Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Inflationary e-folding and the implications for gravitational-wave detection

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Siri Chongchitnan

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · Submitted 8 May 2017

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We demonstrate that the approximation for the number of inflationary e-folds commonly used in the literature can lead to highly inaccurate predictions for the amplitude of primordial gravitational waves.

how it is stated · asserted 0.98 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1705.02712 (version 1)
Pith IDHHQYR2KY, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationSiri Chongchitnan. "Inflationary e-folding and the implications for gravitational-wave detection." arXiv:1705.02712 (2017). https://pith.science/paper/HHQYR2KY
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. 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.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,895 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.21 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.15 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.67 · compares with prior results 0.82 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We demonstrate that the approximation for the number of inflationary e-folds commonly used in the literature can lead to highly inaccurate predictions for the amplitude of primordial gravitational waves. We show that such an approximation can lead to perfectly viable inflation models being falsely ruled out by direct or indirect gravitational-wave measurements. We illustrate this point using a new class of inflation models which include the power-law potential as the simplest limit. These models are simple to construct without using the slow-roll approximation, and are consistent with constraints from Planck. Crucially, these models may suffer from an order-of-magnitude error in the prediction for the gravitational-wave amplitude if the common definition of e-folding is used. Our findings have strong implications for the classes of inflation models that can be ruled out by future space-based laser interferometers such as BBO and DECIGO.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We demonstrate that the approximation for the number of inflationary e-folds commonly used in the literature can lead to highly inaccurate predictions for the amplitude of primordial gravitational waves. result 0.78 0.93 0.74 asserted 0.98
s1 We show that such an approximation can lead to perfectly viable inflation models being falsely ruled out by direct or indirect gravitational-wave measurements. result 0.74 0.89 0.32 asserted 0.91
s2 We illustrate this point using a new class of inflation models which include the power-law potential as the simplest limit. method 0.71 0.89 0.05 asserted 1.00
s3 These models are simple to construct without using the slow-roll approximation, and are consistent with constraints from Planck. method 0.67 0.80 0.04 asserted 0.90
s4 Crucially, these models may suffer from an order-of-magnitude error in the prediction for the gravitational-wave amplitude if the common definition of e-folding is used. result 0.99 0.79 0.50 hedged possibility 1.00
s5 Our findings have strong implications for the classes of inflation models that can be ruled out by future space-based laser interferometers such as BBO and DECIGO. interpretation 1.00 0.69 0.31 asserted 0.95

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.91.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
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

The paper
Original abstract

We demonstrate that the approximation for the number of inflationary e-folds commonly used in the literature can lead to highly inaccurate predictions for the amplitude of primordial gravitational waves. We show that such an approximation can lead to perfectly viable inflation models being falsely ruled out by direct or indirect gravitational-wave measurements. We illustrate this point using a new class of inflation models which include the power-law potential as the simplest limit. These models are simple to construct without using the slow-roll approximation, and are consistent with constraints from Planck. Crucially, these models may suffer from an order-of-magnitude error in the prediction for the gravitational-wave amplitude if the common definition of e-folding is used. Our findings have strong implications for the classes of inflation models that can be ruled out by future space-based laser interferometers such as BBO and DECIGO.

Human review

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

How the literature uses it

1 arXiv paper cite this in 1 sentence

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

What it cites · 2 sentences without a confident label

Cites as background 3 papers

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.