pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.31975 · v1 · pith:XW6MFQO7new · submitted 2026-06-30 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.CO· hep-th

Reheating in No-Scale Models of Inflation

Ignatios Antoniadis , John Ellis , Dimitri V. Nanopoulos , Keith A. Olive , Sarunas Verner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 04:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords no-scale supergravityinflationreheatingStarobinsky modelspectral indextensor-to-scalar ratiogauge kinetic termsanomaly couplings
0
0 comments X

The pith

Generalized no-scale models with curvature R=2/(3α) for α≠1 lift the inflaton decay suppression to Standard Model fields.

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

Minimal no-scale supergravity models of inflation suppress inflaton decays into Standard Model particles, analogous to the Starobinsky R+R² case, because of the specific field-space curvature R=2/3. The paper examines generalized versions that change this curvature to R=2/(3α) with α≠1, or add non-minimal gauge kinetic terms and anomaly-induced couplings. These changes produce direct and anomaly-mediated inflaton couplings to gauge bosons and gauginos. The resulting decay rates set reheating temperatures after inflation and produce distinct predictions in the (n_s,r) plane. An R³ deformation of Starobinsky supergravity is also analyzed but does not itself create new tree-level couplings to visible matter.

Core claim

In generalized no-scale models the inflaton acquires non-zero tree-level and anomaly-induced couplings to gauge bosons and gauginos when the field-space curvature is R=2/(3α) with α≠1 or when non-minimal gauge kinetic functions are present; these couplings remove the decay suppression of the minimal R=2/3 case, remain Kähler-frame invariant, and determine reheating temperatures together with the corresponding (n_s,r) observables.

What carries the argument

The generalized no-scale Kähler potential with curvature parameter α≠1 combined with non-minimal gauge kinetic terms and anomaly-induced interactions that generate inflaton-gauge boson vertices.

If this is right

  • Reheating temperatures become non-zero and can be computed for each value of α.
  • The allowed region in the (n_s,r) plane shifts away from the minimal no-scale prediction.
  • Kähler-frame invariance of the physical gauge coupling continues to hold.
  • The R³ deformation changes the inflaton and stabilizer sectors without adding new tree-level visible-sector couplings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • String-derived compactifications that naturally yield α≠1 could be directly matched to these reheating predictions.
  • Future CMB bounds on r combined with lower limits on the reheating temperature from baryogenesis could restrict the allowed range of α.
  • Anomaly-mediated couplings may also set the abundance of supersymmetric dark-matter candidates produced during reheating.

Load-bearing premise

The generalized models with curvature R=2/(3α) for α≠1, non-minimal gauge kinetic terms, and anomaly-induced couplings remain consistent inside the supergravity framework.

What would settle it

An explicit one-loop calculation showing that the inflaton decay rate to gauge bosons stays exactly zero for every α≠1 after inclusion of the anomaly terms would falsify the claim that suppression is lifted.

read the original abstract

Analogously to the suppression of inflaton decays into conformally-coupled scalar fields in the original Starobinsky $R + R^2$ model of inflation, inflaton decays to Standard Model fields are also suppressed in minimal no-scale models of inflation with field space curvature $\mathcal{R} = 2/3$. We study how this suppression can be avoided in generalized no-scale inflationary models. These include models in which the field space curvature $\mathcal{R} = 2/(3\alpha)$ with $\alpha \ne 1$ as exemplified by models derived from string theory, as well as models with non-minimal gauge kinetic terms and anomaly-induced couplings. We analyze direct and anomaly-induced inflaton couplings to gauge bosons and gauginos and demonstrate the K\"ahler-frame invariance of the physical gauge coupling. We determine the resulting reheating temperatures and the corresponding predictions in the $(n_s,r)$ plane. Finally, we consider an $R^3$ deformation of Starobinsky supergravity, which modifies the inflaton and stabilizer sectors but does not, by itself, generate new tree-level inflaton couplings to visible matter fields.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper examines how the suppression of inflaton decays into Standard Model fields, present in minimal no-scale models with field-space curvature R=2/3, can be avoided in generalized no-scale models. These include cases with R=2/(3α) for α≠1, non-minimal gauge kinetic terms, and anomaly-induced couplings. It analyzes direct and anomaly-induced inflaton couplings to gauge bosons and gauginos, demonstrates Kähler-frame invariance of the physical gauge coupling, computes the resulting reheating temperatures, and derives corresponding predictions in the (n_s,r) plane. It also considers an R^3 deformation of Starobinsky supergravity that modifies the inflaton and stabilizer sectors without generating new tree-level couplings to visible matter.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work is significant for resolving a key obstacle to viable reheating in no-scale supergravity inflation models, which are motivated by string theory. The explicit demonstration of Kähler-frame invariance for the gauge coupling and the derivation of concrete reheating temperatures with (n_s,r) predictions provide falsifiable links to cosmology. The analysis of both direct and anomaly-induced channels, together with the R^3 deformation study, strengthens the framework without introducing new inconsistencies.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that reheating temperatures are determined, but the manuscript would benefit from an explicit table or summary listing T_rh values for representative α and coupling choices to facilitate comparison with the (n_s,r) predictions.
  2. Notation for the field-space curvature R and the parameter α is introduced in the abstract and introduction; a dedicated subsection early in the text defining the Kähler potential for the generalized case (with α≠1) would improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the string-derived examples.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work on reheating in generalized no-scale models and for recommending minor revision. No specific major comments were listed in the report, so we have no individual points to address.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper derives reheating temperatures and (n_s,r) predictions from generalized no-scale supergravity models with explicit Kähler-frame invariance checks, direct/anomaly-induced couplings, and R^3 deformations. These steps rely on standard supergravity Lagrangian transformations and coupling calculations rather than any self-definitional reduction, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The central results remain independent of the input assumptions and do not collapse to the starting ansatz by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the standard no-scale supergravity framework and its string-theory realizations; alpha is introduced as a free generalization parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • alpha
    Controls the field-space curvature R = 2/(3α) in the generalized models; chosen different from 1 to avoid suppression.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption No-scale supergravity with Kähler potential yielding R = 2/3 in the minimal case
    Invoked as the starting point for both minimal and generalized models.
  • domain assumption Kähler-frame invariance of the physical gauge coupling holds after including non-minimal terms
    Stated as demonstrated in the analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5741 in / 1353 out tokens · 63763 ms · 2026-07-01T04:13:00.536191+00:00 · methodology

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

62 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 27 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  2. [2]

    K. S. Stelle, Gen. Rel. Grav.9(1978) 353; B. Whitt, Phys. Lett.145B(1984) 176

    1978

  3. [3]

    Kalara, N

    S. Kalara, N. Kaloper and K. A. Olive, Nucl. Phys. B341, 252-272 (1990); K. i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D39(1989), 3159

    1990

  4. [4]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23, 347-356 (1981)

    1981

  5. [5]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett.33, 532 (1981) [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33, 549 (1981)]; A. A. Starobinsky, Sov. Astron. Lett.9, 302 (1983)

    1981

  6. [6]

    Press,Phys

    W.H. Press,Phys. Scr.21(1980) 702; S.W. Hawking,Phys. Lett.115B(1982) 295; A.A. Starobinsky,Phys. Lett.117B(1982) 175; A.H. Guth and S.Y. Pi,Phys. Rev. Lett.49(1982) 1110; J.M. Bardeen, P.J. Steinhardt and M.S. Turner,Phys. Rev.D28(1983) 679

    1980

  7. [7]

    K. A. Olive, Phys. Rept.190(1990) 307; A. D. Linde,Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology(Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1990); D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto,Phys. Rep.314 (1999) 1 [arXiv:hep-ph/9807278]; A. D. Linde, Phys. Rept.333, 575-591 (2000); J. Martin, C. Ringeval and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ.5-6, 75-235 (2014) [arXiv:1303.3787 [astro-ph.CO]]; J. M...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1990

  8. [8]

    Cremmer, S

    E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, C. Kounnas and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B133(1983) 61; A. B. Lahanas and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rept.145(1987) 1

    1983

  9. [9]

    No-Scale Supergravity Realization of the Starobinsky Model of Inflation

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) 111301 [arXiv:1305.1247 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive and S. Verner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, no.16, 2030011 (2020) [arXiv:2009.01709 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Y. Ema, M. A. G. Garcia, W. Ke, K. A. Olive and S. Verner, Universe10, no.6, 239 (2024) [arXiv:2404.14545 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D31, 681 (1985)

    1985

  13. [13]

    G. F. Giudice, E. W. Kolb and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 023508 [hep-ph/0005123]; D. J. H. Chung, E. W. Kolb and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 063504 [hep-ph/9809453]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  14. [14]

    M. A. G. Garcia, K. Kaneta, Y. Mambrini and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.12, 123507 [arXiv:2004.08404 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    M. A. G. Garcia, K. Kaneta, Y. Mambrini and K. A. Olive, JCAP04, 012 (2021) [arXiv:2012.10756 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)] [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]; Y. Akramiet al.[Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020) [arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Reheating of the universe after inflation with f(phi)R gravity

    Y. Watanabe and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D75(2007), 061301 [arXiv:gr-qc/0612120 [gr-qc]]; N. Bernal, J. Rubio and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP10(2020), 021 [arXiv:2006.02442 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  18. [18]

    R^2-inflation with conformal SM Higgs field

    D. Gorbunov and A. Tokareva, JCAP12, 021 (2013) [arXiv:1212.4466 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Kamada, JHEP07, 172 (2019) [arXiv:1902.05209 [hep-ph]]; A

    A. Kamada, JHEP07, 172 (2019) [arXiv:1902.05209 [hep-ph]]; A. Kamada and T. Kuwahara, Phys. Rev. D101, no.9, 096012 (2020) [arXiv:1909.04228 [hep-ph]]; A. Kamada and T. Kuwahara, Phys. Rev. D103, no.11, 116001 (2021) [arXiv:1909.04229 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    From $R^2$ Gravity to No-Scale Supergravity

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D97, no.4, 043530 (2018) [arXiv:1711.11051 [hep-th]]. – 32 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    G. D. Diamandis, A. B. Lahanas and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.10, 105023 [arXiv:1509.01065 [hep-th]]; G. A. Diamandis, B. C. Georgalas, K. Kaskavelis, A. B. Lahanas and G. Pavlopoulos, Phys. Rev. D96, no. 4, 044033 (2017) [arXiv:1704.07617 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Ultraviolet completion of Starobinsky inflation

    I. Antoniadis, C. Markou and D. V. Nanopoulos, arXiv:2605.05295 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Cecotti, Phys

    S. Cecotti, Phys. Lett. B190(1987) 86

    1987

  24. [24]

    M. Endo, K. Kadota, K. A. Olive, F. Takahashi and T. T. Yanagida, JCAP02, 018 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0612263 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    Calculations of Inflaton Decays and Reheating: with Applications to No-Scale Inflation Models

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, JCAP07, 050 (2015) [arXiv:1505.06986 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Antoniadis, D

    I. Antoniadis, D. V. Nanopoulos and J. Rizos, JCAP03, 017 (2021) [arXiv:2011.09396 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Antoniadis, D

    I. Antoniadis, D. V. Nanopoulos and J. Rizos, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.4, 377 (2022) [arXiv:2112.01211 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Antoniadis, D

    I. Antoniadis, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, JHEP06, 155 (2025) [arXiv:2410.16541 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    I. D. Gialamas, T. Katsoulas and K. Tamvakis, JCAP09, 060 (2025) [arXiv:2505.03608 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

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

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, JCAP10, 009 (2013) [arXiv:1307.3537 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    Ellis, D

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive and S. Verner, JHEP03, 099 (2019) [arXiv:1812.02192 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Ellis, T

    J. Ellis, T. Gherghetta, K. Kaneta, W. Ke and K. A. Olive, JHEP05, 229 (2026) [arXiv:2603.02389 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.[BICEP and Keck Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett.127, no.15, 151301 (2021) [arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Tristram, A.J

    M. Tristram, A. J. Banday, K. M. G´ orski, R. Keskitalo, C. R. Lawrence, K. J. Andersen, R. B. Barreiro, J. Borrill, L. P. L. Colombo and H. K. Eriksen,et al.Phys. Rev. D105, no.8, 083524 (2022) [arXiv:2112.07961 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and $\Lambda$CDM Parameters

    T. Louiset al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope Collaboration], JCAP11, 062 (2025) [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Antoniadis, J

    I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis, W. Ke, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, JCAP08, 090 (2025) [arXiv:2504.12283 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garc´ ıa, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, JCAP12, 038 (2025) [arXiv:2508.13279 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, K. A. Olive and S. Verner, Phys. Rev. D113, no.6, 063571 (2026) [arXiv:2510.18656 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field

    E. Camphuiset al.[SPT-3G], Phys. Rev. D113, no.8, 083504 (2026) [arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    A No-Scale Framework for Sub-Planckian Physics

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D89, no.4, 043502 (2014) [arXiv:1310.4770 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Chaotic inflation and supersymmetry breaking

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, K. A. Olive and T. Rube, Phys. Rev. D84, 083519 (2011) [arXiv:1106.6025 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    M. Endo, M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B642, 518-524 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0607170 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  43. [43]

    Escher in the Sky

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, Comptes Rendus Physique16, 914-927 (2015) [arXiv:1503.06785 [hep-th]]. – 33 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    Inflation and High-Scale Supersymmetry with an EeV Gravitino

    E. Dudas, T. Gherghetta, Y. Mambrini and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D96, no.11, 115032 (2017) [arXiv:1710.07341 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Kaneta, Y

    K. Kaneta, Y. Mambrini, K. A. Olive and S. Verner, Phys. Rev. D101, no.1, 015002 (2020) [arXiv:1911.02463 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive and S. Verner, Phys. Rev. D105, no.4, 043504 (2022) [arXiv:2112.04466 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    A. R. Liddle and S. M. Leach, Phys. Rev. D68, 103503 (2003) [astro-ph/0305263]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  48. [48]

    First CMB Constraints on the Inflationary Reheating Temperature

    J. Martin and C. Ringeval, Phys. Rev. D82, 023511 (2010) [arXiv:1004.5525 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    Inflation at the End of 2025: Constraints on $r$ and $n_s$ Using the Latest CMB and BAO Data

    L. Balkenhol, E. Camphuis, F. Finelli, K. Benabed, F. R. Bouchet, J. Carron, S. Galli, E. Hivon, A. R. Khalife and L. Knox,et al.[arXiv:2512.10613 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    S. M. Barr, Phys. Lett.112B(1982) 219; S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D40, 2457 (1989)

    1982

  51. [51]

    J. P. Derendinger, J. E. Kim and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett.139B(1984) 170

    1984

  52. [52]

    Antoniadis, J

    I. Antoniadis, J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B194, 231 (1987)

    1987

  53. [53]

    Antoniadis, J

    I. Antoniadis, J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B205(1988) 459; Phys. Lett. B208(1988) 209 Addendum: [Phys. Lett. B213(1988) 562]; Phys. Lett. B231 (1989) 65

    1988

  54. [54]

    Starobinsky-like Inflation, Supercosmology and Neutrino Masses in No-Scale Flipped SU(5)

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garc´ ıa, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, JCAP1707(2017) no.07, 006 [arXiv:1704.07331 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    Symmetry Breaking and Reheating after Inflation in No-Scale Flipped SU(5)

    J. Ellis, M. A. Garc´ ıa, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, JCAP04, 009 (2019) [arXiv:1812.08184 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. Garc´ ıa, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B797, 134864 (2019) [arXiv:1906.08483 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. Garc´ ıa, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, JCAP01, 035 (2020) [arXiv:1910.11755 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. Garc´ ıa, N. Nagata, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, JHEP05, 021 (2020) [arXiv:2003.03285 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    M. Endo, F. Takahashi and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D76(2007), 083509 [arXiv:0706.0986 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  60. [60]

    J. A. Bagger, T. Moroi and E. Poppitz, JHEP04(2000), 009 [arXiv:hep-th/9911029 [hep-th]]; J. A. Bagger, T. Moroi and E. Poppitz, Nucl. Phys. B594(2001), 354-368 [arXiv:hep-th/0003282 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  61. [61]

    Cremmer, S

    E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B212(1983), 413 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90679-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90679-x 1983

  62. [62]

    Field Dependent Gauge Couplings in Locally Supersymmetric Effective Quantum Field Theories

    V. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Nucl. Phys. B422(1994), 57-124 [arXiv:hep-th/9402005 [hep-th]]. – 34 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994