Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Precision Unitarity Calculations in Inflationary Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Full S-matrix sums show near-critical single-field inflation stays unitary to about $E_{\rm max} \sim 20\,M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$, while multifield kinetic interactions pull the cut-off down to about $2\,M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$.

desk verdict Solid full S-matrix treatment of unitarity cutoffs in nonminimal inflation; the single-field near-critical numbers are tree-level and explicitly conditional on no self-healing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20386 v1 pith:LWK3DZNV submitted 2025-05-26 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

Thomas Steingasser , Mark P. Hertzberg , David I. Kaiser This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-th PACS 98.80.Cq11.55.-m
keywords HiggsinflationperturbativeunitaritynonminimalcouplingcriticalS-matrixboundsphase-spacefactorsPalatinigravitymultifield
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 whether the unitarity problem of Higgs-style inflation is really as severe as the standard order-of-magnitude estimates suggest, and it answers that the truth depends sharply on how many scalar fields are involved. Computing the full S-matrix, including the exact phase-space volume factors that earlier estimates dropped, the authors find that in single-field models a small self-coupling $\lambda$ (the near-critical regime) raises the cut-off to $E_{\rm max} \sim \mathcal{O}(20)\,M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$, far above the old $M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$ bound. In multifield models, however, momentum-dependent interactions from the curved field-space metric dominate and pull the cut-off back down to $E_{\rm max} \simeq 2.05\,M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$ (metric gravity) or $4.94\,M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{\xi}$ (Palatini), with no dependence on $\lambda$. A canonically-kinetic variant restores unitarity up to $E_{\rm max} \simeq 38\,M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{\xi}$ at $\lambda = 10^{-5}$, and background-field effects during inflation raise the bound only to about $0.6\,M_{\rm Pl}$ in metric gravity, still below the field values the model needs. If right, near-critical single-field inflation is far more self-consistent than previously thought, while the realistic multifield Higgs case still needs new physics below the scales sampled during inflation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the S-matrix unitarity bound from the optical theorem, $\sum_N |\mathcal{M}_{2 \to N}|^2 \leq 1$, combined with the exact Lorentz-invariant phase-space volume $\mathrm{Vol}_N = (E/4\pi)^{2(N-2)}/[8\pi (N-1)!(N-2)!]$. The volume factors suppress large-$N$ final states, so the most stringent bound comes from the smallest multiplicity, where the Wilson coefficient, proportional to $\lambda$ in the single-field case, still controls the amplitude; that is the mechanism by which weak coupling raises $E_{\rm max}$. The second key object is the Einstein-frame field-space metric $G_{IJ}$ produced by the conformal transformation $\Omega^2 = 1 + \xi|\Phi|^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2$: in metric gravity its non-diagonal, momentum-dependent pieces survive for multiple fields and supply the $\lambda$-independent elastic amplitudes that dominate the multifield cut-off, whereas in Palatini gravity those pieces vanish ($\sigma = 0$) and only $\sqrt{\xi}/M_{\rm Pl}$-suppressed diagonal terms remain. In the single-field case the nonminimal coupling is instead absorbed by a canonical field redefinition $\phi \to \chi$, converting the entire effect into a tower of potential operators with coefficients $C_{N+2} \propto \lambda$ suppressed by $(\xi/M_{\rm Pl})^2$ per field pair in metric gravity and by $\xi/M_{\rm Pl}^2$ in Palatini gravity.

What would settle it

Compute the resummed (all-orders) $2 \to N$ amplitudes in the single-field Einstein-frame theory: if the resummed partial waves remain unitary up to $E \sim M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{\xi}$ or beyond, the claimed $\lambda$-dependent rise to $\sim 20\,M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$ is not the true unitarity scale and the paper's central single-field claim fails. A softer but direct check is to repeat the same phase-space-weighted S-matrix sums at one loop and see whether the cut-off shifts by an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factor or parametrically, since a parametric shift would signal that the tree-level identification of $E_{\rm max}$ is not stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the unitarity cut-off of a nonminimally coupled scalar theory is not a fixed scale but is set by whichever class of higher-dimensional operators dominates the S-matrix sum, so its value changes between single-field and multifield models and depends on the background. Using the optical-theorem bound $\sum_N |\mathcal{M}_{2 \to N}|^2 \leq 1$ evaluated with exact $N$-particle phase-space volumes, the authors show that in the single-field Einstein-frame theory every higher-dimensional operator comes from the conformally rescaled potential and carries Wilson coefficients proportional to $\lambda$; hence a small self-coupling genuinely raises the cut-off, to $E_{\rm max} \sim \mathcal{O}(20)\,M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$ for $\lambda \sim 10^{-5}$ in metric gravity, and higher in Palatini gravity. In multifield models the non-diagonal field-space metric generates momentum-dependent $2 \to 2$ interactions that cannot be removed by field redefinitions and are suppressed only by $\xi/M_{\rm Pl}$, yielding $E_{\rm max} \simeq 2.05\,M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$ (metric) and $4.94\,M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{\xi}$ (Palatini), independent of $\lambda$. The authors also show that expanding around the inflationary condensate raises the metric-gravity multifield bound to about $4\sqrt{\pi}\,M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{\xi} \simeq 0.6\,M_{\rm Pl}$ for $\lambda = 10^{-5}$, marginally below the field value $\chi_c \simeq 5.3\,M_{\rm Pl}$ required for 55 e-folds, and that on-shell quanta at $E \sim E_{\rm max}$ are exponentially rare inside a Hubble sphere.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation assumes that tree-level $2 \to N$ scattering amplitudes in the Einstein-frame EFT fix the true unitarity cut-off, with the authors themselves explicitly leaving to future work the possibility, raised by the 'self-healing' resummation arguments of refs. [23, 24], that summing all orders restores unitarity and lifts the quoted $E_{\rm max}$ values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For near-critical single-field models such as critical Higgs inflation ($\lambda \sim 10^{-5}$), the tree-level cut-off rises to $E_{\rm max} \sim \mathcal{O}(20)\,M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$, roughly an order of magnitude above the traditional $M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$ estimate, and it grows as $\lambda$ shrinks toward the free-field limit where the nonminimal coupling causes no unitarity violation.
  • Because the multifield kinetic-sector bound $E_{\rm max} \simeq 2.05\,M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$ does not depend on $\lambda$, realistic Higgs inflation with its four real scalar degrees of freedom still faces new physics at scales far below the field values during inflation, so its CMB predictions remain sensitive to the unknown UV completion.
  • In Palatini gravity both the kinetic-sector and potential operators are suppressed by $\sqrt{\xi}/M_{\rm Pl}$ with small numerical coefficients, giving $E_{\rm max} \simeq 4.94\,M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{\xi}$ for the multifield case and making Palatini Higgs inflation considerably less constrained than the metric version.
  • The canonical-kinetic toy model, with $E_{\rm max} \simeq 38\,M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{\xi}$ at $\lambda = 10^{-5}$, shows that the low multifield cut-off is caused by the curved field-space metric and not by the conformally rescaled potential itself.
  • Expanding around the inflationary background raises the metric-gravity multifield cut-off to roughly $0.6\,M_{\rm Pl}$ for $\lambda = 10^{-5}$, still below the required field value $\chi_c \simeq 5.3\,M_{\rm Pl}$, so even the most favorable background-field treatment leaves conventional metric Higgs inflation in the new-physics-sensitive regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 'self-healing' resummations proposed in earlier work do restore unitarity, the numbers here become conservative upper bounds on the cut-off; the single-field $\lambda$-dependence is the part most vulnerable, while the multifield kinetic-sector bounds, tied to momentum-dependent operators rather than the potential, are the most likely to survive an all-orders treatment.
  • The exponential scarcity of quanta at $E \sim E_{\rm max}$ in a Hubble volume suggests the formal unitarity violation may be practically inert for ordinary inflationary and reheating observables: the cut-off constrains exotic ultra-energetic processes, not the ambient field dynamics that actually drives inflation.
  • The mechanism producing the $\lambda$-dependence is generic: any EFT whose tower of higher-dimension Wilson coefficients shares a single small coupling should show the same pattern, with phase-space factors pushing the strongest bound to the lowest final-state multiplicity; that prediction could be tested in a controlled setting with a known UV completion, where tree-level unitarity bounds could b
  • A natural extension is to apply the same phase-space-weighted S-matrix sums to the fermion and gauge sectors: the authors estimate Yukawa corrections are small for ordinary couplings, but a full treatment could shift the Palatini multifield bound by $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factors and should be checked before those numbers are used as benchmarks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper revisits perturbative unitarity in scalar-field inflation with nonminimal coupling to gravity, focusing on Higgs-inflation-type models. The authors perform a tree-level S-matrix analysis of 2-to-N scalar scattering, including exact phase-space volume factors, to compute the unitarity cutoff Emax around the vacuum. For single-field models they find that near-critical small self-coupling raises Emax to about 20 MPl/xi in metric gravity and higher in Palatini gravity. In multifield models, momentum-dependent interactions from the noncanonical kinetic sector yield Emax approximately 2.05 MPl/xi (metric) and 4.94 MPl/sqrt(xi) (Palatini), independent of lambda. A canonical-kinetic toy model gives Emax approximately 38 MPl/sqrt(xi) for lambda=1e-5. The paper also derives CMB-normalization relations between xi and lambda, compares thermal energies during reheating with the cutoff, and computes in an appendix that the number of on-shell quanta with E~Emax is exponentially suppressed. The paper explicitly states that all results are tree-level and defers resummation ('self-healing') effects to future work.

Significance. The paper's methodological contribution is the inclusion of full phase-space volumes and sums over final-state multiplicities, going beyond the usual order-of-magnitude estimates in the Higgs-inflation unitarity literature. If the tree-level results are taken as indicative, they sharpen the case that near-critical Higgs inflation has a higher unitarity scale than previously estimated and clearly identify the kinetic-sector derivative interactions as the dominant source of low cutoffs in multifield models. The analytic formulas and appendices are explicit, and the CMB-normalization relations and reheating estimates provide concrete, testable predictions. However, the main quantitative claims are conditional on the assumed tree-level truncation; because the paper acknowledges that resummations could alter the conclusions, the results are most accurately described as tree-level estimates rather than definitive evaluations of the true unitarity cutoff.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2 (and abstract)] The central claim of a 'precise evaluation' of the cut-off scale is based on inserting tree-level amplitudes into the exact unitarity inequality (4.6). The paper explicitly defers resummations ('self-healing', Refs. [23,24]) to future work (p.3). Since these references argue that classes of diagrams can restore unitarity below the apparent cutoff in exactly this model, the single-field near-critical result Emax ~ O(20) MPl/xi is not established as a true upper bound; it is a tree-level estimate. The authors should either assess the potential effect of such resummations on the key numerical values in Eqs. (4.16), (4.23), (4.27), and (4.33), or consistently qualify the results and the abstract as tree-level estimates.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.16)] Inequality (4.6) is derived for inelastic channels (N not equal to 2). In Eq. (4.16) the elastic 2-to-2 contribution is included in the sum over N, with the remark that the elastic process is taken into account, but no derivation is given for the unitarity bound that applies to the elastic element S22. Please state the criterion used (e.g., |M22|^2 <= 1 versus the optical-theorem constraint) and show that including N=2 in the same inequality is justified; this affects the interpretation of Fig. 2.
  3. [Sec. 5.3 and abstract] The abstract labels the canonical-kinetic model 'phenomenologically viable', but Eq. (5.58) predicts ns about 0.973, which lies approximately two standard deviations above the Planck value ns = 0.9649 +/- 0.0042 quoted in Sec. 5.1. This claim should be supported by a quantitative comparison to the data; otherwise the model should be described as an illustrative toy model rather than phenomenologically viable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4.12)] The condition 'N in 4+2N' appears to be a typo; based on the subsequent sums it should read 'N in 2+2N'.
  2. [Sec. 6.1, after Eq. (6.7)] The phrase 'the term that responsible for lowering Emax' should be 'the term responsible for lowering Emax'.
  3. [Eq. (3.11)] The subscript notation C_V,M is defined only by context; please define it explicitly at first use.
  4. [Sec. 4.3.2] The statement that 'the volume factors cause these elements to vanish for large numbers of outgoing particles' is not immediately evident from Eq. (4.26); consider adding one sentence on the N-to-infinity asymptotic behavior of the matrix element.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the unitarity cut-offs follow from explicit tree-level S-matrix unitarity bounds with no fitted inputs; the deferred resummation question is an assumption, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: from the Jordan-frame action (3.1), a conformal transformation gives the Einstein-frame EFT (3.4)-(3.5), whose expanded interactions yield Wilson coefficients (3.11), (3.13), and (3.18). These are inserted into the S-matrix elements (4.7), (4.13), (4.22), (4.26), and (4.32), and the unitarity inequality (4.6) directly produces the quoted cut-offs (4.16), (4.23), (4.27), and (4.33). No parameter is fitted to the target cut-off: λ and ξ enter as input couplings, and the CMB normalization (5.21), (5.43), and (5.61) is an external observational constraint used only to convert between ξ and λ in illustrative comparisons. Self-citations (e.g., [15,16] for critical-Higgs RG motivation, [38] for the multifield field-space metric, and [43-45] for multifield dynamics) are background results; none is the sole justification for any Emax value, and the displayed equations are sufficient to reproduce the cut-offs. The paper's explicit restriction to tree-level amplitudes and its deferral of self-healing resummations (Sec. 1, p. 3) is a substantive limitation that could affect the physical interpretation of Emax, but it is not circular: the tree-level unitarity calculation does not assume its own conclusion. The skeptic's concern about resummation is a correctness risk, not a reduction of the derivation to its inputs.

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

The central derivation relies on standard S-matrix unitarity, the Einstein-frame EFT with a constant quartic potential, and slow-roll inflation formulas. No new particles or entities are introduced. The only model parameters are λ and ξ, which are physical inputs constrained by CMB normalization.

free parameters (2)
  • λ (quartic self-coupling) = λ ≈ 10^-5 (reference value)
    Model parameter scanned in Figs. 2 and 3; the reference value 10^-5 is motivated by critical Higgs inflation. Not fitted to the unitarity result.
  • ξ (nonminimal coupling) = ξ ≈ 142 for metric gravity with λ=10^-5, from CMB normalization (Eq. 5.22)
    Derived from CMB amplitude matching, Eq. 5.21, not from the unitarity calculation. Used to evaluate numerical cut-offs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Perturbative unitarity is the correct criterion: the tree-level S-matrix must satisfy the bound sum_N |M_{2→N}|^2 ≤ 1 (Eqs. 4.5-4.6).
    This is the standard tree-level unitarity condition from Refs [40,41], used throughout Sec. 4. If resummation (self-healing) restores unitarity, the quoted cut-offs would not be physical.
  • domain assumption The Einstein-frame EFT with a constant λ φ^4/4 potential and no gauge or Yukawa couplings captures the relevant unitarity-violating physics around ⟨ϕ⟩=0.
    The entire analysis uses this simplified action (Sec. 3). The authors state they have checked Yukawa corrections are subdominant (Sec. 3.2, Eq. 6.24), but the full SM structure is not included.
  • standard math The phase space volume for N massless final-state particles in Eq. (4.9) and the integral identities (4.10)-(4.11) from Ref. [40] are valid.
    These identities underpin the S-matrix elements for all 2→N processes; they are cited from Ref. [40] and re-derived in App. A for Palatini.
  • domain assumption Inflationary observables are computed in the slow-roll approximation with the potential approximated by its large-field form (Eqs. 5.3, 5.33, 5.51).
    Used to derive ξ(λ) via CMB normalization (Eqs. 5.21, 5.43, 5.61). Near-critical or ultra-slow-roll phases are excluded, as acknowledged in Sec. 7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision Unitarity Calculations in Inflationary Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWK3DZNV

@misc{pith2026250520386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision Unitarity Calculations in Inflationary Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWK3DZNV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20386}
}
abstract

We revisit perturbative unitarity in scalar field inflation with a nonminimal coupling, with Higgs inflation serving as the most prominent example. Although such models are phenomenologically successful, it is critical to examine whether or not unitarity violations spoil their theoretical self-consistency. The analysis of these issues has so far typically relied on order-of-magnitude estimates of scattering amplitudes, which are appropriate for generic parameters. It is not evident that these methods apply to scenarios relying on a near-critical inflationary potential, for which an interplay of both small scalar self-couplings and nonminimal couplings could partially alleviate the unitarity issues. To allow for an exploration of this possibility, we consider the full $S$-matrix for the relevant scattering processes, taking into account important phase space volume factors, leading to a precise evaluation of the cut-off scale. In the single-field case, we demonstrate that near-criticality raises the cut-off scale considerably, compared to previous estimates. In the multifield case, momentum-dependent self-interactions in the kinetic sector lower the cut-off compared to the single-field case to a value comparable to but slightly larger than previous estimates. We carefully study both the single-field and multifield cases in metric and metric-affine (Palatini) formulations of gravity, as well as introduce a new phenomenologically viable model with a canonical kinetic term and a significantly raised cut-off, and discuss the importance of background field effects.

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. ACT stands for Awkward Cosmology Theories

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reconciling Starobinsky inflation with ACT data requires fine-tuned higher-curvature scales, stiff reheating with ω_reh>1/3, or negative-energy towers, all hard to motivate from UV completions.

  2. Perturbative unitarity for models with singlet and doublet scalars

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Arbitrary scalar extensions with doublets, neutral singlets, and charged singlets now have complete analytic perturbative-unitarity bounds, automated by the BounDS Mathematica notebook.

  3. Kinetically Modified Palatini Inflation Meets ACT Data

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Palatini chaotic inflation with kinetic mixing f_K = f_R^m can shift the predicted spectral index up to the ACT DR6 value n_s = 0.974 while keeping r below current bounds.

  4. Induced-Gravity Palatini-Like Higgs Inflation in Supergravity Confronts ACT DR6

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Palatini-supergravity Higgs-inflation model with induced gravity predicts a scalar spectral index ns≈0.972-0.974, consistent with ACT DR6, and favors split supersymmetry with gravitino mass 40-60 PeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    ATLAS collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [ 1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    CMS collaboration, Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [ 1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Bezrukov and M

    F.L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton , Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 703 [ 0710.3755]. – 35 –

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Rubio, Higgs inflation , Front

    J. Rubio, Higgs inflation , Front. Astron. Space Sci. 5 (2019) 50 [ 1807.02376]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Birrell and P.C.W

    N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York (2, 1984), 10.1017/CBO9780511622632

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511622632 1984

  6. [6]

    Buchbinder, S.D

    I.L. Buchbinder, S.D. Odintsov and I.L. Shapiro, Effective Action in Quantum Gravity , Taylor and Francis, New York (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Parker and D

    L.E. Parker and D. Toms, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Field and Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, New York (8, 2009), 10.1017/CBO9780511813924

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813924 2009

  8. [8]

    Burgess, H.M

    C.P. Burgess, H.M. Lee and M. Trott, Power-counting and the Validity of the Classical Approximation During Inflation , JHEP 09 (2009) 103 [ 0902.4465]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Burgess, H.M

    C.P. Burgess, H.M. Lee and M. Trott, Comment on Higgs Inflation and Naturalness , JHEP 07 (2010) 007 [ 1002.2730]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Barbon and J.R

    J.L.F. Barbon and J.R. Espinosa, On the Naturalness of Higgs Inflation , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 081302 [ 0903.0355]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hertzberg, On Inflation with Non-minimal Coupling , JHEP 11 (2010) 023 [1002.2995]

    M.P. Hertzberg, On Inflation with Non-minimal Coupling , JHEP 11 (2010) 023 [1002.2995]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Giudice and H.M

    G.F. Giudice and H.M. Lee, Unitarizing Higgs Inflation , Phys. Lett. B 694 (2011) 294 [1010.1417]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lerner and J

    R.N. Lerner and J. McDonald, Unitarity-Violation in Generalized Higgs Inflation Models , JCAP 11 (2012) 019 [ 1112.0954]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Barbon, J.A

    J.L.F. Barbon, J.A. Casas, J. Elias-Miro and J.R. Espinosa, Higgs Inflation as a Mirage , JHEP 09 (2015) 027 [ 1501.02231]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Steingasser and D.I

    T. Steingasser and D.I. Kaiser, Higgs potential criticality beyond the Standard Model , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 095035 [ 2307.10361]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Steingasser, Higgs criticality in and beyond the SM , PoS CORFU2023 (2024) 150 [2405.02415]

    T. Steingasser, Higgs criticality in and beyond the SM , PoS CORFU2023 (2024) 150 [2405.02415]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Detering and T

    M. Detering and T. You, Vacuum Metastability from Axion-Higgs Criticality , 2412.03542

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hiller, T

    G. Hiller, T. H¨ ohne, D.F. Litim and T. Steudtner, Vacuum stability in the Standard Model and beyond, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 115017 [ 2401.08811]

    2024

  11. [19]

    Bezrukov and M

    F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Higgs inflation at the critical point , Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 249 [ 1403.6078]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bezrukov, A

    F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov and S. Sibiryakov, Higgs inflation: consistency and generalisations, JHEP 01 (2011) 016 [ 1008.5157]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bezrukov, G.K

    F. Bezrukov, G.K. Karananas, J. Rubio and M. Shaposhnikov, Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: an effective field theory approach , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 096001 [ 1212.4148]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bezrukov, The Higgs field as an inflaton , Class

    F. Bezrukov, The Higgs field as an inflaton , Class. Quant. Grav. 30 (2013) 214001 [1307.0708]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Calmet and R

    X. Calmet and R. Casadio, Self-healing of unitarity in Higgs inflation , Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 17 [ 1310.7410]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Magnin, Higgs inflation and its self-consistency , Ph.D

    A. Magnin, Higgs inflation and its self-consistency , Ph.D. Dissertation, ´Ecole Polytechnique F´ ed´ erale de Lausanne (2013). – 36 –

    2013

  17. [25]

    Aydemir, M.M

    U. Aydemir, M.M. Anber and J.F. Donoghue, Self-healing of unitarity in effective field theories and the onset of new physics , Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 014025 [ 1203.5153]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory , Ann

    C.P. Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 329 [hep-th/0701053]

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory , Cambridge University Press (New York: 2020), 10.1017/9781139048040

    C.P. Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory , Cambridge University Press (New York: 2020), 10.1017/9781139048040

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory , Phys. Rept. 793 (2019) 1 [ 1706.08945]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and D. Wyler, The standard model effective field theory at work , Rev. Mod. Phys. 96 (2024) 015006 [ 2303.16922]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Logan, Lectures on perturbative unitarity and decoupling in Higgs physics , 2207.01064

    H.E. Logan, Lectures on perturbative unitarity and decoupling in Higgs physics , 2207.01064

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cheung, P

    C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A.L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan and L. Senatore, The Effective Field Theory of Inflation , JHEP 03 (2008) 014 [ 0709.0293]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Weinberg, Effective Field Theory for Inflation , Phys

    S. Weinberg, Effective Field Theory for Inflation , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 123541 [0804.4291]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, The Effective Field Theory of Multifield Inflation , JHEP 04 (2012) 024 [ 1009.2093]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Pinol, Effective field theory of multifield inflationary fluctuations , Phys

    L. Pinol, Effective field theory of multifield inflationary fluctuations , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) L041302 [ 2405.02190]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Azhar and D.I

    F. Azhar and D.I. Kaiser, Flows into inflation: An effective field theory approach , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 063515 [ 1807.02088]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Azhar and D.I

    F. Azhar and D.I. Kaiser, Flows into de Sitter space from anisotropic initial conditions: An effective field theory approach , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 043506 [ 2207.08355]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Weymann-Despres, S

    G. Weymann-Despres, S. Henrot-Versill´ e, G. Moultaka, V. Vennin, L. Duflot and R. von Eckardstein, MSSM inflation revisited: Toward a coherent description of high-energy physics and cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 023511 [ 2304.04534]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kaiser, Conformal Transformations with Multiple Scalar Fields , Phys

    D.I. Kaiser, Conformal Transformations with Multiple Scalar Fields , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 084044 [1003.1159]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bauer and D.A

    F. Bauer and D.A. Demir, Higgs-Palatini Inflation and Unitarity , Phys. Lett. B 698 (2011) 425 [1012.2900]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Abu-Ajamieh, S

    F. Abu-Ajamieh, S. Chang, M. Chen and M.A. Luty, Higgs coupling measurements and the scale of new physics , JHEP 07 (2021) 056 [ 2009.11293]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu and D. Sutherland, Unitarity violation and the geometry of Higgs EFTs, JHEP 12 (2021) 003 [ 2108.03240]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Greenwood, D.I

    R.N. Greenwood, D.I. Kaiser and E.I. Sfakianakis, Multifield Dynamics of Higgs Inflation , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 064021 [ 1210.8190]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kaiser, E.A

    D.I. Kaiser, E.A. Mazenc and E.I. Sfakianakis, Primordial Bispectrum from Multifield Inflation with Nonminimal Couplings , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 064004 [ 1210.7487]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Schutz, E.I

    K. Schutz, E.I. Sfakianakis and D.I. Kaiser, Multifield Inflation after Planck: Isocurvature Modes from Nonminimal Couplings , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 064044 [ 1310.8285]. – 37 –

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kaiser, Nonminimal Couplings in the Early Universe: Multifield Models of Inflation and the Latest Observations , Fundam

    D.I. Kaiser, Nonminimal Couplings in the Early Universe: Multifield Models of Inflation and the Latest Observations , Fundam. Theor. Phys. 183 (2016) 41 [ 1511.09148]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Liddle, P

    A.R. Liddle, P. Parsons and J.D. Barrow, Formalizing the slow roll approximation in inflation, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 7222 [ astro-ph/9408015]

    1994 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2013 results. XXII. Constraints on inflation , Astron. Astrophys. 571 (2014) A22 [ 1303.5082]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A10 [ 1807.06211]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    BICEP, Keckcollaboration, Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season , Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 151301 [ 2110.00483]

    2021

  42. [50]

    Amin, M.P

    M.A. Amin, M.P. Hertzberg, D.I. Kaiser and J. Karouby, Nonperturbative Dynamics Of Reheating After Inflation: A Review , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24 (2014) 1530003 [ 1410.3808]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Allahverdi et al., The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe , 2006.16182

    R. Allahverdi et al., The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe , 2006.16182

    2006 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bezrukov, D

    F. Bezrukov, D. Gorbunov and M. Shaposhnikov, On initial conditions for the Hot Big Bang , JCAP 06 (2009) 029 [ 0812.3622]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Garcia-Bellido, D.G

    J. Garcia-Bellido, D.G. Figueroa and J. Rubio, Preheating in the Standard Model with the Higgs-Inflaton coupled to gravity , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 063531 [ 0812.4624]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Y. Ema, R. Jinno, K. Mukaida and K. Nakayama, Violent Preheating in Inflation with Nonminimal Coupling , JCAP 02 (2017) 045 [ 1609.05209]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Sfakianakis and J

    E.I. Sfakianakis and J. van de Vis, Preheating after Higgs Inflation: Self-Resonance and Gauge boson production, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 083519 [ 1810.01304]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Nguyen, J

    R. Nguyen, J. van de Vis, E.I. Sfakianakis, J.T. Giblin and D.I. Kaiser, Nonlinear Dynamics of Preheating after Multifield Inflation with Nonminimal Couplings , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 171301 [ 1905.12562]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    van de Vis, R

    J. van de Vis, R. Nguyen, E.I. Sfakianakis, J.T. Giblin and D.I. Kaiser, Time scales for nonlinear processes in preheating after multifield inflation with nonminimal couplings , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 043528 [ 2005.00433]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bettoni, A

    D. Bettoni, A. Lopez-Eiguren and J. Rubio, Hubble-induced phase transitions on the lattice with applications to Ricci reheating , JCAP 01 (2022) 002 [ 2107.09671]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Laverda and J

    G. Laverda and J. Rubio, Ricci reheating reloaded, JCAP 03 (2024) 033 [ 2307.03774]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bettoni, G

    D. Bettoni, G. Laverda, A.L. Eiguren and J. Rubio, Hubble-induced phase transitions: gravitational-wave imprint of Ricci reheating from lattice simulations , JCAP 03 (2025) 027 [2409.15450]

    2025

  53. [61]

    Figueroa, T

    D.G. Figueroa, T. Opferkuch and B.A. Stefanek, Ricci Reheating on the Lattice, 2404.17654

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kaiser and E.I

    D.I. Kaiser and E.I. Sfakianakis, Multifield Inflation after Planck: The Case for Nonminimal Couplings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 011302 [ 1304.0363]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Gibbons and S.W

    G.W. Gibbons and S.W. Hawking, Cosmological Event Horizons, Thermodynamics, and Particle Creation, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2738. – 38 –

    1977

  56. [64]

    DeCross, D.I

    M.P. DeCross, D.I. Kaiser, A. Prabhu, C. Prescod-Weinstein and E.I. Sfakianakis, Preheating after Multifield Inflation with Nonminimal Couplings, I: Covariant Formalism and Attractor Behavior, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 023526 [ 1510.08553]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    DeCross, D.I

    M.P. DeCross, D.I. Kaiser, A. Prabhu, C. Prescod-Weinstein and E.I. Sfakianakis, Preheating after multifield inflation with nonminimal couplings, II: Resonance Structure , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 023527 [ 1610.08868]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    DeCross, D.I

    M.P. DeCross, D.I. Kaiser, A. Prabhu, C. Prescod-Weinstein and E.I. Sfakianakis, Preheating after multifield inflation with nonminimal couplings, III: Dynamical spacetime results , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 023528 [ 1610.08916]. – 39 –

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.