Ricci Subtraction for Cosmological Coleman-Weinberg Potentials

R. P. Woodard (UF); S. Park (CEICO); S. P. Miao (NCKU)

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ricci Subtraction for Cosmological Coleman-Weinberg Potentials

T0 review · 3 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 Ricci subtraction for cosmological Coleman-Weinberg potentials makes the first Friedmann equation higher-derivative and forces the slow-roll parameter to grow at a rate of at least about 6, ending inflation within one e-folding.

desk verdict Convincing negative result on the Ricci-subtraction scheme for Coleman-Weinberg potentials, with a disclosed approximation limiting the headline bound. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05558 v2 pith:74QBXJGH submitted 2019-08-15 gr-qc

S. P. Miao (NCKU) , S. Park (CEICO) , R. P. Woodard (UF) This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83F0583C4781T20 PACS 04.50.Kd95.35.+d98.62.-g

keywords Coleman-Weinbergpotentialinflationfine-tuningRiccisubtractionslow-rollparameterhigher-derivativeequationsdeSitterquantumcorrectionsreheating

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 claims that the second permitted local way to subtract cosmological Coleman-Weinberg corrections fails. Replacing the Hubble parameter by the Ricci scalar in the subtraction makes the first Friedmann equation second-order in the expansion rate, so the subtraction excites a new scalar degree of freedom. For the $m^2\phi^2$ model with either Yukawa or gauge couplings, the initial growth rate of the first slow-roll parameter $\epsilon(n)$ is at least about 6, compared with the classical value of roughly $5\times 10^{-5}$; consequently inflation lasts less than one e-folding. The issue matters because efficient reheating requires coupling the inflaton to ordinary matter, and these quantum corrections are too large to ignore and cannot be fully removed by any local counterterm.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the replacement $H^2 \to \tfrac{1}{12}R = (1-\tfrac12\epsilon)H^2$, which dresses the subtracted potential $U_{\rm sub}$ with a dependence on the first slow-roll parameter $\epsilon = -H'/H$. Because $\epsilon$ depends on $H'$, the term $\tfrac12\chi^2\frac{d}{dn}\partial U_{\rm sub}/\partial\chi^2$ in the first Friedmann equation contains $\chi''(n)$; solving for $\epsilon'$ gives Eq. (32), whose denominator is controlled by $\partial^2 U_{\rm sub}/\partial\chi^4$. In the small-coupling limit, the large-$z$ and small-$z$ expansions of the digamma-function potentials (Eqs. (20) and (22)) produce an analytic lower bound $\epsilon'(0)\gtrsim 6$ that is independent of the coupling. The same higher-derivative scalar degree of freedom is the reason the $\lambda\to0$ limit disagrees with $\lambda=0$.

What would settle it

Take the explicit $\epsilon(n)$-dependent Coleman-Weinberg potential promised by the companion computation [18], insert it into Eq. (32), and evaluate $\epsilon'(0)$ from the same classical initial conditions. If for couplings as small as $\lambda\sim 10^{-5}$ or $e^2\sim 10^{-12}$ the initial growth rate drops below about 1, the paper's conclusion that Ricci subtraction leaves less than one e-folding of inflation would be refuted; if $\epsilon'(0)$ stays near 6 or larger, the scheme is ruled out. A simpler check is to simulate Eq. (29) numerically with the exact potentials (39)-(40) and (60)-(61) and measure the number of e-foldings before $\epsilon$ reaches 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Called the Ricci subtraction scheme, the paper's central claim is this: subtracting a local function of the inflaton and the Ricci scalar --- equivalently replacing $H^2$ by $\bar H^2 = (1-\tfrac12\epsilon)H^2 = \tfrac{1}{12}R$ --- changes the first Friedmann equation from an algebraic relation for $H$ into a second-order differential equation (Eq. (29)). The new scalar degree of freedom from the $\chi''(n)$ terms makes the first slow-roll parameter grow extremely rapidly. On the $m^2\phi^2$ model, the authors prove analytically (Eq. (52)) that as the Yukawa coupling $\lambda\to0$, the initial growth rate obeys a floor of about 6, so inflation cannot last more than a single e-folding; the bosonic case gives the same floor. The zero-coupling limit is discontinuous: $\lambda=0$ is classical inflation, but any nonzero $\lambda$ carries the higher-derivative instability no matter how small, which the authors identify as the standard signature of a perturbation that changes the number of derivatives. The authors acknowledge in Section 5 that the true potential also depends on $\epsilon(n)$, citing [18], which may change the precise bound but should tighten the obstruction.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the de Sitter Coleman-Weinberg potentials, which depend only on ratios like $\lambda\phi/H$ or $e^2\phi^*\phi/H^2$, remain valid on a general FLRW spacetime when the constant de Sitter Hubble parameter is replaced by the instantaneous $H(t)$; if the true potential also depends on the slow-roll parameter $\epsilon(n)$ in a way that changes the form of $U_{\rm sub}$ and its second derivative with respect to $\chi^2$, the numerical floor $\epsilon'(0)\ge 6$ and the one-e-folding conclusion could change, though the higher-derivative mechanism would persist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Ricci subtraction cannot salvage scalar-driven inflation in the $m^2\phi^2$ model: inflation ends almost immediately for both fermionic and gauge-boson couplings, even at couplings far too small to endanger reheating.
The floor $\epsilon'(0)\gtrsim 6$ is nearly independent of the classical inflation model, so switching to a different inflaton potential is not expected to fix the problem (Section 5).
The discontinuity at zero coupling means perturbation theory in the coupling breaks down: no matter how small $\lambda$ or $e^2$ is, the higher-derivative correction does not become small.
Accounting for the true $\epsilon$-dependence of the cosmological Coleman-Weinberg potentials should tighten the argument and may extend the rapid-end problem even to the inflaton-only subtraction scheme (Section 5).
With both local subtraction schemes (inflaton-only and inflaton-plus-Ricci) unsatisfactory, the fine-tuning problem of coupling the inflaton to matter for reheating remains unresolved.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond this paper, the mechanism suggests that any local counterterm built from a curvature invariant that involves $\dot H$ (such as $R$, $R_{\mu\nu}$, or $R^2$) will inject higher derivatives into the background equations; the obstruction is therefore not special to the $\tfrac{1}{12}R$ replacement.
If the $\epsilon(n)$-dependent potential lowers the floor, the relevant question becomes quantitative: what is the maximal number of e-foldings compatible with the measured scalar amplitude? That number would convert the present no-go argument into a lower bound on inflaton-matter couplings from the requirement of at least 60 e-foldings.
The failure of local subtraction hints that the physical content of cosmological Coleman-Weinberg corrections is genuinely nonlocal; if so, standard effective-field-theory treatments that absorb such corrections into local counterterms may be missing a contribution that depends on the past history of the expansion, which would affect the prediction for the primordial spectrum.

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

This paper convincingly rules out the Ricci-subtraction scheme for cosmological Coleman-Weinberg potentials. The mechanism is a higher-derivative instability: the subtraction term turns the first Friedmann equation into a second-order equation for the Hubble parameter, and the initial growth rate of the first slow-roll parameter is bounded below by about 6 (Eq. 52), so inflation ends within one e-folding. The catch is that the quantitative bound assumes the de Sitter potentials extend to general FLRW geometries by replacing the constant Hubble parameter with the instantaneous H(t). The authors flag this themselves in Section 5, noting that the true potential depends on epsilon(n) as well, citing [18].

What is new here is the analysis of the second allowed local subtraction scheme. They derive the modified Friedmann equations carefully, provide an analytic small-coupling limit (52) giving epsilon'(0) ~ 6, and support it with numerical scans over a wide range of couplings for both fermion and boson couplings. The discontinuity at zero coupling is explained correctly as a signature of a higher-derivative perturbation. The paper is internally consistent, and the heavy reliance on the authors' own earlier computations is not circular—those potentials are published external inputs.

The soft spots are proportional to disclosed limitations. The analytic proof is only in the small-coupling limit; the claim that epsilon'(0) is never less than about 6 over the whole range is numerical, not closed-form. More importantly, if the epsilon(n) dependence changes the functional form of U_sub, the numerical bound could shift. The higher-derivative mechanism would survive, but the 'less than one e-folding' conclusion is conditional on controlling that dependence. The authors expect the result to tighten, but that is a conjecture, not part of the proof.

Who should read this? Anyone working on inflation, effective potentials in curved spacetime, or the reheating fine-tuning problem. It deserves a serious referee. The derivation is careful and the negative result is worth having in the literature, but a referee should push for a more explicit treatment of the epsilon(n) dependence or a clear statement of what a rigorous check would require.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the Ricci-subtraction scheme for cosmological Coleman-Weinberg corrections to the inflaton potential. The authors extend previously computed de Sitter one-loop potentials to general homogeneous and isotropic geometries by replacing the constant Hubble parameter with the instantaneous H(t), define a subtracted potential built from the Ricci scalar, and derive the resulting modified Friedmann equations. For the m^2 phi^2 model with Yukawa and gauge couplings, they find that the first slow-roll parameter grows at a rate epsilon'(0) that is bounded below by roughly 6 in the small-coupling regime, implying inflation ends within an e-folding when initialized with the classical slow-roll conditions. They also show that the limit lambda -> 0 or e^2 -> 0 does not reproduce the uncoupled classical model, which they interpret as the standard signature of a higher-derivative perturbation.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim is accepted, the paper materially sharpens the fine-tuning problem of single-field inflation: neither of the two allowed local subtraction schemes makes cosmological Coleman-Weinberg potentials harmless, and the Ricci scheme is even worse than initial-time subtraction. The paper ships explicit, internally consistent derivations of the modified Friedmann equations (Eqs. 29-32 and 55-56), an analytic small-coupling expression for epsilon'(0) (Eq. 52), and numerical integrations across many decades of coupling, with the asymptotic mismatch at lambda = 0 clearly explained. The main caveat is that the quantitative bound depends on the instantaneous-H extrapolation, which the authors themselves flag as an approximation in Section 5.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1, after Eq. (8); Section 5] The substitution H -> H(t) is the load-bearing approximation. The authors explicitly note in Section 5 that the true cosmological Coleman-Weinberg potential depends on epsilon(n) as well [18]. Because the denominator in Eqs. (32) and (56) contains d^2 U_sub/d chi-bar^4, an epsilon-dependent functional form could change both the magnitude and even the sign of the ratio that yields epsilon'(0). The persistent higher-derivative mechanism is likely robust, but the quantitative bound epsilon'(0) >= 6 and the 'single e-folding' conclusion are not. The paper should either compute the epsilon-dependent corrections from [18] or carefully state the central claim as conditional on the instantaneous-H ansatz, with a concrete estimate of the resulting uncertainty.
[Eq. (52); Figures 2 and 4; Section 5] The statement in Section 5 that 'the initial value of epsilon' can never be less than about 6' is stronger than what is proven. Eq. (52) is the small-coupling limit; the all-coupling lower bound rests on the numerical plots in Figures 2 and 4. Please either provide a closed-form inequality valid for all couplings or explicitly qualify the bound as established analytically only in the small-coupling limit and supported numerically elsewhere.
[Section 4, Eqs. (34)-(35)] The conclusion 'inflation ends almost instantly' is derived from the classical slow-roll initial data (34)-(35), which constitute a particular choice of initial data for the higher-derivative system. Since the field equations are fourth-order, the new scalar degree of freedom has its own initial data; the paper does not discuss whether other physically motivated choices could reduce the initial excitation of epsilon'. Because the central claim is about what Ricci subtraction 'causes', the dependence on this initial-data choice should be stated explicitly and, if possible, bounded.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.1] The phrase 'homogeneous and siotropic' should read 'homogeneous and isotropic'.
[Figure 2] The y-axis label '3rd term of epsilon'[0]' should make explicit that the plot shows only the third contribution in Eq. (32), not the full epsilon'(0), since the terms -4 epsilon_0 + 2 epsilon_0^2 are omitted.
[Title/header] The arXiv listing title contains a typo, 'Pote ntials'; the manuscript should be corrected in production.
[References] Reference [18] is cited as arXiv:1908.03814; if a published version now exists, it should be cited in final form.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central bound follows analytically from stated assumptions and prior external computations, with no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim, that Ricci subtraction makes inflation end within about one e-folding, is derived rather than assumed. Given the previously computed de Sitter Coleman-Weinberg potentials (cited from [8, 11, 13]) and the explicitly stated assumption that the constant Hubble parameter is replaced by the instantaneous H(t), the Ricci-subtracted potentials are defined in Eqs. (39)-(40) and (60)-(61). The modified first Friedmann equation (29) and the evolution equation for the first slow-roll parameter (32) are obtained by direct substitution, and the analytic bound epsilon'(0) approximately 6 follows in the small-coupling limit as Eq. (52). No parameter is fitted to the conclusion: k is fixed by Planck data in Eq. (38), and the couplings lambda and e^2 are scanned over a wide range, not adjusted to produce the stated bound. The self-citations [8, 9, 11, 13, 18] supply external computational inputs and prior studies; they are not used to define the target result, and the cited computations are independent, published results rather than unverified assertions. The paper's own admission in Section 5 that the true cosmological Coleman-Weinberg potential also depends on epsilon(n), citing [18], is an acknowledged limitation of the instantaneous-H approximation and therefore a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The higher-derivative mechanism follows directly from the form of the subtraction, and the quantitative bound is a consequence of the assumed potential forms, not an input to them. Consequently, there is no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to a fitted value or to a self-citation chain.

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

The main contribution is a derivation conditional on the assumed form of the Coleman-Weinberg potentials. No free parameter is adjusted to produce the instability; k and phi_0 set the baseline model, and coupling constants are scanned. The instantaneous-H replacement is the most important axiom, and the paper closes with an honest discussion of its limitations.

free parameters (4)

k (dimensionless inflaton mass parameter) = 6.13e-6
Fixed by Planck scalar amplitude and spectral index via Eq. (38); sets the baseline mass scale and initial conditions, but does not drive the instability.
phi_0 (initial inflaton amplitude) = 20
Chosen by hand to give about 100 e-foldings in the classical model; not fitted to data and does not affect the small-coupling lower bound.
lambda (Yukawa coupling) = 5.5e-4, scanned over 1e-13 to 1e-4
Sample coupling for Figure 1; scanned to show the instability persists over a wide range. Not fitted to data.
e^2 (gauge coupling squared) = 2.9e-10, scanned down to 1e-15
Sample charge for Figure 3; scanned to show the instability persists. Not fitted to data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption De Sitter Coleman-Weinberg potentials extend to general FLRW by replacing constant H with instantaneous H(t), with no epsilon dependence.
Section 2.1, paragraph after Eq. (8); Section 5 admits the true potential depends on epsilon(n), citing [18]. This is the paper's central approximation.
domain assumption The renormalized Coleman-Weinberg potentials from Refs. [11,13], with conformal and quartic counterterms and mu set by H_inf, are the correct one-loop effective potentials.
Equations (3)-(9) and (11)-(17). Different renormalization schemes could shift logarithmic terms, though the large-z and small-z structures likely persist.
standard math The large-z and small-z asymptotic expansions of Delta_f and Delta_b from Ref. [8] are valid in the regimes used.
Used in Section 4 to derive Eqs. (48) and (66) and the small-coupling limits such as Eq. (52).
ad hoc to paper Classical m^2 phi^2 slow-roll initial conditions (34)-(35) are the correct initial data for the modified higher-derivative system.
The paper chooses phi_0 = 20 and the classical slow-roll values. A higher-derivative system has extra initial data, and this choice excites the runaway mode; the authors argue via the oscillator analogy that perturbation theory breaks down regardless.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ricci Subtraction for Cosmological Coleman-Weinberg Potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74QBXJGH

@misc{pith2026190805558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ricci Subtraction for Cosmological Coleman-Weinberg Potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74QBXJGH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05558}
}

read the original abstract

We reconsider the fine-tuning problem of scalar-driven inflation arising from the need to couple the inflaton to ordinary matter in order to make reheating efficient. Quantum fluctuations of this matter induce Coleman-Weinberg corrections to the inflaton potential, depending (for de Sitter background) in a complex way on the ratio of the inflaton to the Hubble parameter. These corrections are not Planck-suppressed and cannot be completely subtracted because they are not even local for a general geometry. A previous study showed that it is not satisfactory to subtract a local function of just the inflaton and the {\it initial} Hubble parameter. This paper examines the other allowed possibility of subtracting a local function of the inflaton and the Ricci scalar. The problem in this case is that the new, scalar degree of freedom induced by the subtraction causes inflation to end almost instantly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05558 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Plots of the dimensionless scalar φ(n) (on the left), the dimensionless Hubble parameter χ(n) (middle) and the first slow roll parameter ǫ(n) (on the right) for classical model (in blue) and the quantum-corrected model (in red dots) with Yukawa coupling λ = 5.5 × 10−4 . While the initial evolution of the scalar and the Hubble parameter is not visibly affected by the quantum correction, the first slow roll parameter… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Log-log plot of the final term in relation (32) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Plots of the dimensionless scalar φ(n) (on the left), the dimensionless Hubble parameter χ(n) (middle) and the first slow roll parameter ǫ(n) (on the right) for classical model (in blue) and the quantum-corrected model (in red) with the charge-squared e 2 = 4π 137 × 10−8.5 ≃ 2.9 × 10−10 . The rapid onset of deviations from classical evolution evident in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Plot of the 3rd term in expression (56) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.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

The Inflaton Effective Potential for General $\epsilon$
gr-qc 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The one-loop inflaton effective potential in a general slow-roll FRW background depends locally on H and ε with a residual nonlocal contribution, and the Friedmann equations are generalized to actions depending on H and ε.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[18]

The Inflaton Effective Potential for General $\epsilon$

A. Kyriazis, S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, arXiv:1908.03814 [gr-qc]. 17

work page Pith review arXiv 1908
[1]

Akrami et al

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

arXiv
[2]

Ijjas, P

A. Ijjas, P. J. Steinhardt and A. Loeb, Phys. Lett. B 723, 261 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.023 [arXiv:1304.2785 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2013
[3]

A. H. Guth, D. I. Kaiser and Y. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B 733, 112 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.03.020 [arXiv:1312.7619 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2014
[4]

Linde, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728856.003.0006 arXiv:1402.0526 [hep-th]

A. Linde, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728856.003.0006 arXiv:1402.0526 [hep-th]

arXiv
[5]

Ijjas, P

A. Ijjas, P. J. Steinhardt and A. Loeb, Phys. Lett. B 736, 142 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.07.012 [arXiv:1402.6980 [astro-ph.CO]]. 16

arXiv 2014
[6]

S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 7, 1888 (1973). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.1888 1973
[7]

D. R. Green, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103504 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.103504 [arXiv:0707.3832 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2007

Show all 18 references

[8]

S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, JCAP 1509, no. 09, 022 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/09/022, 10.1088/1475-7516/201 5/9/022 [arXiv:1506.07306 [astro-ph.CO]]

2015 arXiv
[9]

J. H. Liao, S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 10, 103522 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103522 [arXiv:1806.02533 [g r- qc]]

2019 arXiv
[10]

Candelas and D

P. Candelas and D. J. Raine, Phys. Rev. D 12, 965 (1975). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.965

1975 doi
[11]

S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 74, 044019 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.044019 [gr-qc/0602110]

2006 arXiv
[12]

Allen, Nucl

B. Allen, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 228 (1983). doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(83)90470-4

1983 doi
[13]

Prokopec, N

T. Prokopec, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Annals Phys. 323, 1324 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2007.08.008 [arXiv:0707.0847 [gr-qc]]

2008 arXiv
[14]

N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, J. Math. Phys. 48, 052306 (2007) doi:10.1063/1.2738361 [gr-qc/0608069]

2007 arXiv
[15]

Aghanim et al

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

arXiv
[16]

R. P. Woodard, Scholarpedia 10, no. 8, 32243 (2015) doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.32243 [arXiv:1506.02210 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[17]

R. P. Woodard, Lect. Notes Phys. 720, 403 (2007) doi:10.1007/978-3- 540-71013-4 14 [astro-ph/0601672]

2007 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [18]

The Inflaton Effective Potential for General $\epsilon$

A. Kyriazis, S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, arXiv:1908.03814 [gr-qc]. 17

work page Pith review arXiv 1908

[2] [1]

Akrami et al

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

arXiv

[3] [2]

Ijjas, P

A. Ijjas, P. J. Steinhardt and A. Loeb, Phys. Lett. B 723, 261 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.023 [arXiv:1304.2785 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2013

[4] [3]

A. H. Guth, D. I. Kaiser and Y. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B 733, 112 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.03.020 [arXiv:1312.7619 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2014

[5] [4]

Linde, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728856.003.0006 arXiv:1402.0526 [hep-th]

A. Linde, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728856.003.0006 arXiv:1402.0526 [hep-th]

arXiv

[6] [5]

Ijjas, P

A. Ijjas, P. J. Steinhardt and A. Loeb, Phys. Lett. B 736, 142 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.07.012 [arXiv:1402.6980 [astro-ph.CO]]. 16

arXiv 2014

[7] [6]

S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 7, 1888 (1973). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.1888 1973

[8] [7]

D. R. Green, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103504 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.103504 [arXiv:0707.3832 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2007