Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Two f(R) inflation models produce a baryon asymmetry near 10^-11 via gravitational baryogenesis, matching the observed 8.65e-11 when the cutoff mass is 0.4 M_Pl.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:45 UTC pith:N24NRPEI

load-bearing objection Solid analytic machinery and a generically interesting result, but the headline agreement with the observed BAU rests on an unspecified decoupling epoch and a tuned M*. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.19075 v2 pith:N24NRPEI submitted 2026-02-22 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Gravitational Baryogenesis in f(R) Cosmologies

Ian B. Whittingham This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords gravitational baryogenesisbaryon asymmetry factorf(R) gravityscalaronslow-roll inflationR^2 inflation modelpower-law f(R) model
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether the observed excess of matter over antimatter can be generated by gravity itself, through a coupling between the baryon current and the time derivative of the Ricci scalar. It works in the Einstein-frame description of two f(R) modified-gravity theories used for inflation: the standard R+R^2 model and a power-law model built from slow-roll parameters to fit recent CMB data. Using analytic slow-roll solutions for the scalaron field, the paper derives expressions for the Ricci scalar, its time derivative, and the temperature of gravitationally produced radiation, and computes the baryon asymmetry factor η. Both models give η in the range (1.05-1.53) x 10^-11 at M_* = M_Pl, within a factor of about six of the observed 8.65e-11; because η scales as (M/M_*)^2, setting M_* to about 0.4 M_Pl reproduces the observed value. The paper concludes that gravitational baryogenesis is a viable mechanism in both models.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the baryon asymmetry of the Universe can be generated by gravity alone in two f(R) modified-gravity models that are already used for inflation, through the gravitational baryogenesis coupling (∂μR)j^μ_B/M_*^2. Working in the Einstein frame, where f(R) gravity becomes General Relativity plus a scalaron field, the paper derives analytic slow-roll solutions for the scalaron and converts them into explicit Jordan-frame expressions for the Ricci scalar, its time derivative, the Hubble parameter, the scale factor, and the temperature of radiation produced by the rapidly changing geometry. It then evaluates the baryon asymmetry factor η = −(15 g_B/4π^2 g_*) (∂_0 R)

What carries the argument

The scalaron field φ (defined by Ω^2 = f'(R), φ = κ^{-1}√6 ln Ω) is the central object. The paper solves its slow-roll motion analytically from the potential U(φ), then maps the solutions back to Jordan-frame quantities R_J, dR_J/dt_J, H_J, a_J, and the radiation temperature T. The baryon asymmetry follows from η = −(15 g_B/(4π^2 g_*)) (dR_J/dt_J)/(M_*^2 T). A second ingredient is the gravitational production of radiation, whose energy density fixes T. For the power-law model, a slow-roll approximation 1 ≫ c_2 Ω^{-2} ≫ |α| permits an analytic solution for the scalaron; the remaining radiation integral must be evaluated numerically. The R^2-model expressions were previously derived in the lit

Load-bearing premise

The central claim relies on the baryon asymmetry being evaluated at the epoch where baryon-number-violating interactions actually decouple, and on the cutoff mass M_* being lowered from its expected Planck-scale value to about 0.4 M_Pl; neither condition is independently established in the paper.

What would settle it

Compute the decoupling temperature T_D of the baryon-number-violating interactions from their rates, then evaluate η(T_D) with the paper's analytic slow-roll expressions and M_* = 0.4 M_Pl. If T_D falls outside the tabulated slow-roll window, or if η(T_D) differs from the observed 8.65e-11, the claim that gravitational baryogenesis is viable in these models is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • The baryon asymmetry becomes a derived quantity of the gravity model, computable from the same slow-roll dynamics that fixes the inflationary observables.
  • The requirement M_* ≈ 0.4 M_Pl gives a concrete target for the cutoff of the effective baryon-number/gravity coupling, linking baryogenesis to the scale of new physics.
  • For the power-law model, a future fit of the two undetermined constants to CMB data will convert the current η range into a definite prediction, making the model falsifiable.
  • Because both models give η within the same narrow range, the mechanism is robust to the choice of f(R), suggesting similar f(R) inflationary models would generically produce η at the 10^-11 level.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not identify the decoupling temperature T_D at which the baryon asymmetry freezes in; pinning it down (e.g., from the rates of baryon-number-violating processes) would turn the broad slow-roll range into a single sharp prediction, and could place the relevant epoch after slow roll.
  • Since the radiation temperature is computed with the spectator coupling ξ = 0, allowing a small nonzero (1 − 6ξ) would change T and hence η, providing an alternative control knob to M_* for matching observation.
  • The same Einstein-frame scalaron formalism could be applied to other proposed f(R) models; checking whether models that fit the recent CMB tilt also produce the observed η would make baryogenesis a secondary constraint on inflationary model-building.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper investigates gravitational baryogenesis in two f(R) cosmologies — the Starobinsky model f(R)=R+R^2/(6M̃^2) and the Odintsov–Oikonomou power-law model f(R)=c1 R^{2+k/4}+c2 R+c3 — working in the Einstein frame. It derives analytic slow-roll solutions for the scalaron, computes the Ricci scalar and its time derivative, estimates the radiation temperature from cosmological gravitational particle production, and then evaluates the baryon asymmetry factor η through Eq. (16). Tables I and II report η ≈ (1.05–1.46)×10^{-11} for Starobinsky and η ≈ (1.06–1.53)×10^{-11} for the power-law model at M*=M_Pl, and the paper claims that reducing M* to about 0.4 M_Pl brings these values into agreement with the observed η≈8.65×10^{-11}.

Significance. If the missing freeze-out input were supplied, the paper would provide a useful, explicit demonstration that gravitational baryogenesis can work in these f(R) models. The strengths are the new analytic slow-roll solutions for the generalized power-law model, the consistency check that these reduce to the known Starobinsky results, and the transparent presentation of the CGPP-based radiation temperature. The derivations are detailed and self-consistent at the algebraic level. However, the central viability claim is not yet established because the paper does not identify the decoupling temperature T_D at which η is frozen, and the quoted power-law values depend on undetermined constants chosen by hand.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI, Eq. (16), Tables I–II] Eq. (16) defines η only as the value frozen at the decoupling temperature T_D, where baryon-number-violating interactions switch off. No T_D is identified for either model. Tables I and II instead list η at every slow-roll time from t̃_J≈1 to t̃_J≈25, and the quoted ranges (1.46→1.05×10^{-11} and 1.53→1.06×10^{-11}) are the time evolution during that epoch, not a set of possible final values. Since T(t_J) and dR_J/dt_J both vary strongly, the final asymmetry depends crucially on which epoch contains T_D. Sec. VII states that radiation dominance begins only at T_RD≈1.4×10^7 GeV, well after slow roll ends; if T_D is lower than the ~10^{13} GeV temperatures in Tables I–II, the calculation must be done on the fast-roll/reheating branch, which is not computed. The concluding claim that gravitational baryogenesis is viable therefore needs an explicit T_D and an evaluation of η at that temperat
  2. [Sec. VI A, Eqs. (239)–(241), Table I] The temperature formula (239) contains the factor (1−6ξ)^{1/2}, but the final η expression (241) has no such factor, so the result is only valid for ξ=0. This is not stated for the Starobinsky table; the power-law text explicitly says 'assuming ξ=0' before Eq. (298), but Table I has no such assumption in its caption or surrounding text. Since η ∝ (1−6ξ)^{-1/2}, an unstated spectator coupling can change the quoted numbers and can even make them divergent as ξ→1/6. The paper should state the choice ξ=0 explicitly and discuss the sensitivity to ξ.
  3. [Sec. VI B, Eqs. (319)–(322)] The power-law model contains free integration constants c1 and c2. The numerical values used for Table II are fixed by requiring the k=0 limit to reduce to Starobinsky, i.e. 1/c1=3 M̃^{(k+4)/2} and c2=1. This makes ζ and ζ_rad differ from the Starobinsky prefactors by only a few percent, so the power-law η range is close to the Starobinsky range by construction, not by a fit to the ACT/Planck data that motivated the model. The abstract's caveat that 'a future fit ... could yield enhanced values' underscores that the quoted power-law result is illustrative. A robust claim needs either a range over the allowed c1,c2 values or an actual fit.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. VII] The paper says the calculated values are 'quite close' to the observed η and that reducing M* 'slightly' from M_Pl to 0.4 M_Pl gives agreement. In fact, at M*=M_Pl the computed values are a factor 5.7–8 below observation, and 0.4 M_Pl is a factor 2.5 reduction in the cutoff of the effective operator. Since M* is a free parameter with expected order M_Pl, this is a tuning rather than a prediction. The conclusion should be phrased as consistency for M*≈0.4 M_Pl, with a rationale for that scale, rather than as a successful prediction at the natural scale.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Typographical] There are several typos: 'Freidmann' in Sec. V; 'The Trace equation (25 becomes' is missing a closing parenthesis; Eq. (95) has a missing parenthesis in the integrand; Ref. [36] and [37] share the same arXiv number and need checking.
  2. [Sec. VII, Eq. (330)–(332)] The quantity F(R_J) is used in Eq. (331) before it is defined in Eq. (332). Please define it before the first use.
  3. [Sec. VI B] The numerical check of the slow-roll approximation for the power-law model is described in words ('differences less than 1%') but no plot or error table is provided. A small figure would make the validity of the approximation easy to assess.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the tabulated η at M*=M_Pl is an independent output; the M* adjustment and unspecified T_D are parameter/physical gaps, not self-referential reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Eq. (16) is the standard gravitational-baryogenesis formula and contains no fitted value of the observed asymmetry. The scalar backgrounds are obtained by solving the slow-roll equations (195)-(197) from the potentials (64) and (253); ∂0R_J is then computed in (238) and (296), and the radiation temperature T follows from the gravitational particle-production energy densities (230) and (302). Inserting these into (240) gives (241) and (317), and the tabulated η values are genuine outputs of those expressions. Nothing in the equations is defined in terms of η_obs = 8.65×10^-11, and no parameter is fitted to that number. The only self-citation in the paper ([7], an introductory electroweak-baryogenesis example) is not load-bearing. Two limitations reduce predictive strength but are not algebraic circularity. First, Eq. (16) states that η is frozen at the decoupling temperature T_D, while Tables I-II tabulate η throughout slow roll without determining T_D; the paper's Sec. VII places radiation dominance at T_RD = 1.4×10^7 GeV, so if T_D lies below the tabulated epoch the relevant ∂0R and T would differ. That is an underdetermination/correctness gap, not a constructional circularity. Second, M* is a free cutoff scale and the statement that reducing M* to 0.4 M_Pl 'would bring the calculated values into agreement' is an acknowledged parameter adjustment, not a prediction derived from the model; similarly, the power-law model's c1 and c2 are transparently anchored to the Starobinsky k=0 limit rather than fitted to η. These are honest limitations, and the central derivation retains independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; it uses the established scalaron of f(R) gravity and a prior spectator scalar for particle production. The main free inputs are d_init, M̃, M*, ξ, and the power-law constants c₁, c₂, k, several of which are either tuned to match observation or fixed by an arbitrary Starobinsky limit.

free parameters (6)
  • d_init (initial scalaron amplitude) = 10
    Sets the initial value of τ and hence the slow-roll trajectory; chosen for a Starobinsky-like high-field start consistent with CMB observations.
  • M̃/M_Pl (Starobinsky mass scale) = 1.2e-5
    Fixed by the observed CMB scalar amplitude; an input to both models.
  • M* (gravitational baryogenesis cutoff) = M_Pl assumed; 0.4 M_Pl proposed to match η_obs
    Expected to be ~M_Pl, but not measured; the paper tunes it down to 0.4 M_Pl to bring η into agreement with observation.
  • ξ (spectator conformal coupling) = 0 (implicit)
    The Starobinsky tables are consistent with ξ=0, but the text never states this; η rescales by (1−6ξ)^{-1/2} if formulas (239)–(241) are used consistently.
  • c₁, c₂ (power-law f(R) constants) = Chosen to reduce to Starobinsky: 1/c₁=3 M̃^{(k+4)/2}, c₂=1
    Undetermined in the Odintsov–Oikonomou model; the arbitrary Starobinsky-limiting choice drives the reported power-law η values.
  • k (power-law exponent parameter) = -0.03
    Taken from the Odintsov–Oikonomou fit to Planck/ACT data; an input, not derived here.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The gravitational baryogenesis interaction L_GB = M_*^{-2}(∂_μ R)j_B^μ exists with cutoff M_* ~ M_Pl.
    Eq. (3); motivated by effective field theory and supergravity but not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption During slow roll, the scalaron kinetic energy and radiation energy are negligible compared with the potential, so Eqs. (195)–(197) hold.
    Used to obtain the analytic solutions for φ(t), H(t), and R(t); assumed throughout Sec. VI.
  • domain assumption The energy density of gravitationally produced spectator particles is entirely converted into radiation, giving the temperature via Eq. (116).
    Needed to convert ρ_rad into the temperature T that enters the baryon asymmetry formula; stated in Sec. VII.
  • ad hoc to paper For the power-law model, Ω² ≫ c₂ and c₂Ω⁻² ≫ |α|, allowing the slow-roll equation to be integrated analytically.
    Introduced after Eq. (261); the paper claims a numerical check but gives no numerical details or code.
  • ad hoc to paper The baryon asymmetry freezes in during the slow-roll era without an explicit decoupling temperature T_D.
    Eq. (16) requires evaluation at T_D, but Tables I–II evaluate η at arbitrary slow-roll times; no freeze-out temperature is specified.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30325 in / 17031 out tokens · 159345 ms · 2026-08-02T21:45:06.604967+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The generation of a baryon-antibaryon asymmetry in the Universe via gravitational baryogenesis is investigated for two f(R) modified theories of gravity, the widely used Starobinsky $f(R)=R+R^{2}/M^{2}$ model, and the recently proposed power-law model $f(R)=c_{1}R^{2+k/4}+c_{2}R+c_{3}$ of Odintsov and Oikonomou (2025) that is constructed from the slow-roll inflation parameters, and fits the new high-multipole CMB observations reported by the Planck and ACT collaborations for $k \sim -0.03$. The present investigation is undertaken in the Einstein frame. The motion of the scalaron is studied for the slow roll inflationary era using analytic approximate solutions obtained from its potential and, from these solutions, analytic expressions for the Ricci scalar, its time derivative, the Hubble parameter and the scale factor of the Universe. These expressions for the Starobinsky model were obtained first by Motohashi and Nishizawa (2012) but the expressions for the power-law model of Odintsov and Oikonomou and its generalization are new. The calculated values of the baryon asymmetry factor $\eta $ for the Starobinsky model vary from $(1.05 - 1.46) \times 10^{-11}$, and for the power-law model, from $(1.06 - 1.53) \times 10^{-11}$. The power-law values depend upon the unknown fitting parameters $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$, and a future fit of the Odintsov and Oikonomou model to data could yield enhanced values. The values for $\eta$ depend upon a mass parameter $M_{\ast}$ which is expected to be of the order of $M_{Pl}=2.435 \times 10^{18}$ GeV. The values of $\eta$ for both models have been calculated for $M_{\ast}=M_{Pl}$ and are quite close to the observed value $\eta = 8.65 \times 10^{-11}$. Since $\eta \propto (M/M_{\ast})^{2}$, reducing $M_{\ast}$ slightly from $M_{Pl}$ to $0.4 M_{Pl}$ would bring the calculated values into agreement with the observed value.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational baryogenesis beyond the spectator approximation

    gr-qc 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Treating the baryogenesis operator as part of the action yields modified Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations with an effective Planck mass M_eff² = M_Pl² - 2λ ∇_μ J^μ for the vector-density realization of the current.

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

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    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

47 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2.CandCPviolation so that processes generating baryons are more rapid than those generating an- tibaryons

    Baryon-number non-conserving interactions. 2.CandCPviolation so that processes generating baryons are more rapid than those generating an- tibaryons

  2. [2]

    Cookeet al, Precision measures of the primordial abundance of deuterium, Astrophys

    R. Cookeet al, Precision measures of the primordial abundance of deuterium, Astrophys. J.,781(1), 31 (2014) [arXiv:1308.3240]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Any reaction producingn B ̸=n ¯B must freeze out before particles and antiparticles achieve thermodynami- cal equilibrium

    Departure from thermal equilibrium since, from CP Tsymmetry, the equilibrium phase space densi- ties of particles and antiparticles are the same. Any reaction producingn B ̸=n ¯B must freeze out before particles and antiparticles achieve thermodynami- cal equilibrium. arXiv:2602.19075v1 [astro-ph.CO] 22 Feb 2026 2 The first two conditions relate to the pa...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    A. D. Sakharov, Violation of CP Invariance, C asymme- try, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5, 32–35 (1967)

    1967

  5. [5]

    D. S. Pereira, J. Ferraz, F. S. N. Lobo, and J. P. Mimosa, Baryogenesis: A Symmetry Breaking in the Primordial Universe Revisited, Symmetry16, 13 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Equation (112) then becomes (forρ= 0) 3HJ ¨HJ + 6H2 J ˙HJ − ˙H 2 J 2 + ˜M 2H 2 J = 0.(113) Note that (113) is theH≪H 0 limit of (75) for the quantum-corrected Einstein’s equations

    first solve (112) for the inflation era where, for ˜M 2 < RJ < M2 Pl,f(R J) =R J +R 2 J/6 ˜M 2 to an excellent approximation. Equation (112) then becomes (forρ= 0) 3HJ ¨HJ + 6H2 J ˙HJ − ˙H 2 J 2 + ˜M 2H 2 J = 0.(113) Note that (113) is theH≪H 0 limit of (75) for the quantum-corrected Einstein’s equations. For slow-roll evolutionH 2 J ≫ |˙HJ|,H J| ˙HJ| ≫ |...

  7. [7]

    1 + (2β−1) λ a −(2β−1) λ2 a2 +O λ a 3# (147) and R= 3 2t2

    then solve (112) numerically for the epoch imme- diately following slow-roll, initially neglecting the effects of any gravitational particle production. During the os- cillation (reheating) phase, it is assumed that the energy density (110) is totally converted to a radiation density ρJ(tJ) =ρ rad = π2 30 g∗(T) 4.(116) Motohashi and Nishizawa [15] argue t...

    2004

  8. [8]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, G. D. Kribs, H. Murayama,and P. J. Steinhardt, Gravitational Baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 201301 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0403019]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  9. [9]

    J. M. Cline, Baryogenesis, [arXiv:hep-ph/0609145 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faroni,f(R) theories of gravity, Rev. Modern Phys.82, 451–497 (2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    Adeet al, Planck 2015 results, XIII: Cosmologi- cal parameters, Astron

    P. Adeet al, Planck 2015 results, XIII: Cosmologi- cal parameters, Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016) [arXiv:1502.01589]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    K. S. Stelle, Renormalization of higher-derivative quan- tum gravity, Phys. Rev. D16, 953 (1977)

    1977

  13. [13]

    G. A. Vilkovisky, Effective action in quantum gravity, Class. Quantum Gravity9, 895–903 (1992)

    1992

  14. [14]

    de Vis, J

    J. de Vis, J. de Vries, and M. Postma, Bubble Trouble: a Review of Electroweak Baryogenesis, [arXiv:2508.09989]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    S. A. Abel, W. N. Cottingham, and I. B. Whitting- ham, Spontaneous baryogenesis in supersymmetric mod- els, Nucl. Phys.B410, 173–187 (1993)

    1993

  16. [16]

    A. A. Starobinsky, A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity, Phys. Lett.91B, 99–102 (1980)

    1980

  17. [17]

    Ellis and D

    E. Ellis and D. Wands, Inflation (2023), Review of Particle Physics: R. L. Workmanet al(Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys2022, 083C01 (2022), arXiv:2312.13238 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, Deformations of Starobinsky Inflation in No-Scale SU(5) and SO(10) GUTS, arXiv:2508.13279 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    have constructed theirgR 2 −ABmodel by extend- ing the conditionf ′(R)>0 forR >0 toR <0. Their f(R) function is f(R) = (1−g)R+ R2 6 ˜M 2 +g ˜M 2δln " cosh(R/δ ˜M 2 −b) coshb # ,(67) which can be rewritten as [15] f(R) =R− Rvac 2 + R2 6 ˜M 2 +g ˜M 2δln h 1 +e −2(R/δ ˜M 2−b) i ,(68) where Rvac ≡2g ˜M 2δ[b+ ln(2 coshb)].(69) plays the role of the cosmologica...

  20. [20]

    They consider the f(R) gravity function f(R) =R+ R2 M 2 −2Λγ R 2Λ δ +f EDE,(65) wheref inf ≡R 2/M2 generates the early-time acceler- ation and dominates during the inflationary era

    study a power lawf(R) gravity with an early dark energy term, that can describe both the early-time and late-time acceleration of the Universe. They consider the f(R) gravity function f(R) =R+ R2 M 2 −2Λγ R 2Λ δ +f EDE,(65) wheref inf ≡R 2/M2 generates the early-time acceler- ation and dominates during the inflationary era. The constantMshould be large en...

  21. [21]

    Utiyama and B

    R. Utiyama and B. S. de Witt, Renormalization of a Classical Gravitational Field Interacting with Quantized Matter, J. Math. Phys.3, 608–618 (1962)

    1962

  22. [22]

    T. P. Sotiriou,f(R) gravity and scalar-tensor theory, Class. Quantum Gravity23, 5117 (2006)

    2006

  23. [23]

    Motohashi and A

    H. Motohashi and A. Nishizawa, Reheating afterf(R) in- flation, Phys. Rev. D86, 083514 (2012), arXiv:1204.1472 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [24]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge,1982), Sect. 5.6

    1982

  25. [25]

    The factorsa −3 anda −4 reflect the dilution of particles by the expansion after their creation

    show that the renormalized energy density for an observer with 4-velocityU µν ρren(x) =⟨0 in|N[T µνU µU ν]|0in⟩,(107) whereT µν is the energy-momentum tensor calculated from the Lagrangian density (80), and the normal order- ingNis performed with respect to theoutbasis ladder operators, reduces to (106) for the typical case of ineffi- cient CGPP, where|β ...

  26. [26]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, and S.Verner, Building Models of Inflation in No-Scale Supergravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 2030011 (2020) [arXiv:2009.01709 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye, and A. A. Starobinsky, Curing singularities in cosmological evolution ofF(R) gravity, JCAP1006, 005 (2010) arXiv:0909.1737 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and G. S. Sharov, Early dark enery with power-lawF(R) gravity, Phys. Lett. B843, 137988 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    S. D. Odintsov, D. S-C. Gomez, and G. S. Sharov, An- alyzing theH 0 tension inF(R) gravity models, Nucl. Phys. B966, 115377 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    M. B. Mijic, M. S. Morris, and W-M. Suen, TheR 2 cos- mology: Inflation without a phase transition, Phys. Rev. D34, 2934–2946 (1986)

    1986

  31. [31]

    Vilenkin, Classical and quantum cosmology of the Starobinsky inflationary model, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Classical and quantum cosmology of the Starobinsky inflationary model, Phys. Rev. D32, 2511– 2521 (1985)

    1985

  32. [32]

    M. P. L. P. Ramos and J. P´ aramos, Baryogenesis in Nonminimally Coupledf(R) Theories, Phys. Rev. D96, 104024 (2017) [arXiv:1709.04442 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    E. W. Kolb and A. J. Long, Cosmological gravita- tional particle production and its implications for cos- mological relics, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 045001 (2024) arXiv:2312.09042 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Parker, Quantized Fields and Particle Creation in Ex- panding Universes, Phys

    L. Parker, Quantized Fields and Particle Creation in Ex- panding Universes, Phys. Rev.183, 1057–1068 (1969)

    1969

  35. [35]

    Ya. B. Zel’dovich and A. A. Starobinskii, Particle Pro- duction and Vacuum Polarization in an Anisotropic Gravitational Field, JETP34, 1159–1412 (1972)

    1972

  36. [36]

    M. S. Turner, Coherent scalar-field oscillations in an ex- panding universe, Phys. Rev. D28, 1243–1247 (1983)

    1983

  37. [37]

    Lambiase and G

    G. Lambiase and G. Scarpetta, Baryogenesis inf(R) Theories of Gravity, Phys. Rev. D74, 087504 (2006)

    2006

  38. [38]

    Kusakabe, S

    M. Kusakabe, S. Koh, K. S. Kim, and M-K. Cheoun, Corrected constraints on big bang nuclesynthesis in a modified gravity model off(R)∝R n, Phys. Rev. D91, 104023 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    1 d2 init − 1 [d2 init − 2 ˜M 3 (tE −t E,init)] # . (206) 15 Setting HE(tE,init) = ˜M 2 1− 1 d2 init (207) then HE(tE) = ˜M 2

    comment that it is possible to increase the value ofn s in the Starobinsky model by increasing the number of e-folds beyond 70 but that is unacceptable, and that it is impossible to get a positive running indexα s. The small deformations of Starobinsky inflation f3(R) =R+ R2 6 ˜M 2 +δ 3 R3 36 ˜M 4 ,(175) and f4(R) =R+ R2 6 ˜M 2 +δ 4 R4 48 ˜M 6 ,(176) can ...

  40. [40]

    Pizza, Baryo-Leptogenesis induced by modified gravi- ties in the primordial Universe, arXiv:1506.08321 [gr-qc]

    L. Pizza, Baryo-Leptogenesis induced by modified gravi- ties in the primordial Universe, arXiv:1506.08321 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Akramiet al(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    Y. Akramiet al(Planck), Planck 2018 results. X. Con- straints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020) 24 [arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Aghanimet al(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    P. A. Adeet al[BICEP and Keck], Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151301 (2021) [arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2021

  44. [45]

    Calabreseet al[ACT Collaboration], The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models,, arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Calabreseet al[ACT Collaboration], The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models,, arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [46]

    E. Camphuiset al[SPT-3G Collaboration], SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectrum and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT- 3G Main field, arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [47]

    S. V. Ketov, E. O. Pozdeeva, and S. Y. Vernov, Inflation inF(R) gravity models revisited after ACT, JCAP12, 040 (2025), arXiv:2508.08927 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Rectifying Power- lawf(R) Gravity and Starobinsky Inflation Deforma- tions in View of ACT, arXiv:2509.06251 [gr-qc]

    arXiv