Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 61 references

Modified Mukhanov-Sasaki equation and primordial perturbations in $\kappa$-deformed non-commutative space-time

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By deriving the κ-deformed Mukhanov-Sasaki equation, the paper shows that primordial perturbations acquire a $(\ln k)^2$ correction and that ACT DR6 data bound the deformation length to about $10^{-30}$ m.

desk verdict Genuinely new κ-deformed Mukhanov-Sasaki derivation, but a complex action and a misconstructed CMB likelihood sink the results. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24277 v1 pith:TBMITQLQ submitted 2026-07-27 gr-qc

Yang Lei , Vishnu Rajagopal , Puxun Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords κ-Minkowskispacetimenon-commutativegeometryinflationaryperturbationsMukhanov-SasakiequationprimordialpowerspectrumspectralindexrunningCMBconstraintsquantumgravityphenomenology
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

Using the $\kappa$-deformed star product, the paper derives the modified Mukhanov–Sasaki equation for curvature perturbations during inflation in $\kappa$-Minkowski spacetime. Solving it perturbatively and matching at horizon crossing, it finds that the primordial scalar power spectrum gains a leading correction proportional to $(\ln k)^2$, and the spectral index acquires an explicit $\ln k$ dependence that persists even for constant slow-roll parameters. The same correction applies to tensor perturbations, so the tensor-to-scalar ratio is unchanged. Fitting the resulting spectral index to ACT DR6 data, the paper reports a deformation length $\lambda=6.32^{+6.00}_{-4.30}\times10^{-30}$ m at $1\sigma$, roughly four orders of magnitude above the Planck scale. If correct, this gives a concrete, isotropic quantum-gravity signature that precision CMB measurements can test.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\kappa$-deformed star product, which encodes the $\kappa$-Minkowski commutation relations $[\hat{x}_\mu,\hat{x}_\nu]=i(a_\mu\hat{x}_\nu-a_\nu\hat{x}_\mu)$ with $a_\mu=(\lambda,0,0,0)$ in terms of a realisation of the non-commutative coordinates. Its first-order form introduces derivative terms whose coefficients combine into $c_1=\alpha+\beta+\gamma$, $c_2=\alpha+2\beta+\gamma$, $c_3=\beta$. Inserting this star product into the bilinear action for curvature perturbations produces the modified Mukhanov–Sasaki equation, containing $\varphi_k''''$ and other higher derivatives. The authors remove those higher derivatives at first order in $\lambda$ by substituting the commutative equations of motion, avoiding Ostrogradsky instabilities, and then solve the resulting equation by matching the sub-horizon Bunch–Davies mode to the super-horizon frozen mode at $k\eta=-1$. This matching produces the factor $(1+16\lambda^2 c_1^2 H^2\ln^2 k)$ in $|\mathcal{R}_k|^2$.

What would settle it

Compute the paper's $\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{R}}(k)$ through a full Boltzmann likelihood against the ACT DR6 $C_\ell$ data (or a comparable high-precision spectrum) and check whether the best-fit $\lambda$ remains at $10^{-30}$ m and improves the fit over $\lambda=0$; alternatively, a future CMB measurement of the running of $n_s$ that excludes a $(\ln k)^2$ growth at the predicted amplitude would rule out the correction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $\kappa$-Minkowski non-commutativity deforms the inflationary perturbation sector in a specific, calculable way. Starting from the standard bilinear action for $\mathcal{R}$ and replacing pointwise products with the $\kappa$-star product, the authors obtain a modified Mukhanov–Sasaki equation whose leading $\lambda$ corrections involve higher time derivatives; these are eliminated at first order in $\lambda$ through the unperturbed equations of motion, sidestepping Ostrogradsky ghosts. The perturbative solution matched at horizon crossing yields $\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{R}}=\frac{H^2}{8\pi^2\epsilon}\left(1+16\lambda^2 c_1^2 H^2 \ln^2 k\right)$ and $n_s-1=-2\epsilon-\delta+32\lambda^2 c_1^2 H^2 \ln k\,(1-\epsilon\ln k)$. The same correction factor appears in the tensor power spectrum, so the scalar-to-tensor ratio remains $r=16\epsilon$, and the spectrum preserves statistical isotropy. The paper further claims that ACT DR6 data constrain $\lambda=6.32^{+6.00}_{-4.30}\times10^{-30}$ m at $1\sigma$ confidence.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical constraint on $\lambda$ rests on treating each of the 84 binned ACT DR6 power-spectrum points as an independent, direct measurement of the spectral index $n_s$ at that wavenumber; if those bins instead only constrain $n_s$ indirectly through the full $C_\ell$ shape, the reported bound is not supported by the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $(\ln k)^2$ term makes the inflationary spectrum scale dependent even when slow-roll parameters are exactly constant, so the model predicts a running spectral index that a pure power-law fit would attribute to something else.
  • The tensor power spectrum receives the identical correction factor, so $r=16\epsilon$ is unchanged; B-mode experiments still measure $\epsilon$ directly.
  • Statistical isotropy is preserved despite non-commutativity, so the model escapes the anisotropy constraints that apply to Moyal-space inflation and instead predicts a specific scale-dependent tilt.
  • ACT DR6 data alone place $\lambda$ at $10^{-30}$ m, four orders of magnitude above the Planck length; next-generation CMB experiments measuring the running of $n_s$ could push this window further or detect the effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the correction enters only through $(\lambda c_1 H)^2$, the reported bound on $\lambda$ is degenerate with the choice of prior on $c_1$ and the fixed value $H=10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV}$; a joint fit over a wider $c_1$ range would shift the quoted interval.
  • A more direct observational test would bypass the per-bin $n_s$ likelihood entirely: convert the predicted $\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{R}}(k)$ into a full CMB angular-power-spectrum prediction and fit $\lambda$ jointly with the standard cosmological parameters.
  • The same star-product mechanism should generate non-Gaussianities at higher order; computing the bispectrum would give a consistency check independent of the power-spectrum running.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a κ-deformed bilinear action for curvature perturbations by replacing pointwise products with the κ-star product, derives a modified Mukhanov-Sasaki equation, reduces the resulting higher-derivative terms using the zeroth-order equations of motion, solves the equation perturbatively in the deformation parameter λ, and obtains a primordial power spectrum with a leading (ln k)^2 correction and a spectral index with explicit ln k dependence. It then reports an MCMC analysis of ACT DR6 data that yields λ = 6.32^{+6.00}_{-4.30}×10^{-30} m at 1σ, which the authors interpret as a constraint on the κ-deformation scale.

Significance. The phenomenological target is interesting: if the derivation were sound, the predicted scale-dependent running that persists for constant slow-roll parameters would be a distinctive signature of κ-Minkowski spacetime, and the comparison with ACT DR6 data would be of value to the quantum-gravity phenomenology community. The authors also correctly emphasize the symmetry contrast with Moyal-type non-commutative models, where statistical anisotropy arises. However, the paper's central derivation and its observational analysis contain load-bearing gaps: the deformed action is not real, the matching calculation is not shown, the logarithmic terms are dimensionful, and the likelihood is not a valid CMB likelihood. As written, the headline constraint on λ is therefore not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (10)] The deformed action in Eq. (10) is not real: the first-order term is −iλ/(2aη)[c1(φ'')^2 − c2(∂iφ')^2 + c3(∂i∂jφ)^2] with a real bracket for real fields. The paper supplies no reality condition, no symmetrization of the star product, and no unitarity argument. Consequently Eq. (11) is not a Hermitian field equation, and the subsequent use of a Bunch–Davies vacuum and the interpretation of |φ_k|^2 as a probability amplitude in Eq. (22) presuppose a unitary evolution that is not established. Since every later result, including Eqs. (23)–(24) and the ACT DR6 constraint, flows from this action, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Section III, Eqs. (18)–(22)] The matching at horizon crossing that fixes A, B, C and produces |φ_k|^2 = (1/2k)(1 + 16λ^2 c1^2 H^2 ln^2 k) is not shown. The sub-horizon solution (18) contains terms proportional to (2c1−c2), yet the final O(λ^2) correction depends only on c1; the cancellation or matching that removes c2 and the O(λ) part of |C|^2 is not displayed. In addition, ln k is dimensionful unless a pivot scale k_* is introduced; as written, Eq. (23) is not invariant under a rescaling of k. These issues affect the central prediction and the likelihood used in Section IV.
  3. [Section IV, likelihood] The log-likelihood treats n_s^{obs}(k_i) as though the binned ACT DR6 Cℓ data provide independent direct measurements of the spectral index at each of the 84 multipole bins. In standard CMB analyses the spectral index is a global parameter inferred from the shape of Cℓ through the transfer functions; it is not measured per k. The procedure used to extract n_s^{obs}(k_i) and σ_i from Ref. [54] is not described, so the reported constraint λ=6.32^{+6.00}_{−4.30}×10^{-30} m is unsupported.
  4. [Tables I and II] The reported posterior c1 = 4.78^{+1.03}_{−1.02}×10^{-3} lies entirely outside the stated uniform prior c1 ∈ [0.0005, 0.0015] given in Table I; the 1σ interval is [3.75, 5.81]×10^{-3}, whereas the prior upper bound is 1.5×10^{-3}. This internal inconsistency indicates an error in the MCMC setup or in the reporting. Moreover, the correction term in Eq. (23) depends only on the product (λ c1 H)^2, so λ and c1 are perfectly degenerate; the separate 1σ bound on λ is therefore determined by the prior on c1 and the fixed choice H=10^{14} GeV, not by an independent measurement.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section V] The bound is described as 'four orders of magnitude larger than the Planck scale'; with λ≈6×10^{-30} m and the Planck length ≈1.6×10^{-35} m the ratio is about 4×10^5, so the wording should be 'about five orders of magnitude' or should be rephrased.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (5)] The star product in Eq. (5) is written with a vector 'a', while Eq. (1) defines a^μ=(λ,0,0,0); the notation should be made consistent, and the dependence of the coefficients α, β, γ on the chosen realization of the κ-Minkowski coordinates should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Figure 1] The text refers to Figure 1 for the marginalized contours, but the manuscript shows only a placeholder; please ensure the actual figure is included and that its reported intervals are consistent with Table II.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The κ-deformed Mukhanov-Sasaki derivation is self-contained, but the headline ACT DR6 bound on λ reduces to the fitted product λ²c1²H² and is fixed by the c1 prior and the assumed H, not by an independent measurement of λ.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (24), Table I and Table II]
    "ns = 1−2ε−δ+ 32λ 2c2 1H 2 lnk(1−εlnk) ... Parameter Prior range ... c1 U[0.0005,0.0015] ... Note that in this analysis, we set the Hubble parameter as H= 10 14GeV. ... c1 4.78+1.03 −1.02×10−3 ... λ(m) 6.32+6.00 −4.30×10−30."

    The only noncommutative term in the likelihood is 32λ²c1²H² ln k(1−ε ln k), so the ACT DR6 data can at most constrain the combination λc1H together with ε and δ. They cannot separately determine λ and c1. The reported λ posterior is therefore generated by the imposed log-uniform prior on λ, the prior on c1, and the fixed value H=10^14 GeV, rather than by an independent data-driven measurement of the κ-deformation scale. This is confirmed by the internal inconsistency that the reported c1 posterior, 4.78×10^-3, lies outside its stated uniform prior range [0.0005,0.0015]. The headline λ bound is thus a prior-transformed fit of the product, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The theoretical derivation from the κ-star product to the modified Mukhanov-Sasaki equation and to the (ln k)² correction in Eq. (23) is not circular: the star-product formalism is imported from independent external references, the perturbative solution is actually derived rather than fitted, and no load-bearing self-citation is invoked. The comparison with the authors' earlier value λ=2.17×10^-30 m is a consistency remark, not an input to the calculation. The circularity is confined to the observational claim. Because Eq. (24) enters the MCMC likelihood only through the product λ²c1²H², the separate constraints on λ and c1 are not identifiable from the data; the quoted λ bound reduces by construction to the chosen priors and the fixed Hubble scale. That makes the central ACT DR6 constraint partially circular, while the functional form of the predicted correction remains self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation assumes the κ-Minkowski algebra, the star-product realization, and its extension to FLRW as inputs. The EFT reduction and the Bunch-Davies vacuum are additional domain assumptions. Because the observable correction is proportional to (λ c1 H)^2, the fitted combination dominates the reported constraint and makes λ separately unidentifiable.

free parameters (6)
  • λ (κ-deformation length scale) = 6.32^{+6.00}_{-4.30}×10^{-30} m (1σ)
    Fitted in MCMC; the power spectrum correction depends on (λ c1 H)^2, so λ is degenerate with c1 and H.
  • c1 = α+β+γ (star-product realization coefficient) = 4.78^{+1.03}_{-1.02}×10^{-3}
    Free coefficient in the κ-realization; fitted to ACT DR6; posterior lies outside the stated prior range [0.0005, 0.0015] in Table I, indicating an inconsistency.
  • ε (slow-roll parameter) = 7.01^{+0.986}_{-0.932}×10^{-3}
    Fitted with a Gaussian prior; controls the standard amplitude and tensor-to-scalar ratio.
  • δ (second slow-roll parameter) = 8.96^{+2.02}_{-2.02}×10^{-3}
    Fitted with a Gaussian prior; appears in the standard spectral index.
  • H (Hubble scale during inflation) = fixed to 10^14 GeV
    Hand-chosen; the correction scales as H^2, so the λ bound is conditional on this value. The implied r=16ε≈0.11 is in tension with current tensor bounds.
  • k pivot scale for ln k
    The correction contains ln k with no stated pivot; the argument of the logarithm is dimensionful, so the constraint depends on the arbitrary units or pivot used for k, which is never specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The κ-Minkowski algebra [x̂μ,x̂ν]=i(aμ x̂ν - aν x̂μ) and the star-product realization in Eq. (5) are valid descriptions of noncommutative spacetime.
    Taken from Refs. [51-56]; the paper does not derive or justify these inputs.
  • ad hoc to paper The flat-space κ-star product can be applied to covariant derivatives of curvature perturbations in FLRW spacetime with the standard measure, as in Eq. (7).
    The star product is derived for Minkowski space; extending it to curved spacetime is an unproven modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Higher-derivative terms can be eliminated using the zeroth-order equations of motion, keeping first-order terms in λ (Section III).
    This EFT reduction assumes the higher-derivative corrections are small; with H=10^14 GeV and λ≈6e-30 m, λH is order one, so the perturbativity assumption is questionable.
  • domain assumption The unperturbed mode is the Bunch-Davies vacuum φ0=e^{-ikη}/√(2k), used in Eq. (18).
    Assumes the vacuum state is unchanged by κ-deformation.
  • domain assumption During slow roll z''/z≈2/η² and a≈-1/(Hη), with matching at horizon crossing kη=-1.
    Standard de Sitter approximations; the matching that produces ln^2 k is approximate at kη=-1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modified Mukhanov-Sasaki equation and primordial perturbations in $\kappa$-deformed non-commutative space-time." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TBMITQLQ

@misc{pith2026260724277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modified Mukhanov-Sasaki equation and primordial perturbations in $\kappa$-deformed non-commutative space-time},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TBMITQLQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24277}
}
abstract

We study the inflationary primordial perturbations in $\kappa$-Minkowski non-commutative space-time, a Lie-algebraic type deformation of canonical space-time motivated by quantum gravity scenarios. Employing the $\kappa$-deformed star product formalism, we construct the bilinear action for curvature perturbations and derive the $\kappa$-deformed Mukhanov-Sasaki equation and obtain the perturbative solutions. Further, we compute the primordial power spectrum and spectral index, showing that the leading order corrections to the power spectrum induces scale-dependent term proportional to $(\ln k)^2$. The spectral index also exhibits an explicit $\ln k$ dependence, which persists even when the slow-roll parameters are constant. We also perform a Bayesian MCMC analysis using ACT DR6 data and constrain the $\kappa$-deformation length scale to $\lambda=6.32^{+6.00}_{-4.30}\times10^{-30}m$ at $1\sigma$ CL, approximately four orders of magnitude larger than the Planck scale, demonstrating that the $\kappa$-deformed space-time offers a potential window into quantum gravity phenomenology through precision cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Marginalised contour and posterior distribution of the model parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Rajagopal and P

    V. Rajagopal and P. Wu, Search for possible signals of space-time non-commutativity from ACT DR6, (2025), arXiv:2511.11426 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [54]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters, JCAP11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters, JCAP11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    H. S. Snyder, Quantized space-time, Phys. Rev.71, 38 (1947)

    1947

  4. [2]

    Doplicher, K

    S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, and J. E. Roberts, Space-time quantization induced by classical gravity, Phys. Lett. B331, 39 (1994). 12

    work page 1994

  5. [3]

    Doplicher, K

    S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, and J. E. Roberts, The Quantum structure of space-time at the Planck scale and quantum fields, Commun. Math. Phys.172, 187 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/0303037

    arXiv 1995

  6. [4]

    Connes,Noncommutative Geometry(Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995)

    A. Connes,Noncommutative Geometry(Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [5]

    Lizzi, Quantum Spacetime, Noncommutative Geometry and Observers, Universe8, 24 (2021)

    F. Lizzi, Quantum Spacetime, Noncommutative Geometry and Observers, Universe8, 24 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [6]

    M. B. Fr¨ ob, A. Much, and K. Papadopoulos, Noncommutative geometry from perturbative quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D107, 064041 (2023), arXiv:2207.03345 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    M. B. Fr¨ ob, W. C. C. Lima, A. Much, and K. Papadopoulos, Noncommutative geometry from pertur- bative quantum gravity in de Sitter spacetime, Phys. Rev. D108, 086003 (2023), arXiv:2305.01517 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    M. R. Douglas and N. A. Nekrasov, Noncommutative field theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 977 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0106048

    2001 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, String theory and noncommutative geometry, JHEP09, 032 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9908142

    1999 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Arzano and J

    M. Arzano and J. Kowalski-Glikman, An Introduction toκ-Deformed Symmetries, Phase Spaces and Field Theory, Symmetry13, 946 (2021)

    2021

  5. [11]

    Lukierski, H

    J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg, A. Nowicki, and V. N. Tolstoi, Q deformation of Poincare algebra, Phys. Lett. B264, 331 (1991)

    1991

  6. [12]

    Lukierski, A

    J. Lukierski, A. Nowicki, and H. Ruegg, New quantum Poincare algebra andκdeformed field theory, Phys. Lett. B293, 344 (1992)

    1992

  7. [13]

    Majid and H

    S. Majid and H. Ruegg, Bicrossproduct structure ofκ-poincare group and non-commutative geometry, Physics Letters B334, 348–354 (1994)

    1994

  8. [14]

    Cianfrani, J

    F. Cianfrani, J. Kowalski-Glikman, D. Pranzetti, and G. Rosati, Symmetries of quantum spacetime in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. D94, 084044 (2016), arXiv:1606.03085 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Amelino-Camelia, Doubly special relativity, Nature418, 34 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0207049

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Doubly special relativity, Nature418, 34 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0207049

    2002 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Kowalski-Glikman, Introduction to doubly special relativity, Lect

    J. Kowalski-Glikman, Introduction to doubly special relativity, Lect. Notes Phys.669, 131 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0405273

    2005 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Arzano and F

    M. Arzano and F. Kuipers, Stochastic origin of spacetime noncommutativity, Phys. Rev. D111, 025010 (2025), arXiv:2409.11866 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [18]

    N. Kan, M. Kuniyasu, K. Shiraishi, and K. Takimoto, Accelerating cosmologies in an integrable model with noncommutative minisuperspace variables, J. Phys. Comm.4, 7 (2020), arXiv:1903.07895 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Oliveira-Neto and L

    G. Oliveira-Neto and L. F. Marcon, Complete noncommutativity in a cosmological model with radia- tion, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 584 (2021), arXiv:2101.09369 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [20]

    T. M. Abreu, G. Oliveira-Neto, A. C. R. Mendes, and S. C. Reis, Noncommutative effects in Bianchi I cosmology with reduced relativistic gas, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 185010 (2025)

    2025

  15. [21]

    Oliveira-Neto and Y

    G. Oliveira-Neto and Y. S. Apaza, Noncommutative Bianchi I and III Cosmology Models: Radiation Era Dynamics andγEstimation, Universe11, 408 (2025), arXiv:2510.08796 [gr-qc]

    2025

  16. [22]

    R. K. Das and A. K. Mitra, Non-commutative fluid as an alternative driver of cosmic acceleration: Confronting DESI observations, Annals Phys.488, 170384 (2026), arXiv:2503.17878 [gr-qc]

    2026

  17. [23]

    Lizzi, G

    F. Lizzi, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and M. Peloso, Cosmological perturbations and short distance physics from noncommutative geometry, JHEP06, 049 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0203099

    2002 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Brandenberger and P.-M

    R. Brandenberger and P.-M. Ho, Noncommutative space-time, stringy space-time uncertainty principle, and density fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D66, 023517 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0203119

    2002 arXiv

  19. [25]

    H.-s. Kim, G. S. Lee, H. W. Lee, and Y. S. Myung, Second order corrections to noncommutative space-time inflation, Phys. Rev. D70, 043521 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0402198

    2004 arXiv

  20. [26]

    W. Xue, B. Chen, and Y. Wang, Generalized space-time noncommutative inflation, JCAP09, 011 (2007), arXiv:0706.1843 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  21. [27]

    K. Fang, B. Chen, and W. Xue, Non-commutative Geometry Modified Non-Gaussianities of Cosmo- logical Perturbation, Phys. Rev. D77, 063523 (2008), arXiv:0707.1970 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Calmet and C

    X. Calmet and C. Fritz, Inflation on a non-commutative space–time, Phys. Lett. B747, 406 (2015), arXiv:1506.04049 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Kothari, P

    R. Kothari, P. K. Rath, and P. Jain, Cosmological power spectrum in a noncommutative spacetime, Phys. Rev. D94, 063531 (2016), arXiv:1503.03859 [hep-th]. 13

    2016 arXiv

  24. [30]

    H. S. Tan, Noncommutative spacetime geometry and one-loop effects in primordial cosmology, Phys. Rev. D98, 063518 (2018), arXiv:1807.04323 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Akofor, A

    E. Akofor, A. P. Balachandran, S. G. Jo, A. Joseph, and B. A. Qureshi, Direction-Dependent CMB Power Spectrum and Statistical Anisotropy from Noncommutative Geometry, JHEP05, 092 (2008), arXiv:0710.5897 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [32]

    T. S. Koivisto and D. F. Mota, CMB statistics in noncommutative inflation, JHEP02, 061 (2011), arXiv:1011.2126 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Nautiyal, Anisotropic non-gaussianity with noncommutative spacetime, Phys

    A. Nautiyal, Anisotropic non-gaussianity with noncommutative spacetime, Phys. Lett. B728, 472 (2014), arXiv:1303.4159 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Jain and P

    P. Jain and P. K. Rath, Noncommutative Geometry and the Primordial Dipolar Imaginary Power Spectrum, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 113 (2015), arXiv:1407.1714 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Gandhi, Commutative and non-commutative signatures of anisotropic inflation: constraints from planck PR4 data, Phys

    A. Gandhi, Commutative and non-commutative signatures of anisotropic inflation: constraints from planck PR4 data, Phys. Scripta101, 085002 (2026)

    2026

  30. [36]

    Sadeghi and S

    J. Sadeghi and S. Noori Gashti, Anisotropic constant-roll inflation with noncommutative model and swampland conjectures, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 301 (2021), arXiv:2104.00117 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [37]

    S. M. M. Rasouli, Noncommutativity, S´ aez–Ballester Theory and Kinetic Inflation, Universe8, 165 (2022), arXiv:2203.00765 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Nekouee, S

    Z. Nekouee, S. K. Narasimhamurthy, H. M. Manjunatha, and V. Anitha, Constant-roll inflation from non-commutative geometry viewpoint, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D32, 2350003 (2023)

    2023

  33. [39]

    N. Kan, T. Aoyama, and K. Shiraishi, Classical and quantum bicosmology with noncommutativity, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 015010 (2023), arXiv:2206.10796 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Noori Gashti, M

    S. Noori Gashti, M. R. Alipour, M. A. S. Afshar, and J. Sadeghi, Noncommutativity and its role in constant-roll inflation models with non-minimal coupling constrained by swampland conjectures, Chin. Phys. C49, 025108 (2025)

    2025

  35. [41]

    Socorro, J

    J. Socorro, J. J. Rosales, and L. Toledo-Sesma, Non-commutative classical and quantum fractionary cosmology: anisotropic Bianchi type I case, Gen. Rel. Grav.57, 23 (2025), arXiv:2405.17350 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Bodmann, D

    B. Bodmann, D. Hadjimichef, P. O. Hess, J. de Freitas Pacheco, F. Weber, M. Razeira, G. A. Degrazia, M. Marzola, and C. A. Z. Vasconcellos, A Wheeler–DeWitt Non-Commutative Quantum Approach to the Branch-Cut Gravity, Universe9, 428 (2023)

    2023

  37. [43]

    C. A. Z. Vasconcelloset al., Cosmic inflation in an extended non-commutative foliated quantum gravity: the wave function of the universe, (2024), arXiv:2411.09756 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [44]

    C. A. Zen Vasconcellos, P. O. Hess, J. de Freitas Pacheco, F. Weber, B. Bodmann, D. Hadjimichef, G. Naysinger, M. Netz-Marzola, and M. Razeira, The accelerating universe in a noncommutative ana- lytically continued foliated quantum gravity, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 245004 (2024)

    2024

  39. [45]

    L. R. D´ ıaz-Barr´ on, A. Espinoza-Garc´ ıa, S. P´ erez-Pay´ an, and J. Socorro, Noncommutative effective loop quantum cosmology: Inclusion of a potential term, Phys. Rev. D104, 023508 (2021), arXiv:2104.02859 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [46]

    L. R. D´ ıaz-Barr´ on, A. Espinoza-Garc´ ıa, S. P´ erez-Pay´ an, and J. Socorro, (Pre)-Inflationary Dy- namics with Starobinsky Potential in Noncommutative Effective LQC, Universe11, 393 (2025), arXiv:2512.04230 [gr-qc]

    2025

  41. [47]

    Mohammadi, Non-commutativity in modified loop cosmology, Eur

    A. Mohammadi, Non-commutativity in modified loop cosmology, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 219 (2025), arXiv:2408.05935 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Rajagopal and P

    V. Rajagopal and P. Wu, Entropic force and bouncing behaviour inκ-Minkowski space-time, Phys. Lett. B868, 139670 (2025), arXiv:2502.15831 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [49]

    H.-C. Kim, J. H. Yee, and C. Rim, Density fluctuations in kappa-deformed inflationary universe, Phys. Rev. D72, 103523 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0506122

    2005 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Meljanac and M

    S. Meljanac and M. Stojic, New realizations of Lie algebra kappa-deformed Euclidean space, Eur. Phys. J. C47, 531 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605133

    2006 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Kresic-Juric, S

    S. Kresic-Juric, S. Meljanac, and M. Stojic, Covariant realizations of kappa-deformed space, Eur. Phys. J. C51, 229 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0702215. 14

    2007 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Meljanac, A

    S. Meljanac, A. Samsarov, M. Stojic, and K. S. Gupta, Kappa-Minkowski space-time and the star product realizations, Eur. Phys. J. C53, 295 (2008), arXiv:0705.2471 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Harikumar, T

    E. Harikumar, T. Juric, and S. Meljanac, Geodesic equation ink-Minkowski spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 86, 045002 (2012), arXiv:1203.1564 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    K. S. Gupta, E. Harikumar, T. Juric, S. Meljanac, and A. Samsarov, Effects of Noncommutativity on the Black Hole Entropy, Adv. High Energy Phys.2014, 139172 (2014), arXiv:1312.5100 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Grosse and M

    H. Grosse and M. Wohlgenannt, On kappa-deformation and UV/IR mixing, Nucl. Phys. B748, 473 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0507030

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Baumann,Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 2022)

    D. Baumann,Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, L. Senatore, and P. Creminelli, The effective field theory of inflation, JHEP2008, 014–014 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    C. P. Burgess,Introduction to Effective Field Theory: Thinking Effectively about Hierarchies of Scale (Cambridge University Press, 2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.