Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Preheated inflation

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

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

Pith's one-line read A narrow parametric resonance can sustain a non-thermal radiation bath throughout slow-roll inflation and imprint oscillatory features on the curvature power spectrum and secondary gravitational waves.

desk verdict A genuinely new slow-roll resonance mechanism with two testable imprints, but the quantitative predictions lean on a Hartree approximation whose errors are not yet bounded. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13156 v1 pith:K42KRHLP submitted 2025-07-17 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

Diogo S. Gorgulho , João G. Rosa This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords preheatedinflationparametricresonanceparticleproductionduringnon-thermalradiationbathprimordialcurvaturepowerspectrumsecondarygravitationalwavesCMBobservablesU(1)symmetrybreaking
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 proposes that inflationary slow-roll itself can host preheating-like particle production, without waiting for reheating. The mechanism is a narrow parametric resonance: a spectator scalar's mass oscillates as the slowly rolling inflaton moves, so its quantum modes pass through a Mathieu instability band and are exponentially amplified. The paper argues that this sustains a subdominant, non-thermal radiation bath throughout inflation, with the backreaction on the inflaton small enough to preserve the required 50-60 e-folds. If correct, the effect leaves two observational imprints — sinusoidal oscillations in the primordial curvature power spectrum and a secondary gravitational-wave background — that future CMB experiments could detect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Mathieu-like mode equation $X''_k + [A_k(z) - 2q\cos(2z)] X_k = 0$ for the rescaled spectator modes, with $q = (M/\dot{\phi})^2 g^2M^2/2 \ll 1$ and $A_k \approx 1$ inside the first resonance band. Floquet theory gives the exponential growth exponent $\mu_k = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{q^2 - (A_k - 1)^2}$, and the resonance efficiency is summarized by $\xi = \pi q^2/(2\gamma)$ with $\gamma = (q/2)\sqrt{\epsilon_V}\,(M/M_P)$. This equation controls the occupation-number step function per mode; in turn the backreaction is packaged as an effective potential $\mathcal{V}(\phi) = V(\phi) + \Lambda^4\cos(2\phi/M)$, whose sinusoidal term drives the predicted power-spectrum oscillations and gravitational-wave signal.

What would settle it

A full lattice or 3+1D simulation of the coupled inflaton-spectator system including beyond-Hartree backreaction that yields a radiation density comparable to or exceeding the inflaton energy density, or that stops slow-roll before 50 e-folds, would falsify the subdominant-bath picture; observationally, CMB data that bound the oscillatory power-spectrum amplitude below the predicted $\delta n_s \approx 0.1$ level and the consistency-relation deviation below the predicted $\sim 20\%$ would exclude the benchmark parameter regions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that particle production during inflation does not require broad, explosive resonance: a narrow resonance ($q \ll 1$) in the first Mathieu band is enough to build a quasi-stationary bath of relativistic scalars. In the proposed U(1)-symmetric two-field construction the spectator field has mass $m_\chi^2 = 2g^2M^2\sin^2(\phi/M)$, so a monotonic slow roll becomes an oscillatory driving term. Modes with physical momentum near $p_c = 2H/\gamma$ cross the band and are amplified by $e^{\xi}$ with $\xi = \pi q^2/(2\gamma)$, while Hubble expansion continuously feeds new modes into the band, balancing dilution. The Hartree backreaction is then an oscillatory modulation $\Lambda^4\cos(2\phi/M)$ of the effective potential; on average it leaves slow-roll intact, but it imprints oscillations on the curvature power spectrum and sources tensor perturbations whose amplitude is set by $e^{2\xi}$. The paper demonstrates these effects for quadratic monomial and quadratic hilltop potentials and maps the allowed $(g,M)$ parameter space.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the backreaction of the produced particles on the inflaton is well described by the Hartree approximation, replacing $\chi^2$ by $\langle\chi^2\rangle$ in the equation of motion, with the radiative correction and all beyond-Hartree corrections subdominant; if those neglected terms are significant, the oscillatory effective potential and every predicted signature change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A subdominant non-thermal radiation bath can be maintained during slow-roll inflation without thermal equilibrium, and in parts of parameter space $\rho_\chi$ approaches $\rho_\phi$ near the end of inflation, potentially removing the need for a separate reheating stage.
  • The curvature power spectrum acquires sinusoidal oscillations with amplitude $3\Lambda^4/(\epsilon_{V*}V_*)\sqrt{2\pi/\gamma_*}$, and compatibility with current CMB data requires $\delta n_s \lesssim 0.1$, making the effect testable by future CMB surveys.
  • The spectator particles source secondary gravitational waves, contributing $\Delta_t^2(k) \simeq \frac{128}{225}(e^{2\xi_k} - 1)\frac{H_k^4}{\gamma_k^5 M_P^4}$ to the tensor spectrum; for the hilltop example this shifts the tensor tilt by about 30% and the consistency relation by about 20%.
  • Inflaton fluctuations undergo a secondary, weaker resonance with $q_\phi = (g^2/8\pi^2)e^{\xi-q}$, which slightly shifts the scalar spectral index and suppresses $r$ by $e^{-\xi_\phi}$.
  • With two spectator species whose masses oscillate in quadrature, the leading Hartree backreaction cancels, leaving only subleading corrections and a stable inflaton remnant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the non-thermal bath is coupled to Standard Model fields, the same resonance could set relic abundances (for example gravitinos or dark matter) through its eventual decay and thermalization; the paper does not quantify this.
  • A natural next step is to push toward the broad-resonance regime ($q \gtrsim 1$); if explosive production sets in, radiation could quickly dominate and the subdominance assumption would break, so the narrow-band constraints are likely the conservative boundary of the mechanism.
  • The predicted deviation of $-r/(8n_t)$ from unity by about 20% is a sharper target than the oscillatory amplitude: a future CMB experiment that measures the consistency relation to percent-level precision could confirm or exclude the resonance for the hilltop benchmark.
  • The same collective-symmetry construction could be adapted to fermionic production such as right-handed neutrinos, but Pauli blocking would cap occupation numbers and likely weaken the backreaction signatures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a new mechanism of non-thermal particle production during inflation, based on a narrow parametric resonance in the mass of a scalar field χ coupled to the inflaton. The inflaton is identified with the relative phase of two complex scalars that spontaneously break a U(1) symmetry, leading to m_χ^2(φ) = 2g^2 M^2 sin^2(φ/M). During slow roll, the inflaton's monotonic motion makes the χ mass oscillate in time, and the authors show that modes can pass through the first Mathieu stability band with narrow resonance parameter q ≪ 1. They derive the comoving number density and energy density of produced χ particles, Eq. (2.11), and compute the Hartree backreaction on the inflaton background, obtaining an effective potential with a small oscillatory modulation (Eq. (3.7)). This modulation leads to oscillatory features in the curvature power spectrum (Eq. (3.13)) and to a secondary gravitational-wave contribution (Eq. (4.14)). Two example potentials, quadratic monomial and quadratic hilltop, are used to illustrate the allowed parameter space and the expected signal strengths.

Significance. Should the mechanism hold up under more detailed scrutiny, it would provide a novel way of sustaining a subdominant non-thermal radiation bath during inflation, with two distinctive observational signatures: oscillatory features in the curvature power spectrum and a scale-invariant secondary gravitational-wave background. The paper's analytic treatment is internally consistent, and it is honest about the main limitation: the Hartree approximation for backreaction is used without a full control of neglected terms. The derivation of closed-form expressions for the particle densities, the effective potential, and the tensor spectrum is a useful starting point for further work, and the authors identify explicit benchmark regimes with observable consequences.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.2)] The treatment of the Coleman-Weinberg term is not satisfactory. Choosing µ = mχ to make ΔV'_CW vanish is problematic because µ is a constant renormalization scale in the MS scheme while mχ = mχ(φ) is field-dependent; a field-dependent µ is not an admissible renormalization prescription. The subsequent claim that the CW term is subleading for H < µ < M_P is asserted without presenting the numerical comparison for the benchmark models. Since the effective potential (3.7), the oscillatory power-spectrum correction (3.13), and the secondary GW spectrum (4.14) all depend on neglecting this term, this is a load-bearing assumption that must be substantiated.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.4)–(3.7) and footnote 5] The entire backreaction of χ production on the inflaton is computed in the Hartree approximation, replacing χ^2 by ⟨χ^2⟩ and neglecting mode-mixing, renormalization-sensitive, and beyond-Hartree corrections. The paper itself acknowledges in footnote 5 that a more rigorous study of this system is of interest, and no quantitative estimate of the neglected terms is provided. Because the central claim—that a narrow parametric resonance can be efficient while preserving slow-roll inflation with subdominant radiation—rests on this approximation, the predictions in Eqs. (3.13) and (4.14) are not yet fully controlled. A lattice simulation or an explicit estimate of the leading neglected contributions for the benchmark points would be needed to validate the mechanism.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.9)–(2.11), and Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.6)] The derivation of nχ, ρχ, and ⟨χ^2⟩ uses a cutoff at k_RB and treats the vacuum 1/2 terms heuristically, without specifying a renormalization prescription. The resulting ⟨χ^2⟩ enters directly into the backreaction term in Eq. (3.7), so the predictions depend on this regularization choice. The authors should either justify the cutoff procedure or demonstrate that the final observables are insensitive to the treatment of the zero-point contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.5)] The parameter q is defined with a factor of 1/2 relative to the conventional Mathieu parameter in Eq. (1.1); please clarify the normalization to avoid confusion.
  2. [Sec. 2, Figure 1 caption] The phrase 'not excluded by the conditions q/γ < π (orange)' is ambiguous; presumably the region q/γ < π is excluded, rather than allowed.
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'Fo these reasons' contains a typo; it should be 'For these reasons'.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.13)] Since τ_e is negative in the conformal-time convention, the statement 'kτ_e ≪ 1' should be phrased as '|kτ_e| ≪ 1' for clarity.
  5. [Sec. 5] The phrase 'meaurable changes' should be 'measurable changes'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the oscillatory curvature spectrum and secondary GW spectrum are forward computations from microphysical parameters; the paper's self-citations (Mathieu formulas, WLI setup, oscillation averaging) are background or independently rederived.

full rationale

We walked the derivation chain. Eq. (2.5) is a Mathieu equation obtained directly from the Lagrangian (2.2) and field parametrization (2.1); the production densities (2.11) follow from the Floquet exponent (2.6) together with Eq. (2.8) from Ref. [14]. Although Ref. [14] is a self-citation by author Rosa, it is an external, parameter-free Mathieu result with stated assumptions, and the paper notes it slightly underestimates the numerical solution; it does not assume the target preheated-inflation result. The backreaction equation (3.7) is obtained by the Hartree replacement plus first-order expansion, not by fitting to observables. The curvature-power-spectrum correction (3.13) is imported from the external Ref. [50] and applied to the independently derived Lambda^4, so it is a forward application rather than a redefinition. The inflaton-fluctuation resonance (3.15) and the secondary GW result (4.14) are built from the same computed chi occupation numbers; no observable is obtained by inverting model parameters from the signal. The WLI references [33,34] provide the Lagrangian but are not load-bearing, since the Lagrangian is stated explicitly in Eq. (2.2). Ref. [38] (same group) is cited for oscillation averaging, but the average in Eq. (3.12) is computed in the text. The paper's own footnote 5 is an honest limitation: the Hartree approximation is adopted without the subdominance analysis of Ref. [7], and the vacuum-subtraction step in Eq. (3.6) is heuristic. These are rigor gaps affecting correctness risk, not circularity, because the production calculation is a forward computation from stated parameters. Score 2 reflects minor, non-load-bearing self-citations rather than any reduction of the central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions depend on the model parameters g and M, which are scanned rather than derived, and on the assumed slow-roll background and the WLI-style particle physics setup. The main physical assumptions are the Mathieu/Floquet treatment, the Hartree approximation for backreaction, and the use of known results for oscillatory power spectra. No new entities are introduced beyond the χ field, which already appears in the prior WLI model.

free parameters (3)
  • g
    Coupling between the U(1)-charged scalars and the production field χ. It is scanned over g < 1 and set by hand in the benchmarks (e.g., g = 0.35 and 0.2). All predictions depend on it through q, γ, and ξ.
  • M
    Vacuum expectation value of the U(1)-breaking complex scalars, setting the scale of the χ mass oscillation. It is scanned in the ~10^15 GeV range and chosen by hand in the examples.
  • Inflaton potential parameters (m for quadratic monomial; V0 and κ for hilltop)
    The illustrative potentials are fixed by hand plus the CMB normalization. Predictions for power spectra and gravitational waves depend on these choices.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Floquet/Mathieu theory applies to the mode equation with adiabatically varying parameters.
    Used in Sec. 2 to compute Floquet exponents and occupation numbers; requires q and γ to be slowly varying, argued to hold for γ << 1.
  • domain assumption The χ field mass term is m_χ^2(φ) = 2g^2M^2 sin^2(φ/M) and higher-order interactions are neglected.
    Introduced in the Lagrangian (2.2); the paper discards the heavy h1,2 and Aμ degrees of freedom.
  • domain assumption The Hartree approximation captures the leading backreaction on the inflaton.
    Eq. (3.4) and surrounding text; the authors explicitly note in footnote 5 that a more rigorous study is of interest.
  • domain assumption The inflaton velocity φ̇ is approximately constant during each resonance crossing, so m_χ oscillates with frequency φ̇/M.
    Used to write Eq. (2.5); justified by the short band-crossing time Δt = q/H << 1/H.
  • domain assumption The effective potential correction is small enough to use first-order perturbation theory for the background and power spectrum.
    Used to derive the power spectrum correction via Ref. [50] in Sec. 3.1 and to keep the analysis linear in Λ^4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Preheated inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K42KRHLP

@misc{pith2026250713156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Preheated inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K42KRHLP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13156}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a new mechanism of non-thermal particle production during inflation based on a narrow parametric resonance, akin to the dynamics of post-inflationary preheating. The mechanism is based on the production of scalar particles with a mass that is an oscillating function of the slowly-rolling inflaton field. This is achieved in a scenario for the collective spontaneous breaking of a U(1) gauge symmetry that, while originally proposed in the context of warm inflation, leads to non-equilibrium particle production sustaining a (sub-dominant) non-thermal radiation bath throughout inflation. We show that this may leave an observational imprint, namely oscillatory features in the primordial curvature power spectrum alongside a (mild) resonant enhancement of its amplitude, as well as secondary gravitational waves that can be probed with future CMB experiments.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347-356 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.347 1981

  2. [2]

    A. D. Linde, Lect. Notes Phys. 738, 1-54 (2008) doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74353-8 1 [arXiv:0705.0164 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389-393 (1982) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9 1982

  4. [4]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 129, 177-181 (1983) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90837-7

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90837-7 1983

  5. [5]

    Riotto, ICTP Lect

    A. Riotto, ICTP Lect. Notes Ser. 14, 317-413 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0210162 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3195-3198 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.3195 [arXiv:hep-th/9405187 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1994

  7. [7]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D 56, 3258-3295 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3258 [arXiv:hep-ph/9704452 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    Braden, L

    J. Braden, L. Kofman and N. Barnaby, JCAP 07, 016 (2010) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/07/016 [arXiv:1005.2196 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Albrecht, P

    A. Albrecht, P. J. Steinhardt, M. S. Turner and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1437 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1437

    1982 doi

  2. [10]

    A. D. Dolgov and A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 116, 329 (1982) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90292-1

    1982 doi

  3. [11]

    L. F. Abbott, E. Farhi and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 117, 29 (1982) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90867-X

    1982 doi

  4. [12]

    N. W. McLachlan, Clarendon Press (1947)

    1947

  5. [13]

    Olver, D

    F. Olver, D. Lozier, R. Boisvert, C. Clark, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    J. G. Rosa and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 77, 126004 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.126004 [arXiv:0711.0658 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Baacke, K

    J. Baacke, K. Heitmann and C. Patzold, Phys. Rev. D 58, 125013 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.125013 [arXiv:hep-ph/9806205 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. B. Greene and L. Kofman, Phys. Lett. B 448, 6-12 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00020-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9807339 [hep-ph]]. – 22 –

    1999 arXiv

  9. [17]

    P. B. Greene and L. Kofman, Phys. Rev. D 62, 123516 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.123516 [arXiv:hep-ph/0003018 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. T. Deskins, J. T. Giblin and R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.6, 063530 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063530 [arXiv:1305.7226 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D. J. H. Chung, E. W. Kolb, A. Riotto and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043508 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043508 [arXiv:hep-ph/9910437 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. L. Cook and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D 85, 023534 (2012) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 86, 069901 (2012)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.023534 [arXiv:1109.0022 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Creminelli, S

    P. Creminelli, S. Kumar, B. Salehian and L. Santoni, JCAP 08, 076 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/076 [arXiv:2305.07695 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Durrer, O

    R. Durrer, O. Sobol and S. Vilchinskii, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.4, 043540 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043540 [arXiv:2303.04583 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Barnaby and Z

    N. Barnaby and Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 80, 126018 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.126018 [arXiv:0909.0751 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Z. Yu, C. Fu and Z. K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.12, 123509 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123509 [arXiv:2307.03120 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, no.16, 163001 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aac608 [arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. C. Guzzetti, N. Bartolo, M. Liguori and S. Matarrese, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39, no.9, 399-495 (2016) doi:10.1393/ncr/i2016-10127-1 [arXiv:1605.01615 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L. A. Boyle and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063504 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.063504 [arXiv:astro-ph/0512014 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Berera, Phys

    A. Berera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3218-3221 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3218 [arXiv:astro-ph/9509049 [astro-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Berera and L

    A. Berera and L. Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1912-1915 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1912 [arXiv:astro-ph/9501024 [astro-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Berera, I

    A. Berera, I. G. Moss and R. O. Ramos, Rept. Prog. Phys. 72, 026901 (2009) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/72/2/026901 [arXiv:0808.1855 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bastero-Gil and A

    M. Bastero-Gil and A. Berera, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 2207-2240 (2009) doi:10.1142/S0217751X09044206 [arXiv:0902.0521 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. Hern´ andez-Jim´ enez and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D99, no.10, 103520 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103520 [arXiv:1812.07296 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.15, 151301 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.151301 [arXiv:1604.08838 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Lett. B 813, 136055 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136055 [arXiv:1907.13410 [hep-ph]]

    2021

  27. [35]

    J. G. Rosa and L. B. Ventura, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134984 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134984 [arXiv:1906.11835 [hep-ph]]

    2019

  28. [36]

    J. G. Rosa and L. B. Ventura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.16, 161301 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.161301 [arXiv:1811.05493 [hep-ph]]. – 23 –

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. Levy, J. G. Rosa and L. B. Ventura, JHEP 12, 176 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)176 [arXiv:2012.03988 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    P. B. Ferraz and J. G. Rosa, JHEP 12, 176 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2023)176 [arXiv:2308.00564 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    K. V. Berghaus, P. W. Graham and D. E. Kaplan, JCAP 03, 034 (2020) [erratum: JCAP 10, E02 (2023)] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/034 [arXiv:1910.07525 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zell, [arXiv:2408.07746 [hep-ph]]

    S. Zell, [arXiv:2408.07746 [hep-ph]]

  33. [41]

    K. V. Berghaus, M. Drewes and S. Zell, [arXiv:2503.18829 [hep-ph]]

  34. [42]

    Ito and R

    A. Ito and R. O. Ramos, [arXiv:2504.15606 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Broadberry, A

    E. Broadberry, A. Hook and S. Mondal, [arXiv:2505.07943 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Baumann and L

    D. Baumann and L. McAllister, Cambridge University Press, 2015, ISBN 978-1-107-08969-3, 978-1-316-23718-2 doi:10.1017/CBO9781316105733 [arXiv:1404.2601 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887 [arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Calabrese et al

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

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 7, 1888-1910 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

    1973 doi

  40. [48]

    Armendariz-Picon, JCAP 05, 035 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/05/035 [arXiv:2003.01542 [gr-qc]]

    C. Armendariz-Picon, JCAP 05, 035 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/05/035 [arXiv:2003.01542 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kachelriess, Oxford University Press, 2022, ISBN 978-0-19-287349-1, 978-0-19-880287-7

    M. Kachelriess, Oxford University Press, 2022, ISBN 978-0-19-287349-1, 978-0-19-880287-7

    2022

  42. [50]

    Flauger and E

    R. Flauger and E. Pajer, JCAP 01, 017 (2011) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/01/017 [arXiv:1002.0833 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt, Academic Press, 2020, doi:10.1016/C2017-0-01943-2

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Pahud, M

    C. Pahud, M. Kamionkowski and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D 79, 083503 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.083503 [arXiv:0807.0322 [astro-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    M. Aich, D. K. Hazra, L. Sriramkumar and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D 87, 083526 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.083526 [arXiv:1106.2798 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Flauger, L

    R. Flauger, L. McAllister, E. Silverstein and A. Westphal, JCAP 10, 055 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/055 [arXiv:1412.1814 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti and W. Valkenburg, Comput. Phys. Commun. 283, 108586 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108586 [arXiv:2102.01031 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 24 –

    2023

Pith tools

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