Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Axion Inflation with a Massive Abelian Gauge Field

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A heavy gauge field can slow the inflaton without spoiling the CMB scalar spectrum.

desk verdict Solid first lattice + analytics for massive axion–U(1); the m̄^{-2}/m̄^{-3} scalings are real, but the “few hundred H” CMB-safe window rides on a phenomenological friction kernel the lattices do not pin down. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28593 v1 pith:TPBOSOEF submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Ricardo Z. Ferreira , Alessio Notari , José Jaime Terente Díaz This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords axioninflationmassiveAbeliangaugefieldtachyonicinstabilitygauge-fieldbackreactioninversedecayscalarpowerspectrumlatticesimulationsChern-Simonscoupling
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

Axion inflation can couple to a gauge field so strongly that one helicity is tachyonicly amplified and the resulting friction helps the inflaton roll slowly. When that gauge field is massless, the same production that supplies friction also dumps large, non-Gaussian curvature perturbations on CMB scales, often ruling out the useful regime. This paper shows that giving the vector a mass m larger than the Hubble rate changes the story: the instability only runs for |ξ| > m/H, the amplified modes sit deep inside the horizon, and their contribution to long-wavelength curvature is power-law suppressed at fixed backreaction. Analytical estimates and the first lattice simulations of the massive case indicate that masses of a few hundred Hubble units can keep the sourced scalar power below 10^{-9} while still allowing strong gauge friction. If that holds, massive-gauge friction becomes a concrete alternative to ordinary slow roll, with distinctive scalar and tensor signatures and possible post-inflationary relics.

What carries the argument

Tachyonic amplification of one Abelian helicity when |ξ| > m̄ ≡ m/H, with mode amplitude scaling as exp[π(|ξ| − m̄)] in the heavy regime; the amplified modes remain sub-Hubble, so the inverse-decay integral that sources ζ is power-law suppressed at fixed background friction parameter C.

What would settle it

A denser lattice scan at m̄ of a few hundred, with measured frozen curvature plateaus and non-Gaussianity, would show whether the sourced spectrum really falls as ~1/m̄^3 at fixed backreaction strength C ≳ 1, or whether nonlinear scatter ruins the suppression.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At fixed gauge-field backreaction on the inflaton, the inverse-decay scalar power spectrum is power-law suppressed by the vector mass: P_id_ζ scales as m̄^{-2} in the weak-backreaction regime and as m̄^{-3} once gauge-induced friction on scalar perturbations is included. Consequently P_id_ζ ≲ 10^{-9} on CMB scales can coexist with strong backreaction for m̄ of order a few hundred.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate that strong backreaction stays CMB-safe relies on inserting a simple velocity-dependent friction term into the scalar perturbation equation, plus order-one matching constants, rather than a first-principles retarded treatment of the gauge field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strong gauge friction on steeper or shorter-range axion potentials can remain compatible with the observed scalar amplitude for vector masses ≳ few × 100 H.
  • The tensor spectrum sourced by the gauge field is expected to differ from the massless case because its support sits at subhorizon momenta.
  • Non-Gaussianity in the heavy, strong-backreaction regime must still be computed before claiming full CMB viability.
  • Produced massive vectors may survive as a cosmologically relevant post-inflationary relic.
  • EFT consistency requires the axial coupling and mass to satisfy m < 4πf for a conventional cutoff estimate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the m̄^{-3} scaling survives a first-principles friction derivation, axion-monodromy and other steep potentials regain a large window that massless gauge friction had closed.
  • Identifying the massive vector with a GUT-scale or thermal mass would tie the friction mechanism to concrete UV scales already motivated elsewhere in early-universe model building.
  • A chiral gravitational-wave search at interferometer or PTA frequencies could test the subhorizon source shift even if the scalar spectrum looks vacuum-like.
  • The same mass cut that protects ζ may weaken primordial magnetogenesis relative to the massless case, trading one observable for another.
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. The paper studies axion inflation axially coupled to a massive Abelian (Proca) gauge field. It shows that tachyonic amplification of one helicity requires |ξ|>m̄≡m/H, with mode amplitude ~exp[π(|ξ|−m̄)] in the heavy regime, and that the instability band is shifted to sub-Hubble momenta. Analytical Whittaker/Bessel mode functions are used to compute gauge energy and ⟨E·B⟩ densities and the inverse-decay scalar spectrum; at fixed backreaction parameter C one finds P^id_ζ∝m̄^{−2} (weak) and, with a phenomenological gauge-induced friction on scalar perturbations, P^id_ζ∝m̄^{−3} (mild/strong). The authors estimate that P^id_ζ≲10^{−9} can coexist with strong backreaction for m̄ of order a few hundred. These analytics are tested with the first massive-vector extension of the Pencil Code, including strongly backreacting runs.

Significance. If the mass-suppression picture holds, massive gauge-field friction offers a concrete way to sustain slow roll (or a friction-dominated attractor) while keeping CMB-scale inverse-decay scalars under control—addressing a long-standing tension of massless axion–U(1) inflation, where efficient background friction and large non-Gaussian scalars are tightly linked. Strengths include a careful weak-regime analytical pipeline (Whittaker solution, κ-matched Bessel approximation, explicit ρ_A and ⟨E·B⟩ integrals), transparent definition of the backreaction parameter C, and the first lattice simulations of this massive setup that confirm mode functions, spectral-peak location, and the direction of mass suppression of P_ζ. The work goes beyond earlier numerical loop studies of massive vectors by combining closed-form estimates with nonlinear simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6.2–6.3, Eqs. (6.9)–(6.19), Fig. 4] Sec. 6.2–6.3 and Eqs. (6.9)–(6.19): the headline CMB-safe window (abstract; Fig. 4; Conclusions)—P^id_ζ≲10^{−9} with strong backreaction for m̄ of a few hundred—rests on the mild/strong estimate P^id_ζ,f≃0.014/m̄^3, not on the controlled weak-regime result (6.18). That estimate inserts the local friction ν_f≃2π|ξ|C into the scalar mode equation and replaces the retarded kernel by a constant-ν_f Hankel Green function. Footnote 12 correctly flags this as phenomenological. Fig. 9 shows order-of-magnitude scatter once C≳1, and c_f, c_ℓ^{(f)} are not calibrated on the strong runs. The direction of mass suppression is supported by the lattices (Figs. 7–8), but the absolute mass threshold is not. Please (i) state explicitly in the abstract and Sec. 6.3/8 that the few-hundred figure is an order-of-magnitude estimate under the local-friction ansatz, (ii) propagate a clear normalisation band (e.g.
  2. [Sec. 5.3, App. E.2, Eqs. (5.17)–(5.18)] Sec. 5.3 and App. E.2, Eqs. (5.17)–(5.18): the heavy-loop reduction introduces a momentum-dependent cutoff Λ(u)=μ̃^2/(c κ|ξ|u), a fitted c≃1.27, and an ad-hoc g(μ̃)=(μ̃^{−2}+0.06 μ̃^{−1}) needed to match the full four-dimensional integral (Fig. 3). While ordinary for asymptotic matching, the absolute prefactor of P^id_ζ in the weak heavy regime is therefore not parameter-free. Please quote the residual theory uncertainty on (5.18) when it is combined with C in (6.18), and show (or cite) how much the weak-regime blue-band edge in Fig. 4 moves under plausible variations of c and g.
  3. [Sec. 7, Table 1, Fig. 9] Sec. 7 and Table 1: the lattice sample is sparse in the strong regime (few points with C≳1, m̄ up to ~17, far below the ‘few hundred’ target), and Fig. 9 is used only for a factor-of-a-few comparison. The claim that strong backreaction with CMB-safe scalars is attainable for m̄~O(100) is therefore an extrapolation. Either add runs at larger m̄ and C, or clearly label the O(100) window as an analytical extrapolation beyond the simulated domain and weaken the wording in the abstract and Conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.12)] Eq. (4.12) and Fig. 1: the κ rescaling that aligns the Bessel peak with the lower edge of the instability band is well motivated, but the text should state more clearly that it is a matching prescription (not a controlled expansion) when |ξ|~m̄, as already noted in App. D.1.
  2. [Sec. 6.4] Sec. 6.4, Eq. (6.20)–(6.21): the EFT bound m<4πf is useful; a short remark on how it intersects the blue band of Fig. 4 for the benchmark C~1, |ξ|−m̄~O(1) cases would help the reader.
  3. [Note added] Note added / Ref. [70]: since a closely related work appeared during finalisation, a slightly more explicit comparison of assumptions (mass regime, treatment of backreaction, presence/absence of lattices) would help priority and scope without needing a full re-analysis.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1: define more precisely how C_rep and the tabulated P^id_ζ plateau are extracted (time window, k-binning), so that the analytical–lattice ratios in Fig. 9 are reproducible.
  5. Typos/notation: inconsistent use of m_A vs m vs m̄ in figure captions (e.g. Fig. 5–7); ‘W eak’ line breaks in headings; ensure ξkη>0 convention is stated once when Bessel arguments are written with ξ rather than |ξ|.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: mass scalings follow from independent mode-function and backreaction integrals, not from definitions or fitted external targets.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain starts from the Proca-plus-axial action (2.1), derives the tachyonic band and Whittaker/Bessel mode functions (Secs. 3–4), computes vacuum-subtracted ρ_A and ⟨E·B⟩ (4.19), and evaluates the inverse-decay loop for P_id_ζ (Sec. 5, App. E). The backreaction parameter C (6.2) is an independent background observable built from ⟨E·B⟩; combining C with P_id_ζ merely eliminates the shared exponential exp[2π(|ξ|−m̄)] to expose the residual m̄ power laws (6.18–6.19). That algebra is not self-definitional. Order-one matching constants (c≃1.27, c_ℓ≃0.04, c_f, g) are fixed against the paper’s own loop integrals or left as O(1) uncertainty bands, not fitted to CMB data and then re-predicted. Lattice runs test the same quantities rather than close a definitional loop. Self-citations point to massless axion-gauge literature and the Pencil Code tool chain; none supply a uniqueness theorem that forces the massive-case result. The mild-regime friction kernel (6.9–6.11) is explicitly phenomenological, which is a robustness issue, not circularity. Central claims are therefore not equivalent to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The claim rests on the standard axion–Proca effective action, quasi-de Sitter slow-roll, neglect of metric backreaction on δφ at leading order, a phenomenological velocity expansion for gauge friction on perturbations, and several order-one matching parameters in the heavy-loop and friction kernels. No new particle beyond a massive Abelian vector with axial coupling is introduced; UV origin of m is left open.

free parameters (5)
  • Matching cutoff constant c in heavy time integral = c ≃ 1.27
    Defines Λ(u)=μ̃²/(c κ |ξ| u); set to c≃1.27 by comparison to the full numerical loop integral (Sec. 5.3, E.2).
  • Heavy-loop prefactor c_ℓ = c_ℓ ≃ 0.04
    Integral of G(Λ)²/Λ⁷ evaluated numerically as ≃0.04 (Eq. E.50); controls absolute P_id normalisation.
  • Friction-kernel matching c_f = c_f = 1 (benchmark)
    Analogous cutoff ambiguity in the friction-dominated Green function; authors use c_f=1 as benchmark without a universal lattice fit (Sec. 6.2).
  • Correction g(μ̃)=(μ̃^{-2}+0.06 μ̃^{-1}) = 0.06 coefficient in 1/μ̃ term
    Ad hoc improvement factor so the heavy closed form tracks the full-bracket numerical integral (Eq. 5.18).
  • Axial coupling α/f and mass m (model inputs) = e.g. α/f ~ 750–2300/m_P, m̄ ~ 4.75–16.89 in runs
    Scanned simulation parameters (Table 1); not fitted to CMB but chosen to sample weak/mild/strong C at various m̄.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Effective action is Einstein gravity + canonical inflaton + Proca vector + axial ϕ F F̃ coupling (Eq. 2.1), with mass from Higgs/Stueckelberg/thermal effects restoring gauge invariance in the UV.
    Starting point of Sec. 2; mass term breaks gauge invariance at EFT level by construction.
  • domain assumption Quasi-de Sitter background with approximately constant H and ξ during the production window.
    Used to reduce mode equations to Whittaker form (Sec. 3–4).
  • domain assumption Metric-induced terms in the δφ equation are slow-roll suppressed and can be dropped when computing inverse decay (Eq. 5.1).
    Standard flat-gauge slow-roll approximation stated in Sec. 5.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Gauge-source dependence on ϕ̇ can be expanded locally so that ∂⟨E·B⟩/∂ϕ̇ yields an extra friction ν_f≃2π|ξ|C on δφ without a full retarded gauge Green function.
    Sec. 6.2 explicitly calls this phenomenological and cites warm-inflation analogy [68].
  • standard math Bunch–Davies initial conditions and standard mode quantisation for Proca and inflaton fluctuations.
    Appendix C; conventional QFT-in-curved-spacetime setup.
  • domain assumption EFT cutoff estimate Λ_EFT≃4π f with requirement m<4π f.
    Sec. 6.4 dimensional-analysis bound; UV-dependent.
invented entities (2)
  • Backreaction parameter C ≡ α|⟨E·B⟩|/(f a⁴ 3H|ϕ̇|)
    purpose: Single dimensionless measure separating weak, mild (C≳1/(2π|ξ|)), and strong (C≳1) regimes.
    Definition Eq. 6.2; bookkeeping device, not a new physical field.
  • κ matching factor for Bessel argument near narrow instability
    purpose: Rescales late-time Bessel solution so the peak tracks the lower edge of the instability band when m̄→|ξ|.
    Eq. 4.12; pure approximation device validated against Whittaker numerics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Axion Inflation with a Massive Abelian Gauge Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPBOSOEF

@misc{pith2026260728593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Axion Inflation with a Massive Abelian Gauge Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPBOSOEF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28593}
}
abstract

An axial coupling between an inflaton and an Abelian gauge field can trigger the tachyonic amplification of one gauge-field helicity. For a massless vector, modes with physical momentum $k/a\sim |\xi|H$ are enhanced by approximately $\exp(\pi|\xi|)$, and sufficiently efficient production can provide substantial friction for the homogeneous inflaton. We extend this mechanism to a vector of mass $m$. The instability is present only for $|\xi|>\bar m\equiv m/H$, and in the heavy regime the mode amplitude scales as $\exp[\pi(|\xi|-\bar m)]$. Because the amplified modes remain well inside the Hubble radius when $\bar m\gg1$, their contribution to long-wavelength curvature perturbations is power-law suppressed at fixed background backreaction. In the weak-backreaction regime we obtain ${\cal P}^{\rm id}_{\zeta} \propto \bar m^{-2}$, while including the gauge-induced friction of scalar perturbations gives the scaling ${\cal P}^{\rm id}_{\zeta}\propto \bar{m}^{-3}$. These estimates indicate that ${\cal P}^{\rm id}_{\zeta}\lesssim 10^{-9}$ on CMB scales should be compatible with gauge field backreaction for $\bar{m}$ larger than order a few hundred. We test the analytical mode functions and backreaction estimates with the first lattice simulations based on a massive-vector extension of the \texttt{Pencil Code}, including simulations in the strongly backreacting regime.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 54 linked inside Pith

  1. [70]

    M. J. Baker, J. Iguaz Juan and L. Sorbo,Stability in Axion Inflation with Strong Backreaction from a Massive Vector Boson,2607.22893

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    ’t Hooft,Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,Phys

    G. ’t Hooft,Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,Phys. Rev. Lett.37(1976) 8–11

    1976

  3. [2]

    ’t Hooft,Computation of the Quantum Effects Due to a Four-Dimensional Pseudoparticle, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft,Computation of the Quantum Effects Due to a Four-Dimensional Pseudoparticle, Phys. Rev. D14(1976) 3432–3450

    1976

  4. [3]

    Coleman,Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures

    S. Coleman,Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1985, 10.1017/CBO9780511565045

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511565045 1985

  5. [4]

    R. D. Peccei,The Strong CP problem and axions,Lect. Notes Phys.741(2008) 3–17, [hep-ph/0607268]. – 47 –

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Kawasaki and K

    M. Kawasaki and K. Nakayama,Axions: Theory and Cosmological Role,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63(2013) 69–95, [1301.1123]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Baumann and L

    D. Baumann and L. McAllister,Inflation and String Theory. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 5, 2015, 10.1017/CBO9781316105733

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781316105733 2015

  8. [7]

    D. J. E. Marsh,Axion Cosmology,Phys. Rept.643(2016) 1–79, [1510.07633]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field and R. Jackiw,Limits on a Lorentz and Parity Violating Modification of Electrodynamics,Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 1231

    1990

  2. [9]

    S. M. Carroll,Quintessence and the rest of the world,Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 3067–3070, [astro-ph/9806099]

    1998 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A. A. Andrianov, R. Soldati and L. Sorbo,Dynamical Lorentz symmetry breaking from (3+1) Axion-Wess-Zumino model,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 025002, [hep-th/9806220]

    1999 arXiv

  4. [11]

    M. M. Anber and L. Sorbo,Naturally inflating on steep potentials through electromagnetic dissipation,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 043534, [0908.4089]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bastero-Gil and A

    M. Bastero-Gil and A. T. Manso,Parity violating gravitational waves at the end of inflation, JCAP08(2023) 001, [2209.15572]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Niu and M

    X. Niu and M. H. Rahat,NANOGrav signal from axion inflation,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 115023, [2307.01192]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Barbon, N

    M. Barbon, N. Ijaz and M. Peloso,Axion inflation in the regime of homogeneous backreaction, JCAP06(2026) 013, [2510.17207]

    2026

  8. [15]

    Caravano and M

    A. Caravano and M. Peloso,Unveiling the nonlinear dynamics of a rolling axion during inflation,JCAP01(2025) 104, [2407.13405]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Iarygina, E

    O. Iarygina, E. I. Sfakianakis and A. Brandenburg,Schwinger effect in axion inflation on a lattice,2506.20538

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    W. D. Garretson, G. B. Field and S. M. Carroll,Primordial magnetic fields from pseudoGoldstone bosons,Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 5346–5351, [hep-ph/9209238]

    1992 arXiv

  11. [18]

    G. B. Field and S. M. Carroll,Cosmological magnetic fields from primordial helicity,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 103008, [astro-ph/9811206]

    2000 arXiv

  12. [19]

    M. M. Anber and L. Sorbo,N-flationary magnetic fields,JCAP10(2006) 018, [astro-ph/0606534]

    2006 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Barnaby, R

    N. Barnaby, R. Namba and M. Peloso,Phenomenology of a Pseudo-Scalar Inflaton: Naturally Large Nongaussianity,JCAP04(2011) 009, [1102.4333]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    J. L. Cook and L. Sorbo,Particle production during inflation and gravitational waves detectable by ground-based interferometers,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 023534, [1109.0022]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Linde, S

    A. Linde, S. Mooij and E. Pajer,Gauge field production in supergravity inflation: Local non-Gaussianity and primordial black holes,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 103506, [1212.1693]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Caprini and L

    C. Caprini and L. Sorbo,Adding helicity to inflationary magnetogenesis,JCAP10(2014) 056, [1407.2809]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [24]

    R. Z. Ferreira and M. S. Sloth,Universal Constraints on Axions from Inflation,JHEP12 (2014) 139, [1409.5799]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [25]

    R. Z. Ferreira, J. Ganc, J. Nore˜ na and M. S. Sloth,On the validity of the perturbative description of axions during inflation,JCAP04(2016) 039, [1512.06116]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Adshead, J

    P. Adshead, J. T. Giblin, T. R. Scully and E. I. Sfakianakis,Magnetogenesis from axion inflation,JCAP10(2016) 039, [1606.08474]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Notari and K

    A. Notari and K. Tywoniuk,Dissipative Axial Inflation,JCAP12(2016) 038, [1608.06223]. – 48 –

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    R. Z. Ferreira and A. Notari,Thermalized Axion Inflation,JCAP09(2017) 007, [1706.00373]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    R. Z. Ferreira and A. Notari,Thermalized axion inflation: natural and monomial inflation with smallr,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 063528, [1711.07483]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Domcke and K

    V. Domcke and K. Mukaida,Gauge Field and Fermion Production during Axion Inflation, JCAP11(2018) 020, [1806.08769]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Caravano, E

    A. Caravano, E. Komatsu, K. D. Lozanov and J. Weller,Lattice simulations of Abelian gauge fields coupled to axions during inflation,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 123530, [2110.10695]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Caravano, E

    A. Caravano, E. Komatsu, K. D. Lozanov and J. Weller,Lattice simulations of axion-U(1) inflation,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 043504, [2204.12874]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    D. G. Figueroa, J. Lizarraga, A. Urio and J. Urrestilla,Strong Backreaction Regime in Axion Inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 151003, [2303.17436]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    von Eckardstein, M

    R. von Eckardstein, M. Peloso, K. Schmitz, O. Sobol and L. Sorbo,Axion inflation in the strong-backreaction regime: decay of the Anber-Sorbo solution,JHEP11(2023) 183, [2309.04254]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Sharma, A

    R. Sharma, A. Brandenburg, K. Subramanian and A. Vikman,Lattice simulations of axion-U(1) inflation: gravitational waves, magnetic fields, and scalar statistics,JCAP05 (2025) 079, [2411.04854]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [36]

    D. G. Figueroa, J. Lizarraga, N. Loayza, A. Urio and J. Urrestilla,Nonlinear dynamics of axion inflation: A detailed lattice study,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 063545, [2411.16368]

    2025

  30. [37]

    von Eckardstein, K

    R. von Eckardstein, K. Schmitz and O. Sobol,Gravitational waves from axion inflation in the gradient expansion formalism. Part I. Pure axion inflation,JHEP01(2026) 018, [2508.00798]

    2026 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Jamieson, A

    D. Jamieson, A. Caravano and E. Komatsu,Primordial power spectrum and bispectrum from lattice simulations of axion-U(1) inflation,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 103531, [2507.22285]

    2025

  32. [39]

    O. O. Sobol, R. von Eckardstein, E. R. Koch, S. V. Gurevich, U. Thiele and K. Schmitz, Nonlinear physics of axion inflation,JHEP06(2026) 166, [2603.02570]

    2026

  33. [40]

    Franciolini, N

    G. Franciolini, N. Ijaz and M. Peloso,Primordial black hole dark matter from axion inflation, 2604.27496

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    Freese, J

    K. Freese, J. A. Frieman and A. V. Olinto,Natural inflation with pseudo - Nambu-Goldstone bosons,Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990) 3233–3236

    1990

  35. [42]

    N. K. Stein and W. H. Kinney,Natural inflation after Planck 2018,JCAP01(2022) 022, [2106.02089]. [43]Atacama Cosmology Telescopecollaboration, E. Calabrese et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models,JCAP11(2025) 063, [2503.14454]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Banks, M

    T. Banks, M. Dine, P. J. Fox and E. Gorbatov,On the possibility of large axion decay constants,JCAP06(2003) 001, [hep-th/0303252]

    2003 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten,Axions In String Theory,JHEP06(2006) 051, [hep-th/0605206]

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Palti,The Swampland: Introduction and Review,Fortsch

    E. Palti,The Swampland: Introduction and Review,Fortsch. Phys.67(2019) 1900037, [1903.06239]. [47]Planckcollaboration, Y. Akrami et al.,Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A10, [1807.06211]. [48]BICEP, Keckcollaboration, P. A. R. Ade e...

    2019 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Ruegg and M

    H. Ruegg and M. Ruiz-Altaba,The Stueckelberg field,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19(2004) 3265–3348, [hep-th/0304245]

    2004 arXiv

  40. [50]

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon and S. Rajendran,Vector Dark Matter from Inflationary Fluctuations,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 103520, [1504.02102]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Wang and Z.-Z

    L.-T. Wang and Z.-Z. Xianyu,Gauge Boson Signals at the Cosmological Collider,JHEP11 (2020) 082, [2004.02887]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [52]

    E. W. Kolb and A. J. Long,Completely dark photons from gravitational particle production during the inflationary era,JHEP03(2021) 283, [2009.03828]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Bastero-Gil, J

    M. Bastero-Gil, J. Santiago, R. Vega-Morales and L. Ubaldi,Dark photon dark matter from a rolling inflaton,JCAP02(2022) 015, [2103.12145]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [54]

    A. V. Lysenko, O. O. Sobol and S. I. Vilchinskii,Vector dark matter production during inflation in the gradient-expansion formalism,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 063525, [2509.24963]

    2026

  45. [55]

    Dimopoulos and M

    K. Dimopoulos and M. Karciauskas,Parity Violating Statistical Anisotropy,JHEP06(2012) 040, [1203.0230]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [56]

    S. Lu, Y. Wang and Z.-Z. Xianyu,A Cosmological Higgs Collider,JHEP02(2020) 011, [1907.07390]. [57]Pencil Codecollaboration, A. Brandenburg et al.,The Pencil Code, a modular MPI code for partial differential equations and particles: multipurpose and multiuser-maintained,J. Open...

    2020 arXiv

  47. [58]

    X. Niu, M. H. Rahat, K. Srinivasan and W. Xue,Parity-odd and even trispectrum from axion inflation,JCAP05(2023) 018, [2211.14324]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [59]

    X. Niu, M. H. Rahat, K. Srinivasan and W. Xue,Gravitational wave probes of massive gauge bosons at the cosmological collider,JCAP02(2023) 013, [2211.14331]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [60]

    A. A. Starobinsky and J. Yokoyama,Equilibrium state of a selfinteracting scalar field in the De Sitter background,Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 6357–6368, [astro-ph/9407016]

    1994 arXiv

  50. [61]

    Gorghetto, E

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, H. Nicolaescu, A. Notari and M. Redi,Early vs late string networks from a minimal QCD Axion,JHEP02(2024) 223, [2311.09315]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [62]

    D’Eramo, R

    F. D’Eramo, R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari and J. L. Bernal,Hot Axions and theH 0 tension,JCAP 11(2018) 014, [1808.07430]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [63]

    Langacker,The Physics of HeavyZ ′ Gauge Bosons,Rev

    P. Langacker,The Physics of HeavyZ ′ Gauge Bosons,Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009) 1199–1228, [0801.1345]

    2009 arXiv

  53. [64]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions

    “NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions.”https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.5 of 2025-12-15

    2025

  54. [65]

    Agrawal, N

    P. Agrawal, N. Kitajima, M. Reece, T. Sekiguchi and F. Takahashi,Relic Abundance of Dark Photon Dark Matter,Phys. Lett. B801(2020) 135136, [1810.07188]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [66]

    K. A. Malik and D. Wands,Cosmological perturbations,Phys. Rept.475(2009) 1–51, [0809.4944]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [67]

    T. M. Dunster,Bessel Functions of Purely Imaginary Order, with an Application to Second-Order Linear Differential Equations Having a Large Parameter,SIAM J. Math. Anal. 21(1990) 995–1018

    1990

  57. [68]

    Laine and S

    M. Laine and S. Procacci,Minimal warm inflation with complete medium response,JCAP06 (2021) 031, [2102.09913]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [69]

    Cheng, W

    S.-L. Cheng, W. Lee and K.-W. Ng,Numerical study of pseudoscalar inflation with an axion-gauge field coupling,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 063510, [1508.00251]. – 50 –

    2016 arXiv

  59. [71]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik,Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. Academic Press, 6 ed., 2000

    2000

  60. [72]

    Fumagalli, S

    J. Fumagalli, S. Bhattacharya, M. Peloso, S. Renaux-Petel and L. T. Witkowski,One-loop infrared rescattering by enhanced scalar fluctuations during inflation,JCAP04(2024) 029, [2307.08358]. – 51 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.