REVIEW 3 cited by
Constant-Roll (Quasi-)Linear 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
Signed reviews
abstract
In constant-roll inflation, the scalar field that drives the accelerated expansion of the Universe is rolling down its potential at a constant rate. Within this framework, we highlight the relations between the Hubble slow-roll parameters and the potential ones, studying in detail the case of a single-field Coleman-Weinberg model characterised by a non-minimal coupling of the inflaton to gravity. With respect to the exact constant-roll predictions, we find that assuming an approximate slow-roll behaviour yields a difference of $\Delta r = 0.001$ in the tensor-to-scalar ratio prediction. Such a discrepancy is in principle testable by future satellite missions. As for the scalar spectral index $n_s$, we find that the existing 2-$\sigma$ bound constrains the value of the non-minimal coupling to $\xi_\phi \sim 0.29-0.31$ in the model under consideration.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Constant-Roll Inflation: Analytical Formulae for Power Spectrum and Implications for Induced Gravitational Waves
Analytical formulae for power spectrum peaks in constant-roll inflation enable parameter reconstruction from peak features and smoothed approximations for induced gravitational wave estimates.
-
End of the constant-roll inflation, and the reheating temperature
A modified potential can terminate constant-roll inflation and produce an oscillatory reheating phase, yielding a reheating temperature within a few orders of magnitude of the GUT scale.
-
Constant-roll $\beta$-exponential inflation: Palatini formalism
A parameter scan of constant-roll β-exponential inflation in Palatini R² gravity claims agreement with ACT/Planck contours, but the derivation is undermined by algebraic sign errors and an absent non-Gaussianity calculation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.