Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Non-Minimal Dilaton Inflation from the Effective Gluodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The anomaly-matched Migdal-Shifman logarithm in the inflaton potential survives the nonminimal coupling to gravity as a controlled deformation of the plateau, leaving the model inside the CMB-allowed region with testable departures from the

desk verdict A competent nonminimal log-plateau inflation paper whose 'anomaly-fixed' coefficient is really a reparametrization—worth refereeing, with language tempered. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.00818 v2 pith:UWN6OKLY submitted 2026-02-28 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

Pirzada , Imtiaz Khan , Mussawair Khan , Tianjun Li , Ali Muhammad This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords dilatoninflationMigdal-Shifmanpotentialtraceanomalynonminimalcouplinggluodynamicsplateauattractorslow-rollCMBobservables
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 tries to establish that the Migdal-Shifman potential—a logarithmic quartic potential dictated by the trace anomaly of a confining gauge theory—can drive inflation when embedded in nonminimal gravity, and that the logarithm does not ruin the needed flatness. Instead, the anomaly-induced term produces a controlled, calculable deformation of the plateau, suppressed by 1/xi^2 like the leading term. A sympathetic reader would care because the logarithmic coefficient is not a free parameter: it is fixed by the gluon vacuum condensate and the scalar mass, making the deviation from the usual large-xi attractor predictions a genuine probe of the underlying strong dynamics. The paper derives the exact Einstein-frame action and evaluates slow-roll observables without canonical-field approximations, so the claimed effect does not depend on a choice of asymptotic expansion.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Migdal-Shifman anomaly-matching action, in which the lightest scalar (dilaton) of a confining gauge theory has an exponential trace operator theta proportional to e^X on-shell, saturating the infinite tower of trace-anomaly Ward identities at tree level. After canonical normalization this becomes V_MS = A phi^4 [ln(phi/mu) - 1/4], with A = m^4/(64|e_vac|). The second essential piece is the nonminimal coupling F(phi) = M_Pl^2 + xi phi^2; the Weyl transformation to the Einstein frame, retaining the exact kinetic prefactor, converts the quartic growth into a plateau and makes the logarithmic term a controlled deformation. The ratio alpha = A/lambda parameterizes the si

What would settle it

Measure (n_s, r) at N ~ 50-60 with percent-level precision; if the pair lies outside the strip predicted by the exact slow-roll scan over (xi, lambda, A, mu) with A/lambda in [0, 0.03] and admissible mu, the MS-deformed plateau is excluded. Alternatively, compute the scalar glueball mass and vacuum condensate for the candidate hidden gauge group; if m^4/(64|e_vac|) cannot equal A at the required alpha and mu, the anomaly-matching connection fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Migdal-Shifman potential V(phi) = A phi^4 [ln(phi/mu) - 1/4], when embedded in a Jordan frame with F(phi) = M_Pl^2 + xi phi^2, yields an Einstein-frame potential that asymptotes to a plateau at large field. The logarithmic term, rather than spoiling the plateau, shifts its height and adds a mild logarithmic tilt in the canonical inflaton field, all governed by the ratio A/lambda. In the large-xi regime the model reproduces the universal attractor predictions n_s = 1 - 2/N and r = 12/N^2, with the anomaly-induced departures controlled by A/lambda. The paper quantifies these shifts, shows they are compatible with current CMB bounds for benchmark parameters

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on the assumption that the single-dilaton Migdal-Shifman effective action exactly saturates the full tower of trace-anomaly Ward identities, so that the trace operator is proportional to e^X on-shell and the potential is exactly V_MS; if additional light states or a different infrared description exist, the logarithmic term becomes an ordinary phenomenological input and the anomaly-fixing of A collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, n_s and r are not free: for fixed N they lie on a sheet parameterized by A/lambda and mu, so precise measurements of the tilt and tensor ratio can bound the hidden-sector condensate and mass.
  • Since the logarithmic coefficient is tied to m^4/|e_vac|, a confirmed deviation from the attractor would be evidence of the anomaly-matching structure rather than a generic phenomenological fit.
  • The benchmark points satisfy H_* << m_gap and H_* << Lambda_bg, showing that the single-field and nonminimal-gravity effective theories can be simultaneously under control.
  • The running of the spectral index is also predicted, providing a further observable that can discriminate this mechanism from other plateau models.
  • The observed scalar amplitude fixes the combination lambda/xi^2, leaving A/lambda and mu as the physically meaningful free parameters that control the anomaly-induced deformation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the same anomaly-matching logic could be applied to other confining hidden sectors, predicting a universal relationship between the logarithmic coefficient and the condensate-to-mass ratio, making inflationary observables a direct window into strong dynamics.
  • One testable extension is to include the first excited 0++ state in the effective theory and check whether the plateau deformation shifts; if additional light states exist below the gap, the single-field saturation of Ward identities fails.
  • The benchmark hierarchy |e_vac|^{1/4} >> m selects near-conformal or large-N confining sectors; testing whether known gauge groups actually produce such a hierarchy would sharpen the model's viability.
  • A precision measurement of the running alpha_s in the (n_s, r) plane could, in principle, isolate the MS logarithmic tilt from other sources of scale dependence, providing a clean observational signature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 proposes an inflationary model in which the inflaton is the lightest scalar (dilaton) of a hidden confining gauge sector. Starting from the Migdal–Shifman effective Lagrangian, the authors derive the canonical potential V_MS = A φ^4 [ln(φ/μ) − 1/4], with A and μ formally related to the scalar mass m and vacuum energy |e_vac|. They couple this sector to gravity through F(φ) = M_Pl^2 + ξφ^2, transform to the Einstein frame exactly, and compute slow-roll observables with the full field-space metric K(φ). The claimed results are that the Einstein-frame potential retains a plateau at large ξ, the MS logarithmic term gives a controlled deformation of the standard attractor predictions n_s = 1 − 2/N and r = 12/N^2, and numerical scans confirm CMB compatibility with controlled EFT scales. The central physical novelty is the assertion that the logarithmic coefficient is fixed by anomaly matching rather than being a free parameter.

Significance. The slow-roll machinery in the paper is standard and the algebraic reduction from the MS action to the φ^4 log potential is internally consistent. If the microphysical anchoring were established, the model would provide a concrete non-perturbative origin for the logarithmic running-inflation potential and a testable deformation of the large-ξ plateau. The paper also gives a clear numerical procedure and EFT-consistency estimates, which are positive features. However, the headline claim that A and μ are fixed by the confining sector is not substantiated: Eqs. (10) and (13) are an invertible reparametrization of m and |e_vac|, and the paper itself acknowledges these are phenomenological inputs. The model as presented is therefore observationally equivalent to running inflation with a free log coefficient, and the claimed distinction from earlier literature is not established. The paper can still be valuable if reframed as a phenomenologically motivated study of nonminimal running inflation, but the current emphasis on anomaly-matching fixation overstates what is actually derived.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (10) and (13)] The statement that A is 'fixed by vacuum condensates' is not supported. The map (A, μ) ↔ (m, |e_vac|) is bijective: for any positive A and μ one can choose m = 2μ√A and |e_vac| = m^4/(64A), so the relation imposes no constraint on the inflationary parameters. The Ward-identity tower (3) constrains integrated zero-momentum correlators of θ; it does not uniquely single out the exponential ansatz θ ∝ e^X that leads to V_MS. The paper's own text in Sec. II calls the values of m and |e_vac| 'a phenomenological input.' Thus the claimed distinction from running inflation with a free β coefficient is not established. This is the central novelty of the work, and it needs either a concrete hidden-sector calculation of m and |e_vac| or a substantial reframing.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (25), (26), (43)] The MS term is not a globally controlled deformation of the plateau. Eq. (25) gives ln(φ/μ) ∝ φ_canonical, so the MS contribution in Eq. (26) makes U(φ_canonical) asymptotically linear with slope ∝ A/ξ², rather than asymptotically constant. The condition Δ_MS(φ*) ≪ 1 at horizon exit is a local condition; it does not guarantee the attractor predictions (40) over the observable window. In fact, for the benchmarks with α = A/λ = 0.02–0.03, the linear-slope contribution to ϵ is O(α²), which is comparable to or larger than 3/(4N²) at N = 55. The paper should quantify the exact ϵ and η in this regime and state explicitly where the attractor approximation fails.
  3. [Sec. V, Table I] The benchmark table reports ξ, φ*/M_Pl, y*, U^{1/4}, and H*/Λ_bg, but omits the actual slow-roll observables n_s, r, A_s, and α_s that are needed to validate the claim of CMB compatibility. Since the paper's stated novelty is testable departures from the attractor, the numerical scans should include a table with exact values of these observables for the benchmark points, together with the range of (ξ, λ, A, μ) that satisfies current CMB bounds. Figure captions alone are insufficient to support the quantitative claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II] The field redefinition is written ambiguously as 'φ ≡ 4 p |e_vac|/m χ' and 'μ ≡ 4 p |e_vac|/m'; it should be typeset clearly as μ = 4√|e_vac|/m (and the analogous expression for φ) to avoid confusion with a fourth root.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (17)] The vacuum counterterm V0 is introduced but its renormalization condition is not specified. The paper should state that V0 is chosen to cancel the cosmological constant at the minimum and explain whether this choice introduces a separate fine-tuning.
  3. [References] Reference [25] is a placeholder ('A. Ahmed and Others, Some title') and [33] lacks complete publication data. These need to be completed or removed before publication.
  4. [Sec. V, General] The figures are referenced by captions that describe heatmaps and scans, but the actual plotted values are not available in the text. Please ensure all figures include clear axis labels, color bars, and the values of the benchmark points so that the reader can verify the claimed agreement with the analytic formulas.
  5. [Sec. VI] In the EFT-control discussion, the text says H*/m_gap ≪ 1 and reports H*/m ≈ 0.08–0.10 for the benchmark. An order-10 hierarchy may be acceptable but is not a '≪ 1' hierarchy; the wording should be softened and a concrete discussion of the expected gap to the next glueball state should be provided for a hidden sector with a specified gauge group.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The advertised microphysical fixation of V_MS reduces to an imposed exponential-trace ansatz plus a bijective reparametrization; the computed CMB observables themselves are not circular.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II, Eqs. (3)-(6), (14) (MS anomaly-matching logic)]
    "MS therefore seek an EFT in which the improved stress tensor has a trace θ∝e^X upon using the scalar equation of motion. ... the potential (5) is precisely chosen so that when the equation of motion is used, the trace operator becomes proportional to e^X."

    The infinite tower of Ward identities (3) is invoked as the constraint that 'fixes' the logarithmic potential (14), but the only step connecting the tower to the potential is the imposed exponential-trace condition θ∝e^X; Eq. (5) is 'precisely chosen' to realize it, and Eq. (14) is then just a field redefinition of that ansatz. No uniqueness proof shows that a one-field local potential is forced by the tower, nor is the absence of additional light states checked. Thus the claimed derivation of V_MS from anomaly matching is the ansatz restated as a derivation.

  2. self definitional [Sec. II, Eqs. (10), (13), and text following Eq. (15)]
    "A≡ 4|evac|/μ^4 ⇒ A= m^4/(64|evac|) ... While the specific value of m^4/|evac| for a hidden sector is a phenomenological input, it is in principle calculable via lattice methods ... This anchors the inflationary potential (14) and its gravitational completion in the anomaly-matching structure ... ensuring they are not ad hoc constructs but are tightly constrained by the underlying strongly coupled dynamics."

    Equation (10) defines μ in terms of m and |e_vac|; substituting that definition into A=4|e_vac|/μ^4 gives A=m^4/(64|e_vac|). The map (A,μ) ↔ (m,|e_vac|) is therefore bijective, as the later inverse m=2μ√A makes explicit. Any positive A and μ can be represented by some m and |e_vac|, so the relation imposes no constraint on the inflationary potential. The paper itself labels the hidden-sector values 'a phenomenological input,' so describing A as 'fixed by the condensate' is a renaming, not a derivation.

full rationale

The two construction-level reductions above concern the paper's central novelty claim: that the Migdal–Shifman action 'fixes' the logarithmic potential and that A is microphysically determined. Step 1 shows the logarithmic form is equivalent to the imposed θ∝e^X ansatz; step 2 shows the (A,μ)↔(m,|e_vac|) relation is a bijective reparametrization. Both are admitted, at least in part, by the manuscript ('precisely chosen', 'phenomenological input'). This is genuine partial circularity in the advertised first-principles anchoring. However, the inflationary analysis itself is not circular: the slow-roll parameters, e-fold integral, and observables n_s, r are computed from the exact Einstein-frame action for given (ξ,λ,A,μ), with only the overall amplitude As used to normalize λ/ξ². No self-citation chain is load-bearing. The model's cosmological predictions therefore retain independent content, but the 'fixed by anomaly matching' claim is not load-bearing as derived.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The ledger shows that the model's predictive freedom is larger than the abstract suggests: A and mu are related to m and |e_vac| by an invertible map, so the anomaly-matching relation does not fix any numerical coefficient. The remaining freedom is packaged into lambda, xi, A, mu (or m, |e_vac|). The main invented entity is the unspecified hidden confining sector with the required high-scale hierarchy; no independent observable is identified outside the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (quartic Wilson coefficient) = Benchmark 1e-2; scanned over parameter space
    Free Wilson coefficient of the gravitational EFT; CMB amplitude fixes only the combination lambda/xi^2, not lambda itself.
  • xi (nonminimal coupling) = Benchmark xi ~ 2.9e3-4.7e3 for lambda=1e-2, N=55; scanned
    Renormalized gravitational-EFT coupling; effectively fixed by CMB normalization once lambda and N are chosen.
  • A (anomaly coefficient) or alpha = A/lambda = Benchmark alpha in [0, 0.03]
    Mapped to m and |e_vac| by Eq. (13), but the mapping is invertible, so A remains a free input controlling the MS deformation.
  • mu (anomaly scale) = Benchmark mu = 10^16 GeV
    Sets the minimum and vacuum energy of V_MS; equivalent to choosing m and |e_vac| via Eq. (10), not an independent prediction.
  • V0 (vacuum counterterm) = Chosen so late-time vacuum energy is negligible
    Free offset adjusted to cancel the negative V_MS(mu) = -|e_vac|; does not affect inflationary dynamics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The infinite tower of trace-anomaly Ward identities is correctly saturated by a single dilaton with theta proportional to e^X on-shell.
    Assumed from the Migdal-Shifman effective theory (Sec. II, Eqs. (3)-(6)); if other light states contribute, the one-field potential (14) is not the full IR description.
  • ad hoc to paper A hidden confining gauge sector with a light 0++ dilaton exists and has |e_vac|^{1/4} >> m so that mu >> m and inflation occurs at a high scale.
    No concrete gauge group or lattice computation is given; the benchmark mu = 10^16 GeV is a representative choice admitted in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption The gravitational EFT is dominated by F = M_Pl^2 + xi phi^2 and V_J = lambda phi^4/4 + V_MS + V0, with no other marginal or higher-dimension operators relevant.
    Leading-order truncation of the curved-space EFT; standard but not derived, and additional operators or states are ignored.
  • domain assumption Cutoff estimates Lambda_bg ~ M_Pl/sqrt(xi) and H/Lambda_bg << 1 ensure EFT control in the large-xi regime.
    Standard large-xi estimate, Eqs. (54)-(55); O(1) factors are uncertain, and the benchmark H/m ~ 0.1 gives only a marginal hierarchy for the confining-sector gap.
invented entities (2)
  • Hidden confining gauge sector (unspecified gauge group)
    purpose: Provides the inflaton as its lightest scalar and the Migdal-Shifman potential via trace-anomaly matching
    No gauge group, confinement scale, or observable coupling is specified; the mu = 10^16 GeV benchmark is an assumption with no independent handle.
  • Dilaton/inflaton phi (lightest 0++ glueball)
    purpose: Inflaton whose dynamics is governed by the MS anomaly-matched EFT
    Scalar glueballs are known in QCD, but for this hidden sector the mass, condensate, and couplings are not given, so there is no falsifiable external handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Minimal Dilaton Inflation from the Effective Gluodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWN6OKLY

@misc{pith2026260300818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Minimal Dilaton Inflation from the Effective Gluodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWN6OKLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.00818}
}
abstract

We develop a nonminimal dilaton-inflation model in which the inflaton is the lightest scalar excitation of a hidden confining gauge theory. The Migdal--Shifman anomaly-matching action fixes a logarithmic contribution to the scalar potential, $V_{\rm MS}=A\varphi^4[\ln(\varphi/\mu)-1/4]$, with $(A,\mu)$ mapped to the scalar mass and vacuum condensate. Embedding this sector in the leading curved-space EFT introduces the independent Wilson coefficients $\lambda$ and $\xi$, and the resulting Einstein-frame dynamics yields a plateau with a calculable anomaly-induced deformation. We analyze the pure MS limit as a baseline, derive the $\mu$--$\lambda$ reparametrization, state finite-window RG-control conditions, and impose both the nonminimal-gravity cutoff and the intrinsic confining-sector gap. Exact slow-roll scans show that the viable regime combines the usual large-$\xi$ attractor behavior with a logarithmic imprint tied directly to nonperturbative trace-anomaly matching.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.00818 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. MS potential in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Einstein-frame potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Heatmap of log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. All quantities are computed using the exact Einstein-frame potential ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Thermal Alignment as a Pathway to Axion Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-08 reject novelty 7.0 of 10

    A thermal bath that damps an axion also imprints fluctuations, and this paper derives a covariance bound plus a gauge model in which one transition determines the late axion phase space as dark matter.

  2. Parametric Resonance of Higgsed Vector Dark Matter: Inflationary Initial Conditions and Sourced Displacements

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Stochastic inflationary fluctuations cannot supply the large dark-Higgs displacement required for broad parametric resonance production of vector dark matter, but a classically sourced Hubble-induced minimum can, with...

  3. Coherent and Stochastic Axion Dark Matter from Thermal Relaxation

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Thermal relaxation of an axion field produces a dark matter relic whose coherent and stochastic parts share one optical depth, yielding a subthermal momentum spectrum.

  4. Shifted Hybrid Realization of Non-Minimal Higgs Inflation in Light of ACT DR6 and Planck Data

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A shifted-hybrid non-minimal Higgs inflation model deforms the Starobinsky attractor via a leading non-renormalizable superpotential operator to raise ns into the ACT-preferred range while keeping r ~ 10^{-3}-10^{-2}.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [25]

    Schwimmer and S

    A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, Comments on trace anomaly matching (2023), arXiv:2307.14957 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [9]

    Ijaz and M

    N. Ijaz and M. U. Rehman, Exploring primordial black holes and gravitational waves with R-symmetric GUT Higgs inflation, Phys. Lett. B861, 139229 (2025), arXiv:2402.13924 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    For given (ξ, λ, A, µ), constructF(φ),U(φ), and K(φ) from (20)–(21)

  4. [2]

    Computeϵ(φ) and solveϵ(φ end) = 1 forφ end

  5. [3]

    ComputeN(φ) via the exact integral (31) and in- vert to obtainφ ∗ for the desiredN

  6. [4]

    Evaluaten s, r, As atφ ∗ using (32), and optionally computeα s ≡dn s/dlnk≃ −dns/dNby finite dif- ferencing inN. This algorithm is exactly what our numerical code imple- ments and is the appropriate way to validate the model because it does not rely on asymptotic canonical-field ex- pressions: all nontrivial field-space factors are included throughK(φ). Tw...

  7. [5]

    A. A. Starobinsky, A new type of isotropic cosmologi- cal models without singularity, Physics Letters B91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  8. [6]

    A. H. Guth, Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems, Physical Review D 23, 347 (1981)

    1981

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    A. D. Linde, Chaotic inflation, Physics Letters B129, 177 (1983)

    1983

  2. [8]

    Collaboration, Planck 2018 results

    P. Collaboration, Planck 2018 results. x. constraints on inflation, Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A10 (2020). 11

    2018

  3. [10]

    N. U. Khan, N. Ijaz, and M. U. Rehman, New inflation in the waterfall region, Phys. Rev. D108, 123545 (2023), arXiv:2309.06953 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    N. Ijaz, M. Mehmood, and M. U. Rehman, The stochas- tic gravitational-wave background from primordial black holes and observable proton decay in R-symmetric SU(5) Inflation, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1394 (2025), arXiv:2308.14908 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Louis and et al, The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 power spectra, likelihoods andλcdm parameters (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louis and et al, The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 power spectra, likelihoods andλcdm parameters (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Abdul Karim and et al, Desi dr2 results

    M. Abdul Karim and et al, Desi dr2 results. ii. measure- ments of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, Physical Review D112, 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 (2025)

    2025 doi

  7. [14]

    Adachi and et al, Improved upper limit on degree-scale cmb b-mode polarization power from the 670 square- degree polarbear survey, The Astrophysical Journal931, 101 (2022)

    S. Adachi and et al, Improved upper limit on degree-scale cmb b-mode polarization power from the 670 square- degree polarbear survey, The Astrophysical Journal931, 101 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    J. Sayre and et al, Measurements of b-mode polar- ization of the cosmic microwave background from 500 square degrees of sptpol data, Physical Review D101, 10.1103/physrevd.101.122003 (2020)

    2020 doi

  9. [16]

    B. Collaboration, Improved constraints on primordial gravitational waves using planck, wmap, and bicep/keck observations through the 2018 observing season, Physical Review Letters127, 151301 (2021)

    2018

  10. [17]

    C. G. Callan, S. R. Coleman, and R. Jackiw, A new im- proved energy-momentum tensor, Annals of Physics59, 42 (1970)

    1970

  11. [18]

    Komargodski and A

    Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, On renormalization group flows in four dimensions, Journal of High Energy Physics2011, 10.1007/jhep12(2011)099 (2011)

    2011 doi

  12. [19]

    Elvang and T

    H. Elvang and T. M. Olson, Rg flows in d dimensions, the dilaton effective action, and the a-theorem, Journal of High Energy Physics2013, 10.1007/jhep03(2013)034 (2013)

    2013 doi

  13. [20]

    M. B. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones, Naturalness and dimensional transmutation in classically scale- invariant gravity, Journal of High Energy Physics2015, 10.1007/jhep03(2015)047 (2015)

    2015 doi

  14. [21]

    R. J. Crewther, Nonperturbative evaluation of the anomalies in low-energy theorems, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 1421 (1972)

    1972

  15. [22]

    Corian` o, L

    C. Corian` o, L. Delle Rose, C. Marzo, and M. Serino, Conformal trace relations from the dilaton wess–zumino action, Physics Letters B726, 896–905 (2013)

    2013

  16. [23]

    K. Yonekura, Notes on operator equations of supercur- rent multiplets and the anomaly puzzle in supersymmet- ric field theories, Journal of High Energy Physics2010, 10.1007/jhep09(2010)049 (2010)

    2010 doi

  17. [24]

    J. F. Thuorst, L. Ebani, and T. J. Girardi, Low-energy theorems and linearity breaking in anomalous amplitudes (2024), arXiv:2402.05362 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. C. Collins, A. Duncan, and S. D. Joglekar, Trace and Dilatation Anomalies in Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D 16, 438 (1977)

    1977

  19. [27]

    A. A. Migdal and M. A. Shifman, Dilaton effective la- grangian in gluodynamics, Physics Letters B114, 445 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous symmetry breaking, Physical Review D7, 1888 (1973)

    1973

  21. [29]

    Ahmed and Others, Some title, J

    A. Ahmed and Others, Some title, J. High Energy Phys. 05, 123, arXiv:2501.12345 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bezrukov, P

    F. Bezrukov, P. Channuie, F. Jørgensen, and F. San- nino, Composite inflation, Physical Review D86, 063513 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, The standard model higgs boson as the inflaton, Physics Letters B659, 703 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, Universality class in conformal inflation, Physical Review Letters112, 011303 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    weon Lee and I

    J. weon Lee and I. guy Koh, Running inflation (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9702224 [hep-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  26. [34]

    De Simone, M

    A. De Simone, M. P. Hertzberg, and F. Wilczek, Running inflation in the standard model, Physics Letters B678, 1–8 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    M´ ari´ an, N

    I. M´ ari´ an, N. Defenu, U. Jentschura, A. Trombettoni, and I. N´ andori, Renormalization-group running induced cosmic inflation, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(06), 028–028

  28. [36]

    A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, B. Himmetoglu, and M. Peloso, Scalar-Scalar, Scalar-Tensor, and Tensor-Tensor Correla- tors from Anisotropic Inflation, Phys. Rev. D81, 063528 (2010), arXiv:1001.4088 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    F. L. Bezrukov and D. S. Gorbunov, Light inflaton Hunter’s Guide, JHEP05, 010

  30. [38]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby, and M. Piai, Dilaton effective field theory (2022), arXiv:2209.14867 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    S. G. Kamath, The energy—momentum tensor, the trace identity and the casimir effect, Pramana66, 345–360 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    C. J. Morningstar and M. Peardon, Glueball spectrum from an anisotropic lattice study, Physical Review D60, 10.1103/physrevd.60.034509 (1999)

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    Aiolaet al., The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 power spectra, likelihoods and LambdaCDM parameters, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2025(11), 062

    S. Aiolaet al., The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 power spectra, likelihoods and LambdaCDM parameters, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2025(11), 062

  34. [42]

    Calabreseet al., The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 constraints on extended cosmological models, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(11), 063

    E. Calabreseet al., The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 constraints on extended cosmological models, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(11), 063

  35. [43]

    Golterman and Y

    M. Golterman and Y. Shamir, Effective theory for pions and a dilatonic meson, Physical Review D94, 054502 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Branden- berger, Theory of cosmological perturbations, Physics Reports215, 203 (1992)

    1992

  37. [45]

    Weinberg, Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A 96, 327 (1979)

    S. Weinberg, Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A 96, 327 (1979)

    1979

  38. [46]

    Salvio and A

    A. Salvio and A. Strumia, Agravity, Physics Letters B 728, 417 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    J. L. F. Barbon and J. R. Espinosa, On the naturalness of higgs inflation, Physical Review D79, 081302 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee, and M. Trott, Power-counting and the validity of the classical approximation during in- flation, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 103 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    G. F. Giudice and H. M. Lee, Unitarizing higgs inflation, Physics Letters B694, 294 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.