arxiv: 2604.14659 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Constraining Quintessential Inflation with ACT: A Gauss-Bonnet Gateway

Yogesh , Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat , Mayukh R. Gangopadhyay , M. Sami

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

keywords quintessential inflationGauss-Bonnet gravityACT constraintsscalar spectral indextensor-to-scalar ratioreheatingmodified gravitycosmological observables

0 comments

The pith

Non-minimal Gauss-Bonnet couplings shift quintessential inflation predictions to match ACT's higher scalar spectral index.

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

Recent ACT measurements indicate a scalar spectral index around 0.974 that places standard quintessential inflation models near or beyond the 2σ boundary in the r-ns plane. The paper explores Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, in which a scalar field couples non-minimally to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant, as a way to modify the inflationary slow-roll dynamics. Three coupling functions are tested: exponential, hyperbolic secant, and hyperbolic tangent. The exponential and sech forms move both the tensor-to-scalar ratio and the spectral index into the 1σ region allowed by ACT, while the tanh form does not. A model-independent reheating analysis further shows that viable thermal histories consistent with Big Bang nucleosynthesis bounds can be realized even when the potential lacks a minimum.

Core claim

The paper claims that in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity the scalar field non-minimally coupled to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant through exponential or hyperbolic-secant functions modifies the inflationary observables so that the predicted values of r and ns enter the 1σ contour set by ACT data. The hyperbolic-tangent coupling fails to produce this shift. The same framework permits a model-independent reheating phase that yields temperatures compatible with Big Bang nucleosynthesis even in the absence of a potential minimum, and it maps the corresponding allowed ranges of the coupling parameters.

What carries the argument

The scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling functions that enter the action and alter the effective slow-roll parameters during inflation.

If this is right

Exponential and sech couplings bring the model's predictions for ns and r inside the 1σ ACT region.
The tanh coupling remains outside the allowed region and is disfavored.
Reheating proceeds with temperatures inside Big Bang nucleosynthesis bounds using the model-independent parametrization.
Viable ranges of the coupling parameters are identified for each successful functional form.
Quintessential inflation stays consistent with current precision data once Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet corrections are included.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar non-minimal couplings could be applied to other early-universe models facing similar observational tension.
Future CMB experiments that tighten the upper bound on r could distinguish the exponential from the sech coupling.
The absence of a potential minimum suggests new routes for the transition from inflation to radiation domination that may be testable through gravitational-wave backgrounds.
Modified gravity terms of this type may generically extend the viability of otherwise marginal inflationary scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The three chosen functional forms for the scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling are representative of possible modifications and the model-independent reheating parametrization remains valid without a potential minimum.

What would settle it

A future precision measurement placing ns below the lowest value reachable by the exponential or sech couplings in this model, or ruling out the associated ranges of r, would falsify the claim that these couplings restore consistency with ACT data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14659 by Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat, Mayukh R. Gangopadhyay, M. Sami, Yogesh.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Reheating parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent results from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT), indicating a higher and more tightly constrained scalar spectral index, $n_s = 0.9743 \pm 0.0034$, place several inflationary models under tension, with quintessential inflation pushed close to or beyond the $2\sigma$ boundary in the $r$--$n_s$ plane. In this work, we revisit quintessential inflation within the framework of Einstein--Gauss--Bonnet (EGB) gravity, where a scalar field non-minimally coupled to the Gauss--Bonnet invariant modifies the inflationary dynamics. We consider three representative coupling functions -- exponential, hyperbolic secant, and hyperbolic tangent -- and show that the exponential and sech-type couplings can shift the predicted values of $r$ and $n_s$ into the $1\sigma$ region allowed by ACT, thereby restoring consistency with observations. In contrast, the tanh-type coupling remains disfavored, underscoring the sensitivity of inflationary observables to the coupling structure. We further investigate the reheating phase using a model-independent parametrization and demonstrate that viable thermal histories can be realized even in the absence of a potential minimum, with reheating temperatures consistent with Big Bang nucleosynthesis bounds. Overall, our analysis shows that EGB corrections provide a viable and robust extension that reconciles quintessential inflation with current precision cosmological data, and we identify the corresponding allowed parameter space.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Exponential and sech Gauss-Bonnet couplings pull quintessential inflation inside the ACT 1-sigma region, but the reheating calculation rests on an assumption that may not survive the modified dynamics.

read the letter

The paper's core result is that two out of three chosen scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling functions move the predicted n_s and r for quintessential inflation into the ACT-allowed window. The exponential and sech forms do the job while the tanh form does not. That is the concrete new piece: a direct update of the EGB-quintessential setup against the latest ACT numbers rather than a new framework or first-principles derivation.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes quintessential inflation in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with a non-minimally coupled scalar field. It examines three coupling functions (exponential, sech, and tanh) and claims that the exponential and sech forms shift the predicted values of the tensor-to-scalar ratio r and spectral index ns into the 1σ region allowed by ACT data (ns = 0.9743 ± 0.0034), while the tanh form remains disfavored. It further applies a model-independent reheating parametrization to show that viable thermal histories with reheating temperatures consistent with BBN bounds are possible even without a potential minimum.

Significance. If the derivations and numerics are robust, the work identifies a concrete mechanism by which EGB corrections can reconcile quintessential inflation with recent ACT constraints, while highlighting the sensitivity of observables to the precise form of the coupling. The explicit comparison across three representative couplings and the mapping to an allowed parameter space constitute a useful contribution for model-building in modified-gravity inflation.

major comments (2)

[Reheating analysis] Reheating section: the model-independent parametrization maps N_reh to T_reh via standard GR relations between e-folds, equation-of-state, and temperature. However, the non-minimal GB coupling persists during the post-inflationary rolling phase (no potential minimum), so the modified Friedmann equation may alter the effective energy density and the resulting T_reh bounds. An explicit derivation or numerical integration of the background equations during reheating is required to confirm the BBN consistency claim.
[§2] §2 (model and couplings): the exponential and sech couplings are shown to move (r, ns) into the ACT 1σ region after tuning the coupling-strength parameter. The manuscript should demonstrate that this shift is not an artifact of post-hoc parameter choice by reporting the full allowed range of the strength parameter and showing the corresponding trajectories in the r–ns plane before and after the shift.

minor comments (2)

[§2] A compact table listing the three explicit coupling functions ξ(φ), their first and second derivatives, and the resulting slow-roll expressions would improve clarity.
[Results figures] The r–ns figures should overlay the ACT 1σ and 2σ contours with explicit reference to the ACT data release used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas for improvement. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Reheating section: the model-independent parametrization maps N_reh to T_reh via standard GR relations between e-folds, equation-of-state, and temperature. However, the non-minimal GB coupling persists during the post-inflationary rolling phase (no potential minimum), so the modified Friedmann equation may alter the effective energy density and the resulting T_reh bounds. An explicit derivation or numerical integration of the background equations during reheating is required to confirm the BBN consistency claim.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. Although the model-independent reheating parametrization is a standard tool in the literature and was used to obtain an initial estimate, we agree that the persisting non-minimal Gauss-Bonnet coupling requires explicit verification. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection presenting numerical integration of the background equations during the post-inflationary rolling phase (without assuming a potential minimum) and will explicitly confirm that the resulting reheating temperatures remain consistent with BBN bounds. revision: yes
Referee: §2 (model and couplings): the exponential and sech couplings are shown to move (r, ns) into the ACT 1σ region after tuning the coupling-strength parameter. The manuscript should demonstrate that this shift is not an artifact of post-hoc parameter choice by reporting the full allowed range of the strength parameter and showing the corresponding trajectories in the r–ns plane before and after the shift.

Authors: We appreciate this suggestion for strengthening the presentation. The original manuscript focused on representative values that achieve consistency with ACT data. In the revised version we will expand §2 to report the full allowed ranges of the coupling-strength parameter for each of the three functions. We will also include additional figures that display the trajectories in the r–ns plane for a continuous range of coupling strengths, explicitly comparing the standard quintessential inflation case with the EGB-corrected trajectories. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; parameter exploration and reheating check are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper selects three explicit functional forms for the GB coupling and computes the resulting slow-roll parameters and observables r, n_s from the modified EGB equations for each choice. These computed values are then compared to ACT data to identify which forms fall inside the 1σ contour; this is a direct forward calculation, not a fit that is relabeled as a prediction. The reheating section adopts a standard model-independent parametrization relating N_reh, w_reh and T_reh, then verifies that the resulting temperatures lie above BBN bounds for the same parameter choices already fixed by inflation. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that carries the central claim, and the derivation chain from action to observables to constraints remains self-contained against external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on choosing three specific functional forms for the non-minimal coupling and on a model-independent reheating parametrization; both introduce adjustable parameters whose values are set to achieve observational agreement.

free parameters (1)

coupling strength parameter
The amplitude or scale factor inside the exponential and sech coupling functions is adjusted to produce the required shift in r and ns.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The theory is described by Einstein gravity plus a scalar field non-minimally coupled to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant
This is the EGB framework invoked throughout the analysis.
domain assumption Reheating dynamics can be captured by a model-independent parametrization even in the absence of a potential minimum
Used to obtain viable thermal histories consistent with BBN.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5567 in / 1521 out tokens · 50739 ms · 2026-05-10T10:26:27.407658+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

String-inspired Gauss-Bonnet Gravity Inflation and ACT
gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

MCMC analysis of sixteen ghost-free f(R,G) inflation models shows all reproduce ns ≈ 0.97 at 60 e-folds with stable μ ≈ 0.1, preference set by Hubble parametrization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

145 extracted references · 133 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

[1]

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

1981
[2]

Sato, Mon

K. Sato, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.195, 467 (1981)

1981
[3]

A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B108, 389 (1982)

1982
[4]

Albrecht and P

A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1220 (1982)

1982
[5]

V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett.33, 532 (1981)

1981
[6]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B117, 175 (1982)

1982
[7]

A. A. Starobinsky, Sov. Astron. Lett.9, 302 (1983)

1983
[8]

A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B91, 99 (1980)

1980
[9]

Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results

G. Hinshawet al.(WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[10]

P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.594, A20 (2016), arXiv:1502.02114 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[11]

Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation

Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020
[12]

Barenboim and W

G. Barenboim and W. H. Kinney, JCAP0703, 014 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701343 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2007
[13]

Franche, R

P. Franche, R. Gwyn, B. Underwood, and A. Wissanji, Phys. Rev.D82, 063528 (2010), arXiv:1002.2639 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2010
[14]

Unnikrishnan, V

S. Unnikrishnan, V. Sahni, and A. Toporensky, JCAP 1208, 018 (2012), arXiv:1205.0786 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2012
[15]

Saaidi, A

K. Saaidi, A. Mohammadi, and T. Golanbari, Adv. High Energy Phys.2015, 926807 (2015), arXiv:1708.03675 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2015
[16]

Mohammadi, Z

A. Mohammadi, Z. Ossoulian, T. Golanbari, and K. Saaidi, Astrophys. Space Sci.359, 7 (2015)

2015
[17]

Fairbairn and M

M. Fairbairn and M. H. G. Tytgat, Phys. Lett.B546, 1 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0204070 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2002
[18]

Aghamohammadi, A

A. Aghamohammadi, A. Mohammadi, T. Golanbari, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Rev.D90, 084028 (2014), arXiv:1502.07578 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2014
[19]

Bessada, W

D. Bessada, W. H. Kinney, and K. Tzirakis, JCAP0909, 031 (2009), arXiv:0907.1311 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2009
[20]

J. M. Weller, C. van de Bruck, and D. F. Mota, JCAP 1206, 002 (2012), arXiv:1111.0237 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2012
[21]

Nazavari, A

N. Nazavari, A. Mohammadi, Z. Ossoulian, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Rev.D93, 123504 (2016), arXiv:1708.03676 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2016
[22]

Amani, K

R. Amani, K. Rezazadeh, A. Abdolmaleki, and K. Karami, Astrophys. J.853, 188 (2018), arXiv:1802.06075 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2018
[23]

Golanbari, A

T. Golanbari, A. Mohammadi, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Dark Univ.27, 100456 (2020), arXiv:1808.07246 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[24]

Berera, Physical Review Letters75, 3218 (1995)

A. Berera, Physical Review Letters75, 3218 (1995)

1995
[25]

Berera, Nuclear Physics B585, 666 (2000)

A. Berera, Nuclear Physics B585, 666 (2000)

2000
[26]

Bastero-Gil and A

M. Bastero-Gil and A. Berera, Phys. Rev.D71, 063515 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411144 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2005
[27]

Sayar, A

K. Sayar, A. Mohammadi, L. Akhtari, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Rev.D95, 023501 (2017), arXiv:1708.01714 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2017
[28]

Akhtari, A

L. Akhtari, A. Mohammadi, K. Sayar, and K. Saaidi, Astropart. Phys.90, 28 (2017), arXiv:1710.05793 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2017
[29]

Sheikhahmadi, A

H. Sheikhahmadi, A. Mohammadi, A. Aghamohammadi, T. Harko, R. Herrera, C. Corda, A. Abebe, and K. Saaidi, Eur. Phys. J.C79, 1038 (2019), arXiv:1907.10966 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[30]

Motohashi, A

H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, JCAP1509, 018 (2015), arXiv:1411.5021 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2015
[31]

S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and L. Sebastiani, Nucl. Phys.B923, 608 (2017), arXiv:1708.08346 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2017
[32]

V. K. Oikonomou, Mod. Phys. Lett.A32, 1750172 (2017), arXiv:1706.00507 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2017
[33]

Mohammadi, T

A. Mohammadi, T. Golanbari, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Dark Univ.28, 100505 (2020), arXiv:1912.07006 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[34]

Mohammadi, T

A. Mohammadi, T. Golanbari, S. Nasri, and K. Saaidi, Phys. Rev. D101, 123537 (2020), arXiv:2004.12137 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[35]

Mohammadi, Phys

A. Mohammadi, Phys. Dark Univ.36, 101055 (2022), arXiv:2203.06643 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[36]

Adhikari, M

R. Adhikari, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and Yogesh, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 899 (2020), arXiv:2002.07061 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[37]

Mohammadi and F

A. Mohammadi and F. Kheirandish, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101362 (2023)

2023
[38]

Sahni, M

V. Sahni, M. Sami, and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D65, 023518 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0105121

work page arXiv 2002
[39]

A. O. Barvinsky and A. Y. Kamenshchik, Phys. Lett. B 332, 270 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9404062

work page arXiv 1994
[40]

J. L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen, Nucl. Phys. B442, 391 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9505069

work page arXiv 1995
[41]

A. O. Barvinsky, A. Y. Kamenshchik, and A. A. Starobin- sky, JCAP11, 021 (2008), arXiv:0809.2104 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2008
[42]

De Simone, M

A. De Simone, M. P. Hertzberg, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B678, 1 (2009), arXiv:0812.4946 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2009
[43]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Lykkas, and T. D. Pappas, Phys. Rev. D102, 063522 (2020), arXiv:2008.06371 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[44]

F. L. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B675, 88 (2009), arXiv:0812.4950 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2009
[45]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP06, 027 (2013), arXiv:1306.3211 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2013
[46]

A. O. Barvinsky, A. Y. Kamenshchik, C. Kiefer, A. A. Starobinsky, and C. F. Steinwachs, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2219 (2012), arXiv:0910.1041 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2012
[47]

Higgs inflation

J. Rubio, Front. Astron. Space Sci.5, 50 (2019), arXiv:1807.02376 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[48]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, T. D. Pappas, and E. Tomberg, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.20, 2330007 (2023), arXiv:2303.14148 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[49]

I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, JCAP03, 042 (2023), arXiv:2212.09896 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[50]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, T. D. Pappas, and V. C. Spanos, Phys. Rev. D104, 023521 (2021), arXiv:2104.04550 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[51]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, and A. Racioppi, JCAP11, 014 (2020), arXiv:2006.09124 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[52]

J. Kim, Z. Yang, and Y.-l. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2503.16907 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[53]

J. Kim, X. Wang, Y.-l. Zhang, and Z. Ren, (2025), arXiv:2504.12035 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[54]

A. S. Koshelev, K. S. Kumar, and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 2043018 (2020), arXiv:2005.09550 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2020
[55]

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and $\Lambda$CDM Parameters

T. Louiset al.(ACT), arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[56]

C., Jense, H

E. Calabreseet al.(ACT), arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[57]

DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest

M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083514 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[58]

P. J. E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, Physical Review D59 (1999), 10.1103/physrevd.59.063505

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.063505 1999
[59]

Kallosh, A

R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, (2025), arXiv:2503.21030 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

S. Aoki, H. Otsuka, and R. Yanagita, (2025), arXiv:2504.01622 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[61]

Dioguardi, A

C. Dioguardi, A. J. Iovino, and A. Racioppi, Phys. Lett. B868, 139664 (2025), arXiv:2504.02809 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[62]

Independent connection in action during inflation,

A. Salvio, (2025), arXiv:2504.10488 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[63]

Brahma and J

S. Brahma and J. Calder´ on-Figueroa, (2025), 8 arXiv:2504.02746 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

Q. Gao, Y. Gong, Z. Yi, and F. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2504.15218 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[65]

Drees and Y

M. Drees and Y. Xu, (2025), arXiv:2504.20757 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[67]

Yin, [arXiv:2505.03004 [hep-ph]]

W. Yin, (2025), arXiv:2505.03004 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[68]

L. Liu, Z. Yi, and Y. Gong, (2025), arXiv:2505.02407 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[69]

I. D. Gialamas, T. Katsoulas, and K. Tamvakis, (2025), arXiv:2505.03608 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[70]

M. R. Haque, S. Pal, and D. Paul, (2025), arXiv:2505.01517 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[71]

M. R. Haque, S. Pal, and D. Paul, (2025), arXiv:2505.04615 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[72]

Dioguardi and A

C. Dioguardi and A. Karam, (2025), arXiv:2504.12937 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[73]

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Racioppi, and M. Raidal, (2025), arXiv:2504.06002 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[74]

Mohammadi, Q

Yogesh, A. Mohammadi, Q. Wu, and T. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2505.05363 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[76]

N. S. Risdianto, R. H. S. Budhi, N. Shobcha, and A. S. Adam, (2025), arXiv:2507.12868 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[77]

E. G. Ferreira, E. McDonough, L. Balkenhol, R. Kallosh, and L. Knox, (2025), arXiv:2507.12459 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[78]

Mohammadi, Yogesh and A

A. Mohammadi, Yogesh, and A. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2507.06544 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[79]

Pallis,ACT-Inspired K ¨ahler-Based Inflationary Attractors, JCAP09, 061 (2025) [arXiv: 2507.02219]

C. Pallis, (2025), arXiv:2507.02219 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[80]

Q. Gao, Y. Qian, Y. Gong, and Z. Yi, (2025), arXiv:2506.18456 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[81]

Okada and O

N. Okada and O. Seto, (2025), arXiv:2506.15965 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[82]

McDonald, (2025), arXiv:2506.12916 [hep-ph]

J. McDonald, (2025), arXiv:2506.12916 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.