Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Light Scalar Fields Foster Production of Primordial Black Holes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a light spectator scalar field to inflation produces asteroid-mass primordial black holes while sidestepping ultra-slow-roll fine-tuning.

desk verdict Genuinely new mechanism for spectator-boosted PBH production, but the fiducial parameter set fails the paper's own epsilon_chi criterion and the fine-tuning claim is stronger than the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13251 v1 pith:2HVWAQ75 submitted 2025-04-17 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Dario L. Lorenzoni , Sarah R. Geller , Zachary Ireland , David I. Kaiser , Evan McDonough , Kyle A. Wittmeier This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 98.80.Cq98.80.Bp
keywords primordialblackholesspectatorfieldmultifieldinflationultra-slow-rollisocurvatureperturbationstachyonicinstabilitycurvaturepowerspectrumfine-tuning
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

Primordial black holes from inflation are usually built with a single scalar field and an ultra-slow-roll phase whose predictions are exponentially sensitive to the potential's parameters. This paper argues that adding one light spectator field—no direct coupling to the inflaton, and subdominant in energy—changes the mechanism entirely: instead of USR the trajectory in field space turns twice, isocurvature perturbations grow tachyonic between the turns, and that growth is transferred into curvature perturbations that can collapse into asteroid-mass black holes. The claim is generic for potentials of the form $V(\varphi,\chi)=V_{\mathrm{PBH}}(\varphi)+\tfrac12 m_\chi^2\chi^2$, and it is demonstrated for two well-known inflaton potentials that, on their own, need $O(10^{-5})$ parameter tuning to make PBHs. With the spectator present, the same inflation models match CMB observables and produce PBHs with coarse $O(1)$ adjustments of the spectator parameters. If correct, light scalar fields—which high-energy physics naturally predicts—become a plausible route to dark matter in the asteroid-mass window.

What carries the argument

The machinery is tachyonic isocurvature amplification along a two-turn trajectory. In the standard adiabatic–isocurvature decomposition, the turn rate $\omega$ couples the curvature and isocurvature perturbations, and the effective isocurvature mass $\tilde\mu_s^2=\mu_s^2+4\omega^2$ controls whether $S_k$ grows or decays. During phase II every term in $\mu_s^2=M_{ss}-M_{\sigma\sigma}+2H^2\epsilon(3+\delta-\epsilon)$ becomes negative—$M_{ss}$ points along the concave inflaton direction, $M_{\sigma\sigma}=m_\chi^2$, and $(3+\delta-\epsilon)<0$ because $\eta>3/2$—so $\tilde\mu_s^2<0$ and isocurvature modes grow exponentially. The spectator kinetic fraction $\epsilon_\chi=\tfrac{1}{18}(\chi_i/M_{\mathrm{Pl}})^2(m_\chi/H)^4$ is the control parameter: it must exceed $\epsilon_\phi\sim10^{-10}$ during the flat phase for the first turn to happen, and the second turn then channels the amplified $S_k$ into $R_k$.

What would settle it

Scan the two-field parameter space across the boundary $\epsilon_\chi\simeq\epsilon_\phi$: if the paper's criterion is right, changing $m_\chi/H$ by a factor of a few around the quoted window should sharply switch the curvature peak $P_R(k_{\mathrm{PBH}})$ on and off. Direct numerical integration of Eqs. (2)–(3) and (6)–(7) for such a scan, or a PBH-abundance measurement that brackets that parameter window, would settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that single-field PBH models do not have to be rescued by tuning the inflaton potential; they can be rescued by giving the inflaton a companion. In the class $V(\varphi,\chi)=V_{\mathrm{PBH}}(\varphi)+\tfrac12 m_\chi^2\chi^2$, the inflaton still enters a near-flat region and its own slow-roll parameter falls to $\epsilon_\varphi\sim 10^{-10}$, but the spectator keeps slow-rolling with $\epsilon_\chi\sim 10^{-4}$, so the total $\epsilon$ never becomes anomalously small and the system never enters USR. Instead the field-space unit vector $\hat{\sigma}^I$ rotates sharply twice: once when $\epsilon_\chi\gg\epsilon_\varphi$ aligns the trajectory with $\chi$, and once when $\varphi$ accelerates out of the flat region and regains dominance. Between the two turns the effective isocurvature mass $\tilde\mu_s^2$ is negative, so isocurvature modes $S_k$ grow exponentially on super-Hubble scales; at the second turn they transfer power to the curvature modes $R_k$ through $\dot R_k\simeq 2\omega S_k$, generating a peak $P_R(k_{\mathrm{PBH}})>10^{-3}$. The authors verify this for two different base potentials and show that a $O(10^{-3})$ shift in a base parameter that would kill the single-field peak is compensated by order-one changes in $(m_\chi,\chi_i)$, while eight observables ($A_s,n_s,\alpha_s,r,\beta_{\mathrm{iso}},f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{ortho}},P_R(k_{\mathrm{peak}}),M_{\mathrm{PBH}}$) stay within current CMB and PBH bounds using only six free parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The amplification works only if the spectator's kinetic energy contribution exceeds the inflaton's during the flat phase of the potential, which requires a light spectator in a specific mass window ($10^{-3}\lesssim m_\chi/H\ll1$) starting near the Planck scale; if the spectator is too light, starts too small, or is not subdominant, the two-turn phase never develops and the mechanism collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The mechanism is generic: any base inflaton potential that produces a single-field curvature spike can be converted into a spectator-assisted PBH model, as long as the spectator's kinetic contribution dominates during the flat phase.
  • The system never enters ultra-slow-roll, so neither slow-roll parameter becomes anomalously small; the paper argues this likely sidesteps the dangerous one-loop growth debated for single-field USR models.
  • Fine-tuning is reduced: a $O(10^{-3})$ shift in a fiducial inflaton parameter that demolishes the single-field PBH peak is compensated by $O(1)$ changes in the spectator mass and initial field value.
  • The resulting PBH population peaks in the asteroid-mass window $10^{17}$–$10^{23}$ g, so these models remain viable dark-matter candidates, while the isocurvature fraction stays below the CMB bound because the isocurvature modes decay after the second turn.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the clean criterion $\epsilon_\chi>\epsilon_\phi$ in phase II defines a testable region in the $(m_\chi/H,\chi_i/M_{\mathrm{Pl}})$ plane; mapping that region with full numerical scans would turn the paper's existence proof into an exclusion or detection forecast.
  • Beyond the paper: because the spectator couples to the inflaton only through the Friedmann equation, the same two-turn amplification should operate for other light fields, such as axions or moduli, as long as they satisfy the kinetic-dominance condition; the paper does not pursue those realizations.
  • Beyond the paper: the dynamics interpolate between hybrid-inflation and curvaton physics in the sharp-turn limit, so the mechanism may unify several earlier spectator-based PBH proposals under one two-turn description.
  • Beyond the paper: the claim that loop corrections stay under control because USR never occurs is plausible but unproven; a direct one-loop calculation of $P_R$ in this two-field model would be the natural next check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 proposes a two-field inflationary mechanism for primordial black hole (PBH) production. Starting from single-field potentials that produce PBHs via ultra-slow-roll (USR), the authors add a light, minimally coupled spectator field with a quadratic potential. They argue that the spectator changes the dynamics: instead of USR, the system executes two turns in field space, separated by a phase II in which the spectator kinetic fraction dominates, the isocurvature mass becomes tachyonic, and isocurvature modes grow and transfer power to curvature perturbations at the second turn. They demonstrate this for two concrete base models (a KKLT-like bump model and an inflection-point model), report power spectra with peaks above P_R(k) > 10^-3 in the asteroid-mass range, list CMB observables in tables, and claim that the mechanism is resilient to O(10^-3) variations in the inflaton parameters and hence largely free from the severe fine-tuning of single-field models.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a simple and generic two-field route to PBH formation that avoids USR and may ease the fine-tuning problem of single-field PBH models. The analysis uses the standard two-field perturbation equations, and the numerical examples show the expected turn-and-tachyonic pattern. The paper also makes concrete, falsifiable predictions for P_R(k), PBH masses, and CMB observables, with parameter values provided in tables. However, the manuscript contains an internal inconsistency in the fiducial parameter set, and the central 'largely free from fine-tuning' claim is not yet backed by a quantitative sensitivity audit. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's advertised significance, though they appear fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sensitivity section; Tables AI/AII; Fig. 2] The fiducial spectator row χ-PBHA-fid cannot realize the claimed mechanism under the paper's own criterion. For mχ/H = 0.002 and χi = 5 M_Pl, the formula ϵχ = (1/18)(χi/M_Pl)^2(mχ/H)^4 gives ϵχ ≈ 2.2×10^-11, which is below the quoted ϵφ ∼ 10^-10. The text and Fig. 2 instead show ϵχ ∼ 10^-4, which matches the χ-PBHA-var row (mχ/H = 0.06, χi = 11 M_Pl, yielding ϵχ ≈ 8.7×10^-5). Because the captions assign Table AI parameters to Figs. 2–3, and because the yellow-dashed curve in Fig. 1 is presumably the fiducial spectator model, the manuscript is internally inconsistent about which parameter set produced the displayed spectra and dynamics. Please clarify which parameters generated each figure, correct the fiducial row, or revise the stated parameter window.
  2. [Abstract and 'Sensitivity to small parameter changes'] The claim that the mechanism is 'largely free from severe fine-tuning' is not supported by a quantitative sensitivity audit. The demonstration consists of choosing spectator parameters (mχ, χi) that reproduce the single-field fiducial spectrum and then adjusting them to compensate a small variation in a VPBH parameter; this shows the existence of a compensating family but does not quantify how coarse the compensation is. In fact, Tables AI and AIII show mχ changing by factors of 20–30 (from 1×10^-8 to 3×10^-7 in Model A and from 1×10^-8 to 2×10^-7 in Model B), which is not an O(1) change. The statement that the models match eight observables with six free parameters 'without overfitting' also lacks support: no residuals, parameter uncertainties, or goodness-of-fit measures are given. Please provide a sensitivity analysis, e.g., the dependence of P_R(k_peak) on mχ and χi around the chosen values, and quantify how large a fractional variation in the inflaton parameters can be absorbed while keeping P_R(k_peak) > 10^-3.
  3. [Sensitivity section, parameter window estimate] The estimated window '10^-3 ≲ mχ/H ≪ 1' is inconsistent with the stated requirement ϵχ > ϵφ. From ϵχ = (1/18)(χi/M_Pl)^2(mχ/H)^4 and ϵφ ∼ 10^-10, requiring ϵχ > ϵφ gives mχ/H ≳ 6.5×10^-3 for χi ∼ M_Pl and ≳ 3×10^-3 for χi = 5 M_Pl. The fiducial value mχ/H = 0.002 therefore falls below the lower bound set by the paper's own criterion. The upper bound '≪ 1' is also not quantified, yet the compensating models use mχ/H = 0.06 and 0.03. Please correct the window and state explicitly the allowed range of (mχ, χi) that satisfies both ϵχ > ϵφ during phase II and the light-spectator condition |mχ/H|_CMB ≪ 1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, paragraph 4] The sentence 'This is clear in Figs. 1 for VPBH,A(φ) and 4 for VPBH,B(φ)' should read 'Fig. 1' for the first model, since each figure is a single panel.
  2. [Appendix, Tables AII and AIV] The term 'spectator-ness' is informal; consider replacing with a standard phrase such as 'spectator-to-inflaton energy ratio' and define it once in the text.
  3. [Appendix, non-Gaussianity discussion] The phrase 'non-Gaussianity is <O(1)' is imprecise; since the actual values are tabulated (e.g., f_ortho_NL = 0.66 for the largest case), report the quantitative values in the text.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The phrase 'yellow-dashed to red curves' should be expanded to identify which curve corresponds to χ-PBHA-fid and which to χ-PBHA-var, to avoid ambiguity given the parameter inconsistency discussed above.
  5. [Abstract and Discussion] The abstract states the mechanism is 'largely free from severe fine-tuning,' while the Discussion more cautiously says it 'alleviates the exponential sensitivity' of single-field models; please align the wording with the quantitative support actually provided.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the spectator parameters are calibrated to reproduce the single-field spectra, so the headline 'resilience' demonstration partly reduces to retuning the added degrees of freedom; the two-turn/tachyonic mechanism itself is computed from standard equations and retains independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'Sensitivity to small parameter changes' (near Figs. 1 and 4); Appendix Tables AI-AIV.]
    "For each model, we first find non-fine-tuned values for the spectator parameters mχ and χi that reproduce the original single-field spectra with fiducial values of parameters in VPBH(φ) (yellow-dashed curves in Figs. 1 and 4). We then find that a change of O(10−3) in a fiducial parameter of VPBH(φ) is compensated by a coarse-grainedO(1) variation in mχ and χi (red curves in Figs. 1 and 4)."

    The spectator-model spectra, PBH masses, and CMB observables quoted as successes are not independent predictions: the spectator parameters are selected precisely to reproduce the single-field fiducial spectra, and then re-selected to re-raise the peak after the inflaton parameter is shifted. The 'resilience' claim therefore demonstrates that adding two free parameters allows the target spectrum to be recovered under an inflaton-parameter shift, which is partly a consequence of the extra degrees of freedom rather than a parameter-free prediction. The underlying two-turn, tachyonic-isocurvature mechanism is still independently computed from Eqs. (6)-(9), so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

Most of the paper's dynamical machinery is not circular. Eqs. (6)-(9) are the standard coupled adiabatic/isocurvature perturbation equations, cited to [65,68-70]; although some of those references include prior work by the present authors, the equations are externally established and are not used as a self-citation chain. The three-phase background dynamics in Figs. 2-3 and A1-A2 come from direct numerical integration of Eqs. (2)-(3) for specified potentials, so the claim that a light spectator can replace USR with turns and tachyonic isocurvature growth is a genuine dynamical computation. The score is raised because the headline robustness claim is calibrated: the paper states that it 'first find[s]' spectator parameters that reproduce the original single-field spectra and then adjusts them by O(1) to restore the peak after a 10^-3 inflaton-parameter shift. The resulting P_R(k_PBH), M_PBH, and CMB columns are therefore matched values rather than independent predictions, and the phrase 'without overfitting' does not remove the fact that the model was reverse-engineered to hit those targets. This is partial circularity, not total: the mechanism's existence and parameter window follow from the equations, and the central dynamics are not equivalent to the fit. There is also an internal-consistency issue (not circularity): for the fiducial row chi-PBHA-fid (m_chi/H = 0.002, chi_i = 5 M_Pl), the paper's own estimate epsilon_chi = (1/18)(chi_i/M_Pl)^2 (m_chi/H)^4 gives about 2 x 10^-11, below the quoted epsilon_phi ~ 10^-10, so that row appears not to satisfy the stated epsilon_chi > epsilon_phi condition; the Fig. 2 curve with epsilon_chi ~ 10^-4 instead matches the chi-PBHA-var row. This affects the demonstration but is a correctness and parameter-reporting concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard linear multifield perturbation theory, the model assumption of a light subdominant spectator, and the standard PBH threshold criterion. The spectator mass and initial amplitude, plus the inflaton normalization V0 and lambda, are chosen by hand to satisfy CMB and PBH constraints. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • m_chi (spectator mass) = 1e-8 M_Pl (fid), 3e-7 M_Pl (var) for Model A; 1e-8, 2e-7 M_Pl for Model B (Tables AI, AIII)
    Spectator mass chosen per model to produce the PBH boost; not derived from first principles.
  • chi_i (initial spectator amplitude) = 5 M_Pl (fid), 11 M_Pl (var) for Model A; 5, 8 M_Pl for Model B (Tables AI, AIII)
    Initial spectator amplitude chosen so that epsilon_chi exceeds epsilon_phi during phase II; the paper does not specify initial velocity.
  • V0 (Model A inflaton amplitude) = 8.3e-11, 6.6e-11, 8.9e-11 M_Pl^4
    Inflaton normalization differs across fiducial, single-field-var, and spectator-var cases even though the text claims only phi_d is shifted; this affects the resilience comparison.
  • lambda (Model B inflaton coupling) = 1.16e-6, 9.10e-7, 1.20e-6
    Same role as V0 for Model B; changes alongside v in the resilience comparison.
  • phi_d (Model A bump location) = 2.18812 M_Pl (fid), 2.18812 x (1 - 1e-3) M_Pl (var)
    Inflaton bump location; the sensitivity test varies this parameter.
  • v (Model B inflection location) = 0.19669 M_Pl (fid), 0.19669 x (1 - 4e-3) M_Pl (var)
    Inflaton inflection location; varied in the sensitivity test.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard linear multifield perturbation theory (Eqs. 6-9) with Bunch-Davies vacuum applies; loop corrections are neglected.
    The power spectrum computation relies on the coupled R_k and S_k equations from Refs [65,68-70]; the paper notes loop corrections are left for future work (Discussion).
  • domain assumption The spectator is light (m_chi/H << 1), subdominant (V_S/V_PBH << 1), minimally coupled, and classically slow-rolling.
    Model setup in Eqs. (1)-(3) and footnote [58]; the mechanism depends on epsilon_chi being set by the spectator's mass and initial amplitude.
  • domain assumption PBH formation occurs when P_R(k_peak) >= 10^-3; a full PBH abundance calculation, including critical collapse and non-Gaussian tails, is not performed.
    The paper quotes the threshold from Refs [14,74-78] and computes M_PBH from k_peak; no mass function or abundance is computed.
  • domain assumption The post-inflationary evolution (reheating, decay of chi) does not alter the PBH production calculation; N_CMB = 56 is assumed.
    The appendix uses the standard relation for N_CMB with instant reheating; the fate of the spectator field is not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light Scalar Fields Foster Production of Primordial Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2HVWAQ75

@misc{pith2026250413251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light Scalar Fields Foster Production of Primordial Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2HVWAQ75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13251}
}
read the original abstract

Scalar fields are ubiquitous in theories of high-energy physics. In the context of cosmic inflation, this suggests the existence of spectator fields, which provide a subdominant source of energy density. We show that spectator fields boost the inflationary production of primordial black holes, with single-field ultra-slow roll evolution supplanted by a phase of evolution along the spectator direction, and primordial perturbations amplified by the resulting multifield dynamics. This generic mechanism is largely free from the severe fine-tuning that afflicts single-field inflationary PBH models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Power spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Evolution of the perturbations as functions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Power spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

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. Spectator Axions in String Inflation and Primordial Black Holes

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In Fibre Inflation, spectator axions with f≲0.1 M_Pl leave the PBH power spectrum unchanged, while for f≳0.1 M_Pl and exponentially small non-perturbative prefactors they can raise P_R from 1.9e-4 to 3.5e-3 and enable...

  4. Superhorizon curvature perturbations in hybrid inflation revisited

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hybrid inflation's waterfall tachyonic instability grows isocurvature modes that convert to curvature perturbations at the field-space turn, yielding a k^{3}-peaked spectrum with always-positive f_NL that enhances PBH...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [34]

    Primordial black holes from single-field inflation: a fine-tuning audit,

    Philippa S. Cole, Andrew D. Gow, Christian T. Byrnes, and Subodh P. Patil, “Primordial black holes from single-field inflation: a fine-tuning audit,” JCAP 08, 031 (2023), arXiv:2304.01997 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmo- logical Model,

    I. D. Zel’dovich, Ya.B.; Novikov, “The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmo- logical Model,” Soviet Astron. AJ (Engl. Transl. ), 10, 602 (1967)

    1967

  3. [2]

    Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,

    Stephen Hawking, “Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  4. [3]

    Black holes in the early Universe,

    Bernard J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in the early Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, 399–415 (1974)

    1974

  5. [4]

    The behaviour of point masses in an ex- panding cosmological substratum,

    P. Meszaros, “The behaviour of point masses in an ex- panding cosmological substratum,” Astron. Astrophys. 37, 225–228 (1974)

    1974

  6. [5]

    The Primordial black hole mass spec- trum,

    Bernard J. Carr, “The Primordial black hole mass spec- trum,” Astrophys. J. 201, 1–19 (1975)

    1975

  7. [6]

    Gravitational instability of scalar fields and formation of primordial black holes,

    M. Khlopov, B. A. Malomed, and Ia. B. Zeldovich, “Gravitational instability of scalar fields and formation of primordial black holes,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 215, 575–589 (1985)

    1985

  8. [7]

    Dynamics of pri- mordial black hole formation,

    Jens C. Niemeyer and K. Jedamzik, “Dynamics of pri- mordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D 59, 124013 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9901292

    arXiv 1999

Show all 113 references
  1. [8]

    Primordial Black Holes,

    Maxim Yu. Khlopov, “Primordial Black Holes,” Res. Astron. Astrophys. 10, 495–528 (2010), arXiv:0801.0116 [astro-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    New cosmological constraints on primordial black holes,

    B. J. Carr, Kazunori Kohri, Yuuiti Sendouda, and Jun’ichi Yokoyama, “New cosmological constraints on primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 104019 (2010), arXiv:0912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astron- omy,

    Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astron- omy,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Constraints on primordial black holes,

    Bernard Carr, Kazunori Kohri, Yuuiti Sendouda, and Jun’ichi Yokoyama, “Constraints on primordial black holes,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments,

    Bernard Carr and Florian K¨ uhnel, “Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 355–394 (2020), arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,

    Anne M. Green and Bradley J. Kavanagh, “Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,” J. Phys. G 48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    PBH Formation from Spherically Sym- metric Hydrodynamical Perturbations: A Review,

    Albert Escriv` a, “PBH Formation from Spherically Sym- metric Hydrodynamical Perturbations: A Review,” Universe 8, 66 (2022), arXiv:2111.12693 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    A brief review on primordial black holes as dark matter,

    Pablo Villanueva-Domingo, Olga Mena, and Sergio Palomares-Ruiz, “A brief review on primordial black holes as dark matter,” Front. Astron. Space Sci. 8, 87 (2021), arXiv:2103.12087 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Primordial Black Holes,

    Albert Escriv` a, Florian Kuhnel, and Yuichiro Tada, “Primordial Black Holes,” (2022), arXiv:2211.05767 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    How open is the asteroid-mass primordial black hole window?

    Matthew Gorton and Anne M. Green, “How open is the asteroid-mass primordial black hole window?” SciPost Phys. 17, 032 (2024), arXiv:2403.03839 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Horizon crossing and inflation with large eta,

    William H. Kinney, “Horizon crossing and inflation with large eta,” Phys. Rev. D 72, 023515 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0503017

    2005

  12. [19]

    Ultra Slow-Roll Inflation and the non- Gaussianity Consistency Relation,

    Jerome Martin, Hayato Motohashi, and Teruaki Suyama, “Ultra Slow-Roll Inflation and the non- Gaussianity Consistency Relation,” Phys. Rev. D 87, 023514 (2013), arXiv:1211.0083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Primordial Black Hole production in Critical Higgs Inflation,

    Jose Maria Ezquiaga, Juan Garcia-Bellido, and Es- ter Ruiz Morales, “Primordial Black Hole production in Critical Higgs Inflation,” Phys. Lett. B 776, 345–349 (2018), arXiv:1705.04861 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Primor- dial black holes from single field models of inflation,

    Juan Garcia-Bellido and Ester Ruiz Morales, “Primor- dial black holes from single field models of inflation,” Phys. Dark Univ. 18, 47–54 (2017), arXiv:1702.03901 6 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    On primor- dial black holes from an inflection point,

    Cristiano Germani and Tomislav Prokopec, “On primor- dial black holes from an inflection point,” Phys. Dark Univ. 18, 6–10 (2017), arXiv:1706.04226 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Single Field Double Inflation and Primordial Black Holes,

    Kristjan Kannike, Luca Marzola, Martti Raidal, and Hardi Veerm¨ ae, “Single Field Double Inflation and Primordial Black Holes,” JCAP 09, 020 (2017), arXiv:1705.06225 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Primordial Black Holes and Slow-Roll Violation,

    Hayato Motohashi and Wayne Hu, “Primordial Black Holes and Slow-Roll Violation,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 063503 (2017), arXiv:1706.06784 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Primordial black holes and second order gravitational waves from ultra-slow- roll inflation,

    Haoran Di and Yungui Gong, “Primordial black holes and second order gravitational waves from ultra-slow- roll inflation,” JCAP 07, 007 (2018), arXiv:1707.09578 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Primordial black hole dark matter from single field inflation,

    Guillermo Ballesteros and Marco Taoso, “Primordial black hole dark matter from single field inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 023501 (2018), arXiv:1709.05565 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Quantum diffusion during infla- tion and primordial black holes,

    Chris Pattison, Vincent Vennin, Hooshyar Assadullahi, and David Wands, “Quantum diffusion during infla- tion and primordial black holes,” JCAP 10, 046 (2017), arXiv:1707.00537 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Primordial black holes and local non-Gaussianity in canonical inflation,

    Samuel Passaglia, Wayne Hu, and Hayato Motohashi, “Primordial black holes and local non-Gaussianity in canonical inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 043536 (2019), arXiv:1812.08243 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Primordial Black Holes from In- flation and Quantum Diffusion,

    Matteo Biagetti, Gabriele Franciolini, Alex Kehagias, and Antonio Riotto, “Primordial Black Holes from In- flation and Quantum Diffusion,” JCAP 07, 032 (2018), arXiv:1804.07124 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Primordial Black Holes from a tiny bump/dip in the Inflaton potential,

    Swagat S. Mishra and Varun Sahni, “Primordial Black Holes from a tiny bump/dip in the Inflaton potential,” JCAP 04, 007 (2020), arXiv:1911.00057 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Non-Gaussian Tail of the Curva- ture Perturbation in Stochastic Ultraslow-Roll Inflation: Implications for Primordial Black Hole Production,

    Daniel G. Figueroa, Sami Raatikainen, Syksy Rasanen, and Eemeli Tomberg, “Non-Gaussian Tail of the Curva- ture Perturbation in Stochastic Ultraslow-Roll Inflation: Implications for Primordial Black Hole Production,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 101302 (2021), arXiv:2012.06551 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  25. [32]

    Anatomy of single-field inflationary models for primordial black holes,

    Alexandros Karam, Niko Koivunen, Eemeli Tomberg, Ville Vaskonen, and Hardi Veerm¨ ae, “Anatomy of single-field inflationary models for primordial black holes,” JCAP 03, 013 (2023), arXiv:2205.13540 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Inflation and Primordial Black Holes,

    Ogan ¨Ozsoy and Gianmassimo Tasinato, “Inflation and Primordial Black Holes,” Universe 9, 203 (2023), arXiv:2301.03600 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Primordial Black Holes from String Inflation,

    Michele Cicoli, Victor A. Diaz, and Francisco G. Pedro, “Primordial Black Holes from String Inflation,” JCAP 06, 034 (2018), arXiv:1803.02837 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Secondary GWs and PBHs in string inflation: formation and detectability,

    Michele Cicoli, Francisco G. Pedro, and Nicola Pe- dron, “Secondary GWs and PBHs in string inflation: formation and detectability,” JCAP 08, 030 (2022), arXiv:2203.00021 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Highly non-Gaussian tails and primordial black holes from single-field inflation,

    Yi-Fu Cai, Xiao-Han Ma, Misao Sasaki, Dong-Gang Wang, and Zihan Zhou, “Highly non-Gaussian tails and primordial black holes from single-field inflation,” JCAP 12, 034 (2022), arXiv:2207.11910 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Primordial black holes arise when the inflaton falls,

    Keisuke Inomata, Evan McDonough, and Wayne Hu, “Primordial black holes arise when the inflaton falls,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 123553 (2021), arXiv:2104.03972 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Amplification of primordial perturbations from the rise or fall of the inflaton,

    Keisuke Inomata, Evan McDonough, and Wayne Hu, “Amplification of primordial perturbations from the rise or fall of the inflaton,” JCAP 02, 031 (2022), arXiv:2110.14641 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Planck 2018 results. IX. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity,

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. IX. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A9 (2020), arXiv:1905.05697 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves us- ing Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP, Keck), “Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves us- ing Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  36. [44]

    Supernatural inflation: Inflation from supersymmetry with no (very) small parameters,

    Lisa Randall, Marin Soljacic, and Alan H. Guth, “Supernatural inflation: Inflation from supersymmetry with no (very) small parameters,” Nucl. Phys. B 472, 377–408 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512439

    1996 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Density perturbations and black hole forma- tion in hybrid inflation,

    Juan Garcia-Bellido, Andrei D. Linde, and David Wands, “Density perturbations and black hole forma- tion in hybrid inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 54, 6040–6058 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605094

    1996 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Contribution of the hybrid inflation wa- terfall to the primordial curvature perturbation,

    David H. Lyth, “Contribution of the hybrid inflation wa- terfall to the primordial curvature perturbation,” JCAP 07, 035 (2011), arXiv:1012.4617 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Formation of pri- mordial black holes from non-Gaussian perturbations produced in a waterfall transition,

    Edgar Bugaev and Peter Klimai, “Formation of pri- mordial black holes from non-Gaussian perturbations produced in a waterfall transition,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 103504 (2012), arXiv:1112.5601 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A Density Spike on Astrophysical Scales from an N-Field Water- fall Transition,

    Illan F. Halpern, Mark P. Hertzberg, Matthew A. Joss, and Evangelos I. Sfakianakis, “A Density Spike on Astrophysical Scales from an N-Field Water- fall Transition,” Phys. Lett. B 748, 132–143 (2015), arXiv:1410.1878 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Massive Pri- mordial Black Holes from Hybrid Inflation as Dark Mat- ter and the seeds of Galaxies,

    S´ ebastien Clesse and Juan Garc´ ıa-Bellido, “Massive Pri- mordial Black Holes from Hybrid Inflation as Dark Mat- ter and the seeds of Galaxies,” Phys. Rev. D 92, 023524 (2015), arXiv:1501.07565 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Can massive primordial black holes be produced in mild waterfall hy- brid inflation?

    Masahiro Kawasaki and Yuichiro Tada, “Can massive primordial black holes be produced in mild waterfall hy- brid inflation?” JCAP 08, 041 (2016), arXiv:1512.03515 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hybrid α-attractors, primordial black holes and gravitational wave backgrounds,

    Matteo Braglia, Andrei Linde, Renata Kallosh, and Fabio Finelli, “Hybrid α-attractors, primordial black holes and gravitational wave backgrounds,” JCAP 04, 033 (2023), arXiv:2211.14262 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Turning in the landscape: A new mechanism for generating primor- dial black holes,

    Jacopo Fumagalli, S´ ebastien Renaux-Petel, John W. Ronayne, and Lukas T. Witkowski, “Turning in the landscape: A new mechanism for generating primor- dial black holes,” Phys. Lett. B 841, 137921 (2023), arXiv:2004.08369 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Generating PBHs and small-scale GWs in two-field models of inflation,

    Matteo Braglia, Dhiraj Kumar Hazra, Fabio Finelli, George F. Smoot, L. Sriramkumar, and Alexei A. Starobinsky, “Generating PBHs and small-scale GWs in two-field models of inflation,” JCAP 08, 001 (2020), 7 arXiv:2005.02895 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Seeding primordial black holes in multi- field inflation,

    Gonzalo A. Palma, Spyros Sypsas, and Cristobal Zenteno, “Seeding primordial black holes in multi- field inflation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 121301 (2020), arXiv:2004.06106 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Primordial black holes from multi- field inflation with nonminimal couplings,

    Sarah R. Geller, Wenzer Qin, Evan McDonough, and David I. Kaiser, “Primordial black holes from multi- field inflation with nonminimal couplings,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 063535 (2022), arXiv:2205.04471 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Planck constraints and gravitational wave forecasts for primordial black hole dark matter seeded by multifield inflation,

    Wenzer Qin, Sarah R. Geller, Shyam Balaji, Evan Mc- Donough, and David I. Kaiser, “Planck constraints and gravitational wave forecasts for primordial black hole dark matter seeded by multifield inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 043508 (2023), arXiv:2303.02168 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Previous studies have highlighted model-dependent sce- narios in which spectator fields can enhance primordial curvature perturbations, and hence PBH formation [99– 103]

  50. [58]

    Both conditions are evaluated at the time tCMB when the comoving CMB pivot scale kCMB first exits the Hubble radius

    We define a scalar spectator field as being subdomi- nant in potential energy density, |VS/VPBH|tCMB ≪ 1, with no direct coupling to the inflaton, and with a sub- Hubble mass|mχ/H|tCMB ≪ 1, where H is the Hubble parameter. Both conditions are evaluated at the time tCMB when th...

  51. [59]

    A General analytic formula for the spectral index of the density perturba- tions produced during inflation,

    Misao Sasaki and Ewan D. Stewart, “A General analytic formula for the spectral index of the density perturba- tions produced during inflation,” Prog. Theor. Phys.95, 71–78 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9507001

    1996 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Adiabatic and entropy perturba- tions from inflation,

    Christopher Gordon, David Wands, Bruce A. Bassett, and Roy Maartens, “Adiabatic and entropy perturba- tions from inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 023506 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0009131

    2000 arXiv

  53. [61]

    An Observational test of two-field in- flation,

    David Wands, Nicola Bartolo, Sabino Matarrese, and Antonio Riotto, “An Observational test of two-field in- flation,” Phys. Rev. D 66, 043520 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0205253

    2002

  54. [62]

    Perturba- tions in generalized multi-field inflation,

    David Langlois and Sebastien Renaux-Petel, “Perturba- tions in generalized multi-field inflation,” JCAP 04, 017 (2008), arXiv:0801.1085 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Testing Two-Field Inflation,

    Courtney M. Peterson and Max Tegmark, “Testing Two-Field Inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 023522 (2011), arXiv:1005.4056 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A covariant ap- proach to general field space metric in multi-field infla- tion,

    Jinn-Ouk Gong and Takahiro Tanaka, “A covariant ap- proach to general field space metric in multi-field infla- tion,” JCAP 03, 015 (2011), [Erratum: JCAP 02, E01 (2012)], arXiv:1101.4809 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Primordial Bispectrum from Multifield In- flation with Nonminimal Couplings,

    David I. Kaiser, Edward A. Mazenc, and Evangelos I. Sfakianakis, “Primordial Bispectrum from Multifield In- flation with Nonminimal Couplings,” Phys. Rev. D 87, 064004 (2013), arXiv:1210.7487 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Multi-field inflation and cosmologi- cal perturbations,

    Jinn-Ouk Gong, “Multi-field inflation and cosmologi- cal perturbations,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1740003 (2016), arXiv:1606.06971 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Multiple field inflation,

    David Wands, “Multiple field inflation,” Lect. Notes Phys. 738, 275–304 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0702187

    2008 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Cumulative effects in inflation with ultra-light entropy modes,

    Ana Ach´ ucarro, Vicente Atal, Cristiano Germani, and Gonzalo A. Palma, “Cumulative effects in inflation with ultra-light entropy modes,” JCAP 02, 013 (2017), arXiv:1607.08609 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Nonminimal Couplings and the Forgotten Field of Ax- ion Inflation,

    Evan McDonough, Alan H. Guth, and David I. Kaiser, “Nonminimal Couplings and the Forgotten Field of Ax- ion Inflation,” (2020), arXiv:2010.04179 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Natural inflation with exponentially small tensor-to-scalar ratio,

    Dario L. Lorenzoni, David I. Kaiser, and Evan Mc- Donough, “Natural inflation with exponentially small tensor-to-scalar ratio,” Phys. Rev. D 110, L061302 (2024), arXiv:2405.13881 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    De Sitter vacua in string theory,

    Shamit Kachru, Renata Kallosh, Andrei D. Linde, and Sandip P. Trivedi, “De Sitter vacua in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0301240

    2003 arXiv

  64. [72]

    The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,

    Fedor L. Bezrukov and Mikhail Shaposhnikov, “The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,” Phys. Lett. B 659, 703–706 (2008), arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  65. [73]

    By adding a light spectator field to single-field models, the PBH-forming dynamics more closely resemble the well-studied physics of hybrid inflation [44–52]: a sharp turn in field space combined with a brief phase of tachy- onic growth seeds PBH formation

  66. [74]

    Pri- mordial black hole formation and abundance: contri- bution from the non-linear relation between the den- sity and curvature perturbation,

    Sam Young, Ilia Musco, and Christian T. Byrnes, “Pri- mordial black hole formation and abundance: contri- bution from the non-linear relation between the den- sity and curvature perturbation,” JCAP 11, 012 (2019), arXiv:1904.00984 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Non-Gaussian Formation of Primordial Black Holes: Effects on the Threshold,

    Alex Kehagias, Ilia Musco, and Antonio Riotto, “Non-Gaussian Formation of Primordial Black Holes: Effects on the Threshold,” JCAP 12, 029 (2019), arXiv:1906.07135 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Universal threshold for primordial black hole formation,

    Albert Escriv` a, Cristiano Germani, and Ravi K. Sheth, “Universal threshold for primordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 044022 (2020), arXiv:1907.13311 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [77]

    On the Pri- mordial Black Hole Mass Function for Broad Spectra,

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto, “On the Pri- mordial Black Hole Mass Function for Broad Spectra,” Phys. Lett. B 807, 135550 (2020), arXiv:2001.04371 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Threshold for primordial black holes. II. A simple analytic prescription,

    Ilia Musco, Valerio De Luca, Gabriele Franciolini, and Antonio Riotto, “Threshold for primordial black holes. II. A simple analytic prescription,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 063538 (2021), arXiv:2011.03014 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Power spectrum of primordial perturbations during ultra-slow-roll inflation with back reaction effects,

    Shu-Lin Cheng, Da-Shin Lee, and Kin-Wang Ng, “Power spectrum of primordial perturbations during ultra-slow-roll inflation with back reaction effects,” Phys. Lett. B 827, 136956 (2022), arXiv:2106.09275 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Constrain- ing Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single- Field Inflation,

    Jason Kristiano and Jun’ichi Yokoyama, “Constrain- ing Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single- Field Inflation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 221003 (2024), arXiv:2211.03395 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Note on the bispectrum and one-loop corrections in single-field infla- tion with primordial black hole formation,

    Jason Kristiano and Jun’ichi Yokoyama, “Note on the bispectrum and one-loop corrections in single-field infla- tion with primordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 103541 (2024), arXiv:2303.00341 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    No-go for the formation of heavy mass Pri- mordial Black Holes in Single Field Inflation,

    Sayantan Choudhury, Mayukh R. Gangopadhyay, and M. Sami, “No-go for the formation of heavy mass Pri- mordial Black Holes in Single Field Inflation,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 884 (2024), arXiv:2301.10000 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    PBH formation in EFT of single field inflation with sharp transition,

    Sayantan Choudhury, Sudhakar Panda, and M. Sami, “PBH formation in EFT of single field inflation with sharp transition,” Phys. Lett. B 845, 138123 (2023), arXiv:2302.05655 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Pri- mordial perturbations from ultra-slow-roll single-field inflation with quantum loop effects,

    Shu-Lin Cheng, Da-Shin Lee, and Kin-Wang Ng, “Pri- mordial perturbations from ultra-slow-roll single-field inflation with quantum loop effects,” JCAP 03, 008 (2024), arXiv:2305.16810 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  77. [85]

    On Loops in Inflation,

    Leonardo Senatore and Matias Zaldarriaga, “On Loops in Inflation,” JHEP 12, 008 (2010), arXiv:0912.2734 [hep-th]. 8

    2010 arXiv

  78. [86]

    On Loops in Inflation II: IR Effects in Single Clock Inflation,

    Leonardo Senatore and Matias Zaldarriaga, “On Loops in Inflation II: IR Effects in Single Clock Inflation,” JHEP 01, 109 (2013), arXiv:1203.6354 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  79. [87]

    On Loops in Inflation III: Time Indepen- dence of zeta in Single Clock Inflation,

    Guilherme L. Pimentel, Leonardo Senatore, and Matias Zaldarriaga, “On Loops in Inflation III: Time Indepen- dence of zeta in Single Clock Inflation,” JHEP 07, 166 (2012), arXiv:1203.6651 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  80. [88]

    The con- stancy of ζ in single-clock Inflation at all loops,

    Leonardo Senatore and Matias Zaldarriaga, “The con- stancy of ζ in single-clock Inflation at all loops,” JHEP 09, 148 (2013), arXiv:1210.6048 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Power spec- trum in stochastic inflation,

    Kenta Ando and Vincent Vennin, “Power spec- trum in stochastic inflation,” JCAP 04, 057 (2021), arXiv:2012.02031 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [90]

    The Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation is Still Not Ruled Out,

    A. Riotto, “The Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation is Still Not Ruled Out,” (2023), arXiv:2303.01727 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    One-loop corrections in power spec- trum in single field inflation,

    Hassan Firouzjahi, “One-loop corrections in power spec- trum in single field inflation,” JCAP 10, 006 (2023), arXiv:2303.12025 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Squeezed bis- pectrum and one-loop corrections in transient constant- roll inflation,

    Hayato Motohashi and Yuichiro Tada, “Squeezed bis- pectrum and one-loop corrections in transient constant- roll inflation,” JCAP 08, 069 (2023), arXiv:2303.16035 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Primordial Black Holes and loops in single-field inflation,

    Hassan Firouzjahi and Antonio Riotto, “Primordial Black Holes and loops in single-field inflation,” JCAP 02, 021 (2024), arXiv:2304.07801 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Perturbativity in the pres- ence of ultraslow-roll dynamics,

    Gabriele Franciolini, Antonio Iovino, Junior., Marco Taoso, and Alfredo Urbano, “Perturbativity in the pres- ence of ultraslow-roll dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 123550 (2024), arXiv:2305.03491 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Large |η| approach to sin- gle field inflation,

    Gianmassimo Tasinato, “Large |η| approach to sin- gle field inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 043526 (2023), arXiv:2305.11568 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Inflationary Butterfly Effect: Nonper- turbative Dynamics from Small-Scale Features,

    Angelo Caravano, Keisuke Inomata, and S´ ebastien Renaux-Petel, “Inflationary Butterfly Effect: Nonper- turbative Dynamics from Small-Scale Features,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 151001 (2024), arXiv:2403.12811 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Ultraslow-roll inflation on the lattice: Backreaction and nonlinear effects,

    Angelo Caravano, Gabriele Franciolini, and S´ ebastien Renaux-Petel, “Ultraslow-roll inflation on the lattice: Backreaction and nonlinear effects,” Phys. Rev. D 111, 063518 (2025), arXiv:2410.23942 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Questions on calculation of primordial power spectrum with large spikes: the res- onance model case,

    Keisuke Inomata, Matteo Braglia, Xingang Chen, and S´ ebastien Renaux-Petel, “Questions on calculation of primordial power spectrum with large spikes: the res- onance model case,” JCAP 04, 011 (2023), [Erratum: JCAP 09, E01 (2023)], arXiv:2211.02586 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Exploring critical overdensity thresholds in inflationary models of primordial black holes formation,

    Ioanna D. Stamou, “Exploring critical overdensity thresholds in inflationary models of primordial black holes formation,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 063515 (2023), arXiv:2306.02758 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Large curvature fluctuations from no-scale supergravity with a spectator field,

    Ioanna D. Stamou, “Large curvature fluctuations from no-scale supergravity with a spectator field,” Phys. Lett. B 855, 138798 (2024), arXiv:2404.02295 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Mechanisms for Producing Primor- dial Black Holes from Inflationary Models beyond Fine- Tuning,

    Ioanna Stamou, “Mechanisms for Producing Primor- dial Black Holes from Inflationary Models beyond Fine- Tuning,” Universe 10, 241 (2024), arXiv:2404.14321 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Spectators no more! how even unimportant fields can ruin your primordial black hole model,

    A. Wilkins and A. Cable, “Spectators no more! how even unimportant fields can ruin your primordial black hole model,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024, 026 (2024)

    2024

  95. [103]

    Primordial black holes from a curvaton: the role of bimodal distributions,

    Tomotaka Kuroda, Atsushi Naruko, Vincent Vennin, and Masahide Yamaguchi, “Primordial black holes from a curvaton: the role of bimodal distributions,” (2025), arXiv:2504.09548 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  96. [104]

    A Horizon ratio bound for inflationary fluctuations,

    Scott Dodelson and Lam Hui, “A Horizon ratio bound for inflationary fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 131301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305113

    2003 arXiv

  97. [105]

    How long before the end of inflation were observable perturba- tions produced?

    Andrew R Liddle and Samuel M Leach, “How long before the end of inflation were observable perturba- tions produced?” Phys. Rev. D 68, 103503 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305263

    2003 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Nonperturbative Dynamics Of Reheating After Inflation: A Review,

    Mustafa A. Amin, Mark P. Hertzberg, David I. Kaiser, and Johanna Karouby, “Nonperturbative Dynamics Of Reheating After Inflation: A Review,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1530003 (2014), arXiv:1410.3808 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Reheating predictions in single field inflation,

    Jessica L. Cook, Emanuela Dimastrogiovanni, Damien A. Easson, and Lawrence M. Krauss, “Reheating predictions in single field inflation,” JCAP 04, 047 (2015), arXiv:1502.04673 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Information Gain on Reheating: the One Bit Milestone,

    Jerome Martin, Christophe Ringeval, and Vincent Vennin, “Information Gain on Reheating: the One Bit Milestone,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 103532 (2016), arXiv:1603.02606 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  101. [109]

    The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe,

    Rouzbeh Allahverdi et al. , “The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe,” Open J. Astrophys. 4 (2020), 10.21105/as- tro.2006.16182, arXiv:2006.16182 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Planck 2015 results. XX. Constraints on inflation,

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), “Planck 2015 results. XX. Constraints on inflation,” Astron. Astrophys. 594, A20 (2016), arXiv:1502.02114 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Numerical evaluation of the bispectrum in multiple field inflation—the transport approach with code,

    Mafalda Dias, Jonathan Frazer, David J. Mulryne, and David Seery, “Numerical evaluation of the bispectrum in multiple field inflation—the transport approach with code,” JCAP 12, 033 (2016), arXiv:1609.00379 [astro- ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  104. [112]

    PyTransport: A Python package for the calculation of inflationary cor- relation functions,

    David J. Mulryne and John W. Ronayne, “PyTransport: A Python package for the calculation of inflationary cor- relation functions,” J. Open Source Softw.3, 494 (2018), arXiv:1609.00381 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Lyth and Andrew R

    David H. Lyth and Andrew R. Liddle, The Primor- dial Density Perturbation (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009). 9 Appendix: Model Parameters and Observables The model parameters used in the previous figures are reported in Table AI for the PBH A model of Eq. (10) and i...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.