Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 64 references

A non-minimal gravity coupling lets chain inflation run at high scales and leaves a testable CMB-plus-gravitational-wave signature.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 11:09 UTC pith:6G2N5JDA

load-bearing objection Solid analytic extension of chain inflation: NMC really does open a high-scale window, but that window sits near the semiclassical edge and the late-time radiation assumption is still unquantified. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27193 v1 pith:6G2N5JDA submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Non-Minimally Coupled Chain Inflation at High Scales

Miguel Barroso Varela , Orfeu Bertolami , Katherine Freese , Evangelos Sfakianakis This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords chain inflationnon-minimal couplingEuclidean bounce actionscalar spectral indexspectral runningstochastic gravitational wavestilted cosine potentialfirst-order phase transitions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Chain inflation builds accelerated expansion from a cascade of rapid quantum tunnelings rather than a slow roll. For the simplest tilted-cosine potential with no extra gravity coupling, matching the observed scalar tilt forces the inflationary energy down to a few GeV. The paper shows that a modest non-minimal coupling of the tunneling field to curvature, of the form ξ R φ² with ξ of order ten, changes that story. In the Einstein frame the coupling amplifies the Euclidean bounce action in a field-dependent way, so the tunneling rate evolves along the chain. That evolution breaks the rigid link between tilt and energy scale and opens a CMB-compatible high-scale window near 10^11 GeV. The same dynamics produce a peaked stochastic gravitational-wave background in the decihertz-to-kilohertz band and a distinctive running of the spectral index, both within reach of upcoming experiments. A sympathetic reader cares because the construction turns a generic curved-space counterterm into a concrete multi-messenger target without abandoning the analytic control of the tilted-cosine model.

Core claim

In the Einstein frame, a non-minimal coupling ξ R φ² induces a field-dependent amplification of the Euclidean bounce action. That modification lets the tunneling rate evolve along a pure tilted-cosine chain, breaks the rigid ns–V* relation that confined the minimally coupled model to V*^{1/4} ≲ 3 GeV, and opens a viable high-scale branch with V*^{1/4} ∼ 10^{11} GeV that remains compatible with current CMB measurements of the scalar tilt.

What carries the argument

Field-dependent amplification of the Euclidean bounce action SE in the Einstein frame. After the conformal transformation that removes ξ R φ², SE grows quadratically with the canonically normalized field; the resulting expansion coefficients S1 and S2 control the evolution of the tunneling rate and thereby fix ns, its running αs, and the gravitational-wave peak.

Load-bearing premise

The energy released by each bubble collision behaves like ordinary radiation that does not strongly back-react on later tunnelings or let the field classically hop the barriers.

What would settle it

A measurement of the scalar running by the Simons Observatory that either detects a positive αs ∼ 0.01 (favoring the pivot-at-origin branch) or rules it out at the forecasted precision, together with a search for a peaked stochastic gravitational-wave signal in the dHz–kHz band by Einstein Telescope or Cosmic Explorer.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • High-scale chain inflation becomes compatible with CMB data for ξ ≳ 20 and fast tunneling (x ≳ 0.9) without abandoning the tilted-cosine potential.
  • The high-scale branch produces a stochastic gravitational-wave peak in the dHz–kHz range accessible to Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer.
  • The u* ≃ 0 branch predicts a positive running αs ∼ 0.01 testable by the Simons Observatory; the large-negative-u* branch predicts a strongly suppressed running.
  • Low-scale and high-scale solutions form two disconnected regimes rather than a continuous band, splitting the gravitational-wave signal between nHz and interferometer bands.
  • Perturbative unitarity removes the high-scale branch for x ≲ 0.9 when ξ ≲ 100, pushing viable high-scale models toward the fastest allowed tunneling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If post-collision debris is largely non-thermal or multi-field, the radiation-tracking solution used for both the end of inflation and the gravitational-wave amplitude would need recalibration, potentially shifting the predicted peak frequency and strength.
  • The same field-dependent bounce-action lever could be ported to non-cosine chains (varying barrier height or spacing), offering an independent route to high-scale tunneling inflation beyond the pure tilted cosine.
  • A joint non-detection of positive running and of a kHz stochastic background would tightly squeeze the high-scale non-minimally coupled window even before unitarity bounds are applied.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies chain inflation with a non-minimal coupling ξ R ϕ² for a Jordan-frame tilted cosine potential. In the Einstein frame the coupling makes the Euclidean bounce action field-dependent (Eqs. 3.15–3.20), so the tunneling rate evolves along the chain. The authors derive analytic expressions linking the bounce-action expansion coefficients S1, S2 to ns, αs, the curvature spectrum, and the bubble-collision SGWB. For the minimally coupled pure tilted cosine they obtain an analytic ns(V*) relation that forces V*^{1/4} ≲ 3 GeV; with ξ = O(10) they open a CMB-compatible high-scale branch with V*^{1/4} ∼ 10^{10}–10^{11} GeV (x ≳ 0.9), a positive or suppressed running depending on u*, and a peaked SGWB in the dHz–kHz bands accessible to ET/CE. Unitarity and fast-tunneling constraints are mapped in the appendices.

Significance. If the high-scale branch is under control, the work supplies a concrete, gravitationally motivated realization of high-scale chain inflation with correlated, falsifiable multi-messenger targets (Simons Observatory running; ET/CE SGWB). Strengths include the closed-form ns(V*) for the pure tilted cosine (Eq. 2.47/2.49), the Einstein-frame bounce expansion and e-fold integral, the unitarity lower bound on SE,0, and explicit parameter-space maps (Figs. 3–4, 7–9). The analytic S1–S2 framework is reusable beyond the exact tilted cosine. The result is of clear interest for early-Universe and GW cosmology, provided the edge-of-control issues are tightened.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3–4.1, App. E.2, F; Figs. 3–4] The claimed high-scale window V*^{1/4} ∼ 10^{11} GeV sits at the semiclassical/unitarity edge. Appendix E.2 and F push the NMC branch to SE,0 ≳ √(1−x²)S(x)/(8π) ≈ 3.5 at x ≈ 0.96, and high-scale solutions vanish for x ≲ 0.9 (ξ ≲ 100). At SE ∼ few the exponential hierarchy in Γ = A e^{−SE} is weak, higher-order corrections are not parametrically small, and the thin/thick-wall GW formulae of §5 are less trustworthy. Figs. 3–4 already mark some red (unitarity-excluded) points, but the remaining “viable” strip is not shown to be stable under O(1) corrections to the leading saddle. Please quantify (even roughly) how ns(V*) and the GW peak shift if SE,0 receives O(1) corrections, or restrict the headline claim to the region where SE,0 is demonstrably large enough for controlled semiclassics.
  2. [§2.3, §5, App. A, H] The radiation-tracking solution (Eq. 2.19) and the identification of bubble-collision debris with a radiation-like bath are load-bearing for ϵ, reheating, α, and the GW amplitude (§2.3, §5, App. A). Appendix H correctly flags that post-collision products may be non-thermal, coherent, or multi-field, and that 3+1D repeated-nucleation simulations are missing. If back-reaction allows classical barrier crossing or spoils the zero-T rate, both the high-scale CMB branch and the interferometer SGWB mapping become unreliable. The main text should state more sharply which observables are robust to this uncertainty and which (especially late-time α and Ω_GW) are provisional pending simulations; a simple sensitivity estimate would strengthen the claim.
  3. [§2.5, §4.1, §6; Fig. 4, 7] High-scale viability requires x close to the runaway threshold x ≃ 0.96 from 1+1D simulations (Ref. [22]). The paper notes this and that 3+1D would be more robust (§6), but the entire high-scale NMC window collapses for x ≲ 0.9. Please make the dependence of the headline V* ∼ 10^{11} GeV claim on this upper edge more explicit in the abstract/conclusions, and comment on how a downward revision of the catastrophe bound would shrink the allowed band.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.5] Notation: N_* is used both for the number of phase transitions and for the number of e-folds (p. 11). Distinguish them (e.g. N_*^{trans} vs N_*^{efolds}) throughout.
  2. [Fig. 3] Fig. 3 caption is very long; move some interpretive text into the main body so the figure remains readable.
  3. [§5] Eq. (5.2) has a stray “where we used For A_s”; fix the sentence fragment.
  4. [§5] “grateful exit” → “graceful exit” in §5 (before Eq. 5.3).
  5. [App. D] Appendix D on low-scale baryogenesis is interesting but peripheral to the NMC high-scale claim; consider shortening or moving emphasis so the main narrative stays focused.
  6. [§5.2–5.3] Clarify early that α is treated as a free phenomenological exit parameter, not fixed by the microscopic NMC Lagrangian, so GW amplitude bands in Figs. 8–9 are not pure predictions of (ξ, u*, x).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Prior Freese-group chain-inflation formulae are load-bearing inputs, but the NMC high-scale claim is a genuine derived consequence, not circular by construction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 2.1 Eqs. (2.2)–(2.5); Sec. 5 Eqs. (5.4)–(5.7); Refs. [17,20]]
    "Using a numerically fitted pre-factor, the power spectrum can be written as [17] As=Δ²_R|k=k*≈0.06(Γ^{1/4}_*/H_*)^{-5/3}. ... the scalar spectral index ns≈1+(5/12)(4Ḣ/H²−Γ̇/(HΓ))|t=t*. ... As shown in Ref. [20], one may take βi≃{2.8Γ^{1/4}_i for transitions during chain inflation; β(α) for transitions during graceful exit}."

    The entire observable pipeline (As fixing Γ^{1/4}/H, ns from Ḣ and Γ̇, and the GW peak/amplitude templates) is taken from prior papers with overlapping authors (Freese coauthor). Those relations are load-bearing for every quantitative claim in the present work. They are not, however, uniqueness theorems that force the NMC high-scale branch: the branch itself follows from the new SE(χ) derivation once those external formulae are granted. Mild self-citation dependence of the framework, not reduction of the central prediction to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper’s novel claim—that a non-minimal coupling ξRϕ² induces a field-dependent Euclidean bounce action and thereby breaks the pure tilted-cosine lock ns(V*) that forces V_*^{1/4}≲3 GeV—is derived inside the manuscript from the Jordan-to-Einstein conformal transformation (Eqs. 3.1–3.15), the sub-Planckian expansion of SE (Eqs. 3.17–3.20), and the external CMB amplitude/tilt/e-fold constraints (Eqs. 3.21, 3.22, 3.27). Those constraints use observed As and ns as external data, not as quantities defined by the model; scanning V* then yields ns(V*) branches and downstream αs and GW spectra. This is ordinary constrained model-building, not a tautology. The only mild circularity-adjacent feature is reliance on the chain-inflation power-spectrum and GW formulae of overlapping-author papers (Winkler & Freese 2021; Freese, Litsa & Winkler 2024), which fix As∝(Γ^{1/4}/H)^{-5/3} and the bubble-collision templates. Those enter as stated external relations of the framework, not as uniqueness theorems that force the NMC result, and they do not make the high-scale window or the αs/GW signatures true by definition. Score 2 reflects that single load-bearing self-citation layer without elevating it to central circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central high-scale claim rests on standard Coleman bounce and CMB chain-inflation formulae, the domain assumption that a Jordan-frame tilted cosine plus ξRφ² is the right EFT, and several free phenomenological handles (ξ, x, u*, α, exit strength) scanned against Planck/ACT. No new particle is invented; the main added structure is the NMC-induced S1,S2 map and the treatment of collision debris as radiation.

free parameters (6)
  • ξ (non-minimal coupling) = O(10), examples ξ=60
    Scanned; phenomenology focused on ξ = O(10)–O(10^2). Controls strength of SE field dependence and onset of high-scale branch.
  • x = μ³f/Λ⁴ (tunneling parameter) = ≈0.96 (benchmark)
    Must sit near upper edge x ≃ 0.96 for high-scale unitarity-compatible solutions; high-scale window closes for x ≲ 0.9 at ξ ≲ 100.
  • u* = χ*/χc (pivot location relative to NMC origin) = examples 0, -1, -10, 0.06
    Free once discrete shift symmetry is broken by ξRφ²; selects S1 vs S2 dominance and sign/size of αs.
  • α (final transition strength ρv/ρr) = scanned ~0.01–1
    Phenomenological free parameter for graceful-exit GW amplitude and peak; bounded by percolation α ≲ 20.
  • SE,0 (baseline Euclidean action at χ=0) = O(1–100) depending on scale
    Fixed by As and V* once x,ξ,u* chosen; high-scale branch lives at SE,0 ∼ O(1–10), near unitarity floor.
  • V* (inflationary scale at pivot) = ~10^11 GeV (high-scale branch)
    Scanned output/input of the constraint system; high-scale target ∼10^10–10^12 GeV.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption O(4) Coleman bounce and Γ = A e^{-SE} control successive vacuum decays in the Einstein-frame canonical field.
    Used throughout §§2–3 after conformal transformation; standard but assumes semiclassical control down to SE ∼ few.
  • domain assumption Chain-inflation curvature amplitude As ≈ 0.06 (Γ^{1/4}/H)^{-5/3} from prior stochastic-tunneling calculation.
    Eq. (2.2); external input from Winkler & Freese 2021 that fixes Γ^{1/4}/H ∼ 3×10^4.
  • domain assumption Operator ξRφ² is radiatively required and may be O(10) without further UV completion specified.
    Introduction and §3; motivates studying ξ ≠ 0 but does not derive the value.
  • ad hoc to paper Jordan-frame potential is an exact tilted cosine; Einstein-frame aperiodicity is entirely due to NMC.
    §2.5 and §3.1–3.2; chooses the simplest chain and attributes all Si≠0 to gravity coupling.
  • domain assumption Sub-Planckian field excursion justifies truncating SE(χ) at quadratic order and local tilted-cosine parameters.
    §3.2 and Fig. 5; checked a posteriori but required for analytic S1,S2.
  • ad hoc to paper Bubble-collision energy is captured by a radiation equation-of-state component for ϵ, reheating, and GW estimates.
    §2.3, Appendix A, Appendix H; authors note non-equilibrium alternatives remain open.
  • domain assumption Perturbative unitarity bound |V''''| < 8π at minima implies SE,0 ≳ √(1-x²) S(x)/(8π).
    Appendix E.2; cuts high-scale branch especially at lower x.
invented entities (1)
  • NMC-induced bounce-action coefficients S1, S2 for chain inflation independent evidence
    purpose: Encode field-dependent tunneling rate along the chain and connect ξ,u* to ns, αs, and e-fold integrals.
    Not a new particle; a derived effective description from the Einstein-frame map of a tilted cosine plus ξRφ².

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 59760 in / 4320 out tokens · 85282 ms · 2026-07-30T11:09:42.203550+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Chain inflation offers an alternative to standard slow-roll dynamics, with accelerated expansion proceeding through a sequence of rapid quantum tunneling events between metastable vacua. At the high energy scales relevant for the early Universe, scalar fields are generically expected to couple non-minimally to gravity via operators like $\xi R\phi^2$, allowed by symmetry and required as counterterms for interacting theories in curved spacetime. We study the dynamical and observational consequences of this coupling for chain inflation. We find the modifications to the model for arbitrary $\xi$ and focus on interesting phenomenology for $\xi ={\cal O}( 10)$. We show that, in the Einstein frame, the non-minimal coupling induces a field-dependent amplification of the Euclidean bounce action, thus modifying the tunneling rate across the chain. We develop an analytic framework connecting this modified tunneling dynamics to the scalar spectral index, its running, the primordial curvature power spectrum, and the stochastic gravitational wave background from bubble collisions. As one consequence, the non-minimal coupling breaks the rigid relation between the scalar tilt and inflationary scale that drives the minimally coupled pure tilted cosine model to very low energies ($V_*^{1/4}\lesssim 3\,\rm{GeV}$, where $V_*$ is the value of the inflationary potential when the CMB-relevant modes exit the horizon), allowing for viable high-scale chain inflation with $V_*^{1/4}\sim 10^{11}\,\rm{GeV}$. Furthermore, non-minimally coupled chain inflation at high scales produces a peaked stochastic gravitational wave signal in the dHz-kHz bands, accessible to upcoming interferometers such as the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. Finally, the model predicts a distinct running of the spectral index that will be testable by the Simons Observatory, making it a prime target for multi-messenger cosmology.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Freese and D

    K. Freese and D. Spolyar,Chain inflation: ’Bubble bubble toil and trouble’,JCAP07(2005) 007 [hep-ph/0412145]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Freese, J.T

    K. Freese, J.T. Liu and D. Spolyar,Inflating with the QCD axion,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 123521 [hep-ph/0502177]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

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

    A.H. Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 347

    1981

  4. [4]

    Guth and E.J

    A.H. Guth and E.J. Weinberg,Could the Universe Have Recovered from a Slow First Order Phase Transition?,Nucl. Phys. B212(1983) 321

    1983

  5. [5]

    Linde,Eternal extended inflation and graceful exit from old inflation without Jordan-Brans-Dicke,Phys

    A.D. Linde,Eternal extended inflation and graceful exit from old inflation without Jordan-Brans-Dicke,Phys. Lett. B249(1990) 18

    1990

  6. [6]

    Adams and K

    F.C. Adams and K. Freese,Double field inflation,Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 353 [hep-ph/0504135]. – 61 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1991

  7. [7]

    Birrell and P.C.W

    N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1982), 10.1017/CBO9780511622632

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511622632 1982

  8. [8]

    Parker and D

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

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813924 2009

  9. [9]

    Buchbinder, S.D

    I.L. Buchbinder, S.D. Odintsov and I.L. Shapiro,Effective action in quantum gravity(1992). [10]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A10 [1807.06211]. [11]Atacama Cosmology Telescopecollaboration,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods andΛCDM parameters,JCAP11(2025) 062 [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  10. [13]

    Freese and M.W

    K. Freese and M.W. Winkler,Have pulsar timing arrays detected the hot big bang: Gravitational waves from strong first order phase transitions in the early Universe,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 103523 [2208.03330]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [14]

    Punturo et al.,The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class

    M. Punturo et al.,The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 194002

    2010

  12. [15]

    Reitze et al.,Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    D. Reitze et al.,Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO,Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51(2019) 035 [1907.04833]. [16]Simons Observatorycollaboration,The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts, JCAP02(2019) 056 [1808.07445]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [17]

    Winkler and K

    M.W. Winkler and K. Freese,Power spectrum of density perturbations in chain inflation,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 043511 [2011.12980]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [18]

    Freese, A

    K. Freese, A. Litsa and M.W. Winkler,Natural Chain Inflation,Phys. Lett. B829(2022) 137081 [2109.11556]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [19]

    Turner, E.J

    M.S. Turner, E.J. Weinberg and L.M. Widrow,Bubble nucleation in first order inflation and other cosmological phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 2384

    1992

  16. [20]

    Freese, A

    K. Freese, A. Litsa and M.W. Winkler,Gravitational wave spectrum of chain inflation,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 103526 [2311.03434]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [21]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and N. Sugiyama,MeV scale reheating temperature and thermalization of neutrino background,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 023506 [astro-ph/0002127]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  18. [22]

    Cline, G.D

    J.M. Cline, G.D. Moore and Y. Wang,Chain Inflation Reconsidered,JCAP08(2011) 032 [1106.2188]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [23]

    Buchm¨ uller,Baryogenesis, Dark Matter and the Maximal Temperature of the Early Universe,Acta Phys

    W. Buchm¨ uller,Baryogenesis, Dark Matter and the Maximal Temperature of the Early Universe,Acta Phys. Polon. B43(2012) [1212.3554]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [24]

    Davidson and A

    S. Davidson and A. Ibarra,A Lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis,Phys. Lett. B535(2002) 25 [hep-ph/0202239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  21. [25]

    Buchmuller, P

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari and M. Plumacher,Leptogenesis for pedestrians,Annals Phys.315 (2005) 305 [hep-ph/0401240]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  22. [26]

    Jaeckel and W

    J. Jaeckel and W. Yin,High energy sphalerons for baryogenesis at low temperatures,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 015001 [2206.06376]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [27]

    Bahr-Kalus, D

    B. Bahr-Kalus, D. Parkinson and R. Easther,Constraining cosmic inflation with observations: Prospects for 2030,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.520(2023) 2405 [2212.04115]. – 62 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2030

  24. [28]

    Callan, Jr., S.R

    C.G. Callan, Jr., S.R. Coleman and R. Jackiw,A New improved energy - momentum tensor, Annals Phys.59(1970) 42

    1970

  25. [29]

    Bezrukov and M

    F.L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov,The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,Phys. Lett. B659(2008) 703 [0710.3755]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  26. [30]

    Fakir and W.G

    R. Fakir and W.G. Unruh,Improvement on cosmological chaotic inflation through nonminimal coupling,Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 1783

    1990

  27. [31]

    Hertzberg,On Inflation with Non-minimal Coupling,JHEP11(2010) 023 [1002.2995]

    M.P. Hertzberg,On Inflation with Non-minimal Coupling,JHEP11(2010) 023 [1002.2995]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [32]

    Kaiser, E.A

    D.I. Kaiser, E.A. Mazenc and E.I. Sfakianakis,Primordial Bispectrum from Multifield Inflation with Nonminimal Couplings,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 064004 [1210.7487]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [33]

    Kaiser and E.I

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [34]

    DeCross, D.I

    M.P. DeCross, D.I. Kaiser, A. Prabhu, C. Prescod-Weinstein and E.I. Sfakianakis,Preheating after Multifield Inflation with Nonminimal Couplings, I: Covariant Formalism and Attractor Behavior,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 023526 [1510.08553]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [35]

    DeCross, D.I

    M.P. DeCross, D.I. Kaiser, A. Prabhu, C. Prescod-Weinstein and E.I. Sfakianakis,Preheating after multifield inflation with nonminimal couplings, III: Dynamical spacetime results,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 023528 [1610.08916]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [36]

    DeCross, D.I

    M.P. DeCross, D.I. Kaiser, A. Prabhu, C. Prescod-Weinstein and E.I. Sfakianakis,Preheating after multifield inflation with nonminimal couplings, II: Resonance Structure,Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 023527 [1610.08868]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [37]

    Nguyen, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [38]

    van de Vis, R

    J. van de Vis, R. Nguyen, E.I. Sfakianakis, J.T. Giblin and D.I. Kaiser,Time scales for nonlinear processes in preheating after multifield inflation with nonminimal couplings,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 043528 [2005.00433]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [39]

    Kobzarev, L.B

    I.Y. Kobzarev, L.B. Okun and M.B. Voloshin,Bubbles in Metastable Vacuum,Yad. Fiz.20 (1974) 1229

    1974

  36. [40]

    Coleman,The Fate of the False Vacuum

    S.R. Coleman,The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 2929

    1977

  37. [41]

    Callan, Jr

    C.G. Callan, Jr. and S.R. Coleman,The Fate of the False Vacuum. 2. First Quantum Corrections,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1762

    1977

  38. [42]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest,Universal Attractor for Inflation at Strong Coupling,Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 011303 [1310.3950]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [43]

    Huber and T

    S.J. Huber and T. Konstandin,Gravitational Wave Production by Collisions: More Bubbles, JCAP09(2008) 022 [0806.1828]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [44]

    Cutting, E.G

    D. Cutting, E.G. Escartin, M. Hindmarsh and D.J. Weir,Gravitational waves from vacuum first order phase transitions II: from thin to thick walls,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 023531 [2005.13537]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [45]

    Kosowsky, M.S

    A. Kosowsky, M.S. Turner and R. Watkins,Gravitational Waves from First Order Cosmological Phase Transitions,Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 2026

    1992

  42. [46]

    Kosowsky and M.S

    A. Kosowsky and M.S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles: envelope approximation to many bubble collisions,Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 4372 [astro-ph/9211004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  43. [47]

    Caprini and D.G

    C. Caprini and D.G. Figueroa,Cosmological backgrounds of gravitational waves,Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018) 163001 [1801.04268]. – 63 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [48]

    Espinosa, T

    J.R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J.M. No and G. Servant,Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions,JCAP06(2010) 028 [1004.4187]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [49]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    M. Hindmarsh, S.J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir,Numerical simulations of acoustically generated gravitational waves at a first order phase transition,Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 123009 [1504.03291]. [50]EPTAcollaboration,Noise analysis in the European Pulsar Timing Array data release 2 and its implications on the gravitational-wave background search,Mon....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [52]

    Goncharov et al.,On the Evidence for a Common-spectrum Process in the Search for the Nanohertz Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,Astrophys

    B. Goncharov et al.,On the Evidence for a Common-spectrum Process in the Search for the Nanohertz Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,Astrophys. J. Lett.917(2021) L19 [2107.12112]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [53]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    J. Antoniadis et al.,The International Pulsar Timing Array second data release: Search for an isotropic gravitational wave background,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510(2022) 4873 [2201.03980]. [54]KAGRAcollaboration,Interferometer design of the KAGRA gravitational wave detector, Physical Review D88(2013) 043007. [55]KAGRAcollaboration,Detector configuration ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [60]

    Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO,Class

    S. Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) S125

    2006

  49. [61]

    Kuroyanagi, K

    S. Kuroyanagi, K. Nakayama and J. Yokoyama,Prospects of determination of reheating temperature after inflation by DECIGO,PTEP2015(2015) 013E02 [1410.6618]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [62]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura and T. Nakamura,Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in space, Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 221103 [astro-ph/0108011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  51. [63]

    Barroso Varela, K

    M. Barroso Varela, K. Freese and E. Sfakianakis , in preparation

  52. [64]

    Cutting, M

    D. Cutting, M. Hindmarsh and D.J. Weir,Gravitational waves from vacuum first-order phase transitions: from the envelope to the lattice,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 123513 [1802.05712]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [65]

    P ˆ ırvu, M.C

    D. P ˆ ırvu, M.C. Johnson and S. Sibiryakov,Bubble velocities and oscillon precursors in first-order phase transitions,JHEP11(2024) 064 [2312.13364]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [66]

    Graham, D.E

    P.W. Graham, D.E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran,Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 221801 [1504.07551]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [67]

    Freese and M.W

    K. Freese and M.W. Winkler,Chain early dark energy: A Proposal for solving the Hubble tension and explaining today’s dark energy,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 083533 [2102.13655]. – 64 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [68]

    G. Elor, M. Escudero and A. Nelson,Baryogenesis and Dark Matter fromBMesons,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 035031 [1810.00880]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [69]

    Cohen and D.B

    A.G. Cohen and D.B. Kaplan,Spontaneous baryogenesis,Nucl. Phys. B308(1988) 913

    1988

  58. [70]

    E. Hall, T. Konstandin, R. McGehee and H. Murayama,Asymmetric matter from a dark first-order phase transition,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 055011 [1911.12342]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [71]

    Aarts, G.F

    G. Aarts, G.F. Bonini and C. Wetterich,On thermalization in classical scalar field theory, Nuclear Physics B587(2000) 403

    2000

  60. [72]

    Arrizabalaga, J

    A. Arrizabalaga, J. Smit and A. Tranberg,Equilibration inφ 4 theory in3 + 1dimensions, Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 025014

    2005

  61. [73]

    Micha and I.I

    R. Micha and I.I. Tkachev,Relativistic turbulence: A long way from preheating to equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 121301

    2003

  62. [74]

    Child and J.T

    H.L. Child and J.T. Giblin, Jr.,Gravitational Radiation from First-Order Phase Transitions, JCAP10(2012) 001 [1207.6408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  63. [75]

    Giblin, Jr

    J.T. Giblin, Jr. and J.B. Mertens,Vacuum Bubbles in the Presence of a Relativistic Fluid, JHEP12(2013) 042 [1310.2948]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  64. [76]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    M. Hindmarsh, S.J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir,Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 041301 [1304.2433]. – 65 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014