, S Alam, DM Alexander, M Alvarez, O Alves, A Anand, U Andrade, E Armengaud, et al. Desi 2024 iii: Baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025(04):012, 2025

    2024

  5. [13]

    Unified and consistent structure growth measurements from joint act, spt and planck cmb lensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20038, 2025

    Frank J Qu, Fei Ge, Wu, et al. Unified and consistent structure growth measurements from joint act, spt and planck cmb lensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20038, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    A. A. Starobinsky. A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity. PLB,91(1):99–102, 1980

    1980

  7. [15]

    Starobinsky inflation in the swampland.JHEP, 07:186, 2024

    Dieter Lüst, Joaquin Masias, Benjamin Muntz, and Marco Scalisi. Starobinsky inflation in the swampland.JHEP, 07:186, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Act, spt, and chaotic inflation

    Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Diederik Roest. Act, spt, and chaotic inflation. 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Palatini linear attractors are back in action

    Christian Dioguardi and Alexandros Karam. Palatini linear attractors are back in action. Physical Review D, 111(12):123521, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Fractional attractors in light of the latest act observations.Physics Letters B, page 139664, 2025

    Christian Dioguardi, Antonio J Iovino, and Antonio Racioppi. Fractional attractors in light of the latest act observations.Physics Letters B, page 139664, 2025. – 21 –

    2025

  11. [20]

    Hana Heidarian, Milad Solbi, Soma Heydari, and Kayoomars Karami.α-attractor inflation modified by gup in light of act observations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10547, 2025

    2025

  12. [21]

    The bao-cmb tension and implications for inflation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12459, 2025

    Elisa GM Ferreira, Evan McDonough, Lennart Balkenhol, Renata Kallosh, Lloyd Knox, and Andrei Linde. The bao-cmb tension and implications for inflation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12459, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Alexei starobinsky and modern cosmology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01675, 2025

    Andrei Linde. Alexei starobinsky and modern cosmology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01675, 2025

    2025

  14. [23]

    Minimal plateau inflation in light of act dr6 observations

    Md Riajul Haque et al. Minimal plateau inflation in light of act dr6 observations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18267, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Smooth hybrid inflation in light of act dr6 data

    Nobuchika Okada and Osamu Seto. Smooth hybrid inflation in light of act dr6 data. Physical Review D, 112(8):083549, 2025

    2025

  16. [25]

    Act dr6 insights on the inflationary attractor models and reheating.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01517, 2025

    Md Riajul Haque, Sourav Pal, and Debarun Paul. Act dr6 insights on the inflationary attractor models and reheating.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01517, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [26]

    The implications of inflation for the last act.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18320, 2025

    Zhi-Chong Qiu, Ye-Huang Pang, and Qing-Guo Huang. The implications of inflation for the last act.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18320, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Power law plateau inflation and primary gravitational waves in the light of act.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06544, 2025

    Abolhassan Mohammadi, Anzhong Wang, et al. Power law plateau inflation and primary gravitational waves in the light of act.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06544, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Observational constraints on mutated hilltop inflation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12203, 2024

    Iraj Safaei, Soma Heydari, Milad Solbi, and Kayoomars Karami. Observational constraints on mutated hilltop inflation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12203, 2024

    2024

  20. [29]

    Mutated hilltop inflation in the era of present and future cmb experiments

    Barun Kumar Pal. Mutated hilltop inflation in the era of present and future cmb experiments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.11534, 2025

    2025

  21. [30]

    Cosmic inflation in the context of κ-deformed theories

    BW Ribeiro, IM Macêdo, and FC Carvalho. Cosmic inflation in the context of κ-deformed theories. Nuclear Physics B, page 116921, 2025

    2025

  22. [31]

    Probing cosmic inflation with the litebird cosmic microwave background polarization survey.Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2023(4):042F01, 2023

    LiteBIRD Collaboration, E Allys, K Arnold, J Aumont, R Aurlien, S Azzoni, C Baccigalupi, AJ Banday, R Banerji, RB Barreiro, et al. Probing cosmic inflation with the litebird cosmic microwave background polarization survey.Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2023(...

    2023

  23. [32]

    The litebird mission to explore cosmic inflation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02724, 2024

    T Ghigna, A Adler, K Aizawa, H Akamatsu, R Akizawa, E Allys, A Anand, J Aumont, J Austermann, S Azzoni, et al. The litebird mission to explore cosmic inflation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02724, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Cmb-s4: Forecasting constraints on primordial gravitational waves.The Astrophysical Journal, 926(1):54, 2022

    Kevork Abazajian, Graeme E Addison, Peter Adshead, Zeeshan Ahmed, Daniel Akerib, Aamir Ali, Steven W Allen, David Alonso, Marcelo Alvarez, Mustafa A Amin, et al. Cmb-s4: Forecasting constraints on primordial gravitational waves.The Astrophysical Journal, 926(1):54, 2022

    2022

  25. [34]

    Cmb-s4: Iterative internal delensing and r constraints

    Sebastian Belkner, Julien Carron, Louis Legrand, Caterina Umiltà, Clem Pryke, Colin Bischoff, CMB-S4 Collaboration, et al. Cmb-s4: Iterative internal delensing and r constraints. The Astrophysical Journal, 964(2):148, 2024. – 22 –

    2024

  26. [35]

    Quantum cosmological perturbations: predictions and observations

    Viatcheslav Mukhanov. Quantum cosmological perturbations: predictions and observations. EPJC,73(7):2486, 2013

    2013

  27. [36]

    The observational status of cosmic inflation after planck

    Jérôme Martin. The observational status of cosmic inflation after planck. InThe Cosmic MicrowaveBackground, pages 41–134. Springer, 2016

    2016

  28. [37]

    Universality in Inflationary Models and Primordial Perturbations.JCAP, 04:033, 2015

    Pierre Binetruy, Elias Kiritsis, Joel Mabillard, Mauro Pieroni, and Christophe Rosset. Universality in Inflationary Models and Primordial Perturbations.JCAP, 04:033, 2015

    2015

  29. [38]

    Lyth bound of inflation with a tilt

    Juan Garcia-Bellido, Diederik Roest, and Marco Scalisi. Lyth bound of inflation with a tilt. Phys. Rev. D, 94:123518, 2016

    2016

  30. [39]

    Kinney and Katherine Freese

    William H. Kinney and Katherine Freese. Negative Running of the Spectral Index in Supergravity Inflation. JCAP, 01:040, 2015

    2015

  31. [40]

    Universality classes of inflation.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014(01):007, 2014

    Diederik Roest. Universality classes of inflation.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014(01):007, 2014

    2014

  32. [41]

    Large-n running of the spectral index of inflation

    Juan Garcia-Bellido and Diederik Roest. Large-n running of the spectral index of inflation. PRD,89(10):103527, 2014

    2014

  33. [42]

    Model-independent fit to planck and bicep2 data.Physical Review D, 90(6):063007, 2014

    Laura Barranco, Lotfi Boubekeur, and Olga Mena. Model-independent fit to planck and bicep2 data.Physical Review D, 90(6):063007, 2014

    2014

  34. [43]

    Phenomenological approaches of inflation and their equivalence.Physical Review D, 91(8):083006, 2015

    Lotfi Boubekeur, Elena Giusarma, Olga Mena, and Héctor Ramírez. Phenomenological approaches of inflation and their equivalence.Physical Review D, 91(8):083006, 2015

    2015

  35. [44]

    Caldwell

    Jannis Bielefeld and Robert R. Caldwell. Generalized Equation of State Modeling of Inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 91:123501, 2015

    2015

  36. [45]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin. Encyclopædia inflationaris.Physics of the Dark Universe,5: 75, 2014

    2014

  37. [46]

    A New Parametrization of Inflation.Phys

    Jinn-Ouk Gong and Misao Sasaki. A New Parametrization of Inflation.Phys. Lett. B, 747:273–279, 2015

    2015

  38. [47]

    Salopek and J

    D. Salopek and J. Bond. Nonlinear evolution of long wavelength metric fluctuations in inflationary models. PRD,42: 3936–3962, 1990

    1990

  39. [48]

    Muslimov

    A. Muslimov. On the scalar field dynamics in a spatially flat Friedman universe.CQG, 7: 231, 1990

    1990

  40. [49]

    A. R. Liddle, P. Parsons, and J. D. Barrow. Formalising the Slow-Roll Approximation in Inflation. PRD,50: 7222–7232, 1994

    1994

  41. [50]

    W. Kinney. Hamilton-Jacobi approach to non-slow-roll inflation.PRD,56: 2002–2009, 1997

    2002

  42. [51]

    Reconstructing the inflaton potential an overview.RMP, 69(2): 373, 1997

    James E Lidsey, Andrew R Liddle, Edward W Kolb, Edmund J Copeland, Tiago Barreiro, and Mark Abney. Reconstructing the inflaton potential an overview.RMP, 69(2): 373, 1997

    1997

  43. [52]

    Barun Kumar Pal, Supratik Pal, and B. Basu. Confronting quasi-exponential inflation with WMAP seven.JCAP,04: 009, 2012

    2012

  44. [53]

    Hamilton–jacobi approach for quasi-exponential inflation: predictions and constraints after planck 2015 results.EPJC,77(3):142, 2017

    Nelson Videla. Hamilton–jacobi approach for quasi-exponential inflation: predictions and constraints after planck 2015 results.EPJC,77(3):142, 2017

    2015

  45. [54]

    Mutated hilltop inflation revisited.EPJC,78(5): 358, 2018

    Barun Kumar Pal. Mutated hilltop inflation revisited.EPJC,78(5): 358, 2018. – 23 –

    2018

  46. [55]

    Barun Kumar Pal, Supratik Pal, and B. Basu. Mutated hilltop inflation: a natural choice for early universe.JCAP,01: 029, 2010

    2010

  47. [56]

    Barun Kumar Pal, Supratik Pal, and B. Basu. A semi-analytical approach to perturbations in mutated hilltop inflation.IJMPD,21: 1250017, 2012

    2012

  48. [57]

    Inflation: Flow, fixed points, and observables to arbitrary order in slow roll

    William H Kinney. Inflation: Flow, fixed points, and observables to arbitrary order in slow roll. PRD, 66(8):083508, 2002

    2002

  49. [58]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, and D. Wands. Exponential potentials and cosmological scaling solutions. PRD,D 57: 4686–4690, 1998

    1998

  50. [59]

    The fate of quasi-exponential inflation in the light of act-dr6

    Barun Kumar Pal. The fate of quasi-exponential inflation in the light of act-dr6. arXiv:2506.20744, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Primordial power spectrum features in phenomenological descriptions of inflation.Physics of the dark universe,17:38–45, 2017

    Stefano Gariazzo, Olga Mena, Hector Ramirez, and Lotfi Boubekeur. Primordial power spectrum features in phenomenological descriptions of inflation.Physics of the dark universe,17:38–45, 2017

    2017

  52. [61]

    Returning back to mukhanov parametrization of inflationary equation of state.EPJC, 85(5):1–14, 2025

    Barun Kumar Pal. Returning back to mukhanov parametrization of inflationary equation of state.EPJC, 85(5):1–14, 2025

    2025

  53. [62]

    V. F. Mukhanov.Physical Foundations of Cosmology. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  54. [63]

    Improved constraints on primordial gravitational waves using planck, wmap, and bicep/keck observations through the 2018 observing season.PRL, 127(15):151301, 2021

    PAR Ade et al. Improved constraints on primordial gravitational waves using planck, wmap, and bicep/keck observations through the 2018 observing season.PRL, 127(15):151301, 2021

    2018

  55. [64]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde. Universality class in conformal inflation.JCAP, 2013(07):002, 2013

    2013

  56. [65]

    Superconformal generalizations of the Starobinsky model

    Renata Kallosh and Andrei Linde. Superconformal generalizations of the Starobinsky model. JCAP, 11:027, 2013

    2013

  57. [66]

    Superconformal Inflationary α-Attractors

    Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Diederik Roest. Superconformal Inflationary α-Attractors. JHEP, 11:198, 2013

    2013

  58. [67]

    Large field inflation and double α-attractors

    Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Diederik Roest. Large field inflation and double α-attractors. Phys. Rev. D, 90(4):043519, 2014

    2014

  59. [68]

    Constraints on primordial gravitational waves using p l a n c k, wmap, and new bicep2/k e c k observations through the 2015 season

    PAR Ade, Z Ahmed, RW Aikin, KD Alexander, D Barkats, SJ Benton, CA Bischoff, JJ Bock, R Bowens-Rubin, JA Brevik, et al. Constraints on primordial gravitational waves using p l a n c k, wmap, and new bicep2/k e c k observations through the 2015 season. Physical review letters, ...

    2015

  60. [69]

    K. N. Abazajian et al. CMB-S4 Science Book.arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02743, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Mission design of litebird.Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 176(5):733–740, 2014

    T Matsumura, Y Akiba, J Borrill, Y Chinone, M Dobbs, H Fuke, A Ghribi, M Hasegawa, K Hattori, M Hattori, et al. Mission design of litebird.Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 176(5):733–740, 2014. – 24 –

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.