AG-2026.04-1255·hep-ph·cross-listed: astro-ph.CO
Testing $α$-attractor P-model of inflation by Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
Authors
- Michał Marciniak
- Marek Olechowski
- Stefan Pokorski
Abstract
In a recently proposed approach to testing models of inflation by Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation the reheating temperature is directly expressed in terms of the CMB observables. Its model independent bounds translate in a given model into narrow ranges of those observables. In that approach we analyse the polynomial class of the $α$-attractor inflaton potential models (P-models), in a broad range of polynomials and with the inflaton decays and fragmentation in the reheating period taken into account. The predictions for the CMB observables, the scalar spectral index $n_s$ and tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, are compared with the Planck and Planck combined with ACT data. Both can be accommodated by that class of the $α$ attractor models. The sensitivity of the results of that comparison to the reheating temperature and to the upper bound on the ratio $r$ is clearly demonstrated.
Submitted
19 April 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.17430
Summary
Researchers tested a class of inflation models (α-attractor P-models) against CMB data by linking predicted temperature after inflation to observable microwave patterns, finding these models match current Planck and ACT measurements.
- The α-attractor P-models can produce CMB predictions consistent with the latest observations, suggesting these polynomial-based inflation theories remain viable.
- By directly connecting the reheating temperature (how hot the universe got after inflation) to observable quantities, the authors created tighter constraints on which inflation models work.
- The model's predictions are sensitive to assumptions about reheating and the ratio of gravitational waves to density fluctuations, showing where future data could distinguish between competing theories.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.