Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Origin of ultra-light fields during inflation and their suppressed non-Gaussianity

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 Ultra-light isocurvature fields can stay massless and still leave non-Gaussianity slow-roll suppressed.

desk verdict A valuable symmetry mechanism for ultra-light isocurvature fields, but the key quantum consistency-relation step is asserted rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06956 v1 pith:E66HEEZD submitted 2019-08-19 hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qc

Ana Achúcarro , Gonzalo Palma , Dong-Gang Wang , Yvette Welling This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thastro-ph.COgr-qc MSC 83F05 PACS 98.80.Cq
keywords multi-fieldinflationisocurvatureperturbationsultra-lightfieldsscalingsymmetrynon-GaussianitysqueezedbispectrumMaldacenaconsistencyrelationhyperbolicfieldspace
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 protects an isocurvature field—the fluctuation orthogonal to the inflationary trajectory in field space—from acquiring a Hubble-scale mass, and what that protection implies for non-Gaussianity. It identifies a class of two-field inflation models whose action rescales by an overall factor under a simultaneous transformation of fields and spacetime coordinates; this scaling leaves the classical equations of motion invariant. On misaligned attractor trajectories, the isocurvature mode is proportional to an ultra-light field, and the entropy mass vanishes exactly because a certain trajectory parameter stays constant. The same mechanism suppresses the isocurvature self-interactions, so the squeezed bispectrum is slow-roll suppressed but violates the standard single-field consistency relation in a distinctive way that future surveys could identify.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scaling transformation $Y\to Y+\Lambda c$, $X\to e^{-c\Lambda/R_0}X$, $x^\mu\to e^c x^\mu$, under which the full action rescales by $e^{2c}$. This maps background solutions onto one another, so the fluctuation $F$ along the scaling direction admits constant superhorizon solutions and freezes after horizon crossing. The argument then runs through the parameter $\Delta$: on misaligned attractors $\Delta$ is constant, which makes the isocurvature mode proportional to $F$ and forces the entropy mass in Eq. (87) to vanish. The squeezed bispectrum of $F$ is obtained by a background-wave argument as $(1-n_F)P_F(k_L)P_F(k_s)$, and a gauge transformation carries this result to the curvature perturbation.

What would settle it

Take an explicit misaligned potential such as $V=X^{2\beta}$ or the $\dot Y\approx 0$ approximation and evolve the background numerically from generic initial conditions: if $\Delta$ varies by more than a slow-roll amount over the relevant e-folds, then $\mu^2$ from Eq. (87) is not negligible and the paper's $f_{NL}$ formulas fail. Observationally, a measured squeezed bispectrum consistent with the single-field relation, or an $f_{NL}$ of order unity, would rule out this class.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a two-field system with hyperbolic kinetic term $\tfrac12(\partial Y)^2+\tfrac12 e^{2Y/R_0}(\partial X)^2$ and a potential obeying $XV_X-R_0V_Y=2\beta V$, a scaling transformation of fields and coordinates leaves the classical equations of motion invariant and guarantees an ultra-light field $F$ that freezes after horizon crossing. If the inflationary attractor is misaligned with the scaling direction, the isocurvature perturbation satisfies $\sigma=(1+\Delta)F$, and the entropy mass is $\mu^2=-\ddot{\Delta}/(1+\Delta)-3H\dot{\Delta}/(1+\Delta)$. A constant $\Delta$ therefore gives exactly $\mu^2=0$. The isocurvature field can then interact with curvature through a non-vanishing turning rate, yet its self-interactions are suppressed by the same scaling property, so the squeezed bispectrum is slow-roll suppressed but differs from Maldacena's consistency relation. For $\Delta=0$ the paper finds $f_{NL}=\frac{5}{12}(\eta_*+2\epsilon_*/\beta)$, and for constant non-vanishing $\Delta$ it finds $f_{NL}=\frac{5}{12}\left(\eta_*+\frac{2}{\beta}\epsilon_*-\frac{16}{3R_0^2}\epsilon_*\right)$, both distinct from the single-field prediction $f_{NL}=\frac{5}{12}(1-n_s)$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the background trajectory settling onto an attractor on which the parameter $\Delta$ (a particular ratio of field velocities and slow-roll parameters) stays exactly constant; if $\Delta$ drifts, the entropy mass in Eq. (87) becomes nonzero, the isocurvature field is no longer ultra-light, and the predicted bispectrum changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the ultra-light scenario only one degree of freedom, $F$, sources both curvature and isocurvature perturbations by the end of inflation, so multi-field effects can masquerade as single-field physics.
  • Because the same mechanism suppresses both the entropy mass and the self-interactions, large local non-Gaussianity cannot be generated by light isocurvature fields; the bispectrum is slow-roll suppressed.
  • The squeezed limit violates the standard single-field consistency relation, and the specific $f_{NL}$ combination of slow-roll parameters, $\beta$, and $R_0$ provides a possible observational signature of the multi-field origin.
  • For $\dot Y=0$ trajectories the entropy mass vanishes exactly, and the result reproduces shift-symmetric orbital inflation in a hyperbolic field space.
  • Models with sizeable isocurvature self-interactions, such as quasi-single-field inflation, necessarily have a nonzero entropy mass, which limits the time available for transferring non-Gaussianity to the curvature perturbation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If $\Delta$ is only approximately constant, as for the $V_Y\approx 0$ attractors, the residual entropy mass should be of order slow-roll; the same scaling argument suggests an approximate relation between the mass and the self-coupling, so small masses still imply negligible non-Gaussianity.
  • The background-wave derivation for $F$ suggests that higher-point correlators, such as the trispectrum in squeezed or collapsed limits, should also be slow-roll suppressed and obey analogous consistency-type relations; a direct computation would test this.
  • The scaling symmetry provides a UV-level origin for the linearized shift symmetry of the fluctuation action, so one could seek embeddings in supergravity or string constructions where such a scaling appears as a residual isometry.
  • The predicted deviation from the single-field consistency relation depends on $\beta$ and $R_0$; if the power spectrum pins down $\epsilon_*$ and $\eta_*$, a future squeezed-limit $f_{NL}$ measurement could in principle separate these parameters.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies two-field inflation models with a hyperbolic field-space metric and a potential satisfying the scaling condition (10). It introduces a similarity transformation (13)-(15) that rescales the full action by a factor e^{2c}, and argues that this transformation guarantees the existence of a shift-symmetric, ultra-light fluctuation F that freezes after horizon crossing. For background trajectories misaligned with the scaling direction and characterized by a constant parameter Δ (Eq. 27), the isocurvature mode σ is proportional to F and the entropy mass vanishes, Eq. (87). The paper derives the quadratic action in the ultra-light gauge (61), argues that the power spectrum of F is invariant under the scaling transformation (73), and uses the background-wave method to obtain the squeezed bispectrum of F (82). A second-order gauge transformation to comoving gauge converts this into the curvature bispectrum, with final f_NL predictions (94) for Δ=0 and (96) for constant Δ≠0, both slow-roll suppressed but different from Maldacena's single-field consistency relation.

Significance. If the central argument is valid, the paper gives a symmetry-based explanation for the existence of ultra-light isocurvature fields during inflation and identifies a concrete class of models where a light entropic mode strongly sources the curvature perturbation without generating large non-Gaussianity. The main formulas are specific and falsifiable: the predictions f_NL = (5/12)(2ǫ/β+η) and f_NL = (5/12)(η+2ǫ/β-16ǫ/(3R0^2)) distinguish these models from single-field inflation. The paper is careful about the classical background analysis: the quadratic action (61), the relation σ=(1+Δ)F, and the second-order gauge transformation in Appendix B are presented in detail, and Eq. (94) correctly reproduces the orbital-inflation limit of [2], which is a valuable cross-check. The principal weakness is the quantum-mechanical step leading to Eq. (73), which is asserted rather than derived, and the unsupported numerical claims for generic Ẏ≠0 attractors. If the quantum step can be repaired, this would be an important contribution to the theory of multi-field non-Gaussianity; as it stands, the derivation of the headline f_NL formulas is incomplete.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V.B, Eq. (66)] The equality P'_F = P_F (Eq. 73), which is the basis for the squeezed bispectrum (82), is not derived but imposed by the choice ℏ' = e^{2c}ℏ in Eq. (66). The scaling transformation (13)-(15) is not a symmetry of the action: Eq. (16) gives S' = e^{2c}S. With the physical Planck constant held fixed, the transformation law B' = e^{-c}B for the super-horizon mode amplitude in Eq. (69) would naively make the power spectrum scale as e^{-2c}P_F, so Eq. (73) is a nontrivial quantum statement rather than a convention. This is load-bearing: the coefficient (1-n_F) in Eq. (82) and both f_NL predictions (94) and (96) depend on it. The authors should derive the squeezed limit directly from the cubic action in the ultra-light gauge, or justify the ℏ' rule from an invariance of the path-integral measure under the full transformation, or verify Eq. (73) by an explicit mode-function computation in a concrete model.
  2. [§III.B.2 and §VI.C] The paper claims numerical support for its main generality statements but provides no data. In §III.B.2, after deriving the VY≈0 approximation, it states that other attractors with Ẏ≠0 and nonzero VY 'have consistently found' constant Δ; in §VI.C it states that the f_NL result is 'verified numerically' away from the VY≈0 limit. No potentials, parameter choices, or plots are given. Since the vanishing of the entropy mass (Eq. 87) and the validity of Eq. (96) require Δ to be constant along the attractor, the numerical evidence is part of the argument for the general claim. Please include at least one explicit numerical example with the potential, parameter values, and a plot of Δ versus e-folds, or explicitly restrict the claims to the analytically treated cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (57)] The index placement in terms such as 'N i,jN j ,i' and 'δijN i,kN j ,k' is garbled; please correct the typography so that the constraint equations can be followed.
  2. [Eq. (80)] The notation k_L = k1+k2 for the long mode is inconsistent with the usual convention k_L = k3; using k_L ≡ -k3 after imposing the delta function would make Eq. (82) easier to compare with the standard literature.
  3. [§III.B.1] The sentence 'This is a special case in the derivation above, which should not be seen as misaligned trajectories' is unclear; the reader is left wondering which case is special and why it is excluded from the misaligned class.
  4. [Eq. (93)] The drop of the first term in the final approximation is implicit; a sentence noting that the first term is suppressed by ǫR0/β after converting P_F to P_R would improve transparency.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (A14)] The expression for μ² in Eq. (A14) is equivalent to Eq. (87) after expanding ∂t(Δ̇/(1+Δ)); stating this equivalence explicitly would avoid an apparent discrepancy between the two formulas.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ultra-light isocurvature field and the suppressed bispectrum are derived from the stated scaling condition; self-citations are transparent and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained from the scaling condition (10) and the definition of F along the scaling direction. The central results—σ=(1+Δ)F, μ²=0 for constant Δ, and the squeezed bispectrum formulas (94) and (96)—are obtained by explicit computation (quadratic action (61), gauge transformation in Appendix B, background-wave method in Sec. V) rather than by fitting parameters to the target results. Eq. (87) shows μ² is proportional to time derivatives of Δ, so constant Δ (derived for the Ẏ=0 attractor and the VY≃0 attractor, Eq. (55), and asserted numerically for other cases) implies a massless isocurvature mode; this is a consequence of the assumed dynamics, not an input. Eq. (82) follows from the scaling transformation together with the quantization convention ℏ′=e^{2c}ℏ in Eq. (66), which makes P′_F=P_F by construction. One may question whether this convention turns the classical scaling into a genuine quantum symmetry, but that is a correctness concern rather than circularity: the nontrivial slow-roll suppression enters through n_F and the consistency-relation form, neither of which is assumed. The paper's reliance on the authors' earlier work is transparent: [2] is used as an external cross-check (Eq. (94) matches orbital inflation) and [1] motivates the linear symmetry (2); no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior papers.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All central results rest on the scaling condition and on constancy of Δ. No data are fitted; β and R0 are free model parameters appearing in the final fNL formulas. F is not a new entity; it is a fluctuation of the existing scalar fields in the ultra-light gauge. The main fragility is the unproven numerical claim that constant-Δ attractors are generic.

free parameters (2)
  • β
    Scaling charge in Eq. (10); a free parameter of the potential that enters the fNL predictions (94) and (96). Not fitted to data.
  • R_0
    Curvature radius of the hyperbolic field space in Eq. (7); a free model parameter entering Eq. (96) and the example potentials.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The scalar potential satisfies XV_X - R_0 V_Y = 2 β V (Eq. 10).
    This defines the class of models studied; without it the full action does not rescale as S -> e^{2c} S (Eq. 16) and the ultra-light field F is not guaranteed. Explicit examples are V = X^{2β} and V = X^{2β}G(X e^{Y/R0}).
  • domain assumption The background trajectory relaxes to the C(t) = 0 attractor (Eq. 25) before observable modes cross the horizon.
    A non-zero C(t) breaks the F shift symmetry in the lapse constraint (59) and spoils the quadratic action (61). The paper states the relaxation is exponential but gives no rate.
  • domain assumption For misaligned trajectories the parameter Δ (Eq. 27) is constant during slow-roll inflation.
    Eq. (87) sets μ² = 0 only when Δ is constant. Analytic examples are the Ẏ = 0 potential (41) and the VY ≈ 0 limit; the broader claim is backed only by unshown numerical checks.
  • ad hoc to paper The rescaled field F' is quantized with ℏ' = e^{2c} ℏ (Eq. 66) so that S'/ℏ' = S/ℏ.
    The scaling transformation is not a symmetry of the action, so the Planck-constant rescaling is a non-standard device used to prove the invariance of the power spectrum (73).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Origin of ultra-light fields during inflation and their suppressed non-Gaussianity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E66HEEZD

@misc{pith2026190806956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Origin of ultra-light fields during inflation and their suppressed non-Gaussianity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E66HEEZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06956}
}
read the original abstract

We study the structure of multi-field inflation models where the primordial curvature perturbation is able to vigorously interact with an ultra-light isocurvature field -- a massless fluctuation orthogonal to the background inflationary trajectory in field space. We identify a class of inflationary models where ultra-light fields can emerge as a consequence of an underlying "scaling transformation" that rescales the entire system's action and keeps the classical equations of motion invariant. This scaling invariance ensures the existence of an ultra-light fluctuation that freezes after horizon crossing. If the inflationary trajectory is misaligned with respect to the scaling symmetry direction, then the isocurvature field is proportional to this ultra-light field, and becomes massless. In addition, we find that even if the isocurvature field interacts strongly with the curvature perturbation --transferring its own statistics to the curvature perturbation-- it is unable to induce large non-Gaussianity. The reason is simply that the same mechanism ensuring a suppressed mass for the isocurvature field is also responsible for suppressing its self-interactions. As a result, in models with light isocurvature fields the bispectrum is generally expected to be slow-roll suppressed, but with a squeezed limit that differs from Maldacena's consistency relation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Pushing the Primordial Frontier: Exact Linear Solutions in Multifield Inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

    Exact analytic solutions for coupled linear perturbations in two-field inflation provide a closed-form primordial power spectrum that interpolates weak, strong, light, and heavy field regimes.

  2. Pushing the Primordial Frontier: Cosmological Collider Signatures at Strong Mixing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Exact analytic squeezed-limit bispectra for strongly mixed two-field inflation, nonperturbative in the curvature-isocurvature mixing λ.

  3. Mild Non-Gaussianities under Perturbative Control from Rapid-Turn Inflation Models

    hep-th 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Leading-order exponential contributions to higher-order correlators in rapid-turn inflation cancel exactly in the in-in formalism, leaving order-one non-Gaussianity and preserving perturbative control.

  4. Ultra slow-turn inflation

    hep-th 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In slow-roll multi-field inflation, stability should be read from the total entropy perturbation, which decays in 'ultra slow-turn' models even when the isocurvature effective mass-squared is negative.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [2]

    The most readily available example is given by the choice G(s) = w2 0(3 − 2β2/s2)

    Trajectories with ˙Y = 0 It is interesting to notice that the present system in- cludes potentials admitting trajectories such that ˙Y = 0. The most readily available example is given by the choice G(s) = w2 0(3 − 2β2/s2). In this case, the potential can be written as V (X, Y ) = w2 0X 2β ( 3 − 2 β2 X 2e2Y /R0 ) . (41) To verify that this potential admits...

    work page

  2. [1]

    ultra-light isocurvature

    Recall that hyperbolic spaces are max- imally symmetric. A particular consequence of this is that the kinetic term is invariant under the following reparametrization of the fields Y (x) → Y ′(x) = Y (x) + Λ c, (8) X(x) → X ′(x) = e−cΛ /R0X(x), (9) where Λ is a given mass scale, and c is an arbitrary dimen- sionless constant parametrizing the redefinition of...

    work page

  3. [3]

    ultra-light isocurvature

    Trajectories with ˙Y ⁄= 0 It is also possible to have other trajectories that re- main misaligned with respect to the symmetry probing solution, but without ˙Y = 0. Analytic results for this category are in general rather hard, but we can at least obtain reliable approximations in the particular case in which we can neglect VY in the equation of motion (2...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Ach´ ucarro, V

    A. Ach´ ucarro, V. Atal, C. Germani, and G. A. Palma, JCAP 1702, 013 (2017), arXiv:1607.08609 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Ach´ ucarro, E

    A. Ach´ ucarro, E. J. Copeland, O. Iarygina, G. A. Palma, D.-G. Wang, and Y. Welling, (2019), arXiv:1901.03657 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Non-Gaussian perturbations in hybrid inflation

    K. Enqvist and A. Vaihkonen, JCAP 0409, 006 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0405103 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    D. H. Lyth and Y. Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 121302 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0504045 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Seery and J

    D. Seery and J. E. Lidsey, JCAP 0509, 011 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0506056 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2005

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    G. I. Rigopoulos, E. P. S. Shellard, and B. J. W. van Tent, Phys. Rev. D73, 083522 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0506704 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Alabidi and D

    L. Alabidi and D. H. Lyth, JCAP 0605, 016 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510441 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Battefeld and T

    D. Battefeld and T. Battefeld, JCAP 0705, 012 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0703012 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    K.-Y. Choi, L. M. H. Hall, and C. van de Bruck, JCAP 0702, 029 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701247 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C. T. Byrnes, K.-Y. Choi, and L. M. H. Hall, JCAP 0810, 008 (2008), arXiv:0807.1101 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [14]

    C. T. Byrnes and G. Tasinato, JCAP 0908, 016 (2009), arXiv:0906.0767 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Battefeld and T

    D. Battefeld and T. Battefeld, JCAP 0911, 010 (2009), arXiv:0908.4269 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D81, 063511 (2010), arXiv:0909.0496 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Wang, JCAP 1004, 027 (2010), arXiv:0911.3380 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Elliston, D

    J. Elliston, D. Mulryne, D. Seery, and R. Tavakol, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A26, 3821 (2011), [Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser.03,203(2011)], arXiv:1107.2270 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Mulryne, S

    D. Mulryne, S. Orani, and A. Ra- jantie, Phys. Rev. D84, 123527 (2011), arXiv:1107.4739 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    McAllister, S

    L. McAllister, S. Renaux-Petel, and G. Xu, JCAP 1210, 046 (2012), arXiv:1207.0317 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C. T. Byrnes and J.-O. Gong, Phys. Lett. B718, 718 (2013), arXiv:1210.1851 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Baumann and D

    D. Baumann and D. Green, Phys. Rev. D85, 103520 (2012), arXiv:1109.0292 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Arkani-Hamed and J

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Maldacena, (2015), arXiv:1503.08043 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    H. Lee, D. Baumann, and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP 12, 040 (2016), arXiv:1607.03735 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    X. Chen, G. A. Palma, W. Riquelme, B. Scheihing Hitschfeld, and S. Syp- sas, Phys. Rev. D98, 083528 (2018), arXiv:1804.07315 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    X. Chen, G. A. Palma, B. Scheihing Hitschfeld, and S. Sypsas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161302 (2018), arXiv:1806.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Garcia-Saenz, S

    S. Garcia-Saenz, S. Renaux-Petel, and J. Ronayne, JCAP 1807, 057 (2018), arXiv:1804.11279 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Fumagalli, S

    J. Fumagalli, S. Garcia-Saenz, L. Pinol, S. Renaux-Pet el, and J. Ronayne, (2019), arXiv:1902.03221 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Achcarro and Y

    A. Achcarro and Y. Welling, (2019), arXiv:1907.02020 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Welling, (2019), arXiv:1907.02951 [astro-ph.CO]

    Y. Welling, (2019), arXiv:1907.02951 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Garcia-Saenz, L

    S. Garcia-Saenz, L. Pinol, and S. Renaux-Petel, (2019) , arXiv:1907.10403 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    1981

  25. [33]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B91, 99 (1980), [,771(1980)]

    1980

  26. [34]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. 108B, 389 (1982)

    1982

  27. [35]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982)

    1982

  28. [36]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. 33, 532 (1981)

    1981

  29. [37]

    Gordon, D

    C. Gordon, D. Wands, B. A. Bassett, and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D63, 023506 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0009131 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Groot Nibbelink and B

    S. Groot Nibbelink and B. J. W. van Tent, (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0011325 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Groot Nibbelink and B

    S. Groot Nibbelink and B. J. W. van Tent, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 613 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0107272 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Achucarro, J.-O

    A. Achucarro, J.-O. Gong, S. Hardeman, G. A. Palma, and S. P. Patil, Phys. Rev. D84, 043502 (2011), arXiv:1005.3848 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Achucarro, J.-O

    A. Achucarro, J.-O. Gong, S. Hardeman, G. A. Palma, and S. P. Patil, JCAP 1101, 030 (2011), arXiv:1010.3693 [hep-ph]. 16

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Nicolis and F

    A. Nicolis and F. Piazza, JHEP 06, 025 (2012), arXiv:1112.5174 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 05, 013 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210603 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Creminelli and M

    P. Creminelli and M. Zaldar- riaga, JCAP 0410, 006 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407059 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Sena- tore, JCAP 0802, 021 (2008), arXiv:0709.0295 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Bravo, S

    R. Bravo, S. Mooij, G. A. Palma, and B. Pradenas, JCAP 1805, 024 (2018), arXiv:1711.02680 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Cabass, E

    G. Cabass, E. Pajer, and D. van der Woude, (2018), arXiv:1805.08775 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ach´ ucarro, R

    A. Ach´ ucarro, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, D.-G. Wang, and Y. Welling, JCAP 1804, 028 (2018), arXiv:1711.09478 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ach´ ucarro, S

    A. Ach´ ucarro, S. C´ espedes, A.-C. Davis, and G. A. Palma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 191301 (2019), arXiv:1809.05341 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gong and T

    J.-O. Gong and T. Tanaka, JCAP 1103, 015 (2011), [Erratum: JCAP1202,E01(2012)], arXiv:1101.4809 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gong, Int

    J.-O. Gong, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D26, 1740003 (2016), arXiv:1606.06971 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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