Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 7 cited by

Two supergravity embeddings of smooth hybrid inflation—shift-symmetric and hyperbolic—use a stabilized modulus to cancel the η-problem, yielding ns ≈ 0.966–0.968 (matching ACT/SPT) or ns ≈ 0.974–0.976 (matching ACT/BK18), with Higgs VEVs at

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

2026-08-04 08:26 UTC pith:Y26A5RN5

load-bearing objection The NSUGRA construction is genuinely useful, but an algebra slip in the shSUGRA mass formula undermines the single-field claim; worth refereeing after that fix. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.20478 v3 pith:Y26A5RN5 submitted 2025-10-23 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

GUT-Scale Smooth Hybrid Inflation with a Stabilized Modulus in Light of ACT and SPT Data

Waqas Ahmed , Constantinos Pallis , Mansoor Ur Rehman This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords smooth hybrid inflationsupergravityKähler potentialmodulus stabilizationspectral indexGUT scalegauge coupling unificationACT/SPT data
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 tries to show that smooth F-term hybrid inflation (smFHI), embedded in supergravity, can be reconciled with the recent ACT and SPT measurements of the cosmic microwave background without abandoning GUT-scale Higgs vacuum expectation values. In the shift-symmetric setting (shSUGRA), the modulus contribution is tuned to cancel the quadratic supergravity correction; the spectral index then returns to the pure SUSY value ns ≈ 1 − (3p−1)/(2p−1)/N★ ≈ 0.966–0.968, which agrees with Planck+ACT+SPT. In the hyperbolic-Kähler setting (NSUGRA), a leftover quartic coefficient c4K shifts ns upward to ≈ 0.974–0.976, matching Planck+ACT+BICEP/Keck. In both cases the inflationary potential remains monotonic, avoiding hilltop fine-tuning, and the Higgs VEVs sit at the SUSY GUT scale, tying inflation to gauge coupling unification.

Core claim

The central claim is that a decoupled superheavy modulus, entering only through the Kähler potential as Ẑ = (f+f*)^α and K̂ = β m_P² ln(f+f*) and stabilized at ⟨f⟩=⟨f*⟩=1/2 during inflation, supplies exactly the supergravity corrections needed to cancel the inflaton mass term (the η-problem). With β = −3 and a shift-symmetric Kähler potential, the theory reverts to the SUSY prediction ns = 1 − (3p−1)/(2p−1)/N★, in accord with the P-ACT-SPT range; with a hyperbolic Kähler manifold and N fixed by N0 = 2β/(α−β)², a positive c4K lifts ns into the P-ACT-LB-BK18 range. Both constructions yield a monotonic inflationary potential and Higgs VEVs at the SUSY GUT scale (⟨Φ⟩ ≈ 2×10^16 GeV), improving pr

What carries the argument

The engine is the F-term supergravity scalar potential with a modulus-stabilization ansatz: Ẑ = (f+f*)^α and K̂ = β m_P² ln(f+f*) (a Kähler manifold SU(1,1)/U(1)), with ⟨f(h)⟩ = ⟨f*⟩ = 1/2 during inflation. This modulus generates the coefficients c2K, c4K, … in the inflationary potential V_I = M⁴[V_F0/M⁴ − c2K σ²/2m_P² + c4K σ⁴/4m_P⁴ + …]. Setting c2K = 0—via β = −3 in shSUGRA or N = 2β/(α−β)² in NSUGRA—removes the dangerous inflaton mass, while the sign and magnitude of c4K control the upward shift of ns. The potential stays monotonic because the coefficients are constrained to avoid extrema.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on two assumptions: that a modulus frozen at a fixed value contributes to the Kähler potential only through the specific powers used in the paper, and that the imaginary partner of the inflaton is heavy enough to ignore—though the paper's own mass formula gives that partner zero mass at the start of the field range.

What would settle it

A future CMB measurement of the spectral index with error below 0.002 could discriminate: if ns remains above 0.974, the shSUGRA branch (prediction 0.966–0.968) is excluded; if below 0.962, both branches fail. In parallel, compute the two-field mass matrix on the inflationary trajectory: if the imaginary component of the inflaton is not heavy during inflation, the single-field formulas for ns and the running index do not apply.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, GUT-scale smFHI is observationally alive: with p=2,3,4 (Type I) or q=3,5,7 (Type II), ns lands between 0.964 and 0.968, inside the Planck+ACT+SPT 95% c.l. band.
  • The framework makes a parameter-free prediction for the running of the spectral index: as ≈ −(3p−1)/(2p−1)/N★², a small negative number around −6×10⁻⁴, testable with future CMB surveys.
  • The tensor-to-scalar ratio is tiny (r ≲ 4×10⁻⁶), so the models will not be confirmed by gravitational-wave searches; they are distinguished by ns and as instead.
  • The Higgs VEVs are locked to the GUT scale by the unification constraint, which reduces the free parameters to two (or one in shSUGRA) and ties inflation to MSSM gauge coupling unification.
  • NSUGRA accommodates the higher ns preferred by Planck+ACT+BICEP/Keck for α,β of order unity (e.g., β=−1, α<0.3, |N0|<7), while shSUGRA fits the lower P-ACT-SPT range; the two settings are therefore discriminated by the final CMB dataset.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The parameter-free form of ns in Eq. (5.5) means the shSUGRA branch can be decisively falsified by a future measurement of ns with error below 0.002: if the central value stays above 0.976, that branch is dead.
  • The modulus ansatz is string-inspired but effectively bottom-up; the same c2K=0 cancellation mechanism could be realized by other Kähler corrections, so the paper's core logic does not depend on string theory being exact.
  • Because the imaginary component of the inflaton must be integrated out, the model's single-field approximation could be checked by a two-field numerical evolution; if that component is not heavy during inflation (as the paper's own mass formula suggests), the predicted ns and as could be modified.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same stabilized-modulus Kähler corrections to other hybrid-inflation variants (pseudo-smooth tribrid, shifted hybrid) to see whether the same shift in ns resolves their tensions with the new CMB data.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs two SUGRA embeddings of smooth F-term hybrid inflation (smFHI-I and smFHI-II) with an additional modulus field that is stabilized during inflation. In the first, shift-symmetric scenario (shSUGRA), the choice β=-3 removes the quadratic SUGRA correction c2K, so the inflationary observables reduce to the rigid-SUSY results, e.g. ns = 1 - (3p-1)/(2p-1) 1/N*, which is stated to be consistent with P-ACT-SPT data. In the second, hyperbolic-Kähler scenario (NSUGRA), c2K=0 is imposed through N=N0(α,β), leaving a positive c4K that shifts ns upward into the P-ACT-LB-BK18 95% region. The authors also impose MSSM gauge-coupling unification through Eq. (4.6), and Appendix B uses the same constraint to exclude the mSUGRA version. Numerical tables and figures are provided for p=2,3,4 and q=3,5,7.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper offers a useful, comparatively predictive SUGRA realization of GUT-scale smFHI: the shSUGRA spectral index is a parameter-free function of p and N*, and the NSUGRA construction gives a controlled positive shift in ns through c4K while keeping the potential monotonic. Explicit analytic formulas for ns0 and as0, numerical tables, and a consistency check of mSUGRA are all valuable. However, the single-field reduction on which the shSUGRA predictions rest is not correctly justified as written. The stress-test concern about Eq. (3.23) is valid and is load-bearing for the central claim, so the manuscript needs a substantive revision before the cross-data conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.23) vs Eq. (3.6)] Equation (3.23) is inconsistent with the paper's own mass formula, Eq. (3.6). Setting α=0 and β=-3 in Eq. (3.6) gives m²_σbar = (M^4/m_P^2)[3 + 9/(-3) + (0+3-1)(σ/m_P)^2] = 2(M^4/m_P^2)(σ/m_P)^2 = 6(σ/m_P)^2 H_I0^2, not 6(3+(σ/m_P)^2)H_I0^2. At the benchmark σ* = 2.65×10^17 GeV (Table 1, p=2) this is about 0.07 H_I0^2, i.e. the σbar direction is light, not superheavy. The single-field slow-roll predictions of Sec. 5.1, including Eq. (5.5), therefore lack their stated justification: a light σbar can be excited during inflation and may alter the curvature perturbation spectrum. This is not merely a typo; it undermines the consistency check for the α=0 benchmark. The argument can likely be repaired by choosing α=-1 or α=-2 in Eq. (3.6) (which restores m²_σbar ≈ 8H_I0^2), or by explicitly analyzing the multi-field dynamics for α=0. As written, however, the shSUGRA derivation is internally in
  2. [§5.3, Fig. 4 and Conclusions] The paper's broad claim that the inflationary potential is monotonic 'in both our constructions' and 'for both types of smFHI' is only checked in Fig. 4 for smFHI-I with p=2 and two specific parameter choices. No demonstration is given for p=3,4 or for Type II smFHI, nor is a proof supplied for arbitrary α,β. This is not fatal for the ns predictions, but the Conclusions overstate the generality of the monotonicity result, which is advertised as an 'outstanding feature'. Either restrict the claim to the explicitly plotted cases or provide additional checks/analytic conditions for c2K,c4K,c6K,c8K.
  3. [§2.2 and Appendix A] The entire SUGRA correction structure depends on the ansatz in Eqs. (2.7)-(2.8), in particular on the assumption that during inflation ⟨f(h)⟩_I = ⟨f*(h*)⟩_I = 1/2, which is imposed by hand after the Kähler potential is chosen. Appendix A constructs a sample D-term stabilization, but it does not show that the modulus remains exactly at this value while S evolves during inflation, nor that corrections to the modulus mass are negligible compared with H_I0. The authors are candid that this is an assumption, but because the resulting c2K cancellation and the ns shift are sensitive to it, the robustness of the construction would be substantially improved by a check that the inflationary dynamics do not displace h from Eq. (2.8).
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Table 1] For p=3,4 and q=5,7 the table reports κ > √(4π), so the simplified relation M* ∝ m_P in Eq. (2.3) violates the stated perturbativity condition. The text mentions this, but the abstract and Section 5.1 could be clearer that only p=2 (and q=3 in Type II) satisfy all perturbativity requirements simultaneously.
  2. [§5.1, notation] The table uses the column heading N_I* while the text and equations use N*; please unify the notation. Also, Eq. (5.9) appears to be obtained from Eq. (5.5) by p→q/2; this mapping is stated but could be made explicit for readability.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (3.5)] In the shSUGRA Kähler metric, ⟨K_{I Jbar}⟩_I = diag(1, -β⟨|f,h|⟩_I²), the second entry appears dimensionful if h is treated as having mass dimension one and f=ln(h/m_P). Either the field normalization or the expression should be stated consistently with Eq. (A.1).
  4. [§5.2, Eq. (5.12)] The analytic approximation for ns in NSUGRA is derived under the assumption that σ* does not deviate much from its shSUGRA value. This assumption is checked only in Fig. 4 for one point. Please state the range of α,β for which Eq. (5.12) is numerically accurate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the shSUGRA ns prediction is parameter-free (given p and N*) and is checked against external ACT/SPT data; NSUGRA treats alpha,beta as free inputs constrained by observations. Minor self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central predictions are not circular. In shSUGRA, beta = -3 is imposed by the paper's own self-consistency condition c2K = 0 (Eqs. 3.22a-3.22b), not fitted to CMB data; the resulting potential V_I coincides with the SUSY potential (Eq. 3.16/3.19 inserted into Eq. 3.21), and the spectral index ns0 = 1 - (3p-1)/(2p-1)/N* (Eq. 5.5) is a parameter-free function of p and N* that is then compared with the external ACT and SPT constraints (Eqs. 1.3-1.4). In NSUGRA, alpha and beta are free model parameters scanned in Figs. 1-3, and the data constrain them rather than being used to force a prediction; Eq. (3.25) is a self-imposed eta-problem resolution, not a fit to ns. The modulus ansatz (Eq. 2.7) is openly adopted and not smuggled in via citation; the appendix gives a sample stabilization. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [2] in Eq. 1.1, Ref. [82] for the beta=0 runaway remark) are background or side notes, and Eq. 1.1 is also attributed to the independent original reference [3] and rederived in Sec. 5.1. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. One non-circular correctness concern should be flagged: Eq. (3.23) appears to mis-evaluate the paper's own Eq. (3.6) at alpha=0, beta=-3; substituting those values gives m^2_sigma-bar/H_I0^2 = 6(sigma/m_P)^2, which is about 0.07 at sigma* = 2.65e17 GeV, not much larger than 1. That undermines the single-field reduction, but it is an internal inconsistency, not a circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the score is low (2) only for minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 2 invented entities

The model rests on standard SUGRA and slow-roll machinery, plus several model-specific assumptions: the separable Kähler potential with a stabilized modulus at a chosen normalization, the D-flat trajectory, the convergence of the σ/m_P expansion, and the GUT unification scale. The free parameters are the Kähler exponents α, β (chosen by hand and constrained by data), the superpotential exponents p/q, and the mass scale M (fixed by the CMB amplitude). The modulus field and the FI stabilization sector are invented entities without independent evidence.

free parameters (6)
  • α (Kähler exponent in Ẑ) = 0.008–0.238 for β=-1 (NSUGRA); 0 for shSUGRA
    Free rational parameter controlling SUGRA corrections; varied to bring ns into ACT/SPT range (Figs. 1,2, Eq. 5.13).
  • β (coefficient of K̂) = -1, -2, -3 (integer)
    Integer parameter specifying K̂; for shSUGRA β=-3 forced to cancel c2K (Eq. 3.22b); for NSUGRA scanned over -1,-2.
  • N (Kähler curvature parameter, NSUGRA) = N0 = 2β/(α-β)^2 (≈ -0.7 to -2.2)
    Ad hoc relation (Eq. 3.25) chosen to cancel the quadratic SUGRA correction; leaves α,β free.
  • M (mass scale in superpotential) = ≈(0.7–1.35)×10^15 GeV
    Determined by normalizing the curvature power spectrum to As ≈ 2.13×10^-9 (Eq. 4.3); effectively fitted to CMB amplitude.
  • p or q (superpotential exponent) = p=2,3,4 (Type I); q=3,5,7 (Type II)
    Discrete model choice controlling relative powers; results shown for representative values.
  • T_rh (reheat temperature) = 10^8–10^9 GeV
    Chosen by hand motivated by non-thermal leptogenesis; affects N★ mildly (Eq. 4.1).
axioms (7)
  • standard math F-term SUGRA scalar potential formula (Eq. 3.1)
    Assumed valid; standard SUGRA framework.
  • domain assumption Kähler potential separable as K=K_I+K̂+K_H with no relevant S-h mixing (Eq. 2.4)
    Assumed; mixing neglected based on prior literature [2,74,75].
  • ad hoc to paper Modulus h has no superpotential (W_h=0) and is stabilized at ⟨f(h)⟩_I=1/2 during inflation (Eqs. 2.7, 2.8)
    The stabilization mechanism is only sketched in Appendix A; the normalization 1/2 is essential for the computed corrections.
  • domain assumption D-flat inflationary trajectory conditions (Eq. 3.3)
    Standard for hybrid inflation; unaffected by SUGRA for canonical Higgs kinetic terms.
  • domain assumption Convergence of the power-series expansion in σ/m_P up to σ^8 (Eq. 3.21)
    Assumed and checked numerically for the sample parameter points; not proven for all scanned space.
  • domain assumption Gauge coupling unification at M_A ≈ 2×10^16 GeV (Eq. 4.6)
    Standard MSSM GUT unification scale; imported as external constraint.
  • domain assumption Reheating parameters w_rh=0, g_rh*=228.75, T_rh=10^8–10^9 GeV (Sec. 4.1)
    Standard choices from MSSM and leptogenesis; determine N★ ≈ 48-49 which enters ns predictions.
invented entities (2)
  • Modulus field h (string-inspired, with Kähler couplings Ẑ, K̂) no independent evidence
    purpose: Supplies SUGRA corrections that eliminate the quadratic η problem and adjust ns upward in NSUGRA.
    Introduced ad hoc with the ansatz Eq. (2.7); no top-down string derivation; stabilization only via a toy FI model in Appendix A.
  • Anomalous U(1) FI sector (Appendix A) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a D-term potential to stabilize h and set ⟨f(h)⟩_I=1/2.
    Used in the sample stabilization; charges q_h and FI scale chosen to satisfy the normalization; no independent observable.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20236 in / 23914 out tokens · 207485 ms · 2026-08-04T08:26:51.479636+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We analyze a generalized framework of smooth F-term hybrid inflation (smFHI) consistent with gauge coupling unification within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). The embedding of the model in two specific Supergravity settings addresses at the same time the $\eta$ problem and the compatibility with the recent ACT or SPT data. The one relies on the choice of a shift-symmetric K\"ahler potential for the inflaton which revitalizes the SUSY predictions of smFHI, whereas the other employs a K\"ahler potential associated with an hyperbolic K\"ahler manifold. An essential role in both our constructions is played by a decoupled superheavy field without superpotential and Kaehler potential inspired by string- and D-brane--based models. Our proposal can be realized for a variety of representations for the Higgs fields involved in smFHI and assures monotonic inflationary potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.20478 by Constantinos Pallis, Mansoor Ur Rehman, Waqas Ahmed.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Values of ns allowed by Eqs. (4.1), (4.3) and (4.6) versus α for smFHI-I, β = −1 or −2 and p = 2, 3 and 4 – the marginalized joint 68% [95%] c.l. regions from P-ACT-LB-BK18 data are depicted by the dark [light] shaded contours (left plot). Resulting values of (−N0) versus M for the same β and p (right plot). Shown is also the applied color coding in both plots for the various β and p values in the legend o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Values of ns, allowed by Eqs. (4.1), (4.3) and (4.6), versus as for NSUGRAand smFHI-I [smFHI-II] (left [right] plot) corresponding to the parameter choices discussed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The variation of VI in Eq. (3.21) (left panel) and VI,σ (right panel) as functions of σ for smFHI-I with p = 2, shSUGRA α = 0 and β = −3 resulting to ns = 0.967 (solid line) or NSUGRA α = 1/15 and β = −1 resulting to ns = 0.972 (dashed line). The values of σ⋆ and σf are also depicted. 6. Conclusions We have constructed and analyzed two types (I and II) of smFHI (i.e., smooth F-term hybrid inflation) depend… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational waves from self-resonance during reheating with a quantum-corrected inflaton potential

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A Coleman-Weinberg correction that cancels the inflaton's quadratic term at the potential minimum triggers quartic self-resonance and a peaked GW background at 10^8-10^10 Hz; a negative quadratic term instead gives a ...

  2. Running into tension: primordial black holes from ultra-slow-roll inflation, spectral running, and the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    EDE models increase inferred α_s from CMB data, strengthening tension with USR PBH models that predict negative running.

  3. Induced-Gravity Palatini-Like Higgs Inflation in Supergravity Confronts ACT DR6

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    A Palatini-supergravity Higgs-inflation model with induced gravity predicts a scalar spectral index ns≈0.972-0.974, consistent with ACT DR6, and favors split supersymmetry with gravitino mass 40-60 PeV.

  4. Shifted Hybrid Realization of Non-Minimal Higgs Inflation in Light of ACT DR6 and Planck Data

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    A shifted-hybrid non-minimal Higgs inflation model deforms the Starobinsky attractor via a leading non-renormalizable superpotential operator to raise ns into the ACT-preferred range while keeping r ~ 10^{-3}-10^{-2}.

  5. F-Term Hybrid Inflation with T-Model K\"ahler Geometry and Beyond

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    F-term hybrid inflation with SU(1,1)/U(1) or SU(2)/U(1) Kähler geometry in GUTs can be realized without inflationary extrema for broad parameters, matching ACT/SPT data via curvature and tadpole adjustments while pred...

  6. Conventional and Unitarity-Conserving Peccei-Quinn Inflation Models and ACT

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Unitarity-conserving Peccei-Quinn inflation agrees with ACT data within 1 sigma and allows axion decay constants up to 6.4e13 GeV without post-inflation symmetry restoration, unlike the conventional model.

  7. Induced-Gravity Palatini-Like Higgs Inflation in Supergravity Confronts ACT DR6

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A Palatini-inspired induced-gravity inflation model in supergravity fits ACT DR6 data while embedding into a B-L extended MSSM with split SUSY and leptogenesis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 61 linked inside Pith · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Lazarides,Basics of inflationary cosmology,J

    G. Lazarides,Basics of inflationary cosmology,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.53, 528 (2006) [hep-ph/0607032]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Armillis and C

    R. Armillis and C. Pallis,Implementing Hilltop F-term Hybrid Inflation in Supergravity,inRecent Ad- vances in Cosmology, edited by A. Travena and B. Soren (Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York, 2013) arXiv:1211.4011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Lazarides and C

    G. Lazarides and C. Panagiotakopoulos,Smooth hybrid inflation,Phys. Rev. D52, R559 (1995) [hep- ph/9506325]

    arXiv 1995

  4. [4]

    Lazarides, C

    G. Lazarides, C. Panagiotakopoulos and N.D. Vlachos,Initial conditions for smooth hybrid inflation, Phys. Rev. D54, 1369 (1996) [hep-ph/9606297]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Jeannerot, S

    R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil and G. Lazarides,Leptogenesis in smooth hybrid inflation,Phys. Lett. B506, 344 (2001) [hep-ph/0103229]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Lazarides and A

    G. Lazarides and A. Vamvasakis,New smooth hybrid inflation,Phys. Rev. D76, 083507 (2007) [arXiv:0705.3786]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Yamaguchi and J

    M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama,Smooth hybrid inflation in supergravity with a running spectral index and early star formation, Phys. Rev. D70, 023513 (2004) [hep-ph/0402282]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Kawasaki, N

    M. Kawasaki, N. Kitajima and K. Nakayama,Smooth hybrid inflation in a supersymmetric axion model, Phys. Rev. D87, no.3, 035010 (2013) [arXiv:1211.6516]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Khalil, Q

    S. Khalil, Q. Shafi and A. Sil,Smooth Hybrid Inflation and Non-Thermal Type II Leptogenesis,Phys. Rev. D86, 073004 (2012) [arXiv:1208.0731]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Ahmed, A

    W. Ahmed, A. Karozas, G. K. Leontaris and U. Zubair,Smooth hybrid inflation with low reheat tem- perature and observable gravity waves inSU(5)×U(1) χ super-GUT,JCAP06, no. 06, 027 (2022) [arXiv:2201.12789]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Senoguz and Q

    V .N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi,Testing supersymmetric grand unified models of inflation,Phys. Lett. B567, 79 (2003) [hep-ph/0305089]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  12. [12]

    ur Rehman, V

    M. ur Rehman, V . N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi,Supersymmetric And Smooth Hybrid Inflation In The Light Of WMAP3,Phys. Rev. D75, 043522 (2007) [hep-ph/0612023]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Rehman and Q

    M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi,Simplified Smooth Inflation with Observable Gravity Waves,Phys. Rev. D 86, 027301 (2012) [arXiv:1202.0011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Rehman and U

    M.U. Rehman and U. Zubair,Simplified Smooth Hybrid Inflation in Supersymmetric SU(5),Phys. Rev. D 91, 103523 (2015) [arXiv:1412.7619]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Zubair,Smoothµ-hybrid and non-minimal Higgs inflation inSU(4) C×SU(2) L×SU(2) R with ob- servable gravitational waves,JCAP02, 033 (2025) [arXiv:2403.13991]

    U. Zubair,Smoothµ-hybrid and non-minimal Higgs inflation inSU(4) C×SU(2) L×SU(2) R with ob- servable gravitational waves,JCAP02, 033 (2025) [arXiv:2403.13991]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto,Smooth hybrid inflation in light of ACT DR6 data,arXiv:2506.15965

    arXiv

  17. [17]

    Antusch, D

    S. Antusch, D. Nolde and M.U. Rehman,Pseudosmooth Tribrid Inflation,JCAP08, 004 (2012) [arXiv:1205.0809]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Masoud, M.U

    M.A. Masoud, M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi,Pseudosmooth Tribrid Inflation inSU(5),JCAP04, 041 (2020) [arXiv:1910.07554]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Dvali, Q

    G.R. Dvali, Q. Shafi and R.K. Schaefer,Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning,Phys. Rev. Lett73, 1886 (1994) [hep-ph/9406319]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  20. [20]

    Jeannerotet al.,Inflation and monopoles in supersymmetric SU(4)C x SU(2)(L) x SU(2)(R),JHEP10, 012 (2000) [hep-ph/0002151]

    R. Jeannerotet al.,Inflation and monopoles in supersymmetric SU(4)C x SU(2)(L) x SU(2)(R),JHEP10, 012 (2000) [hep-ph/0002151]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  21. [21]

    Jeannerot, S

    R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil and G. Lazarides,New shifted hybrid inflation,J. High Energy Phys.07, 069 (2002) [hep-ph/0207244]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  22. [22]

    Lazarides, I.N.R

    G. Lazarides, I.N.R. Peddie and A. Vamvasakis,Semi-shifted hybrid inflation with B-L cosmic strings, Phys. Rev. D78, 043518 (2008) [arXiv:0804.3661]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  23. [23]

    Khalil, M.U

    S. Khalil, M.U. Rehman, Q. Shafi and E.A. Zaakouk,Inflation in Supersymmetric SU(5),Phys. Rev. D 83, 063522 (2011) [arXiv:1010.3657]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  24. [24]

    Lazarides, M.U

    G. Lazarides, M.U. Rehman, Q. Shafi and F.K. Vardag,Shiftedµ-hybrid inflation, gravitino dark matter, and observable gravity waves,Phys. Rev. D103, no.3, 035033 (2021) [arXiv:2007.01474]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Afzal, M

    A. Afzal, M. Mehmood, M. U. Rehman and Q. Shafi,Supersymmetric hybrid inflation and current- carrying metastable cosmic strings inSU(4) c ×SU(2) L ×U(1) R,arXiv:2308.11410

    arXiv

  26. [26]

    Akramiet al.[PlanckCollaboration],Planck 2018 results

    Y . Akramiet al.[PlanckCollaboration],Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,Astron. Astro- phys.641, A10 (2020) [arXiv:1807.06211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Adeet al.[BICEP, Keck collaboration],Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP , and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,Phys

    P.A.R. Adeet al.[BICEP, Keck collaboration],Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP , and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,Phys. Rev. Lett 127, 151301 (2021) [arXiv:2110.00483]

    arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Louiset al.[ACT Collaboration],The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods andΛCDM Parameters,arXiv:2503.14452

    T. Louiset al.[ACT Collaboration],The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods andΛCDM Parameters,arXiv:2503.14452

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Calabreseet al.[ACT Collaboration],The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Ex- tended Cosmological Models,arXiv:2503.14454

    E. Calabreseet al.[ACT Collaboration],The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Ex- tended Cosmological Models,arXiv:2503.14454

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Adameet al.[DESI collaboration],DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,JCAP02, 021 (2025) [arXiv:2404.03002]

    A.G. Adameet al.[DESI collaboration],DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,JCAP02, 021 (2025) [arXiv:2404.03002]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Rehman and Q

    M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi,Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation in light of Atacama Cosmology Tele- scope Data Release 6, Planck 2018 and LB-BK18,Phys. Rev. D112, no.2, 023529 (2025) [arXiv:2504.14831]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Pallis,F-Term Hybrid Inflation, Metastable Cosmic Strings and Low Reheating in View of ACT,in18th International Workshop on the Dark Side of the UniversearXiv:2504.20273

    C. Pallis,F-Term Hybrid Inflation, Metastable Cosmic Strings and Low Reheating in View of ACT,in18th International Workshop on the Dark Side of the UniversearXiv:2504.20273

    arXiv

  34. [34]

    M. N. Ahmad and M. U. Rehman,Supersymmetric hybrid inflation with K ¨ahler-induced R-symmetry breaking,JCAP08, 061 (2025) [arXiv:2506.23244]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Moursy and Q

    A. Moursy and Q. Shafi,Waterfall phase in supersymmetric hybrid inflation,arXiv:2507.10460

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Okada and Q

    N. Okada and Q. Shafi,Split supersymmetry and hybrid inflation in light of Atacama Cosmology Telescope DR6 data,arXiv:2507.16246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest,ACT, SPT, and chaotic inflation,arXiv:2503.21030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Z. Yi, X. Wang, Q. Gao and Y . Gong,Potential Reconstruction from ACT Observations Leading to Poly- nomialα-Attractor,arXiv:2505.10268

    arXiv

  39. [39]

    M. He, M. Hong and K. Mukaida,Increase ofn s in regularized pole inflation & Einstein-Cartan gravity, arXiv:2504.16069

    arXiv

  40. [40]

    Heidarian, M

    H. Heidarian, M. Solbi, S. Heydari and K. Karami,α-attractor inflation modified by GUP in light of ACT observations,Phys. Lett. B869, 139833 (2025) [arXiv:2506.10547]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Wolf,Inflationary attractors and radiative corrections in light of ACT,arXiv:2506.12436

    W.J. Wolf,Inflationary attractors and radiative corrections in light of ACT,arXiv:2506.12436

    arXiv

  42. [42]

    Choudhury, B

    S. Choudhury, B. Gulnur, S.K. Singh and K. Yerzanov,What new physics can we extract from inflation using the ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 Observations?,arXiv:2506.15407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Q. Gao, Y . Qian, Y . Gong and Z. Yi,Observational constraints on inflationary models with non-minimally derivative coupling by ACT,arXiv:2506.18456

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Han, H.M

    J. Han, H.M. Lee and J.H. Song,Higgs pole inflation with loop corrections in light of ACT results, [arXiv:2506.21189]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Mondal, S

    R. Mondal, S. Mondal and A. Chakraborty,Constraining Reheating Temperature, Inflaton-SM Coupling and Dark Matter Mass in Light of ACT DR6 Observations,arXiv:2505.13387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    L. Liu, Z. Yi, and Y . Gong,Reconciling Higgs Inflation with ACT Observations through Reheating, arXiv:2505.02407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Maity,ACT-ing on inflation: Implications of non Bunch-Davies initial condition and reheating on single-field slow-roll models,arXiv:2505.10534

    S. Maity,ACT-ing on inflation: Implications of non Bunch-Davies initial condition and reheating on single-field slow-roll models,arXiv:2505.10534

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Haque, S

    M.R. Haque, S. Pal and D. Paul,ACT DR6 Insights on the Inflationary Attractor models and Reheating, arXiv:2505.01517

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Ferreira, E

    E.G.M. Ferreira, E. McDonough, L. Balkenhol, R. Kallosh, L. Knox and A. Linde,The BAO-CMB Tension and Implications for Inflation,arXiv:2507.1245

    arXiv

  50. [50]

    Q. Gao, Y . Gong, Z. Yi and F. Zhang,Non-minimal coupling in light of ACT,arXiv:2504.15218

    arXiv

  51. [51]

    Haque and D

    M.R. Haque and D. Maity,Minimal Plateau Inflation in light of ACT DR6 Observations, arXiv:2505.18267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    L.Y . Chen, R. Zha and F.Y . Zhang,Probing Reheating in a Decaying Oscillatory Inflationary Model with Latest ACT Constraints,arXiv:2508.16538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    Dioguardi, A.J

    C. Dioguardi, A.J. Iovino and A. Racioppi,Fractional attractors in light of the latest ACT observations, arXiv:2504. 02809

  54. [54]

    McDonald,Higgs Inflation with Vector-Like Quark Stabilisation and the ACT spectral index, arXiv:2505.07488

    J. McDonald,Higgs Inflation with Vector-Like Quark Stabilisation and the ACT spectral index, arXiv:2505.07488

    arXiv

  55. [55]

    McDonald,Unitarity-Conserving Non-Minimally Coupled Inflation and the ACT Spectral Index, arXiv:2506.12916

    J. McDonald,Unitarity-Conserving Non-Minimally Coupled Inflation and the ACT Spectral Index, arXiv:2506.12916

    arXiv

  56. [56]

    Yin,Higgs-like inflation under ACTivated mass,arXiv:2505.03004

    W. Yin,Higgs-like inflation under ACTivated mass,arXiv:2505.03004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    Pallis,Kinetically Modified Palatini Inflation Meets ACT Data,Phys

    C. Pallis,Kinetically Modified Palatini Inflation Meets ACT Data,Phys. Lett. B868, 139739 (2025) [arXiv:2505.23243]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Peng, Z.C

    Z.Z. Peng, Z.C. Chen and L. Liu,The polynomial potential inflation in light of ACT observations, arXiv:2505.12816

    arXiv

  59. [59]

    Mohammadi, Yogesh and A

    A. Mohammadi, Yogesh and A. Wang,Power Law Plateau Inflation and Primary Gravitational Waves in the light of ACT,arXiv:2507.06544

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    Gialamas, A

    I.D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Racioppi and M. Raidal,Has ACT measured radiative corrections to the tree-level Higgs-like inflation?,arXiv:2504.06002

    arXiv

  61. [61]

    Ellis, M.A.G

    J. Ellis, M.A.G. Garc ´ıa, N. Nagata, D.V . Nanopoulos and K.A. Olive,Deformations of Starobinsky Infla- tion in No-Scale SU(5) and SO(10) GUTs,arXiv:2508.13279

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [62]

    Gialamas, T

    I.D. Gialamas, T. Katsoulas and K. Tamvakis,Keeping the relation between the Starobinsky model and no-scale supergravity ACTive,arXiv:2505.03608

    arXiv

  63. [63]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y . Aldabergenov and S.V . Ketov,Curvature corrections to Starobinsky inflation can explain the ACT results,arXiv:2505.10305

    arXiv

  64. [64]

    Mohammadi, Q

    Yogesh, A. Mohammadi, Q. Wu and T. Zhu,Starobinsky like inflation and EGB gravity in the light of ACT,arXiv:2505.05363

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [65]

    Haque, S

    M.R. Haque, S. Pal and D. Paul,Improved Predictions on Higgs-Starobinsky Inflation and Reheating with ACT DR6 and Primordial Gravitational Waves,arXiv:2505.04615. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    Drees and Y

    M. Drees and Y . Xu,Refined Predictions for Starobinsky Inflation and Post-inflationary Constraints in Light of ACT,Phys. Lett. B867, 139612 (2025) [arXiv:2504.20757]

    arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Ahmed and M.U

    W. Ahmed and M.U. Rehman,Radiatively Corrected Starobinsky Inflation and Primordial Gravitational Waves in Light of ACT Observations,Phys. Rev. D112, no 6, 063519 (2025)arXiv:2506.18077

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    J. Kim, X. Wang, Y .l. Zhang and Z. Ren,Enhancement of primordial curvature perturbations inR 3- corrected Starobinsky-Higgs inflation,arXiv:2504.12035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  69. [69]

    S. Aoki, H. Otsuka and R. Yanagita,Heavy Field Effects on Inflationary Models in Light of ACT Data, arXiv:2509.06739

    arXiv

  70. [70]

    Boubekeur and D.H

    L. Boubekeur and D.H. Lyth,Hilltop inflation,JCAP07, 010 (2005) [hep-ph/0502047]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  71. [71]

    Lazarides and C

    G. Lazarides and C. Pallis,Reducing the spectral index in F-term hybrid inflation through a complemen- tary modular inflation,Phys. Lett. B651, 216 (2007) [hep-ph/0702260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  72. [72]

    Iba ˜nez and D

    L.E. Iba ˜nez and D. Lust,Duality anomaly cancellation, minimal string unification and the effective low- energy Lagrangian of 4-D strings,Nucl. Phys. B382, 305 (1992) [hep-th/9202046]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  73. [73]

    D. Lust, S. Reffert and S. Stieberger,MSSM with soft SUSY breaking terms from D7-branes with fluxes, Nucl. Phys. B727, 264 (2005) [hep-th/0410074]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  74. [74]

    Ellis, D

    J. Ellis, D. Nanopoulos and K. Olive,Starobinsky-like Inflationary Models as Avatars of No-Scale Super- gravity,JCAP10, 009 (2013) [arXiv:1307.3537]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  75. [75]

    Pallis,K ¨ahler Potentials for Hilltop F-Term Hybrid Inflation,JCAP04, 024 (2009) [arXiv:0902

    C. Pallis,K ¨ahler Potentials for Hilltop F-Term Hybrid Inflation,JCAP04, 024 (2009) [arXiv:0902. 0334]

    2009

  76. [76]

    Antusch, M

    S. Antusch, M. Bastero-Gil, K. Dutta, S.F. King and P.M. Kostka,Solving the eta-Problem in Hybrid Infla- tion with Heisenberg Symmetry and Stabilized Modulus,JCAP01, 040 (2009) [arXiv:0808.2425]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  77. [77]

    Lazarides and C

    G. Lazarides and C. Pallis,Probing the supersymmetry-mass scale with F-term hybrid inflation,Phys. Rev. D108, no. 9, 095055 (2023) [arXiv:2309.04848]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Panagiotakopoulos,Hybrid inflation in supergravity with(SU(1,1)/U(1)) m Kahler manifolds,Phys

    C. Panagiotakopoulos,Hybrid inflation in supergravity with(SU(1,1)/U(1)) m Kahler manifolds,Phys. Lett. B459, 473 (1999) [hep-ph/9904284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  79. [79]

    Panagiotakopoulos,Realizations of hybrid inflation in supergravity with natural initial conditions, Phys

    C. Panagiotakopoulos,Realizations of hybrid inflation in supergravity with natural initial conditions, Phys. Rev. D71, 063516 (2005) [hep-ph/0411143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  80. [80]

    Stewart,Inflation, supergravity and superstrings,Phys

    E.D. Stewart,Inflation, supergravity and superstrings,Phys. Rev. D51, 6847 (1995) [hep-ph/ 9405389]

    1995

Showing first 80 references.