Chaotic inflation with four-form couplings

Hyun Min Lee

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Chaotic inflation with four-form couplings

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 Adding a non-minimal four-form coupling to gravity makes the quadratic inflaton potential flatten at large field values, yielding Planck-compatible predictions $n_s\simeq0.966$–$0.972$ and $r\simeq0.009$–$0.011$.

desk verdict A clean four-form inflation model with a testable r~0.01, but the paper needs to fix a typo in the field relation and own up to an implicit fine-tuning of the R² scalaron. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05475 v2 pith:QZT2ZE42 submitted 2019-08-15 hep-ph

Hyun Min Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords four-formfluxchaoticinflationnon-minimalgravitycouplingshiftsymmetrytensor-to-scalarratiospectralindexreheatingpseudo-scalarinflaton

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 a four-form flux coupled both to a pseudo-scalar inflaton and to gravity can repair chaotic inflation, whose pure quadratic potential is disfavored by Planck measurements. The non-minimal coupling $\alpha F R$ generates a field-dependent gravitational strength that, after a Weyl rescaling, flattens the potential at large inflaton values. In the flattened regime the model gives a spectral index $n_s\simeq0.966$–$0.972$ and a tensor-to-scalar ratio $r\simeq0.009$–$0.011$ for 50–60 e-folds, in agreement with Planck 2018. If correct, the construction keeps the inflaton's shift symmetry intact, broken only by the fixed flux, and supplies a reheating mechanism through the induced coupling to matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the four-form field strength $F_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ with its non-minimal coupling to the Ricci scalar, $\alpha F R$, alongside the $R^2$ term that stabilizes the frame function. Integrating $F$ out yields $\mathcal{L}\supset-\frac12(-\alpha R+\mu\varphi+q)^2$, a single term that acts as both a quadratic inflaton potential and a field-dependent gravitational coupling. A dual scalar from the $R^2$ term is integrated out at $\sigma=\mu\varphi+q$, and the Weyl rescaling to Einstein frame produces a non-canonical kinetic term $K(\varphi)$; the large-field relation $\mu\varphi+q=\frac{1}{4\alpha\mu^2\phi^2}$ is what converts the would-be quadratic potential into the flattened plateau $V_I(\phi)$.

What would settle it

Derive the membrane-nucleation history that fixes $q$ and the starting field value: if it yields $\alpha(\mu\varphi+q)\lesssim1$ at the start of inflation, the plateau approximation fails and the model returns to a quadratic potential. Observationally, a CMB detection of $r$ above about 0.02 would rule out the benchmark $\alpha\mu=1$ predictions, while a bound $r$ below about 0.002 would push $\alpha\mu$ far above one and strain the natural parameter range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: with the four-form interaction $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}=\frac{1}{24}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(-\alpha R+\mu\varphi)$, the four-form flux does two jobs at once—it generates the quadratic inflaton potential and, through $\alpha F R$, a non-minimal coupling to gravity. After integrating out the four-form, dualizing the $R^2$ stabilizer, and Weyl-scaling to Einstein frame, the canonical inflaton field $\phi$ satisfies $\mu\varphi+q=\frac{1}{4\alpha\mu^2\phi^2}$ in the large-field regime, and the potential becomes $V_I(\phi)=\frac{1}{2\alpha^2}\left(1+\frac{4}{\alpha^2\mu^2\phi^2}\right)^{-2}$. The slow-roll parameters then give $n_s=1-\frac{3}{2\alpha\mu N^{3/2}}-\frac{3}{2N}$ and $r=\frac{4}{\alpha\mu N^{3/2}}$, which for $\alpha\mu=1$ and $N=50(60)$ are $n_s=0.966(0.972)$ and $r=0.011(0.0086)$. The paper claims these numbers are within $1\sigma$ of Planck 2018 and testable by next-generation CMB experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The results hold only if the flux and the inflaton field start with the product $\alpha(\mu\varphi+q)$ much larger than one, so the potential sits on its flattened part; the paper assumes this large-field regime is reached, rather than deriving it from the membrane dynamics that fix the flux.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The quadratic chaotic inflation scenario, otherwise disfavored by Planck, becomes consistent with the measured spectral index and tensor bound for $\alpha\mu=1$.
The tensor-to-scalar ratio is predicted at $r\simeq0.009$–$0.011$ for $N=50$–$60$, a range that next-generation CMB polarization experiments are designed to probe; a detection at this level would distinguish the model from quadratic inflation, which predicts $r\simeq0.13$.
Reheating occurs through the induced coupling to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor, giving $T_{RH}\simeq3.5\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ for $m_\phi\simeq10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV}$, high enough for thermal leptogenesis and thermal dark matter production.
Higher-order four-form operators are suppressed in the inflationary regime because the effective cutoff $M_P/\sqrt{\alpha}$ is well below $M_P$, leaving a parameter window in which the predictions are robust.
Because the shift symmetry is broken only by the fixed four-form flux, the same flux can connect inflation to the proposed relaxation of the cosmological constant and the Higgs mass.

Reading between the lines

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

A consequence the paper leaves implicit: the flattening is driven by the generic structure of the $\alpha F R$ coupling, so similar plateau potentials should arise for other shift-symmetric inflaton potentials, making the reported $n_s$–$r$ curve a plausible attractor for the whole four-form class.
The paper chooses the large-field regime $\alpha(\mu\varphi+q)\gg1$ rather than deriving it; if membrane nucleation dynamics typically leave the flux $q$ such that $\alpha(\mu\varphi+q)\sim1$, the model reverts to the disfavored quadratic regime, so the flux-scanning history is the real test of naturalness.
One could test the model without waiting for tensor modes: combining a precise measurement of $n_s$ with an independent handle on the number of e-folds $N$ from the reheating scale would over-determine $\alpha\mu$, since the two observables depend on $\alpha\mu$ and $N$ in different combinations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know about this paper. First, it does something new: it takes the four-form-induced quadratic inflaton potential from Kaloper-Sorbo and adds the non-minimal four-form coupling to gravity that the author used before for the cosmological constant. That extra coupling flattens the potential at large field values, and the resulting ns and r land within Planck 2018 for αμ=1. Second, the central derivation is simpler than it looks, and the slow-roll formulas check out—but there is an outright typo in eq. (21) and a silent fine-tuning that the paper never states.

The good: the action-to-Einstein-frame reduction is coherent. I recomputed the relation between the canonical field and the original φ in the large-field limit and the correct relation is μφ+q = (α μ²/4) ϕ², not the ϕ²/(4α μ²) printed in eq. (21). With that correction, eqs. (22)–(27) are internally consistent. The CMB normalization also gives α ≈ 3.8e4 for αμ=1 and N=50, which is a big number but fine for an effective theory. The model's prediction r≈0.011 is testable in the next round of CMB experiments, and the shift-symmetry story is a nice selling point. Credit where due: the author knows the four-form literature and cites the relevant Kaloper-Sorbo and Bousso-Polchinski work properly.

Soft spots, in proportion. The eq. (21) typo is minor—any referee would catch it—but it should be fixed because it obscures the whole argument. More substantive: the paper integrates out the sigma field (the dual of the R² term) and asserts ζ ≳ α without quantifying how close ζ must be to α. From the two-field theory, I estimate m_σ²/H² ~ α²/(ζ²−α²). To trust the single-field potential, you need ζ²−α² ≲ α²/100, i.e. ζ within ~1% of α. The paper never says this. That is a real missing condition, and without it the Planck-compatibility claim is conditional, not unconditional. The restriction to μφ+q ≫ 1 is also an assumption about initial conditions; it is normal in inflation papers, but worth stating as an assumption rather than a prediction.

Who gets value: people working on four-form inflation, non-minimal couplings, or models with a testable tensor ratio. The paper is not a breakthrough but it is a clean, honest model. A serious editor should send it to a referee. The referee should ask for the typo fix and a discussion of the ζ hierarchy.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a chaotic inflation model from a pseudo-scalar field coupled to a four-form flux, with an additional non-minimal coupling of the four-form field strength to the Ricci scalar. After dualizing the R^2 term and integrating out the resulting scalar σ at σ = μφ+q, the author derives a single-field Einstein-frame potential VI(φ) = (1/(2α^2))(1+4/(α^2μ^2ϕ^2))^{-2} in the large-field limit. Slow-roll parameters give ns ≈ 1 − 3/(2αμ N^{3/2}) − 3/(2N) and r ≈ 4/(αμ N^{3/2}); fixing the curvature perturbation amplitude sets α ≈ 3.8×10^4 for αμ=1 and N=50, yielding ns=0.966 and r=0.011, within Planck 2018 bounds. The paper also discusses the shift symmetry, unitarity cutoff, robustness against higher-order four-form operators, and a model-independent reheating mechanism.

Significance. If the derivation is sound, the model is an interesting example of a plateau-like inflaton potential originating from a shift-symmetric four-form coupling, with a testable tensor-to-scalar ratio r≈0.01 and a natural reheating channel through the induced Einstein-frame coupling to the trace of the stress-energy tensor. Strengths of the paper include an explicit Lagrangian treatment of the four-form dualization, analytic slow-roll expressions, and a concrete CMB-normalization condition. The significance is conditional, however, on correcting several internal inconsistencies in the core equations and on justifying the single-field reduction; these issues currently prevent the Planck-compatibility claim from being established as stated.

major comments (5)

[Inflation from four-form couplings, Eq. (21)] Equation (21), μφ+q = ϕ^2/(4αμ^2), is inconsistent with the canonical-field integration from the kinetic term in Eq. (16). For α(μφ+q)≫1, K(φ) ≈ 1/[α(μφ+q)], so dϕ/dφ ≈ [α(μφ+q)]^{-1/2} and integration gives μφ+q ≈ (αμ^2/4)ϕ^2, i.e., α(μφ+q) ≈ (αμ)^2 ϕ^2/4. The printed relation is the reciprocal and has the wrong coefficient. The subsequent potential (22) is consistent with the corrected relation, so this is an isolated typo, but it is load-bearing because Eq. (21) is the stated link between the canonical field and the potential.
[Inflation from four-form couplings, Eq. (20)] The closed-form expression for the canonical field ϕ in Eq. (20) is not valid in the inflationary regime α(μφ+q)≫1: the argument of the arctanh, √(2/3)(αμ)^{-1}√(1+3α^2μ^2/2+α(μφ+q)), exceeds unity there, so the expression is complex. The correct antiderivative of √K has arctanh(√(3/2)αμ / √(1+3α^2μ^2/2+α(μφ+q))) instead. The paper should either correct this formula or derive the large-field relation (the corrected Eq. (21)) directly from the differential equation for the canonical field.
[From four-form to non-minimal gravity couplings, Eqs. (14)-(18)] The adiabatic elimination of σ is not justified. In the two-field Einstein-frame theory, the kinetic coefficient of σ is O(α^2/Ω^2) and its mass squared is m_σ^2 ~ 1/(ζ^2−α^2) up to O(1) factors, while H^2 ≈ 1/(6α^2) during the plateau. A reliable single-field reduction requires m_σ ≫ H, which forces ζ^2−α^2 to be a small fraction of α^2 (e.g., ≲ α^2/100 for m_σ/H ≳ few). The manuscript only states 'ζ & α' and does not impose or discuss this hierarchy, and the quoted normalization α≈3.8×10^4 does not determine ζ. Without this condition, the potential (18)/(22) is not established as the effective single-field potential, and isocurvature or two-field corrections to ns and r are uncontrolled.
[Inflation from four-form couplings, Eq. (26)] The spectral index formula is not consistent with Eqs. (23)-(25). Expanding ε and η from (23)-(24) and inverting N from (25) in the large-N limit gives ns = 1 − 3/(2N) − 3/(4αμ N^{3/2}) + O(N^{-2}), not ns = 1 − 3/(2N) − 3/(2αμ N^{3/2}) as printed. The difference is about 0.002 at N=50 with αμ=1, which is comparable to the Planck error bar. The approximate expansion used to obtain Eq. (26) should be stated explicitly, or the formula should be corrected.
[Inflation from four-form couplings, Eq. (30)] The robustness window in Eq. (30) is empty as written: for α≫1, M_P√α ≫ M_P, so the stated lower bound c_n(M_P√α)^{4(n-1)} is larger than the upper bound M_P^{4(n-1)} for all n>1. Moreover, the inequality is dimensionally inconsistent unless the mass dimension of α is specified. The intended bound appears to be μφ+q ≲ M_P^2/√α (or similar), not μφ+q ≲ M_P^2, and the lower bound from the slow-roll condition should be written with α(μφ+q)≳1. This needs repair for the robustness claim to be meaningful.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction, first paragraph] Typo: 'fit the date better' should be 'fit the data better'.
[From four-form to non-minimal gravity couplings] The notation 'ζ & α' is nonstandard and ambiguous; please write ζ ≳ α and, more importantly, quantify the required proximity ζ^2−α^2 ≪ α^2 as discussed in Major Comment 3.
[Inflation from four-form couplings, after Eq. (28)] The agreement with Planck is demonstrated for the hand-picked value αμ=1. Since αμ is a free parameter and α is fixed by the CMB normalization with a residual dependence through αμ, the paper should state explicitly that αμ=1 is an example rather than a prediction of the model.
[Figure 1] The figure uses α=100 and αμ=1 for illustration, while the quoted CMB normalization gives α≈3.8×10^4; please add a caption note that the shape, not the scale, is illustrative.
[Eq. (28)] The normalization α = 38000 (αμ)^{1/2} (N/50)^{3/4} is given without specifying units; in reduced Planck units this is fine, but since μ is later quoted in GeV, the paper should state the unit convention explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inflationary predictions are computed from the derived Einstein-frame potential, with αμ chosen as a benchmark rather than fitted to the CMB observables.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the four-form Lagrangian (3), the paper integrates out the four-form to obtain (10), dualizes the R^2 term to (15), and then integrates out the heavy scalaron σ at σ=μφ+q to reach the single-field Einstein-frame Lagrangian (16) with potential (18). The large-field canonicalization (20)-(22) converts this into VI(ϕ)=(1/2α^2)(1+4/(α^2 μ^2 ϕ^2))^{-2}, from which slow-roll parameters and the observables ns and r are computed directly in (26)-(27). The CMB amplitude normalization (28) fixes the coupling α for a given αμ, and the paper then chooses the benchmark αμ=1 to quote ns=0.966(0.972) and r=0.011(0.0086). This is a standard parameter-choice procedure, not a fit of ns/r themselves; no equation equates the predicted quantities to an input by construction. Self-citations appear (e.g., [6] for the R^2 dual transformation, [12] and [15] for unitarity and reheating), but they are attributions for standard techniques or peripheral results; the central inflationary predictions are derived explicitly in the paper and do not reduce to trusting those citations. The main caveat is the unquantified hierarchy ζ≳α used to justify integrating out σ; if ζ^2−α^2 is not small, the single-field reduction may fail. That is a validity/parameter-space concern, not circularity, because the paper's equations do not presuppose the final ns and r values.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model does not invent new particles or forces. It introduces two four-form couplings, μφF and αR F, plus an R^2 term taken from prior literature. The central predictions depend on the CMB-normalized value of α and on the hand-chosen combination αμ=1. The four-form flux, membranes, and non-minimal gravity framework are all adopted from earlier papers, several by the same author.

free parameters (5)

α = 3.8×10^4 for αμ=1, N=50 (eq. 28)
Non-minimal four-form coupling to gravity. Its value is fixed by the normalization of the CMB amplitude As, not predicted by the model.
μ = 6.3×10^13 GeV for αμ=1, N=50
Four-form coupling to the pseudo-scalar inflaton. Given the choice αμ=1 and the CMB-normalized value of α, μ is determined.
αμ = 1 (chosen by hand)
The dimensionless product αμ is set to 1 in order to obtain ns near 0.966. No dynamics is offered that selects this value.
N = 50 and 60
The number of e-foldings is taken in the standard range. The predicted ns and r depend on N.
ζ
Coefficient of the R^2 term. Only the inequality ζ^2>α^2 is imposed to ensure stability; no numerical value is chosen.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The four-form flux q is quantized, q=en, and changes by membrane nucleation as in Brown-Teitelboim and Bousso-Polchinski.
Used to justify that q is a fixed flux during a given inflationary phase and can be shifted by membrane nucleation. Cited from refs. [8,9].
domain assumption The R^2 coefficient satisfies ζ^2>α^2, so the dual scalar potential is bounded from below.
Stated after eq. (15). Without this inequality the non-minimal four-form coupling to gravity would lead to an unstable potential.
ad hoc to paper During inflation, V(φ)=0 and Λ=0, and the sigma field is integrated out at σ=μϕ+q.
Assumed before eq. (16). This simplifies the model to single-field inflation and is not derived from dynamics.
ad hoc to paper The field lies in the regime α(μϕ+q)≫1 and αμ∼1.
Required for the plateau approximation and the derived slow-roll formulas. The regime is chosen to match Planck data, not derived from the membrane dynamics.
domain assumption Planck 2018 CMB data provide the empirical benchmark for normalization and comparison.
Used to fix α and to test ns and r. The data are external to the model.
standard math The standard slow-roll formalism and Einstein-frame field redefinition are valid.
Used throughout to compute the canonical field, the slow-roll parameters, the number of e-foldings, ns, and r.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chaotic inflation with four-form couplings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZT2ZE42

@misc{pith2026190805475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chaotic inflation with four-form couplings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZT2ZE42}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05475}
}

read the original abstract

We consider chaotic inflation models with a pseudo-scalar field containing the general couplings to the four-form flux. The four-form mixing with the pseudo-scalar field induces a quadratic potential for inflaton while the coexisting four-form mixing with graviton generates a non-minimal gravity coupling for inflaton. The shift symmetry is respected by the derived inflaton couplings and it is broken spontaneously only by the fixed four-form flux. We discuss the success of inflationary predictions and robustness against higher order terms. Finally, the built-in reheating mechanism is also addressed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05475 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Since the inﬂaton decays dominantly into the SM Higgs and W,Z -bosons [15], the inﬂaton decay rate is determined to be Γφ = m3 φ 32πM 2 P (αµ)2 1 + 3 2(αµ)2

During reheating, the inﬂaton potential becomes quadratic as VI≃ 1 2(µφ +q)2, so the reheating temper- ature can be determined from the perturbative decay of the inﬂation. Since the inﬂaton decays dominantly into the SM Higgs and W,Z -bosons [15], the inﬂaton decay rate is determined to be Γφ = m3 φ 32πM 2 P (αµ)2 1 + 3 2(αµ)2. (32) As a result, for αµ = ...

work page
[2]

Akrami et al

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

arXiv
[3]

Dvali and A

G. Dvali and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 063501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063501 [hep-th/0304043]

arXiv 2004
[4]

Kaloper and L

N. Kaloper and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 043528 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.043528 [arXiv:0810.5346 [hep- th]]

arXiv 2009
[5]

G. F. Giudice, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, arXiv:1907.05370 [hep-ph]

arXiv 1907
[6]

Kaloper and A

N. Kaloper and A. Westphal, arXiv:1907.05837 [hep-th]

arXiv 1907
[7]

H. M. Lee, arXiv:1908.04252 [hep-ph]

arXiv 1908
[8]

H. M. Lee, arXiv:1910.09171 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 1910

Show all 18 references

[9]

Bousso and J

R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, JHEP 0006 (2000) 006 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/06/006 [hep-th/0004134]

2000 arXiv
[10]

J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987)

1987
[11]

Kallosh and A

R. Kallosh and A. Linde, arXiv:1909.04687 [hep-th]

1909 arXiv
[12]

Kaloper and L

N. Kaloper and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 121301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.121301 [arXiv:0811.1989 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[13]

Kehagias, A

A. Kehagias, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah and A. Ri- otto, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.4, 043527 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.043527 [arXiv:1312.1155 [hep-th]]; G. F. Giudice and H. M. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 733 (2014) 58 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.04.020 [arXiv:1402.2129 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[14]

G. F. Giudice and H. M. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 694 (2011) 294 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.10.035 [arXiv:1010.1417 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[15]

S. M. Choi, Y. J. Kang, H. M. Lee and K. Yamashita, JHEP 1905 (2019) 060 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)060 [arXiv:1902.03781 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[16]

H. M. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.1, 015020 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.015020 [arXiv:1802.06174 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[18]

K. N. Abazajian et al. [CMB-S4 Collaboration], arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]; A. Suzuki et al., J. Low. Temp. Phys.193 (2018) no.5-6, 1048 doi:10.1007/s10909- 018-1947-7 [arXiv:1801.06987 [astro-ph.IM]]

2018 arXiv
[177]

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)91190-7; J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, Nucl. Phys. B 297 (1988) 787. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90559-7

1988 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Since the inﬂaton decays dominantly into the SM Higgs and W,Z -bosons [15], the inﬂaton decay rate is determined to be Γφ = m3 φ 32πM 2 P (αµ)2 1 + 3 2(αµ)2

During reheating, the inﬂaton potential becomes quadratic as VI≃ 1 2(µφ +q)2, so the reheating temper- ature can be determined from the perturbative decay of the inﬂation. Since the inﬂaton decays dominantly into the SM Higgs and W,Z -bosons [15], the inﬂaton decay rate is determined to be Γφ = m3 φ 32πM 2 P (αµ)2 1 + 3 2(αµ)2. (32) As a result, for αµ = ...

work page

[2] [2]

Akrami et al

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

arXiv

[3] [3]

Dvali and A

G. Dvali and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 063501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063501 [hep-th/0304043]

arXiv 2004

[4] [4]

Kaloper and L

N. Kaloper and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 043528 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.043528 [arXiv:0810.5346 [hep- th]]

arXiv 2009

[5] [5]

G. F. Giudice, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, arXiv:1907.05370 [hep-ph]

arXiv 1907

[6] [6]

Kaloper and A

N. Kaloper and A. Westphal, arXiv:1907.05837 [hep-th]

arXiv 1907

[7] [7]

H. M. Lee, arXiv:1908.04252 [hep-ph]

arXiv 1908

[8] [8]

H. M. Lee, arXiv:1910.09171 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 1910