Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

The fate of Quasi-Exponential inflation in the light of ACT-DR6

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quasi-exponential inflation fits the latest CMB data, and its fate hinges on a predicted gravitational-wave signal r≥0.01.

desk verdict A useful but over-sold update of quasi-exponential inflation to ACT-DR6; the central r≥0.01 prediction rests on an arbitrary branch restriction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20744 v2 pith:EOEKB4ZK submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Barun Kumar Pal This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords quasi-exponentialinflationtensor-to-scalarratioACT-DR6Hamilton-JacobiformulationMukhanovparametrizationprimordialgravitationalwavesCMB-S4LiteBIRD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quasi-exponential inflation is a single-parameter model in which the Hubble rate during inflation is nearly exponential in the inflaton field. The paper argues that this model closely matches the latest combined cosmological data (Planck, BICEP/Keck 2018, ACT-DR6, and DESI Y1), because it naturally produces almost scale-invariant density fluctuations and a tensor-to-scalar ratio—the standard measure of primordial gravitational waves—within the current bound r<0.032. The model's sharp prediction is r≥0.01, a signal level that LiteBIRD, Simons Observatory, and CMB-S4 are expected to probe. If those missions detect gravitational waves at that level, the model remains viable; if they return upper limits below r≈0.01, the model is ruled out under the paper's assumptions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the near-exponential Hubble parameter H(φ)=H0 exp[α φ $M_P^{{-1}}$/(φ $M_P^{{-1}}$+1)], whose single free parameter α controls all inflationary observables. The paper combines the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of inflation, in which H(φ) rather than the potential is the fundamental quantity, with Mukhanov's parametrization, which expresses the inflationary equation of state as a function of the number of e-foldings N and yields closed-form expressions for n_s, α_s, r, and n_T. The decisive element is the end-of-inflation condition φ_end = -1 + $2^{{1/4}}$√α together with the requirement φ_end≥0, which fixes α≥1/√2 and thereby sets the model's minimum tensor-to-scalar ratio r≈0.01. The fit to ACT-DR6-era data and the forecasts for future missions both depend on this lower bound.

What would settle it

An upper limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio below r≈0.01—for example LiteBIRD's projected non-detection bound r<0.002 or a CMB-S4/Simons Observatory limit below 0.01—would rule out quasi-exponential inflation as presented, because the model cannot reach such values while keeping φ_end≥0. A measurement of the spectral index below about 0.96 together with r<0.01 would likewise put the model outside the observed r–n_s contours.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quasi-exponential inflation, defined by the Hubble parameter H(φ)=H0 exp[α φ $M_P^{{-1}}$/(φ $M_P^{{-1}}$+1)], remains viable after the ACT-DR6 data release and is in fact preferred by the combined Planck+BK18+ACT-DR6+DESI Y1 analysis. Using the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation and Mukhanov's equation-of-state parametrization, the paper writes the scalar spectral index, its running, and the tensor-to-scalar ratio as explicit functions of the single parameter α and the number of e-foldings N. It finds that the model's predictions for the spectral index and its running agree with Planck, and that in the r–n_s plane the model falls within the 95% (and in some combinations inside the one-$\sigma$) contours of the joint data. Because the model is a large-field model, it produces a tensor-to-scalar ratio with a floor r≥0.01, set by the requirement that the inflaton field be non-negative at the end of inflation; the paper argues this floor is exactly the region the next CMB experiments will probe, so the model's fate will be decided by a single measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The model's survival and its floor r≥0.01 rest on the assumption that the inflaton field must be non-negative at the end of inflation, which fixes α≥1/√2; if that end-of-inflation condition is altered, α can be smaller and r can drop below 0.01, changing both the fit and the non-detection conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, LiteBIRD, Simons Observatory, and CMB-S4 should detect primordial gravitational waves with r between about 0.01 and 0.03, since the model cannot produce r<0.01.
  • A non-detection at the projected sensitivities—LiteBIRD's r<0.002 bound, CMB-S4's r<0.001 bound, or Simons Observatory's r<0.01 bound—would rule out the model under the paper's own assumptions.
  • The allowed parameter region is compressed to 1/√2 ≤ α ≤ 3.51 for N=55, so a detection of r would pin down the model's single parameter rather tightly.
  • The model fits the data best when the spectral index is close to unity (n_s≈0.9743); it would be further supported if future data push n_s upward and disfavoured if n_s returns to about 0.965.
  • Because quasi-exponential inflation is a large-field model, a detection near r≈0.01 would also validate the large-field class of inflationary models in the way the paper uses the Lyth bound.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The r≥0.01 floor is the model's most fragile link: it follows from a single end-of-inflation formula, so a modified reheating or end-of-inflation prescription could lower the floor and change the 'non-detection rules it out' conclusion.
  • The paper's logic makes the model's fate a binary outcome of the next r measurement; a reader could extend this to a general strategy for testing near-scale-invariant large-field models.
  • Computing the reheating temperature and the resulting relation between N and the inflationary scale would sharpen the forecasted r–n_s contours and connect the model to observables beyond the CMB.
  • If future data continue to favour n_s near 0.97, this plateau-like potential becomes a useful minimal benchmark for single-parameter inflation; if n_s drops toward 0.965, the model's viable region narrows quickly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the quasi-exponential inflation model H(φ)=H0 exp[αφ/(φ+1)] in the Hamilton-Jacobi/Mukhanov parametrization. It derives analytic expressions for the scalar spectral index, its running, the tensor-to-scalar ratio, and the tensor tilt, and compares them with Planck, ACT-DR6, BICEP/Keck 2018, and DESI-Y1 constraints, including forecasts for LiteBIRD, Simons Observatory, and CMB-S4. The central claim is that the model provides an excellent fit to the combined ACT-DR6 + Planck + BK18 + DESI-Y1 data (Section 7, Fig. 11) and predicts r≥0.01, so that a future non-detection of primordial gravitational waves would rule the model out.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the paper identifies a simple one-parameter inflationary model that is consistent with the higher spectral index preferred by the recent ACT-DR6 and DESI-Y1 combinations, and it makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction r≥0.01 that future CMB experiments can test. The analytic formulas in Sections 5 and 6 are self-consistent and the parameter counting is honest: α is a free parameter and N is the usual e-fold uncertainty. The main value of the paper is therefore as a focused model-comparison study. However, the central conclusion is weakened by two correctable issues: the r≥0.01 prediction depends on an extra branch restriction not required by the dynamics, and the 'excellent fit' claim is supported only by visual inspection of contours rather than a quantitative likelihood comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.2); Section 8; Abstract] The restriction α≥1/√2 is imposed, via Eq. (2.2), by demanding φ_end = -1 + 2^{1/4}√α ≥ 0. This is a branch choice, not a dynamical requirement: H(φ) in Eq. (2.1) and V(φ) in Eq. (3.3) are regular on the whole branch φ > -1, and for α<1/√2 the end point is simply negative. For example, α=0.1 and N=60 give r≈0.0027 and n_s≈0.977 from Eqs. (5.6) and (5.8), which lies inside the ACT-DR6+Planck+DESI-Y1 1σ window used in Fig. 11. A non-detection of r below 0.01 would therefore not rule out the quasi-exponential H(φ); it would only exclude the φ≥0 branch. The abstract's statement that non-detection by LiteBIRD, Simons Observatory, or CMB-S4 'will potentially rule out quasi-exponential model' overstates what the model predicts. The paper should either justify the φ_end≥0 restriction physically or state the prediction as conditional on that branch choice.
  2. [Section 7, Fig. 11] The central claim of an 'excellent fit' to the combined ACT-DR6 + Planck + BK18 + DESI-Y1 data is established only by visual inspection of the overlap between the model curve and the 68% contour. No likelihood, chi-square, or other quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic is reported. Because the model traces a one-dimensional curve in the (n_s, r) plane while the data constraint is two-dimensional, a quantitative comparison is needed—for example, the minimum χ² or Δχ² for α at fixed N (with some treatment of the N prior) and a statement of how many model points fall inside the 68% and 95% contours. Without this, the abstract's 'excellent fit' and 'sublime fit' language is not supported.
  3. [Abstract; Section 6, text around Fig. 10] The abstract claims that the model is 'capable of mimicking latest Planck results by providing excellent fit,' but Section 6 states that the QEI prediction in the r-n_s plane lies outside the 68% confidence level and only inside 95% for N=50 and N=55 when compared with the Planck(PR4)+BK18+lensing+BAO analysis in Fig. 10. This is a direct tension between the abstract's unqualified claim and the paper's own quantitative statement. The wording should be revised to distinguish the Planck-only comparison (where the model is marginal) from the ACT-DR6 and DESI-Y1 combinations (where the model is more compatible).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6, Fig. 7 caption] The caption reads 'Variation of scalar running, αS, with the model parameter, αS'; the second αS should be α, the model parameter.
  2. [Section 8, Fig. 14 caption] The caption lists three line styles (dashed black, blue, green) but describes them as representing 'N=50 and N=60 respectively'; if three curves are shown, N=55 should also be listed.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (2.3)] Equation (2.3) is not typeset clearly: the second term is ambiguous. The expression should be written with explicit parentheses, e.g., N = [ (1+φ/M_P)^3 - 2^{3/4} α^{3/2} ] / (6α).
  4. [Section 9] The sentence 'This also helps us put stringent constrain on the model parameter' contains a typo: 'constrain' should be 'constraint'.
  5. [References [10] and [27]] Reference [10] is the 2015-season BICEP2/Keck paper, not the BK18 data release; the BK18 analysis is cited as [27]. The text should use the labels consistently when referring to 'BK18 data.'
  6. [Section 8, Fig. 13] The '1σ and 2σ confidence ellipses' in Fig. 13 are computed from the theoretical spread of n_s and r over α and N, not from a likelihood fit to data. Calling them confidence regions is misleading; consider 'model prediction envelope' or 'theoretical spread.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: r≥0.01 is a genuine model prediction from the α≥1/√2 end-of-inflation constraint, not a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's only free parameter α is constrained from two sides: the upper limit follows from the observational bound r<0.032, while the lower limit α≥1/√2 follows from the exact end-of-inflation condition φ_end=-1+2^{1/4}√α≥0 (Eq. 2.2). That lower bound is derived from the model's own Hubble parameter H(φ) in Eq. 2.1, not chosen to match the data. The observables n_s, α_s, and r in Eqs. 5.6-5.8 are standard first-order slow-roll formulas obtained from the equation-of-state parameter within the Mukhanov parametrization, so they are not defined in terms of the quantities they are said to predict. The claim that QEI predicts r≥0.01 follows by inserting α=1/√2 into Eq. 5.8, making it a mathematical consequence of the model's definitions rather than a renamed fit. The statement that non-detection by LiteBIRD, SO, or CMB-S4 would rule out the model is a conditional falsification of that prediction, not circular reasoning. The author does cite his own earlier work [18] for the model and the end-of-inflation formula, but that formula is parameter-free and re-derivable from the stated H(φ); no uniqueness theorem or unverified self-citation is used to exclude alternatives. Relaxing the φ_end≥0 restriction would alter the allowed parameter space and weaken the r≥0.01 conclusion, but that is a robustness concern about an assumption, not a circular use of the data. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the chosen form of H(φ), the standard slow-roll formulas, and the end-of-inflation condition that fixes the lower bound on α. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • α (model parameter) = constrained to [1/√2, 3.51] for N=55
    Single model parameter controlling H(φ); lower bound from φ_end≥0, upper bound from r<0.032, with additional n_s-dependent ranges.
  • N (number of e-folds) = scanned over 50-60
    Number of e-foldings left at horizon crossing; not fitted but varied across the standard range, and the fit conclusions depend on it.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard Hamilton-Jacobi formalism relates H(φ) to the potential V(φ) and the equation of state.
    Used throughout Section 3 to derive the potential and observables.
  • standard math First-order slow-roll formulas for n_s, r, α_s in terms of 1+ω(N) (Eqs. 5.1-5.5).
    These are standard results from Mukhanov's parametrization, cited to [25,37].
  • domain assumption The inflaton oscillates about φ_min and reheats the universe.
    Assumed in Section 3 to connect inflation to hot big bang, but not used in the observable predictions.
  • ad hoc to paper The end of inflation occurs at φ_end = -1 + 2^{1/4}√α (Eq. 2.2).
    This formula comes from the author's 2012 paper and sets the lower bound α≥1/√2, which is load-bearing for the r≥0.01 prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fate of Quasi-Exponential inflation in the light of ACT-DR6." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EOEKB4ZK

@misc{pith2026250620744,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fate of Quasi-Exponential inflation in the light of ACT-DR6},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EOEKB4ZK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20744}
}
abstract

We have revisited quasi-exponential model of inflation in the light of recent ACT-DR6 and Planck data along with latest constraint on the amplitude of primordial gravitational waves. For our analysis we have followed Mukhanov approach for inflationary equation-of-state employing Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. We find that the model is capable of mimicking latest Planck results by providing excellent fit to scalar spectral index and its running. Not only that, amount of primordial gravitational waves is also within the present observational bound, $r<0.032$. In addition to that, when the combination of ACT-DR6 and Planck joint with BICEP/Keck 2018 data is taken into account inflationary predictions from quasi-exponential model are in excellent agreement. The model also yields sublime fit to the result of joint analysis of ACT-DR6, Planck joint with BICEP/Keck 2018 and DESI-Y1 data. The futuristic CMB missions LiteBIRD, Simons Observatory and CMB-S4 are promising to detect primordial gravitational waves if $r\geq0.003$. We have also forecasted inflationary predictions from quasi-exponential model of inflation assuming the sensitivities of LiteBIRD, Simons Observatory and CMB-S4 along with combination of LiteBIRD and CMB-S4. We found that in each case quasi-exponential inflation may render excellent fit provided $r\geq10^{-2}$. However, non-detection of primordial gravitational waves by LiteBIRD, Simons Observatory and CMB-S4 will potentially rule out quasi-exponential model.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. 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 of 10

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

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

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Mukhanov's equation-of-state model of inflation still fits ACT-DR6-era data, with alpha set by the scalar tilt and beta set by the tensor-to-scalar ratio.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    On a nonsingular isotropic cosmological model.Sov

    Alexei A Starobinsky. On a nonsingular isotropic cosmological model.Sov. Astron. Lett,4:155–159, 1978

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi. Fluctuations in the new inflationary universe.PRL, 49(15):1110, 1982

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    Dynamics of phase transition in the new inflationary universe scenario and generation of perturbations.PLB,117(3-4):175–178, 1982

    Alexei A Starobinsky. Dynamics of phase transition in the new inflationary universe scenario and generation of perturbations.PLB,117(3-4):175–178, 1982

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Planck 2018 results-x

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

    2018

  5. [5]

    Planck 2018 results-vi

    Nabila Aghanim, Yashar Akrami, Mark Ashdown, J Aumont, C Baccigalupi, M Ballardini, AJ Banday, RB Barreiro, N Bartolo, S Basak, et al. Planck 2018 results-vi. cosmological parameters.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641:A6, 2020. – 19 – Figure 17: Forecast of CMB-S4 constraints in thenS −rplane for a fiducial model withr= 0andn S = 0.9690,0.9743. The constraints...

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Planck 2013 results

    Peter AR Ade, N Aghanim, C Armitage-Caplan, M Arnaud, M Ashdown, F Atrio-Barandela, J Aumont, C Baccigalupi, Anthony J Banday, RB Barreiro, et al. Planck 2013 results. xxii. constraints on inflation.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 571:A22, 2014

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

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

    2007

  8. [8]

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

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

    arXiv 2025

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 constraints on extended cosmological models

    Erminia Calabrese, J Colin Hill, Hidde T Jense, Adrien La Posta, Irene Abril-Cabezas, Graeme E Addison, Peter AR Ade, Simone Aiola, Tommy Alford, David Alonso, et al. The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 constraints on extended cosmological models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

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

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

    2015

  3. [11]

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

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

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

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

    2014

  5. [13]

    Peter A. R. Ade et al. The simons observatory: Science goals and forecasts.JCAP, 02:056, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

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

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

    2022

  7. [15]

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

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

    2024

  8. [16]

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

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

    2024

  9. [17]

    AG Adame, J Aguilar, S Ahlen, S Alam, DM Alexander, M Alvarez, O Alves, A Anand, U Andrade, E Armengaud, et al. Desi 2024 vi: Cosmological constraints – 21 – Figure 19: Marginalized68%and95%confidence contours in ther−n S plane, for a fiducial model withr= 0.0andn S = 0.9690,0...

    2024

  10. [18]

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

    2012

  11. [19]

    Muslimov

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

    1990

  12. [20]

    Salopek and J

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

    1990

  13. [21]

    A. D. Linde. A new inflationary universe scenario: s possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, isotropy and pimordial monopole problems.PLB,108: 389, 1982

    1982

  14. [22]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt. Cosmology for grand unified theories with radiatively induced symmetry breaking.PRL,48: 1220, 1982

    1982

  15. [23]

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

    1994

  16. [24]

    García-Bellido and D

    J. García-Bellido and D. Wands.Spectrum of curvature perturbations from hybrid inflation. PRD, 54: 7181–7185, 1996. – 22 – Figure 20: Marginalized68%and95%confidence contours in ther−n S plane, for a fiducial model withr= 0.01andn S = 0.9690,0.9743, assuming Simons Observatory...

    1996

  17. [25]

    Quantum cosmological perturbations: predictions and observations

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

    2013

  18. [26]

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

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

    2015

  19. [27]

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

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

    2018

  20. [28]

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

    2002

  21. [29]

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

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

    1997

  22. [30]

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

    2010

  23. [31]

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

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

    2018

  24. [32]

    An inflationary equation-of-state.IJMPD,32(04):2350019, 2023

    Barun Kumar Pal. An inflationary equation-of-state.IJMPD,32(04):2350019, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

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

    Barun Kumar Pal. Returning back to mukhanov parametrization of inflationary equation of state.EPJC, 85(5):1–14, 2025. – 23 – Figure 21: Marginalized68%and95%confidence contours in ther−n S plane, for a fiducial model withr= 0.0andn S = 0.9690,0.9743, assuming Simons Observator...

    2025

  26. [34]

    The observational status of cosmic inflation after planck

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

    2016

  27. [35]

    D. H. Lyth. What Would We Learn by Detecting a Gravitational Wave Signal in the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy?PRL,78: 1861, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    A. D. Linde. Chaotic Inflation.PLB,129:177–181, 1983

    1983

  29. [37]

    Large-n running of the spectral index of inflation

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

    2014

  30. [38]

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

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

    2002

  31. [39]

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

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

    2023

  32. [40]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

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

    Kevork Abazajian, Graeme E Addison, Peter Adshead, Zeeshan Ahmed, Daniel Akerib, Aamir Ali, Steven W Allen, David Alonso, Marcelo Alvarez, Mustafa A Amin, – 24 – et al. Cmb-s4: Forecasting constraints on primordial gravitational waves.The Astrophysical Journal, 926(1):54, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Cmb-s4: Iterative internal delensing and r constraints

    Sebastian Belkner, Julien Carron, Louis Legrand, Caterina Umiltà, Clem Pryke, Colin Bischoff, CMB-S4 Collaboration, et al. Cmb-s4: Iterative internal delensing and r constraints. The Astrophysical Journal, 964(2):148, 2024. – 25 –

    2024

Pith tools

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