Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Investigating $f(R)$-Inflation: background evolution and constraints

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that metric $f(R)$ gravity in the Jordan frame can drive a quasi-de Sitter inflationary phase, reheat through particle creation during inflation, match $\Lambda$CDM afterward, and pass current background and CMB spectral…

desk verdict A transparently-built f(R) inflation plus particle-creation model with a competent background analysis, but its CMB 'prediction' is a tuned consistency check and the central trajectory is selected by an imposed, underived decoupling condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13890 v2 pith:XIO5XYXG submitted 2025-07-18 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Elisa Fazzari , Chiara De Leo , Giovanni Montani , Matteo Martinelli , Alessandro Melchiorri , Guadalupe Cañas-Herrera This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 98.80.Cq04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords f(R)gravityinflationJordanframeparticlecreationreheatingHubbletensionprimordialpowerspectrumcosmologicalbackgrounddata
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 sets out to show that a metric $f(R)$ modified-gravity theory (a gravity theory whose Lagrangian is an arbitrary function of the Ricci scalar $R$), written in the Jordan frame with a non-minimally coupled scalar field $\phi=f'(R)$ and a potential treated as a dynamical unknown, can generate a viable quasi-de Sitter inflationary phase without fixing the $f(R)$ Lagrangian in advance. A thermodynamic radiation-creation source makes the reheating happen during inflation, and the modified expansion is matched to the standard cosmological model at the end of inflation. The background history is then confronted with DESI+BBN BAO data and Pantheon+ supernovae calibrated with SH0ES, and the predicted spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio are compared with Planck, ACT, and SPT constraints. The central claim is that the model yields a successful early de Sitter phase, a smooth transition to $\Lambda$CDM, and primordial observables consistent with current CMB bounds, while also offering a route to alleviate the Hubble tension.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Jordan-frame scalar representation of $f(R)$ gravity, in which the potential $V(\phi)$ is promoted to a dynamical unknown of the form $V=2\chi\rho_\Lambda+U(\phi)$, and the system is closed by the decoupling split $H^2=U/(6\phi)$ and $H^2=-\chi(\rho_r+\rho_\Lambda)/(3\phi')$, Eqs. (2.20a)--(2.20b). This split selects the evolution that stays closest to $\Lambda$CDM and is what makes the a-posteriori reconstruction of $f(R)$ possible. The second ingredient is the thermodynamic particle-creation term $d\ln N/d\ln V=(H/H_c)^{2\beta}$, which maintains a radiation component during the de Sitter phase and supplies the reheating. The viability checks on $f_R$, $f_{RR}$, and the scalar mass, together with the slow-roll parameters, then connect the reconstructed theory to $n_s$ and $r$.

What would settle it

Run the model's full scalar and tensor perturbation equations through the Planck+ACT+SPT likelihood: the paper predicts $n_s$ inside $0.9684\pm0.003$ for $N\simeq50$--$54$ e-folds and $r\sim10^{-9}$, so finding $n_s$ outside that band at the required e-folds, or a materially worse fit than $\Lambda$CDM at the matched end-of-inflation epoch, would falsify the central claim; a future detection of $r\gtrsim10^{-3}$ would likewise rule out the predicted tensor spectrum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's construction, the scalar field $\phi\equiv f'(R)$ and the potential $V(\phi)=\phi R-f(R)$ are the working variables, and $V$ is promoted to a dynamical quantity with a constant term $2\chi\rho_\Lambda$ plus a generic $U(\phi)$. Imposing a decoupling split of the generalized Friedmann equation and a particle-creation ansatz closes the system, so the background is solved first and the corresponding $f(R)$ is reconstructed afterward. The reconstructed theory satisfies the standard viability requirements $f_R>0$, $f_{RR}>0$, and $m^2>0$, and it resembles the quadratic-$R$ inflation prototype in the relevant curvature range up to an additive constant. Fitted to DESI+BBN and Pantheon++SH0ES, the model returns $H_0=71.04\pm0.71$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ for the combined data, predicts $n_s$ within the Planck+ACT+SPT 68% band for roughly $50$--$54$ e-folds, gives $r$ of order $10^{-9}$, and produces a reheating temperature near $10^{10}$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the extra decoupling split of Eqs. (2.20a)--(2.20b), imposed rather than derived from an action or a physical principle; if that split is not the right physics, the reconstructed $f(R)$, the end-of-inflation epoch, and the derived $H_0$ all lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Metric $f(R)$ gravity can generate inflation without guessing the Lagrangian first: the potential is solved dynamically and the function $f(R)$ is recovered afterward, with the standard stability conditions satisfied.
  • Reheating can occur during inflation through gravitational particle creation rather than through post-inflationary oscillations of the scalar field, with a reheating temperature near $10^{10}$ GeV.
  • The same early-time modification shifts the derived present-day Hubble constant, and the combined DESI+Pantheon+ fit returns $H_0=71.04\pm0.71$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, a value closer to the SH0ES calibration and a reduced tension.
  • The model predicts $n_s$ consistent with Planck+ACT+SPT for about 50--54 e-folds and a tensor-to-scalar ratio of order $10^{-9}$, far below the current $r\le0.032$ bound.
  • The inferred end-of-inflation epoch and present matter density are degenerate in the fits, so different pairs of $\Omega_m$ and $x_{\mathrm{end}}$ reproduce the same late-time expansion history.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the decoupling split is not derived from an action, the reconstructed $f(R)$ is best read as a phenomenological parametrization of the inflationary era; an explicit variational principle yielding the same field equations would turn the construction into a fundamental theory.
  • Because radiation is produced during inflation itself, the model's post-inflationary relic content differs from conventional reheating models, so a full perturbation analysis could reveal distinctive signatures in the gravitational-wave background or in dark-matter production.
  • The degeneracies found between $\Omega_m$ and $x_{\mathrm{end}}$ and between $\gamma$ and $U^*_{\mathrm{end}}$ mean background data alone cannot locate the end of inflation; only the full CMB perturbation computation can break these directions.
  • A positive detection of primordial B-mode polarization at $r\gtrsim10^{-3}$ would exclude the predicted tensor spectrum, whereas the scalar prediction is testable once the model's perturbation equations are run through a complete CMB likelihood.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a metric-f(R) inflationary model in the Jordan frame, treating the non-minimally coupled scalar-field potential as a dynamical quantity and reconstructing f(R) a posteriori. A thermodynamic particle-creation term with rate (H/H_c)^{2\beta} is introduced to provide reheating, and the model is matched to Lambda-CDM at an end-of-inflation epoch x_end. To close the dynamical system, the authors impose a decoupling ansatz, Eqs. (2.20a)-(2.20b), which splits the generalized Friedmann equation into a potential term and a matter term. The model is then constrained with DESI DR2+BBN and Pantheon++SH0ES data, yielding constraints on Omega_m, x_end, gamma, U*_end, and N_nu, and a derived value of H0 that is used to discuss the Hubble tension. Using the best-fit background solutions, the paper computes the scalar spectral index n_s and tensor-to-scalar ratio r with slow-roll formulas and claims agreement with Planck+ACT+SPT constraints.

Significance. If established, the model would provide a unified f(R)-inflation scenario with a built-in reheating mechanism, a smooth transition to Lambda-CDM, and a potential resolution of the Hubble tension. The background analysis is careful and reproducible: the use of Nautilus/Cobaya, the public CANDI implementation, the explicit discussion of prior-dominated parameters, and the transparent treatment of degeneracies are strengths. However, the central viability claim is not yet sustained as stated: the inflationary trajectory is selected by an imposed closure condition rather than derived, and the reported spectral-index agreement is partly a consequence of fiducial parameter choices made in Appendix A. These issues are load-bearing, so the paper requires substantial revision before its conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eqs. (2.20a)-(2.20b)] The decoupling condition is an additional assumption, not a consequence of the action or field equations. The system (2.19a)-(2.19c) contains four unknowns (H, phi, U, rho_r) and three equations, and the paper closes it by imposing H^2=U/(6 phi) and H^2=-chi(rho_r+rho_Lambda)/(3 phi'), with the text stating that this 'selects' a solution rather than deriving one. Since the reconstructed U(phi), the resulting f(R), the matching point x_end, H0 in Eq. (3.1), and the n_s and r values in Section 5.1 all depend on this closure, the central claim that the model 'generates' a de Sitter phase and agrees with CMB constraints is conditional on an arbitrary choice. Appendix C rules out only one alternative ansatz; it does not establish uniqueness or physical necessity. Please either derive the closure from an underlying principle or explicitly reframe the paper as a reconstruction study, and add a test (e.g., full perturbation equations or a stability scan over admissible closures) that can distinguish the chosen ansatz.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Appendix A, Fig. 9] The reported agreement of n_s with Planck+ACT+SPT is not an independent prediction. Appendix A states that beta=10^-3, H_c*=0.1, and Omega*_r,end=10 were adopted because this combination keeps n_s inside the 68% band over the relevant e-folding range. These parameters are then held fixed in the analysis, so the n_s curve in Fig. 6a is a consequence of the fiducial choice, not a falsifiable output of the model. In addition, Eqs. (5.3)-(5.4) are single-field slow-roll formulas; their applicability to a model with a radiation fluid and a particle-creation source is not established merely by noting that rho_r is subdominant at the evaluation epoch. The section should either be presented as an illustration of parameter tuning or be replaced by a computation within the full perturbation theory of the model.
  3. [Section 4 vs. Section 6] The paper reports mutually inconsistent statements of the central Hubble-tension result. Section 4 states that the DESI+Pantheon+ combination reduces the tension with SH0ES to 1.59 sigma and that DESI and Pantheon+ are in 3.7 sigma tension, while Section 6 quotes 2.81 sigma and 5 sigma for the same quantities. Since alleviating the Hubble tension is one of the paper's stated goals, the correct numbers and the definition of the tension (including the SH0ES value assumed) must be given consistently. Additionally, Eq. (3.4) fixes t_end and t_eq by hand; the resulting N_nu and H0 depend on this assumption, and its impact should be quantified.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.1)] The Ricci scalar is written as R=12H^2 - 3H'^2, but from Eq. (2.7) and d/dt=-H d/dx one obtains R=12H^2 - 6 H H'. Because the reconstructed f*(R*), the conditions f_R>0 and f_RR>0, and the mass m*^2 all rely on R(x), this apparent error must be corrected and the viability plots recomputed. If the text intended a different definition of the prime derivative, that definition should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The prior ranges for gamma and log10 U*_end are printed as U(47.5,45.5) and U(6,3.5), i.e., with lower bounds larger than upper bounds; if these are not typographical inversions, the sampling is ill-defined.
  2. [Section 2.4, Eq. (2.24d)] As written, the particle-creation factor contains H_{c*}^{2 beta} in the numerator; using the definition H_c* = H_c/H* in Eq. (2.25), the correct combination appears to be [-(Omega_r*+1)/phi']^beta divided by H_{c*}^{2 beta}. Please check the sign and placement of H_c*.
  3. [Table 1 and Eq. (3.2)] The prior on Omega_b h^2 is listed as N(0.005,0.1), which is inconsistent with the BBN value Omega_b h^2 = 0.02196 +/- 0.00063 quoted in Eq. (3.2); the printed prior mean and width should be corrected.
  4. [Section 5.1, Fig. 6] The figures show both N and x on the horizontal axis; the relation N = x - x_end should be stated explicitly in the captions to avoid confusion.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'ass es' in the abstract, 'modifcations', 'implmented', and 'catalougue' in Section 6; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The spectral-index compatibility claim is partly circular: Appendix A chooses the fixed model parameters to sit inside the Planck+ACT+SPT n_s band, and Section 5.1 then presents the result as a prediction; the background and H0 analysis is otherwise self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A; Table 2; Section 5.1; Section 6]
    "Based on this analysis, we adopt the fiducial values β = 10^-3, Ω*_rend = 10, H*_c = 0.1, as this combination yields values of n_s consistent with the Planck+ACT+SPT constraint across the relevant e-folding range. ... We computed the inflationary observables n_s and r predicted by our theory using the best-fit values from the background analysis reported in Table 4, in order to assess, at a preliminary stage, if the model is compatible with the most recent constraints. ... Our model successfully generates an early de Sitter phase ..."

    The parameters β, H*_c, and Ω*_rend are fixed (Table 2) because they do not affect the background evolution. Appendix A scans their values and selects the combination that keeps n_s inside the Planck+ACT+SPT 68% C.L. band for N in (50,60); the quoted text says the chosen combination yields n_s consistent with that constraint. Section 5.1 then presents n_s computed with those same fixed values as a 'predicted' observable, and the Conclusion asserts the predicted spectrum agrees with CMB. The agreement is therefore an input to the fiducial-value selection, not an independent output of the model. This is a partial circularity affecting the CMB-compatibility claim; the DESI/Pantheon background fit and the derived H0 are separate, independently tested results.

full rationale

The background-level analysis is not circular: Eq. (3.1) derives H0 from the model and H0, x_end, γ, and U*_end are sampled against DESI and Pantheon+, so those constraints are genuine external evidence. The decoupling conditions (2.20a)-(2.20b) are an openly imposed assumption that closes an underdetermined system, and the paper reconstructs V(phi) and f(R) a posteriori; this is a robustness/correctness caveat rather than a circular reduction. The concrete circular step is the n_s compatibility claim: β, H*_c, and Ω*_rend are fixed in Table 2 precisely because Appendix A requires n_s to remain inside the Planck+ACT+SPT 68% band, and Section 5.1 plus the Conclusion then report the resulting n_s as 'predicted' and 'in agreement' with CMB constraints. The agreement is thus built into the fiducial-value choice rather than emerging from the model. A score of 6 reflects a partial circularity in one headline claim, while the main background constraints remain independent.

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

The model is built on a phenomenological particle-creation ansatz, an ad hoc decoupling of the Friedmann equation, a hand-picked matching to Lambda-CDM with fixed reference times, and slow-roll formulas borrowed from standard f(R) perturbation theory. Three parameters (beta, H_c^*, Omega_r*_end) are subsequently tuned in Appendix A so that the predicted spectral index stays inside the observed band, further reducing the independence of the claimed CMB compatibility.

free parameters (6)
  • beta (particle creation exponent) = 10^-3 (fixed)
    Exponent in the creation ansatz, Eq. (2.15); unconstrained by background data and fixed by hand in Appendix A to keep n_s inside the Planck+ACT+SPT band.
  • H_c^* (normalized creation scale) = 0.1 (fixed)
    Critical Hubble scale in Eq. (2.15), normalized to H_*; chosen in Appendix A for spectral-index compatibility.
  • Omega_r*_end (radiation density at end of inflation) = 10 (fixed)
    Boundary condition in Eq. (2.26); fixed in Appendix A to keep n_s within the observed 68% band.
  • x_end (end-of-inflation e-fold) = 56.30 (best fit)
    Sampled parameter; determines when inflation ends and the universe matches Lambda-CDM; constrained by DESI and Pantheon+ data, degenerate with Omega_m.
  • gamma = log10(H*) = 46.36 (best fit)
    Sampled parameter controlling the amplitude of the early Hubble rate; degenerate with U*_end and constrained by background data.
  • U*_end (normalized potential at end of inflation) = ~1.5e5 (best fit, prior-dominated)
    Sampled parameter for the normalized potential at the end of inflation; the paper notes the posterior is dominated by the log prior and the hard H0 interval.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Metric f(R) gravity is dynamically equivalent to a non-minimally coupled scalar field with potential V(phi) in the Jordan frame (Eq. 2.2).
    Standard scalar-tensor equivalence invoked in Section 2.1 to rewrite the action.
  • domain assumption Background is a flat FLRW universe (Eq. 2.3).
    Assumed throughout the paper and in the data analysis; flatness is consistent with CMB but is a choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Particle production rate obeys d ln N/d ln V = (H/H_c)^{2 beta}, Eq. (2.15).
    Phenomenological ansatz closing the thermodynamic continuity equation; no microphysical derivation is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The Friedmann equation is decoupled into H^2=U/(6 phi) and H^2=-chi(rho_r+rho_Lambda)/(3 phi'), Eqs. (2.20a)-(2.20b).
    Imposed in Section 2.4 to make the system solvable and to select the quasi-de Sitter trajectory; not derived from the action.
  • ad hoc to paper The universe matches Lambda-CDM at x_end with phi(x_end)=1, and radiation-matter equality is linked to x_end via fixed times t_end=1e-32 s and t_eq=1e11 s, Eqs. (3.4)-(3.5).
    Boundary and calibration assumptions used to derive N_nu and to relate H0 to the model parameters in Eq. (3.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Slow-roll formulas n_s ~ 1+6 epsilon_3 - 2 epsilon_4 and r ~ epsilon_4^2/4 (Eqs. 5.3-5.4) apply to this theory.
    Adopted from standard f(R) slow-roll literature in Section 5.1 without deriving perturbation equations for the particle-creating model; full perturbation analysis is declared future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating $f(R)$-Inflation: background evolution and constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XIO5XYXG

@misc{pith2026250713890,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating $f(R)$-Inflation: background evolution and constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XIO5XYXG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13890}
}
abstract

In this work, we investigate the possibility of generating an inflationary mechanism within the framework of a metric-$f(R)$ modified gravity theory, formulated in the Jordan frame. We explore whether the scalar field, non-minimally coupled to gravity and emerging in the Jordan frame, can play the role of the primordial inflaton. Particular attention is devoted to constructing a dynamical scenario in the Jordan frame that exhibits a slow-rolling phase for the scalar field and admits a quasi-de Sitter solution for cosmic evolution. To ensure consistency with the standard cosmological model, we impose a matching condition with the $\Lambda$CDM model at the end of the inflationary phase. Furthermore, to address the problem of the absence of matter after inflation, we consider a radiation-type particle creation process that maintains an approximately constant energy density. We test our theoretical model against background observational data, specifically Pantheon$^+$ calibrated with SH0ES and DESI calibrated with BBN. We asses the model's viability by combining theoretical consistency tests with its predictions for primordial power spectrum observables, and we discuss the implications for alleviating the Hubble constant tension.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Primordial black holes formation in inflationary $F(R)$ models with scalar fields

    gr-qc 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Authors add induced gravity and a polynomial potential to an F(R) model, transform to a two-field chiral cosmology, and find parameter choices that match ACT inflation data while yielding PBH masses compatible with da...

  2. Two Dynamical Scenarios for Binned Master Sample Interpretation

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A model where dark energy is created by gravity and interacts with matter can mimic the decreasing running Hubble constant seen in binned supernovae, but only after its free parameter is tuned to that same trend.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,Phys

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

    1980

  2. [2]

    Sato,First-order phase transition of a vacuum and the expansion of the Universe,Mon

    K. Sato,First-order phase transition of a vacuum and the expansion of the Universe,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.195(1981) 467

    1981

  3. [3]

    Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys

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

    1981

  4. [4]

    Linde,Chaotic inflation,Physics Letters B129(1983) 177

    A. Linde,Chaotic inflation,Physics Letters B129(1983) 177

    1983

  5. [5]

    Kolb and M.S

    E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner,The Early Universe, vol. 69, Taylor and Francis (5, 2019), 10.1201/9780429492860

    doi:10.1201/9780429492860 2019

  6. [6]

    Weinberg,Cosmology, Oxford University Press (2008)

    S. Weinberg,Cosmology, Oxford University Press (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    Montani, M.V

    G. Montani, M.V. Battisti, R. Benini and G. Imponente,Primordial cosmology, World Scientific, Singapore (2009), 10.1142/7235

    work page doi:10.1142/7235 2009

  8. [8]

    Lange, P.A

    A.E. Lange, P.A. Ade, J. Bock, J. Bond, J. Borrill, A. Boscaleri et al.,Cosmological parameters from the first results of Boomerang,Physical Review D63(2001) 042001

    work page 2001

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton,The evidence for a spatially flat Universe,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters496(2020) L91

    2020

  2. [10]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri and J. Silk,Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology,Nature Astronomy4(2020) 196. [11]Planckcollaboration,Planck2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters,Astronomy& Astrophysics641(2020) A6. – 28 –

    2020

  3. [12]

    Riotto,Inflation and the Theory of Cosmological Perturbations,hep-ph/0210162

    A. Riotto,Inflation and the Theory of Cosmological Perturbations,hep-ph/0210162

    arXiv

  4. [13]

    Peacock,Cosmological Physics, Cambridge University Press (1998)

    J.A. Peacock,Cosmological Physics, Cambridge University Press (1998)

    1998

  5. [14]

    Patrignani, K

    C. Patrignani, K. Agashe, G. Aielli, C. Amsler, M. Antonelli, D. Asner et al.,Review of particle physics,

  6. [15]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov,Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: From f(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models,Physics Reports505(2011) 59

    2011

  7. [16]

    Capozziello and M.D

    S. Capozziello and M.D. Laurentis,Extended Theories of Gravity,Physics Reports509(2011) 167

    2011

  8. [17]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov and V. Oikonomou,Modified gravity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution,Physics Reports692(2017) 1

    2017

  9. [18]

    Vilenkin,Classical and Quantum Cosmology of the Starobinsky Inflationary Model,Phys

    A. Vilenkin,Classical and Quantum Cosmology of the Starobinsky Inflationary Model,Phys. Rev. D32(1985) 2511

    1985

  10. [19]

    Sebastiani, G

    L. Sebastiani, G. Cognola, R. Myrzakulov, S. Odintsov and S. Zerbini,Nearly Starobinsky inflation from modified gravity,Physical Review D89(2014)

    2014

  11. [20]

    Ivanov, S.V

    V.R. Ivanov, S.V. Ketov, E.O. Pozdeeva and S.Y. Vernov,Analytic extensions of Starobinsky model of inflation,JCAP03(2022) 058 [2111.09058]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Appleby, R.A

    S.A. Appleby, R.A. Battye and A.A. Starobinsky,Curing singularities in cosmological evolDeFelice:2010ajution of F(R) gravity,JCAP06(2010) 005 [0909.1737]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Kehagias, A.M

    A. Kehagias, A.M. Dizgah and A. Riotto,Remarks on the Starobinsky model of inflation and its descendants,Physical Review D89(2014)

    2014

  14. [23]

    Kuralkar, S

    H.J. Kuralkar, S. Panda and A. Vidyarthi,Effective Starobinsky pre-inflation,2504.15061

  15. [24]

    Odintsov, V.K

    S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou and G.S. Sharov,Viable F(R) scenarios unifying inflation with realistic dynamical dark energy,JHEAp52(2026) 100579 [2601.06949]

    2026

  16. [25]

    Sotiriou and V

    T.P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni,f(R) Theories Of Gravity,Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 451 [0805.1726]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Montani, M

    G. Montani, M. De Angelis, F. Bombacigno and N. Carlevaro,Metric f(R) gravity with dynamical dark energy as a scenario for the Hubble tension,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527 (2023) L156 [2306.11101]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro and M. De Angelis,Modified gravity in the presence of matter creation: Scenario for the late Universe,Entropy26(2024) 662

    2024

  19. [28]

    Montani, M

    G. Montani, M. De Angelis and M.G. Dainotti,Decay of dark energy into dark matter in a metric f(R) gravity: Effective running Hubble constant,Phys. Dark Univ.49(2025) 101969 [2506.13288]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Odintsov, V.K

    S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, I. Giannakoudi, F.P. Fronimos and E.C. Lymperiadou,Recent Advances in Inflation,Symmetry15(2023) 1701 [2307.16308]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Oikonomou,Model AgnosticF(R)Gravity Inflation,2504.00915

    V.K. Oikonomou,Model AgnosticF(R)Gravity Inflation,2504.00915

  22. [31]

    Odintsov and V.K

    S.D. Odintsov and V.K. Oikonomou,Inflationary attractors in F(R) gravity,Phys. Lett. B807 (2020) 135576 [2005.12804]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Oikonomou,Rescaled Einstein-Hilbert Gravity fromf(R)Gravity: Inflation, Dark Energy and the Swampland Criteria,Phys

    V.K. Oikonomou,Rescaled Einstein-Hilbert Gravity fromf(R)Gravity: Inflation, Dark Energy and the Swampland Criteria,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 124028 [2012.01312]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [33]

    L´ opez and J.J

    S.S. L´ opez and J.J. Terente D ´ ıaz,Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves in Palatinif(R) Gravity,2505.13420

  25. [34]

    Kouniatalis and E.N

    G. Kouniatalis and E.N. Saridakis,Inflation from a generalized exponential plateau: towards extra suppressed tensor-to-scalar ratios,2507.17721. – 29 –

  26. [35]

    Gomes, J.G

    C. Gomes, J.G. Rosa and O. Bertolami,Inflation in non-minimal matter-curvature coupling theories,JCAP06(2017) 021 [1611.02124]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Gomes, O

    C. Gomes, O. Bertolami and J.G. Rosa,Inflation withP lanckdata: A survey of some exotic inflationary models,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 104061 [1803.08084]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Di Valentino, J.L

    E. Di Valentino, J.L. Said, A. Riess, A. Pollo, V. Poulin, A. G´ omez-Valente et al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, 2025

    2025

  29. [38]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri et al.,In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,Classical and Quantum Gravity38(2021) 153001

    2021

  30. [39]

    Escamilla, D

    L.A. Escamilla, D. Fiorucci, G. Montani and E.D. Valentino,Exploring the Hubble tension with a late time Modified Gravity scenario, 2024

    2024

  31. [40]

    Schiavone and G

    T. Schiavone and G. Montani,Evolution of an effective Hubble constant in f(R) modified gravity,Nuovo Cim. C48(2025) 105 [2408.01410]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, L.A. Escamilla and E. Di Valentino,Kinetic model for dark energy—dark matter interaction: Scenario for the hubble tension,Phys. Dark Univ.48(2025) 101848 [2404.15977]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro and M.G. Dainotti,Slow-rolling scalar dynamics as solution for the Hubble tension,Physics of the Dark Universe44(2024) 101486

    2024

  34. [43]

    Schiavone, G

    T. Schiavone, G. Montani and F. Bombacigno,f(R) gravity in the Jordan frame as a paradigm for the Hubble tension,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.522(2023) L72 [2211.16737]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Giar` e,Inflation, the Hubble tension, and early dark energy: An alternative overview,Phys

    W. Giar` e,Inflation, the Hubble tension, and early dark energy: An alternative overview,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 123545 [2404.12779]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Calvao, J

    M. Calvao, J. Lima and I. Waga,On the thermodynamics of matter creation in cosmology, Physics Letters A162(1992) 223

    1992

  37. [46]

    Montani,Influence of the particles creation on the flat and negative curved FLR W universes,Class

    G. Montani,Influence of the particles creation on the flat and negative curved FLR W universes,Class. Quant. Grav.18(2001) 193 [gr-qc/0101113]

    2001 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Fazzari, M.G

    E. Fazzari, M.G. Dainotti, G. Montani and A. Melchiorri,The effective running Hubble constant in SNe Ia as a marker for the dark energy nature,2506.04162. [48]DESIcollaboration,DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,JCAP02(...

    2025

  39. [50]

    Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [51]

    Faraoni and S

    V. Faraoni and S. Capozziello,Beyond Einstein Gravity: A Survey of Gravitational Theories for Cosmology and Astrophysics,

  41. [52]

    Sotiriou,f(R) gravity and scalar-tensor theory,Class

    T.P. Sotiriou,f(R) gravity and scalar-tensor theory,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 5117 [gr-qc/0604028]

    2006 arXiv

  42. [53]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,f(R) theories,Living Rev. Rel.13(2010) 3 [1002.4928]

    2010 arXiv

  43. [54]

    Dolgov and M

    A.D. Dolgov and M. Kawasaki,Can modified gravity explain accelerated cosmic expansion?, Phys. Lett. B573(2003) 1 [astro-ph/0307285]

    2003 arXiv

  44. [55]

    Olmo,The Gravity Lagrangian according to solar system experiments,Phys

    G.J. Olmo,The Gravity Lagrangian according to solar system experiments,Phys. Rev. Lett.95 (2005) 261102 [gr-qc/0505101]. – 30 –

    2005 arXiv

  45. [56]

    Bondi and T

    H. Bondi and T. Gold,The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe,MNRAS108 (1948) 252

    1948

  46. [57]

    Hoyle,A New Model for the Expanding Universe,MNRAS108(1948) 372

    F. Hoyle,A New Model for the Expanding Universe,MNRAS108(1948) 372

    1948

  47. [58]

    Lima and J.S

    J.A.S. Lima and J.S. Alcaniz,Flat FR W cosmologies with adiabatic matter creation: Kinematic tests,Astron. Astrophys.348(1999) 1 [astro-ph/9902337]

    1999 arXiv

  48. [59]

    Singh and A

    C.P. Singh and A. Beesham,Early universe cosmology with particle creation: kinematics tests, Astronomy and Space Science336(2011) 469

    2011

  49. [60]

    Ramos, M

    R.O. Ramos, M. Vargas dos Santos and I. Waga,Matter creation and cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 083524

    2014

  50. [61]

    de Haro and S

    J. de Haro and S. Pan,Gravitationally induced adiabatic particle production: From Big Bang to de Sitter,Class. Quant. Grav.33(2016) 165007 [1512.03100]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [62]

    Nunes and D

    R.C. Nunes and D. Pav´ on,Phantom behavior via cosmological creation of particles,Physical Review D91(2015) 063526

    2015

  52. [63]

    Nunes,Gravitationally induced particle production and its impact on structure formation, General Relativity and Gravitation48(2016) 1

    R.C. Nunes,Gravitationally induced particle production and its impact on structure formation, General Relativity and Gravitation48(2016) 1

    2016

  53. [64]

    Elizalde, M

    E. Elizalde, M. Khurshudyan and S.D. Odintsov,Can we learn from matter creation to solve theH 0 tension problem?,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 782 [2407.20285]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [65]

    Schiavone, M

    T. Schiavone, M. De Angelis, L.A. Escamilla, G. Montani and E. Di Valentino,Revisiting the Matter Creation Process: Observational Constraints on Gravitationally Induced Dark Energy and the Hubble Tension,2601.14222

    arXiv

  55. [66]

    Motohashi and A

    H. Motohashi and A. Nishizawa,Reheating after f(R) inflation,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 083514 [1204.1472]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [67]

    Dorsch, L

    G.C. Dorsch, L. Miranda and N. Yokomizo,Gravitational reheating in Starobinsky inflation, JCAP11(2024) 050 [2406.04161]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [68]

    Parker,Particle creation in expanding universes,Phys

    L. Parker,Particle creation in expanding universes,Phys. Rev. Lett.21(1968) 562

    1968

  58. [69]

    Zel’dovich and A.A

    Y.B. Zel’dovich and A.A. Starobinsky,Particle Production and Vacuum Polarization in an Anisotropic Gravitational Field,Sov. Phys. JETP34(1972) 1159

    1972

  59. [70]

    Ford,Gravitational Particle Creation and Inflation,Phys

    L.H. Ford,Gravitational Particle Creation and Inflation,Phys. Rev. D35(1987) 2955

    1987

  60. [71]

    Ford,Cosmological particle production: a review,Rept

    L.H. Ford,Cosmological particle production: a review,Rept. Prog. Phys.84(2021) 116901 [2112.02444]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Kolb and A.J

    E.W. Kolb and A.J. Long,Cosmological gravitational particle production and its implications for cosmological relics,Rev. Mod. Phys.96(2024) 045005 [2312.09042]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [73]

    Riemer-Sorensen,LCDM and Beyond: Cosmology Tools in Theory and in Practice: ”Statistics and model selection in cosmology”,

    S. Riemer-Sorensen,LCDM and Beyond: Cosmology Tools in Theory and in Practice: ”Statistics and model selection in cosmology”,

  63. [74]

    J.U. Lange,nautilus: boosting Bayesian importance nested sampling with deep learning, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society525(2023) 3181 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/525/2/3181/51331635/stad2441.pdf]

    2023

  64. [75]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology,1910.019

    1910

  65. [76]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models,The Astrophysical Journal538(2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    2000 arXiv

  66. [77]

    De Leo, M

    C. De Leo, M. Martinelli, R. D’Agostino, G. Gianfagna and C. Martins,Distinguishing distance duality breaking models using electromagnetic and gravitational waves measurements,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(2025) 001. – 31 –

    2025

  67. [78]

    Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys

    D. Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110 [2202.04077]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [79]

    Zhao, Y.-H

    M.-M. Zhao, Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang and X. Zhang,Constraining neutrino mass and extra relativistic degrees of freedom in dynamical dark energy models using Planck 2015 data in combination with low-redshift cosmological probes: basic extensions toΛCDM cosmology, Monthly Notices o...

    2017

  69. [80]

    Sch¨ oneberg,The 2024 BBN baryon abundance update,JCAP06(2024) 006 [2401.15054]

    N. Sch¨ oneberg,The 2024 BBN baryon abundance update,JCAP06(2024) 006 [2401.15054]

    2024

  70. [81]

    Hwang and H

    J.-c. Hwang and H. Noh,Cosmological perturbations in generalized gravity theories,Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 1460

    1996

  71. [82]

    Hwang and H

    J.-c. Hwang and H. Noh,f(R) gravity theory and CMBR constraints,Phys. Lett. B506(2001) 13 [astro-ph/0102423]

    2001 arXiv

  72. [83]

    Ivanov,Inflationary Slow-Roll Parameters in the Jordan Frame for Cosmological F(R) Gravity Models,2508.14250

    V.R. Ivanov,Inflationary Slow-Roll Parameters in the Jordan Frame for Cosmological F(R) Gravity Models,2508.14250. [84]SPT-3Gcollaboration,SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field,2506.20707

    2019 arXiv

  73. [85]

    Liddle and S.M

    A.R. Liddle and S.M. Leach,How long before the end of inflation were observable perturbations produced?,Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 103503 [astro-ph/0305263]

    2003 arXiv

  74. [86]

    Germ´ an, R.G

    G. Germ´ an, R.G. Quaglia and A.M.M. Colorado,Model independent bounds for the number of e-folds during the evolution of the universe,JCAP03(2023) 004 [2212.03730]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [87]

    Di Marco, E

    A.D. Di Marco, E. Orazi and G. Pradisi,Introduction to the Number of e-Folds in Slow-Roll Inflation,Universe10(2024) 284 [2408.01854]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [88]

    Remmen and S.M

    G.N. Remmen and S.M. Carroll,How Manye-Folds Should We Expect from High-Scale Inflation?,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 063517 [1405.5538]. [89]BICEP, Keckcollaboration,Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 201...

    2014 arXiv

  77. [90]

    Tristram et al.,Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using BICEP and Planck data, Phys

    M. Tristram et al.,Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using BICEP and Planck data, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 083524 [2112.07961]. – 32 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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