Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Behaviour of $\alpha$-attractors in Warm Inflation

T0 review · 2 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 Warm inflation destroys the alpha-attractor universality in the $n_s$-$r$ plane, while opening parameter space that fits ACT data.

desk verdict A sensible warm-inflation question with a plausible qualitative answer, but the quantitative case rests on treating Q as constant, which the paper's own Eq. (5.4) rules out. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08489 v2 pith:6KW5JHKM submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Dibya Chakraborty , Suratna Das This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords InflationWarmAlpha-attractorsT-modelE-modelPolynomialattractorScalarspectralindexTensor-to-scalarratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether the $\alpha$-attractor universality in the $n_s$-$r$ plane, which makes T-, E-, and polynomial potentials preferred cold-inflation models, survives when inflation is warm. Working in Minimal Warm Inflation, a strongly dissipative warm-inflation setup where the inflaton dissipates energy into a radiation bath, the authors find that it does not: all three potentials spread out in the $n_s$-$r$ plane and lose their point-like attractor behavior. They conclude that the attractor nature is specific to cold-inflation dynamics rather than to the potentials themselves. They also find that, for certain parameter ranges, the warm versions can sit inside the recent ACT contours, with scalar spectral index near $0.974$ and tensor-to-scalar ratio below $10^{-6}$.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the three $\alpha$-attractor potentials, $V_T=V_0\tanh^{2n}(\varphi/\sqrt{6\alpha})$, $V_E=V_0\left(1-e^{-\sqrt{2/(3\alpha)}\,\varphi}\right)^{2n}$, and $V_P=V_0\,\varphi^{2n}/(\varphi^{2n}+\mu^{2n})$, analyzed in Minimal Warm Inflation, the strongly dissipative warm-inflation model with dissipative coefficient $\Upsilon\propto T^3$. The argument runs through the dissipation ratio $Q=\Upsilon/(3H)$, the e-fold integral $N_*\approx -Q\int_{\varphi_*}^{\varphi_e}(V/V_{,\varphi})\,d\varphi$, the warm spectral-index formula $n_s\approx 1-\left[(14-10A(Q))\epsilon_V+6A(Q)\eta_V\right]/(7Q)$, and $r=P_T/P_R$ with the growth factor $G(Q)$. The key simplifying move is to treat $Q$ as field-independent and set $Q_e\approx Q_*$, which turns $\varphi_*$, $Q_*$, $n_s$, and $r$ into functions of $N_*$ alone.

What would settle it

Compute $Q(\varphi)$ from Eq. (5.4) over the entire field range from $\varphi_e$ to $\varphi_*$ for a representative case such as the T-model with $n=1$ and $\alpha=1$; if $Q$ varies by an order of magnitude or more, the formulas for $\phi_*$, $Q_*$, $n_s$, and $r$ used in the paper are not valid and the plotted $n_s$-$r$ curves would need to be re-derived. A likelihood fit of the three warm models to ACT and Planck data that finds no parameter point with $n_s\approx 0.974$ and $r<10^{-6}$ would also falsify the compatibility claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the unique attractor nature of $\alpha$-attractor models is destroyed when inflation is warm rather than cold. In cold inflation, T- and E-models converge as $\alpha\to 0$ to $n_s=1-2/N$, $r=12\alpha/N^2$, while the polynomial model converges as $n\to\infty$ to $n_s\to 1-2/N$; in Minimal Warm Inflation, with dissipation ratio $Q\gg 1$ and dissipative coefficient proportional to $T^3$, these convergences are lost and each family spreads out in the $n_s$-$r$ plane. The paper further claims that the warm versions can, for representative parameter choices, be made compatible with the recent ACT results, which prefer a larger scalar spectral index, while producing $r<10^{-6}$, far below the cold-inflation predictions. The attractor behavior is therefore presented as a feature of cold-inflation dynamics rather than a generic property of these potentials.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dissipation ratio $Q$ stays effectively constant during inflation, with its value at the end of inflation equal to its value at horizon crossing, so that $Q$ factors out of the e-fold integral and the analytic formulas for $\phi_*$, $Q_*$, $n_s$, and $r$ hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the T-, E-, and polynomial $\alpha$-attractor potentials, strong-dissipation warm inflation removes the cold-inflation attractor: the $n_s$-$r$ curves spread out with $\alpha$ or $n$ instead of converging.
  • The attractor nature of $\alpha$-attractors is therefore a feature of the cold-inflation dynamical setup, not a generic property of the potentials, so other departures from cold dynamics can be expected to alter the predictions similarly.
  • The same warm models can yield $n_s$ near the ACT-preferred value and $r$ below $10^{-6}$, so an ACT-like preference for $n_s$ close to $0.974$ does not by itself exclude $\alpha$-attractor potentials; a statistical fit is needed to identify the allowed parameter ranges.
  • Because strong-dissipation warm models predict very small $r$, a future detection of B-modes at the level $r\sim 0.01\text{--}0.001$ would rule them out, while a null result would keep them viable.
  • Graceful exit from warm inflation occurs for all analyzed values of $n$ and $\alpha$ in these models, so no extra parameter tuning is required for the warm phase to end and transition to a radiation-dominated epoch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the constancy of $Q$ is the decisive assumption; a direct numerical evolution of $Q(\varphi)$ for each potential would show whether the plotted $n_s$-$r$ curves shift when $Q$ is no longer treated as fixed.
  • The weak-dissipative regime, being closer to cold dynamics, is a natural place to look for surviving attractor behavior; the paper explicitly leaves this to future work, but its own logic suggests the attractor may reappear as $Q\to 0$.
  • A full Bayesian fit, rather than the representative parameter choices used in the plots, could turn the qualitative claim that warm $\alpha$-attractors can match ACT into quantitative constraints on $n$, $\alpha$, and the warm-inflation parameters.
  • Because strong-dissipation warm models predict $r<10^{-6}$, the plots imply a stark separation from cold $\alpha$-attractors that predict $r\sim 0.003\text{--}0.005$; a future B-mode detection in that cold-level range would discriminate between the cold and warm realizations of the same potentials.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the behavior of three α-attractor inflationary potentials—the T-model, E-model, and polynomial model—in the Minimal Warm Inflation (MWI) scenario, which operates in the strong dissipative regime. The authors derive approximate formulas for the field value at horizon crossing, the dissipation ratio Q, the scalar spectral index n_s, and the tensor-to-scalar ratio r, and use these to argue that warm inflation destroys the universal attractor behavior in the n_s-r plane that these models exhibit in cold inflation. They also discuss graceful exit and note that, with suitably chosen model parameters, the models can be made compatible with recent ACT data. The paper includes a numerical validation of the growth factor G(Q) against the WI2easy code.

Significance. If the conclusions were valid, the paper would establish that the α-attractor universality is a cold-inflation-specific feature, a conceptually interesting result, and would suggest a way to reconcile these models with ACT through warm inflation. The paper has useful components, including a clear derivation of the cold-inflation baseline and an explicit numerical check of the analytical G(Q) for the chosen potentials. However, the central quantitative claim rests on an assumption about the constancy of Q that is contradicted by the paper's own equations, so the main results are not currently supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V, Eqs. (5.1)-(5.11)] The derivation of φ*, Q*, n_s, and r assumes Q is independent of φ and that Q_e≈Q_*, as stated after Eq. (5.7). This is inconsistent with Eq. (5.4), which gives Q^7 ∝ V_φ^6/V^5. For the T- and E-model plateau potentials, V_φ/V decays exponentially as φ moves onto the plateau, so Q varies by orders of magnitude over the relevant field range; for the polynomial model it also varies in the large-field regime. The justification that Q is field-independent because H≈√(V0/3) is incomplete, since Q=Υ/(3H) and Υ∝T^3, with T determined by the radiation balance that depends on V_φ. Consequently, factoring Q out of the e-fold integral in Eq. (5.2) is invalid, and Eqs. (5.6)-(5.11) and the resulting n_s-r curves in Figs. 8-13 are not derived from the stated dynamics.
  2. [Sec. IV and Sec. V] The paper's own graceful-exit analysis shows that Q evolves during inflation: Eq. (4.4) gives d ln Q/dN proportional to (−8n^2+24n cosh(...))/(1+7Q), which is generically nonzero and can change sign, and Eq. (4.7) does the same for the E-model. The later replacement Q_e≈Q_* in Sec. V therefore contradicts the paper's own evolution equations. A consistent treatment would need to integrate the field-dependent Q in Eq. (5.1) or quantitatively demonstrate that its variation is negligible over the N* range considered.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI, first paragraph] The text says the polynomial models show attractor behavior 'when the potential parameter n tends to zero,' but Sec. II C and Fig. 6 show that the attractor appears in the n → ∞ limit; the statement should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption reads 'The ns vs r plot for T-model in WI for N* = 51' but the figure actually displays G(Q) versus Q; the caption does not match the content.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says 'The E-model potential of α-attractor models' but the plotted potential is the polynomial potential; the caption should be corrected.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The ACT-compatibility statement is only a conjecture because V0 is fitted per model point and the parameters CΥ, M, and g* are chosen as 'representative' without a parameter scan; a quantitative fit would be needed to substantiate the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the warm-inflation predictions are evaluations of established formulas; V0 amplitude matching is standard and the ACT-compatibility claim is explicitly representative.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain combines established warm-inflation results with the specific α-attractor potentials. The warm-inflation inputs are cited to prior work, including papers co-authored by one of the present authors, but they are general results that do not assume the α-attractor outcome: the spectral-index formula (3.12) is a general strong-dissipation result, the growth factor G(Q) in (3.11) is validated against the external WI2easy code in Fig. 7, and the Q–potential relation (5.4) is a standard slow-roll identity. No equation in Sec. V is defined in terms of the ns–r quantity it is used to predict. The V0 values are fixed by matching the scalar amplitude As, an independent observable; this is standard parameter normalization, not a fit to ns or r. The claimed ACT compatibility is explicitly qualified by the authors as illustrative ('the choice of model parameters here is only representative', Sec. V.A; 'a detailed analysis of best-fit model parameters ... is of importance', Sec. VI), so it is not presented as a derived prediction forced by construction. The most serious concern is the assumption that Q is field-independent and that Qe≈Q*, which is questionable in light of the paper's own Eq. (5.4) showing strong field dependence for plateau potentials; however, this is a validity/approximation issue in the derivation, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. The self-citations that appear are load-bearing but independently established and externally checkable, so they do not constitute circularity under the stated rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The computation rests on several imported results from the authors' own earlier papers plus an ad hoc constancy of Q. No new particles or forces are introduced, but the V0 normalization and the representative model parameters are free choices that affect the central n_s-r plots.

free parameters (5)
  • V0 (potential amplitude) = varies per model; for T-model e.g. 4.41e-34 to 2.37e-27 M_Pl^4
    V0 is adjusted separately for each alpha and n to match the observed scalar amplitude As at the pivot scale. This fitted value enters Q* and therefore changes the predicted n_s-r position.
  • C_Y (dissipative coupling constant) = 5e-11
    Chosen by hand as a representative value for the Minimal Warm Inflation dissipative coefficient.
  • M (mass scale in dissipative coefficient) = 3.93e-13 M_Pl
    Chosen by hand; sets the strength of the T^3/M^2 dissipative term.
  • g* (radiation degrees of freedom) = 106.75
    Chosen by hand to fix C_r in the radiation energy density.
  • N* (e-folds at pivot crossing) = 51 for the warm-inflation plots; 60, 56, 55 in cold-inflation plots
    A standard choice for the warm-inflation analysis; the n_s-r positions depend on this number.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard slow-roll and warm-inflation perturbation formulas (Eqs. 2.18-2.20, 3.6-3.8) are taken from prior literature.
    Background results for single-field inflation and warm-inflation power spectra are invoked without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The analytical growth factor G_MWI(Q) in Eq. (3.11), originally obtained for runaway potentials, is valid for alpha-attractor plateau potentials.
    The authors rely on the claimed weak dependence of G on the potential in strong dissipation and validate it with a WI2easy-generated comparison in Fig. 7.
  • domain assumption The analytic spectral index formula Eq. (3.12) from Das and Ramos applies to these potentials in the strong dissipative regime.
    This formula is imported without re-derivation and is central to the n_s computation.
  • ad hoc to paper Q is effectively independent of phi, and Qe is approximately equal to Q*.
    Used in Sec. V to pull Q out of the e-fold integral and to simplify phi* and phi_e. Contradicted by Eq. (5.4), where Q^7 depends on V_phi^6/V^5, which is field dependent for these potentials.
  • ad hoc to paper H is approximated as V0/(3 M_Pl^2) on the plateau, so Q has no phi dependence.
    This approximation underlies the statement in Sec. V that Q does not depend on phi; it ignores the strong field dependence of V_phi in the plateau region.
  • ad hoc to paper The SUGRA alpha-attractor inflaton is axion-like and couples to non-Abelian gauge fields as in Minimal Warm Inflation.
    Stated in Sec. III.A; this assumption allows the MWI dissipative coefficient to be combined with the alpha-attractor potentials.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Behaviour of $\alpha$-attractors in Warm Inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KW5JHKM

@misc{pith2026250608489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Behaviour of $\alpha$-attractors in Warm Inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KW5JHKM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08489}
}
abstract

The $\alpha$-attractor models of inflation have remained one of the preferred inflationary models for nearly a decade now. The unique attractor nature of these models in the $n_s-r$ plane have put these models in the sweet-spot of the $n_s-r$ measurement of Planck observations. In this article, we analyse the behaviour of such attractor models in a Warm Inflation setup to investigate whether the attractor nature of these models can be retained even when the dynamics deviates from the standard Cold inflationary dynamics. We have chosen to analyse these models in a strongly dissipative Warm inflation setup, namely the Minimal Warm Inflation, as in such a setup the inflationary dynamics significantly departs from the standard Cold inflation dynamics. We observe that the departure from the standard Cold inflation dynamics destroys the unique attractor nature of such models. The analysis clearly indicates that the attractor nature of these $\alpha$-attractor models is quite unique to the standard Cold inflationary dynamics. However, on a positive note, the analysis indicates that the $\alpha$-attractor models may be made in tune with the recent ACT results in Warm inflation for certain parameter ranges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08489 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The T-model potential of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The E-model potential of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The E-model potential of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The behaviour of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The behaviour of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The behaviour of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The BAO-CMB Tension and Implications for Inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    The upward shift in the scalar spectral index n_s in CMB+BAO analyses is driven by the combined effects of a known CMB degeneracy and the tension between CMB and DESI BAO data, not by new information about n_s itself.

  2. Power Law Plateau Inflation and Primary Gravitational Waves in the light of ACT

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Power-law plateau inflation can sit inside the 1 sigma region of ACT DR6, but the reheating bound from gravitational waves forces the total number of e-folds N_k below about 62.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The scalar power spectrum is not sensitive to the thermalization of the inflaton field and hence one can ignore the 2nBE factor in the scalar power spectrum in strong dissipative regime [51, 52]

    work page

  2. [2]

    new-warm

    The growth factor G(Q) very weakly depends on the form of the potential in strong dissipative regime [16]. These two features of strong dissipative regime will further simplify our analysis as we will see below. A. A specific realization of strong dissipative WI model: The Minimal W arm Inflation Recently a concrete microscopic realization of WI has been ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    new-warm

    When ϵV decreases: In such a case, graceful exit can only occur if Q decreases faster than ϵV . We will now analyse how WI ends in these three types of attractor models and whether graceful exit conditions put any bound on the parameters in the inflaton potential. As we have chosen the MWI model for our analysis, we will consider p = 3 and c = 0 in the fo...

    work page

  4. [4]

    When ϵV is constant: In such a case, graceful exit can only occur if Q decreases

    work page

  5. [5]

    When ϵV increases: In such a case, graceful exit can occur in three different ways (a) When Q remains constant (b) When Q decreases (c) When Q increases but with a slower rate than that of ϵV

    work page

  6. [6]

    and X 1 = √ 6 sinh(φ/ √ 6). Such a superconformal theory was later generalized in [3] by Kallosh and Linde by introducing a parameter α in the K¨ ahler potential given as N (X, ¯X) = −|X 0|2 1 − |X 1|2 + |S|2 |X 0|2 α , (2.12) and the superpotential takes the form W = S(X 0)2f (X 1/X 0) 1 − (X 1)2 (X 0)2 (3α−1)/2 . (2.13) The parameter α turns our to be i...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, JHEP 11, 198 (2013), arXiv:1311.0472 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP 07, 002 (2013), arXiv:1306.5220 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP 04, 017 (2022), arXiv:2202.06492 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Louis et al

    T. Louis et al. (ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Calabrese et al

    E. Calabrese et al. (ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, (2025), arXiv:2505.13646 [hep-th]

    2025

  7. [15]

    Berera, Phys

    A. Berera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3218 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9509049

    1995 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Riotto, ICTP Lect

    A. Riotto, ICTP Lect. Notes Ser. 14, 317 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210162

    2003 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Baumann, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small (2011) pp

    D. Baumann, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small (2011) pp. 523–686, arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kamali, M

    V. Kamali, M. Motaharfar, and R. O. Ramos, Universe 9, 124 (2023), arXiv:2302.02827 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Berera, Universe 9, 272 (2023), arXiv:2305.10879 [hep-ph]

    A. Berera, Universe 9, 272 (2023), arXiv:2305.10879 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bartrum, M

    S. Bartrum, M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. Cerezo, R. O. Ramos, and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Lett. B 732, 116 (2014), arXiv:1307.5868 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Berera, S

    A. Berera, S. Brahma, Z. Qiu, R. O. Ramos, and G. S. Rodrigues, (2025), arXiv:2504.02655 [hep-th]

    2025

  14. [22]

    Das and R

    S. Das and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103522 (2020), arXiv:2007.15268 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Das, Phys

    S. Das, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083510 (2019), arXiv:1809.03962 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Das, Phys

    S. Das, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063514 (2019), arXiv:1810.05038 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Motaharfar, V

    M. Motaharfar, V. Kamali, and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063513 (2019), arXiv:1810.02816 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Das, Phys

    S. Das, Phys. Dark Univ. 27, 100432 (2020), arXiv:1910.02147 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. Das, G. Goswami, and C. Krishnan, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103529 (2020), arXiv:1911.00323 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Chakraborty and R

    D. Chakraborty and R. O. Ramos, (2025), arXiv:2505.04447 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, I. G. Moss, and R. O. Ramos, JCAP 12, 008 (2014), arXiv:1408.4391 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mirbabayi and A

    M. Mirbabayi and A. Gruzinov, JCAP 02, 012 (2023), arXiv:2205.13227 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    L. M. H. Hall, I. G. Moss, and A. Berera, Phys. Rev. D 69, 083525 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0305015

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Graham and I

    C. Graham and I. G. Moss, JCAP 07, 013 (2009), arXiv:0905.3500 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, and R. O. Ramos, JCAP 07, 030 (2011), arXiv:1106.0701 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. O. Ramos and L. A. da Silva, JCAP 03, 032 (2013), arXiv:1302.3544 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Das and R

    S. Das and R. O. Ramos, Universe 9, 76 (2023), arXiv:2212.13914 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    K. V. Berghaus, P. W. Graham, and D. E. Kaplan, JCAP 03, 034 (2020), [Erratum: JCAP 10, E02 (2023)], arXiv:1910.07525 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Das and R

    S. Das and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123520 (2021), arXiv:2005.01122 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  31. [39]

    F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 659, 703 (2008), arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Okada, M

    N. Okada, M. U. Rehman, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D 82, 043502 (2010), arXiv:1005.5161 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Linde, M

    A. Linde, M. Noorbala, and A. Westphal, JCAP 03, 013 (2011), arXiv:1101.2652 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ellis, D

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 111301 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 129902 (2013)], arXiv:1305.1247 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Buchmuller, V

    W. Buchmuller, V. Domcke, and K. Kamada, Phys. Lett. B 726, 467 (2013), arXiv:1306.3471 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP 12, 006 (2013), arXiv:1309.2015 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP 06, 027 (2013), arXiv:1306.3211 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP 06, 028 (2013), arXiv:1306.3214 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ellis, D

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, JCAP 10, 009 (2013), arXiv:1307.3537 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ferrara, R

    S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and M. Porrati, Phys. Rev. D 88, 085038 (2013), arXiv:1307.7696 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP 10, 033 (2013), arXiv:1307.7938 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 011303 (2014), arXiv:1310.3950 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Roest, JCAP 01, 007 (2014), arXiv:1309.1285 [hep-th]

    D. Roest, JCAP 01, 007 (2014), arXiv:1309.1285 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ballardini, (2024), arXiv:2408.03321 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Ballardini, (2024), arXiv:2408.03321 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Dimopoulos and C

    K. Dimopoulos and C. Owen, Phys. Rev. D 94, 063518 (2016), arXiv:1607.02469 [hep-ph]. 20

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Adhikari, M

    R. Adhikari, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and Yogesh, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 899 (2020), arXiv:2002.07061 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Dutta, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and A. Maharana, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103530 (2023), arXiv:2212.13363 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ballesteros, A

    G. Ballesteros, A. Perez Rodriguez, and M. Pierre, JCAP 03, 003 (2024), arXiv:2304.05978 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Kumar and S

    U. Kumar and S. Das, JCAP 10, 058 (2024), arXiv:2407.06032 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Yamada, JHEP 04, 006 (2018), arXiv:1802.04848 [hep-th]

    Y. Yamada, JHEP 04, 006 (2018), arXiv:1802.04848 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    G. S. Rodrigues and R. O. Ramos, (2025), arXiv:2504.17760 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Montefalcone, V

    G. Montefalcone, V. Aragam, L. Visinelli, and K. Freese, JCAP 01, 032 (2024), arXiv:2306.16190 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Allys et al

    E. Allys et al. (LiteBIRD), PTEP 2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Ade et al

    P. Ade et al. (Simons Observatory), JCAP 02, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Saha and M

    B. Saha and M. K. Nandy, (2025), arXiv:2506.06717 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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