Forecasting constraints on quintessential inflation from future generation of galaxy and CMB surveys

D. F. Mota; F. B. M. dos Santos; G. Rodrigues; J. G. Rodrigues; J. S. Alcaniz; R. SIlva; R. von Marttens; S. Santos da Costa

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Forecasting constraints on quintessential inflation from future generation of galaxy and CMB surveys

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The paper forecasts that CMB-S4, LiteBIRD, and Euclid galaxy-clustering data together will measure the alpha-attractor parameter of quintessential inflation as alpha=2±0.17, tight enough to discriminate among the discrete theoretically…

desk verdict Useful MCMC forecast for alpha-attractor quintessential inflation, hampered by an unstated N_* and an inconsistent quoted M^2. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22384 v1 pith:X43YOCHP submitted 2025-06-27 astro-ph.CO

G. Rodrigues , F. B. M. dos Santos , S. Santos da Costa , J. G. Rodrigues , R. von Marttens , R. Silva , D. F. Mota , J. S. Alcaniz This is my paper

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords quintessentialinflationalpha-attractormodelsCMB-S4LiteBIRDEuclidsurveyparameterforecastspectralindextensor-to-scalarratio

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

Quintessential inflation tries to explain both early-universe inflation and today's accelerated expansion with one scalar field; this paper asks whether the next generation of surveys can actually test that idea. It builds mock observations from the planned CMB experiments CMB-S4 and LiteBIRD plus the Euclid galaxy survey, and runs Markov chain Monte Carlo analyses over the parameters of an $\alpha$-attractor quintessential model with an exponential potential. The forecast says the combination will measure the central parameter $\alpha$ as $\alpha=2\pm 0.17$, the spectral index as $n_s=0.965\pm 0.0014$, and the primordial amplitude as $\ln(10^{10}A_s)=3.0447\pm 0.0029$. That precision is enough to tell apart the discrete values of $\alpha$ that different theoretical constructions favor, and to check whether the attractor behavior characteristic of these models is present in the data.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the $\alpha$-attractor field redefinition $\varphi=\sqrt{6\alpha}\tanh(\varphi_c/\sqrt{6\alpha})$, which converts a non-canonical kinetic term with a pole at $\varphi^2=6\alpha$ into a canonical field with flat directions, and the exponential potential $V(\varphi)=M^2 e^{\gamma(\tanh(\varphi/\sqrt{6\alpha})-1)}$ built on it. The slow-roll observables then obey $n_s\simeq 1-2/N_*$ and $r\simeq 12\alpha/N_*^2$, giving the identity $r=3\alpha(1-n_s)^2$ that allows a joint measurement of $n_s$ and $r$ to isolate $\alpha$. The amplitude of scalar fluctuations $A_s$ fixes the mass scale via $M^2/M_P^4=144\pi^2 \alpha N_* A_s/(2N_*-3\alpha)^3$, and $\gamma$ sets the steepness of the quintessential tail that connects the inflationary plateau to late-time dark energy. The forecast propagates the experimental noise of the planned surveys through this chain of relations.

What would settle it

Re-run the same mock analysis with $N_*$ free, or with $N_*=50$ and $N_*=60$, and check whether the 68% interval on $\alpha$ still excludes the neighboring discrete values; if the interval widens by more than about 0.3, the claimed discrimination between $\alpha=2$ and its neighbors fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that planned data will turn $\alpha$-attractor quintessential inflation from a toy model into a testable one. For the exponential potential $V(\varphi)=M^2 e^{\gamma(\tanh(\varphi/\sqrt{6\alpha})-1)}$, the slow-roll predictions $n_s\simeq 1-2/N_*$ and $r\simeq 12\alpha/N_*^2$ combine into $r=3\alpha(1-n_s)^2$, so measuring $n_s$ and $r$ is, in effect, measuring $\alpha$. Using mock likelihoods for CMB-S4 plus LiteBIRD alone and combined with Euclid photometric and spectroscopic galaxy clustering, the authors find that the combined CMB+GC$_{sp}$ dataset gives a 68% interval $\alpha=2\pm 0.17$, $n_s=0.965\pm 0.0014$, $\ln(10^{10}A_s)=3.0447\pm 0.0029$, and $r=0.00735\pm 0.00055$. They conclude this is sufficient to discriminate between quintessential and non-quintessential realizations of $\alpha$-attractors and between the individual theoretically motivated $\alpha$ values.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast silently assumes a fixed number of e-folds $N_*$ (the fiducial parameters imply $N_*\approx 57.1$); if reheating history or the pivot scale gives a different $N_*$, the mapping from measured $n_s$ and $r$ to $\alpha$ changes and the quoted uncertainty on $\alpha$ would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The CMB+Euclid spectroscopic combination is forecast to measure $\alpha=2\pm 0.17$ at 68% confidence, an 8.5% precision that separates $\alpha=2$ from its neighbors in the discrete set $\{1/3, 2/3, 1, 4/3, 5/3, 2, 7/3\}$.
The same data set tightens $n_s$ to $0.0014$ and $r$ to $0.00055$ at 1$\sigma$, roughly an order of magnitude better than current constraints and enough to distinguish quintessential from non-quintessential $\alpha$-attractor models.
Adding Euclid spectroscopic clustering to the CMB forecast reduces the uncertainties on $n_s$, $A_s$, $r$, $h$, and $\alpha$ by 7% to 53% relative to the photometric combination, and improves on current CMB+galaxy+supernova constraints by 81% to 469% depending on the parameter.
The forecast constraint on $\omega_{cdm}$ improves by more than three orders of magnitude over current bounds, which the authors connect to the Hubble tension through the relation between $\omega_{cdm}$ and $H_0$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the forecast holds, $\alpha=2\pm 0.17$ puts $\alpha=2$ about two standard deviations away from both $\alpha=5/3$ and $\alpha=7/3$, so the experiment starts ranking the discrete attractor ladder rather than merely testing a single model.
The quoted intervals for $M^2$ and $\gamma$ are conditional on the fixed choices $\phi_{\rm ini}=-10$ and the implicit $N_*$; marginalizing over reheating history would widen them, so the published uncertainties are best-case sensitivities.
Applying the same mock pipeline to other $\alpha$-attractor potentials, such as linear or quartic ones, would test whether future data can distinguish the shape of the potential as well as the value of $\alpha$.
A future measurement violating $r=3\alpha(1-n_s)^2$ at fixed $n_s$ and $\alpha$ would indicate the exponential quintessential potential is not the correct effective description, even if $\alpha$ by itself is well measured.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plainly: this is a workmanlike forecast paper with a useful headline result. The new content is an MCMC forecast (rather than Fisher) with alpha as a free parameter, combining CMB-S4, LiteBIRD, and Euclid clustering. The setup is standard and mostly well documented: MontePython, a modified CLASS for the exponential alpha-attractor potential, and mock likelihoods for the three surveys. The central claim—alpha can be pinned to about ±0.17, ns to ±0.0014—is plausible and would discriminate among the discrete alpha values they list. That is worth having on the record.

The main soft spot: N_* is never stated. The fiducial values ns=0.965 and alpha=2 silently fix N_*≈57, and Eq. (2.10) plus the derived M^2 and gamma all depend on it. The paper should say what pivot scale and reheating history it assumes, and ideally test sensitivity to N_* or marginalise over it. This is the reviewer's first question.

Second: the quoted fiducial M^2 is internally inconsistent with the paper's own Eq. (2.10). Plugging in their ns, alpha, and ln(10^10 A_s)=3.0447 gives M^2/M_P^4 ≈ 2.7e-10 (i.e. ×10^11 ≈ 27), not the quoted 3.985e-11. That is a factor of 6.7. Probably a typo, but it sits in the derived-parameter table and figure, so it must be fixed. Note: the related stress-test worry about gamma—that gamma=128.5 makes V(phi_ini) ~46 orders below rho_Lambda—does not survive contact with the corrected M^2. With M^2≈2.7e-10, gamma≈128.5 gives V(phi_ini) within a factor of a few of rho_Lambda. So the gamma value is fine once M^2 is fixed.

Third and minor: the percentage improvement claims in Section 4 do not match Table 1. For GCph→GCsp, the text says ns/As/r/h/alpha improve by 7.1/17.2/32.7/45.4/52.9%; the table implies roughly 0/12/13/27/19%. Sloppy, easy to fix.

The paper also fixes phi_ini=-10 without a sensitivity study; minor given the earlier literature, but worth a sentence.

Bottom line: this is a legitimate forecast for survey planning and model selection in quintessential inflation. It deserves a serious referee, and with the N_* statement, the M^2 correction, and cleaned-up percentages it would be publishable. I would bring it to a reading group as an example of a well-scoped forecast, but I would warn people to check the derived numbers.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Monte Carlo Markov Chain forecasts for the parameters of an α-attractor quintessential inflation model, combining mock CMB-S4+LiteBIRD data with Euclid photometric and spectroscopic galaxy clustering likelihoods. The authors sample the base cosmological parameters plus α, and quote projected 1σ uncertainties, including α=2±0.17, n_s=0.965±0.0014, and ln(10^10 A_s)=3.0447±0.0029 for the CMB+GC_sp case. They further report constraints on the derived quantities M^2, γ, and r, and argue that these future surveys will discriminate among discrete theoretically motivated values of α. The analysis uses standard tools (MontePython, CLASS) and a standard Fisher-inspired proposal covariance; the fiducial cosmology is Planck-like with α=2.

Significance. If the forecast is valid, the reported sensitivity to α and n_s would be genuinely useful for distinguishing α-attractor quintessential inflation from other inflationary models, and the paper's use of full MCMC rather than Fisher-only forecasts is a strength. The relation r=3α(1−n_s)^2 is an analytic consequence of the model, not a fitted circular relation, and the experimental specifications are mostly documented. The main scientific value, however, rests on the internal consistency of the fiducial model: the quoted fiducial values of M^2 and γ appear to be mutually inconsistent with the model equations and with the requirement that the scalar field supply the observed late-time acceleration. Because the headline constraints are generated around this fiducial point, the significance of the forecast is currently contingent on a corrected and re-run analysis.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.3, Eqs. (2.7), (2.10)] The fiducial parameter set is internally inconsistent. With n_s=0.965 and α=2, Eq. (2.7) fixes N_*=2/(1−n_s)=57.1; inserting this N_*, α=2, and A_s=e^{3.0447}×10^{-10} into Eq. (2.10) gives M^2/M_P^4≈2.7×10^{-10}, a factor of about 6.7 larger than the quoted M^2/M_P^4=3.985×10^{-11}. The quoted γ=128.5 is also incompatible with a viable quintessence phase: with M^2=3.985×10^{-11} M_P^4, even at φ=0 one has V≈M^2 e^{-γ}≈10^{-56} eV^4, about 45 orders of magnitude below ρ_Λ≈2.5×10^{-11} eV^4, and at the adopted φ_ini=−10 the value is far smaller still. The fiducial model therefore cannot realize the late-time acceleration that motivates the quintessential-inflation scenario, so the forecasted α=2±0.17 and the derived M^2 and γ constraints are not predictions for the proposed viable model; the fiducial values must be corrected and the chains rerun, or the authors must explain which fiducial quantities were actually used in the code.
[Sec. 2 and Sec. 3.3] The number of e-folds N_* is never stated, and no pivot scale or reheating history is specified. The fiducial n_s=0.965 silently implies N_*≈57.1, which is what makes the quoted r=0.00735 consistent with r=12α/N_*^2, but Eq. (2.10) is highly sensitive to N_*: changing N_* by O(10) changes the derived M^2 by a large factor. Since N_* is determined by the reheating history and the pivot scale, the authors should state the adopted N_* and pivot scale explicitly, and either marginalize over them (or over reheating parameters) or demonstrate that the forecasted α, M^2, and γ constraints are robust to plausible variations in N_*.
[Sec. 3.3] The initial field displacement is fixed to φ_ini=−10 without any sensitivity study, even though the same paragraph cites the range φ_ini=[−35,−10] and states that φ_ini significantly affects late-time deviations from ΛCDM. The late-time background evolution enters the Euclid galaxy-clustering likelihood, so the forecasted constraints on α, M^2, and γ can depend on this choice. The authors should either marginalize over φ_ini or show that the constraints are insensitive to it; as written, the analysis tests only a single, unjustified initial condition.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 4 and Table 1] The reported percentage improvements (for example, 469% for A_s) do not follow from the stated formula (σ_before/σ_after−1)×100% when using the numbers quoted for Ref. [29]; please verify the comparison values and the definition of improvement.
[Figs. 1–3] Axis labels in Figs. 1 and 3 are incomplete: for instance, 'b', 'cdm', 'reio' should be ω_b, ω_cdm, and τ_reio, and the panel in Fig. 2 showing 128–130 lacks the parameter name γ; please label all axes and panels clearly.
[Sec. 3.1] The noise specification 'σ_T=σ_E/√2=1 μK-arcmin' is ambiguous: if the intended CMB-S4 sensitivity is σ_T=1 μK-arcmin for temperature, then σ_E=√2 μK-arcmin; please state the convention explicitly to avoid confusion.
[Sec. 3.2] The photometric galaxy clustering likelihood uses ℓ_max=750 following Ref. [50], but the wording 'following the prescription described in [50]' should also mention whether the same multipole cut is applied to all ten redshift bins and whether the nonlinear matter power spectrum is computed with halofit or another prescription.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: mock-data forecast with external fiducial choices; model relations are analytic, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an open forecast. Section 2 sets up the alpha-attractor quintessential inflation potential and derives the slow-roll observables (Eqs. 2.7 and 2.10). Section 3 chooses fiducial cosmological parameters, citing Planck and the external references [25,27,29], and Section 4 runs MontePython/CLASS on mock CMB-S4/LiteBIRD/Euclid likelihoods to report posterior widths. None of these steps asserts an empirical measurement obtained from the same data used to fit a parameter; the central values are inputs to the mock-data generation, not outputs presented as independent detections. The relation r = 3 alpha (1 - n_s)^2 used to interpret the alpha constraints is an analytic consequence of Eq. 2.7, not a fitted calibration. The quoted M^2 and gamma values are model-derived and tied to the fiducial As; any numerical inconsistency or unstated N* is a correctness/typo issue, not circularity. References involving co-authors ([34], [55], [56]) are cited only as side remarks (quartic potential example, DESI As-ns discussion, H0 tension) and are not load-bearing. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the forecast is self-contained as a sensitivity projection.

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

The forecast rests on standard cosmological perturbation theory, the unified scalar-field dynamics of quintessential inflation, a chosen fiducial model, a fixed initial field value, and an unstated e-fold count. No new particles or forces are introduced. The most concerning item is the silent N_* assumption, which directly affects the derived potential parameters M^2 and gamma.

free parameters (5)

alpha (alpha-attractor curvature parameter) = 2 (fiducial; forecast sigma 0.17)
Sampled model parameter that controls n_s and r through Eq. (2.7); fiducial value motivated by [29].
gamma (potential steepness) = 128.52 (fiducial)
Exponential potential exponent; the paper says gamma 'should be fit' to match the late-time dark energy density; reported uncertainty 0.13 to 0.195.
phi_ini (initial field displacement) = -10 (fixed by hand)
Chosen following [27] and not marginalized; late-time dark energy behavior and derived M^2 and gamma depend on it.
N_* (number of e-folds) = ~57.1 (implied, never stated)
Enters Eqs. (2.7) and (2.10); no value or reheating model is given, and the fiducial n_s=0.965 and alpha=2 silently imply N_*≈57.1.
Euclid nuisance parameters (galaxy bias, shot noise, FoG) = not reported
Marginalized in the likelihood analyses described in Sec. 3.2; values are not reported but they increase the parameter volume.

assumptions (5)

standard math Standard slow-roll and perturbation theory give the observables through Eqs. (2.3), (2.7), and (2.4).
Assumed without derivation; standard in inflationary cosmology.
domain assumption The universe's early and late acceleration are both driven by a single scalar field with the exponential alpha-attractor potential of Eq. (2.9).
The entire forecast is conditional on this unified dynamics; no independent evidence is presented in this paper.
domain assumption The fiducial cosmology is the true cosmology (omega_cdm=0.12, omega_b=0.0237, h=0.675, tau=0.0544, n_s=0.965, ln(10^10 A_s)=3.0447, alpha=2).
Forecast error bars are local around the fiducial point; no alternative fiducial models are tested.
domain assumption The mock likelihoods represent the future experiments (noise, fsky, beam, scale cuts, and omission of systematics).
Sections 3.1 and 3.2; if actual experiments differ, the projected constraints change.
ad hoc to paper N_* (number of e-folds) is fixed implicitly around 57 but never specified or marginalized.
Not stated, not varied, and it affects the derived M^2 and gamma via Eq. (2.10).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Forecasting constraints on quintessential inflation from future generation of galaxy and CMB surveys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X43YOCHP

@misc{pith2026250622384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Forecasting constraints on quintessential inflation from future generation of galaxy and CMB surveys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X43YOCHP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22384}
}

abstract

We investigate the constraining power of future CMB and galaxy surveys on models of quintessential inflation realized within the framework of $\alpha$-attractors. We analyze how these future datasets will probe the parameter space of $\alpha$-attractor quintessential inflation, specifically the inflationary potential parameters. Our results demonstrate that the synergy between CMB-S4, LiteBIRD, and Euclid can significantly tighten the bounds on the model parameters, achieving forecasted $1\sigma$ uncertainties of $\alpha=2\pm 0.17$, $n_s=0.965\pm 0.0014$, $\ln(10^{10}A_s)=3.0447\pm 0.0029$ for the CMB+GC$_{sp}$ case. This level of sensitivity will enable us to discriminate between different realizations of quintessential inflation and test the attractor behavior characteristic of these models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Cosmological Constraints on Neutrino Masses in Quintessential Inflation
astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In the α-attractor quintessential-inflation scenario, Planck PR4 + DESI DR2 BAO + Pantheon+ supernova data imply Σmν < 0.067 eV (flat) and <0.116 eV (with curvature).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020
[2]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020
[3]

Baumann, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small (2011) pp

D. Baumann, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small (2011) pp. 523–686, arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

arXiv 2011
[4]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

1980
[5]

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

1981
[6]

A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

1982
[7]

L. F. Abbott, E. Farhi, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 117, 29 (1982)

1982
[8]

Albrecht, P

A. Albrecht, P. J. Steinhardt, M. S. Turner, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1437 (1982)

work page 1982

Show all 56 references

[9]

Kofman, A

L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3195 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9405187

1994 arXiv
[10]

Kofman, A

L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D 56, 3258 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704452

1997 arXiv
[11]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

1989
[12]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

2003 arXiv
[13]

Padmanabhan, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. 380, 235 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0212290

2003 arXiv
[14]

W. L. Freedman, Nature Astron. 1, 0121 (2017), arXiv:1706.02739 [astro-ph.CO] . – 11 –

2017 arXiv
[15]

Verde, T

L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron. 3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[16]

Di Valentino, O

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[17]

P. J. E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 59, 063505 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810509

1999 arXiv
[18]

Peloso and F

M. Peloso and F. Rosati, JHEP 12, 026 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9908271

1999 arXiv
[19]

Dimopoulos and J

K. Dimopoulos and J. W. F. Valle, Astropart. Phys. 18, 287 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111417

2002 arXiv
[20]

Tashiro, T

H. Tashiro, T. Chiba, and M. Sasaki, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 1761 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0307068

2004 arXiv
[21]

C.-Q. Geng, M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023522 (2015), arXiv:1502.03597 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[22]

Dimopoulos and C

K. Dimopoulos and C. Owen, JCAP 06, 027 (2017), arXiv:1703.00305 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Dimopoulos, L

K. Dimopoulos, L. Donaldson Wood, and C. Owen, Phys. Rev. D 97, 063525 (2018), arXiv:1712.01760 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[24]

Geng, C.-C

C.-Q. Geng, C.-C. Lee, M. Sami, E. N. Saridakis, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 06, 011 (2017), arXiv:1705.01329 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[25]

Akrami, R

Y. Akrami, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and V. Vardanyan, JCAP 06, 041 (2018), arXiv:1712.09693 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[26]

Euclid. i. overview of the euclid mission,

E. Collaboration, “Euclid. i. overview of the euclid mission,” (2024), arXiv:2405.13491 [astro-ph.CO]

2024
[27]

Akrami, S

Y. Akrami, S. Casas, S. Deng, and V. Vardanyan, JCAP 04, 006 (2021), arXiv:2010.15822 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[28]

Giar` e, E

W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino, E. V. Linder, and E. Specogna, (2024), arXiv:2402.01560 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Alestas, M

G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, S. Kuroyanagi, and S. Nesseris, (2024), arXiv:2410.00827 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP 1307, 002 (2013), arXiv:1306.5220 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[31]

Kallosh, A

R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, JHEP 11, 198 (2013), arXiv:1311.0472 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[32]

Kallosh, A

R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, JHEP 08, 052 (2014), arXiv:1405.3646 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[33]

Linde, JCAP 02, 028 (2017), arXiv:1612.04505 [hep-th]

A. Linde, JCAP 02, 028 (2017), arXiv:1612.04505 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[34]

J. G. Rodrigues, S. Santos da Costa, and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Lett. B 815, 136156 (2021), arXiv:2007.10763 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[35]

Arest´ e Sal´ o, D

L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, D. Benisty, E. I. Guendelman, and J. de Haro, Phys. Rev. D103, 123535 (2021), arXiv:2103.07892 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[36]

M. S. Vogeley and A. S. Szalay, Astrophys. J. 465, 34 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9601185

1996 arXiv
[37]

Tegmark, A

M. Tegmark, A. Taylor, and A. Heavens, Astrophys. J. 480, 22 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9603021

1997 arXiv
[38]

Fisher matrices and confidence ellipses: A quick-start guide and software,

D. Coe, “Fisher matrices and confidence ellipses: A quick-start guide and software,” (2009), arXiv:0906.4123 [astro-ph.IM]

2009 arXiv
[39]

Perotto, J

L. Perotto, J. Lesgourgues, S. Hannestad, H. Tu, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP 10, 013 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0606227

2006 arXiv
[40]

Audren, J

B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, JCAP 1302, 001 (2013), arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO] . – 12 –

2013 arXiv
[41]

Brinckmann and J

T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Dark Univ. 24, 100260 (2019), arXiv:1804.07261 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[42]

D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2011, 034–034 (2011)

2011
[43]

K. N. Abazajian et al. (CMB-S4), (2016), arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[44]

Abazajian et al

K. Abazajian et al. (CMB-S4), Astrophys. J. 926, 54 (2022), arXiv:2008.12619 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[45]

Matsumura et al., J

T. Matsumura et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. 176, 733 (2014), arXiv:1311.2847 [astro-ph.IM]

2014 arXiv
[46]

Hazumi et al., J

M. Hazumi et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. 194, 443 (2019)

2019
[47]

Allys et al

E. Allys et al. (LiteBIRD), PTEP 2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

2023 arXiv
[48]

Brinckmann, D

T. Brinckmann, D. C. Hooper, M. Archidiacono, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Sprenger, JCAP 01, 059 (2019), arXiv:1808.05955 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[49]

Euclid quick data release (q1) – data release overview,

E. Collaboration, “Euclid quick data release (q1) – data release overview,” (2025), arXiv:2503.15302 [astro-ph.GA]

2025 arXiv
[50]

Archidiacono and et all., Astronomy & Astrophysics 693, A58 (2025)

M. Archidiacono and et all., Astronomy & Astrophysics 693, A58 (2025)

2025
[51]

Casas et al

S. Casas et al. (Euclid), Astron. Astrophys. 682, A90 (2024), arXiv:2303.09451 [astro-ph.CO]

2024
[52]

Ivezi´ cet al., Astrophys

ˇZ. Ivezi´ cet al., Astrophys. J. 873, 111 (2019), arXiv:0805.2366 [astro-ph]

2019 arXiv
[53]

D. J. Bacon et al. (SKA), Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 37, e007 (2020), arXiv:1811.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[54]

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[55]

Santos da Costa, Phys

S. Santos da Costa, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101791 (2025), arXiv:2412.14290 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[56]

Pedrotti, J.-Q

D. Pedrotti, J.-Q. Jiang, L. A. Escamilla, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023506 (2025), arXiv:2408.04530 [astro-ph.CO] . – 13 –

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020

[2] [2]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020

[3] [3]

Baumann, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small (2011) pp

D. Baumann, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small (2011) pp. 523–686, arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

arXiv 2011

[4] [4]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

1980

[5] [5]

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

1981

[6] [6]

A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

1982

[7] [7]

L. F. Abbott, E. Farhi, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 117, 29 (1982)

1982

[8] [8]

Albrecht, P

A. Albrecht, P. J. Steinhardt, M. S. Turner, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1437 (1982)

work page 1982