Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation with K\"{a}hler-Induced $\mathbf{R}$-Symmetry Breaking

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read R-symmetry breaking in the Kähler potential, not the superpotential, can make supersymmetric hybrid inflation fit ACT DR6 data.

desk verdict A competent and genuinely new Kähler-centered R-breaking mechanism for supersymmetric hybrid inflation, but the claimed ACT agreement rests on an asserted hierarchy and parameter scanning rather than a sharp prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23244 v2 pith:5TGBQ2RW submitted 2025-06-29 hep-ph

Muhammad Nadeem Ahmad , Mansoor Ur Rehman This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 98.80.Cq12.60.Jv04.65.+e
keywords supersymmetrichybridinflationR-symmetrybreakingKählerpotentialscalarspectralindextensor-to-scalarratioACTDR6supergravitynonthermalleptogenesis
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

Supersymmetric hybrid inflation usually breaks R-symmetry through Planck-suppressed superpotential terms. This paper argues that the same job can be done by a nonrenormalizable Kähler-potential term, $\alpha_1 |S|^2(S+S^\ast)/m_P$, which generates a linear piece in the supergravity scalar potential. That linear term, combined with radiative corrections, brings the scalar spectral index $n_s$ into the 2$\sigma$ window reported by the Atacama Cosmology Telescope's DR6 data while keeping the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ below $10^{-5}$ in the minimal setup. The claim matters because it offers a way to fit current CMB data without R-symmetry breaking in the superpotential, and the associated nonrenormalizable R-breaking terms naturally give the would-be massless waterfall fields intermediate-scale masses, preserving gauge coupling unification.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nonrenormalizable R-violating Kähler term $\alpha_1|S|^2(S+S^\ast)/m_P$. Expanded in the supergravity $F$-term potential, it produces a linear contribution proportional to $4\alpha_1\cos(\theta_S)(M x/m_P)$ in the inflationary potential (Eq. 3.10), which is what shifts the spectral index. The linear term partially cancels the one-loop radiative correction, whose logarithms would otherwise dominate the tilt, so the combination tunes $n_s$ into the ACT DR6 band. Two auxiliary relations carry the argument: Eq. (3.9) shows that the superpotential term $\beta S^4/m_P$ would dominate at cubic order if its coupling $\beta$ were comparable to $\alpha_1$, so suppressing $\beta$ is what isolates the Kähler mechanism; Eq. (7.1), $\kappa_{SS}\simeq(1+\frac{7}{2}|\kappa_S|)/3$, suppresses the quartic term and opens the large-$r$ branch.

What would settle it

Evaluate the full supergravity potential (Eq. 3.8) keeping the superpotential term $\beta S^4/m_P$ with $\beta$ comparable to $\alpha_1$: Eq. (3.9) shows the cubic term then dominates for $\kappa<1$, $x>1$, so the predicted ACT-compatible window for $n_s$ would disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that R-symmetry breaking entering only through nonrenormalizable Kähler terms is sufficient to make supersymmetric hybrid inflation agree with current observations. With the angular direction $\theta_S$ stabilized at zero and the superpotential $S^4$ term suppressed, the supergravity potential develops a linear contribution $-4\alpha_1(M x/m_P)$, which partially cancels the Coleman-Weinberg radiative correction and lowers $n_s$ into the ACT DR6 2$\sigma$ band, $0.967\le n_s\le0.980$, over broad parameter ranges; for the ACT central value $n_s\simeq0.974$ the viable window is roughly $9.6\times10^{-4}\lesssim\kappa\lesssim0.64$ and $4.21\times10^{-6}\lesssim\alpha_1\lesssim0.01$. In the minimal scenario, with $\kappa_S=\kappa_{SS}=\alpha_2\equiv\alpha_1$, the tensor-to-scalar ratio stays below $10^{-5}$. Letting $\kappa_S$ and $\kappa_{SS}$ vary independently produces larger-$r$ solutions with $10^{-3}\lesssim r\lesssim0.03$, including the canonical GUT scale $M\sim2\times10^{16}$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the superpotential R-breaking term $\beta S^4/m_P$ is negligible compared with the Kähler-induced terms, a hierarchy motivated by a symmetry-based counting argument rather than by an explicit UV completion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism is right, supersymmetric hybrid inflation can match the ACT DR6 central value $n_s\simeq0.974$ without any R-symmetry breaking in the superpotential, over ranges $9.6\times10^{-4}\lesssim\kappa\lesssim0.64$ and $4.21\times10^{-6}\lesssim\alpha_1\lesssim0.01$.
  • The minimal scenario predicts $r<10^{-5}$, so CMB polarization experiments should see no tensor signal unless the non-minimal Kähler couplings $\kappa_S$ and $\kappa_{SS}$ are allowed to differ.
  • With independent $\kappa_S$ and $\kappa_{SS}$, the model predicts $10^{-3}\lesssim r\lesssim0.03$ and allows the GUT scale $M\sim2\times10^{16}$ GeV, bringing the scenario within reach of upcoming CMB polarization searches.
  • The nonrenormalizable R-breaking terms give the waterfall fields masses of order $10^{10}$-$10^{14}$ GeV, removing the light waterfall field obstruction to gauge coupling unification.
  • With a reheating temperature of $10^9$ GeV and a 10 TeV gravitino, the model is compatible with nonthermal leptogenesis while respecting the gravitino overproduction bound.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The same Kähler-induced linear mechanism could be transplanted into other hybrid-inflation variants, such as smooth, shifted, or $\mu$-hybrid inflation, to tune $n_s$ toward the ACT value; each variant would predict a different required $\alpha_1$.
  • Editorial: The hierarchy between $\beta$ and $\alpha_1$ rests on a charge-counting argument without a UV completion, so identifying a concrete model that fixes the relative size of superpotential and Kähler R-breaking operators would turn this phenomenology into a sharp prediction.
  • Editorial: Because larger waterfall-field multiplicities $N$ push both $\kappa$ and $r$ to smaller values, a future tensor detection combined with a measured $n_s$ would discriminate among candidate gauge groups within this framework.
  • Editorial: The same $\alpha_1$ coupling that sets $n_s$ also controls Planck-suppressed inflaton self-interactions, so precise measurement of the running $\alpha_s$ could provide an independent probe of the R-breaking scale.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a supersymmetric hybrid inflation model in which explicit R-symmetry breaking enters through nonrenormalizable Kähler-potential operators, most importantly the linear term α1|S|^2(S+S*)/mP, while the corresponding superpotential operator βS^4/mP is assumed to be negligible. The authors derive the full SUGRA scalar potential including radiative corrections, soft SUSY-breaking terms, and non-minimal Kähler corrections, then compute slow-roll observables. They find that for suitable values of α1 and κ, the scalar spectral index n_s falls inside the ACT DR6 2σ window (0.967 ≤ n_s ≤ 0.980) over broad parameter ranges, while the tensor-to-scalar ratio remains r < 10^-5 in the minimal setup. By allowing the R-symmetric Kähler couplings κS and κSS to differ from α1, they also claim observable gravitational waves with r ≲ 0.03. The paper additionally discusses how the R-violating Kähler terms can lift light waterfall states and sketches a non-thermal leptogenesis scenario consistent with the chosen reheating temperature.

Significance. If the central mechanism holds, the paper makes a useful and distinctive contribution: it shifts the burden of R-symmetry breaking from the superpotential to the Kähler potential, which is comparatively unexplored in hybrid inflation, and it shows that this can resolve the n_s tension with ACT DR6 without producing observable tensor modes. The derivation of the scalar potential in Eq. (3.8) is systematic, the linear α1 term is a genuine dynamical input rather than a relabeling of n_s, and the paper explicitly presents parameter windows, e-fold numbers, and reheating/leptogenesis consistency checks. The main weaknesses are that the assumed suppression of the βS^4/mP superpotential term is not derived from a UV model, the analytic slow-roll formula in Eq. (4.3) appears to have sign inconsistencies when compared with Eq. (3.10), and the large-r section of Section 7 does not report the corresponding N0 and As values. These issues are load-bearing for the advertised numerical agreement, but they appear fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, after Eq. (3.9)] Please note that this is not a claim that the model is internally inconsistent; rather, the numerical predictions are conditional on an unproven hierarchy. A quantitative treatment of β would make the central claim much stronger.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (4.3)] I want to be clear that this discrepancy need not invalidate the numerical results if the code solves the full slow-roll equations. However, the analytic centerpiece of the paper should be internally consistent.
  3. [Section 7, Figure 4] I am asking for a table or a set of contour plots showing N0 and As in the same parameter space as Figure 4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, after Eq. (2.10)] The stabilization of the phase θS at zero 'through suitable initial conditions' is asserted rather than demonstrated; adding a brief quantitative argument or a reference to the specific mechanism would improve clarity.
  2. [Section 6, around Eq. (6.1)] The statement 'Under these constraints, only two parameters remain free to vary' is confusing: with α1 fixed and M or κ scanned, the reader must infer how As and N0 are used to eliminate the remaining freedom. Please spell out the counting of free parameters more explicitly.
  3. [Section 7, Eq. (7.1)] Equation (7.1) is introduced as a condition for suppressing the quartic term, but the derivation is not shown. Since κS can be negative, please state the sign conventions used and provide the leading-order expression from Eq. (3.10) that leads to this relation.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'radiaitve' in Section 6, 'T able 1' in the table caption, and the repeated display of 'K¨ ahler' in the title and abstract. These should be corrected in the final version.
  5. [Table 1] Table 1 would benefit from more consistent significant figures and explicit column headers; some entries, such as '3.0−3.4 6.3−7.7', are difficult to parse without knowing which quantity corresponds to which column.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the model's alpha1 input and radiative corrections independently determine ns/r, with ACT compatibility obtained by parameter scan rather than by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The scalar potential in Eq. (3.10) follows directly from the stated superpotential and Kahler potential via standard SUGRA, radiative, and soft-term formulas. The alpha1 coupling is a genuine dynamical input, not a relabeling of ns, and the small tensor-to-scalar ratio r about 64 alpha1^2 follows from Eq. (4.4) rather than being imposed. The claimed ACT DR6 agreement is obtained by scanning over free parameters (fixing alpha1 and scanning kappa/M while enforcing the measured amplitude As), which is a parameter-space demonstration, not a prediction from independently fixed inputs. The suppression of the beta S^4 term is explicitly presented as a phenomenological Froggatt-Nielsen estimate, with the paper stating it does not construct a UV model; this is a stated robustness limitation but not a circular step. Self-citations such as Ref. [88] and the large-r condition from Ref. [18] support prior or ancillary results, but the central small-r analysis is evaluated with the paper's own equations. Section 7 fixes ns to the ACT central value and sets s0 = mP to exhibit large-r possibilities, yet r remains an independently computed observable for those tuned parameters, so the demonstration is conditional rather than circular. No quoted equation or construction reduces the reported predictions to their own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several couplings chosen by hand (alpha1, kappa, M, kappaS, kappaSS, alpha2, m3/2, TR, a, N, Q) and on the assumed Froggatt-Nielsen hierarchy that suppresses the superpotential R-breaking beta term. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free parameters are fitted to the CMB amplitude and to the ACT ns window, so the ledger is substantial.

free parameters (13)
  • alpha1 = 4.21e-6 to 0.01 (ACT-compliant); 5e-6 to 1e-3 in main scans
    Coefficient of the leading R-violating Kahler term |S|^2(S+S*)/mP; its linear contribution to the potential is the main new mechanism and is scanned to match ns.
  • kappa = 9e-4 to 0.64 (ACT-compliant)
    Coupling in the superpotential Wr; controls radiative corrections and the overall scale, scanned to match As and ns.
  • M = 1.3e15 to 5.4e15 GeV in small-r scans; up to 5e16 GeV in large-r
    Gauge symmetry breaking scale; fixed through the measured scalar amplitude As together with kappa and alpha1, and reported as output ranges.
  • alpha2 = set equal to alpha1 in Section 6; varied independently in Section 7
    R-violating Kahler coupling (S^3+S*^3)/mP; affects cubic and quartic terms; assumed equal to alpha1 for the main numerical scan.
  • kappaS = set equal to alpha1 in Section 6; |kappaS| ~ 0.01 to 0.1 in Section 7
    Nonminimal R-symmetric Kahler coupling |S|^4/(4mP^2); contributes quadratic and quartic terms and enables large-r solutions.
  • kappaSS = set equal to alpha1 in Section 6; kappaSS ~ 0.4 in Section 7
    Nonminimal R-symmetric Kahler coupling |S|^6/(6mP^4); tuned in Section 7 to suppress the quartic term for large r.
  • m3/2 = 10 TeV
    Gravitino mass; chosen by hand to satisfy gravitino overproduction bounds and collider reach; enters the soft SUSY-breaking linear and quadratic terms.
  • TR = 1e9 GeV
    Reheating temperature; assumed to be consistent with gravitino constraints and used to compute the number of e-folds N0.
  • a = 1
    Dimensionless combination of the soft SUSY-breaking phase and amplitude; set to 1 after stabilizing thetaS, following prior SHI literature.
  • N = 1 in main analysis; 2, 8, 10, 16, 24 for gauge group survey
    Dimensionality of the waterfall representation entering the Coleman-Weinberg loop function; N=1 corresponds to U(1)_{B-L}.
  • Q = M
    Renormalization scale in the one-loop potential; fixed to the symmetry breaking scale.
  • beta (S^4 superpotential R-breaking) = assumed negligible, ~1e-12
    Set by hand via Froggatt-Nielsen-inspired suppression so that the Kahler-induced alpha1 terms dominate; the paper states no UV completion is constructed.
  • beta1, beta2 = assumed ~1e-4 (not numerically scanned)
    Nonrenormalizable superpotential couplings; beta2 gives masses to waterfall fields and resolves the light-field problem, but does not enter the inflationary dynamics.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard N=1 supergravity F-term potential (Eq. 3.1) with canonical kinetic normalization for the inflaton.
    Used as the starting point for the scalar potential; standard result assumed without proof.
  • domain assumption Coleman-Weinberg one-loop potential computed in global SUSY with F(x) from Eq. (3.4), neglecting SUGRA and nonrenormalizable corrections in the loop.
    The paper explicitly states the one-loop corrections are computed within global SUSY, neglecting SUGRA and nonrenormalizable terms; this is an approximation inherited from earlier SHI literature.
  • domain assumption The inflaton phase thetaS is stabilized at zero before observable inflation through suitable initial conditions.
    Invoked after Eq. (3.8) to reduce the two-field system to a single field and to fix the sign and size of the linear alpha1 term.
  • domain assumption Single-field slow-roll reduction: for s >> M, thetaS and phi settle to zero and only s evolves.
    Used in Sections 2 and 4 to replace the full multi-field dynamics with one-field slow-roll formulas.
  • ad hoc to paper Froggatt-Nielsen-inspired hierarchy: R-breaking operators are suppressed as epsilon^{|R_O-1|} in the superpotential and epsilon^{|R_O|} in the Kahler potential, with epsilon ~ 1e-4, giving beta ~ 1e-12 and alpha ~ 1e-4.
    This assumption is the load-bearing premise that isolates the Kahler-induced mechanism; the authors state they do not construct a UV model.
  • domain assumption The gauge group G is left unspecified; N=1 (U(1)_{B-L}) is used as the representative case, with leptogenesis and reheating assumed to proceed through RHNs as in Eq. (5.1).
    The numerical results are presented for general G with N parameterizing the loop correction; specific GUT embeddings are deferred.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation with K\"{a}hler-Induced $\mathbf{R}$-Symmetry Breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TGBQ2RW

@misc{pith2026250623244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation with K\"ahler-Induced $\mathbfR$-Symmetry Breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TGBQ2RW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23244}
}
abstract

We explore the role of explicit nonrenormalizable $R$-symmetry breaking interactions in the context of supersymmetric hybrid inflation. In particular, we focus on scenarios where such breaking arises predominantly from the K\"{a}hler potential, while the renormalizable terms in both the superpotential and K\"{a}hler potential preserve $R$-symmetry. Incorporating radiative corrections, soft SUSY-breaking contributions, and supergravity effects, we construct a consistent and predictive inflationary framework. Notably, the presence of $R$-symmetry violating terms at the nonrenormalizable level helps resolve the common issue of light waterfall fields in grand unified theories, rendering them sufficiently heavy without disturbing gauge coupling unification. Our numerical analysis demonstrates that these $R$-symmetry breaking contributions play a crucial role in bringing the scalar spectral index $n_s$ into excellent agreement with the recent cosmological observations, particularly the Data Release 6 of the Atacama Cosmology Telescope. The tensor-to-scalar ratio remains suppressed, with $r < 10^{-5}$, below the reach of current and near-future experiments. However, observable gravitational waves with $r \lesssim 0.03$ can be achieved by allowing moderate deviations in the parameter space associated with a non-minimal K\"{a}hler potential.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. GUT-Scale Smooth Hybrid Inflation with a Stabilized Modulus in Light of ACT and SPT Data

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A smooth hybrid inflation model, augmented with a stabilized modulus, reproduces the spectral index measured by ACT and SPT while keeping Higgs v.e.v.s at the GUT scale.

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

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional 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.

  3. Shifted Hybrid Realization of Non-Minimal Higgs Inflation in Light of ACT DR6 and Planck Data

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A shifted-hybrid non-minimal Higgs inflation model deforms the Starobinsky attractor via a leading non-renormalizable superpotential operator to raise ns into the ACT-preferred range while keeping r ~ 10^{-3}-10^{-2}.

  4. F-Term Hybrid Inflation with T-Model K\"ahler Geometry and Beyond

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    F-term hybrid inflation with SU(1,1)/U(1) or SU(2)/U(1) Kähler geometry in GUTs can be realized without inflationary extrema for broad parameters, matching ACT/SPT data via curvature and tadpole adjustments while pred...

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

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Palatini-inspired induced-gravity inflation model in supergravity fits ACT DR6 data while embedding into a B-L extended MSSM with split SUSY and leptogenesis.

  6. Split supersymmetry and hybrid inflation in light of Atacama Cosmology Telescope DR6 data

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An update of mu-term hybrid inflation shows that a tuned soft-SUSY parameter B makes the scalar spectral index match ACT DR6, with tensor-to-scalar ratio of order 10^-3 to 10^-2 and a 2 TeV wino dark matter candidate.

  7. Waterfall phase in supersymmetric hybrid inflation

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Waterfall-phase e-foldings in R-symmetric SUSY hybrid inflation can produce a PTA-compatible scalar-induced gravitational wave background and, in SU(5), dilute monopoles to observable levels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Dvali, Q

    G.R. Dvali, Q. Shafi and R.K. Schaefer, Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning , Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 1886 [ hep-ph/9406319]

    arXiv 1994

  2. [2]

    Copeland, A.R

    E.J. Copeland, A.R. Liddle, D.H. Lyth, E.D. Stewart and D. Wands, False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity , Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6410 [ astro-ph/9401011]

    arXiv 1994

  3. [3]

    Linde and A

    A.D. Linde and A. Riotto, Hybrid inflation in supergravity , Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) R1841 [hep-ph/9703209]

    arXiv 1997

  4. [4]

    Buchmuller, L

    W. Buchmuller, L. Covi and D. Delepine, Inflation and supersymmetry breaking , Phys. Lett. B 491 (2000) 183 [ hep-ph/0006168]

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Senoguz and Q

    V.N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, Testing supersymmetric grand unified models of inflation , Phys. Lett. B 567 (2003) 79 [ hep-ph/0305089]

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Senoguz and Q

    V.N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, Reheat temperature in supersymmetric hybrid inflation models , Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 043514 [ hep-ph/0412102]. – 16 –

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Kyae and Q

    B. Kyae and Q. Shafi, Flipped SU(5) predicts delta T/T , Phys. Lett. B 635 (2006) 247 [hep-ph/0510105]

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Bastero-Gil, S.F

    M. Bastero-Gil, S.F. King and Q. Shafi, Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation with Non-Minimal Kahler potential, Phys. Lett. B 651 (2007) 345 [ hep-ph/0604198]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Rehman, Q

    M.U. Rehman, Q. Shafi and J.R. Wickman, Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation Redux , Phys. Lett. B 683 (2010) 191 [ 0908.3896]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Civiletti, C

    M. Civiletti, C. Pallis and Q. Shafi, Upper Bound on the Tensor-to-Scalar Ratio in GUT-Scale Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation , Phys. Lett. B 733 (2014) 276 [ 1402.6254]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Rehman, Q

    M.U. Rehman, Q. Shafi and J.R. Wickman, Minimal Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation, Flipped SU(5) and Proton Decay , Phys. Lett. B 688 (2010) 75 [ 0912.4737]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lazarides, M.U

    G. Lazarides, M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, Proton decay in supersymmetric SU (4)c × SU (2)L × SU (2)R, JHEP 10 (2020) 085 [ 2007.15317]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Mehmood, M.U

    M. Mehmood, M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, Observable proton decay in flipped SU(5) , JHEP 02 (2021) 181 [ 2010.01665]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M.M.A. Abid, M. Mehmood, M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, Realistic inflation in no-scale U(1) R symmetric flipped SU(5) , JCAP 10 (2021) 015 [ 2107.05678]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    N. Ijaz, M. Mehmood and M.U. Rehman, The Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Primordial Black Holes in R-Symmetric SU (5) Inflation, 2308.14908

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ahmed, M

    W. Ahmed, M. Mehmood, M.U. Rehman and U. Zubair, Inflation, Proton Decay and Gravitational Waves from Metastable Strings in SU (4)C × SU (2)L × U (1)R Model, 2404.06008

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Shafi and J.R

    Q. Shafi and J.R. Wickman, Observable Gravity Waves From Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation , Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011) 438 [ 1009.5340]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Rehman, Q

    M.U. Rehman, Q. Shafi and J.R. Wickman, Observable Gravity Waves from Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation II , Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 067304 [ 1012.0309]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Rehman, Q

    M.U. Rehman, Q. Shafi and U. Zubair, Gravity waves and proton decay in a flipped SU(5) hybrid inflation model , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 123522 [ 1804.02493]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ahmed and S

    W. Ahmed and S. Raza, Supersymmetric hybrid inflation in light of CMB experiments and swampland conjectures, Chin. Phys. C 49 (2025) 013106 [ 2401.02168]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lazarides and C

    G. Lazarides and C. Panagiotakopoulos, Smooth hybrid inflation , Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) R559 [hep-ph/9506325]

    1995 arXiv

  14. [22]

    ur Rehman, V.N

    M. ur Rehman, V.N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, Supersymmetric And Smooth Hybrid Inflation In The Light Of WMAP3 , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 043522 [ hep-ph/0612023]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rehman and Q

    M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, Simplified Smooth Inflation with Observable Gravity Waves , Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 027301 [ 1202.0011]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Rehman and U

    M.U. Rehman and U. Zubair, Simplified Smooth Hybrid Inflation in Supersymmetric SU(5) , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 103523 [ 1412.7619]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zubair, Smooth µ-Hybrid and Non-Minimal Higgs Inflation in SU (4)C × SU (2)L × SU (2)R With Observable Gravitational Waves , 2403.13991

    U. Zubair, Smooth µ-Hybrid and Non-Minimal Higgs Inflation in SU (4)C × SU (2)L × SU (2)R With Observable Gravitational Waves , 2403.13991

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto, Smooth hybrid inflation in light of ACT DR6 data , 2506.15965

  19. [27]

    Jeannerot, S

    R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Inflation and monopoles in supersymmetric SU(4)C x SU(2)(L) x SU(2)(R) , JHEP 10 (2000) 012 [ hep-ph/0002151]

    2000 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kyae and Q

    B. Kyae and Q. Shafi, Inflation with a realistic SO(10) model , AIP Conf. Proc. 805 (2005) 439 [hep-ph/0510300]. – 17 –

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Khalil, M.U

    S. Khalil, M.U. Rehman, Q. Shafi and E.A. Zaakouk, Inflation in Supersymmetric SU(5) , Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 063522 [ 1010.3657]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lazarides, M.U

    G. Lazarides, M.U. Rehman, Q. Shafi and F.K. Vardag, Shifted µ-hybrid inflation, gravitino dark matter, and observable gravity waves , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 035033 [ 2007.01474]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ahmed and U

    W. Ahmed and U. Zubair, Radiative symmetry breaking, cosmic strings and observable gravity waves in U(1)R symmetric SU(5) × U(1)χ, JCAP 01 (2023) 019 [ 2210.13059]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Afzal, M

    A. Afzal, M. Mehmood, M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, Supersymmetric hybrid inflation and metastable cosmic strings in SU (4)c × SU (2)L × U (1)R, 2308.11410

  25. [33]

    Senoguz and Q

    V.N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, New inflation, preinflation, and leptogenesis , Phys. Lett. B 596 (2004) 8 [ hep-ph/0403294]

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Antusch, S.F

    S. Antusch, S.F. King, M. Malinsky, L. Velasco-Sevilla and I. Zavala, Flavon Inflation , Phys. Lett. B 666 (2008) 176 [ 0805.0325]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Armillis and C

    R. Armillis and C. Pallis, Implementing Hilltop F-term Hybrid Inflation in Supergravity , in Recent Advances in Cosmology, A. Travena and B. Soren, eds., pp. 159–192 (2013) [ 1211.4011]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Antusch and F

    S. Antusch and F. Cefal` a,SUGRA New Inflation with Heisenberg Symmetry , JCAP 10 (2013) 055 [1306.6825]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Antusch, D

    S. Antusch, D. Nolde and S. Orani, Hilltop inflation with preinflation from coupling to matter fields, JCAP 05 (2014) 034 [ 1402.5328]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Rehman, M.M.A

    M.U. Rehman, M.M.A. Abid and A. Ejaz, New Inflation in Supersymmetric SU(5) and Flipped SU(5) GUT Models , JCAP 11 (2020) 019 [ 1804.07619]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    N.U. Khan, N. Ijaz and M.U. Rehman, New inflation in the waterfall region , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 123545 [ 2309.06953]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dvali, G

    G.R. Dvali, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Mu problem and hybrid inflation in supersymmetric SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R x U(1)-(B-L) , Phys. Lett. B 424 (1998) 259 [ hep-ph/9710314]

    1998 arXiv

  33. [41]

    King and Q

    S.F. King and Q. Shafi, Minimal supersymmetric SU(4) x SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R , Phys. Lett. B 422 (1998) 135 [ hep-ph/9711288]

    1998 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Okada and Q

    N. Okada and Q. Shafi, µ-term hybrid inflation and split supersymmetry , Phys. Lett. B 775 (2017) 348 [ 1506.01410]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L. Wu, S. Hu and T. Li, No-Scale µ-Term Hybrid Inflation , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 168 [1605.00735]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Rehman, Q

    M.U. Rehman, Q. Shafi and F.K. Vardag, µ-Hybrid Inflation with Low Reheat Temperature and Observable Gravity Waves , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 063527 [ 1705.03693]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Okada and Q

    N. Okada and Q. Shafi, Gravity waves and gravitino dark matter in µ-hybrid inflation , Phys. Lett. B 787 (2018) 141 [ 1709.04610]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ahmed, A

    W. Ahmed, A. Karozas and G.K. Leontaris, Gravitino dark matter, nonthermal leptogenesis, and low reheating temperature in no-scale Higgs inflation , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 055025 [2104.04328]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Afzal, W

    A. Afzal, W. Ahmed, M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, µ-hybrid inflation, gravitino dark matter, and stochastic gravitational wave background from cosmic strings , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 103539 [2202.07386]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ahmad, M

    M.N. Ahmad, M. Mehmood, M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, µ-hybrid inflation and metastable cosmic strings in SU(3)c ×SU(2)L×SU(2)R×U(1)B-L, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 083526 [2501.06307]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Binetruy and G.R

    P. Binetruy and G.R. Dvali, D term inflation , Phys. Lett. B 388 (1996) 241 [hep-ph/9606342]. – 18 –

    1996 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Halyo, Hybrid inflation from supergravity D terms , Phys

    E. Halyo, Hybrid inflation from supergravity D terms , Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996) 43 [hep-ph/9606423]

    1996 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Nelson and N

    A.E. Nelson and N. Seiberg, R symmetry breaking versus supersymmetry breaking , Nucl. Phys. B 416 (1994) 46 [ hep-ph/9309299]

    1994 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Antoniadis, A

    I. Antoniadis, A. Chatrabhuti, H. Isono and R. Knoops, Inflation from Supersymmetry Breaking, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 724 [ 1706.04133]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Civiletti, M

    M. Civiletti, M. Ur Rehman, E. Sabo, Q. Shafi and J. Wickman, R-symmetry breaking in supersymmetric hybrid inflation , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 103514 [ 1303.3602]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Khalil, A

    S. Khalil, A. Moursy, A.K. Saha and A. Sil, U(1)R inspired inflation model in no-scale supergravity, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 095022 [ 1810.06408]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Moursy, No-scale hybrid inflation with R-symmetry breaking , JHEP 02 (2021) 230 [2009.14149]

    A. Moursy, No-scale hybrid inflation with R-symmetry breaking , JHEP 02 (2021) 230 [2009.14149]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Wan and D.-X

    Q. Wan and D.-X. Zhang, Modified hybrid inflation in no-scale SUGRA with suppressed R-symmetry breaking, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 194 [ 2407.05702]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Stewart, Inflation, supergravity and superstrings , Phys

    E.D. Stewart, Inflation, supergravity and superstrings , Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 6847 [hep-ph/9405389]

    1995 arXiv

  50. [58]

    M. Dine, L. Randall and S.D. Thomas, Supersymmetry breaking in the early universe , Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 398 [ hep-ph/9503303]

    1995 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Wan and D.-X

    Q. Wan and D.-X. Zhang, Realize cosmological inflation in supersymmetric Grand Unified models with R-symmetry breaking, 2503.05441

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Moursy, No-scale gauge non-singlet inflation inducing TeV scale inverse seesaw mechanism , JHEP 10 (2021) 208 [ 2107.06670]

    A. Moursy, No-scale gauge non-singlet inflation inducing TeV scale inverse seesaw mechanism , JHEP 10 (2021) 208 [ 2107.06670]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Pallis, Gravity-mediated SUSY breaking, R symmetry, and hyperbolic K¨ ahler geometry, Phys

    C. Pallis, Gravity-mediated SUSY breaking, R symmetry, and hyperbolic K¨ ahler geometry, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 055013 [ 1812.10284]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Pallis, SUSY-breaking scenarios with a mildly violated R symmetry, Eur

    C. Pallis, SUSY-breaking scenarios with a mildly violated R symmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 804 [ 2007.06012]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Lazarides and C

    G. Lazarides and C. Pallis, Probing the supersymmetry-mass scale with F-term hybrid inflation , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 095055 [ 2309.04848]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Pallis, F-Term Hybrid Inflation, Metastable Cosmic Strings and Low Reheating in View of ACT, in 18th International Workshop on the Dark Side of the Universe , 4, 2025 [ 2504.20273]

    C. Pallis, F-Term Hybrid Inflation, Metastable Cosmic Strings and Low Reheating in View of ACT, in 18th International Workshop on the Dark Side of the Universe , 4, 2025 [ 2504.20273]

    2025

  57. [65]

    S.M. Barr, B. Kyae and Q. Shafi, Flat-directions in grand unification with U(1)(R) symmetry , hep-ph/0511097

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Fallbacher, M

    M. Fallbacher, M. Ratz and P.K.S. Vaudrevange, No-go theorems for R symmetries in four-dimensional GUTs , Phys. Lett. B 705 (2011) 503 [ 1109.4797]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Masoud, M.U

    M.A. Masoud, M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, Pseudosmooth Tribrid Inflation in SU (5), JCAP 04 (2020) 041 [ 1910.07554]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Antusch, K

    S. Antusch, K. Hinze, S. Saad and J. Steiner, Generalized missing partner mechanism for SU(5) GUT inflation , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 055031 [ 2308.11705]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    ACT collaboration, The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models, 2503.14454

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Coleman and E.J

    S.R. Coleman and E.J. Weinberg, Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 1888

    1973

  63. [71]

    Buchm¨ uller, V

    W. Buchm¨ uller, V. Domcke, K. Kamada and K. Schmitz, Hybrid Inflation in the Complex Plane, JCAP 07 (2014) 054 [ 1404.1832]. – 19 –

    2014 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Banks and N

    T. Banks and N. Seiberg, Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity , Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 084019 [ 1011.5120]

    2011 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Froggatt and H.B

    C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Hierarchy of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles and CP Violation, Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 277

    1979

  66. [74]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

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

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Senoguz and Q

    V.N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, GUT scale inflation, nonthermal leptogenesis, and atmospheric neutrino oscillations , Phys. Lett. B 582 (2004) 6 [ hep-ph/0309134]

    2004 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Kolb and M.S

    E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner, The Early Universe , vol. 69, Taylor and Francis (5, 2019), 10.1201/9780429492860

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    Liddle and S.M

    A.R. Liddle and S.M. Leach, How long before the end of inflation were observable perturbations produced?, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 103503 [ astro-ph/0305263]

    2003 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Khlopov and A.D

    M.Y. Khlopov and A.D. Linde, Is It Easy to Save the Gravitino? , Phys. Lett. B 138 (1984) 265

    1984

  72. [80]

    Ellis, J.E

    J.R. Ellis, J.E. Kim and D.V. Nanopoulos, Cosmological Gravitino Regeneration and Decay, Phys. Lett. B 145 (1984) 181

    1984

  73. [81]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and A. Yotsuyanagi, Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis and Gravitino, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 065011 [ 0804.3745]

    2008 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and Y. Takaesu, Revisiting Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Long-Lived Decaying Particles , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 023502 [ 1709.01211]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    FCC collaboration, FCC-hh: The Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 3 , Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019) 755

    2019

  76. [84]

    Kuzmin, V.A

    V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov and M.E. Shaposhnikov, On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe , Phys. Lett. B 155 (1985) 36

    1985

  77. [85]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification , Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986) 45

    1986

  78. [86]

    Khlebnikov and M.E

    S.Y. Khlebnikov and M.E. Shaposhnikov, The Statistical Theory of Anomalous Fermion Number Nonconservation, Nucl. Phys. B 308 (1988) 885

    1988

  79. [87]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics , Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020 (2020) 083C01

    2020

  80. [88]

    Rehman and Q

    M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation in light of Atacama Cosmology Telescope Data Release 6, Planck 2018 and LB-BK18 , 2504.14831

    2018 arXiv

  81. [89]

    LiteBIRD collaboration, Probing Cosmic Inflation with the LiteBIRD Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Survey , PTEP 2023 (2023) 042F01 [ 2202.02773]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    CMB-S4 collaboration, CMB-S4: Forecasting Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves , Astrophys. J. 926 (2022) 54 [ 2008.12619]

    2022 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Simons Observatorycollaboration, The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts , JCAP 02 (2019) 056 [ 1808.07445]

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Masoud, M.U

    M.A. Masoud, M.U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, Sneutrino tribrid inflation, metastable cosmic strings and gravitational waves , JCAP 11 (2021) 022 [ 2107.09689]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Ahmed, S.O

    W. Ahmed, S.O. Allehabi, F. Israr and M.U. Rehman, Tribrid Inflation, Type II Leptogenesis, and Observable Gravitational Waves in SU (3)c × SU (2)L × SU (2)R × U (1)B−L, 2507.05564. – 20 –

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    de la Hoz et al., LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence, 2503.22322

    E. de la Hoz et al., LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence, 2503.22322

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    Abazajian et al., CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan , 1907.04473

    K. Abazajian et al., CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan , 1907.04473

    1907 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Simons Observatorycollaboration, The Simons Observatory: Science Goals and Forecasts for the Enhanced Large Aperture Telescope, 2503.00636. – 21 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.