Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Cosmological Constraints on Higgs-Dilaton Inflation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1604.06760 v3 pith:ODK7LUMX submitted 2016-04-22 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Cosmological Constraints on Higgs-Dilaton Inflation

classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th
keywords modeldatacosmologicalhiggs-dilatonconstraintsreleasefindinflation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We test the viability of the Higgs-dilaton model (HDM) compared to the evolving dark energy ($w_0 w_a$CDM) model, in which the cosmological constant model $\Lambda$CDM is also nested, by using the latest cosmological data that includes the cosmic microwave background temperature, polarization and lensing data from the \textit{Planck} satellite (2015 data release), the BICEP and Keck Array experiments, the Type Ia supernovae from the JLA catalog, the baryon acoustic oscillations from CMASS, LOWZ and 6dF, the weak lensing data from the CFHTLenS survey and the matter power Spectrum measurements from the SDSS (data release 7). We find that the values of all cosmological parameters allowed by the Higgs-dilaton inflation model are well within the \textit{Planck} satellite (2015 data release) constraints. In particular, we have that $w_0 = -1.0001^{+0.0072}_{-0.0074}$, $w_a = 0.00^{+0.15}_{-0.16}$, $n_s = 0.9693^{+0.0083}_{-0.0082}$, $\alpha_s = -0.001^{+0.013}_{-0.014}$ and $r_{0.05} = 0.0025^{+0.0017}_{-0.0016}$ (95.5\%C.L.). We also place new stringent constraints on the couplings of the Higgs-dilaton model and we find that $\xi_{\chi} < 0.00328$ and $\xi_h / \sqrt{\lambda} = 59200^{+30000}_{-20000}$ (95.5\%C.L.). Furthermore, we report that the HDM is at a slightly better footing than the $w_0 w_a$CDM model, as they both have practically the same chi-square, i.e. $\Delta \chi^2 = \chi^2_{w_0 w_a\mathrm{CDM}}-\chi^2_{\mathrm{HDM}}=0.18$, with the HDM model having two fewer parameters. Finally Bayesian evidence favors equally the two models, with the HDM being preferred by the AIC and DIC information criteria.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Goldstone Awakens: Unimodular dark energy in scale-invariant $R^2$ gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    In a scale-invariant R² + unimodular-gravity model, the Goldstone boson of scale symmetry becomes thawing dark energy, with its equation of state fixed by the same coupling that sets the inflationary spectral tilt.

  2. Dark Horse, Dark Matter: Revisiting the SO(16)x SO(16)' Nonsupersymmetric Model in the LHC and Dark Energy Era

    hep-th 2019-07 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Reexamination of the SO(16)xSO(16)' nonsupersymmetric model for implications on dark energy, vacuum stabilization, dark matter candidates, and gauge-Higgs unification in light of LHC and dark energy data.