pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24131 · v1 · pith:V4QNJNCSnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc· hep-ph

Minimal Extensions of the α-Starobinsky Model: Reconciling ACT DR6 and Reheating Constraints

Nehla Shobcha , Norma Sidik Risdianto , Romy Hanang Setya Budhi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph
keywords α-Starobinsky inflationscalar spectral indexACT DR6reheatingtensor-to-scalar ratioslow-roll parametersminimal extensions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two small-δ extensions to the α-Starobinsky model shift the predicted scalar spectral index into the 1σ region of ACT DR6 data while keeping the tensor-to-scalar ratio below 0.038.

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

The combined ACT DR6, Planck, and DESI dataset reports a scalar spectral index higher than the value produced by the standard α-Starobinsky model. The paper introduces two minimal modifications to the potential—an exponential multiplicative factor and an additive polynomial term—each controlled by a single small positive parameter δ. Analytic expansions of the slow-roll parameters to second order in δ, together with reheating consistency relations, demonstrate that these terms move ns into agreement with the observations for δ of order 10^{-2} to 10^{-4} while preserving the plateau shape and attractor behavior. The resulting models also satisfy the tensor-to-scalar ratio bound and produce reheating temperatures around 10^9 GeV for 50 to 65 e-folds.

Core claim

The central claim is that a single small perturbative parameter δ introduced either multiplicatively through an exponential or additively through a polynomial term allows the α-Starobinsky model to reconcile with the measured ns = 0.9743 ± 0.0034 at 1σ without exceeding r < 0.038, while the derived reheating temperatures remain between the BBN and gravitino bounds for the stated e-folding range.

What carries the argument

The δ-dependent corrections to the inflationary potential, whose effects on the slow-roll parameters are computed analytically to second order in δ and then inserted into the reheating consistency equation.

If this is right

  • For the exponential extension, α ≲ 35 and δ ∼ 10^{-2} place the model inside the 1σ region.
  • The additive extension requires δ ∼ 10^{-3} when p=1 and δ ∼ 10^{-4} when p=2.
  • The reheating equation of state must lie in 0 < ω_re ≤ 1 for N_k between 50 and 65.
  • All viable parameter combinations produce T_re ∼ 10^9 GeV.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The small size of the required δ suggests these corrections could arise naturally from higher-order terms in an effective field theory completion.
  • Future tighter bounds on the tensor-to-scalar ratio could distinguish the exponential modification from the polynomial one.
  • Analogous single-parameter deformations may resolve similar ns tensions in other plateau-type inflation models.

Load-bearing premise

The second-order expansion in δ remains accurate for the specific δ magnitudes needed to fit the data and the modifications stay small enough to keep the original plateau and attractor properties intact.

What would settle it

A future measurement finding that no value of δ in the stated ranges can place ns inside the observed 1σ interval while r stays below 0.038, or a reheating temperature outside the 10^9 GeV window for the viable α and N_k values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24131 by Nehla Shobcha, Norma Sidik Risdianto, Romy Hanang Setya Budhi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Predictions of the α-Starobinsky model in the ns-r plane against the 1σ (dark gray) and 2σ (light gray) confidence regions from the P-ACT-LB￾BK18 data. The curves are separated according to the equation of state seg￾ments ωre for each α. dynamics are taken into account, however, Nk is no longer a free parameter but is fixed by the consistency equation (11). Recent studies demonstrate that the α-Starobinsky… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Predictions of ns and r for the extended α-Starobinsky models compared with the P-ACT-LB-BK18 confidence regions. Panels 2a–2c show the (ns ,r) trajectories for the exponential extension (δ = 0.01), the polynomial extension with p = 1 (δ = 0.004), and the polynomial extension with p = 2 (δ = 0.0004), respectively. Panels 2d–2f display the corresponding 1σ allowed parameter space in the (α, δ) plane for eac… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The latest combined data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) DR6, Planck, and DESI yields a scalar spectral index $n_s = 0.9743 \pm 0.0034$, which lies approximately $2\sigma$ above the prediction of the standard $\alpha$-Starobinsky inflation model. To address this tension, we propose two minimal extensions that preserve the model's plateau structure and attractor properties: a multiplicative exponential modification and an additive polynomial deformation, both governed by a single small perturbative parameter $\delta>0$. We analytically derive the slow-roll parameters and inflationary observables up to second order in $\delta$ and integrate them with reheating dynamics via the consistency equation. It is shown that the $\delta$ term effectively shifts $n_s$ into the $1\sigma$ confidence region of the joint P-ACT-LB-BK18 dataset without violating the tensor-to-scalar ratio bound ($r < 0.038$). The viable parameter space at $1\sigma$ requires $\alpha \lesssim 35$ with $\delta \sim \mathcal{O}(10^{-2})$ for the exponential model, while the additive model requires $\delta \sim \mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$ for $p=1$ and $\delta \sim \mathcal{O}(10^{-4})$ for $p=2$. For the e-folding range $N_k \in [50, 65]$, the relevant reheating equation of state is $0<\omega_{\mathrm{re}}\le1$. All viable scenarios yield a reheating temperature $T_{\mathrm{re}} \sim 10^9$ GeV, which is safely above the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) bound and below the gravitino overproduction limit.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two minimal single-parameter (δ) extensions to the α-Starobinsky model—a multiplicative exponential deformation and an additive polynomial deformation—that preserve the plateau and attractor structure. Analytic expressions for the slow-roll parameters and observables (ns, r) are derived to second order in δ, combined with a reheating consistency equation, and shown to shift ns into the 1σ region of the P-ACT-LB-BK18 dataset (ns = 0.9743 ± 0.0034) for δ ∼ O(10^{-2}) (exponential) or smaller (additive), while keeping r < 0.038, α ≲ 35, and yielding Tre ∼ 10^9 GeV for N_k ∈ [50,65] and 0 < ω_re ≤ 1.

Significance. If the second-order analytic results remain accurate for the required δ values, the work supplies a controlled, minimal modification that reconciles the α-Starobinsky family with the latest ACT DR6 data without spoiling its attractive features or violating reheating/BBN bounds. The explicit mapping from δ to Δns and the reheating-temperature predictions constitute falsifiable outputs that can be tested against future data releases.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / analytic derivation of slow-roll parameters to O(δ²)] Abstract and the analytic-derivation section: the central claim that the O(δ²) expressions for ns and r suffice to produce the required Δns ≈ 0.003 shift for δ ∼ 10^{-2} (exponential case, α ≲ 35) is load-bearing, yet no remainder estimate or numerical cross-check against the exact potential is provided. For these δ values the O(δ³) corrections to V'' that enter ns can be comparable to the reported 1σ shift, undermining the reliability of the truncation.
  2. [Viable parameter space at 1σ] Viable-parameter section: the statement that δ is chosen so that ns lies inside the 1σ ACT interval makes the reconciliation at least partly by construction; the additional reheating constraint is welcome but does not remove the need to demonstrate that the same δ values simultaneously satisfy the r bound and the validity of the second-order expansion without fine-tuning.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction / model definitions] Notation for the two deformations (multiplicative vs. additive) should be introduced with explicit potential forms in the main text rather than only in the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important points regarding the reliability of our perturbative results and the structure of the viable parameter space. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / analytic derivation of slow-roll parameters to O(δ²)] Abstract and the analytic-derivation section: the central claim that the O(δ²) expressions for ns and r suffice to produce the required Δns ≈ 0.003 shift for δ ∼ 10^{-2} (exponential case, α ≲ 35) is load-bearing, yet no remainder estimate or numerical cross-check against the exact potential is provided. For these δ values the O(δ³) corrections to V'' that enter ns can be comparable to the reported 1σ shift, undermining the reliability of the truncation.

    Authors: We agree that the lack of an explicit error estimate or numerical validation for the O(δ²) truncation is a genuine limitation of the current manuscript. Although δ ∼ O(10^{-2}) is perturbatively small, O(δ³) contributions to the second derivative could affect ns at the level of the reported shift. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection comparing the analytic ns and r expressions to exact numerical evaluation of the slow-roll parameters from the full potential, for benchmark points across the claimed viable region (exponential and additive cases). This will either confirm the truncation accuracy or quantify the residual error. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Viable parameter space at 1σ] Viable-parameter section: the statement that δ is chosen so that ns lies inside the 1σ ACT interval makes the reconciliation at least partly by construction; the additional reheating constraint is welcome but does not remove the need to demonstrate that the same δ values simultaneously satisfy the r bound and the validity of the second-order expansion without fine-tuning.

    Authors: We accept that fixing δ to place ns inside the 1σ interval is by construction for that observable alone. The manuscript already imposes the independent requirements that r < 0.038, that the slow-roll conditions remain satisfied, and that the reheating consistency equation yields T_re in the allowed window for N_k ∈ [50,65]. The reported viable regions are the intersections of these constraints. We will revise the text to make this intersection explicit, to state the range of δ for which the second-order expansion remains valid (to be quantified by the new numerical checks), and to emphasize that no additional fine-tuning beyond the single-parameter δ is introduced. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; parameter fitting to data is explicit and non-circular.

full rationale

The paper introduces δ as an explicit free perturbative parameter in two potential extensions, derives slow-roll observables analytically to O(δ²) from the modified potentials, and then uses the resulting expressions to identify viable ranges of α and δ that place ns inside the 1σ ACT region while satisfying r < 0.038 and reheating bounds. This is standard model extension and data-driven constraint, not a reduction of any claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing; the reheating temperature range emerges from the consistency equation applied to the fitted viable parameters rather than being presupposed. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on introducing δ as a free parameter whose magnitude is fixed by fitting to the observed ns, together with the standard slow-roll and reheating frameworks of inflationary cosmology.

free parameters (2)
  • δ = O(10^{-2}) to O(10^{-4})
    Perturbative parameter whose magnitude is chosen to shift ns into the 1σ region of the ACT DR6 combination; ranges given as O(10^{-2}) for exponential and O(10^{-3}–10^{-4}) for additive cases.
  • α = ≲ 35
    Original Starobinsky parameter now bounded by α ≲ 35 to remain viable once δ is included.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Slow-roll approximation remains valid throughout inflation
    Required to derive the slow-roll parameters and observables to second order in δ.
  • domain assumption Reheating can be consistently linked to inflation via the standard consistency equation relating N_k and ω_re
    Used to obtain the allowed range 0 < ω_re ≤ 1 and the resulting T_re ~ 10^9 GeV.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5883 in / 1741 out tokens · 34874 ms · 2026-06-25T23:40:38.469941+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  1. [3]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. Alexan- der, M. Alvarez, et al., Desi 2024 iii: baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (04) (2025) 012. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/012

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/012 2024

  2. [4]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, et al., Desi 2024 vi: cos- mological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2025 (02) (2025) 021.doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2025/02/021

    2024

  3. [7]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y . Aldabergenov, S. V . Ketov, Curvature cor- rections to starobinsky inflation can explain the act re- sults, Phys. Lett. B 869 (2025) 139883.doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2025.139883

    arXiv 2025

  4. [8]

    Dioguardi, A

    C. Dioguardi, A. J. Iovino, A. Racioppi, Fractional attrac- tors in light of the latest act observations, Phys. Lett. B 868 (2025) 139664.doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025. 139664

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025 2025

  5. [9]

    The traveling purchaser problem and its variants.European Journal of Operational Research, 259(1):1–18, 2017

    A. Mohammadi, Yogesh, A. Wang, Power law plateau in- flation and primordial gravitational waves in the light of act, Phys. Lett. B 872 (2025) 140054.doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2025.140054

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2025

  6. [10]

    Drees, Y

    M. Drees, Y . Xu, Refined predictions for starobinsky in- flation and post-inflationary constraints in light of act, Phys. Lett. B 867 (2025) 139612.arXiv:2504.20757, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139612

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139612 2025

  7. [11]

    A. R. Liddle, S. M. Leach, How long before the end of inflation were observable perturbations produced?, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 103503.arXiv:astro-ph/0305263, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.103503

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.103503 2003

  8. [12]

    German, Reheating dynamics in inflationary cosmol- ogy: insights fromα-attractor andα-starobinsky models, The European Physical Journal Plus 140 (2) (2025) 1–14

    G. German, Reheating dynamics in inflationary cosmol- ogy: insights fromα-attractor andα-starobinsky models, The European Physical Journal Plus 140 (2) (2025) 1–14. doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-025-06011-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-025-06011-x 2025

  9. [13]

    B. A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa, D. Wands, Inflation dynamics and reheating, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78 (2006) 537.arXiv: astro-ph/0507632,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.78. 537

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/revmodphys.78 2006

  10. [14]

    D. I. Podolsky, G. N. Felder, L. Kofman, M. Peloso, Equa- tion of state and beginning of thermalization after preheat- ing, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 023501.arXiv:hep-ph/ 0507096,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.023501 2006

  11. [15]

    Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applications

    R. Allahverdi, R. Brandenberger, F.-Y . Cyr-Racine, A. Mazumdar, Reheating in inflationary cosmology: The- ory and applications, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 27–51.arXiv:1001.2600,doi:10.1146/annurev. nucl.012809.104511

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev 2010

  12. [16]

    Reheating after Inflation

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, A. A. Starobin- sky, Reheating after inflation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 3195.arXiv:hep-th/9405187, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.3195

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.73.3195 1994

  13. [17]

    M. A. G. Garcia, G. Germán, R. Gonzalez Quaglia, A. M. M. Colorado, Reheating constraints and consis- tency relations of the starobinsky model and some of its generalizations, JCAP 12 (2023) 015.arXiv:2306. 15831,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/015

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/015 2023

  14. [18]

    M. R. Haque, D. Maity, T. Paul, L. Sriramkumar, Decod- ing the phases of early and late time reheating through imprints on primordial gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 104 (6) (2021) 063513.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104. 063513

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104 2021

  15. [19]

    Kohri, T

    K. Kohri, T. Moroi, A. Yotsuyanagi, Big-bang nucleosyn- thesis with unstable gravitino and upper bound on the reheating temperature, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 123511. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.123511

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.123511 2006

  16. [20]

    M. Y . Khlopov, A. D. Linde, Is it easy to save the grav- itino?, Phys. Lett. B 138 (1984) 265.doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(84)91656-3

    1984

  17. [21]

    M. Bolz, A. Brandenburg, W. Buchmüller, Ther- mal production of gravitinos, Nucl. Phys. B 606 (2001) 518, erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 790 (2008) 336–337.arXiv:hep-ph/0012052,doi:10.1016/ S0550-3213(01)00132-8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  18. [22]

    S. S. Mishra, V . Sahni, A. A. Starobinsky, Curing infla- tionary degeneracies using reheating predictions and relic gravitational waves, JCAP 05 (2021) 075.arXiv:2101. 00271,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/075

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/075 2021

  19. [23]

    Bahari, S

    K. Bahari, S. Heydari, K. Karami, Reheating and relic gravitational waves as remedies for degeneracies of non-canonical natural inflation, Phys. Scripta 101 (2) (2026) 025002.arXiv:2506.12392,doi:10.1088/ 1402-4896/ae2f38

    arXiv 2026

  20. [24]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, V . Vennin, Encyclopædia infla- tionaris, Physics of the Dark Universe 5-6 (2014) 75–235, hunt for Dark Matter.doi:10.1016/j.dark.2014.01. 003. 7

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2014.01 2014

  21. [25]

    A. H. Guth, The inflationary universe: A possible solu- tion to the horizon and flatness problems, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 347–356.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.347 1981

  22. [26]

    A. A. Starobinsky, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity, Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99– 102.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-x 1980

  23. [27]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)].arXiv:1807.06209, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018

  24. [28]

    Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation

    Y . Akrami, et al., Planck 2018 results. x. constraints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A10.arXiv: 1807.06211,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887 2018

  25. [29]

    P. A. R. Ade, et al., Improved constraints on primordial gravitational waves using planck, wmap, and bicep/keck observations through the 2018 observing season, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 151301.arXiv:2110.00483,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.151301 2018

  26. [30]

    Ellis, D

    J. Ellis, D. V . Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, Starobinsky- like inflationary models as avatars of no-scale supergrav- ity, JCAP 10 (2013) 009.arXiv:1307.3537,doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2013/10/009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [31]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, D. Roest, Superconformal infla- tionaryα-attractors, JHEP 11 (2013) 198.arXiv:1311. 0472,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)198

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2013)198 2013

  28. [32]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, D. V . Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, No-scale inflation, Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) 094001.arXiv:1507.02308,doi:10.1088/ 0264-9381/33/9/094001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [33]

    Saini, A

    S. Saini, A. Nautiyal, Observational constraints onα- starobinsky inflation, Gravitation and Cosmology 31 (4) (2025) 517–525.doi:10.1134/S0202289325700392

    work page doi:10.1134/s0202289325700392 2025

  30. [34]

    G. Germán, Model independent results for the inflation- ary epoch and the breaking of the degeneracy of mod- els of inflation, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2020 (11) (2020) 006.doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2020/11/006

    2020

  31. [35]

    J. L. Cook, E. Dimastrogiovanni, D. A. Easson, L. M. Krauss, Reheating predictions in single field inflation, JCAP 04 (2015) 047.arXiv:1502.04673,doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2015/04/047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [36]

    L. Dai, M. Kamionkowski, J. Wang, Reheating con- straints to inflationary models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (4) (2014) 041302.arXiv:1404.6704,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.113.041302

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [37]

    M. S. Turner, Coherent scalar field oscillations in an ex- panding universe, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 1243.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.28.1243

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.28.1243 1983

  34. [38]

    M. A. Amin, M. P. Hertzberg, D. I. Kaiser, J. Karouby, Nonperturbative dynamics of reheating after inflation: A review, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24 (2014) 1530003.arXiv: 1410.3808,doi:10.1142/S0218271815300037

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0218271815300037 2014

  35. [39]

    German, Perturbative analysis of the reheating dy- namics ofα-attractors, Int

    G. German, Perturbative analysis of the reheating dy- namics ofα-attractors, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 34 (14) (2025) 2550065.arXiv:2504.14082,doi:10.1142/ S0218271825500658

    arXiv 2025

  36. [40]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi, Big-bang nucleosyn- thesis and hadronic decay of long-lived massive parti- cles, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 083502.arXiv:astro-ph/ 0408426,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.083502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.083502 2005

  37. [41]

    J. R. Ellis, J. E. Kim, D. V . Nanopoulos, Cosmological gravitino regeneration and decay, Phys. Lett. B 145 (1984) 181.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90334-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90334-4 1984

  38. [42]

    P. F. de Salas, M. Lattanzi, G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pas- tor, O. Pisanti, Bounds on very low reheating scenarios af- ter planck, Phys. Rev. D 92 (12) (2015) 123534.arXiv: 1511.00672,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123534

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.123534 2015

  39. [43]

    Ferrara, R

    S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, Cosmology with nilpo- tent superfields, JHEP 10 (2014) 143.arXiv:1408. 4096,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)143

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2014)143 2014

  40. [44]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, Polynomialα-attractors, JCAP 04 (2022) 017.arXiv:2202.06492,doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2022/04/017

    arXiv 2022

  41. [45]

    Braglia, M

    M. Braglia, M. Hazumi, D. Lopez Nacir, F. Piazza,α- attractor inflation: Models and predictions, Phys. Rev. D 107 (10) (2023) 103530.arXiv:2212.13363,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.107.103530

    arXiv 2023

  42. [46]

    Pallis, N

    C. Pallis, N. Toumbas, Starobinsky inflation: From non- susy to sugra realizations, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017 (2017) 6759267.arXiv:1612.09202,doi:10.1155/ 2017/6759267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [47]

    Gravitational particle production in bouncing cosmologies

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, D. V . Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, S. Verner, Unified no-scale attractors, JCAP 09 (2019) 040.arXiv:1906.10176,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2019/09/040

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2019

  44. [48]

    Cosmological Attractors from $\alpha$-Scale Supergravity

    D. Roest, M. Scalisi, Cosmological attrac- tors fromα-scale supergravity, Phys. Rev. D 92 (4) (2015) 043525.arXiv:1503.07909, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.043525. 8

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.043525 2015