Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Torsion induced current-scalaron coupling in Einstein-Cartan gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Torsion in Einstein–Cartan gravity turns matter currents into scalaron couplings, and gauge-dependent currents acquire Chern–Simons interactions in the equivalent metric theory.

desk verdict A workmanlike extension of the authors' own scalaron framework: the general current-coupling formulas hold up, and the one real error sits in an illustrative bound, not in the central derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12151 v1 pith:FYC262A2 submitted 2025-07-16 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

Minxi He , Muzi Hong , Kyohei Mukaida This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords Einstein-CartangravitytorsionscalaronmattercurrentsChern-SimonscouplingstrongCPprobleminflationreheating
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 tries to establish that in Einstein–Cartan gravity, once the dimension-four geometric part of the action is a rank-one complete square, the torsion-induced (pseudo-)scalar, the scalaron, necessarily acquires derivative couplings to matter currents: $\nabla_\mu \phi j^\mu$ for gauge-invariant currents, and $\phi F\tilde F$ Chern–Simons couplings for gauge-dependent currents in the equivalent metric theory. The authors derive the general action, the decay constants $f_1$ and $f_2$ for these interactions, and their asymptotic behavior in large- and small-field limits. They work out explicit examples connected to Starobinsky/$\alpha$-attractor inflation and to QCD, showing that a pure chiral-current coupling cannot solve the strong CP problem, whereas the gauge-dependent Chern–Simons construction can relate the scalaron to the QCD $\theta$ term, though not without extra fine-tuning. This matters because these couplings control reheating, baryogenesis, and gauge-field production after inflation in Einstein–Cartan models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rank-one complete-square geometric action: the dimension-four part formed from $\bar R$, $S_\mu S^\mu$, $T_\mu T^\mu$, $\nabla_\mu S^\mu$, and $\nabla_\mu T^\mu$ is chosen so its quadratic form has rank one, which guarantees the torsion-induced scalaron can be canonically normalized through an auxiliary field $\chi$ and a Weyl transformation to the Einstein frame. Gauge-invariant currents enter as linear torsion couplings; gauge-dependent currents are handled by the field redefinition $S'_\mu = S_\mu + \zeta j_\mu/M_{\rm Pl}^2$ and $T'_\mu = T_\mu + \xi j_\mu/M_{\rm Pl}^2$, which keeps the action gauge invariant and, after integration by parts, yields Chern–Simons couplings. The decay constants $f_1, f_2$ in Eq. (3.16) measure the strength of the scalaron–current and current–current interactions and encode the effective-field-theory cutoff.

What would settle it

Compute the path-integral Jacobian for the field redefinition $S'_\mu = S_\mu + \zeta j_\mu/M_{\rm Pl}^2$, $T'_\mu = T_\mu + \xi j_\mu/M_{\rm Pl}^2$ for a chiral current with a known anomaly, e.g. the electroweak $SU(2)_L$ current. If the Jacobian is nontrivial or the redefinition generates extra boundary terms, the predicted coefficient of $\phi F\tilde F$ in Eq. (4.16) is incomplete and the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a canonical scalaron emerges from an Einstein–Cartan action whose dimension-four geometric sector is a single complete square, and that matter currents coupled to torsion become, in the Einstein frame, interactions of that scalaron with the currents. For gauge-invariant currents the interaction is a derivative coupling $\nabla_\mu \phi \, j^\mu$ plus a current self-coupling, and the paper defines the decay constants $f_1(\phi)$ and $f_2(\phi)$ in Eq. (3.16). For gauge-dependent currents, the paper's construction uses the shifted torsion fields $S'_\mu = S_\mu + \zeta j_\mu/M_{\rm Pl}^2$ and $T'_\mu = T_\mu + \xi j_\mu/M_{\rm Pl}^2$; integrating by parts converts the resulting $\chi \nabla_\mu j^\mu$ terms into $\phi F\tilde F$ couplings for Chern–Simons currents. The paper also shows that in the minimal fermion kinetic coupling, the scalaron–current interaction alone cannot generate a QCD $\theta$-term potential, but the Chern–Simons coupling can, so the scalaron is a possible but generically not a viable QCD axion because it also couples to dimensionful parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that shifting the torsion fields by the matter current is a harmless change of variables that introduces no new degrees of freedom, anomalies, or boundary terms; if that premise fails, the derived $\phi F\tilde F$ couplings do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The scalaron from Einstein–Cartan gravity has model-independent derivative couplings to chiral currents; in the minimal case with $\zeta = 1/8$ the coupling strength is set by $M_{\rm Pl}$ and gives a decay channel $\phi \to \bar\psi\psi$ as well as current self-interactions with cutoff $\sim M_{\rm Pl}/|\zeta|$.
  • Adding the Chern–Simons current through the shifted torsion fields produces $\phi F\tilde F$ couplings, so the scalaron can be sensitive to the QCD $\theta$ term; the paper shows this is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the scalaron to play the QCD axion.
  • In a U(1) example, the Chern–Simons coupling causes efficient gauge-field production during inflation, with parameter constraints from the absence of ghost instabilities in chiral gravitational waves and from non-Gaussianity bounds.
  • Depending on the parameters, the scalaron potential can take power-law or plateau forms, including Starobinsky and regularized-pole inflation, and the decay constants $f_1, f_2$ have distinct asymptotic behaviors; cases where $f \to 0$ indicate a low EFT cutoff and are unsuitable for reheating.
  • The results extend to multiple currents and to mixed gauge-invariant/gauge-dependent current systems, giving a general EFT language for post-inflationary particle production in Einstein–Cartan models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same shift construction should apply to any current whose divergence is gauge invariant beyond the Chern–Simons examples, so the method likely extends to anomalous baryon/lepton currents and to gravitational Chern–Simons currents, giving additional scalaron-mediated production channels.
  • If the scalaron's couplings to dimensionful parameters are removed by a no-scale or scale-invariant completion, the $\phi F\tilde F$ construction could make the Einstein–Cartan scalaron a genuine QCD axion; the paper leaves that completion unbuilt.
  • The asymptotic decay-constant tables provide a way to translate future measurements of reheating temperature, non-Gaussianity, or chiral gravitational waves into constraints on the Einstein–Cartan parameters $\alpha_4, \alpha_5, \zeta, \xi$.
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 studies Einstein–Cartan gravity with a geometric action in which the dimension-four torsion- and curvature-dependent part is a rank-one complete square, so that the auxiliary torsion components induce a canonical (pseudo-)scalar degree of freedom, the scalaron. The authors add couplings between torsion and matter currents, distinguish gauge-invariant currents from gauge-dependent currents such as Chern–Simons currents, and derive the equivalent metric-frame theory by Legendre transformation and Weyl rescaling. The central results are the general formulas (3.15)–(3.16) for derivative current couplings and current self-couplings of the canonical scalaron, and Eq. (4.12), which yields φ F F-tilde-type couplings from gauge-dependent currents. The paper also gives asymptotic tables for decay constants, works out Starobinsky/α-attractor examples, and discusses the relation to the QCD θ term and to gauge-field production during inflation.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a general EFT description of scalaron–matter interactions in EC inflation models, including a gauge-invariant embedding of gauge-dependent currents that produces axion-like couplings to Chern–Simons terms. This is directly relevant for reheating, baryogenesis, and the proposal that the torsion-induced scalaron could be a QCD axion. The central derivation is algebraic and parameter-free in the sense that no observable is fitted to data; the key equations, (3.15)–(3.16) and (4.12), are explicit and reproducible from the stated action. The paper also usefully clarifies that a bare chiral-current coupling does not generate a QCD θ-term potential, and identifies the additional requirements for a viable axion candidate. The stress-test concern about the field shift in Eqs. (4.2)–(4.6) does not land: the shift is an invertible bosonic redefinition with unit Jacobian and does not introduce new degrees of freedom or anomalies.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2.2, Eq. (4.22)] The slow-roll expression for dot φ is incorrect. From V = M_Pl^4/(16 α_R) [1 - exp(-φ/(√6 α_4 M_Pl))]^2, one obtains V_φ/V = 2/(√6 α_4 M_Pl) / [exp(φ/(√6 α_4 M_Pl)) - 1], so the slow-roll formula is dot φ = -M_Pl H * 2/(√6 α_4) / [exp(φ/(√6 α_4 M_Pl)) - 1], not -M_Pl H * 2√6 α_4 / [exp(φ/(√6 α_4 M_Pl)) - 1] as written. The displayed expression has the wrong dependence on α_4 and on the combination √6 α_4 M_Pl. This error propagates into the bounds in Eq. (4.24) and the subsequent discussion of allowed parameter space for α_4 and ζ_32. The central coupling formulas (3.15)–(3.16) and (4.12) are unaffected, but the illustrative gauge-production constraints must be rederived.
  2. [§3.1, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.16) and Tables 1–8] The general formalism defines decay constants and a canonical inflaton through the square root in Eq. (3.14), which requires the bracket in Eq. (3.13) to be positive and the denominator in F, G, I to be non-vanishing. The paper only states an implicit assumption that the coefficients are suitably chosen, and the asymptotic tables explicitly include cases where the relevant coefficients vanish or the denominator changes sign. For the claimed general result to be well defined, the authors should either state the explicit positivity and non-vanishing conditions on the coefficients α_i, β_i and χ, or clearly delimit the parameter/field-space region in which Eqs. (3.15)–(3.16) and the tables are valid. This is a load-bearing point because the canonicalization and the definition of the decay constants depend on it, although the concrete examples do check some of these conditions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, first paragraph] There is a typo in 'an Eisntein–Hilbert action'; it should read 'Einstein–Hilbert'.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (3.13)] The notation α is overloaded: in Eq. (3.13) the coefficient 24 α^2 is presumably α_R, but α was not explicitly defined before this equation beyond its appearance in Ω^2 in Eq. (3.3). Please define it consistently, e.g., as α ≡ α_R, to avoid confusion with α_1, α_2, α_4, α_5.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (4.11)] The text reads 'after Wely transformation'; this should be 'after Weyl transformation'.
  4. [§4.2.2, Eq. (4.25)] The trace-anomaly term is introduced with coefficient 1/(24 π^2); the sign and normalization should be checked against the convention used for the dual field strength and the Weyl rescaling, since the subsequent combined expression in Eq. (4.26) depends on this convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scalaron-current couplings are derived by algebraic elimination from an explicit EC action; prior self-citations motivate but do not carry the load-bearing steps.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from Eq. (3.1), the paper introduces an auxiliary field chi by Legendre transformation, solves the algebraic constraint equations for S_mu and T_mu, Weyl-transforms to the Einstein frame, and canonicalizes the scalaron via Eq. (3.14). The current couplings in Eqs. (3.15)-(3.16) and the gauge-dependent-current result in Eq. (4.12) are read off from the resulting Lagrangian after solving the torsion equations; no parameter is fitted to data and no output quantity is an input by construction. The scalaron-from-torsion framework is attributed to the authors' Ref. [56], but the present paper re-derives the scalaron kinetic term, Weyl factor, and canonicalization explicitly (Eqs. (3.5), (3.13), (3.14)), so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The gauge-dependent-current embedding in Eqs. (4.2)-(4.6) is an explicit, gauge-invariant model-building assumption; the resulting chi (nabla_mu j^mu) couplings, and hence phi F F-tilde for Chern-Simons currents, follow by algebra and the standard divergence identity for the Chern-Simons form. The slow-roll factor in Eq. (4.22) appears to be a typographical/correctness issue rather than a circularity, and it does not enter the main coupling derivations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the rank-one complete-square geometric action, the algebraic elimination of torsion, and the gauge-invariant shift construction for gauge-dependent currents. The coefficients of these operators and current couplings are free model parameters chosen by hand; none are fitted to data. No new fundamental entity is postulated beyond the derived scalaron.

free parameters (3)
  • Geometric EFT coefficients alpha_R, alpha_1, alpha_2, alpha_4, alpha_5, beta_1, beta_2, beta_3 = not fitted; arbitrary model parameters (example 1: alpha=1, alpha1=beta1=1/24, alpha2=beta2=-2/3, alpha5=2; example 2…
    Enter the action Eq (3.1) and (4.2); the central formulas for F, G, I and the decay constants depend on them. They are chosen by hand, not constrained by data in this paper.
  • Current-torsion couplings zeta_n, xi_n = not fitted; zeta=1/8 from minimal fermion kinetic term, otherwise free
    Determine the scalaron-current coupling strength and current self-coupling; kept general throughout and specialized in examples.
  • Example-specific parameters alpha_4, beta'_3, alpha'_3, zeta_31, zeta_32 = not fitted; chosen to illustrate Starobinsky, deformed pole inflation, and gauge field production
    Set by the model choices in Secs 3.2 and 4.2.2; the constraints in Sec 4.2.2 bound zeta_31 and zeta_32 but are not fits to data.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Vierbein and spin-connection formulation of EC gravity with torsion decomposed into vector, axial vector, and tensor parts
    Sec 2 and Appendix A define the geometry and the relation Rbar = R + 2 nabla T - (2/3) T^2 + (1/24) S^2 + (1/2) q^2.
  • domain assumption Torsion components S_mu and T_mu are non-dynamical auxiliary fields that can be eliminated algebraically
    Used to solve constraint equations after Eq (3.2) and after Eq (4.8); no torsion kinetic terms are included.
  • domain assumption The dimension-four geometric part must be a rank-one complete square to produce a canonically normalizable scalaron
    Inherited from Ref [56] and stated in Sec 3; restricts the class of EC models considered.
  • domain assumption The Einstein-frame kinetic coefficient in Eq (3.13) is positive and denominators such as 4 beta1 beta2 - beta3^2 do not vanish in the field range of interest
    Required for the canonicalization Eq (3.14); the paper states coefficients are properly chosen but does not systematically characterize the parameter space.
  • domain assumption For gauge-dependent currents, the shift S'_mu = S_mu + zeta j_mu/M_Pl^2 is a valid field redefinition and d*j is gauge invariant
    Sec 4, Eq (4.2)-(4.6); this is the novel construction that generates phi F F-tilde couplings.
  • domain assumption Chiral rotation anomaly and QCD non-perturbative theta-term physics follow standard textbook results
    Appendix B and Secs 3.2 and 4.2.1 use the Fujikawa Jacobian and QCD instanton potential; references [105] and [122].
invented entities (1)
  • Scalaron (pseudo-scalar field phi, auxiliary chi)
    purpose: Propagating scalar degree of freedom induced by the rank-one complete-square geometric action; mediates torsion-current couplings and can be an inflaton or axion candidate.
    Introduced via Legendre transform in Eq (3.2) and canonicalized in Eq (3.14); it is a derived degree of freedom of the EFT, not a new fundamental particle with independent experimental evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Torsion induced current-scalaron coupling in Einstein-Cartan gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYC262A2

@misc{pith2026250712151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Torsion induced current-scalaron coupling in Einstein-Cartan gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYC262A2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12151}
}
abstract

We investigate the matter current couplings with the scalar degrees of freedom originated from the torsion in Einstein-Cartan (EC) gravity. It has been shown in previous studies that the presence of the operators consisting of torsion components up to dimension four can naturally induce a (pseudo-)scalar degree of freedom, the scalaron. In this work, we consider the couplings between torsion and matter currents in this framework, and show that they can lead to couplings between these currents and the scalaron in the equivalent metric theory. We consider both gauge-invariant and gauge-dependent currents, showing general results and several concrete examples. These results are useful for the discussion of particle production processes after inflation in the EC framework, such as reheating and baryogenesis, and show the connection to the QCD $\theta$ term.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Quasi-pole inflation in metric-affine gravity

    gr-qc 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Non-minimal coupling of the inflaton to the Holst invariant in metric-affine gravity induces quasi-pole kinetics that generate an exponential plateau potential and Starobinsky-equivalent predictions regardless of the ...

  2. Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity with a heavy ALP: Higgs Inflation and $\alpha$-attractors

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity theory with the SM Higgs and a heavy gravitational ALP, tuning two nonminimal couplings reproduces metric Higgs inflation and α-attractor-like inflation with ns≈1−2/N and r≈12/N^2.

  3. Natural Metric-Affine Inflation: Reloaded

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Combining periodic non-minimal couplings to the Nieh-Yan term and Ricci scalar in metric-affine gravity makes natural inflation viable for sub-Planckian periodicity scales.

  4. Naturally Light Distortion

    gr-qc 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A naturally light scalar-like distortion field emerges in generalized gravity and mixes with the Higgs boson.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Gauge Theories of Gravitation,

    M. Blagojevic and F. W. Hehl, “Gauge Theories of Gravitation, ”arXiv:1210.3775 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    An Identity in Riemann-cartan Geometry,

    H. T. Nieh and M. L. Yan, “An Identity in Riemann-cartan Geometry, ”J. Math. Phys. 23 (1982) 373

    1982

  3. [3]

    A Torsional Topological Invariant,

    H. T. Nieh, “A Torsional Topological Invariant, ” inConference in Honor of C.N. Yang’s 85th Birthday: Statistical Physics, High Energy, Condensed Matter and Mathematical Physics , pp. 29–37. 2008. arXiv:1309.0915 [gr-qc] . 27

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    PARITY VIOLATION IN METRIC TORSION THEORIES OF GRAVITATION,

    R. Hojman, C. Mukku, and W. A. Sayed, “PARITY VIOLATION IN METRIC TORSION THEORIES OF GRAVITATION, ”Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 1915–1921

    1980

  5. [5]

    Gravity With Propagating Pseudoscalar Torsion,

    P. C. Nelson, “Gravity With Propagating Pseudoscalar Torsion, ”Phys. Lett. A 79 (1980) 285

    1980

  6. [6]

    Castellani, R

    L. Castellani, R. D’Auria, and P. Fre, Supergravity and superstrings: A Geometric perspective. Vol. 1: Mathematical foundations. 1991

    1991

  7. [7]

    Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert-Palatini action,

    S. Holst, “Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert-Palatini action, ” Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 5966–5969, arXiv:gr-qc/9511026

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity, ”Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99–102

    1980

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe,

    K. Sato, “First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe, ”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195 (1981) 467–479

    1981

  2. [10]

    The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,

    A. H. Guth, “The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, ” Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 347–356

    1981

  3. [11]

    Quantum Fluctuations and a Nonsingular Universe,

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, “Quantum Fluctuations and a Nonsingular Universe, ”JETP Lett. 33 (1981) 532–535

    1981

  4. [12]

    A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,

    A. D. Linde, “A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems, ”Phys. Lett. B 108 (1982) 389–393

    1982

  5. [13]

    Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking,

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, “Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1220–1223

    1982

  6. [14]

    Inflationary cosmology: First 30+ years,

    K. Sato and J. Yokoyama, “Inflationary cosmology: First 30+ years, ”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24 no. 11, (2015) 1530025

    2015

  7. [15]

    Higgs inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, I. Timiryasov, and S. Zell, “Higgs inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity, ” JCAP 02 (2021) 008, arXiv:2007.14978 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2021)]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Einstein-Cartan gravity, matter, and scale-invariant generalization ,

    M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, I. Timiryasov, and S. Zell, “Einstein-Cartan gravity, matter, and scale-invariant generalization , ”JHEP 10 (2020) 177, arXiv:2007.16158 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Induced gravity inflation in the standard model of particle physics,

    J. L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen, “Induced gravity inflation in the standard model of particle physics, ”Nucl. Phys. B 442 (1995) 391–412, arXiv:astro-ph/9505069

    1995 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,

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

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Inflation scenario via the Standard Model Higgs boson and LHC,

    A. O. Barvinsky, A. Y. Kamenshchik, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Inflation scenario via the Standard Model Higgs boson and LHC, ”JCAP 11 (2008) 021, arXiv:0809.2104 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Higgs-Palatini Inflation and Unitarity,

    F. Bauer and D. A. Demir, “Higgs-Palatini Inflation and Unitarity, ”Phys. Lett. B 698 (2011) 425–429, arXiv:1012.2900 [hep-ph] . 28

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation with kinetic terms for the metric,

    S. Rasanen, “Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation with kinetic terms for the metric, ” Open J. Astrophys. 2 no. 1, (2019) 1, arXiv:1811.09514 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Violent Preheating in Inflation with Nonminimal Coupling,

    Y. Ema, R. Jinno, K. Mukaida, and K. Nakayama, “Violent Preheating in Inflation with Nonminimal Coupling, ”JCAP 02 (2017) 045, arXiv:1609.05209 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Preheating after Higgs Inflation: Self-Resonance and Gauge boson production,

    E. I. Sfakianakis and J. van de Vis, “Preheating after Higgs Inflation: Self-Resonance and Gauge boson production, ”Phys. Rev. D 99 no. 8, (2019) 083519, arXiv:1810.01304 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Power-counting and the Validity of the Classical Approximation During Inflation,

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

    2009 arXiv

  17. [25]

    On the Naturalness of Higgs Inflation,

    J. L. F. Barbon and J. R. Espinosa, “On the Naturalness of Higgs Inflation, ”Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 081302, arXiv:0903.0355 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Comment on Higgs Inflation and Naturalness,

    C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee, and M. Trott, “Comment on Higgs Inflation and Naturalness, ”JHEP 07 (2010) 007, arXiv:1002.2730 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    On Inflation with Non-minimal Coupling,

    M. P. Hertzberg, “On Inflation with Non-minimal Coupling, ” JHEP 11 (2010) 023, arXiv:1002.2995 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Higgs boson, renormalization group, and naturalness in cosmology,

    A. O. Barvinsky, A. Y. Kamenshchik, C. Kiefer, A. A. Starobinsky, and C. F. Steinwachs, “Higgs boson, renormalization group, and naturalness in cosmology, ”Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2219, arXiv:0910.1041 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Higgs inflation: consistency and generalisations,

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

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tree-level unitarity in Higgs inflation in the metric and the Palatini formulation,

    A. Ito, W. Khater, and S. Rasanen, “Tree-level unitarity in Higgs inflation in the metric and the Palatini formulation, ”JHEP 06 (2022) 164, arXiv:2111.05621 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Quantum corrections to Higgs inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    M. He, K. Kamada, and K. Mukaida, “Quantum corrections to Higgs inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity, ”JHEP 01 (2024) 014, arXiv:2308.14398 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Unitarizing Higgs Inflation,

    G. F. Giudice and H. M. Lee, “Unitarizing Higgs Inflation, ” Phys. Lett. B 694 (2011) 294–300, arXiv:1010.1417 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Higgs Inflation as a Mirage,

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

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Higgs Scalaron Mixed Inflation,

    Y. Ema, “Higgs Scalaron Mixed Inflation, ”Phys. Lett. B 770 (2017) 403–411, arXiv:1701.07665 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Light inflaton completing Higgs inflation,

    H. M. Lee, “Light inflaton completing Higgs inflation, ” Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 1, (2018) 015020, arXiv:1802.06174 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Non-local self-healing of Higgs inflation,

    A. S. Koshelev and A. Tokareva, “Non-local self-healing of Higgs inflation, ”Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 123518, arXiv:2006.06641 [hep-th] . 29

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Classical and Quantum Initial Conditions for Higgs Inflation,

    A. Salvio and A. Mazumdar, “Classical and Quantum Initial Conditions for Higgs Inflation, ”Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 194–200, arXiv:1506.07520 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    From stable to unstable anomaly-induced inflation,

    T. d. P. Netto, A. M. Pelinson, I. L. Shapiro, and A. A. Starobinsky, “From stable to unstable anomaly-induced inflation, ”Eur. Phys. J. C 76 no. 10, (2016) 544, arXiv:1509.08882 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Inflation in an effective gravitational model and asymptotic safety,

    L.-H. Liu, T. Prokopec, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Inflation in an effective gravitational model and asymptotic safety, ”Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 4, (2018) 043505, arXiv:1806.05407 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Higgs Starobinsky Inflation,

    X. Calmet and I. Kuntz, “Higgs Starobinsky Inflation, ” Eur. Phys. J. C 76 no. 5, (2016) 289, arXiv:1605.02236 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Two-loop corrections to Starobinsky-Higgs inflation,

    D. M. Ghilencea, “Two-loop corrections to Starobinsky-Higgs inflation, ”Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 10, (2018) 103524, arXiv:1807.06900 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dynamical Emergence of Scalaron in Higgs Inflation,

    Y. Ema, “Dynamical Emergence of Scalaron in Higgs Inflation, ”JCAP 09 (2019) 027, arXiv:1907.00993 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Higgs inflation as nonlinear sigma model and scalaron as its 𝜎-meson,

    Y. Ema, K. Mukaida, and J. van de Vis, “Higgs inflation as nonlinear sigma model and scalaron as its 𝜎-meson, ”JHEP 11 (2020) 011, arXiv:2002.11739 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Renormalization group equations of Higgs-R2 inflation,

    Y. Ema, K. Mukaida, and J. van de Vis, “Renormalization group equations of Higgs-R2 inflation, ”JHEP 02 (2021) 109, arXiv:2008.01096 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Scalaron the healer: removing the strong-coupling in the Higgs- and Higgs-dilaton inflations,

    D. Gorbunov and A. Tokareva, “Scalaron the healer: removing the strong-coupling in the Higgs- and Higgs-dilaton inflations, ”Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 37–41, arXiv:1807.02392 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    On the violent preheating in the mixed Higgs-𝑅2 inflationary model,

    M. He, R. Jinno, K. Kamada, S. C. Park, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, “On the violent preheating in the mixed Higgs-𝑅2 inflationary model, ”Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 36–42, arXiv:1812.10099 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    On UV-completion of Palatini-Higgs inflation,

    Y. Mikura and Y. Tada, “On UV-completion of Palatini-Higgs inflation, ”JCAP 05 no. 05, (2022) 035, arXiv:2110.03925 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Hybrid metric-Palatini Higgs inflation,

    M. He, Y. Mikura, and Y. Tada, “Hybrid metric-Palatini Higgs inflation, ”JCAP 05 (2023) 047, arXiv:2209.11051 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Towards a classification of UV completable Higgs inflation in metric-affine gravity,

    Y. Mikura and Y. Tada, “Towards a classification of UV completable Higgs inflation in metric-affine gravity, ”JCAP 02 (2025) 044, arXiv:2410.11277 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Weyl gravity extension of Higgs inflation,

    S. Aoki and H. M. Lee, “Weyl gravity extension of Higgs inflation, ”Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 3, (2023) 035045, arXiv:2207.05484 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Matter matters in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell, “Matter matters in Einstein-Cartan gravity, ” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 6, (2021) 064036, arXiv:2106.13811 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Generalized Ashtekar variables for Palatini 𝑓() models,

    F. Bombacigno, S. Boudet, and G. Montani, “Generalized Ashtekar variables for Palatini 𝑓() models, ” Nucl. Phys. B 963 (2021) 115281, arXiv:1911.09066 [gr-qc] . 30

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Boudet, Theoretical and Phenomenological Aspects of Projective-Invariant Metric-Affine Theories of Gravity

    S. Boudet, Theoretical and Phenomenological Aspects of Projective-Invariant Metric-Affine Theories of Gravity. PhD thesis, University of Trento, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    (In)equivalence of metric-affine and metric effective field theories,

    G. Pradisi and A. Salvio, “(In)equivalence of metric-affine and metric effective field theories, ” Eur. Phys. J. C 82 no. 9, (2022) 840, arXiv:2206.15041 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Einstein–Cartan pseudoscalaron inflation,

    A. Di Marco, E. Orazi, and G. Pradisi, “Einstein–Cartan pseudoscalaron inflation, ” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 2, (2024) 146, arXiv:2309.11345 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Starobinsky inflation and beyond in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    M. He, M. Hong, and K. Mukaida, “Starobinsky inflation and beyond in Einstein-Cartan gravity, ” JCAP 05 (2024) 107, arXiv:2402.05358 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Some simple theories of gravity with propagating torsion,

    Y. Mikura, V. Naso, and R. Percacci, “Some simple theories of gravity with propagating torsion, ”Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 10, (2024) 104071, arXiv:2312.10249 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Starobinsky-like Inflationary Models as Avatars of No-Scale Supergravity,

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, “Starobinsky-like Inflationary Models as Avatars of No-Scale Supergravity, ”JCAP 10 (2013) 009, arXiv:1307.3537 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Minimal Supergravity Models of Inflation,

    S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and M. Porrati, “Minimal Supergravity Models of Inflation, ”Phys. Rev. D 88 no. 8, (2013) 085038, arXiv:1307.7696 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Superconformal Inflationary 𝛼-Attractors,

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, “Superconformal Inflationary 𝛼-Attractors, ”JHEP 11 (2013) 198, arXiv:1311.0472 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Large field inflation and double 𝛼-attractors,

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, “Large field inflation and double 𝛼-attractors, ”JHEP 08 (2014) 052, arXiv:1405.3646 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    𝛼-Attractors: Planck, LHC and Dark Energy,

    J. J. M. Carrasco, R. Kallosh, and A. Linde, “𝛼-Attractors: Planck, LHC and Dark Energy, ”JHEP 10 (2015) 147, arXiv:1506.01708 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Cosmological attractors from 𝛼-scale supergravity,

    D. Roest and M. Scalisi, “Cosmological attractors from 𝛼-scale supergravity, ”Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 043525, arXiv:1503.07909 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Single-field 𝛼-attractors,

    A. Linde, “Single-field 𝛼-attractors, ”JCAP 05 (2015) 003, arXiv:1504.00663 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Cosmological 𝛼-attractors and de Sitter landscape,

    M. Scalisi, “Cosmological 𝛼-attractors and de Sitter landscape, ”JHEP 12 (2015) 134, arXiv:1506.01368 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors,

    M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, “Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 no. 14, (2015) 141302, arXiv:1412.3797 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Pole inflation — Shift symmetry and universal corrections,

    B. J. Broy, M. Galante, D. Roest, and A. Westphal, “Pole inflation — Shift symmetry and universal corrections, ”JHEP 12 (2015) 149, arXiv:1507.02277 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Generalized Pole Inflation: Hilltop, Natural, and Chaotic Inflationary Attractors,

    T. Terada, “Generalized Pole Inflation: Hilltop, Natural, and Chaotic Inflationary Attractors, ”Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 674–680, arXiv:1602.07867 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Primordial black holes and induced gravitational waves from double-pole inflation,

    C. Fu and S.-J. Wang, “Primordial black holes and induced gravitational waves from double-pole inflation, ”JCAP 06 (2023) 012, arXiv:2211.03523 [astro-ph.CO] . 31

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Pole inflation and primordial black holes formation in Starobinsky-like supergravity,

    S. Aoki, R. Ishikawa, and S. V. Ketov, “Pole inflation and primordial black holes formation in Starobinsky-like supergravity, ”Class. Quant. Grav. 40 no. 6, (2023) 065002, arXiv:2210.10348 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Pole inflation from non-minimal coupling to gravity,

    S. Karamitsos and A. Strumia, “Pole inflation from non-minimal coupling to gravity, ” JHEP 05 (2022) 016, arXiv:2109.10367 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Pole-induced Higgs inflation with hyperbolic Kähler geometries,

    C. Pallis, “Pole-induced Higgs inflation with hyperbolic Kähler geometries, ” JCAP 05 (2021) 043, arXiv:2103.05534 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Pole N-flation,

    M. Dias, J. Frazer, A. Retolaza, M. Scalisi, and A. Westphal, “Pole N-flation, ”JHEP 02 (2019) 120, arXiv:1805.02659 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Pole inflation in Jordan frame supergravity,

    K. Saikawa, M. Yamaguchi, Y. Yamashita, and D. Yoshida, “Pole inflation in Jordan frame supergravity, ” JCAP 01 (2018) 031, arXiv:1709.03440 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Toward pole inflation and attractors in supergravity : Chiral matter field inflation,

    T. Kobayashi, O. Seto, and T. H. Tatsuishi, “Toward pole inflation and attractors in supergravity : Chiral matter field inflation, ”PTEP 2017 no. 12, (2017) 123B04, arXiv:1703.09960 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Linear Inflation from Running Kinetic Term in Supergravity,

    F. Takahashi, “Linear Inflation from Running Kinetic Term in Supergravity, ”Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010) 140–143, arXiv:1006.2801 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Running Kinetic Inflation,

    K. Nakayama and F. Takahashi, “Running Kinetic Inflation, ”JCAP 11 (2010) 009, arXiv:1008.2956 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Chaotic Inflation,

    A. D. Linde, “Chaotic Inflation, ”Phys. Lett. B 129 (1983) 177–181

    1983

  71. [79]

    Inflating and reheating the Universe with an independent affine connection,

    A. Salvio, “Inflating and reheating the Universe with an independent affine connection, ” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 10, (2022) 103510, arXiv:2207.08830 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Increase of 𝑛𝑠 in regularized pole inflation & Einstein-Cartan gravity,

    M. He, M. Hong, and K. Mukaida, “Increase of 𝑛𝑠 in regularized pole inflation & Einstein-Cartan gravity, ”arXiv:2504.16069 [astro-ph.CO]

  73. [81]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and𝛬CDM Parameters,

    ACT Collaboration, T. Louis et al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and𝛬CDM Parameters, ”arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  74. [82]

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

    ACT Collaboration, E. Calabrese et al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models, ”arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,

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

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

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

    BICEP, Keck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., “Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 15, (2021) 151301, arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  77. [85]

    Particle Production in the New Inflationary Cosmology,

    L. F. Abbott, E. Farhi, and M. B. Wise, “Particle Production in the New Inflationary Cosmology, ” Phys. Lett. 117B (1982) 29. 32

    1982

  78. [86]

    Baryon Asymmetry in Inflationary Universe,

    A. D. Dolgov and A. D. Linde, “Baryon Asymmetry in Inflationary Universe, ”Phys. Lett. 116B (1982) 329

    1982

  79. [87]

    Reheating after inflation,

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Reheating after inflation, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 3195–3198, arXiv:hep-th/9405187

    1994 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Universe reheating after inflation,

    Y. Shtanov, J. H. Traschen, and R. H. Brandenberger, “Universe reheating after inflation, ”Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 5438–5455, arXiv:hep-ph/9407247 [hep-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Towards the theory of reheating after inflation,

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Towards the theory of reheating after inflation, ”Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 3258–3295, arXiv:hep-ph/9704452

    1997 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Structure of resonance in preheating after inflation,

    P. B. Greene, L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Structure of resonance in preheating after inflation, ”Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 6175–6192, arXiv:hep-ph/9705347

    1997 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Dynamics of symmetry breaking and tachyonic preheating,

    G. N. Felder, J. Garcia-Bellido, P. B. Greene, L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and I. Tkachev, “Dynamics of symmetry breaking and tachyonic preheating, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 011601, arXiv:hep-ph/0012142

    2001 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Tachyonic instability and dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking,

    G. N. Felder, L. Kofman, and A. D. Linde, “Tachyonic instability and dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking, ”Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 123517, arXiv:hep-th/0106179

    2001 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Tachyonic preheating,

    L. Kofman, “Tachyonic preheating, ” in8th International Symposium on Particles Strings and Cosmology , pp. 167–182. 2001. arXiv:hep-ph/0107280

    2001 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,

    A. D. Sakharov, “Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, ” Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5 (1967) 32–35

    1967

  87. [95]

    How long before the end of inflation were observable perturbations produced?,

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

    2003 arXiv

  88. [96]

    First CMB Constraints on the Inflationary Reheating Temperature,

    J. Martin and C. Ringeval, “First CMB Constraints on the Inflationary Reheating Temperature, ”Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 023511, arXiv:1004.5525 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

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

    2020 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Cosmological evolution of a torsion-induced quintaxion,

    E. W. Mielke and E. S. Romero, “Cosmological evolution of a torsion-induced quintaxion, ”Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 043521

    2006

  91. [99]

    Peccei-Quinn mechanism in gravity and the nature of the Barbero-Immirzi parameter,

    S. Mercuri, “Peccei-Quinn mechanism in gravity and the nature of the Barbero-Immirzi parameter, ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 081302, arXiv:0902.2764 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Interaction of the Barbero-Immirzi Field with Matter and Pseudo-Scalar Perturbations,

    S. Mercuri and V. Taveras, “Interaction of the Barbero-Immirzi Field with Matter and Pseudo-Scalar Perturbations, ”Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 104007, arXiv:0903.4407 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  93. [101]

    A solution of the strong CP problem via the Peccei-Quinn mechanism through the Nieh-Yan modified gravity and cosmological implications,

    M. Lattanzi and S. Mercuri, “A solution of the strong CP problem via the Peccei-Quinn mechanism through the Nieh-Yan modified gravity and cosmological implications, ”Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 125015, arXiv:0911.2698 [gr-qc] . 33

    2010 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Axions in gravity with torsion,

    O. Castillo-Felisola, C. Corral, S. Kovalenko, I. Schmidt, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, “Axions in gravity with torsion, ”Phys. Rev. D 91 no. 8, (2015) 085017, arXiv:1502.03694 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  95. [103]

    On the strong-CP problem and its axion solution in torsionful theories,

    G. K. Karananas, “On the strong-CP problem and its axion solution in torsionful theories, ” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 no. 6, (2018) 480, arXiv:1805.08781 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity: unifying the strong CP and hierarchy puzzles,

    G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Zell, “Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity: unifying the strong CP and hierarchy puzzles, ”JHEP 11 (2024) 146, arXiv:2406.11956 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Axions and the Strong CP Problem,

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, “Axions and the Strong CP Problem, ” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 557–602, arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)]

    2010 arXiv

  98. [106]

    No-scale Brans-Dicke Gravity – ultralight scalar boson & heavy inflaton,

    M. Hong, K. Mukaida, and T. T. Yanagida, “No-scale Brans-Dicke Gravity – ultralight scalar boson & heavy inflaton, ”arXiv:2503.18648 [hep-ph]

  99. [107]

    Hilltop inflation,

    L. Boubekeur and D. H. Lyth, “Hilltop inflation, ” JCAP 07 (2005) 010, arXiv:hep-ph/0502047

    2005 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Natural metric-affine inflation,

    A. Racioppi and A. Salvio, “Natural metric-affine inflation, ” JCAP 06 (2024) 033, arXiv:2403.18004 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  101. [109]

    ̃𝜉-attractors in metric-affine gravity,

    A. Racioppi, “ ̃𝜉-attractors in metric-affine gravity, ”arXiv:2411.08031 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  102. [110]

    Symmetry-breaking inflation in non-minimal metric-affine gravity,

    I. D. Gialamas and A. Racioppi, “Symmetry-breaking inflation in non-minimal metric-affine gravity, ” arXiv:2412.17738 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  103. [111]

    Leptogenesis via Axion Oscillations after Inflation,

    A. Kusenko, K. Schmitz, and T. T. Yanagida, “Leptogenesis via Axion Oscillations after Inflation, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 no. 1, (2015) 011302, arXiv:1412.2043 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Leptogenesis from left-handed neutrino production during axion inflation,

    P. Adshead and E. I. Sfakianakis, “Leptogenesis from left-handed neutrino production during axion inflation, ”Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 no. 9, (2016) 091301, arXiv:1508.00881 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Cosmological Aspects of Spontaneous Baryogenesis,

    A. De Simone and T. Kobayashi, “Cosmological Aspects of Spontaneous Baryogenesis, ”JCAP 08 (2016) 052, arXiv:1605.00670 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Calculation of particle production by Nambu Goldstone bosons with application to inflation reheating and baryogenesis,

    A. Dolgov and K. Freese, “Calculation of particle production by Nambu Goldstone bosons with application to inflation reheating and baryogenesis, ”Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 2693–2702, arXiv:hep-ph/9410346

    1995 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Fermion production during and after axion inflation,

    P. Adshead and E. I. Sfakianakis, “Fermion production during and after axion inflation, ”JCAP 11 (2015) 021, arXiv:1508.00891 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Gauge Field and Fermion Production during Axion Inflation,

    V. Domcke and K. Mukaida, “Gauge Field and Fermion Production during Axion Inflation, ”JCAP 11 (2018) 020, arXiv:1806.08769 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Chiral Gravitational Waves from Chiral Fermions,

    M. M. Anber and E. Sabancilar, “Chiral Gravitational Waves from Chiral Fermions, ”Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 2, (2017) 023501, arXiv:1607.03916 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy problem,

    M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, “Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy problem, ”Phys. Lett. B 671 (2009) 162–166, arXiv:0809.3406 [hep-th] . 34

    2009 arXiv

  111. [119]

    On the Gravitational Origin of the QCD Axion,

    G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Zell, “On the Gravitational Origin of the QCD Axion, ” arXiv:2506.11836 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  112. [120]

    Large Nongaussianity in Axion Inflation,

    N. Barnaby and M. Peloso, “Large Nongaussianity in Axion Inflation, ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 181301, arXiv:1011.1500 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Phenomenology of a Pseudo-Scalar Inflaton: Naturally Large Nongaussianity,

    N. Barnaby, R. Namba, and M. Peloso, “Phenomenology of a Pseudo-Scalar Inflaton: Naturally Large Nongaussianity, ”JCAP 04 (2011) 009, arXiv:1102.4333 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Path Integral for Gauge Theories with Fermions,

    K. Fujikawa, “Path Integral for Gauge Theories with Fermions, ” Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 2848. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 22, 1499 (1980)]

    1980

  115. [123]

    Circular Polarization of Primordial Gravitational Waves in String-inspired Inflationary Cosmology,

    M. Satoh, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, “Circular Polarization of Primordial Gravitational Waves in String-inspired Inflationary Cosmology, ”Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 023526, arXiv:0706.3585 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Gauge Field Production in Axion Inflation: Consequences for Monodromy, non-Gaussianity in the CMB, and Gravitational Waves at Interferometers,

    N. Barnaby, E. Pajer, and M. Peloso, “Gauge Field Production in Axion Inflation: Consequences for Monodromy, non-Gaussianity in the CMB, and Gravitational Waves at Interferometers, ”Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 023525, arXiv:1110.3327 [astro-ph.CO] . 35

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

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