Gravitational Dark Matter Production in Supergravity $\alpha$-Attractor Inflation

Chenhuan Wang; Wenbin Zhao

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Gravitational Dark Matter Production in Supergravity $\alpha$-Attractor Inflation

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A canonical supergravity embedding gives dark matter a Hubble-scale mass, suppressing gravitational production and blue-tilting isocurvature so that light dark matter needs reheating temperatures around $10^{3}$–$10^{7}$ GeV.

desk verdict Interesting light-field SUGRA GPP result, but an unflagged factor-of-three mismatch between the derived mass and the integrated one means the T_reh range is not yet trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15030 v2 pith:T7ECHSTC submitted 2024-11-22 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Chenhuan Wang , Wenbin Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.CO

keywords gravitationalparticleproductionsupergravityalpha-attractorinflationdarkmatterisocurvatureperturbationsreheatingtemperatureHubble-inducedmassKählerpotential

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

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 argues that embedding a gravitationally produced dark-matter scalar in supergravity changes the production story in a way that makes it viable over a wider mass range. The key effect is a positive Hubble-scale mass correction that the Kähler potential supplies to any canonically embedded scalar, the same effect behind the supersymmetric $\eta$ problem. This correction removes the tachyonic instability that otherwise makes light scalar spectra infrared-divergent, and it turns the isocurvature spectrum blue-tilted so that CMB limits no longer exclude light dark matter. The authors compute the resulting relic abundance numerically for $\alpha$-attractor inflation and find that dark matter with mass between $10^{-2}m_\phi$ and $m_\phi$ can be the full dark matter if reheating happened at $10^{3}$–$10^{7}\,\mathrm{GeV}$, compatible with gravitino bounds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective mass squared of the rescaled dark-matter mode, $m_{\tilde{\chi},\mathrm{eff}}^2 = a^2(m_\chi^2 + H^2 + |f|^2 \mp m_\chi f)$, which replaces the minimal expression $a^2 m_\chi^2 - (1-6\xi)a''/a$. The $H^2$ term comes from the $e^K$ factor in the supergravity scalar potential for a canonical Kähler potential $\chi\bar{\chi}$, the same origin as the $\eta$ problem. This positive Hubble-scale contribution keeps $\omega_k^2$ positive, suppresses particle-production efficiency, and converts the infrared behavior from a $k^{-3}$ divergence to a convergent spectrum and the isocurvature spectrum from nearly scale-invariant to blue-tilted $\propto k^3$. The two signs correspond to the real and imaginary components of the complex $\chi$ field, whose mass splitting is controlled by the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$.

What would settle it

Compute the same Bogoliubov spectrum for a shift-symmetric Kähler potential for $\chi$ on the same $\alpha$-attractor background: if the low-momentum spectrum reverts to $|\beta_k|^2 \propto k^{-3}$ and the isocurvature spectrum becomes nearly scale invariant, the paper's central suppression mechanism is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a scalar dark-matter field with canonical Kähler potential $\chi\bar{\chi}$, embedded in a supergravity realization of $\alpha$-attractor inflation, receives an effective mass contribution of order the Hubble scale during and after inflation. Because this contribution is positive, the effective frequency squared of long-wavelength modes never crosses zero, and the tachyonic instability of the minimal non-supersymmetric case disappears. The Bogoliubov spectrum therefore has no infrared divergence, the comoving number density is finite without a momentum cutoff, and the isocurvature power spectrum is blue-tilted, scaling as $k^3$ at long wavelengths. The paper shows numerically that with this correction the required reheating temperature for $\chi$ to be all the dark matter lies around $10^{3}$–$10^{7}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ for tensor-to-scalar ratios $r\sim 10^{-3}$–$10^{-4}$ and dark-matter masses $10^{-2}m_\phi$–$m_\phi$.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the dark-matter scalar's Kähler potential (the function controlling its kinetic terms and supergravity masses) is the canonical $\chi\bar{\chi}$, which produces a positive Hubble-scale mass; if that correction were missing, the tachyonic instability, infrared divergence, and strong isocurvature constraints would return.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, light scalar dark matter down to $10^{-2}m_\phi$ can be gravitationally produced without an infrared cutoff, so no ad hoc momentum regulator is needed.
The blue-tilted isocurvature spectrum ($\propto k^3$) means CMB isocurvature non-detection no longer excludes light dark matter in this setup.
The reheating temperatures required, around $10^{3}$–$10^{7}\,\mathrm{GeV}$, sit below the gravitino bound for TeV-scale gravitino masses, so the scenario is cosmologically safe.
Lower tensor-to-scalar ratios reduce the Hubble scale during inflation, suppress gravitational production, and demand higher reheating temperatures, giving a testable correlation between $r$ and $T_{\mathrm{rh}}$.
For $m_\chi \gtrsim m_\phi$ the abundance drops sharply, so the viable mass window is essentially $m_\chi \lesssim m_\phi$.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is that the same positive Hubble-scale mass would suppress gravitational production for any canonically embedded spectator scalar in supergravity inflation, not only in $\alpha$-attractor models, so the qualitative conclusions are likely generic.
If the dark-matter field instead had a shift-symmetric Kähler potential or a non-minimal coupling to gravity, the paper's predictions would revert to the infrared-divergent, isocurvature-limited behavior; this is a sharp, testable distinction between supergravity structures.
Extending the calculation to the fermionic superpartner, whose mass splitting becomes time-dependent during Hubble-scale supersymmetry breaking, could change the relic abundance and offers a concrete next calculation.
A future detection of nearly scale-invariant dark-matter isocurvature would falsify the predicted blue-tilted spectrum, while a confirmed blue tilt would point to a Hubble-scale mass of supergravity origin.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Genuinely new: this extends SUGRA gravitational particle production beyond the heavy-field regime of Nakayama and adds the first isocurvature computation in that setup. The qualitative claim—SUGRA's positive mass correction removes the tachyonic instability, kills the IR divergence, and blue-tilts the isocurvature spectrum—is sound and important. It reopens parameter space that the non-SUGRA analysis had closed. The paper is clearly written, the references are right, and the model assumptions (canonical Kähler for χ, ξ=0, n=1, matter-dominated reheating) are stated honestly. Credit where due. The soft spot is quantitative and central. Eq. (2.32) gives m^2_{χ,R} = mχ^2 + V_I + |f|^2 − mχ f. With the reduced Planck normalization used in §2.3, H^2 = V_I/3, so the conformally rescaled effective mass in Eq. (2.33) should contain 3H^2 + |f|^2, not H^2 + |f|^2. The paper does not flag this replacement, and no code or convergence tests are shipped, so a reader cannot tell whether Figs. 3–7 were produced with the factor-of-three-correct expression or with Eq. (2.33). If the latter, the positive SUGRA contribution is a factor of three too small wherever V_I dominates; the low-k plateau, the inferred ρχ/(s0 T_reh), and the headline 10^3–10^7 GeV reheating range shift by O(1). The qualitative conclusion survives, but the numbers are not pinned down by the text. Two smaller points. The canonical-Kähler assumption for χ is the structural cause of every headline result; the authors say so, but that means the paper constrains that setup, not SUGRA GPP generally. A shift-symmetric χ or non-minimal ξ would fall back to the non-SUGRA behavior. And the reheating treatment is the acknowledged instantaneous matter-dominated approximation; fine as a first pass, schematic as a precision statement. Bottom line: I would send it to a serious referee. The mechanism and the parameter scan are worth referee time, and the error, if there is one, is the kind a referee can catch and the authors can fix. But I would not quote the reheating range in my own work until Eqs. (2.32)/(2.33) are reconciled and the code or convergence checks are available.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies gravitational particle production (GPP) of a spectator scalar dark matter field χ in T-model α-attractor inflation embedded in N=1 supergravity. The authors assume a canonical Kähler potential for χ, so that the e^K factor gives χ a Hubble-scale positive mass correction. They numerically integrate the mode equation, compute the particle spectra, isocurvature power spectra, and relic abundance as functions of mχ, m3/2, and r, and then solve for the reheating temperature that yields the observed DM abundance. Their central qualitative claim is that the SUGRA mass term removes the tachyonic instability and the IR divergence of the non-SUGRA case, makes the isocurvature spectrum blue-tilted, and pushes the required reheating temperature to roughly 10^3–10^7 GeV for r = 10^-3–10^-4 and mχ = 10^-2 mφ – mφ.

Significance. If the numerics are correct, the paper gives a concrete, falsifiable prediction: a canonically embedded SUGRA scalar can be the sole dark matter via gravitational production without CMB isocurvature exclusion, at reheating temperatures compatible with the gravitino bound. The calculation is largely self-contained: the CMB normalization fixes V0, the observed ns fixes φ*, the BICEP/Keck bound motivates r, and the relic density is used as a constraint equation to solve for Trh rather than as a fit. The main limitation, acknowledged in the text, is that all headline results follow from the choice K ⊃ χχ̄ with no shift symmetry for χ; the conclusions are conditional on that microphysical assumption. The quantitative reliability of the quoted Trh range is, however, not fully established by the manuscript as written.

major comments (2)

[§2.3, Eq. (2.33)] Equation (2.33) is inconsistent with the derivation in Eqs. (2.29) and (2.32). From Eq. (2.29), the real-field mass is m²_{χ,R} = m²_χ + V_I + |f|² − m_χ f, where V_I = f' f̄'. In the Planck units used in this section, H² = V_I/3, so the SUGRA correction should read 3H², not H². Equation (2.33), however, lists m²_χ + H² + |f|² ∓ m_χ f. If the numerics follow Eq. (2.33), all spectra in Figs. 3–7 and the required reheating temperatures are computed with a factor-of-three-too-small positive SUGRA mass wherever V_I dominates. Because no code is provided, the reader cannot determine which expression was actually integrated. Please correct Eq. (2.33), state explicitly which expression was used in the numerical runs, and, if Eq. (2.33) was used, rerun the calculation and re-derive the quoted Trh range.
[§3, Figs. 3–7] The central quantitative results are purely numerical, yet the paper reports no convergence checks for the k-grid, time step, initialization time, or integration end time. The non-SUGRA comparison is especially delicate: the spectrum is extrapolated from k/(a_eH_e) ~ 10^-2 to CMB scales, and the final abundance is stated to be proportional to the number of e-folds, but neither the extrapolation uncertainty nor the sensitivity to the 60-e-fold choice is quantified. Please add numerical convergence tests and report the resulting uncertainties on the reheating-temperature range quoted in the abstract.

minor comments (3)

[§3, text around Fig. 2] The main text states that for light fields the tachyonic instability leads to f_χ ∝ k^3 in the low-momentum region, while the Fig. 2 caption and the later discussion say the correct vanishing-mass behavior is f_χ ∝ k^-3; this is inconsistent and should be corrected.
[§4, conclusion] The conclusion says the isocurvature spectrum is 'blue-titled'; this should be 'blue-tilted'.
[Abstract and §4] The abstract and conclusion should make explicit that the suppression of GPP and the weakening of isocurvature constraints rely on the canonical Kähler potential for χ; a shift-symmetric χ or a non-minimal coupling ξ ≠ 0 would revert to non-SUGRA behavior. The text states this in §2.3, but the headline phrasing is easy to over-read as a generic SUGRA result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained, with model inputs fixed by external data and the reheating temperature obtained by solving the relic-abundance constraint.

full rationale

The paper's headline outputs—particle spectra, isocurvature tilt, and the required reheating temperature—are obtained by numerically solving the mode equation (2.16) with the SUGRA-corrected effective mass (2.33) on a background fixed by the α-attractor potential (2.4). The external inputs are genuine benchmarks: V0 is normalized by the CMB curvature power spectrum (2.10), ϕ* is determined by the observed spectral index ns (2.7), and the tensor-to-scalar ratio r is scanned below the BICEP/Keck upper limit (2.9). The SUGRA H^2 correction is introduced in §2.3 as an explicit model assumption with a canonical Kähler potential for χ, and it is motivated by the known η-problem literature [51]; it is not derived from the final relic abundance or from the conclusion that isocurvature constraints are weak. The relic abundance itself is used as a target to solve for Trh via Eq. (A.6), making Trh an output of a consistency condition rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing step rests on self-citation: the cited works [50, 52, 53, 54] are prior, independent papers, and the numerical computation is self-contained relative to them. The potential factor-of-3 discrepancy between the VI term in Eq. (2.32) and the H^2 term in Eq. (2.33) noted in review is a possible internal-consistency or correctness issue, not a circularity: even if the effective mass were evaluated with the wrong coefficient, the calculation would still be an independent evaluation of the model rather than a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs.

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

The central results rest on the assumed SUGRA Kähler correction for the DM field and a simplified matter-dominated reheating history. These are stated model inputs, not independently verified facts; if either is changed, the quantitative Trh range and even the qualitative IR finiteness could change.

free parameters (5)

DM mass mχ = Scanned: 0.01 m_phi to 2.22 m_phi
Scanned as a ratio to inflaton mass; controls whether GPP is efficient and the Trh required.
Gravitino mass m3/2 = Scanned: 0, 0.01, 0.1, 0.2 m_phi
Scanned to show impact of SUSY breaking on the DM spectrum and abundance.
Tensor-to-scalar ratio r = Chosen: 0.0035, 0.001, 0.0001
Chosen values below BICEP/Keck bound; sets α and Hubble scale via Eq. (2.8).
Non-minimal coupling ξ = 0
Set to zero by hand; a different ξ changes the effective mass and GPP efficiency.
Potential exponent n = 1
Restricts to n=1 α-attractor potential; other n change inflaton mass and reheating equation of state.

assumptions (5)

standard math Quantum field theory in curved spacetime and Bogoliubov particle picture apply to the spectator scalar χ.
Invoked in §2.2 to define particle spectra (2.17)-(2.19).
domain assumption The DM field has canonical Kähler potential χχ̄ with no shift symmetry, yielding a Hubble-scale SUGRA mass correction.
Stated in §2.3 around Eq. (2.26): 'we will assume this correction indeed exists for DM field'. This positive H^2 term drives all headline results.
domain assumption The inflaton sector is the T-model α-attractor embedded with stabilizer S, g(Φ)=√3 f(Φ), and Im(Φ)=S=0 during inflation.
Model choice in §2.1 and §2.3, Eqs. (2.27)-(2.30), from Refs. [52,53].
domain assumption After inflation the inflaton oscillates in a quadratic minimum and the Universe is matter-dominated until instantaneous reheating; DM comoving number density is conserved after production.
Appendix A, Eqs. (A.1)-(A.6); the authors note this assumption in Section 4.
domain assumption Backreaction, inflaton self-resonance, and non-linear fragmentation are negligible for the background and GPP.
The background is solved classically with slow-roll initial conditions; Section 4 lists non-linear phenomena as future work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Dark Matter Production in Supergravity $\alpha$-Attractor Inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7ECHSTC

@misc{pith2026241115030,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Dark Matter Production in Supergravity $\alpha$-Attractor Inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7ECHSTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15030}
}

abstract

We consider gravitational particle production (GPP) of dark matter (DM) under a supergravity framework, where the $\alpha$-attractor inflation model is used. The particle spectrum is computed numerically and the DM number density is obtained. We show how the DM mass, gravitino mass and inflation model parameters modify the results, and find the reheating temperature which leads to sufficient DM production. In our setup, supergravity corrections suppress the efficiency of GPP, and make the isocurvature constraint much weaker compared with the normal case. With tensor-to-scalar ratio ranging from $10^{-3}-10^{-4}$ and DM mass from $10^{-2} m_\phi - m_\phi$, the required reheating temperature should be around $10^3 \textrm{GeV} - 10^7 \textrm{GeV}$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

A note on the gravitational dark matter production
gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The study connects the reheating temperature to the dark matter mass in two gravitational production scenarios and derives narrow viable mass ranges for each.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

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

arXiv 2020
[2]

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

A.D. Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems, Phys. Lett. B108 (1982) 389

1982
[3]

Albrecht and P.J

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

work page 1982
[4]

Lyth and D

D.H. Lyth and D. Roberts,Cosmological consequences of particle creation during inflation, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 7120 [hep-ph/9609441]

arXiv 1998
[5]

Chung, E.W

D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb and A. Riotto,Superheavy dark matter, Phys. Rev. D59 (1998) 023501 [hep-ph/9802238]

arXiv 1998
[6]

Kolb and A.J

E.W. Kolb and A.J. Long,Cosmological gravitational particle production and its implications for cosmological relics, 2312.09042

arXiv
[7]

Chung, E.W

D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb and A. Riotto,Nonthermal supermassive dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4048 [hep-ph/9805473]

arXiv 1998
[8]

Kolb, D.J.H

E.W. Kolb, D.J.H. Chung and A. Riotto,WIMPzillas!, AIP Conf. Proc.484 (1999) 91 [hep-ph/9810361]

arXiv 1999

Show all 76 references

[9]

Mukhanov,Physical Foundations of Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Oxford (2005), 10.1017/CBO9780511790553

V. Mukhanov,Physical Foundations of Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Oxford (2005), 10.1017/CBO9780511790553

2005 doi
[10]

Ling and A.J

S. Ling and A.J. Long,Superheavy scalar dark matter from gravitational particle production in α-attractor models of inflation, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 103532 [2101.11621]

2021 arXiv
[11]

Garcia, M

M.A.G. Garcia, M. Pierre and S. Verner,New window into gravitationally produced scalar dark matter, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 115024 [2305.14446]

2023 arXiv
[12]

Kuzmin and I

V. Kuzmin and I. Tkachev,Matter creation via vacuum fluctuations in the early universe and observed ultrahigh-energy cosmic ray events, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 123006 [hep-ph/9809547]

1999 arXiv
[13]

Chung, L.L

D.J.H. Chung, L.L. Everett, H. Yoo and P. Zhou,Gravitational Fermion Production in Inflationary Cosmology, Phys. Lett. B712 (2012) 147 [1109.2524]

2012 arXiv
[14]

Graham, J

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

2016 arXiv
[15]

Ahmed, B

A. Ahmed, B. Grzadkowski and A. Socha,Gravitational production of vector dark matter, JHEP 08 (2020) 059 [2005.01766]

2020 arXiv
[16]

Kolb and A.J

E.W. Kolb and A.J. Long,Completely dark photons from gravitational particle production during the inflationary era, JHEP 03 (2021) 283 [2009.03828]

2021 arXiv
[17]

Gorghetto, E

M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, J. March-Russell, N. Song and S.M. West,Dark photon stars: formation and role as dark matter substructure, JCAP 08 (2022) 018 [2203.10100]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Cembranos, L.J

J.A.R. Cembranos, L.J. Garay, A. Parra-López and J.M. Sánchez Velázquez,Vector dark matter production during inflation and reheating, JCAP 02 (2024) 013 [2310.07515]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Özsoy and G

O. Özsoy and G. Tasinato,Vector dark matter, inflation, and non-minimal couplings with gravity, JCAP 06 (2024) 003 [2310.03862]. – 18 –

2024 arXiv
[20]

Hasegawa, K

F. Hasegawa, K. Mukaida, K. Nakayama, T. Terada and Y. Yamada,Gravitino Problem in Minimal Supergravity Inflation, Phys. Lett. B767 (2017) 392 [1701.03106]

2017 arXiv
[21]

Kallosh, L

R. Kallosh, L. Kofman, A.D. Linde and A. Van Proeyen,Gravitino production after inflation, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 103503 [hep-th/9907124]

2000 arXiv
[22]

Antoniadis, K

I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli and W. Ke,Salvage of too slow gravitinos, JHEP 11 (2021) 063 [2105.03784]

2021 arXiv
[23]

Kaneta, W

K. Kaneta, W. Ke, Y. Mambrini, K.A. Olive and S. Verner,Gravitational production of spin-3/2 particles during reheating, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 115027 [2309.15146]

2023
[24]

Casagrande, E

G. Casagrande, E. Dudas and M. Peloso,On energy and particle production in cosmology: the particular case of the gravitino, JHEP 06 (2024) 003 [2310.14964]

2024 arXiv
[25]

E.W. Kolb, S. Ling, A.J. Long and R.A. Rosen,Cosmological gravitational particle production of massive spin-2 particles, JHEP 05 (2023) 181 [2302.04390]

2023 arXiv
[26]

Nilles, M

H.P. Nilles, M. Peloso and L. Sorbo,Nonthermal production of gravitinos and inflatinos, Phys. Rev. Lett.87 (2001) 051302 [hep-ph/0102264]

2001 arXiv
[27]

Nilles, M

H.P. Nilles, M. Peloso and L. Sorbo,Coupled fields in external background with application to nonthermal production of gravitinos, JHEP 04 (2001) 004 [hep-th/0103202]

2001 arXiv
[28]

Chung,Classical Inflation Field Induced Creation of Superheavy Dark Matter, Phys

D.J.H. Chung,Classical Inflation Field Induced Creation of Superheavy Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 083514 [hep-ph/9809489]

2003 arXiv
[29]

Y. Ema, K. Nakayama and Y. Tang,Production of Purely Gravitational Dark Matter, JHEP 09 (2018) 135 [1804.07471]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Cembranos, L.J

J.A.R. Cembranos, L.J. Garay and J.M. Sánchez Velázquez,Gravitational production of scalar dark matter, JHEP 06 (2020) 084 [1910.13937]

2020 arXiv
[31]

Enomoto and T

S. Enomoto and T. Matsuda,The exact WKB for cosmological particle production, JHEP 03 (2021) 090 [2010.14835]

2021 arXiv
[32]

Basso and D.J.H

E.E. Basso and D.J.H. Chung,Computation of gravitational particle production using adiabatic invariants, JHEP 11 (2021) 146 [2108.01653]

2021 arXiv
[33]

Hashiba and Y

S. Hashiba and Y. Yamada,Stokes phenomenon and gravitational particle production — How to evaluate it in practice, JCAP 05 (2021) 022 [2101.07634]

2021 arXiv
[34]

Basso, D.J.H

E. Basso, D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb and A.J. Long,Quantum interference in gravitational particle production, JHEP 12 (2022) 108 [2209.01713]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Kaneta, S.M

K. Kaneta, S.M. Lee and K.-y. Oda,Boltzmann or Bogoliubov? Approaches compared in gravitational particle production, JCAP 09 (2022) 018 [2206.10929]

2022 arXiv
[36]

Racco, S

D. Racco, S. Verner and W. Xue,Gravitational production of heavy particles during and after inflation, JHEP 09 (2024) 129 [2405.13883]

2024 arXiv
[37]

Verner,Nonminimal Superheavy Dark Matter, 2408.11889

S. Verner,Nonminimal Superheavy Dark Matter, 2408.11889

arXiv
[38]

Jenks, E.W

L. Jenks, E.W. Kolb and K. Thyme,Gravitational Particle Production of Scalars: Analytic and Numerical Approaches Including Early Reheating, 2410.03938

arXiv
[39]

Markkanen and S

T. Markkanen and S. Nurmi,Dark matter from gravitational particle production at reheating, JCAP 02 (2017) 008 [1512.07288]

2017 arXiv
[40]

Fairbairn, K

M. Fairbairn, K. Kainulainen, T. Markkanen and S. Nurmi,Despicable Dark Relics: generated by gravity with unconstrained masses, JCAP 04 (2019) 005 [1808.08236]. – 19 –

2019 arXiv
[41]

Clery, Y

S. Clery, Y. Mambrini, K.A. Olive, A. Shkerin and S. Verner,Gravitational portals with nonminimal couplings, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 095042 [2203.02004]

2022 arXiv
[42]

Z. Yu, C. Fu and Z.-K. Guo,Particle production during inflation with a nonminimally coupled spectator scalar field, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 123509 [2307.03120]

2023 arXiv
[43]

Garcia, M

M.A.G. Garcia, M. Pierre and S. Verner,Scalar dark matter production from preheating and structure formation constraints, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 043530 [2206.08940]

2023 arXiv
[44]

Garcia, M

M.A.G. Garcia, M. Pierre and S. Verner,Isocurvature constraints on scalar dark matter production from the inflaton, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 123508 [2303.07359]

2023 arXiv
[45]

M. Endo, M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi and T.T. Yanagida,Inflaton decay through supergravity effects, Phys. Lett. B642 (2006) 518 [hep-ph/0607170]

2006 arXiv
[46]

M. Endo, F. Takahashi and T.T. Yanagida,Spontaneous Non-thermal Leptogenesis in High-scale Inflation Models, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 123523 [hep-ph/0611055]

2006 arXiv
[47]

M. Endo, F. Takahashi and T.T. Yanagida,Inflaton Decay in Supergravity, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 083509 [0706.0986]

2007 arXiv
[48]

Enomoto, S

S. Enomoto, S. Iida, N. Maekawa and T. Matsuda,Beauty is more attractive: particle production and moduli trapping with higher dimensional interaction, JHEP 01 (2014) 141 [1310.4751]

2014 arXiv
[49]

Ema, M.A.G

Y. Ema, M.A.G. Garcia, W. Ke, K.A. Olive and S. Verner,Inflaton Decay in No-Scale Supergravity and Starobinsky-like Models, Universe 10 (2024) 239 [2404.14545]

2024 arXiv
[50]

Nakayama,A Note on Gravitational Particle Production in Supergravity, Phys

K. Nakayama,A Note on Gravitational Particle Production in Supergravity, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134857 [1905.09143]

2019 arXiv
[51]

Copeland, A.R

E.J. Copeland, A.R. Liddle, D.H. Lyth, E.D. Stewart and D. Wands,False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6410 [astro-ph/9401011]

1994 arXiv
[52]

Dall’Agata and F

G. Dall’Agata and F. Zwirner,On sgoldstino-less supergravity models of inflation, JHEP 12 (2014) 172 [1411.2605]

2014 arXiv
[53]

Kallosh, A

R. Kallosh, A. Linde and M. Scalisi,Inflation, de Sitter Landscape and Super-Higgs effect, JHEP 03 (2015) 111 [1411.5671]

2015 arXiv
[54]

Kallosh, A

R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest,Superconformal Inflationaryα-Attractors, JHEP 11 (2013) 198 [1311.0472]

2013 arXiv
[55]

Germán,On the α-attractor t-models, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (2021) 017

G. Germán,On the α-attractor t-models, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (2021) 017

2021
[56]

BICEP, Keck collaboration, Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season, Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 151301 [2110.00483]

2021
[57]

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

2020 arXiv
[58]

Chung, E.W

D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb, A. Riotto and L. Senatore,Isocurvature constraints on gravitationally produced superheavy dark matter, Physical Review D72 (2005)

2005
[59]

Kallosh, A

R. Kallosh, A. Linde and T. Rube,General inflaton potentials in supergravity, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 043507 [1011.5945]. – 20 –

2011 arXiv
[60]

Kolb, A.J

E.W. Kolb, A.J. Long, E. McDonough and G. Payeur,Completely dark matter from rapid-turn multifield inflation, Journal of High Energy Physics2023 (2023)

2023
[61]

Khlopov and A.D

M.Y. Khlopov and A.D. Linde,Is It Easy to Save the Gravitino?, Phys. Lett. B138 (1984) 265

1984
[62]

Ellis, J.E

J.R. Ellis, J.E. Kim and D.V. Nanopoulos,Cosmological Gravitino Regeneration and Decay, Phys. Lett. B145 (1984) 181

1984
[63]

Kawasaki and T

M. Kawasaki and T. Moroi,Gravitino production in the inflationary universe and the effects on big bang nucleosynthesis, Prog. Theor. Phys.93 (1995) 879 [hep-ph/9403364]

1995 arXiv
[64]

Lozanov and M.A

K.D. Lozanov and M.A. Amin,Self-resonance after inflation: Oscillons, transients and radiation domination, Physical Review D97 (2018) 023533 [1710.06851]

2018 arXiv
[65]

Amin, M.P

M.A. Amin, M.P. Hertzberg, D.I. Kaiser and J. Karouby,Nonperturbative Dynamics Of Reheating After Inflation: A Review, International Journal of Modern Physics D24 (2015) 1530003 [1410.3808]

2015 arXiv
[66]

Barman, S

B. Barman, S. Cléry, R.T. Co, Y. Mambrini and K.A. Olive,Gravity as a portal to reheating, leptogenesis and dark matter, Journal of High Energy Physics2022 (2022)

2022
[67]

Flores and Y.F

M.M. Flores and Y.F. Perez-Gonzalez,On the role of cosmological gravitational particle production in baryogenesis, 2024

2024
[68]

M. Dine, W. Fischler and D. Nemeschansky,Solution of the Entropy Crisis of Supersymmetric Theories, Phys. Lett. B136 (1984) 169

1984
[69]

Bertolami and G.G

O. Bertolami and G.G. Ross,Inflation as a Cure for the Cosmological Problems of Superstring Models With Intermediate Scale Breaking, Phys. Lett. B183 (1987) 163

1987
[70]

Dvali,Inflation versus the cosmological moduli problem, hep-ph/9503259

G.R. Dvali,Inflation versus the cosmological moduli problem, hep-ph/9503259

arXiv
[71]

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

1995 arXiv
[72]

Moore, R.H

C.J. Moore, R.H. Cole and C.P.L. Berry,Gravitational-wave sensitivity curves, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (2014) 015014

2014
[73]

Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment, Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90

J.D. Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment, Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90

2007
[74]

Virtanen, R

P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T.E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau et al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature Methods 17 (2020) 261

2020
[75]

Harris, K.J

C.R. Harris, K.J. Millman, S.J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau et al.,Array programming with NumPy, Nature 585 (2020) 357

2020
[76]

Rackauckas and Q

C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie,DifferentialEquations.jl–a performant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equations in Julia, Journal of Open Research Software5 (2017) . – 21 –

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

arXiv 2020

[2] [2]

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

A.D. Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems, Phys. Lett. B108 (1982) 389

1982

[3] [3]

Albrecht and P.J

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

work page 1982

[4] [4]

Lyth and D

D.H. Lyth and D. Roberts,Cosmological consequences of particle creation during inflation, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 7120 [hep-ph/9609441]

arXiv 1998

[5] [5]

Chung, E.W

D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb and A. Riotto,Superheavy dark matter, Phys. Rev. D59 (1998) 023501 [hep-ph/9802238]

arXiv 1998

[6] [6]

Kolb and A.J

E.W. Kolb and A.J. Long,Cosmological gravitational particle production and its implications for cosmological relics, 2312.09042

arXiv

[7] [7]

Chung, E.W

D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb and A. Riotto,Nonthermal supermassive dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4048 [hep-ph/9805473]

arXiv 1998

[8] [8]

Kolb, D.J.H

E.W. Kolb, D.J.H. Chung and A. Riotto,WIMPzillas!, AIP Conf. Proc.484 (1999) 91 [hep-ph/9810361]

arXiv 1999