Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Towards degeneracy breaking of early universe models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Measuring the time variation of particle and Planck masses could break the degeneracy among conformally related early-universe models, identifying which scenario is physically realized.

desk verdict The parametrization idea is genuinely worth exploring, but the central integral relation behind the parameter-space plots is inconsistent with the paper's own definitions, so the I-group figures do not show what the paper claims. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03695 v1 pith:BRRSCXEZ submitted 2019-08-10 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

Ze Luan , Taotao Qiu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-phhep-th PACS 98.80.Cq04.50.Kd
keywords earlyuniverseconformaldegeneracyframe-invariantvariablesinflationmatterbounceslowcontractionexpansionPlanckmassvariation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the observational degeneracy among conformally equivalent early-universe scenarios—inflation, matter bounce, slow contraction, and slow expansion—can be broken using frame-invariant variables built from the running of the particle mass and the Planck mass. The authors parametrize those running rates by two combinations, D/γ and Ḋ/($M_Pl^{0}$ γ²), and show that each scenario occupies a distinct region of that parameter space. If future observations can constrain these quantities at early times, the physically realized frame and hence the true scenario would be identified. Several explicit nonminimal coupling functions are analyzed as concrete examples.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the set of frame-invariant variables introduced by Ijjas and Steinhardt: α_m = a m/$M_Pl^{0}$, α_Pl = a M_Pl/$M_Pl^{0}$, Θ_m = (H + ṁ/m)/M_Pl, Θ_Pl = (H + Ṁ_Pl/M_Pl)/M_Pl, together with the associated slow-roll parameters ε_m and ε_Pl. These variables are equal in all conformal frames, yet their signs and magnitudes differ by scenario, as summarized in Table I. The paper's specific tool is the integral relation (80) between ε_m and ε_Pl, which after differentiation becomes Eq. (81) and, under the parametrization (83) for the Einstein-frame background, yields the closed expressions (84) that map scenarios to regions of the parameter space spanned by D/γ and Ḋ/($M_Pl^{0}$ γ²).

What would settle it

Take a concrete nonminimal coupling function, e.g., f(t)=α $t^{{2β}}$, evolve the exact background equations in both Jordan and Einstein frames, compute ε_m and ε_Pl directly from their definitions (77), and test whether the integral relation (80) holds; if it fails for even one such model, the derived region boundaries do not follow from the stated premises. Independently, a future measurement of Ṁ_Pl/M_Pl and ṁ/m at early times that falls in no predicted region for any N_E and ε_E would falsify the classification's completeness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a measurement of the two frame-invariant combinations D/γ and Ḋ/($M_Pl^{0}$ γ²), together with the Einstein-frame e-folding number N_E and slow-roll parameter ε_E, is sufficient to decide which early-universe scenario actually occurred, even when the primordial spectra are conformally degenerate. The paper derives parametrized expressions for the Jordan-frame Hubble-like variable Θ_m and slow-roll parameter ε_m in terms of these parameters, and plots the regions corresponding to slow contraction and slow expansion for both the I-group (dual to inflation) and the M-group (dual to matter contraction). It finds that the I-group generically requires a large running of the Planck mass, whereas the M-group allows small running but is exponentially sensitive to N_E. For the trivial case D=0, general relativity is recovered and the Jordan frame coincides with the Einstein frame.

Load-bearing premise

The entire parameter-space classification rests on an integral relation between the frame-invariant slow-roll parameters, Eq. (80), which the paper states without proof and then differentiates to obtain the expressions used to draw the region plots.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the regions are correct, future constraints on the early-time running of the Planck mass and particle mass—for instance from standard-clock observations—would uniquely select the physical conformal frame and thereby the actual early-universe scenario.
  • Within the I-group, the non-detection of a large Planck-mass running (D close to 0) would leave inflation as the only possibility in the Jordan frame, recovering the ordinary GR description.
  • Within the M-group, the allowed regions shift by orders of magnitude when N_E changes by one e-fold, so a precise determination of the e-folding number is required before the scenario can be identified from these parameters.
  • The concrete coupling-function analysis shows that for exponential f(t), the Jordan frame always behaves like inflation (ε_m=0, Θ_m>0) for both groups, so such models cannot be distinguished by this method alone; power-law and polynomial f(t) do yield distinguishing slow-roll/slow-expansion regions.
  • The parametrized approach can be applied to any nonminimal coupling function, so future models can be classified by computing their effective f(t) and locating them in the same parameter space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the unproved integral relation (80) is the linchpin of the region maps; a direct derivation from the definitions (77) or a numerical check for individual models would settle whether the boundaries are trustworthy.
  • Editorial inference: because the frame-invariant variables track the ratio m/M_Pl, the same classification could in principle be applied to late-time scalar-tensor theories, where local tests of equivalence-principle violation already set tight bounds on ṁ/m and Ġ/G; those bounds could be projected onto the same parameter space to exclude early-universe scenarios that require large running.
  • Editorial inference: the method assumes a single canonical scalar field with c_s²=1; extending the region analysis to multi-field or non-canonical sound-speed models would test whether the scenario separation survives in more general settings.
  • Editorial inference: the claimed exponential sensitivity of the M-group regions to N_E suggests that observations constraining the duration of the nonstandard phase (e.g., BBN bounds on e-folds) will matter as much as direct measurements of mass running for the degeneracy-breaking program.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the conformal-frame degeneracy among early-universe scenarios (slow-roll inflation, matter contraction, slow contraction, and slow expansion) that can produce nearly scale-invariant primordial spectra. Using the frame-invariant variables of Ijjas and Steinhardt, the authors parametrize the difference between Jordan- and Einstein-frame descriptions in terms of the time variation of the particle mass and the Planck mass. They then divide the parameter space of the dimensionless combinations D/γ and Ḋ/(M_Pl^0 γ^2) into regions corresponding to the different scenarios, presenting these regions in Figs. 1–6, and they analyze three concrete coupling functions f(t). The central claim is that future measurements of these mass-variation parameters could identify which conformal frame is physical and thereby break the degeneracy between the scenarios.

Significance. If the parameter-space predictions were correct, the paper would provide a concrete, falsifiable route toward distinguishing conformally dual early-universe models, a question of current interest. The review of the perturbation spectra in Section II is standard and serves as a useful synthesis. The concrete coupling-function examples in Section IIIC are internally consistent and appear to be independent of the main parametrization. However, the central derivation connecting the frame-invariant slow-roll parameters ε_m and ε_Pl is flawed, and the resulting parameter-space regions, which constitute the main quantitative result, are not trustworthy. The paper is therefore not acceptable in its present form.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IIIA, Eqs. (77)–(84)] The relation (80) is stated without derivation and is inconsistent with the defining equations (77)–(79). As written, Eq. (80) is dimensionally unbalanced, and differentiating it does not reproduce Eq. (81). More importantly, Eq. (81) disagrees with the direct definition of ε_m when the paper's own initial condition M_Pl^0 t_E^0 = 1 is used. For example, take M_Pl^0 = 1, γ = 1, constant ε_E = ε_Pl = ε = 0.01, and D = Δ_M − Δ_m = −Δ_m so that d ln m/dt = −D and Ḋ = 0. Then from Eq. (79), Θ_m = 1/(ε t) − D. Evaluating Eq. (77) directly gives ε_m = (ε − D ε t + D^2 ε^2 t^2)/(1 − D ε t)^2. With N_E = 60, the e-folding relation gives t_E = t_E^0 e^{ε N_E} = e^{0.6} = 1.822. Direct evaluation with t = 1.822 and D = 50 gives ε_m ≈ −9. In contrast, Eq. (84) uses the integral ∫ ε_Pl M_Pl^0 dt_E = ε(e^{ε N_E} − 1) = 0.01(e^{0.6} − 1) = 0.00822 and gives ε_m ≈ −0.7. Thus the two expressions differ by more than an order of magnitude and can place the same parameter point in different scenario regions of Figs. 1–6. Since the division of parameter space in Section IIIB rests on Eq. (84), the central claim of the paper is unsupported.
  2. [Sec. IIIA, Eq. (80)] The paper never proves Eq. (80); the text says only that 'one can obtain' it. Appendix A derives the frame-invariant variables but does not derive this integral relation. Given that the relation is load-bearing for the main result, a complete derivation is required, and the derivation must be consistent with the initial condition M_Pl^0 t_E^0 = 1 used in Eq. (84). The current text leaves the reader unable to verify the central step.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (80)] The equation is dimensionally inconsistent as printed: the denominator subtracts a term of dimension [M^2 T] from a term of dimension [M]. This should be corrected and the notation clarified.
  2. [Eq. (84)] The placement of parentheses in the last term of Eq. (84) is ambiguous; it should read (Ḋ/M_Pl^0 − Δ_m D)/γ^2 multiplied by ε_E (e^{ε_E N_E} − 1)^2, with all factors explicitly shown.
  3. [Table I] The caption contains the typo 'expanstion' instead of 'expansion'.
  4. [Eq. (35)] The inequality 0 < 3 + 2k(φ) f(φ)/f_{,φ}^2 < ε_E < 1 is hard to parse; a brief derivation or a reference to the condition in [1] would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the central parameter-space maps are derived from independently motivated scenario conditions, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing consistency check.

full rationale

The paper's claimed result—that future constraints on D/γ and Ḋ/(M_Pl^0 γ²) would localize a scenario—is conditional and is not obtained by fitting a parameter and then 'predicting' a closely related quantity. The regions in Sec. IIIB are computed by inserting the independently established scenario conditions of Table I (e.g., ε_m ≃ 0 for inflation-dual, ε_m ≥ 3 for slow contraction, ε_m ≪ −1 for slow expansion) into the parametrized expressions of Eq. (84). The frame-invariant variables themselves are not assumed as black boxes: they are re-derived in Appendix A from the conformal transformation, and the only self-citation [10] appears as a check that 'the above results are consistent with our previous works,' which is not load-bearing. The main caveat is that Eq. (80), the integral relation connecting ε_m and ε_Pl, is stated with 'one can obtain' and no derivation; the skeptic's example suggests it may be inconsistent with the direct definitions (77)–(79) for the lower limit chosen in Sec. IIIA. However, an unproved or incorrect intermediate step is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the conclusion is not identical to an input by construction, no fitted datum is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the conformal-frame degeneracy, the power-law Einstein-frame ansatz, and the unproved slow-roll parameter mapping of Eq. (80). No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the Einstein-frame slow-roll parameter and e-folds, plus the scanned mass-running coordinates and coupling-function parameters in the examples.

free parameters (4)
  • ε_E (Einstein-frame slow-roll parameter) = chosen as 0.010, 0.0111, 0.0125 for I-group and 1.5 for M-group in the plots
    The parameter-space regions in Figs. 1-6 depend on ε_E, which the paper varies by hand within observationally allowed ranges rather than fixing from data.
  • N_E (Einstein-frame e-folding number) = chosen as 60, 55, 50 for I-group and 19, 20, 21 for M-group
    The regions are sensitive to N_E; for I-group it is motivated by solving horizon and flatness problems, for M-group it is taken from literature bounds, but the values are chosen for illustration.
  • D/γ and Ḋ/(M_Pl^0 γ^2)
    These are the coordinates of the parameter space, treated as free to be constrained by future observations; the paper scans them to map each scenario's region.
  • β (power-law exponent in f = α t^{2β}) and ρ (combination of α, β in polynomial f = (α+βt)^2)
    In the concrete examples, these coupling-function parameters are scanned by hand to find which ranges give slow contraction or slow expansion; they are not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Conformal transformations leave superhorizon curvature perturbations and power spectra unchanged, so conformally related models are observationally degenerate.
    Used throughout the paper to justify the degeneracy problem; standard result in cosmology, cited from the literature.
  • domain assumption The Einstein-frame background is exactly power-law, a_E ∝ t_E^{1/ε_E}, with constant ε_E over the observable e-folding range.
    Equations (83) and (84) assume this to integrate the frame-invariant slow-roll relations; real models need not have constant ε_E, making this a simplifying assumption.
  • domain assumption The no-ghost and stability conditions of Eq. (35) from Ijjas and Steinhardt (2015) are adopted.
    Used in Section II.C to derive the allowed parameter range for the non-minimal coupling function f(φ).
  • standard math The perturbation spectra for inflation, matter contraction, slow contraction, and slow expansion are taken from the cited literature and are not re-derived.
    Section II relies on standard results for the power spectra and spectral indices; these are accepted background results in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards degeneracy breaking of early universe models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BRRSCXEZ

@misc{pith2026190803695,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards degeneracy breaking of early universe models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BRRSCXEZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03695}
}
read the original abstract

There are many possibilities of scenarios in the early universe, which can give rise to the same observational signals due to the degeneracy among each other, caused by equivalence under the conformal transformations. In order to break the degeneracy, in this paper we take into account the so-called "frame-invariant variables" proposed by A. Ijjas and P. J. Steinhardt in \cite{Ijjas:2015zma}. We discuss how the different scenarios will distribute in different parametric space constructed from those variables, waiting for the judgement of real observations in the future. Several concrete models with explicit non-minimal coupling functions are also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03695 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The region in parameter space of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The region in parameter space of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: The region in parameter space of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The region in parameter space of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    × 10-15 1.5 × 10-12 0

    work page

  2. [2]

    Similar to the scalar case, the initial condition of v can be obtained from Eq

    Moreover, a∼ τ 1/(ϵinf−1) leads to a′′ a → 2−ϵinf (ϵinf−1)2τ 2 , which gives the solution: v =dinf 1 √ |τ|Hν(|kτ|) , dinf 2 √ |τ|H−ν(|kτ|) , (16) and also γ = √ 2v a =dinf 1 2√πHkν|τ| 3 2 +ν , dinf 2 2√πHk−ν|τ| 3 2−ν (17) in superhorizon region. Similar to the scalar case, the initial condition of v can be obtained from Eq. (15) by considering the large k...

    work page

  3. [3]

    anamorphic universe

    Since for ϵmc ≃ 3/2, ν ≃ 3/2, and from Eq. (24) one can see that first mode is con- stant while the second mode is growing [39]. So the spec- trum and spectral index will be determined by the second mode: PS mc ≡ k3 2π2|ζ|2 = H 2 8π2ϵmc |kτ|3−2ν , (25) nS mc ≡ 1 +d lnPS mc d lnk = 5− 2 ϵmc− 1 , (26) which is nearly scale-invariant as ϵmc is close to 3/2. M...

    work page

  4. [4]

    J. L. Lehners, Phys. Rept. 465, 223 (2008) [arXiv:0806.1245 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    5: The region in parameter space of {D/γ, ˙D/(M 0 plγ2)} which corresponds to slow-contraction in Jordan frame while matter-contraction in Einstein frame (M-group)

    × 10-24 D/γ D M0pl γ2 FIG. 5: The region in parameter space of {D/γ, ˙D/(M 0 plγ2)} which corresponds to slow-contraction in Jordan frame while matter-contraction in Einstein frame (M-group). The blue, red, yellow regions corresponds to NE = 21, 20, 19 respec- tively, withεE = 3/2. -2.2 × 10-12 1. × 10-12 -5. × 10-24 -4. × 10-24 -3. × 10-24 -2. × 10-24 -...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Moreover, for large value of β, we have ϵ≈ ϵE, which gives rise to inflation-like behavior in Jordan frame

    Therefore, Θ m > 0 for β >−1 or β <−1/(1−ϵE) while Θm < 0 for only narrow range of −1/(1−ϵE) < β <−1. Moreover, for large value of β, we have ϵ≈ ϵE, which gives rise to inflation-like behavior in Jordan frame. The phase space for slow-contraction and slow expansion will be constrained to the regions of (−1/(1− ϵE),−(1−ϵE/3)/(1−ϵE)] and [−(1+ϵE)/(1−ϵE),−1/(...

    work page

  7. [7]

    standard clock

    Therefore, Θ m > 0 for ρ< −tE or ρ> (εE− 2)tE/2, while Θm < 0 for ( εE− 2)tE/2 < ρ <−tE. More- over, whenρ =εEtE(εE + 1)/[2(2εE− 1)]−tE, we have εm ≈ εE, which gives rise to inflation-like behavior in Jordan frame. Note that although we can make Θm > 0, there is no way to get slow-contraction phase, since the condition ofϵm > 3 cannot be satisfied. The phas...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The anamorphic universe

    A. Ijjas and P. J. Steinhardt, JCAP 1510, no. 10, 001 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/10/001 [arXiv:1507.03875 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    R. A. Alpher, H. Bethe and G. Gamow, Phys. Rev. 73, 803 (1948); G. Gamow, Phys. Rev. 70, 572 (1946)

    1948

  2. [10]

    Novello and S

    M. Novello and S. E. P. Bergliaffa, Phys. Rept. 463, 127 (2008) [arXiv:0802.1634 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  4. [12]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. [Planck Collaboration], arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astro- phys. 594, A17 (2016) [arXiv:1502.01592 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Finelli and R

    F. Finelli and R. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103522 (2002) [hep-th/0112249]

    2002 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Wands, Phys

    D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 60, 023507 (1999) [gr- qc/9809062]

    1999

  8. [16]

    Y. S. Piao, arXiv:1109.4266 [hep-th]; Y. S. Piao, arXiv:1112.3737 [hep-th]; Y. Cai and Y. S. Piao, JHEP 1603, 134 (2016) [arXiv:1601.07031 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Qiu, JCAP 1206, 041 (2012) [arXiv:1204.0189 [hep-ph]]; T

    T. Qiu, JCAP 1206, 041 (2012) [arXiv:1204.0189 [hep-ph]]; T. Qiu, Phys. Lett. B 718, 475 (2012) [arXiv:1208.4759 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Finelli, Phys

    F. Finelli, Phys. Lett. B 545, 1 (2002) [hep-th/0206112]; A. Notari and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B 644, 371 (2002) [hep-th/0205019]

    2002 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  12. [20]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  13. [21]

    Quintin, Z

    J. Quintin, Z. Sherkatghanad, Y. F. Cai and R. H. Bran- denberger, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 6, 063532 (2015) [arXiv:1508.04141 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    K. E. Kunze and R. Durrer, Class. Quant. Grav.17, 2597 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/9912081]; J. K. Erickson, D. H. Wes- ley, P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 69, 063514 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0312009]; B. Xue and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 261301 (2010) [arXiv:10...

    2000 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Khoury, B

    J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123522 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0103239]; J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, N. Seiberg, P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 65, 086007 (2002) [arXiv:hep- th/0108187]; J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, P. J. Stein- hardt a...

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Khoury and P

    J. Khoury and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 091301 (2010) [arXiv:0910.2230 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Elizalde, J

    E. Elizalde, J. Haro and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 6, 063522 (2015) [arXiv:1411.3475 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, JCAP 1204, 023 (2012) [arXiv:1106.1428 [hep-th]]; M. Libanov, S. Mironov and V. Rubakov, Phys. Rev. D 84, 083502 (2011) [arXiv:1105.6230 [astro-ph.CO]]; P. Creminelli, Phys. Rev. D 85, 041302 (2012) [arXiv:1108.0874 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Wetterich, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Phys. Dark Univ. 2, 184 (2013) [arXiv:1303.6878 [astro-ph.CO]]; C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 2, 024005 (2014) [arXiv:1308.1019 [astro- ph.CO]]; C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 736, 506 (2014) [arXiv:1401.5313 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y. S. Piao and E. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 68, 083515 (2003) [hep-th/0308080]

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    R. H. Brandenberger, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 204005 (2011) [arXiv:1105.3247 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y. S. Piao, Phys. Lett. B 701, 526 (2011) [arXiv:1012.2734 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. R. Liddle and S. M. Leach, Phys. Rev. D 68, 103503 (2003) [astro-ph/0305263]

    2003 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Avilez and C

    A. Avilez and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, no. 1, 011101 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.011101 [arXiv:1303.4330 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. D. Barrow and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043521 (2005) [astro-ph/0503222]

    2005 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D. F. Mota and D. J. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 75, 063501 (2007) [hep-ph/0608078]

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    C. G. Scoccola, M. E. Mosquera, S. J. Landau and H. Vucetich, Astrophys. J. 681, 737 (2008) [arXiv:0803.0247 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. J. Landau, M. E. Mosquera, C. G. Scoccola and H. Vucetich, Phys. Rev. D 78, 083527 (2008) [arXiv:0809.2033 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    C. G. Scccola, S. J. Landau and H. Vucetich, Mem. Soc. Ast. It. 80, no. 4, 814 (2009) [Highlights Astron. 15, 307 (2010)] [arXiv:0910.1083 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zahn and M

    O. Zahn and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 67, 063002 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.063002 [astro- ph/0212360]

    2003

  31. [39]

    Note that here H scales as τ−3

  32. [40]

    J. X. Li, F. Q. Wu, Y. C. Li, Y. Gong and X. L. Chen, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 15, no. 12, 2151 (2015) doi:10.1088/1674-4527/15/12/003 [arXiv:1511.05280 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. Ooba, K. Ichiki, T. Chiba and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 12, 122002 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.122002 [arXiv:1602.00809 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alonso, E

    D. Alonso, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira and M. Zu- malacrregui, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 6, 063502 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063502 [arXiv:1610.09290 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Chen and M

    X. Chen and M. H. Namjoo, Phys. Lett. B 739, 285 (2014) [arXiv:1404.1536 [astro-ph.CO]]; X. Chen, M. H. Namjoo and Y. Wang, JCAP 1502, no. 02, 027 (2015) [arXiv:1411.2349 [astro-ph.CO]]. 13

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    X. Chen, M. H. Namjoo and Y. Wang, JCAP 1602, no. 02, 013 (2016) [arXiv:1509.03930 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    The constant is exact, sinceH also has a dependence ofτ, i.e.H∼τ−ϵinf/(ϵinf−1), which conpensate the deviation of ν from−3/2

  38. [47]

    adiabatic mech- anism

    There are however some mechanism call “adiabatic mech- anism” to obtain scale-invariant perturbations by evolv- ing the slow-varying parameter ε, see [23]. However, we will not discuss this situation in the current status

  39. [60]

    For example, Ref

    However, for M-group, since the Big-Bang prob- lems are considered in other mechanisms, the constraint on NE mainly comes from observation, therefore can be much shorter than 60. For example, Ref. [24] gives a minimum e-folding number of 18 by BBN constraint on non-standard co...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.