Integrable models of inflation beyond slow-roll

G. Dibitetto; J.F. Morales; M. Bianchi; V. Zevola

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Integrable models of inflation beyond slow-roll

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that for a class of integrable inflationary models built from the Hubble function, scalar and tensor power spectra can be computed beyond the slow-roll approximation, and that the resulting observables are compatible with…

desk verdict Useful integrable-inflation toolkit, but the printed H(a) formulas omit the rescaling constant and are not real on the integration domain, making the headline spectra irreproducible as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06071 v1 pith:Q5QIS3YD submitted 2026-08-06 hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qc

M. Bianchi , G. Dibitetto , J.F. Morales , V. Zevola This is my paper

classification hep-thastro-ph.COgr-qc

keywords inflationfakesuperpotentialMukhanov-Sasakiequationspowerspectrumspectralindextensor-to-scalarratiointegrablecosmologiesbeyondslow-roll

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

This paper claims that a broad class of inflationary models becomes exactly integrable when the scalar potential is repackaged through the Hubble function $H(\phi)$, which acts as a fake superpotential. In those models the background equations reduce to a first-order system, and in scale-factor time the Hubble parameter $H(a)$ is known in closed form, so the Mukhanov-Sasaki equations for scalar and tensor perturbations can be integrated numerically and semi-analytically without assuming slow roll. For the Starobinsky-like model the computation gives $n_s=0.9653$, $n_T=-0.0006$ and $r=0.0034$, and for the T-model $n_s=0.9627$, $n_T=-0.00254$ and $r=0.0096$, both inside the observational bounds the paper quotes. If the results are correct, these are viable models and the method supplies exact reference spectra against which slow-roll approximations can be measured.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hubble function $H(\phi)$, promoted to a fake superpotential by the relation $V(\phi)=3H(\phi)^2-2H_\phi(\phi)^2$, which turns the Friedmann equations into the first-order system $\dot a/a=H$ and $H_\phi=-\dot\phi$. The second piece is scale-factor time $a$: with $J(a)=1/(a^2H(a))$, scalar and tensor perturbations both obey $u_k''(a)+\bigl(k^2J(a)^2-Z''(a)/Z(a)\bigr)u_k(a)=0$, where $Z_S(a)=a^2\sqrt{-2aH'(a)}$ and $Z_T(a)=a^2\sqrt{H(a)}$. This form has only Fuchsian singularities at $a=0$, so Bunch-Davies initial data can be evolved numerically and also matched to local Hankel or parabolic-cylinder solutions around the horizon-crossing and freezing epochs. For each integrable model the closed-form $H(a)$ makes the entire pipeline explicit.

What would settle it

Run an independent numerical integration of the Starobinsky-like model that does not stop at $\epsilon_H=1$ but lets the field pass through the negative-potential minimum, then compare the slope of the frozen scalar power spectrum with the reported $n_s=0.9653$; a shift larger than the few-units-in-the-last-digit oscillations quoted in the paper would falsify the claimed beyond-slow-roll result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that giving the Hubble function $H(\phi)$ rather than the potential $V(\phi)$ makes a large family of scalar-field cosmologies solvable at the background level. With $V(\phi)=3H(\phi)^2-2H_\phi(\phi)^2$, the Friedmann equations become $\dot a/a=H$ and $H_\phi=-\dot\phi$, and for the model families studied the resulting $a(\phi)$ can be inverted in closed form to give $H(a)$. The paper then rewrites the Mukhanov-Sasaki equations in scale-factor time $a$, where both scalar and tensor perturbations obey $u_k''(a)+\bigl(k^2/(a^4H(a)^2)-Z''(a)/Z(a)\bigr)u_k(a)=0$, with $Z$ built from $H(a)$ and its first derivative. Numerically and through piecewise matching with Hankel and parabolic-cylinder functions, it computes the frozen power spectra from Bunch-Davies initial conditions and extracts the spectral indices beyond slow roll. For the Starobinsky-like model it fixes $H_{\mathrm{in}}=7.817\times10^{-7}$ from the observed scalar amplitude and finds $n_s=0.9653$, $n_T=-0.0006$, $r=0.0034$; for the T-model it finds $n_s=0.9627$, $n_T=-0.00254$, $r=0.0096$. The paper concludes that these models are viable and that the slow-roll formulas reproduce the exact predictions closely.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that whatever happens at the end of inflation and during reheating does not change the perturbation amplitudes the model predicts, even though the Starobinsky-like potential is negative at its minimum and the hyperbolic models require a tiny stabilizing constant to be set to zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Starobinsky-like model is observationally viable: fixing $H_{\mathrm{in}}=7.817\times10^{-7}$ from the scalar amplitude makes the predicted $n_s$, $n_T$ and $r$ fall inside the current bounds quoted in the paper.
The T-model is also viable but predicts a tensor-to-scalar ratio about three times larger than the Starobinsky-like model ($r=0.0096$ versus $r=0.0034$), so future B-mode measurements can separate the two.
The exact beyond-slow-roll indices differ from the slow-roll values by small but quantifiable amounts, giving model-specific estimates of the error in the slow-roll approximation.
The piecewise analytic solutions reproduce the frozen numerical spectra, so a model can be checked with matched local solutions instead of a full numerical integration once analytic $H(a)$ is known.
The same first-order scalar-field description covers inflation, kination, radiation, matter and dark-energy eras through $\rho(a)=3H(a)^2$, providing one integrable language for the whole cosmological history.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension the paper leaves open is to continue the perturbation integration through the negative-potential minimum of the Starobinsky-like model; that would test whether the reported $n_s$ and $r$ survive the reheating phase.
Because the pipeline only needs $H(a)$ in closed form, it can be applied to models with intermediate plateaus to compute enhanced small-scale power, the route the paper mentions for primordial black holes.
The exact spectra offer a clean calibration of slow-roll truncations: comparing exact and slow-roll values of $n_s$ across the model families would show where the approximation breaks down.

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

Short version: useful paper with a reproducibility bug in the printed equations. The reader's report gives a conditional pass and lists secondary issues, but it misses the main one: the H(a) formulas used in Section 5 are not real on the integration domain.

What is new: the specific integrable deformations—Lambert-W for the Starobinsky-like and E-models, logarithmic for the T-model—are new closed forms, and the perturbation computation is cross-checked three independent ways (numerical, Hankel matching, parabolic-cylinder matching) that agree. The only fitted quantity is the overall amplitude H_in; n_s and r are genuine predictions. That is a real plus.

The soft spot: Eqs. (3.5)/(3.7) drop the integration constant in a(phi). With the normalization used in Section 5, a=exp(N), the maximum of a is e^{-3/4} for the Starobinsky-like model, yet the text integrates modes with a_c=e^{10} and counts N_e=65. At those values the argument of W_{-1} is far outside [-1/e,0), so (5.17) is not real. The T-model has the same problem: (5.27) is the a<1 branch, while the integrations use a up to e^{65}. The correct formulas need an explicit rescaling constant C, i.e., -(a/C)^{4/3}. Without it, Tables 2 and 3 cannot be reproduced from the stated equations. This is a load-bearing flaw, but fixable: the numerics must have been run with an implicit C that never appears in print.

Secondary issues, in decreasing order of concern: the Starobinsky-like potential has a negative minimum at phi=0 and the paper does not discuss reheating or the post-inflationary vacuum; the hyperbolic models rely on an unquantified hand-set constant to stop inflation; the Lambda-CDM equation of state (2.35) is inconsistent as written; the pivot-scale matching claim (5.18)-(5.20) lacks a derivation; and the Hankel tensor tilt in Table 2 is positive, which is unphysical for single-field inflation, though the numerical and other semi-analytic results are negative. All of these are addressable.

The paper is for readers working on analytic inflationary model building and perturbation theory; they will find explicit integrable models and a cross-checked integration method. The central idea holds up, but as printed the headline numbers are not reproducible. Send it to a referee, and expect a major revision to fix the normalization and re-present the results.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a 'fake superpotential' formalism for scalar-field FLRW cosmologies, in which the Hubble function H(φ) determines the potential through V=3H^2−2H_φ^2 and reduces the background dynamics to first-order equations. The authors propose several integrable inflationary models (Starobinsky-like, polynomial, α-attractor/T-model, trigonometric, hyperbolic), invert a(φ) to obtain H(a), and then compute scalar and tensor power spectra by solving the Mukhanov-Sasaki equations in scale-factor time, using numerical and two semi-analytic matching methods. For the Starobinsky-like model they report n_s=0.9653, n_T=−0.0006, r=0.0034, and for the T-model n_s=0.9627, n_T=−0.00254, r=0.0096, comparing these with slow-roll predictions and observational constraints.

Significance. If the computations were valid as printed, the paper would provide a useful non-slow-roll reference class of models whose spectral indices and tensor-to-scalar ratio are genuine predictions, since the only fitted quantity is the overall amplitude H_in, fixed by the CMB normalization. The presentation of three independent solution strategies for the perturbation equations is also a strength. However, the central numerical results are compromised by a domain error in the analytic H(a) inversions used in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, and by an unaddressed negative vacuum energy in several of the proposed models. These issues must be repaired before the reported tables can be taken as valid.

major comments (4)

[§3.1, Eq. (3.5); §5.2, Eq. (5.17)] The Lambert-function inversion e^{−αφ}=−W_{−1}(−a^{2α²}) is real only for a^{2α²}≤e^{−1}; with α=√(2/3) this restricts the scale factor to a≤e^{−3/4}≈0.47. However, Section 5.2 defines a=e^N with N counted from φ_start, takes N_e=65 at the end of inflation, and integrates modes with crossing at a_c=e^{10} (see Eq. (5.18) and Figure 6). For these values the argument −a^{4/3} is far outside the real domain of W_{−1}, so Eq. (5.17) is not real on the integration range and the power spectra in Table 2 cannot be reproduced from the stated equations. The integration constant omitted in Eq. (3.4) must be restored (for example, by replacing a with a/C in Eq. (5.17)) and the normalization used in the numerical integration specified.
[§3.3, Eqs. (3.20)–(3.22); §5.3, Eq. (5.27)] The T-model inversion has the same domain problem. From Eq. (3.20), cosh(2αφ)=−8α²n log a, so for α=1/4, n=2 the formula (5.27) is real only for log a≤−1, i.e. a≤e^{−1}≈0.37. Section 5.3 nevertheless uses crossing at a_c=e^{10} and integrates from larger values, so the T-model results in Table 3 are not supported by the printed equations. In addition, Eq. (3.22) appears to contain a typo: the correct identity is H/H_in=[(1+8α²n log a)/(8α²n log a−1)]^{n/2} on the inflationary branch, whereas the printed formula uses log² a and has the wrong sign for a<1; this inconsistency between Eq. (3.22) and the special case (5.27) needs to be resolved.
[§3.1, Eq. (3.3); §3.3, Eq. (3.19); Figure 2 caption] The Starobinsky-like potential (3.3) is negative at the minimum φ=0, V(0)=−2α²H_in², and the T-model potential (3.19) is likewise negative at φ=0. Since H(0)=0, the background expansion stops at this minimum, and the paper does not discuss the post-inflationary vacuum, reheating, or whether modes are still frozen when the field reaches this region. The definition of the end of inflation by ε_H=1 in Eq. (5.8) does not address these issues. The authors should either modify H(φ) so that V≥0 while preserving integrability, or explicitly justify that the superhorizon perturbation amplitudes are unaffected by the negative-minimum phase and specify a consistent post-inflationary cosmology.
[§3.5, footnote on page 13] The hyperbolic models 'have the problem of infinite inflation', and the proposed remedy is to add a small constant to H and then set it to zero in the analytic inversion because it is 'very little in our work range of values'. This is an uncontrolled approximation: the constant changes the late-time background, the location of ε_H=1, and therefore the number of e-folds and the observable predictions. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the reported spectral indices to this constant, or exclude the hyperbolic models from the comparison with observations.

minor comments (4)

[§2.4, after Eq. (2.35)] The text says the final plateau corresponds to 'cosmological constant / “dark energy” (w=1)', but a cosmological constant has w=−1; this appears to be a typo.
[§4, opening paragraph] The name 'Muhkanov' should be 'Mukhanov'.
[§5.1, Eq. (5.15)] The least-squares formula for dlogP/dlogk is displayed in a compressed form; please write the denominator explicitly as Σ_i (log k_i − log k)^2, and clarify the averaging notation.
[Table 1] In the row for 'Strings, Curvature', the column header 'T able 1' should be 'Table 1', and in the row for vacuum the deceleration parameter q=−1 as given is correct but should be cross-checked with the displayed column order.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral indices and tensor-to-scalar ratio are genuine predictions from chosen H(a), with only the overall amplitude normalized to CMB.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: each model fixes H(phi), from which a(phi) and H(a) are obtained by the exact first-order equations (2.12) and (2.18), and the Mukhanov-Sasaki equations (4.13) are standard and integrated numerically/semi-analytically without invoking slow-roll. The only quantity fixed by observation is the overall amplitude H_in, matched to the scalar power spectrum normalization (5.19)-(5.20); this normalization drops out of the spectral indices and the tensor-to-scalar ratio, so n_s, n_T and r are not fitted quantities. The self-citations to [16] concern a time-coordinate technique and a qSW dictionary used mainly for possible extensions, while the present perturbation calculation is rederived and independently integrated; no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or unverified result from the authors' prior work is invoked. Therefore no step of the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central computation depends on the Hamilton-Jacobi reduction, model parameters chosen to mimic known models, the standard Bunch-Davies vacuum, and one honest but unquantified approximation (setting to zero the stabilizing constant in hyperbolic models). No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

H_in (Starobinsky-like model) = 7.817e-7 (Planck units)
Determined by matching the computed scalar power spectrum to the observed CMB amplitude 2.1e-9 (Section 5.2, Eq. 5.19-5.20).
H_in (T-model) = 1.134e-6 (Planck units)
Determined by matching P_S to the observed CMB amplitude (Section 5.3, Eq. 5.29).
Model parameters alpha and n = Starobinsky-like alpha=sqrt(2/3); T-model alpha=1/4, n=2; E-model alpha=0.4, n=10
Chosen by hand to mirror known models (Starobinsky, alpha-attractors); not fitted to the observables that are later compared with data.
N_e, number of e-folds = 65
Reference point phi_start chosen 65 e-folds before the end of inflation (Section 5.1); a standard convention that affects which k is the pivot.
Pivot mode k selection = k = 21748 H_in (Starobinsky), k = 21263 H_in (T-model)
Chosen so the mode crosses the Hubble horizon at a_c = e^10; the claim that these match k_star = 0.05 Mpc^-1 is asserted without showing the unit conversion.

assumptions (5)

standard math The Hamilton-Jacobi reduction (V = 3H^2 - 2H_phi^2 and a'/a = W/2) converts the Friedmann equations into a first-order system.
Valid for a single scalar field minimally coupled to Einstein gravity; equivalent to the standard Hamilton-Jacobi formalism of Salopek, Bond and Bardeen, which the paper cites only as a Higgs inflation reference.
domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW metric (kappa = 0) throughout.
Assumed in (2.1) and justified by observational support for a flat universe; a standard modeling choice.
domain assumption Bunch-Davies initial conditions at early times.
Imposed via (4.16) and (5.4); the standard vacuum choice for inflationary perturbations.
standard math Linear-order perturbation theory: Mukhanov-Sasaki equations (4.5) and (4.10).
Well-established linearized Einstein equations for scalar and tensor perturbations; the paper re-derives them in scale-factor time.
ad hoc to paper Analytic inversion of a(phi) and validity of H(a) over the whole integration range, including near the negative potential minimum; for hyperbolic models the stabilizing constant is set to zero.
The Starobinsky-like potential is negative at phi=0 but the background integration uses H(a) throughout; the hyperbolic model footnote explicitly sets the stabilizing constant to zero to preserve integrability (Section 3.5).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrable models of inflation beyond slow-roll." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5QIS3YD

@misc{pith2026260806071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrable models of inflation beyond slow-roll},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5QIS3YD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06071}
}

abstract

We propose a novel analytic approach to the study of multi-component FLRW cosmologies and their perturbations. The dynamics is triggered by a single scalar field with a scalar potential codifying the energy density and pressure of the multi-component fluid. This description unifies standard Big Bang cosmologies, models of inflation and dark energy under a unique framework. The key to integrability is to express the scalar potential in terms of the Hubble function $H(\phi)$ that plays the role of a fake superpotential, turning the dynamics into a first order problem, that may be analytically solved in a suitable time coordinate. In this framework, we propose integrable inflationary models with similar properties to the ones analysed in the literature and compatible with observations. Finally, we study scalar and tensor cosmological perturbations in each model by integrating Mukhanov-Sasaki equations via numerical and (semi-)analytic techniques. This allow us to compute the power spectrum, the spectral indices and the tensor-to-scalar ratio beyond the slow-roll approximation and compare our general results {against} the currently available observations and the theoretical predictions based on the slow-roll approximation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[1]

A. A. Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99–102

1980
[2]

A. H. Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 347–356

1981
[3]

A. D. Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,Phys. Lett. B108(1982) 389–393

1982
[4]

A. D. Linde,Chaotic Inflation,Phys. Lett. B129(1983) 177–181

1983
[5]

A. D. Linde,Eternally Existing Selfreproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe,Phys. Lett. B 175(1986) 395–400. – 26 –

work page 1986
[6]

Riotto,Inflation and the theory of cosmological perturbations,ICTP Lect

A. Riotto,Inflation and the theory of cosmological perturbations,ICTP Lect. Notes Ser.14 (2003) 317–413, [hep-ph/0210162]

arXiv 2003
[7]

Cheung, P

C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Senatore,The Effective Field Theory of Inflation,JHEP03(2008) 014, [arXiv:0709.0293]

arXiv 2008
[8]

Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, P. Creminelli, and L. Randall,Extra natural inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 221302, [hep-th/0301218]. [9]COBECollaboration, G. F. Smootet al.,Structure in the COBE differential microwave radiometer first year maps,Astrophys. J. Lett.396(1992) L1–L5. [10]WMAPCollaboration, C. L. Bennettet al.,Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave A...

arXiv 2003

Show all 38 references

[12]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde,On the present status of inflationary cosmology,Gen. Rel. Grav.57 (2025), no. 10 135, [arXiv:2505.13646]

2025
[13]

D. S. Salopek, J. R. Bond, and J. M. Bardeen,Designing Density Fluctuation Spectra in Inflation,Phys. Rev. D40(1989) 1753

1989
[14]

F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov,The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,Phys. Lett. B659(2008) 703–706, [arXiv:0710.3755]

2008 arXiv
[15]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde,New Exponential and Polynomialα-attractors,arXiv:2605.04415

arXiv
[16]

Bianchi, G

M. Bianchi, G. Dibitetto, and J. F. Morales,Gauge theory meets cosmology,JCAP12(2024) 040, [arXiv:2408.03243]

2024 arXiv
[17]

L. A. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky,Inflationary Universe Generated by the Combined Action of a Scalar Field and Gravitational Vacuum Polarization,Phys. Lett. B157 (1985) 361–367

1985
[18]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde,Universality Class in Conformal Inflation,JCAP07(2013) 002, [arXiv:1306.5220]

2013 arXiv
[19]

Ferrara, R

S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and M. Porrati,Minimal Supergravity Models of Inflation, Phys. Rev. D88(2013), no. 8 085038, [arXiv:1307.7696]

2013 arXiv
[20]

Kallosh, A

R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest,Superconformal Inflationaryα-Attractors,JHEP11(2013) 198, [arXiv:1311.0472]

2013 arXiv
[21]

Galante, R

M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest,Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015), no. 14 141302, [arXiv:1412.3797]

2015 arXiv
[22]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde,Escher in the Sky,Comptes Rendus Physique16(2015) 914–927, [arXiv:1503.06785]

2015 arXiv
[23]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde,B-mode Targets,Phys. Lett. B798(2019) 134970, [arXiv:1906.04729]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde,CMB targets after the latest Planck data release,Phys. Rev. D100 (2019), no. 12 123523, [arXiv:1909.04687]

2019 arXiv
[25]

Freese, J

K. Freese, J. A. Frieman, and A. V. Olinto,Natural Inflation with Pseudo - Nambu-Goldstone Bosons,Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990) 3233–3236

1990
[26]

Sasaki,Large Scale Quantum Fluctuations in the Inflationary Universe,Prog

M. Sasaki,Large Scale Quantum Fluctuations in the Inflationary Universe,Prog. Theor. Phys. 76(1986) 1036. – 27 –

1986
[27]

V. F. Mukhanov,Quantum Theory of Gauge Invariant Cosmological Perturbations,Sov. Phys. JETP67(1988) 1297–1302

1988
[28]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space, Phys. Rev. Lett.93(2004) 171104, [astro-ph/0309300]

2004 arXiv
[29]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon cosmology,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 044026, [astro-ph/0309411]

2004 arXiv
[30]

Skenderis and P

K. Skenderis and P. K. Townsend,Hidden supersymmetry of domain walls and cosmologies, Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 191301, [hep-th/0602260]

2006 arXiv
[31]

McFadden and K

P. McFadden and K. Skenderis,Holography for Cosmology,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 021301, [arXiv:0907.5542]

2010 arXiv
[32]

McFadden and K

P. McFadden and K. Skenderis,Holographic Non-Gaussianity,JCAP05(2011) 013, [arXiv:1011.0452]

2011 arXiv
[33]

Bartolo, E

N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto,Non-Gaussianity from inflation: Theory and observations,Phys. Rept.402(2004) 103–266, [astro-ph/0406398]

2004 arXiv
[34]

Babich, P

D. Babich, P. Creminelli, and M. Zaldarriaga,The Shape of non-Gaussianities,JCAP08 (2004) 009, [astro-ph/0405356]

2004 arXiv
[35]

J. M. Maldacena and G. L. Pimentel,On graviton non-Gaussianities during inflation,JHEP 09(2011) 045, [arXiv:1104.2846]

2011 arXiv
[36]

Arkani-Hamed, D

N. Arkani-Hamed, D. Baumann, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel,The Cosmological Bootstrap: Inflationary Correlators from Symmetries and Singularities,JHEP04(2020) 105, [arXiv:1811.00024]

2020 arXiv
[37]

Baumann, C

D. Baumann, C. Duaso Pueyo, A. Joyce, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel,The Cosmological Bootstrap: Spinning Correlators from Symmetries and Factorization,SciPost Phys.11(2021) 071, [arXiv:2005.04234]

2021 arXiv
[38]

Sleight and M

C. Sleight and M. Taronna,Bootstrapping Inflationary Correlators in Mellin Space,JHEP02 (2020) 098, [arXiv:1907.01143]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Sleight and M

C. Sleight and M. Taronna,From AdS to dS exchanges: Spectral representation, Mellin amplitudes, and crossing,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 8 L081902, [arXiv:2007.09993]

2021 arXiv
[40]

Sleight and M

C. Sleight and M. Taronna,From dS to AdS and back,JHEP12(2021) 074, [arXiv:2109.02725]

2021 arXiv
[41]

Franciolini, A

G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto,Primordial Black Holes from Inflation and non-Gaussianity,JCAP03(2018) 016, [arXiv:1801.09415]. [42]LISA Cosmology W orking GroupCollaboration, E. Baguiet al.,Primordial black holes and their gravitational-wave signature...

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A. A. Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99–102

1980

[2] [2]

A. H. Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 347–356

1981

[3] [3]

A. D. Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,Phys. Lett. B108(1982) 389–393

1982

[4] [4]

A. D. Linde,Chaotic Inflation,Phys. Lett. B129(1983) 177–181

1983

[5] [5]

A. D. Linde,Eternally Existing Selfreproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe,Phys. Lett. B 175(1986) 395–400. – 26 –

work page 1986

[6] [6]

Riotto,Inflation and the theory of cosmological perturbations,ICTP Lect

A. Riotto,Inflation and the theory of cosmological perturbations,ICTP Lect. Notes Ser.14 (2003) 317–413, [hep-ph/0210162]

arXiv 2003

[7] [7]

Cheung, P

C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Senatore,The Effective Field Theory of Inflation,JHEP03(2008) 014, [arXiv:0709.0293]

arXiv 2008

[8] [8]

Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, P. Creminelli, and L. Randall,Extra natural inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 221302, [hep-th/0301218]. [9]COBECollaboration, G. F. Smootet al.,Structure in the COBE differential microwave radiometer first year maps,Astrophys. J. Lett.396(1992) L1–L5. [10]WMAPCollaboration, C. L. Bennettet al.,Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave A...

arXiv 2003