Probing the era of reheating for reconstructed inflationary potential in the RS II braneworld

Kumar Das; Mayukh R. Gangopadhyay; Sukannya Bhattacharya

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Probing the era of reheating for reconstructed inflationary potential in the RS II braneworld

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Braneworld reheating bounds the 5-D Planck mass from below at 10^14 GeV.

desk verdict The reheating bounds are real but they are properties of the Herrera attractor potential, not of a genuine Monte Carlo reconstruction; the paper overstates its central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02542 v3 pith:YWBUKQQQ submitted 2019-08-07 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Sukannya Bhattacharya , Kumar Das , Mayukh R. Gangopadhyay This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COhep-ph

keywords RSIIbraneworldreheatingtemperature5-dimensionalPlanckmassinflationarypotentialreconstructionMonteCarloflowequationsattractorCMBconstraintsearlyuniversecosmology

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 asks what the reheating era can reveal about the RS II braneworld—a model in which our universe is a 3-D brane in a 5-D anti-de Sitter space—when no specific inflation model is assumed. Using a Monte Carlo reconstruction of the inflationary potential and matching it to an analytic attractor form, the authors relate the reheating temperature $T_{\rm reh}$ to the five-dimensional Planck mass $M_5$. They find a critical reheating temperature of roughly $1.31\times10^{15}$ to $2.49\times10^{15}$ GeV, above which the energy density at reheating would exceed the end-of-inflation density. That upper bound translates into a lower bound on the braneworld scale, $M_5\gtrsim10^{14}$ GeV, with the allowed window approximately $10^{14}\lesssim M_5\lesssim10^{17}$ GeV. The analysis gives a direct handle on the extra-dimensional scale from the reheating epoch rather than from CMB perturbations alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the high-energy modified Friedmann equation $H^2=\rho/(3M_{\rm pl}^2)(1+\rho/(2\tau))$ on the RS II brane, whose quadratic density term controls both inflation and reheating, together with the attractor potential $V(N)=3^{-1/3}(\alpha/N+\beta)^{-1/3}$. The argument runs through the e-fold counting relation between the pivot scale, the end-of-inflation energy density, the reheating temperature, and the Hubble scale. Substituting the attractor potential gives $T_{\rm reh}$ as an explicit function of $M_5$, $N_k$, and $\mu$, and comparing it with the energy-conservation ceiling $T_{\rm reh}^{\rm cr}$ produces the claimed bound on $M_5$.

What would settle it

Compute the reheating temperature and the allowed $M_5$ window for a potential integrated from the flow equations all the way to the end of inflation, without imposing the attractor form; if that yields $M_5<10^{14}$ GeV or $T_{\rm reh}^{\rm cr}>2.49\times10^{15}$ GeV, the central bound fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the high-energy limit of the RS II braneworld, the maximum possible reheating temperature for a reconstructed inflationary potential is $T_{\rm reh}^{\rm cr}\simeq(1.31-2.49)\times10^{15}$ GeV, almost independent of the number of e-folds $N_k$ but mildly dependent on the potential parameter $\mu$. Because both $T_{\rm reh}$ and $T_{\rm reh}^{\rm cr}$ depend on the brane tension through $M_5$, their intersection gives a lower bound $M_5\gtrsim10^{14}$ GeV and a full allowed range $10^{14}\lesssim M_5\lesssim10^{17}$ GeV. The authors argue this conclusion holds for the physical range $\mu\simeq0.2$ to $1.5$, and that larger $\mu$ would make $T_{\rm reh}$ imaginary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the analytic attractor potential $V(N)=3^{-1/3}(\alpha/N+\beta)^{-1/3}$ remains valid all the way from the pivot scale to the end of inflation, so that the same formula fixes the end-of-inflation energy density and the reheating temperature; the paper's own Monte Carlo reconstruction is reliable only for a few expansion e-folds near the pivot, and the close match to the attractor is imposed by a chosen integration constant, not demonstrated independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the allowed parameter range, reheating above the critical temperature $T_{\rm reh}^{\rm cr}\simeq(1.31-2.49)\times10^{15}$ GeV is forbidden by energy conservation.
The five-dimensional Planck mass is confined to $10^{14}\lesssim M_5\lesssim10^{17}$ GeV, placing the braneworld scale well above the weak scale.
The CMB upper limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio, $r\le0.064$, becomes an upper bound on the brane tension and hence on $M_5$, consistently with the reheating-derived window.
The hierarchy $T_{\rm reh}<V_{\rm inf}^{1/4}$ is satisfied across the allowed parameter space, so the reconstructed potential is thermodynamically consistent.
Requiring a real reheating temperature restricts the potential parameter to $\mu\lesssim1.5$, which in turn caps the largest allowed $M_5$ near $10^{-1}M_{\rm pl}$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the lower bound is robust, reheating in this scenario must be extremely hot, so any mechanism that dilutes gravitinos or other thermal relics must operate above $10^{14}$ GeV; the paper itself lists gravitino overproduction as an open question.
The bound is computed for a matter-like equation of state during reheating; recomputing $T_{\rm reh}$ for a general $w_{\rm reh}$ would show how much of the $M_5$ window depends on that assumption.
A future CMB measurement of $r$ near the current upper limit, combined with $n_s=0.9649$, could independently confirm or exclude the attractor form because $r$ is tied directly to the brane tension in the high-energy limit.
The same reconstruction pipeline could be extended past the pivot without the analytic matching step; if it reproduces the critical temperature and the $M_5$ window, the lower bound would no longer rest on the attractor ansatz.

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: the reheating bounds and M5 constraints are real, but they come from the Herrera attractor potential, not from a Monte Carlo reconstruction. The paper's own Sec. III admits the MC reconstruction is valid only for a few e-folds near the pivot, and the agreement in Fig. 3.2 is manufactured by choosing c2 in Eq. (3.12) so that Eq. (3.10) takes the attractor form. So the central claim as stated is not supported.

What's actually new: applying the standard reheating formalism (Dai, Kamionkowski, Wang) to the RS II braneworld for the plateau potential V(N)=3^{-1/3}(α/N+β)^{-1/3}, and deriving the critical reheating temperature T_reh^cr ~ (1.3 - 2.5)×10^15 GeV and the allowed M5 range 10^14 - 10^17 GeV. The energy-conservation inequality leading to T_reh^cr is standard, and the algebra in Sec. IV seems consistent. The plots are clear, and the parameter sweep over μ and N_k is reasonable. If the paper had been framed as a reheating study of that specific potential, it would be a modest but acceptable contribution.

Soft spots: (1) The MC reconstruction is window dressing. The potential used in Sec. IV is Eq. (4.1), the attractor form, and nothing is evolved from the MC flow equations to ϵ_H=1. The match in Fig. 3.2 is tautological because c2 is set to reproduce Eq. (3.11). (2) The range 0.2≲μ≲1.5 is justified partly by the attractor condition and partly by the requirement that T_reh be real—the upper end is a branch cut in the cubic root, not a physical threshold. That should be stated plainly. (3) The conclusion overstates: 'generalised reconstructed potential' is really a one-parameter attractor potential. (4) There are minor typos (e.g., 'Randall Sundrum', 'rehating' in the Eq. 4.18 caption), but nothing that affects the argument.

Bottom line: this paper deserves a serious referee because the underlying calculation is salvageable and the constraints, while narrow, are not in the cited literature. But as written it should not be accepted without major revision. The authors need to either drop the MC framing or do a genuine end-to-end reconstruction. I'd send it to a journal with a request for major revision, and I'd expect the referee to catch the circularity. For your reading group, it is a useful case study in how reconstruction claims can overstate what is actually computed.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies reheating in Randall-Sundrum type II braneworld inflation using an inflationary potential that is claimed to be obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) reconstruction. The authors solve braneworld flow equations to generate MC-compatible values of the spectral index and Hubble parameter, then compare the analytic reconstruction of Eq. (3.10) with the attractor potential of Eq. (3.11). Section IV assumes the attractor form V(N)=3^{-1/3}(\alpha/N+\beta)^{-1/3} and derives a reheating temperature as a function of the tensor-to-scalar ratio, the spectral index, and the 5D Planck mass M5. Using energy conservation, the authors obtain a critical reheating temperature T_reh^cr \simeq (1.31-2.49)\times 10^{15} GeV and, from the intersection of T_reh with T_reh^cr, an allowed range 10^{14}\lesssim M_5\lesssim10^{17} GeV. The paper concludes that a lower bound on M5 of roughly 10^{14} GeV follows from the reconstructed-potential analysis.

Significance. If the MC-reconstruction claim were valid, the analysis would provide a model-independent probe of the reheating era and of the 5D Planck scale in braneworld cosmology. The derivation of the energy-conservation bound on T_reh^cr in Eq. (4.18) is simple and appears sound, and the paper clearly identifies the quantities that enter the reheating formula. However, the central premise that the MC reconstruction of Section II produces the potential used in Section IV is not established. Equation (3.12) fixes c2 so that Eq. (3.10) reduces to the Herrera attractor potential Eq. (3.11), so the agreement in Fig. 3.2 is largely imposed rather than demonstrated. The resulting reheating bounds and M5 window are therefore properties of the attractor potential, not of a generalised MC reconstruction. As a study of reheating for the Herrera attractor model the calculation may be salvageable, but the paper as written overstates its main result.

major comments (2)

[Section III, Eq. (3.12) and Fig. 3.2] The claimed agreement between the MC reconstructed potential and the attractor potential is imposed rather than tested. With alpha = kappa^2 N^2/(48 pi^2 tau^2 P_R) and ns = 1 - 2/N, the first term in Eq. (3.10) equals 3alpha/(2N), while c2 from Eq. (3.12) is 3alpha/(2N) + 3beta; the bracket in Eq. (3.10) then becomes 3(alpha/N + beta), so Eq. (3.10) is algebraically identical to Eq. (3.11). Figure 3.2 therefore does not compare the numerical MC potential obtained from the flow equations of Eqs. (2.9)-(2.11) with the attractor; it evaluates the analytic reconstruction formula (3.10) using MC-derived ns values and a c2 chosen to enforce the attractor form. The MC input enters only through the pivot-scale values of ns and P_R, and no MC flow trajectory is evolved to epsilon_H = 1. This is exactly the regime in which Section III states that MC reconstruction is unreliable. Consequently, the use of Eq. (4.1) throughout Section IV to compute rho_end/rho_inf and T_reh^cr is not justified as a property of the MC reconstruction, and the central claim of the paper is unsupported.
[Section IV, Eqs. (4.14)-(4.16) and Fig. 4.1] The quoted parameter range 0.2 \lesssim mu \lesssim 1.5 is fixed by requiring T_reh to be real, but the imaginary behavior for mu \gtrsim 1.5 arises from the branch structure of the cubic-root expressions for f(x) and Delta in Eqs. (4.14)-(4.15), not from a physical energy condition. This is not a physical constraint on the model; it selects a particular algebraic branch. Since the M5 window and the variation of T_reh^cr quoted in Section IV and Fig. 4.3 depend on this mu range, the parameter-space bounds are not robust unless the authors show that the upper limit on mu follows from an independently motivated physical requirement.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Introduction] The name "Randal Sundrum" should be "Randall-Sundrum"; there are also scattered typographical errors such as "rehating" in Section IV before Eq. (4.18).
[Section III, text after Eq. (3.12)] The sentence stating that for beta = 0 the constant c2 becomes an independent integration constant is confusing, because c2 has just been fixed by Eq. (3.12); please clarify that at beta = 0 the attractor-matching condition leaves c2 undetermined.
[Section IV, Eq. (4.16)] The placement of parentheses in the denominator factor ((3alpha)^{-1/3} mu^2 pi^2 M_5^3 A_s) is ambiguous in the typeset equation; please rewrite it to make the grouping of mu^2, pi^2, M_5^3, and A_s explicit.
[Section IV, Fig. 4.3] The gray shaded region is described only in the caption; the text should specify explicitly whether its boundaries correspond to the Nk values 45, 50, 55 or to the full mu scan, so that the quoted M5 range is reproducible.
[References] Reference [29] should read "E. Ram\'irez" rather than "E. Ramfrez", and several journal names are abbreviated inconsistently throughout the reference list.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The MC-to-attractor match is imposed by the choice of c2 in Eq. (3.12), so the reheating and M5 bounds inherit the Herrera attractor rather than a general reconstruction.

self definitional [Section III, Eqs. (3.10)-(3.12) and Fig. 3.2]
"On the other hand, c2 and β are arbitrary constants in the respective cases and therefore one of them can be expressed in terms of the other so that the reconstructed potential simulates the exact attractor behavior in Eq. (3.11). For the general reconstructed potential 3.10 as an attractor, c2 = κ2/(16π2τ2PR(1−ns)) (1 + 4β/(α(1−ns)))."

Eq. (3.12) fixes c2 precisely so that Eq. (3.10) algebraically coincides with the Herrera attractor Eq. (3.11); the agreement displayed in Fig. 3.2 is therefore built in, not a numerical discovery. The paper does not evolve the MC flow trajectories to the end of inflation and compare them with Eq. (3.11); it selects the integration constant to force the match. This makes the claimed representation of the MC potential by the attractor form self-definitional.
fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (4.1) and Eqs. (4.6)-(4.18); Section III reliability caveat]
"In the previous section, the MC reconstructed potential is established to be very similar to the effective inflationary potential for attractor as a function of e-folds [33]. Therefore, for the rest of the paper, we will use the attractor form of the potential given below: V (Nk) = 3−1/3(α/Nk + β)−1/3."

The stated reason for adopting Eq. (4.1) is the 'established' similarity from Sec. III, but that similarity was manufactured by Eq. (3.12). The paper explicitly admits that the MC technique 'reconstructs the potential for only very few e-folds near the pivot scale and therefore is not reliable to provide precise values for the quantities at the end of inflation'; those end-of-inflation quantities (ρend/ρinf) are exactly what Eqs. (4.12)-(4.18) use to produce Treh^cr and the M5 bound. Consequently the quoted reheating and 5-D Planck mass limits are predictions of the imposed Herrera attractor, not of a generalised MC reconstruction, and are forced by the input choice of c2.

full rationale

The paper's strongest advertised claim is that a Monte-Carlo reconstructed potential, without choosing a model, yields the reheating temperature and the 5-D Planck mass bounds. The load-bearing juncture is the transition from MC reconstruction to the attractor potential: Eq. (3.10) is turned into Eq. (3.11) by Eq. (3.12), which chooses the integration constant c2 'so that the reconstructed potential simulates the exact attractor behavior.' No independent test is offered; the paper itself notes that MC is unreliable at the end of inflation. The reheating calculation then uses the imposed attractor form in Eq. (4.1) to compute ρend/ρinf, Treh^cr, and the M5 range. Thus the central numerical constraints are not independent of the input; they are properties of the Herrera potential once Eq. (3.12) has forced the match. This is a genuine partial circularity rather than mere self-citation: the comparison in Fig. 3.2 is reducible by construction, and the later bounds inherit that imposed step. The score is set to 7 rather than higher because the final reheating formulas also use Planck observables and nontrivial algebra; nonetheless the claimed generality of the reconstruction is lost at Eq. (3.12).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation is built on the assumed form of the potential and the high-energy braneworld dynamics. The only genuinely new output is a constraint on M5 and T_reh, and that output inherits the freedom in mu, Nk, and tau, plus the imposed c2 matching.

free parameters (4)

mu = sqrt(beta/alpha) = 0.2 to 1.5 (scanned, not fitted)
Dimensionless ratio of the two constants in the reconstructed potential. The paper scans it and restricts to 0.2 <= mu <= 1.5 to keep T_reh real and the potential attractor-like.
Nk = 45 to 60 (scanned)
Number of e-folds from pivot scale to end of inflation. Scanned in this range; T_reh has exponential sensitivity to it.
brane tension tau = taken ~10^-12 M_Pl^4; constrained from above by r <= 0.064
Brane tension sets M5. It is the target parameter, varied in the plots and constrained by the r bound and energy conservation, but it is not derived from first principles.
integration constant c2 = expressed in terms of beta/alpha via Eq. (3.12)
Chosen to force the reconstructed potential to match the attractor form; this is the key move that makes the MC-attractor agreement circular.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption RS II modified Friedmann equation (1.4): H^2 = (rho/(3 M_pl^2))(1 + rho/(2 tau)), neglecting dark radiation and the 4D cosmological constant.
The entire calculation is framed in this braneworld cosmology; the authors explicitly set K=0, Lambda_4=0, and drop the dark radiation term.
domain assumption The high-energy limit V >> tau applies throughout inflation and until the end of reheating.
Slow-roll parameters, the scalar spectral index formula (3.7), and the tensor ratio (3.13) all rely on this limit.
ad hoc to paper The inflaton potential is well approximated by the attractor form V(N)=3^{-1/3}(alpha/N+beta)^{-1/3} from the pivot scale to the end of inflation.
The MC reconstruction in Fig. 3.2 is matched to this form by choosing c2 via Eq. (3.12), so the form is imposed rather than independently derived for the full N range.
domain assumption Reheating is a standard canonical matter-like phase with w_re = 0 and no entropy production (g_star = g_s).
This enters Eq. (4.6) and the g_star = g_s simplification after Eq. (4.16).
domain assumption Flow equations truncated at l=6 adequately describe the slow-roll hierarchy.
Section II states the reconstruction is performed up to l=6 without a convergence check.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the era of reheating for reconstructed inflationary potential in the RS II braneworld." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YWBUKQQQ

@misc{pith2026190802542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the era of reheating for reconstructed inflationary potential in the RS II braneworld},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YWBUKQQQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02542}
}

abstract

We analyse the epoch of reheating after an inflationary phase in the Randal Sundrum(RS) Type-$\rm II$ braneworld, where we did not consider any particular model of inflation, but rather reconstructed the inflationary potential solving the flow equations using Monte Carlo (MC) approach. It is shown numerically that a potential conceived through the MC reconstruction technique can be represented by an effective potential as a function of the number of e-foldings($N$). Then, the epoch of reheating is studied for this reconstructed potential. The relation between the reheating temperature ($T_{\rm reh}$) and the 5-dimensional Planck mass($M_5$) is established. Moreover, it is argued that there is a stringent bound on the critical reheating temperature that also translates to a tight bound on $M_5$ .

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02542 by the authors.

**Figure 2.1.** FIG. 2.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.2.** FIG. 2.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** represents the change of Hubble parameter, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 3.1.** Figure 3.1: FIG. 3.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3_1.png]

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: shows the variation on the upper limit on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]

**Figure 3.2.** Figure 3.2: FIG. 3.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3_2.png]

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]

**Figure 4.1.** Figure 4.1: FIG. 4.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4_1.png]

**Figure 4.2.** Figure 4.2: FIG. 4.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4_2.png]

**Figure 4.3.** Figure 4.3: FIG. 4.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Helical phase inflation and its observational constraints
hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Helical phase inflation, using the phase of a complex scalar as the inflaton, fits Planck 2018 and BICEP2 data and is claimed to show alpha-attractor behavior, with a brane version that reduces field excursions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cosmological Inﬂation and Large Scale Structure, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK), (1998)

work page 1998
[2]

E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe , (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, Ca., 1990)

work page 1990
[3]

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

1981
[4]

Hinshaw, et al

G. Hinshaw, et al. ( WMAP Collaboration ), Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 208, 19 (2013), arXiv: 1212.5226[astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2013
[5]

& Astrophys, 594 A20 (2016), arXiv: 1502.02114[astro-ph.CO]

PlanckXX Collaboration, Astron. & Astrophys, 594 A20 (2016), arXiv: 1502.02114[astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016
[6]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], arXiv: 1807.06209[astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[7]

Akrami et al., arXiv: 1807.06211[astro-ph.CO]

Planck 2018 Collaboration, Y. Akrami et al., arXiv: 1807.06211[astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018
[8]

Randall and R

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999), arXiv: hep-ph/ 9905221

work page 1999

Show all 58 references

[9]

Randall and R

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999), arXiv: hep-th/ 9906064

1999
[10]

Langlois, Prog

D. Langlois, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 148, 181 (2003), arXiv: hep-th/0209261

2003 arXiv
[11]

Binetruy, C

P. Binetruy, C. Deﬀayet and D. Langlois, Nucl. Phys. B565 (2000), 269-28,arXiv: hep-th/9905012

2000 arXiv
[12]

Shiromizu, K

T. Shiromizu, K. I. Maeda, M.‘Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 024012,arXiv: gr-qc/9910076

2000 arXiv
[13]

Ida, JHEP 0009, 014 (2000),arXiv: gr-qc/9912002

D. Ida, JHEP 0009, 014 (2000),arXiv: gr-qc/9912002

2000 arXiv
[14]

Maartens, and K

R. Maartens, and K. Koyama, Liv. Rev. Rel., 13 5, (2010),arXiv: 1004.3962[hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[15]

Ichiki, M

K. Ichiki, M. Yahiro, T. Kajino, M. Orito and G. J. Mathews, Phys. Rev. D66,043521 (2002),arXiv: astro-ph/0203272

2002 arXiv
[16]

Sasankan, Mayukh R

N. Sasankan, Mayukh R. Gangopadhyay, G. J. Mathews and M. Kusakabe, Phys.Rev. D95 (2017) no.8, 083516,arXiv: 1607.06858 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[17]

Sasankan, Mayukh R

N. Sasankan, Mayukh R. Gangopadhyay, G. J. Mathews and M. Kusakabe, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E26(2017) no.08, 1741007,arXiv: 1706.03630[astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[18]

Brax and C

P. Brax and C. van de Bruck, A. C. Davis, Rept. Prog. Phys. 67, 2183 (2004),arXiv: hep-th/0404011

2004 arXiv
[19]

M. R. Gangopadhyay, G. J. Mathews, JCAP 1803 (2018) no.03, 028, [arXiv:1611.05123]

2018 arXiv
[20]

Maartens, D

R. Maartens, D. Wands, B. A. Bassett and I. F. C. Heard, Phys. Rev. D62, 041301, (2000),arXiv: hep-ph/9912464

2000 arXiv
[21]

Goheer, P.Dunsby, Phys.Rev

N. Goheer, P.Dunsby, Phys.Rev. D66 (2002), 043527,arXiv: gr-qc/0204059

2002 arXiv
[22]

Sakhi, EJTP 9, (2006) 84,arXiv: 0806.1137 [gr-qc]

M.Bennai, H.Chakir, and Z. Sakhi, EJTP 9, (2006) 84,arXiv: 0806.1137 [gr-qc]

2006 arXiv
[23]

Calcagni, Phys

G. Calcagni, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 103508,arXiv: hep-ph/0402126

2004 arXiv
[24]

Tsujikawa, A

S. Tsujikawa, A. R. Liddle, JCAP 03, 001 (2004),arXiv: astro-ph/0312162

2004 arXiv
[25]

Calcagni, S

G. Calcagni, S. Kuroyanagi, J. Ohashi, S. Tsujikawa, JCAP 03(2014)052,arXiv: 1310.5186[astro- ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[26]

I. P. Neupane, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 123502,arXiv: 1409.8647 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[27]

Okada, S

N. Okada, S. Okada, Class. Quant. Grav. 33(2016) 125034,arXiv: 1412.8466 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[28]

Okada and S

N. Okada and S. Okada, Int. J. Mod. Phys. 31no.14n15, 1650078 (2016)arXiv:1504.00683 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[29]

Ramfrez, A

E. Ramfrez, A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 027303,arXiv: astro-ph/0412556

2005 arXiv
[30]

W. H. Kinney, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 083508,arXiv: astro-ph/0206032

2002 arXiv
[31]

Easther and W

R. Easther and W. H. Kinney, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003), 043511(2003),arXiv: astro-ph/0210345

2003 arXiv
[32]

Chiba, PTEP 2015 no.7 073E02 (2015),arXiv: 1504.07692 [astro-ph.CO]

T. Chiba, PTEP 2015 no.7 073E02 (2015),arXiv: 1504.07692 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[33]

Herrera, Phys

R. Herrera, Phys. Rev. D 99(2019) no. 10 103510,arXiv: 1901.04607 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[34]

Myrzakulov, L

R. Myrzakulov, L. Sebastiani and S. Zerbini,Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 5, 215 (2015)

2015
[35]

Kuroyanagi, S

S. Kuroyanagi, S. Tsujikawa, T. Chiba and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 6, 063513 (2014), 16 arXiv:1406.1369 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[36]

L. Dai, M. Kamionkowski, J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 041302 (2014),arXiv: 1404.6704 [astro- ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[37]

J. B. Munoz, M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 4, 043521 (2015),arXiv: 1412.0656 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[38]

138B (1984) 265-268

M.Yu.Khlopov, A.D.Linde,Phys.Lett. 138B (1984) 265-268

1984
[39]

Khlopov, Yu.L.Levitan, E.V.Sedelnikov, I.M.Sobol, Phys

M.Yu. Khlopov, Yu.L.Levitan, E.V.Sedelnikov, I.M.Sobol, Phys. Atom. Nucl.(1994)V.57, PP.1393-1397

1994
[40]

Grain, Class

M.Yu.Khlopov, A.Barrau and J. Grain, Class. Quant. Grav 23:1875-1882,2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0406621

2006 arXiv
[41]

E. J. Copeland, O. Seto, Phys.Rev. D72 (2005) 023506, arXiv:hep-ph/0505149

2005 arXiv
[42]

L. A. Grgley, Phys.Rev.D 78 (2008) 084006, arXiv:0806.3857 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[43]

L. A. Grgley, Phys.Rev.D 79 (2009) 086007, arXiv: 0806.4006 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[44]

Gleiser, D

M. Gleiser, D. Sowinski, Phys.Lett.B 727 (2013) 272-275, arXiv:1307.0530 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[45]

Fernandes-Silva, A

A. Fernandes-Silva, A. J. Ferreira-Martins, R. da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 323, arXiv:1901.07492 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[46]

da Rocha, Phys

R. da Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 95, 124017 (2017), arXiv:1701.00761 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[47]

Gonz´ alez Felipe, D

R. Gonz´ alez Felipe, D. Manreza Paret, A. P´ erez Mart´ ınez, Eur. Phys. J.C76 (2016) no.6 337, arXiv: 1601.01973[gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[48]

Salumbides, E. J. Schellekens, A. N. Schellekens, B. Gato-Rivera and W. Ubachs, New J. Phys. 17 (2015) no.3, 033015,arXiv: 1502.02838 [physics.atom-ph]

2015 arXiv
[49]

Belotelov, I.A

I. Belotelov, I.A. Golutvin, A. Lanyov, V. Palichik, E. Rogalev, M. Savina, S. Shmatov, P. Traczyk, G. Wrochna, CERN-CMS-NOTE-2006-104,Experiment: CERN-LHC-CMS

2006
[50]

Casadio, J

R. Casadio, J. Ovalle, R. da Rocha, Class.Quant.Grav. 31 (2014) 045016, arXiv:1310.5853 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[51]

da Rocha, J

R. da Rocha, J. M. H. da SIlva, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 046009, arXiv:1202.1256 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[52]

M. C. B. Abdalla, J. M. H. da Silva, R. da Rocha, Phys.Rev.D80:046003,2009, arXiv:0907.1321 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[53]

Vafa, hep-th/0509212

C. Vafa, hep-th/0509212

arXiv
[54]

Arkani-Hamed, L

N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis and C. Vafa, JHEP 0706:060,2007, [hep-th/0601001]

2007 arXiv
[55]

Obied, H

G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko and C. Vafa, arXiv:1806.08362 [hep-th]

arXiv
[56]

Agrawal, G

P. Agrawal, G. Obied, P. J. Steinhardt and C. Vafa, Phys.Lett.B 784 (2018) 271-276, arXiv:1806.09718 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[57]

W. H. Kinney, S. Vagnozzi and L. Visinelli, Class. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019) 117001, arXiv:1808.06424 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[58]

Adhikari, M

R. Adhikari, M. R. Gangopadhyay, Yogesh, arXiv: 2002.07061 [astro-ph.CO]

2002 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cosmological Inﬂation and Large Scale Structure, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK), (1998)

work page 1998

[2] [2]

E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe , (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, Ca., 1990)

work page 1990

[3] [3]

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

1981

[4] [4]

Hinshaw, et al

G. Hinshaw, et al. ( WMAP Collaboration ), Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 208, 19 (2013), arXiv: 1212.5226[astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2013

[5] [5]

& Astrophys, 594 A20 (2016), arXiv: 1502.02114[astro-ph.CO]

PlanckXX Collaboration, Astron. & Astrophys, 594 A20 (2016), arXiv: 1502.02114[astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016

[6] [6]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], arXiv: 1807.06209[astro-ph.CO]

arXiv

[7] [7]

Akrami et al., arXiv: 1807.06211[astro-ph.CO]

Planck 2018 Collaboration, Y. Akrami et al., arXiv: 1807.06211[astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018

[8] [8]

Randall and R

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999), arXiv: hep-ph/ 9905221

work page 1999