Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Helical phase inflation and its observational constraints

T0 review · 3 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 Helical phase inflation — the phase of a complex supergravity field rolling on a helicoid potential — yields α-attractor predictions, and on a brane the tensor-to-scalar ratio is 3/2 times its general-relativity value.

desk verdict GR part solid; brane attractor formulas in Eqs. (3.12) and (3.14) drop a^2/λ, which breaks the abstract's one-parameter claim and the 3/2 ratio. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05201 v2 pith:ISTQKUL7 submitted 2019-08-14 hep-ph gr-qc

Mudassar Sabir , Waqas Ahmed , Yungui Gong , Tianjun Li , Jiong Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phgr-qc
keywords helicalphaseinflationsupergravityalpha-attractorsmonodromybraneworldcosmologytensor-to-scalarratiospectralindexreheatingtemperature
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 argues that helical phase inflation, in which the phase of a complex supergravity field rolls along a damped cosine potential, can satisfy current limits on the spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio without fine tuning. In the large-$c$ limit the predictions converge to one α-attractor line, $n_s \simeq 1 - 2/N_*$, independent of the parameter $b$, with $r \simeq 8/(c^2 N_*^2)$ in general relativity and $r \simeq 12/(c^2 N_*^2)$ in high-energy brane cosmology. This matters because the same potential interpolates between natural inflation and Starobinsky-like inflation, and because the brane version permits sub-Planckian field excursions while remaining testable by future CMB polarization experiments. The paper also derives reheating temperature bounds and maps the viable parameter space against current observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the helicoid potential $V(\theta)=a^2[1+e^{-2c\theta}-2e^{-c\theta}\cos(b\theta)]$, obtained from the ${\mathcal N}=1$ supergravity potential by fixing the radial mode at $r=1$ and the stabilizer field $X=0$; the U(1) phase monodromy of the superpotential cancels the exponential Kähler factor and solves the eta problem. The argument runs on the α-attractor identity: with $c=\sqrt{2/(3\alpha)}$, the potential reproduces the T-model and E-model, and in the large-$c$ regime the slow-roll integrals give $N_* \sim e^{c\theta_*}/(2c^2)$, yielding $n_s \simeq 1 - 2/N_*$ and $r \simeq 8/(c^2 N_*^2)$. In brane cosmology the modified Friedmann equation inserts a factor $1+V/(2\lambda)$ into the e-fold integral and a correction factor into the tensor amplitude, changing the coefficient of $r$ from $8$ to $12$ while leaving $n_s$ unchanged; the independence from $b$ follows because the cosine term is subleading when $e^{-c\theta}\ll 1$, so $b$ enters observables only at order $b^2$.

What would settle it

Future CMB polarization experiments with sensitivity near $r\sim 10^{-3}$ can settle the claim: at fixed $N_*\approx 55$, the model predicts $r$ scaling as $8/(c^2N_*^2)$ in general relativity and $12/(c^2N_*^2)$ on a brane, so a measured $r$ inconsistent with both scalings, or two models with different $b$ but the same $c$ and $N_*$ giving different $(n_s,r)$, would falsify the attractor and its $b$-independence. A detection of isocurvature perturbations from an unfrozen radial mode would likewise show the single-field reduction is invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the phase component $\theta$ of a complex field, with potential $V(\theta)=a^2[1+e^{-2c\theta}-2e^{-c\theta}\cos(b\theta)]$ after stabilizing the radial mode and the stabilizer field, is a viable inflaton in both standard cosmology and the high-energy brane regime. For large $c$ the potential approaches a plateau and the observables reduce to universal α-attractor forms: $n_s \simeq 1 - 2/N_*$ and $r \simeq 8/(c^2 N_*^2)$ in general relativity, while on a brane the same spectral index holds but $r \simeq 12/(c^2 N_*^2)$, a factor of $3/2$ larger. Both attractors are independent of $b$ at leading order. Natural inflation ($c=0$) survives only at the $2\sigma$ level in general relativity and is excluded on a brane, whereas the Starobinsky-like branch ($b=0$) yields the central observed spectral index and a wide range of tensor-to-scalar ratio; the paper concludes that the model fits the current CMB constraints on $n_s$ and $r$.

Load-bearing premise

The single-field analysis stands on the premise that the size of the complex field stays exactly at its minimum and the stabilizer field stays at zero during inflation; if that stabilization is not strong enough, multi-field effects would change $n_s$ and $r$ and could invalidate the claimed constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, larger values of $c$ automatically suppress the tensor-to-scalar ratio as $1/c^2$ while keeping $n_s$ pinned near $1-2/N_*$, so current $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ CMB contours translate directly into bounds on the two parameters $b$ and $c$.
  • In the brane version, natural inflation is excluded at the $2\sigma$ level while the Starobinsky-like branch survives, and sub-Planckian field excursions are obtained whenever $r<0.03$.
  • Because the brane correction raises $r$ by a factor of $3/2$ at fixed $c$ and $N_*$, a future measurement of the tensor-to-scalar ratio could distinguish standard from brane cosmology within this model.
  • The reheating temperature can be tuned across orders of magnitude through the inflaton–Higgsino coupling and the ratio $a^2/\lambda$, allowing the model to satisfy the gravitino bound $T_r \lesssim 10^9$ GeV.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An inference the authors leave implicit: because the attractor is independent of $b$, the pair $(c,N_*)$ fully determines $n_s$ and $r$ within this model, so any observed deviation from that one-parameter line would rule out the entire family rather than a single parameter choice.
  • Since $c$ maps to $\alpha$ through $c=\sqrt{2/(3\alpha)}$, future CMB experiments that constrain α-attractors can be read as direct bounds on the helical model's single free parameter, a translation the paper does not spell out.
  • A testable extension would be to evolve the full two-field dynamics with the radial mode slightly displaced; if the corrections exceed $O(b^2)$, the attractor line would shift and isocurvature searches would see it.
  • The same phase-monodromy mechanism could be applied to potentials with higher harmonics beyond a single cosine; those models would likely preserve the α-attractor behavior while changing subleading corrections, which is a natural next step not taken here.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies single-field inflation from the helical phase potential V(θ)=a^2[1+e^{-2cθ}-2e^{-cθ}cos(bθ)] arising from N=1 supergravity, in both standard cosmology and RS-II braneworld cosmology. It derives analytic slow-roll predictions in the large-c limit: in GR, n_s≈1-2/N_* and r≈8/(c^2 N_*^2), independent of b; on the brane, it claims n_s≈1-2/N_* and r≈12/(c^2 N_*^2), with the brane r being 3/2 times the GR value. It confronts these predictions with Planck 2018 and BICEP2 data, maps the allowed (b,c) parameter space, discusses sub-Planckian field excursions, and estimates the reheating temperature.

Significance. The model is interesting as a single supergravity potential interpolating between natural and Starobinsky-like inflation, and the analytic GR attractor results are cleanly derived and internally consistent. The paper is transparent in its numerical comparison with Planck/BICEP2 data. The central brane claim, however, contains an algebraic error that changes the predictions by a factor a^2/λ, and the single-field reduction used in the brane regime is not justified for the parameter values plotted. As a result, the brane conclusions are not established as presented; the GR part is sound and provides a genuine α-attractor realization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.14)] Substituting Eq. (3.11), N_* ≃ (a^2/(4λc^2)) e^{cθ_*}, into the preceding expression r ≃ (192λc^2/a^2) e^{-2cθ_*} yields r ≃ 12(a^2/λ)/(c^2 N_*^2), not r ≃ 12/(c^2 N_*^2) as printed. The same correction applies to Eq. (3.14). The factor a^2/λ is physically meaningful: it is the ratio of the inflationary energy scale to the brane tension, and the paper itself notes after Eq. (3.10) that this ratio cannot be fixed by A_s^2 and r. Therefore the brane α-attractor is not one-parameter and is not simply 3/2 times the GR result. With the value a^2/λ = 100 used in Fig. 2, the correct brane r at fixed c is 150 times the GR value, not 3/2 times. This changes the constraints in Fig. 2 and undermines the abstract's claim that the attractors depend on one model parameter only.
  2. [Sec. 2 (Eqs. (2.5)–(2.6)) and Sec. 3 (Eqs. (3.1)–(3.10))] The single-field reduction V(r,θ) → V(θ) assumes the radial mode is heavy with m_r^2 ≫ H^2. This is plausible in GR, where H^2 ≈ a^2/3 and m_r^2 ≈ 4e a^2 ≈ 10.9a^2, but it fails in the brane high-energy limit used in the paper. With V ≈ a^2 and a^2/λ = 100, Eq. (3.1) gives H^2 ≈ (a^2/3)(1+a^2/(2λ)) ≈ 17a^2, so m_r^2/H^2 ≈ 0.6. The radial mode is then lighter than the Hubble scale, and isocurvature or multi-field effects can alter n_s and r. The paper should either restrict the brane analysis to a^2/λ ≲ 10, where the heavy-mass condition holds, or provide a two-field calculation. As written, the brane predictions are not protected by the stabilization argument in Sec. 2.
  3. [Sec. 4 (Conclusions)] The conclusion that 'the value of r is 3/2 times larger than [in GR]' is incorrect; from the corrected algebra it should be (3/2)(a^2/λ). Similarly, the abstract's statement that the attractors 'depend on one model parameter only' is not valid for the brane case unless a^2/λ is fixed by an external input, which the paper does not provide. These statements should be revised along with the equations in Sec. 3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.11)] The polynomial expansion is incorrect: for c=0 the small-θ limit of Eq. (2.6) is V ≃ a^2 b^2 θ^2, not (1/2)a^2 b^2 θ^2, and the general expansion also contains an a^2 c^2 θ^2 term. The shape of the potential is unaffected, so the exclusion conclusion stands, but the displayed expression should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.12)] The expression for N_* in the Starobinsky-like case is not the exact slow-roll integral; the exact GR result is N_* = (e^{cθ_*} - e^{cθ_e})/(2c^2) - (θ_* - θ_e)/(2c). The printed formula appears to be an uncontrolled approximation and should be labeled as such or corrected.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.8)] The equality x = [3H^2/(4πλ)]^{1/2} = [2V/λ (1+V/(2λ))]^{1/2} is not consistent with Eq. (3.1) when M_P=1; the first expression gives x^2 = V(1+V/(2λ))/(4πλ). Please clarify whether the reduced Planck mass M_P=1 or the four-dimensional Planck mass M_4=1 is being used throughout Sec. 3, and adjust the definitions of F^2 and the high-energy limit accordingly.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] Please state explicitly that the points are obtained with the constrained (b,c) parameters from Fig. 2 and with a^2/λ=100; the current caption is too brief to be reproducible.
  5. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.16)] The identification m_Φ = 2a^2(b^2+c^2) is not derived. For the full potential (2.6) with b≠0 and c≠0, the minimum is not at θ=0, so the inflaton mass around the true minimum should be checked rather than simply read from the quadratic coefficient at θ=0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: predictions follow algebraically from the assumed helical potential and are compared with external Planck 2018/BICEP2 constraints.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, each load-bearing prediction is obtained by evaluating the assumed potential V(θ)=a^2[1+e^{-2cθ}-2e^{-cθ}cos(bθ)] with standard slow-roll formulas, not by fitting the target observables into the model. The GR α-attractor results (2.12)-(2.19) and the polynomial/natural limits are algebraic consequences of the potential; parameters b and c are scanned and matched against external Planck 2018/BICEP2 contours, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The brane analysis (3.11)-(3.14) uses the standard RSII slow-roll relations from Refs. [30,35] and derives N*, n_s, and r in the same way; the final step is a parametrized prediction, not an input. Self-citations [9-11,25] supply the model potential and earlier α-attractor brane work, but the load-bearing reduction in this paper does not depend on any unverified self-citation or uniqueness theorem: the radial stabilization and single-field reduction are justified from the displayed Kähler/superpotential with stated approximations (b≪1, e^{-cθ}≪1), and the attractor claims are worked out explicitly. A separate internal arithmetic inconsistency exists in Eqs. (3.12) and (3.14): substituting (3.11) into r≃192λc^2/(a^2 e^{2cθ_*}) gives r≃12a^2/(λc^2N_*^2), not 12/(c^2N_*^2); this affects the quantitative brane prediction and the 'one parameter' statement, but it is an algebraic error rather than a circular reduction of the derivation to its input. No step in the paper defines a quantity in terms of the predicted observable, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No new particles or forces are introduced. The central derivation depends on two superpotential parameters b and c, the chosen e-fold number N=60, and in the brane case the arbitrary ratio a^2/λ=100, plus standard supergravity and braneworld assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • b = Allowed range from Planck/BICEP2, roughly 0 to 0.25; no best-fit value
    Controls the oscillatory part of the helical potential; scanned over a grid and constrained by ns-r contours.
  • c = Allowed range up to about 3 for N=60 in the shown plots; no best-fit value
    Controls the exponential flattening of the potential; appears in the attractor formulas for ns and r.
  • a^2/λ = 100 (chosen in the brane analysis)
    Ratio of the inflation scale to the brane tension in the high-energy brane limit. It is not fixed by the scalar amplitude and r together, and it enters the brane r formula; fixing it at 100 is a choice, not a prediction.
  • N* = 60
    Number of e-folds before the end of inflation. Assumed fixed; constraints shift if N* is varied.
  • γ = 10^-3 or 10^-5
    Reheating coupling in W⊃γΦHuHd; scanned over two orders of magnitude to estimate reheating temperature.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Kähler potential and superpotential in Eqs. (2.1)-(2.2) define the helical phase model, with the phase monodromy U(1) symmetry solving the eta problem.
    Taken from Refs. [9-11]; the paper does not rederive the UV origin.
  • domain assumption Radial field r is stabilized at 1 and X is fixed at 0 during inflation, so the phase-only potential (2.6) applies.
    Invoked before Eq. (2.6); corrections of order b^2 are neglected.
  • domain assumption Slow-roll approximation and single-field perturbation formulas for ns and r are valid.
    Used throughout Secs. 2 and 3 to derive the attractor expressions.
  • domain assumption The braneworld Friedmann equation (3.1) with the ρ^2 correction and the high-energy limit V≫λ describe the early universe.
    Taken from Refs. [30,35]; needed for the brane attractor formulas.
  • domain assumption Reheating proceeds through W⊃γΦHuHd with the decay width (3.16).
    Added in Sec. 3.1 to estimate the reheating temperature Tr.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Helical phase inflation and its observational constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ISTQKUL7

@misc{pith2026190805201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Helical phase inflation and its observational constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ISTQKUL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05201}
}
abstract

We consider a class of helical phase inflation models from the ${\mathcal N}=1$ supergravity where the phase component of a complex field acts as an inflaton. This class of models avoids the eta problem in supergravity inflation due to the phase monodromy of the superpotential. We study the inflationary predictions of this class of models in the context of both standard and large extra dimensional brane cosmology, and find that they can easily accommodate the Planck 2018 and BICEP2 constraints. We find that the helical phase inflation has $\alpha$-attractors and the attractors depend on one model parameter only.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 347

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    A. A. Starobinsky, A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity , Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99

    1980

  3. [3]

    Sato, First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe , Mon

    K. Sato, First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195 (1981) 467

    work page 1981

  4. [4]

    A. D. Linde, A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems , Phys. Lett. B 108 (1982) 389

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1220

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi, Fluctuations in the New Inflationary Universe , Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1110

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Martin, C

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

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Suzuki et al., The LiteBIRD Satellite Mission - Sub-Kelvin Instrument , J

    A. Suzuki et al., The LiteBIRD Satellite Mission - Sub-Kelvin Instrument , J. Low. Temp. Phys. 193 (2018) 1048 [ 1801.06987]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    T. Li, Z. Li and D. V. Nanopoulos, Helical Phase Inflation via Non-Geometric Flux Compactifications: from Natural to Starobinsky-like Inflation , JHEP 10 (2015) 138 [1507.04687]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    T. Li, Z. Li and D. V. Nanopoulos, Helical Phase Inflation , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 061303 [1409.3267]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    T. Li, Z. Li and D. V. Nanopoulos, Helical Phase Inflation and Monodromy in Supergravity Theory, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015 (2015) 397410 [ 1412.5093]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Freese, J

    K. Freese, J. A. Frieman and A. V. Olinto, Natural inflation with pseudo - Nambu-Goldstone bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 3233

    1990

  5. [13]

    Ooguri and C

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland , Nucl. Phys. B 766 (2007) 21 [ hep-th/0605264]

    2007 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ooguri, E

    H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu and C. Vafa, Distance and de Sitter Conjectures on the Swampland, Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 180 [ 1810.05506]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Palti, The Swampland: Introduction and Review , Fortsch

    E. Palti, The Swampland: Introduction and Review , Fortsch. Phys. 67 (2019) 1900037 [1903.06239]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Landete and G

    A. Landete and G. Shiu, Mass Hierarchies and Dynamical Field Range , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 066012 [ 1806.01874]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Achcarro and G

    A. Achcarro and G. A. Palma, The string swampland constraints require multi-field inflation, JCAP 02 (2019) 041 [ 1807.04390]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jaman and K

    N. Jaman and K. Myrzakulov, Braneworld inflation with an effective α-attractor potential, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 103523 [ 1807.07443]. – 11 –

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lin, K.-W

    C.-M. Lin, K.-W. Ng and K. Cheung, Chaotic inflation on the brane and the Swampland Criteria, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 023545 [ 1810.01644]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Brahma and M

    S. Brahma and M. Wali Hossain, Avoiding the string swampland in single-field inflation: Excited initial states , JHEP 03 (2019) 006 [ 1809.01277]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Safsafi, I

    A. Safsafi, I. Khay, F. Salamate, H. Chakir and M. Bennai, On Chaplygin Gas Braneworld Inflation with Monomial Potential , Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018 (2018) 2958605 [1804.11198]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Es-sobbahi and M

    H. Es-sobbahi and M. Nach, On braneworld inverse power-law inflation , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (2018) 1850058

    2018

  15. [23]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Das and M. R. Gangopadhyay, Probing the era of reheating for reconstructed inflationary potential in the RS II braneworld , 1908.02542

    1908 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jawad, I

    A. Jawad, I. Zehra and W. Nazeer, Warm vector inflation in brane-world scenario , Astrophys. Space Sci. 364 (2019) 30

    2019

  17. [25]

    Sabir, W

    M. Sabir, W. Ahmed, Y. Gong and Y. Lu, α-attractor from superconformal E-models in brane inflation , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 15 [ 1903.08435]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Sabir, W

    M. Sabir, W. Ahmed, Y. Gong, S. Hu, T. Li and L. Wu, A note on brane inflation under consistency conditions, 1905.03033

    1905 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Alexander, R

    S. Alexander, R. H. Brandenberger and D. A. Easson, Brane gases in the early universe, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 103509 [ hep-th/0005212]

    2000 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation , 1807.06211

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    BICEP2, Keck Array collaboration, BICEP2 / Keck Array x: Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and New BICEP2/Keck Observations through the 2015 Season , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 221301 [1810.05216]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Langlois, R

    D. Langlois, R. Maartens and D. Wands, Gravitational waves from inflation on the brane, Phys. Lett. B 489 (2000) 259 [ hep-th/0006007]

    2000 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, Planck, LHC, and α-attractors, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 083528 [1502.07733]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest, Superconformal Inflationaryα-Attractors, JHEP 11 (2013) 198 [ 1311.0472]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Shiromizu, K.-i

    T. Shiromizu, K.-i. Maeda and M. Sasaki, The Einstein equation on the 3-brane world , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 024012 [ gr-qc/9910076]

    2000 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Csaki, M

    C. Csaki, M. Graesser, C. F. Kolda and J. Terning, Cosmology of one extra dimension with localized gravity, Phys. Lett. B 462 (1999) 34 [ hep-ph/9906513]

    1999 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Maartens, D

    R. Maartens, D. Wands, B. A. Bassett and I. Heard, Chaotic inflation on the brane , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 041301 [ hep-ph/9912464]

    2000 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Binetruy, C

    P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet, U. Ellwanger and D. Langlois, Brane cosmological evolution in a bulk with cosmological constant , Phys. Lett. B 477 (2000) 285 [ hep-th/9910219]

    2000 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Binetruy, C

    P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet and D. Langlois, Nonconventional cosmology from a brane universe, Nucl. Phys. B 565 (2000) 269 [ hep-th/9905012]. – 12 –

    2000 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, An Alternative to compactification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4690 [ hep-th/9906064]

    1999 arXiv

  31. [39]

    M. C. Bento, R. G. Felipe and N. M. C. Santos, Brane assisted quintessential inflation with transient acceleration, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 123512 [ 0801.3450]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Okada and Q

    N. Okada and Q. Shafi, µ-term hybrid inflation and split supersymmetry , Phys. Lett. B 775 (2017) 348 [ 1506.01410]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe , Front. Phys. 69 (1990) 1

    1990

  34. [42]

    Ahmed and A

    W. Ahmed and A. Karozas, Inflation from a no-scale supersymmetric SU (4)c×SU (2)L×SU (2)R model, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 023538 [ 1804.04822]. – 13 –

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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