Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Inflation in supergravity from field redefinitions

T0 review · 3 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 A field redefinition applied only to the Kähler potential turns one flat supergravity setup into many distinct inflationary models.

desk verdict The paper's central novelty claim does not survive its own Eq. (12): the construction reduces exactly to the Kallosh-Linde-Rube class with F=Λf⁻¹, leaving a well-executed but incremental catalogue of SUGRA potentials. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07052 v2 pith:CKKG5C6N submitted 2019-08-19 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Michal Artymowski , Ido Ben-Dayan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph
keywords supergravityinflationKählerpotentialfieldredefinitionflatgeometryholomorphicsuperpotentialStarobinskygravitationalreheatingtensor-to-scalarratio
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

In supergravity, the physically relevant object is the real Kähler function $G=K+\log|W|^2$; changing variables in the full action is a redundancy, but changing variables only in $K$ is not. The paper exploits that gap: keep the flat Kähler geometry $K_\pm=\pm\frac12(f(T)\pm f(\bar T))^2+S\bar S$ and the same simple superpotential $W=\Lambda ST$, and let the choice of $f$ decide the inflationary potential. After canonicalizing via $U=f(T)$, the potential along the flat direction is $V=\Lambda^2|f^{-1}(u_R/\sqrt2)|^2$, so $f^{-1}$ is effectively the shape of the potential. By picking $f$ with logarithms, roots, powers, and fractional-linear forms, the paper constructs hilltop, monomial, Starobinsky-like, log-squared, plateau, and bell-curve models—all with the same geometry and the same originally renormalizable $W$—and shows their predictions for the tensor-to-scalar ratio and spectral index are compatible with current data.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the split between $K$ and $W$ inside the invariant Kähler function $G=K+\log|W|^2$. A full field redefinition $T\to f(T)$ leaves $G$ unchanged; the paper performs the redefinition on $K$ alone, replacing $K(T,\bar T)$ by $K(f(T),f(\bar T))$ while keeping $W(T)$ as the original holomorphic function. The canonical variable $U=f(T)$ restores a flat metric, $K_{U\bar U}=1$, and the flat direction selects one real component; with $W=\Lambda ST$, the surviving potential is the formula quoted above. The work of $f$ is therefore to encode the potential shape through its inverse while leaving both the Kähler geometry and the superpotential nominally fixed.

What would settle it

For each prototype, write the canonical superpotential $W(U)=\Lambda S f^{-1}(U)$ and test whether $f^{-1}$ is single-valued and holomorphic on the trajectory; if every such $W(U)$ coincides with a holomorphic $F(U)$ allowed by the standard construction, the claimed new freedom collapses to a coordinate choice, and if a required $f^{-1}$ turns out multi-valued, the validity of the model in canonical variables is in question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that classes of inflationary SUGRA models need not differ by Kähler geometry or by superpotential; they can differ only by a field redefinition applied to the Kähler potential. For $K_-=-\frac12(f(T)-f(\bar T))^2+S\bar S$ and $W=\Lambda ST$, the F-term potential in canonically normalized variables $U=U_R+iU_I$ reduces, on the inflationary valley $U_I=0$, to $$V=\$Lambda^{2}$\left|$f^{{-1}}$\!\left(\frac{U_R}{\sqrt2}\right)\right|^2.$$ Thus the inverted function $f^{-1}$ is the inflaton potential shape. The paper's examples choose $f(T)=T^p$, $f(T)=\frac{M}{\sqrt2}(1-(1-T)^{1/p})$, $f(T)=-\frac{M}{\sqrt2}\log(1-T)$, $f(T)=\frac{M}{\sqrt2}e^T$, $f(T)=1/(\sqrt2 T)$, $f(T)=(aT+b)/(cT+d)$, and $f(T)=-\frac{1}{\sqrt2 M}\log^p T$, producing monomial, locally flat/hilltop, Starobinsky-like, log-squared, plateau, and bell-curve potentials. The paper states that this bypasses the earlier restriction that the function multiplying the stabilizer $S$ in $W$ be holomorphic, because at the level of the original $T$ field the superpotential stays the simple renormalizable $W=\Lambda ST$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that redefining only the Kähler potential produces genuinely new SUGRA models, not just a change of variables that reproduces the previously known class of potentials.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same flat Kähler geometry and the same superpotential $W=\Lambda ST$ can generate monomial, locally flat/hilltop, Starobinsky-like, log-squared, plateau, and bell-curve inflationary potentials, so the model type is no longer tied to the geometry or to a specially chosen superpotential.
  • Predicted tensor-to-scalar ratios span $r\in[10^{-6},0.06]$ with $n_s$ within current bounds, so the family is differentiable with future CMB polarization measurements.
  • The bell-curve model terminates inflation in a kination phase and reheats gravitationally at $T_R\sim\mathcal{O}(10^7\,\mathrm{GeV})$ without new couplings, giving a concrete link between inflationary observables and reheating.
  • Because the manipulation is made on the Kähler potential for a general $G$, the same field-redefinition freedom can be applied to D-term inflation and to non-inflationary particle-phenomenology model building.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $U=f(T)$ makes the canonical superpotential $W(U)=\Lambda S f^{-1}(U)$, that inverse function carries the whole potential shape; if $f^{-1}$ is not single-valued and holomorphic on the full field space, the model is a valid SUGRA theory only in a patch, or the procedure is a repackaging of the earlier holomorphic class.
  • A natural next step would be to invert the dictionary: for any smooth single-field potential $V(\phi)$, solve $f^{-1}(\phi/\sqrt2)=\sqrt{V(\phi)}/\Lambda$ for $f$ and check whether the resulting Kähler potential is well-defined; this would map the method's true domain of applicability.
  • The stark contrast between the $K_+$ and $K_-$ versions of the same $f$, for example Starobinsky-like versus natural inflation for $f\propto\log(1-T)$, shows that the sign choice is part of the model-building input, and a systematic scan over $f$ and sign could cover the reachable potentials.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to construct SUGRA inflationary models by applying a field redefinition f only to the Kähler potential, keeping the superpotential W = Λ S T fixed. After normalizing the field via U = f(T), the inflationary potential along the flat direction is claimed to be V = Λ^2 |f^{-1}(u_R/√2)|^2 (Eq. 12). The authors present several examples—monomial, locally flat/hilltop, Starobinsky-like, log-squared, plateau, modular, and bell-curve potentials—and compute their (n_s, r) predictions. The central claim is that this construction bypasses the holomorphicity restriction of earlier general-inflaton-potential constructions, specifically the Kallosh–Linde–Rube (KLR) class.

Significance. The explicit calculations are internally consistent and the models are valid SUGRA models with flat Kähler geometry. The paper provides a compact parametrization of several known inflationary potentials and adds a gravitational reheating mechanism for the bell-curve model. However, the claimed novelty does not hold: after canonicalization the superpotential remains holomorphic, and the resulting class is exactly the KLR class with holomorphic F. The paper's distinct contribution is therefore a set of worked examples and a coordinate reparametrization, not a new class of models or a bypass of holomorphicity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (9)-(12)] The canonicalization U = f(T) requires f to be holomorphic for U to be a chiral superfield. In the U frame the superpotential is W = Λ S f^{-1}(U), which is holomorphic on suitable branches. Equation (12) is therefore exactly the KLR potential V = |F(u_R/√2)|^2 with F = Λ f^{-1}(U). The construction does not produce non-holomorphic superpotentials; it is a change of coordinates within the KLR class. The statements in the Introduction and Conclusions that the method 'bypasses the limit of holomorphicity' are not supported.
  2. [Sections III.A and III.D] The claims that the monomial and log-squared potentials 'could not be obtained using the standard K from [15]' are incorrect. KLR with holomorphic F(T) = T^{1/p} gives V ∝ φ^{2/p}, and with F(T) = log(T) gives V = log^2(u_R/√2). Thus these examples are already contained in [15], contradicting the paper's assertions, e.g., the statement in Section III.D that 'W ∝ log(T) is non-holomorphic.'
  3. [Conclusions, last paragraph] The closing claim that 'the idea of the field redefinition bypasses the limit of holomorphicity used for generating general potentials' is contradicted by the paper's own equations: the superpotential in the canonically normalized frame remains holomorphic. This is a load-bearing error because the paper's stated novelty rests on this point. The construction is a reparametrization of the KLR class, not a generalization beyond it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (13)] Equation (13) is missing an equals sign; it should read ¨φ + 3H˙φ + V_φ = 0, and the subscript notation for the derivative should be made consistent.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The statement that the models 'predict r ∈ [10^{-6}, 0.06]' is a range obtained by scanning free parameters M, p, n, and c/a; it is not a prediction of a single model. Consider rewording to 'models can cover r ∈ ...' to avoid overstating the result.
  3. [Section III.E] The generalization stated as 'f(T) = 1/(√2 T^{-n})' appears to be a typo; it should presumably be 'f(T) = T^{-n}/√2' to match the n = 1 case presented earlier.
  4. [Throughout] For non-integer powers p and for the modular transformation, the inverse function f^{-1} is multi-valued or has branch choices. The paper does not specify the chosen branches, so the superpotential is only locally defined; please add a clarifying statement.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central construction reduces to the known KLR class W=SF(T) by the field redefinition U=f(T), and the quoted r range is a parameter-scan envelope.

  1. renaming known result [Section II, Eqs. (9)-(12); Conclusions, final paragraph]
    "To obtain a canonical Kähler metric let us introduce the following variable U = f(T) ⇒ T = f^{-1}(U) ... V = V− = Λ²|f^{-1}(u_R/√2)|². (12) ... The idea of the field redefinition bypasses the limit of holomorphicity used for generating general potentials by having an arbitrary holomorphic function f(T) in W."

    For holomorphic f, U is a chiral superfield, so after canonicalization the theory has K = −½(U−Ū)²+|S|² and W = ΛS f^{-1}(U). This is exactly the Kallosh-Linde-Rube form W = S F(U) with F(U) = Λ f^{-1}(U), whose potential is V = |F(φ/√2)|². Thus Eq. (12) is the KLR potential by construction: the log-squared model is F = Λ log(√2 U/M), the monomial model is F = Λ U^{1/p}, and so on. No non-holomorphic superpotential is ever generated, so the claimed bypass of holomorphicity is not realized; the construction re-expresses the known KLR class in new coordinates and presents that renaming as a new class of theories.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section III G, Eqs. (52)-(53) and Fig. 11]
    "The models are in accord with current observations and predict r∈[10^{-6},0.06] spanning several decades that can be easily obtained. ... the results of the (51) model may cover the whole 2σ regime of the Planck/BICEP data."

    The parameters M and p (and in earlier models p, n, c/a) are free inputs that are varied in the figures. The quoted r range is the envelope of r values obtained by scanning these inputs over ranges chosen so that (n_s, r) stays inside Planck's 2σ region; Fig. 11, for instance, uses M ∈ {1,...,100} and p ∈ (−0.44, 0.16), etc. Hence 'predict r∈[10^{-6},0.06]' is a description of the scan range, not an independent model prediction. Similarly, saying that the bell-curve model can 'cover' the entire allowed (n_s,r) region is the definition of a free-parameter scan, not a parameter-free output of the construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain of the scalar potential is internally consistent, and the paper is not reliant on self-citation: the KLR class [15] is an external benchmark, while the authors' own citations [10,11,13,24,25,36,40] are not load-bearing for the main construction. However, the central novelty claim fails by the paper's own equations. Introducing U=f(T) in Eq. (9) and substituting into W=ΛST gives W=ΛS f^{-1}(U), which is precisely the KLR superpotential with F(U)=Λ f^{-1}(U). Equation (12), V=Λ²|f^{-1}(u_R/√2)|², is therefore the KLR potential V=|F(φ/√2)|² under a coordinate rename. In addition, the abstract's range r∈[10^{-6},0.06] is obtained by scanning free model parameters M, p, n, and c/a until the observables land inside the Planck 2σ region, so it has the status of a scan envelope rather than a prediction. These two issues make the paper substantially circular in its presentation of novelty, though the individual SUGRA models are valid and the computations are not definitionally identical to their inputs in a trivial tautological sense. Score 6 reflects one central reduction to a known result plus a scan-based 'prediction' presented as a model output.

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

No new particles or forces are introduced. The theory space is parameterized by the choice of f and its constants; the ledger counts those constants and the unproven premise that the construction is inequivalent to the prior Kallosh-Linde-Rube class.

free parameters (6)
  • Λ (overall mass scale) = unfixed
    Sets the amplitude of scalar perturbations; cancels in r and n_s; free normalization.
  • M (mass scale inside f) = model-dependent: 1 to 100; Starobinsky M < 11 or 17.5
    Chosen per model to place (n_s, r) in the Planck 2σ region; controls field excursion and tensor ratio.
  • p (exponent in f) = hilltop p ∈ (7, 39); bell-curve p ∈ (−1.7, 0.16)
    Scanned to fit observations; p → 0 gives Starobinsky-like limit.
  • n (plateau exponent) = 1, 2, 4
    Generalization V = (1 − 1/u_R)^{2n}; larger n lowers r.
  • c/a (modular transformation ratio) = 1 to 20 or 1/3 to 10
    Controls the plateau versus φ² limit; scanned in Fig. 9.
  • N⋆ (number of e-folds) = 50 or 60
    Assumed, not derived; affects n_s and r.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math F-term scalar potential V = e^G(K^{iĵ}D_i W D_ĵ W̅ − 3|W|²) and integration of the stabilizer S at S = 0 gives V = e^K|W_S|².
    Standard SUGRA result used in Section II, Eqs. (6)-(8).
  • domain assumption Kähler potential ansatz K± = ±½(f(T) ± f(T̄))² + SS̄ with W = ΛST, and the S field can be integrated out supersymmetrically.
    Defines the model space; flat Kähler geometry is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper f(T) is holomorphic and f⁻¹ defines a valid holomorphic superpotential on the field space, including branch choices for noninteger powers.
    Needed for W(U) = ΛS f⁻¹(U) to be a legitimate SUGRA superpotential; not proven for all p.
  • ad hoc to paper The transformation T → f(T) applied only to K produces a new theory not equivalent to the full field redefinition or to [15].
    This is the paper's central conceptual premise; if false, the novelty claim collapses.
  • domain assumption Slow-roll approximation with N⋆ = 50 or 60 e-folds.
    Used to compute n_s and r from the potential.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inflation in supergravity from field redefinitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKKG5C6N

@misc{pith2026190807052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inflation in supergravity from field redefinitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKKG5C6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07052}
}
abstract

Supergravity (SUGRA) theories are specified by a few functions, most notably the real K\"ahler function denoted by $G(T_i, \bar {T}_i) = K + \log |W|^2$, where K is a real K\"ahler potential, and W is a holomorphic superpotential. A field redefinition $T_i \rightarrow f_1(T_i)$ does not change neither the theory, nor the K\"ahler geometry. Similarly, the K\"ahler transformation, $K \rightarrow K + f_2 + \bar f_2, W \rightarrow e^{-f_2} W$ where $f_2$ is holomorphic also leaves G and hence the theory and the geometry invariant. However, if we perform a field redefinition only in $K(T_i,\bar{T}_i) \rightarrow K(f(T_i),f(\bar{T}_i))$, while keeping the same superpotential $W(T_i)$, we get a different theory, as G is not invariant under such a transformation while maintaining the same K\"ahler geometry. This freedom of choosing $f(T_i)$ allows constructing an infinite number of new theories given a fixed K\"ahler geometry and a predetermined superpotential W. Our construction generalizes previous ones that were limited by the holomorphic property of $W$. In particular it allows for novel inflationary SUGRA models and particle phenomenology model building, where the different models correspond to different choices of field redefinitions. We demonstrate this possibility by constructing several prototypes of inflationary models (hilltop, Starobinsky-like, plateau, log-squared and bell-curve) all in flat K\"ahler geometry and an originally renormalizable superpotential $W$. The models are in accord with current observations and predict $r\in[10^{-6},0.06]$ spanning several decades that can be easily obtained. In the bell-curve model, there also exists a built-in gravitational reheating mechanism with $T_R\sim \mathcal{O}( 10^7 GeV)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07052 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Both panels show the potential of the (22) model for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Left Panel: results for the model (22) model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Left panel: Inflationary potential for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Results for the (33) model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Both panels present scalar potential from Equation (31) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Left panel: The potential (35) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Left panel: The inflationary potential of model (36) and its generalization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Potential (45) for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Results for the (45) model for both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Potential (51) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Results for the (51) model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Volume modulus inflation and a low scale of SUSY breaking

    Badziak, M.; Olechowski, M. Volume modulus inflation and a low scale of SUSY breaking. 22 JCAP 2008, 807, 21

    work page 2008

  2. [1]

    The scalar potential V+ as a function of uR and uI is presented in the Figure 5

    The K =K+ Scenario This model has this interesting feature, where both V+ and V− may generate successful inflation. The scalar potential V+ as a function of uR and uI is presented in the Figure 5. In the case of K = K+ the evolution of fields may look more complicated. First, the field reaches the uR = 0 valley, for which the inflationary potential may be app...

    work page

  3. [2]

    One can simplify this potential using ad−bc = 1 and a simple field transformation uR→uR + √ 2a/c, which gives V = Λ2d2 c2 ( 1 + √ 2 cd 1 uR )2

    Solid, dashed and dotted lines correspond to n = 1, n = 2 and n = 4 respectively. One can simplify this potential using ad−bc = 1 and a simple field transformation uR→uR + √ 2a/c, which gives V = Λ2d2 c2 ( 1 + √ 2 cd 1 uR )2 . (43) The (43) model is simply a generalization of the (38). On the other hand, for K =K+ one finds V (uR = 0) = Λ2 2b2 +d2u2 I 2a2 +...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (53) Please note that in the N⋆≪ 1 2(1− 2p) (√ 2M|p| ) 1 1−p (54) regime equation (52) takes the form of ϵ≃ ϵ0 Nn, (55) 18 whereM = (2p−1)√ϵ0(2(1−2p)ϵ0)−pp−1 andn = 2(p−1)/(2p−1)

    Within the slow-roll approximation one finds r ≃ 16   2N⋆(1− 2p) (√ 2M|p| ) 1 1−p + 1   − 2(1−p) 1−2p (52) ns ≃ 1− 2   2N⋆(1− 2p) (√ 2M|p| ) 1 1−p + 1   − 2(1−p) 1−2p − 4(1−p) (√ 2M|p| ) 1 1−p + 2N⋆(1− 2p) . (53) Please note that in the N⋆≪ 1 2(1− 2p) (√ 2M|p| ) 1 1−p (54) regime equation (52) takes the form of ϵ≃ ϵ0 Nn, (55) 18 whereM = (2p−1)√ϵ0(...

    work page

  5. [4]

    A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity

    Starobinsky, A.A. A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity. Phys. Lett. 1980, 91, 99

    work page 1980

  6. [5]

    Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density per- turbation

    Lyth, D.H.; Riotto, A. Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density per- turbation. Phys. Rep. 1999, 314, 1

    work page 1999

  7. [6]

    First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe

    Sato, K. First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 1981, 195, 467

    work page 1981

  8. [7]

    The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Prob- lems

    Guth, A.H. The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Prob- lems. Phys. Rev. D 1981, 23, 347

    work page 1981

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Planck 2018 results

    Akrami, Y.; Arroja, F.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Ballardini, M.; Banday, A.J.; Barreiro, R.B.; Bartolo, N.; Basak, S.; et al. Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1807.06211

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Superconformal Inflationary α-Attractors

    Kallosh, R.; Linde, A.; Roest, D. Superconformal Inflationary α-Attractors. JHEP 2013, 1311, 198, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)198

    2013 doi

  3. [10]

    Endlessly flat scalar potentials and α-attractors

    Artymowski, M.; Rubio, J. Endlessly flat scalar potentials and α-attractors. Phys. Lett. B 2016, 761, 111, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.024

    2016 doi

  4. [11]

    Initial conditions for inflation

    Dimopoulos, K.; Artymowski, M. Initial conditions for inflation. Astropart. Phys. 2017, 94, 11, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.06.006

    2017 doi

  5. [12]

    Natural chaotic inflation in supergravity

    Kawasaki, M.; Yamaguchi, M.; Yanagida, T. Natural chaotic inflation in supergravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, 85, 3572

    2000

  6. [13]

    Supergravity Higgs Inflation and Shift Symmetry in Electroweak Theory

    Ben-Dayan, I.; Einhorn, M.B. Supergravity Higgs Inflation and Shift Symmetry in Electroweak Theory. JCAP 2010, 1012, 2

    2010

  7. [14]

    Higgs Chaotic Inflation in Standard Model and NMSSM

    Nakayama, K.; Takahashi, F. Higgs Chaotic Inflation in Standard Model and NMSSM. JCAP 2011, 1102, 10

    2011

  8. [16]

    Models of Modular Inflation and Their Phenomeno- logical Consequences

    Ben-Dayan, I.; Brustein, R.; de Alwis, S.P. Models of Modular Inflation and Their Phenomeno- logical Consequences. JCAP 2008, 807, 11

    2008

  9. [17]

    Constraints on modular inflation in supergravity and string theory

    Covi, L.; Gomez-Reino, M.; Gross, C.; Louis, J.; Palma, G.A.; Scrucca, C.A. Constraints on modular inflation in supergravity and string theory. JHEP 2008, 808, 55

    2008

  10. [18]

    General inflaton potentials in supergravity

    Kallosh, R.; Linde, A.; Rube, T. General inflaton potentials in supergravity. Phys. Rev. D 2011, 83, 43507

    2011

  11. [19]

    Emergent Weyl spinors in multi-fermion systems

    Volovik, G.; Zubkov, M. Emergent Weyl spinors in multi-fermion systems. Nucl. Phys. B 2014, 881, 514–538

    2014

  12. [20]

    Chiral anomaly, dimensional reduction, and magne- toresistivity of Weyl and Dirac semimetals

    Gorbar, E.; Miransky, V.; Shovkovy, I. Chiral anomaly, dimensional reduction, and magne- toresistivity of Weyl and Dirac semimetals. Phys. Rev. B 2014, 89, 85126

    2014

  13. [21]

    Torsion, Parity-odd Response and Anomalies in Topological States

    Parrikar, O.; Hughes, T.L.; Leigh, R.G. Torsion, Parity-odd Response and Anomalies in Topological States. Phys. Rev. D 2014, 90, 105004

    2014

  14. [22]

    Stability of Fermi surfaces and K-theory

    Horava, P. Stability of Fermi surfaces and K-theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 95, 16405

    2005

  15. [23]

    The Universe in a helium droplet

    Volovik, G. The Universe in a helium droplet. Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys. 2006, 117, 1–526

    2006

  16. [24]

    Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors

    Galante, M.; Kallosh, R.; Linde, A.; Roest, D. Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2015, 114, 141302

    2015

  17. [25]

    Probing the BSM physics with CMB precision cosmology: An application to supersymmetry

    Dalianis, I.; Watanabe, Y. Probing the BSM physics with CMB precision cosmology: An application to supersymmetry. JHEP 2018, 2, 118

    2018

  18. [26]

    Hilltop inflation

    Boubekeur, L.; Lyth, D.H. Hilltop inflation. JCAP 2005, 507, 10

    2005

  19. [27]

    Accidental inflation from K¨ ahler uplifting

    Ben-Dayan, I.; Jing, S.; Westphal, A.; Wieck, C. Accidental inflation from K¨ ahler uplifting. JCAP 2014, 1403, 54

    2014

  20. [28]

    Cosmic Microwave Background Observables of Small Field Models of Inflation

    Ben-Dayan, I.; Brustein, R. Cosmic Microwave Background Observables of Small Field Models of Inflation. JCAP 2010, 1009, 7

    2010

  21. [29]

    Realising Mutated Hilltop Inflation in Supergravity

    Pinhero, T.; Pal, S. Realising Mutated Hilltop Inflation in Supergravity. Phys. Lett. B 2019, 796, 220

    2019

  22. [30]

    Saddle point inflation in string-inspired theory

    Hamada, Y.; Kawai, H.; Kawana, K. Saddle point inflation in string-inspired theory. PTEP 2015, 2015, 91B01

    2015

  23. [31]

    Large field inflation and double α-attractors

    Kallosh, R.; Linde, A.; Roest, D. Large field inflation and double α-attractors. JHEP 2014, 1408, 52

    2014

  24. [32]

    Superconformal generalizations of the Starobinsky model

    Kallosh, R.; Linde, A. Superconformal generalizations of the Starobinsky model. JCAP 2013, 23 1306, 28

    2013

  25. [33]

    Planck constraints on single-field inflation

    Tsujikawa, S.; Ohashi, J.; Kuroyanagi, S.; Felice, A.D. Planck constraints on single-field inflation. Phys. Rev. D 2013, 88, 23529

    2013

  26. [34]

    Natural α-Attractors fromN = 1 Supergravity via flat K¨ ahler Manifolds.arXiv 2018, arXiv:1812.05406

    Pinhero, T. Natural α-Attractors fromN = 1 Supergravity via flat K¨ ahler Manifolds.arXiv 2018, arXiv:1812.05406

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Natural inflation: Particle physics models, power law spectra for large scale structure, and constraints from COBE.Phys

    Adams, F.C.; Bond, J.R.; Freese, K.; Frieman, J.A.; Olinto, A.V. Natural inflation: Particle physics models, power law spectra for large scale structure, and constraints from COBE.Phys. Rev. D 1993, 47, 426

    1993

  28. [36]

    Inflation without Selfreproduction

    Mukhanov, V. Inflation without Selfreproduction. Fortsch. Phys. 2015, 63, 36

    2015

  29. [37]

    Instant preheating

    Felder, G.N.; Kofman, L.; Linde, A.D. Instant preheating. Phys. Rev. D 1999, 59, 123523

    1999

  30. [38]

    Gravitational Particle Creation and Inflation

    Ford, L.H. Gravitational Particle Creation and Inflation. Phys. Rev. D 1987, 35, 2955

    1987

  31. [39]

    Gravitational wave signals and cos- mological consequences of gravitational reheating

    Artymowski, M.; Czerwinska, O.; Lalak, Z.; Lewicki, M. Gravitational wave signals and cos- mological consequences of gravitational reheating. JCAP 2018, 1804, 46

    2018

  32. [40]

    Role of trans-Planckian modes in cosmology

    Berera, A.; Brahma, S.; Calder ˘A ln, J.R. Role of trans-Planckian modes in cosmology. arXiv 2003, arXiv:2003.07184

    2003 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Trans-Planckian censorship conjecture from the swampland distance conjecture

    Brahma, S. Trans-Planckian censorship conjecture from the swampland distance conjecture. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 101, 46013

    2020

  34. [42]

    A refined trans-Planckian censorship conjecture

    Cai, R.; Wang, S. A refined trans-Planckian censorship conjecture. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1912.00607

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Draining the Swampland

    Ben-Dayan, I. Draining the Swampland. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 101301. 24

    2019

Pith tools

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