Remarks on Higgs Inflation

Michael Atkins; Xavier Calmet

REVIEW

Remarks on Higgs Inflation

Michael Atkins, Xavier Calmet

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 18 Nov 2010 · 27 references

Pith's verdict: The one new result — that the Germani-Kehagias derivative-coupling model has Φ₀ above its own cutoff — is worth printing, but it rests on a single s-channel estimate with only a factor-of-ten margin.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 13, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1011.4179 (version 2)

Pith IDG5CXPQUF, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationMichael Atkins, Xavier Calmet. "Remarks on Higgs Inflation." arXiv:1011.4179 (2010). https://pith.science/paper/G5CXPQUF

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Short version: the only genuinely new content is section 3, and it is a power-counting argument with about a factor of ten of headroom. That is enough to be interesting, not enough to be settled. The reader and the stress-test note both land on this, and I think they are right to make it the centre of gravity, though I would put it slightly less alarmingly: the paper is a useful negative result whose main number needs one more check, not a broken paper. What is new: Atkins and Calmet estimate the cutoff of the Germani-Kehagias derivative-coupling model two ways, during inflation as Λ ≈ (2H²M_P)^{1/3} ≈ 2×10⁻³ M_P and today as Λ ≈ (5M_P/w²)^{1/3} ≈ 3.4×10⁻⁵ M_P. Both numbers check arithmetically against the WMAP-fitted R, Φ₀ and w they quote from [20]. The observation that Φ₀ = 2.1–2.7×10⁻² M_P sits above the inflationary cutoff is the paper's real contribution, and it directly contradicts the unitarity-free claim of [14]. That deserves to be in print. Where it is soft: the step from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5) is asserted rather than derived, and it comes from a single s-channel graph. The paper itself records in section 2 that for a minimally coupled singlet the s+t+u sum cancels and lifts the cutoff to M_P [18], and it warns that the true breakdown point needs full amplitudes. It never checks whether the same reorganization happens here. Since Φ₀/Λ is only about ten, a cancellation of that kind would erase the result. The authors should either include the t- and u-channel terms or say plainly that the conclusion is conditional on the s-channel estimate being representative. The section 2 argument — new physics must appear below M_P today, so the minimal story is lost — is a reasonable effective-field-theory inference, but it leans on the ξ bound from [9,10], and [10] is still listed as to-appear. Minor: the conclusion quotes (5H̄²M_P)^{1/3} where Eq. (5) says 2H²M_P, and Eq. (4) as printed is dimensionally opaque. The asymptotic-safety section is flagged as a remark and reads like one; do not weigh it as a result. Who should read it: anyone working on Higgs inflation unitarity, and specifically on the GK model. It is a targeted comment, not a survey. Recommendation: send it out. The claim is checkable and the target is a published PRL, so a referee should be asked specifically whether the s-channel estimate survives the exchange diagrams. If it does, this is a real correction to the literature; if not, it needs softening before publication.

Referee report

Significance

The paper's useful contribution is the observation that the background-dependent-cutoff defence of Higgs inflation, while it protects inflationary calculations, does not restore the minimality that motivated the model; that point is correct and worth stating in print. The genuinely new technical content is the §3 estimate for the derivative-coupling model, and it is a short power-counting argument rather than a computation. I verified the arithmetic: with R = 5.6×10⁻⁸ M_P², H = √(R/12) = 6.8×10⁻⁵ M_P, so (2H²M_P)^{1/3} = 2.1×10⁻³ M_P, matching Eq. (8); and with w⁻¹ = 8.8×10⁻⁸ M_P, (5M_P/w²)^{1/3} = 3.4×10⁻⁵ M_P, matching Eq. (11). The Jordan-frame 2→4 cross-section argument σ ∼ λ²ξ⁴s/M_P⁴ giving Λ ∼ M_P/(√λξ) is a clean independent check of the Einstein-frame φ⁶ term and is a real strength of §2. The §4 asymptotic-safety remark is appropriately hedged and, in principle, falsifiable.

Major objections (3)

[§3, Eqs. (4)–(5)] The step from the interaction in Eq. (4) to the cutoff in Eq. (5) is asserted rather than derived, and only the s-channel is retained. This matters because §2 of the same manuscript records that for a minimally coupled singlet scalar the s+t+u sum cancels and raises the cutoff to ∼M_P [18], and explicitly states that the exact point of breakdown requires the full amplitudes. The margin here is only Φ₀/Λ ≈ 10, which is within the order-one-to-few uncertainty of a power-counting estimate. The negative conclusion for the Germani–Kehagias model therefore is not established as stated. The authors should either compute the leading s+t+u amplitude for ΦΦ→Φ′Φ′ including the graviton contact terms generated by the ∂²h_{μν} structure, or give a quantified uncertainty on Λ and an argument why the derivative structure cannot reorganize the k⁶ growth in the way the ξφ²R case does.
[§2 and abstract, sentence s2] The conclusion that the original model 'has a serious problem' rests on an interpretive step, not a derivation: from a cutoff M_P/ξ in today's universe the authors infer that new light physics must exist and must take part in inflation. Section 2 is candid that this is a point of view ('we take the point of view', and 'it is most likely that new physics ... will take part'), but the abstract and §5 state it as a conclusion. The bound −0.81 ≤ ξ ≤ 0.64 quoted from [9,10] does not add independent support, since requiring the cutoff to exceed M_P is essentially the same statement as ξ ≲ 1. The abstract and conclusions should separate the derived result (the cutoff today is M_P/ξ) from the interpretive inference, and state the latter as an assumption about the UV completion.
[§4] The positive claim of abstract sentence s3 requires one more step that the section does not supply. If, as the authors report from [24,25], all non-minimal couplings vanish at the fixed point, then ξ → 0 in the UV, whereas inflation needs ξ ∼ 10⁴ at inflationary energies. The manuscript should say whether an RG trajectory can pass through ξ ∼ 10⁴ at the relevant scale while approaching a Gaussian matter fixed point, or acknowledge explicitly that this is an open requirement of the scenario rather than a consequence of it. As written, the section establishes only that running in the right direction would help, which is weaker than the abstract suggests.

Minor objections (7)

[§5 vs Eq. (5)] The conclusions quote the cutoff as (5H̄²M_P)^{1/3}, whereas Eq. (5) gives (2H²M_P)^{1/3}; the symbol H̄ is not defined anywhere. This should be corrected to match Eq. (5).
[Eq. (4)] The coefficient is printed ambiguously as '12H²M_P'; it should be written explicitly as 1/(2H²M_P) with the index structure of the operator (∂²h_{μν}∂^μφ∂^νφ) stated, so that the dimensional consistency of the vertex and hence of Eq. (5) can be checked by the reader.
[§3] The sentence 'we can do this by imposing different in and out states, i.e. ΦΦ→Φ′Φ′' justifies the flavour choice by the four real scalars of the doublet, but does not explain why t- and u-channel graphs are absent or subleading for that choice. Given that §2 invokes exactly such cancellations, one sentence of justification is needed here.
[Eq. (2)] The operator counting (H†H)^n R^m/Λ^{2(n+m)−4} should be restricted to 2(n+m)−4 > 0; the n = m = 1 case is the unsuppressed ξH†HR term itself, not a higher-dimensional operator.
[§3, Eqs. (6)–(8)] The comparison Φ₀ > Λ should be shown to hold across the full range of λ and w allowed by the WMAP fit in [20], not only at the quoted central values. The margin appears to be a factor of ten or more throughout, so this is a presentational point, but stating it removes an obvious objection.
[References] Reference [10] is listed as 'to appear in EPJ C'; since the ξ bound is also given in the published [9], that should be cited as the primary source. Reference [10] also contains a typographical break in the journal name.
[Typesetting] There are several typographical errors to fix: 'Asympotic Safety' in the §4 heading, 'asympotically' in §4, 'Friedmann-Roberstson-Walker' in §3, 'unitartiy' in §2, and 'Germani and Kerhagis' in §3 where the cited author is Kehagias.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper argues that the minimal Standard Model Higgs cannot be the inflaton without new physics, and that a derivative coupling to the Einstein tensor does not fix the unitarity problem.

The reading

The paper asks whether the Higgs boson of the Standard Model can be the inflaton without any new particles, while respecting perturbative unitarity — the requirement that calculated scattering probabilities stay below one. It argues that the original non-minimal coupling $xi H^dagger H R$ has a unitarity cutoff $Lambda sim ar M_P/xi$ around today's vacuum, and that the background-dependent cutoff used to defend inflation only postpones the problem: new physics must still appear below the Planck mass today and would take part in inflation. It then examines the derivative coupling to the Einstein tensor proposed as a fix and estimates a cutoff $Lambda simeq (2H^2ar M_P)^{1/3}$, which for the fitted inflationary background is about $2 imes10^{-3}ar M_P$, below the inflating Higgs value $Phi_0 sim 2 imes10^{-2}ar M_P$. The paper closes by suggesting that asymptotically safe gravity — a scenario in which gravity approaches a fixed point at high energies — could lift these cutoffs and make a Standard-Model-only Higgs inflaton consistent.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on a background-dependent unitarity cutoff. In the original model the dangerous scale is $ar M_P/xi$ when the Higgs is expanded about small field values, while during inflation the effective cutoff grows with the background field. In the derivative model the coupling $(g^{mu u}-w^2 G^{mu u})partial_muPhi partial_ uPhi$ generates, after expanding about a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker background with $wH gg 1$, an interaction of the form $rac{1}{2}H^2ar M_P,partial^2 h^{mu u}partial_muvarphi partial_ uvarphi$, and power counting converts that into $Lambda simeq (2H^2ar M_P)^{1/3}$. Comparing this cutoff with the fitted inflationary background is what turns a claimed fix into a failure.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is negative: neither the original Higgs inflation model nor the derivative Einstein-tensor variant is a self-contained Standard Model explanation of inflation. In the original model the cutoff $ar M_P/xi$ is low enough that new physics must exist in today's universe; a background-dependent cutoff can be above the fields during inflation, but it does not remove the need for that new physics, which would then enter the inflationary dynamics. For the derivative model the paper's power counting gives $Lambda simeq (2H^2ar M_P)^{1/3}$; using $R simeq 5.6 imes10^{-8}ar M_P^2$ and $2.1 imes10^{-2}ar M_P < Phi_0 < 2.7 imes10^{-2}ar M_P$ from the model's cosmic-microwave-background fit, it finds $Lambda simeq 2 imes10^{-3}ar M_P$, so $Phi_0 > Lambda$ during inflation. The positive corollary is that asymptotically safe gravity, with the Planck mass rising and the non-minimal coupling falling in the ultraviolet, could restore consistency without new Standard Model degrees of freedom.

Load-bearing premise

The authors acknowledge that this is a power-counting argument, not a full amplitude calculation, and the step from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5) is asserted rather than derived; the load-bearing premise is that a single direct-channel $2 o 2$ scattering estimate gives the true unitarity cutoff of the derivative-coupling model, without checking whether the $s$-, $t$-, and $u$-channel cancellations that raise the cutoff for a minimally coupled singlet scalar also apply here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The derivative Einstein-tensor model does not solve the unitarity problem it was introduced to solve, so its inflationary predictions cannot be trusted as a complete effective theory without new physics.
Minimal Higgs inflation with only the Standard Model field content requires new physics below the Planck mass, at least at the scale $ar M_P/xi$ in today's universe.
Any new physics that unitarizes the model today is likely to remain in the inflationary regime or mix with the Higgs, so inflation would no longer be driven by the Higgs alone.
Singlet scalars non-minimally coupled to gravity face a related lower cutoff $ar M_P/(sqrt{lambda}xi)$ when they have a self-coupling, so their self-couplings must be chosen carefully.
If gravity is asymptotically safe with the required non-minimal couplings, a Standard-Model-only Higgs inflaton could be consistent without extra degrees of freedom.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's derivative-model conclusion rests on a power-counting estimate rather than a computed amplitude; an explicit calculation including all graviton-exchange channels is the obvious next check and could reverse the conclusion.
If asymptotically safe gravity makes $xi$ run to zero in the ultraviolet, the inflationary regime may require a matching condition between the infrared $xi sim 10^4$ and the fixed-point value, which would be a concrete constraint on the scenario.
The same background-dependent cutoff logic suggests that collider or cosmological probes of the cutoff today are not directly transferable to the inflationary epoch; a model that is safe during inflation can still require new physics at low energies.
Because the paper treats the Higgs as four real scalars in the high-energy limit, a full Standard Model calculation with electroweak symmetry restored would test whether the single-real-scalar power counting captures the leading cutoff.

Original abstract

We discuss models where the Higgs boson of the electroweak standard model plays the role of the inflaton. We focus on the question of the violation of perturbative unitarity due to the coupling of the Higgs boson either to the Ricci scalar or to the Einstein tensor and discuss the background dependence of the unitarity bounds. Our conclusion is that the simplest model which restricts itself to the standard model Higgs boson without introducing further degrees of freedom has a serious problem. However, in the asymptotically safe gravity scenario, the Higgs boson of the standard model could be the inflaton and no physics beyond the standard model is required to explain both inflation and the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry of the standard model.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,705 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.69 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.04 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.20 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We discuss models where the Higgs boson of the electroweak standard model plays the role of the inflaton. We focus on the question of the violation of perturbative unitarity due to the coupling of the Higgs boson either to the Ricci scalar or to the Einstein tensor and discuss the background dependence of the unitarity bounds. Our conclusion is that the simplest model which restricts itself to the standard model Higgs boson without introducing further degrees of freedom has a serious problem. However, in the asymptotically safe gravity scenario, the Higgs boson of the standard model could be the inflaton and no physics beyond the standard model is required to explain both inflation and the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry of the standard model.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We discuss models where the Higgs boson of the electroweak standard model plays the role of the inflaton.	contribution 0.74	0.71	0.03	asserted 0.81
s1	We focus on the question of the violation of perturbative unitarity due to the coupling of the Higgs boson either to the Ricci scalar or to the Einstein tensor and discuss the background dependence of the unitarity bounds.	contribution 0.97	0.73	0.04	asserted 0.65
s2	Our conclusion is that the simplest model which restricts itself to the standard model Higgs boson without introducing further degrees of freedom has a serious problem.	result 0.91	0.79	0.39	asserted 1.00
s3	However, in the asymptotically safe gravity scenario, the Higgs boson of the standard model could be the inflaton and no physics beyond the standard model is required to explain both inflation and the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry of the standard model.	result 0.77	0.56	0.46	hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 0.63 · evidence from argument 0.60.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (27)

[20]

C. Germani and A. Kehagias, JCAP 1005 (2010) 019 [Erratum-ibid. 1006 (2010) E01] [arXiv:1003.4285 [astro-ph.CO]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[14]

C. Germani and A. Kehagias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 011302 [arXiv:1003.2635 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[18]

S. R. Huggins, D. J. Toms, Class. Quant. Grav. 4 (1987) 1509

View on Pith 1987
[10]

M. Atkins and X. Calmet, arXiv:1005.1075 [hep-ph], to appear in EP J C

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[1]

J. L. Cervantes-Cota, H. Dehnen, Nucl. Phys. B442 (1995) 391-412 [astro-ph/9505069]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[2]

F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 703 [arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[3]

A. De Simone, M. P. Hertzberg, F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B678 (2009) 1-8 [arXiv:0812.4946 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[4]

R. N. Lerner, J. McDonald, JCAP 1004 (2010) 015 [arXiv:0912.5463 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[5]

C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee and M. Trott, JHEP 0909 (2009) 103 [arXiv:0902.4465 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[6]

J. L. F. Barbon and J. R. Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 081302 [arXiv:0903.0355 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[7]

C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee and M. Trott, JHEP 1007 (2010) 007 [arXiv:1002.2730 [hep- ph]]. 7

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[8]

T. Han and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B 616 (2005) 215 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404182]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[9]

M. Atkins, X. Calmet, Phys. Lett. B695 (2011) 298-302. [arXiv:1002.0003 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[11]

M. P. Hertzberg, arXiv:1002.2995 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde et al. , [arXiv:1008.2942 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[13]

F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov and S. Sibiryakov, ar Xiv:1008.5157 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[15]

R. N. Lerner and J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 80, 123507 (2009) [arXiv:0909.0520 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[16]

G. F. Giudice and H. M. Lee, arXiv:1010.1417 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[17]

R. N. Lerner, J. McDonald, [arXiv:1005.2978 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[19]

D. A. Dicus, H. -J. He, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 093009. [hep-ph/0409131]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[21]

S. Weinberg, in Understanding the Fundamental Constituents of Matter , ed. A. Zichichi (Plenum Press, New York, 1977); in General Relativity, ed. S. W. Ha wking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, 1979),700

View on Pith 1977
[22]

R. Percacci, in Approaches to quantum gravity , ed. D. Oriti, 111-128 [arXiv:0709.3851 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

J. Hewett, T. Rizzo, JHEP 0712 (2007) 009 [arXiv:0707.3182 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[24]

G. Narain, R. Percacci, Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 075001 [arXiv:0911.0386 [hep- th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[25]

G. Narain, C. Rahmede, Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 075002 [arXiv:0911.0394 [hep- th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[26]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 083535 [arXiv:0911.3165 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[27]

M. Shaposhnikov, C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B683, 196-200 (2010) [arXiv:0912.0208 [hep-th]]. 8

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

Preheating in Palatini Higgs inflation
hep-ph 2019-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Palatini Higgs inflation reheats through tachyonic Higgs production that depletes the inflaton condensate in less than one e-fold, unlike the metric case where gauge bosons dominate.
Two-loop corrections to Starobinsky-Higgs inflation
hep-ph 2018-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Two-loop quantum corrections to the Starobinsky-Higgs model reduce the inflationary potential by up to 10% and shift the spectral index by 0.002 to 0.006, leaving the model viable and showing that Starobinsky inflatio...
Higgs-Palatini Inflation and Unitarity
hep-ph 2010-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation has a UV cutoff M_Pl/√ζ, about √ζ times above the Hubble scale, so it avoids the unitarity violation of metric Higgs inflation.
The Lightest of Black Holes
hep-th 2014-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The complex poles of the resummed graviton propagator are interpreted as black hole precursors, yielding a mass of about 7 × 10^18 GeV for the Standard Model and a few TeV for a large hidden sector.
Self-healing of unitarity in Higgs inflation
hep-ph 2013-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Graviton loop corrections restore perturbative unitarity in Standard Model Higgs inflation, so the model needs no new physics below the Planck scale.

Show 2 more citing papers

The Higgs field as an inflaton
hep-ph 2013-07 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The Standard Model Higgs boson, given a large non-minimal coupling to gravity, produces an inflationary potential whose predicted spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio match Planck, at the price of an unknown ultr...
Renormalisation group and the Planck scale
hep-th 2011-02 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A review argues that functional renormalisation group calculations give growing evidence for a non-trivial ultraviolet fixed point in four-dimensional quantum gravity, the asymptotic safety scenario.

How the literature uses it

32 arXiv papers cite this in 48 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 34 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

Therefore, $Λ∼/ξ$ also during inflation, and the numerical value changes by less than a factor of 2 between the EW scale and the inflationary large field region, in contrast to previous work [ref] .

Tree-level unitarity in Higgs inflation in the metric and the Palatini formulation · Conclusions · contest 0.81

Compares with it 1 paper

Different from the idea of [ref] , in our model the inflationary solution can be obtained purely in the frame of AS gravity without the help of the Higgs boson, but the Higgs field plays the role of seeding primordial power spectrum which explains the CMB observation.

Higgs Boson in RG running Inflationary Cosmology · Introduction · 0.97

Cites it as background 11 papers

Recently, this approach has been under dense discussion in regard to unitarity violation [ref] .

Higgs-Palatini Inflation and Unitarity · Introduction · 0.89
This resummation was first considered in when studying the perturbative unitarity of the effective action [ref] [ref] .

The horizon of the lightest black hole · Introduction · 0.89
Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the gravitational scattering of fields and the question of whether perturbative unitarity could be violated below the Planck scale [ref] .

The Lightest of Black Holes · Introduction · 0.89

What it cites · 45 sentences without a confident label

Contests 1 paper

We can determine $H≃√(R/12)$ from ([ref]) and we find [equation] In [ref] only the condition $R<Λ^2$ was considered and the model was said to be free of unitarity problems.

New Model of Inflation with Non-minimal Derivative Coupling of Standard Model Higgs Boson to Gravity · New Model of Higgs Inflation · contest 0.78

Uses the method or tool of 2 papers

As in [ref] , we simplify the calculation by only considering s-channel scattering, we can do this by imposing different in and out states, i.e. $ΦΦ→Φ^'Φ^'$.

On the unitarity of linearized General Relativity coupled to matter · New Model of Higgs Inflation · 0.97
As in [ref] , we simplify the calculation by only considering s-channel scattering, we can do this by imposing different in and out states, i.e. $ΦΦ→Φ^'Φ^'$.

Scale of Quantum Gravity · New Model of Higgs Inflation · 0.97

Uses data or values from 1 paper

Expanding around a flat background $g_μν=η_μν+√(2)h_μν/M̅_P + O(M̅_P^-2)$ and the standard model Higgs boson vacuum expectation value (which we take to be zero in the high energy limit being considered), the cut off is found to be [equation] In [ref] , by comparison with the WMAP data the value of the dimensionful parameter $w$ is found to lie in the range [equation] Taking the upper bound for $w^-1$ we find that unitarity is violated at [equation] which is smaller than both $√(R)$ and $Φ_0$ during inflation.

Cosmological Perturbations in the New Higgs Inflation · New Model of Higgs Inflation · 0.92

Cites as support 1 paper

Indeed, in [ref] it is the presence of the large non-minimal coupling to the new sigma field that is of critical importance for inflation, not the presence of the Higgs boson.

Unitarizing Higgs Inflation · Original Model of Higgs Inflation · 0.98

Cites as background 4 papers

It has recently been proposed that the standard model Higgs boson could be the inflaton [ref] .

The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton · Introduction · 0.94
It has recently been proposed that the standard model Higgs boson could be the inflaton [ref] .

Running Inflation in the Standard Model · Introduction · 0.94
A new model of Higgs inflation was proposed in [ref] with the motivation being that it did not suffer from the unitarity problems that plagued the earlier model.

New Model of Inflation with Non-minimal Derivative Coupling of Standard Model Higgs Boson to Gravity · Conclusions · 0.88

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [20]

C. Germani and A. Kehagias, JCAP 1005 (2010) 019 [Erratum-ibid. 1006 (2010) E01] [arXiv:1003.4285 [astro-ph.CO]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[2] [14]

C. Germani and A. Kehagias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 011302 [arXiv:1003.2635 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[3] [18]

S. R. Huggins, D. J. Toms, Class. Quant. Grav. 4 (1987) 1509

View on Pith 1987

[4] [10]

M. Atkins and X. Calmet, arXiv:1005.1075 [hep-ph], to appear in EP J C

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[5] [1]

J. L. Cervantes-Cota, H. Dehnen, Nucl. Phys. B442 (1995) 391-412 [astro-ph/9505069]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[6] [2]

F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 703 [arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[7] [3]

A. De Simone, M. P. Hertzberg, F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B678 (2009) 1-8 [arXiv:0812.4946 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[8] [4]

R. N. Lerner, J. McDonald, JCAP 1004 (2010) 015 [arXiv:0912.5463 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[9] [5]

C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee and M. Trott, JHEP 0909 (2009) 103 [arXiv:0902.4465 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[10] [6]

J. L. F. Barbon and J. R. Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 081302 [arXiv:0903.0355 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[11] [7]

C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee and M. Trott, JHEP 1007 (2010) 007 [arXiv:1002.2730 [hep- ph]]. 7

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[12] [8]

T. Han and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B 616 (2005) 215 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404182]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[13] [9]

M. Atkins, X. Calmet, Phys. Lett. B695 (2011) 298-302. [arXiv:1002.0003 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[14] [11]

M. P. Hertzberg, arXiv:1002.2995 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[15] [12]

S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde et al. , [arXiv:1008.2942 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [13]

F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov and S. Sibiryakov, ar Xiv:1008.5157 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[17] [15]

R. N. Lerner and J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 80, 123507 (2009) [arXiv:0909.0520 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[18] [16]

G. F. Giudice and H. M. Lee, arXiv:1010.1417 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[19] [17]

R. N. Lerner, J. McDonald, [arXiv:1005.2978 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[20] [19]

D. A. Dicus, H. -J. He, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 093009. [hep-ph/0409131]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[21] [21]

S. Weinberg, in Understanding the Fundamental Constituents of Matter , ed. A. Zichichi (Plenum Press, New York, 1977); in General Relativity, ed. S. W. Ha wking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, 1979),700

View on Pith 1977

[22] [22]

R. Percacci, in Approaches to quantum gravity , ed. D. Oriti, 111-128 [arXiv:0709.3851 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[23] [23]

J. Hewett, T. Rizzo, JHEP 0712 (2007) 009 [arXiv:0707.3182 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[24] [24]

G. Narain, R. Percacci, Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 075001 [arXiv:0911.0386 [hep- th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[25] [25]

G. Narain, C. Rahmede, Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 075002 [arXiv:0911.0394 [hep- th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[26] [26]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 083535 [arXiv:0911.3165 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[27] [27]

M. Shaposhnikov, C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B683, 196-200 (2010) [arXiv:0912.0208 [hep-th]]. 8

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010