Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 90 references

Reheating constraints to modulus mass for single field inflationary models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The lightest modulus must generically weigh more than about 10^15 GeV, with possible low values near 10^12 GeV.

desk verdict The paper's headline constraint on modulus mass is computed from an equation that does not follow from its own derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04203 v3 pith:LDLFBQ3U submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.CO

Rajesh Goswami , Urjit A. Yajnik This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmologicalmoduliproblemlightestmodulusmassreheatingequationofstatesingle-fieldinflationscalarspectralindexCMBlowmultipoleanomaliesstringcosmologyPlanck2018
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

The paper tries to turn the cosmological moduli problem into a quantitative measurement: if a single light modulus field dominates the universe after inflation and then decays, its mass can be inferred by tracing one CMB scale from horizon crossing to today. The authors derive an explicit relation, their Eq. (28), linking the modulus mass to the scalar spectral index, the scalar amplitude, the reheating temperature, and the averaged equation of state during reheating. Evaluating this relation for quadratic large-field, quartic hilltop, and Starobinsky models with Planck 2018 data, they find the lightest modulus must generically satisfy $m_\chi \gtrsim 10^{15}$ GeV, with possible low values around $10^{12}$ GeV. Including a step in the inflaton potential to explain the CMB low-multipole anomalies tightens the allowed range to roughly $10^{13}$ to $10^{15}$ GeV. This matters because such a heavy lightest modulus would decay early enough to evade the classic 30 TeV bound from big-bang nucleosynthesis, and it shows that an epoch as remote as reheating is not observationally inert.

What carries the argument

The central object is the epoch-by-epoch scale-factor bookkeeping captured in Eq. (28): a relation that writes the present-day CMB mode $k_*/a_0$ as a product of e-fold factors for inflation, reheating, modulus domination, and radiation and matter eras, and then inverts it for the modulus mass. The physically important ingredient is the duration of modulus domination, Eq. (22), $N_{\text{mod}} \approx -\frac{2}{3}\ln 3 - \frac{5}{3}\ln 2 + \frac{2}{3}\ln(m_\chi \tau) + \frac{8}{3}\ln Y$, which uses the modulus energy density at matter-radiation equality and a purely gravitational decay lifetime $\tau \approx 16\pi M_{\text{Pl}}^2/m_\chi^3$. Because $m_\chi$ appears inside exponentials and inside $\tau$, small changes in $n_s$ or in the average equation of state during reheating translate into orders-of-magnitude changes in the required mass; the narrow physical range $-1/3 \leq \bar{w}_{\text{reh}} \leq 1$ is what converts a few-percent measurement of $n_s$ into a sharp lower bound. The optional step in the inflaton potential supplies a second handle: its location, taken from fits to the low-multipole anomalies, restricts the allowed reheating parameters and thereby raises the lower bound on $m_\chi$.

What would settle it

Compute the duration of the modulus-dominated era from a numerical reheating simulation for a modulus of mass $m_\chi = 10^{12}$ GeV with initial displacement $Y = 1/10$ and purely gravitational decay: if the simulated $N_{\text{mod}}$ differs from Eq. (22) by even a couple of e-folds, the exponential in Eq. (28) moves the required mass by orders of magnitude and the headline bound collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the mass of the lightest modulus is not a free parameter but is fixed by the requirement that the universe pass from inflation to the present through a Friedmann-like sequence with a modulus-dominated era followed by a second instantaneous reheating. The load-bearing formula is Eq. (28), obtained by matching a single mode $k_*$ from its Hubble crossing through $N_{\text{reh}}$ e-folds of reheating, $N_{\text{mod}}$ e-folds of modulus domination, and the radiation and matter eras: $m_\chi$ is an exponential function of the spectral index $n_s$, the amplitude $A_s$, the reheating temperature $T_{\text{reh}}$, the mean equation of state $\bar{w}_{\text{reh}}$, and the remaining e-folds $\Delta N_k$. For the three single-field models considered, Planck 2018 values of $n_s$ and $A_s$ put the generic lower bound near $10^{15}$ GeV, with low values near $10^{12}$ GeV in part of the parameter space; when the same relation is combined with a step in the inflaton potential that accounts for the low-multipole anomalies, the allowed range becomes about $10^{13}$ to $10^{15}$ GeV. The authors note one dataset-dependent exception: if the effective number of neutrino species $N_{\text{eff}}$ is allowed to vary in the Planck analysis, the bounds drop by about four orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the modelling of the modulus itself: it must start oscillating when the expansion rate drops to its mass, start displaced to about a tenth of the Planck mass, and decay only through gravity with the standard lifetime; change any of those, and the derived mass shifts by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. (28) is right, the cosmological moduli problem is solved only for moduli with masses of order $10^{15}$ GeV (or at least about $10^{12}$ GeV) in the models considered; the old 30 TeV nucleosynthesis bound is not the operative constraint.
  • For $\bar{w}_{\text{reh}} < 1/3$ in these models, keeping the modulus sub-Planckian forces the reheating temperature to satisfy $T_{\text{reh}} \gtrsim 10^5$ GeV, so very low reheating temperatures are disfavoured.
  • Demanding that the same inflaton step explain the Planck low-multipole anomalies narrows the modulus mass to roughly $10^{13}$ to $10^{15}$ GeV depending on the inflationary model, and the upper $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ ranges of $n_s$ would make $m_\chi$ exceed the Planck mass and rule out late-time modulus cosmology.
  • Allowing $N_{\text{eff}}$ to vary in the Planck fit shifts $n_s$ and lowers the required mass by about four orders of magnitude, so the claimed bound is sensitive to assumptions in the cosmological parameter estimation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central bound survives, any string construction whose lightest modulus sits below roughly $10^{13}$ to $10^{15}$ GeV is in tension with CMB data unless reheating is non-standard or the modulus has non-gravitational decay channels; the paper does not explore the second possibility.
  • The same scale-tracing bookkeeping could be applied to any late-decaying scalar, such as an axion-like particle or a hidden-sector condensate, by replacing the gravitational lifetime in Eq. (55) with the appropriate decay width; this would convert the paper's mass bound into a general lifetime constraint.
  • Because $m_\chi$ depends exponentially on $n_s$, a future percent-level measurement of the spectral index, or a resolution of the $N_{\text{eff}}$-driven shift in $n_s$, would sharpen or erase this bound; that dataset sensitivity is perhaps the most testable handle the relation offers.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript aims to constrain the mass of a late-decaying modulus field by relating it to the reheating parameters (Treh, wbar_reh, Nreh) and the inflationary observables (ns, As) through the evolution of a comoving scale from horizon crossing to the present. The authors derive a formula for m_chi, apply it to the quadratic large-field, quartic hilltop, and Starobinsky models using Planck 2018 bounds on ns, and then extend the analysis by imposing constraints from a step-feature explanation of the CMB low-multipole anomalies. The headline results are that m_chi is generically above about 10^15 GeV, with possible values near 10^12 GeV, and that the inclusion of the step feature pushes the mass to about 10^13 to 10^15 GeV depending on the model.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the paper would provide a sharp, Falsifiable link between CMB observables and late-time moduli cosmology, potentially tightening the classic cosmological moduli bound by many orders of magnitude. The methodology is transparent and the analytic expressions are easy to check, which is a strength: the central relation is stated explicitly and all numerical results are traceable to it. However, the central relation is algebraically inconsistent with the equations that precede it, so the reported bounds, the figures, and the abstract's quantitative claims are not supported by the manuscript's own derivation. The step-feature extension also relies on constraints imported from the authors' previous work without independent derivation. As presented, the paper is not publishable without a complete reworking of the central formula and a recomputation of all results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (23)] Equation (23) does not follow from Eqs. (17) and (22). Substituting Eq. (22) into Eq. (17) gives on the left-hand side (1/6)ln3 + (5/12)ln2 - (1/6)ln(m_chi tau) - (2/3)lnY, not the printed (2/3)ln3 + (5/3)ln2 - (1/6)ln(m_chi tau) - (2/3)lnY. In addition, the ln rho_end term has the opposite sign in Eq. (23) compared with Eq. (17): Eq. (17) contains +[1/(3(1+w_bar_reh))]ln rho_end, while Eq. (23) contains -[1/(3(1+w_bar_reh))]ln rho_end. Since Eq. (23) is the bridge between the scale-evolution relation and the claimed modulus-mass formula, these errors break the derivation chain.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (28)] Even if Eq. (23) were taken at face value, solving it for m_chi with tau = 16pi M_Pl^2 / m_chi^3 does not yield Eq. (28). Let B denote the right-hand side of Eq. (23). Solving Eq. (23) gives m_chi = (sqrt(pi)/72) M_Pl Y^2 exp(3B), not m_chi approximately 4 sqrt(pi) M_Pl exp(-[...]) with the exponent printed in Eq. (28). The omitted factor exp(2B) is enormous for the parameter ranges considered in the figures, so Eqs. (34), (41), (46), Figs. 2-5, and the abstract's quoted bounds are not consequences of the equations in the manuscript.
  3. [Sec. II, Eqs. (6) and (12)] The e-fold factors connecting the radiation and modulus eras are inconsistent between Eq. (4), Eq. (6), and Eq. (12). Equation (4) has e^{Nmod} e^{Nrad} e^{Nreh} e^{Delta Nk}, with Nrad = (1/4)ln(rho_reh/rho_eq(mod)) in a radiation-dominated era. Equation (6) replaces e^{Nrad} with (rho_reh/rho_eq(mod)) without the 1/4 power, and Eq. (12) contains both a_decay/a_eq(mod) and e^{Nmod}, which double-counts the modulus-era expansion. These errors propagate into the derivation of Eq. (16) and hence into Eq. (23).
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 5] The additional constraints on Treh and w_bar_reh used to produce Fig. 5 are imported from the authors' Ref. [41] without derivation. Because the step position and the allowed reheating range are outputs of that separate analysis, the Fig. 5 bounds inherit unknown systematics and do not independently support the claimed m_chi range beyond what would follow from Eq. (28) alone. Given that Eq. (28) is itself not derived correctly, the step-feature results cannot be considered established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (6)] The notation Nmoddom in Eq. (6) is not defined; if it is meant to denote Nmod, the equation still lacks the 1/4 power on the density ratio that would follow from Nrad = (1/4)ln(rho_reh/rho_eq(mod)).
  2. [Sec. IV A] There are typographical errors in this section, including 'corves' instead of 'curves' and inconsistent use of barred and unbarred w in the text; these should be corrected for clarity.
  3. [Sec. II, after Eq. (28)] The assumption Y = 1/10 is quoted from Refs. [40,65,77], but given the exponential dependence of the final result on lnY, the manuscript would benefit from an explicit sensitivity estimate showing how the quoted bounds change for other plausible values of the initial displacement.
  4. [Appendix, Eq. (53)] The expression for rho_eq in Eq. (53) is stated without derivation; a brief explanation of the (chi_in^2/(6M_Pl^2))^3 factor would improve readability and help the reader verify the subsequent modulus-e-folding calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central m_chi relation is a derived expansion-history identity using independent CMB and reheating inputs; the apparent algebra mismatch in Eqs. (23)/(28) is a derivation-validity issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central relation, Eq. (28), is not a fit for m_chi nor is m_chi defined in terms of the observables it is said to predict. It is assembled from the scale-factor bookkeeping of Eqs. (4)-(17), the modulus-domination e-fold estimate Eq. (22) built from Eqs. (53) and (55), and slow-roll expressions for H_*, Delta N_* and V_end. The inputs are Planck observables (n_s, A_s), assumed reheating parameters (T_reh, wbar_reh), and fixed gravitational/particle inputs (Y, g_reh, M_Pl); none of these inputs is defined through m_chi. The paper's use of the authors' prior Ref. [41] for the step-feature constraints in Sec. IV is a self-citation, but it supplies an externally fitted constraint on reheating parameters, not on the modulus mass itself, so it does not make the present result equivalent to its premises. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the simplification of the reheating phase. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. The apparent algebraic inconsistency between Eqs. (17)+(22) and Eqs. (23)/(28) is a correctness/derivation-validity concern, not a circularity, and under the stated hard rules should be scored as correctness risk rather than as circularity. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; moduli are standard string or supergravity fields and the step feature is an existing inflationary model ingredient.

free parameters (4)
  • Y (initial modulus displacement) = 1/10
    Chosen as Y = 1/10 following Refs. [40,65,77]; enters Nmod linearly and m_chi exponentially through Eq. (22) and Eq. (28).
  • greh = ~100
    Effective number of relativistic species at reheating used in rho_reh = (pi^2/30) greh Treh^4.
  • Hilltop model parameters p, mu = p = 4, mu = 15 M_Pl
    Selected from Refs. [41,51]; fixes phi_end = 14.34 M_Pl and the Delta N(ns) expression.
  • Step position for CMB anomaly = from Ref. [51]
    Imported from Ref. [51] to constrain Treh and wbar_reh via the feature in the inflaton potential.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Universe passes through inflation, inflaton reheating, radiation domination, modulus domination, instantaneous modulus decay, then radiation and matter domination.
    Defines the scale-factor bookkeeping of Section II and Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption Reheating can be represented by a single averaged equation of state wbar_reh with -1/3 <= wbar_reh <= 1.
    Used to write e^{Nreh} = (rho_reh/rho_end)^{-1/[3(1+wbar)]} in Eq. (11).
  • domain assumption The modulus starts oscillating when H becomes comparable to m_chi and then redshifts as matter with rho_eq given by Eq. (53).
    Used in Eq. (22) to convert Nmod into a formula involving m_chi and Y.
  • domain assumption Modulus decay is instantaneous and purely gravitational with lifetime tau ~ 16 pi M_Pl^2 / m_chi^3.
    Used to relate mass to decay temperature and to eliminate m_chi tau when solving for m_chi.
  • ad hoc to paper A step in the inflaton potential is the correct explanation of CMB low multipole anomalies, with the step position taken from Ref. [51].
    Imported from prior work to set additional constraints on reheating parameters in Section IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reheating constraints to modulus mass for single field inflationary models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDLFBQ3U

@misc{pith2026190804203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reheating constraints to modulus mass for single field inflationary models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDLFBQ3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04203}
}
abstract

We consider string and supergravity motivated scenarios in which moduli fields dominate the energy density of the Universe in a post-inflationary epoch. For the case of a single light modulus it has been shown that considering the evolution of a specific scale from the time of its Hubble crossing during inflation to the present time, a relation can be obtained among the lightest modulus mass, the reheating parameters ($T_{\text{reh}}$, $\bar{w}_{\text{reh}}$ and $N_{\text{reh}}$) and the inflationary observables. By paying closer attention to the role of the $\bar{w}_{\text{reh}}$, we obtain more stringent constraints on the value of the modulus mass and the reheating parameters using the CMB data. Next, the analysis is extended to include features in the inflaton potential as a source of CMB low multipole anomalies, which further constrains the mass of the modulus to be substantially higher than without such a constraint. By both considerations and for several inflation models considered, we find a constraint on the mass of the lightest modulus particle, $m_{\chi}$, generically $\gtrsim10^{15}$GeV, with possible low values $\sim10^{12}$GeV. While a simplification of the reheating phase is assumed, the bounds are reliably suggestive, and the study may be taken as a demonstration that substantial knowledge about reheating phase buried deep in the early epochs of the Universe is accessible through the use of CMB observables today.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04203 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A non-standard evolution of our Universe, which consists of the following epochs – [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plots of allowed modulus mass values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Plots of allowed modulus mass values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plots of allowed modulus mass values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Plots of allowed modulus mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    Inflationary Constraints on Late Time Modulus Dominated Cosmology

    K. Dutta and A. Maharana, Phys. Rev. D91, 043503 (2015), 1409.7037

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  2. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck) (2018), 1807.06209

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck) (2018), 1807.06211

    arXiv 2018

  4. [3]

    We are able to reproduce the bound mχ & 109GeV as obtained in these works, when we use the simpler parameter values used there, though we use the updated data of Planck 2018

    Ref [65] introduces two parameters wre1 andwre2 for the 9 two reheating phases and the same assumption on the limits to their values is made. We are able to reproduce the bound mχ & 109GeV as obtained in these works, when we use the simpler parameter values used there, though we use the updated data of Planck 2018. However, due to the exponential nature o...

    2018

  5. [4]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), 1502.01589

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A20 (2016), 1502.02114

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A22 (2014), 1303.5082

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A16 (2014), 1303.5076

    arXiv 2014

Show all 90 references
  1. [8]

    Dunkley et al

    J. Dunkley et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180, 306 (2009), 0803.0586

    2009 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Komatsu et al

    E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180, 330 (2009), 0803.0547

    2009 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Komatsu, K

    E. Komatsu, K. M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 192, 18 (2011), URL http://stacks.iop.org/0067-0049/192/i=2/a=18. 22

    2011

  4. [11]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, M. R. Nolta, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, N. Odegard, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 208, 19 (2013), URL http://stacks.iop.org/0067-0049/208/i=2/a=19

    2013

  5. [12]

    H. V. Peiris et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 213 (2003), astro-ph/0302225

    2003 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Larson, J

    D. Larson, J. Dunkley, G. Hinshaw, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, N. Jarosik, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 192, 16 (2011), URL http://stacks.iop.org/0067-0049/192/i=2/a=16

    2011

  7. [14]

    M. L. Brown, P. Ade, J. Bock, M. Bowden, G. Cahill, P. G. Castro, S. Church, T. Culverhouse, R. B. Friedman, K. Ganga, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 705, 978 (2009), URL http: //stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/705/i=1/a=978

    2009

  8. [15]

    C. L. Reichardt et al., Astrophys. J. 694, 1200 (2009), 0801.1491

    2009 arXiv

  9. [16]

    A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982)

    1982

  10. [17]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B117, 175 (1982)

    1982

  11. [18]

    V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rept. 215, 203 (1992)

    1992

  12. [19]

    J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D28, 679 (1983)

    1983

  13. [20]

    Riotto, in Astroparticle physics and cosmology

    A. Riotto, in Astroparticle physics and cosmology. Proceedings: Summer School, Trieste, Italy, Jun 17-Jul 5 2002 (2002), pp. 317–413, hep-ph/0210162

    2002 arXiv

  14. [21]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. 91B, 99 (1980)

    1980

  15. [22]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  16. [23]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  17. [24]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. 115B, 295 (1982)

    1982

  18. [25]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B129, 177 (1983)

    1983

  19. [26]

    A. D. Linde, Lect. Notes Phys. 738, 1 (2008), 0705.0164

    2008 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ. 5-6, 75 (2014), 1303.3787

    2014 arXiv

  21. [28]

    C. P. Burgess, M. Cicoli, and F. Quevedo, JCAP 1311, 003 (2013), 1306.3512

    2013 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Silverstein (2013), 1311.2312

    E. Silverstein (2013), 1311.2312

    2013 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Baumann and L

    D. Baumann and L. McAllister, Inflation and String Theory, Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015), ISBN 9781107089693, 9781316237182, 1404.2601, URL http://www.cambridge.org/mw/academic/subjects/physics/ theoretical-physics-and-mathema...

    2015 arXiv

  24. [31]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D28, 1243 (1983)

    1983

  25. [32]

    J. H. Traschen and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D42, 2491 (1990)

    1990

  26. [33]

    Albrecht, P

    A. Albrecht, P. J. Steinhardt, M. S. Turner, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1437 (1982)

    1982

  27. [34]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3195 (1994), hep- th/9405187

    1994

  28. [35]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D56, 3258 (1997), hep- ph/9704452

    1997

  29. [36]

    Drewes and J

    M. Drewes and J. U. Kang, Nucl. Phys. B875, 315 (2013), [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B888,284(2014)], 1305.0267

    2013 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Allahverdi, R

    R. Allahverdi, R. Brandenberger, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and A. Mazumdar, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 27 (2010), 1001.2600

    2010 arXiv

  31. [38]

    G. D. Coughlan, W. Fischler, E. W. Kolb, S. Raby, and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. 131B, 59 (1983)

    1983

  32. [39]

    Banks, D

    T. Banks, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D49, 779 (1994), hep-ph/9308292

    1994 arXiv

  33. [40]

    de Carlos, J

    B. de Carlos, J. A. Casas, F. Quevedo, and E. Roulet, Phys. Lett. B318, 447 (1993), hep- ph/9308325

    1993

  34. [42]

    Goswami and U

    R. Goswami and U. A. Yajnik, JCAP 1810, 018 (2018), 1806.10340

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hannestad, Phys

    S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. D63, 043009 (2001), astro-ph/0009296

    2001 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. L. Bridle, A. M. Lewis, J. Weller, and G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 342, L72 (2003), astro-ph/0302306

    2003 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Mukherjee and Y

    P. Mukherjee and Y. Wang, Astrophys. J. 599, 1 (2003), astro-ph/0303211

    2003 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Hannestad, JCAP 0404, 002 (2004), astro-ph/0311491

    S. Hannestad, JCAP 0404, 002 (2004), astro-ph/0311491

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Shafieloo and T

    A. Shafieloo and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D70, 043523 (2004), astro-ph/0312174

    2004 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Shafieloo, T

    A. Shafieloo, T. Souradeep, P. Manimaran, P. K. Panigrahi, and R. Rangarajan, Phys. Rev. D75, 123502 (2007), astro-ph/0611352

    2007 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Shafieloo and T

    A. Shafieloo and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D78, 023511 (2008), 0709.1944

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Nagata and J

    R. Nagata and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D79, 043010 (2009), 0812.4585

    2009 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Nicholson and C

    G. Nicholson and C. R. Contaldi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2009, 011 (2009), URL http://stacks.iop.org/1475-7516/2009/i=07/a=011

    2009

  44. [52]

    D. K. Hazra, M. Aich, R. K. Jain, L. Sriramkumar, and T. Souradeep, JCAP 1010, 008 24 (2010), 1005.2175

    2010 arXiv

  45. [53]

    D. K. Hazra, A. Shafieloo, G. F. Smoot, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 1609, 009 (2016), 1605.02106

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D. K. Hazra, D. Paoletti, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, A. Shafieloo, G. F. Smoot, and A. A. Starobinsky (2017), 1710.01205

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 55, 489 (1992), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.55,477(1992)]

    1992

  48. [56]

    Dvorkin and W

    C. Dvorkin and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D81, 023518 (2010), 0910.2237

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. A. Adams, B. Cresswell, and R. Easther, Phys. Rev. D64, 123514 (2001), astro-ph/0102236

    2001 arXiv

  50. [58]

    L. Covi, J. Hamann, A. Melchiorri, A. Slosar, and I. Sorbera, Phys. Rev. D74, 083509 (2006), astro-ph/0606452

    2006 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Hamann, L

    J. Hamann, L. Covi, A. Melchiorri, and A. Slosar, Phys. Rev. D76, 023503 (2007), astro- ph/0701380

    2007

  52. [60]

    M. J. Mortonson, C. Dvorkin, H. V. Peiris, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D79, 103519 (2009), 0903.4920

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    M. Joy, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D77, 023514 (2008), 0711.1585

    2008 arXiv

  54. [62]

    R. K. Jain, P. Chingangbam, J.-O. Gong, L. Sriramkumar, and T. Souradeep, JCAP 0901, 009 (2009), 0809.3915

    2009 arXiv

  55. [63]

    R. K. Jain, P. Chingangbam, L. Sriramkumar, and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D82, 023509 (2010), 0904.2518

    2010 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Garg and U

    I. Garg and U. A. Yajnik, Phys. Rev. D98, 063523 (2018), 1802.03915

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    G. Kane, K. Sinha, and S. Watson, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1530022 (2015), 1502.07746

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    K. Das, K. Dutta, and A. Maharana, Phys. Lett. B751, 195 (2015), 1506.05745

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Cicoli, K

    M. Cicoli, K. Dutta, A. Maharana, and F. Quevedo, JCAP 1608, 006 (2016), 1604.08512

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Dutta, and A. Maharana, Phys. Rev. D96, 083522 (2017), [Addendum: Phys. Rev.D96,no.10,109901(2017)], 1707.07924

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Dutta, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and A. Maharana, Phys. Rev. D97, 123533 (2018), 1711.04807

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Maharana and I

    A. Maharana and I. Zavala, Phys. Rev. D97, 123518 (2018), 1712.07071

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Boyanovsky, H

    D. Boyanovsky, H. J. de Vega, R. Holman, and J. F. J. Salgado, in String theory in curved space times. Proceedings, String Gravity Meeting, Paris, France, June 6-7, 1996 (1996), pp. 260–280, astro-ph/9609007. 25

    1996 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Kofman, in Particle cosmology

    L. Kofman, in Particle cosmology. Proceedings, 3rd RESCEU International Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, November 10-13, 1997 (1997), pp. 1–8, hep-ph/9802285

    1997 arXiv

  65. [73]

    G. N. Felder, L. Kofman, and A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D59, 123523 (1999), hep-ph/9812289

    1999 arXiv

  66. [74]

    G. F. Giudice, A. Riotto, and I. I. Tkachev, JHEP 06, 020 (2001), hep-ph/0103248

    2001 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Desroche, G

    M. Desroche, G. N. Felder, J. M. Kratochvil, and A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D71, 103516 (2005), hep-th/0501080

    2005 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Martin, Braz

    J. Martin, Braz. J. Phys. 34, 1307 (2004), astro-ph/0312492

    2004 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 081303 (2015), 1410.7958

    2015 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Allahverdi, K

    R. Allahverdi, K. Dutta, and A. Maharana, JCAP 10, 038 (2018), 1808.02659

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    L. Dai, M. Kamionkowski, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 041302 (2014), 1404.6704

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    A. D. Linde, JETP Lett. 38, 176 (1983), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.38,149(1983)]

    1983

  73. [81]

    B. A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa, and D. Wands, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 537 (2006), astro-ph/0507632

    2006 arXiv

  74. [82]

    W. H. Kinney and K. T. Mahanthappa, Phys. Lett. B383, 24 (1996), hep-ph/9511460

    1996 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Kehagias, A

    A. Kehagias, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D89, 043527 (2014), 1312.1155

    2014 arXiv

  76. [84]

    J. L. Cook, E. Dimastrogiovanni, D. A. Easson, and L. M. Krauss, JCAP 1504, 047 (2015), 1502.04673

    2015 arXiv

  77. [85]

    A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Phys. Rept. 231, 1 (1993), astro-ph/9303019

    1993 arXiv

  78. [86]

    A. S. Goncharov, A. D. Linde, and M. I. Vysotsky, Phys. Lett. 147B, 279 (1984)

    1984

  79. [87]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and D. Nemeschansky, Phys. Lett. 136B, 169 (1984)

    1984

  80. [88]

    G. D. Coughlan, R. Holman, P. Ramond, and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. 140B, 44 (1984)

    1984

  81. [89]

    M. Dine, L. Randall, and S. D. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 398 (1995), hep-ph/9503303

    1995 arXiv

  82. [90]

    M. Dine, L. Randall, and S. D. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. B458, 291 (1996), hep-ph/9507453. 26

    1996 arXiv

Pith tools

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