Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Reconciling Starobinsky inflation with ACT data requires ingredients that undermine the original model's minimality.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 15:24 UTC pith:J7SJSUXK

load-bearing objection Solid critical analysis: ACT-compatible Starobinsky needs UV-sensitive higher-curvature scales, stiff reheating, or negative-energy stasis, all of which undercut the original minimality. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09808 v1 pith:J7SJSUXK submitted 2026-07-09 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

ACT stands for Awkward Cosmology Theories

Loris Del Grosso , Alfredo Urbano , Marcello Ziccolella This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th
keywords Starobinsky inflationACT datahigher-curvature operatorsreheatingcosmological stasisfine-tuningno-scale supergravitymetric-affine gravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

ACT data prefer a slightly higher scalar spectral index than pure Starobinsky inflation predicts. The paper re-examines the two main fixes: adding higher-curvature corrections, or changing the post-inflationary reheating history. Higher-curvature terms can be written as a one-coupling, two-scale effective theory; matching ACT pushes the second scale closer to the inflationary scale and raises the sensitivity of observables to ultraviolet physics, which the authors quantify as fine-tuning. Concrete embeddings in no-scale supergravity and metric-affine gravity turn out to realize the same f(R) deformation and inherit the same problem. On the reheating side, keeping CMB modes inside the horizon before recombination forces a stiff equation of state ω_reh > 1/3, which cannot arise from ordinary oscillations about the Starobinsky minimum. A cosmological-stasis epoch driven by a tower of decaying states likewise needs negative-energy states to fit the data. The upshot is that every presently discussed rescue of Starobinsky inflation introduces ingredients that are hard to motivate from ultraviolet-complete theories and that erode the geometric simplicity that made the model attractive.

Core claim

Every concrete strategy proposed to bring Starobinsky inflation into agreement with the ACT-preferred spectral index—higher-curvature operators, stiff reheating, or cosmological stasis—inevitably introduces fine-tuned scale hierarchies, deformations of the potential near its minimum, or towers of negative-energy states, thereby undermining the minimality and geometric elegance of the original model.

What carries the argument

One-coupling, two-scale effective f(R) theories (action of the form R + R^{2}/g²∗ − R^{3}/(g²∗Λ^{2}) + …) together with the fine-tuning measure Δ_O that quantifies how sensitively ns reacts to the ultraviolet scale Λ.

Load-bearing premise

The fine-tuning diagnosis rests on a particular average-sensitivity definition that the authors themselves note can be varied to reduce the numerical measure by one or two orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

A controlled ultraviolet completion (string or supergravity) that produces the required higher-curvature coefficients or a stiff reheating phase while keeping all mass hierarchies natural and free of negative-energy states, or a future measurement that returns ns to the pure-Starobinsky value.

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper critically re-examines two strategies for reconciling Starobinsky inflation with the higher scalar spectral index preferred by ACT: (i) higher-curvature corrections to the gravitational action and (ii) modified post-inflationary dynamics (reheating or cosmological stasis). Using dimensional analysis, the authors cast higher-curvature extensions as one-coupling, two-scale EFTs and show that ACT-compatible ns reduces the hierarchy between the scalaron mass M and the UV scale Λ that suppresses R^k operators, thereby increasing UV sensitivity of the observables. Concrete embeddings in no-scale supergravity and metric-affine gravity are shown to realize the same underlying f(R) theory (with inequivalent connections outside the large-|β̃| limit). On the reheating side, the consistency condition that CMB modes re-enter before recombination forces ω_reh > 1/3 for ACT-preferred ns, incompatible with oscillations about the quadratic minimum of the Starobinsky potential. A stasis epoch driven by a tower of decaying states likewise requires negative energy density to accommodate the data. The authors conclude that every examined route introduces ingredients that undermine the original model’s minimality.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the work supplies a clear, multi-pronged argument that the ACT tension cannot be absorbed by minimal deformations of Starobinsky inflation without sacrificing the geometric elegance and UV robustness that made the model a benchmark. Strengths include careful slow-roll analytics, explicit Legendre/Weyl maps to the Einstein frame, multi-particle unitarity bounds that keep the pure R+R^{2} cutoff at the Planck scale, and a transparent consistency relation linking ω_reh (or Ω̄_M) to ns and horizon re-entry. The demonstration that metric-affine pseudo-scalar inflation is phenomenologically equivalent to an f(R) extension of Starobinsky is a non-trivial unification result. The paper therefore offers a useful cautionary map of the landscape for model builders and for the interpretation of forthcoming CMB-S4/LiteBIRD data.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. IV, Eq. (82) and the right panel of Fig. 6: the fine-tuning diagnostic Δ_O = Δ̃_O / c̄ is load-bearing for the claim that ACT data drive the EFTs into an unnatural regime. The authors themselves note that alternative averages for c̄ reduce Δ_O by 1–2 orders of magnitude, leaving the no-scale case only marginally fine-tuned. The qualitative statement that higher ns reduces the M/Λ hierarchy (and therefore increases absolute sensitivity) is robust and model-independent; the absolute threshold Δ_O > 1 is not. The manuscript should either adopt a more stable definition of average sensitivity or rephrase the fine-tuning claim so that it rests solely on the hierarchy reduction and the rise of Δ̃_ns, without relying on a particular normalization of c̄.
  2. Sec. V and the discussion surrounding Eq. (88)–(89): the conclusion that ACT-preferred ns requires ω_reh > 1/3 is solid under the assumption of a single effective fluid during reheating. The paper correctly notes that this is incompatible with oscillations about the quadratic Starobinsky minimum. However, the claim that any deformation yielding p > 4 (or a kination step) is “certainly not natural” is asserted rather than quantified. A short estimate of the size of the higher-dimensional operators needed near φ ≈ 0, or an explicit example of a UV-motivated potential that produces ω_reh > 1/3 while preserving the large-field plateau, would make the naturalness judgment more precise and falsifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 1 caption and main text: the open circle for ΔN★ = 70 is mentioned but the precise value of ns and r at that point is not tabulated; a short numerical inset would help the reader.
  2. Eq. (48) and the accompanying multi-particle unitarity plot: the numerical values of the right-hand side as a function of m are shown only graphically; quoting the asymptotic large-m limit explicitly would improve readability.
  3. Sec. III D 1: the distinction between classical physical equivalence in vacuum and mathematical inequivalence of the connections is carefully drawn, but a one-sentence summary of which observables (if any) could distinguish the two frames outside vacuum would be useful for non-specialists.
  4. Appendix A: the tracking of ℏ and coupling dimensions is thorough; a brief cross-reference to the main-text scaling (40) at the end of the appendix would tighten the link.
  5. Typographical: “Lenght” → “Length” (Sec. III D 1); occasional missing spaces after commas in multi-line equations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: constraints and fine-tuning measures are derived from external ACT/BBN/horizon-reentry requirements plus dimensional analysis, not tautological restatements of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's three main routes (higher-curvature EFTs, reheating consistency, cosmological stasis) each start from independent external inputs: ACT-preferred ns values, the requirement that CMB modes re-enter the horizon before recombination (eq. 88), BBN lower bounds on Treh, and multi-particle unitarity bounds obtained from phase-space-averaged amplitudes (App. A). Parameters such as λ k, ε, |β̃|, ω reh and Ω̄M are then constrained by those external conditions; the resulting statements (reduced Λ/M hierarchy, ω reh>1/3, negative-energy tower) are not forced by construction from the same quantities being fitted. The fine-tuning diagnostic Δ O (eq. 82) is an explicit sensitivity measure whose absolute normalization depends on the choice of average c̄, a dependence the authors themselves quantify and do not hide; the qualitative claim that ACT-compatible ns increases UV sensitivity survives that ambiguity. Reverse-engineering of f(R) from no-scale and metric-affine potentials is a standard Legendre/Weyl map, not a circular definition. Self-citations are limited to background reheating and naturalness results and are not load-bearing for the headline conclusion. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard slow-roll and EFT dimensional analysis plus a small set of free parameters that control the size of higher-curvature corrections or the post-inflationary equation of state. No new particles or forces are postulated; the negative-energy tower is presented as a pathological outcome rather than a proposed entity.

free parameters (5)
  • λ_k (k≥3)
    Dimensionless coefficients of R^k operators; fitted (negative and tiny) to shift n_s into the ACT region (Sec. III A, Fig. 3).
  • ε (no-scale)
    Deviation of the no-scale parameter λ=1-ε; lower-bounded by ACT fit, which keeps the UV scale Λ finite (Sec. III C, Fig. 4).
  • |˜β| (metric-affine)
    Dimensionless torsion parameter; upper-bounded by ACT fit, which again keeps Λ/M finite (Sec. III D, Fig. 5).
  • ω_reh, T_reh
    Effective reheating equation of state and temperature; constrained by horizon re-entry and BBN, with ACT preferring ω_reh>1/3 (Sec. V, Figs. 7–8).
  • ¯Ω_M, ΔN_stasis
    Stasis abundance and duration; ACT fit forces ¯Ω_M≤0 (Sec. VI, Fig. 9).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Slow-roll approximation and the standard expressions for n_s, r, A_s in terms of the potential and ΔN⋆
    Used throughout Secs. II–III to map potentials onto the (n_s,r) plane.
  • domain assumption Dimensional analysis that assigns [C]≡ℏ^{-1/2} and organizes the Lagrangian as a one-coupling multi-scale EFT
    Introduced in Sec. III B and used to define the second scale Λ and the unitarity bounds.
  • domain assumption CMB modes must re-enter the horizon before recombination (log(k_CMB/a_rec H_rec)>0)
    Consistency relation Eq. (88) that forces ω_reh>1/3 for large ΔN⋆.
  • ad hoc to paper Fine-tuning measure Δ_O=˜Δ_O/¯c with the integral definition of average sensitivity ¯c
    Defined in Sec. IV; the authors note that alternative averages change the numerical value by 1–2 orders of magnitude.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 46047 in / 2892 out tokens · 39005 ms · 2026-07-14T15:24:31.940641+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent observations from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) point to a scalar spectral index in tension with the predictions of Starobinsky inflation. Two main strategies have been proposed to reconcile Starobinsky inflation with these data: (i) including higher-curvature operators in the gravitational action, and (ii) modifying the post-inflationary reheating dynamics. We critically re-examine both approaches. When higher-curvature corrections are included, dimensional-analysis arguments allow introducing a second mass scale suppressing higher-dimensional operators, resulting in a one-coupling, two-scale effective theory. We show that fitting the ACT data drives this class of effective theories toward a regime of stronger sensitivity to UV physics, potentially implying fine-tuning of the inflationary observables. We illustrate our general point with two concrete models, namely no-scale supergravity and metric-affine gravity, showing that they provide different realizations of the same underlying $f(R)$ theory. On the reheating side, requiring the CMB modes to re-enter the horizon before recombination leads to stringent constraints on the reheating equation of state, and fitting the ACT data favors an exotic reheating phase with $\omega_{\rm reh} > 1/3$, incompatible with inflaton oscillations about the minimum of the standard Starobinsky potential. Finally, we explore the possibility that a phase of cosmological stasis, driven by a tower of decaying massive states, could play the role of the post-inflationary epoch. We find that accommodating ACT-preferred $n_s$ in this setup requires a tower of states with negative energy density. Taken together, our results suggest that reconciling Starobinsky inflation with the ACT data demands ingredients that are challenging to motivate from the perspective of UV-complete theories, undermining the minimality of the original Starobinsky model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09808 by Alfredo Urbano, Loris Del Grosso, Marcello Ziccolella.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (61) and the metric-affine model of ref

    Metric-Affine vsf(R): (In)equivalence and convergence to Starobinsky predictions It is important to clarify that, although the metric f(R) in eq. (61) and the metric-affine model of ref. [ 8] are phenomenologically equivalent at the inflationary level as shown above, they are not equivalent theories in general. To point out this in-equivalence, we stress ...

  2. [2]

    Following the discussion in section III B, we impose tree-level unitarity by looking at phase-space averaged scattering amplitudes

    Tree-level unitarity bounds The phenomenological behavior in the large- | ˜β| regime motivates investigating upper bounds on | ˜β| by imposing tree-level unitarity, to determine whether the model can reproduce viable slow-roll inflationary dynamics while remaining free of sub-Planckian unitarity problem, as in the case of Starobinsky inflation. Following ...

  3. [3]

    edge effects

    The large hierarchy between Γ ϕ 0 and Γ0 ensures a sufficient temporal separation between inflaton decay and the onset of the stasis epoch. For the chosen initial conditions, eq. (96) impliesm ψ ∼10 11 GeV. We begin the numerical integration at N = 55 with Ω ϕ = 1 and Ω γ = Ωl = 0 for all l. In this representative solution, the inflaton decays completely ...

    2022

  4. [4]

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

    1983

  5. [5]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [8]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [9]

    Dioguardi, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [10]

    Antoniadis, J

    I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis, W. Ke, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, (2025), arXiv:2504.12283 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [11]

    Salvio, Phys

    A. Salvio, Phys. Rev. D112, L061301 (2025), arXiv:2504.10488 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [12]

    Shobcha, N

    N. Shobcha, N. Sidik Risdianto, and R. H. S. Budhi, (2026), arXiv:2606.24131 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [13]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergenov, and S. V. Ketov, (2025), arXiv:2505.10305 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [14]

    S. V. Ketov, E. O. Pozdeeva, and S. Y. Vernov, (2025), arXiv:2508.08927 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  13. [15]

    Drees and Y

    M. Drees and Y. Xu, Phys. Lett. B867, 139612 (2025), arXiv:2504.20757 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [16]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [17]

    D. S. Zharov, O. O. Sobol, and S. I. Vilchinskii, (2025), arXiv:2505.01129 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [18]

    A. R. Liddle and S. M. Leach, Phys. Rev. D68, 103503 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  17. [19]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [20]

    Brinkmann, M

    M. Brinkmann, M. Cicoli, and P. Zito, JHEP09, 038 (2023), arXiv:2305.05703 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [21]

    Farakos, A

    F. Farakos, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B876, 187 (2013), arXiv:1307.1137 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [22]

    Ferrara, R

    S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and M. Porrati, JCAP11, 046 (2013), arXiv:1309.1085 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [23]

    S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP06, 005 (2010), arXiv:0909.1737 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [24]

    D. Y. Cheong, M. G. Park, and S. C. Park, (2025), arXiv:2509.04105 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [25]

    Qiu, Y.-H

    Z.-C. Qiu, Y.-H. Pang, and Q.-G. Huang, (2025), arXiv:2510.18320 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [26]

    C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee, and M. Trott, JHEP09, 103 (2009), arXiv:0902.4465 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  25. [27]

    M. P. Hertzberg, JHEP11, 023 (2010), arXiv:1002.2995 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [28]

    C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee, and M. Trott, JHEP07, 007 (2010), arXiv:1002.2730 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [29]

    Kehagias, A

    A. Kehagias, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D89, 043527 (2014), arXiv:1312.1155 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  28. [30]

    D. Y. Cheong, H. M. Lee, and S. C. Park, Phys. Lett. B805, 135453 (2020), arXiv:2002.07981 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [31]

    M. He, K. Kamada, and K. Mukaida, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 191501 (2024), arXiv:2308.15420 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [32]

    A. D. Linde and A. Westphal, JCAP03, 005 (2008), arXiv:0712.1610 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  31. [33]

    Cremmer, S

    E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, C. Kounnas, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B133, 61 (1983)

    1983

  32. [34]

    J. R. Ellis, A. B. Lahanas, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. B134, 429 (1984)

    1984

  33. [35]

    J. R. Ellis, C. Kounnas, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B241, 406 (1984)

    1984

  34. [36]

    J. R. Ellis, C. Kounnas, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B247, 373 (1984)

    1984

  35. [37]

    J. R. Ellis, C. Kounnas, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B143, 410 (1984)

    1984

  36. [38]

    A. B. Lahanas and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rept.145, 1 (1987)

    1987

  37. [39]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, N. Nagata, N. D. V., K. A. Olive, and S. Verner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 2030011 (2020), arXiv:2009.01709 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [40]

    Ellis, D

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 111301 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 129902 (2013)], arXiv:1305.1247 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [41]

    V. R. Ivanov, S. V. Ketov, E. O. Pozdeeva, and S. Y. Vernov, JCAP03, 058 (2022), arXiv:2111.09058 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [42]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  41. [43]

    Pradisi and A

    G. Pradisi and A. Salvio, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 840 (2022), arXiv:2206.15041 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [44]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.125, 2163 (1962)

    1962

  43. [45]

    Postma and M

    M. Postma and M. Volponi, Physical Review D90(2014), 10.1103/physrevd.90.103516

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.103516 2014

  44. [46]

    Faraoni and S

    V. Faraoni and S. Nadeau, Physical Review D75(2007), 10.1103/physrevd.75.023501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.023501 2007

  45. [47]

    G. W. Anderson and D. J. Castano, Phys. Lett. B347, 300 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9409419

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  46. [48]

    Barbieri and G

    R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B306, 63 (1988)

    1988

  47. [49]

    A. J. Iovino and A. Riotto, (2025), arXiv:2512.19668 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [50]

    J. B. Munoz and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D91, 043521 (2015), arXiv:1412.0656 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [51]

    Allegrini, L

    S. Allegrini, L. Del Grosso, A. J. Iovino, and A. Urbano, Phys. Rev. D111, 123557 (2025), arXiv:2412.14049 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [52]

    Calabreseet al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP11, 063 (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Calabreseet al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP11, 063 (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [53]

    P. Saha, S. Anand, and L. Sriramkumar, Phys. Rev. D102, 103511 (2020), arXiv:2005.01874 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [54]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D28, 1243 (1983)

    1983

  53. [55]

    de Haro and L

    J. de Haro and L. A. Sal´ o, Galaxies9, 73 (2021), arXiv:2108.11144 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [56]

    K. R. Dienes, L. Heurtier, F. Huang, D. Kim, T. M. P. Tait, and B. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D105, 023530 (2022), arXiv:2111.04753 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [57]

    D. S. Gorbunov and A. G. Panin, Phys. Lett. B700, 157 (2011), arXiv:1009.2448 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [58]

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

    1980

  57. [59]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982)

    1982

  58. [60]

    L¨ ust, J

    D. L¨ ust, J. Masias, B. Muntz, and M. Scalisi, JHEP07, 186 (2024), arXiv:2312.13210 [hep-th]. 38

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [61]

    P. G. Catinari, L. Del Grosso, L. Di Giovanni, and A. Urbano, Phys. Rev. D112, L121302 (2025), arXiv:2504.17846 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [62]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [63]

    Allyset al.(LiteBIRD), PTEP2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    E. Allyset al.(LiteBIRD), PTEP2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [64]

    Chang and M

    S. Chang and M. A. Luty, JHEP03, 140 (2020), arXiv:1902.05556 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [65]

    Abu-Ajamieh, S

    F. Abu-Ajamieh, S. Chang, M. Chen, and M. A. Luty, JHEP07, 056 (2021), arXiv:2009.11293 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  64. [66]

    Falkowski and R

    A. Falkowski and R. Rattazzi, JHEP10, 255 (2019), arXiv:1902.05936 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [67]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu, and D. Sutherland, JHEP12, 003 (2021), arXiv:2108.03240 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [68]

    Steingasser, M

    T. Steingasser, M. P. Hertzberg, and D. I. Kaiser, (2025), arXiv:2505.20386 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [69]

    Kleiss, W

    R. Kleiss, W. J. Stirling, and S. D. Ellis, Comput. Phys. Commun.40, 359 (1986)

    1986

  68. [70]

    Creminelli, S

    P. Creminelli, S. Renaux-Petel, G. Tambalo, and V. Yingcharoenrat, (2025), arXiv:2508.19240 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  69. [71]

    G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell, Phys. Rev. D104, 064036 (2021), arXiv:2106.13811 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [72]

    I. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rept.357, 113 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0103093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  71. [73]

    Diakonov, A

    D. Diakonov, A. G. Tumanov, and A. A. Vladimirov, Phys. Rev. D84, 124042 (2011), arXiv:1104.2432 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011