Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Probability of the Initial Conditions for Inflation and Slow Contraction

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that when the initial scalar-field parameters are tuned for best odds, the most probable inflationary start is exponentially more likely than the most probable slow-contraction start, with $-\ln P$ around $10^7$ versus…

desk verdict A clean analytic estimate that the most favorable Gaussian initial state for inflation is far more likely than for slow contraction, but the success criterion is energetic, not dynamical, so the gap may not survive. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22763 v3 pith:PDXTKN6E submitted 2025-05-28 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

Mark P. Hertzberg , Daniel Jiménez-Aguilar This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-phhep-th PACS 98.80.Cq98.80.-k
keywords inflationslowcontractionekpyrosisinitialconditionsscalarfieldhomogeneityprobabilityestimateGaussianrandom
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

Recent numerical-relativity studies claim that slow contraction (ekpyrosis) smooths the universe from generic initial conditions, while inflation demands a nearly flat start. This paper asks whether the initial conditions those simulations feed to slow contraction are themselves far less probable than the ones inflation needs. Modeling the universe as dominated by a free scalar field with Gaussian fluctuations, it computes the probability that the field is homogeneous enough on Hubble-radius scales, and finds that either mechanism can be the more likely one depending on the power-spectrum parameters. When the parameters are extremized, the best inflationary start has $-\ln P\approx 10^7$, while the best ekpyrotic start has $-\ln P\approx 10^{141}$, so the probability ratio between them is roughly $e^{10^{141}}$. If the model is right, the case for slow contraction over inflation must carry the extra burden of these vastly rarer initial conditions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the single-mode success criterion of equation (23), $|H_{\rm loc}|^{-1}<\Lambda/\chi$: smoothing begins when the dominant scalar-field wavelength $\Lambda$ exceeds the local Hubble radius by a fixed factor $\chi$, about 10 for inflation and about 1 for ekpyrosis, taken from Table 1 of Ref. [24]. Feeding the Friedmann equation into this criterion turns 'homogeneous enough' into a threshold on the squared mode amplitude, and since the complex amplitude $A+iB$ is Gaussian, the probability of exceeding the threshold is the exponential of equation (37). The ultraviolet modes are handled separately through the central limit theorem in equation (40), and the product is the total probability, equation (43). Two spectra are evaluated, a thermal (Bose-Einstein) spectrum and a hard-cutoff spectrum, and extremizing over temperature yields equations (68) and (70).

What would settle it

Run inflation and slow contraction from the same ensemble of scalar-field initial data in numerical relativity and measure the actual boundary of successful smoothing, namely the largest field wavelength relative to the local Hubble radius that still leads to a flat, homogeneous universe. If the measured thresholds deviate from $\chi_{\rm inf}\approx 10$ and $\chi_{\rm ekp}\approx 1$, or if success is controlled by many modes rather than one, the factor $e^{10^{141}}$ between equations (68) and (70) would be revised; a second check is whether ekpyrosis still smooths when the field starts away from the quadratic minimum assumed in equation (50).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes an estimate, equation (43), for the probability that a free scalar field is sufficiently homogeneous for inflation or slow contraction to begin: the total probability is the product of an exponential factor from the dominant mode's amplitude exceeding a threshold, equation (37), and a factor near one from the ultraviolet modes being energetically subdominant, equation (40). Applied to thermal and hard-cutoff spectra with the parameter values of Ref. [24], the estimate says that for fixed parameters either mechanism can win, but the maximum over temperature is overwhelmingly higher for inflation. The headline numbers are $-\ln P_{\rm max}^{\rm inf}\approx 0.355\, n_{\rm inf}^3\chi_{\rm inf}^3 D^{3/4}(M_p/H_{\rm inf})^{3/2}\sim 10^7$ and $-\ln P_{\rm max}^{\rm ekp}\approx 1.75\, n_{\rm ekp}^3\chi_{\rm ekp}^3(-V_{\min})^{3/4}/H_{\rm ekp}^3\sim 10^{141}$, so the most favorable scalar-field initial state for inflation is exponentially more probable than the most favorable one for slow contraction. The paper does not include the probability of the initial geometry, such as the Weyl curvature and Chern-Pontryagin invariants, which it leaves to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on one criterion: that smoothing succeeds exactly when the dominant scalar-field mode's wavelength is about ten times the local Hubble radius for inflation and about once for ekpyrosis, together with the approximation that the ekpyrotic field sits at the quadratic minimum of its potential; if the real thresholds differ, or success depends on more than a single mode, the probability gap can shift by many orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The numerical-relativity preference for slow contraction (Refs. [21]\u2013[24]) comes with a price this paper quantifies: at best odds, the initial scalar-field configurations those simulations need are less probable than inflation's by a factor of order $e^{10^{141}}$.
  • The comparison is parameter-dependent: for most fixed temperatures below roughly $10^{12}$ GeV the ekpyrotic initial condition is the more probable one, and the inflationary one wins only at high temperature or high cutoff.
  • Even at their maxima, both probabilities are tiny, so the analysis does not make inflation's initial conditions likely; it makes them overwhelmingly less unlikely than ekpyrosis's.
  • Including additional degrees of freedom (an effective count $\hat g_*$ up to about 100) rescales the ultraviolet terms but does not change which mechanism wins at the extremum.
  • The estimate covers only the scalar-field energy content; the paper leaves the probability of the initial geometry to future work, so the full initial-condition odds could still move in either direction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The gap is driven by a scale hierarchy rather than by any property of inflation itself: $(-V_{\min})^{3/4}/H_{\rm ekp}^3\sim 10^{141}$ versus $(M_p/H_{\rm inf})^{3/2}\sim 10^7$, so choosing a different ekpyrotic potential, with a shallower minimum or a different field mass, would directly widen or shrink the gap.
  • The extremization over temperature is one natural prior over the spectrum parameters, but not the only one; a prior that weights low temperatures, for example by entropy or by the number of Hubble patches, could shift which mechanism looks favored.
  • The same estimator could be applied to the multi-field or non-Gaussian initial states used in other simulation suites, which would test whether the Gaussian, single-field assumption is what produces the gap.
  • Because the probabilities describe isolated rare regions, attaching them to a full universe requires a measure over where in space the fluctuation sits; that choice could multiply the odds for either mechanism by large volume factors.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper estimates the probability that a free scalar field, at the onset of inflation or of slow contraction/ekpyrosis, is sufficiently homogeneous on the relevant horizon scale. The authors model the field as a Gaussian random ensemble with either a thermal or a hard-cutoff power spectrum, and define a successful smoothing configuration by the criterion of Eq. (23): the local energy density must exceed a threshold ρ* such that the local Hubble radius is smaller than Λ/χ. The total probability, Eq. (43), is the product of the probability that a single dominant mode yields an over-density and the probability that the UV modes are subdominant. Using parameters from the numerical-relativity simulations of Refs. [24,51] (Table I), the paper finds that at low temperatures/cutoffs the ekpyrotic configuration is more probable, while at high temperatures/cutoffs the inflationary configuration is more probable. Extremizing over the temperature or cutoff, the maximum probability for inflation is far larger than that for slow contraction: -ln P_max^inf ~ 10^7 versus -ln P_max^ekp ~ 10^141 (Eqs. 68 and 70).

Significance. If correct, this result would seriously undercut the recent numerical-relativity-based claim that slow contraction/ekpyrosis is preferred over inflation as a smoothing mechanism, because the initial conditions used in those simulations would be exponentially less probable than those of inflation. The paper's strengths are its transparent, self-contained probability calculation; explicit analytic formulas (Eqs. 43, 68, 70); and the honesty with which it lists its own limitations, especially the deferral of slow-roll/fast-roll conditions and of the geometric degrees of freedom. The calculation is internally consistent under the stated assumptions. However, the central claim is conditional on a very crude mapping from energy-density thresholds to successful smoothing, and the quantitative gap is not yet robust. The framework is nevertheless a useful starting point for a more complete probabilistic comparison, and the paper does not appear to be circular: it adopts parameters from the simulations it critiques, but this is a legitimate way to test whether those simulations' initial conditions are likely.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (23)-(24); VI] As written, the success criterion (23) only tests whether the local energy density ρ̂ exceeds the threshold ρ* of Eq. (24), i.e., whether |H_loc|^{-1} < Λ/χ. This is not sufficient to guarantee that inflation or slow contraction actually begins: a configuration with a large kinetic-energy or gradient-energy contribution, or with a field value far from the slow-roll (inflation) or fast-roll w >> 1 (ekpyrosis) regime, can satisfy (23) without driving the intended smoothing phase. The paper explicitly postpones imposing these conditions in Sec. VI ('We also postpone the analysis of more detailed contributions that come from the imposition of the slow-roll conditions in the case of inflation or fast-roll for slow contraction'). Because the omitted conditions can suppress the two mechanisms by very different factors, Eqs. (68) and (70) currently quantify the probability of a rare local energy-density fluctuation, not the probability that the field actually produces a successful inflationary or ekpyrotic phase. The quoted 10^134 gap is therefore not yet evidence for the central claim; the calculation needs to be augmented with at least a simplified equation-of-state or slow-roll/fast-roll filter before the comparison is conclusive.
  2. [IV.D, Eq. (50)-(52) and Table I] The ekpyrotic probability is computed using the quadratic expansion V ≈ Vmin + (1/2)M_ekp^2(δφ)^2 about the potential minimum, with M_ekp ≈ 10^-26 M_p, and the exponent in Eq. (52) is proportional to -Vmin. However, slow contraction in the actual potential (45) takes place on the steep exponential part V ≈ -V0 e^{-φ/m}, where the field is far from φ_min and the potential energy is many orders of magnitude smaller in magnitude than Vmin ≈ -10^-55 M_p^4. For such initial field values, the term -8π^3 Vmin in Eq. (36) is not the relevant one, and the amplitude of the required fluctuation—and hence the probability in Eq. (70)—would be very different. The assertion in Sec. IV.D that 'this leading order estimate will suffice' is not justified; the enormous suppression of ekpyrosis appears to be largely an artifact of evaluating the potential at its minimum instead of at the field values that are actually present during slow contraction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A22)] In Eq. (A22), the thermal two-point function contains a prefactor M/(2M_p) that is absent in Eq. (11); please clarify whether these are different normalizations and, if so, how they are related.
  2. [Section V] The phrase 'In order for the first term on the right-hand side of (53) to be finite' is unclear: the first term is manifestly finite. Presumably the intended condition is that the dominant mode lies within the cutoff (Q > |K|), so that the probability in Eq. (37) is non-trivially defined.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract's 'when we extremize over these parameters' is broader than what is done: the extremization is over the spectral temperature (Sec. IV.D) or the hard cutoff Q (Sec. V), while the parameters of Table I are held fixed. Consider rephrasing to avoid the impression that χ, n, γ, and the mass scales are also varied.
  4. [References] Reference [24] is cited with only an arXiv number and no title; for a journal submission the full citation should be provided.
  5. [Various] There are a few typographical errors, e.g., 'ekypyrosis' after Eq. (49) and 'On can compute' in Appendix A; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the probability estimates are derived from a stated free-field ensemble with external parameters, and the extremization is a genuine minimization rather than a fit.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (43), and its extremized forms (68) and (70), follow from a direct probability calculation for a Gaussian free-field ensemble. The parameters H, M, V_min, and χ are explicitly adopted from external numerical-relativity studies [24,51], not fitted to the conclusion; the paper states 'we will pick their values in agreement with the choices made in [24,51]'. The temperature/cutoff extremization is an analytic minimization of the derived -ln P expression, not an inverse construction of the desired answer. The large disparity between -ln P_max^inf ~10^7 and -ln P_max^ekp ~10^141 arises algebraically from the adopted scale hierarchy (M_p/H_inf)^{3/2} vs (-V_min)^{3/4}/H_ekp^3, so the result is a nontrivial consequence of the model rather than an identity. The success criterion (23) and the scale identifications (25) are transparent modeling assumptions, and the choice of χ from Ref. [24] is not load-bearing for the qualitative conclusion, since χ enters only as χ^3 (an O(10^3) factor against an O(10^134) exponent gap). The paper itself flags in Sec. VI that slow-roll/fast-roll and equation-of-state conditions are postponed; this is an acknowledged physical limitation, not a circular step, because it does not insert the target result into the calculation. The references critical to the assumptions ([21-24,51]) are by other authors, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. Accordingly, no step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by definition or by fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of modeling choices: a free Gaussian scalar field on an ensemble-averaged FLRW background, a single-mode success criterion with thresholds borrowed from the contested simulations, and quadratic approximations to both potentials. No new physical entities are introduced. The parameter set (H, M, V_min) is adopted from previous simulation papers, not fitted to the target conclusion.

free parameters (8)
  • H_inf = 10^-5 M_p
    Hubble rate at onset of inflation; chosen by the authors (Section II, Table I). Sets the homogeneity scale and enters the final probability as (M_p/H_inf)^(3/2).
  • M_inf = 10^-4 M_p
    Inflaton mass; adopted from Refs. [24,51] (Table I). The authors note this is somewhat high but possible if the potential flattens at large field values.
  • H_ekp = 10^-61 M_p
    Hubble rate for slow contraction, corresponding to the current Hubble scale; from Ref. [24] (Table I).
  • M_ekp = 10^-26 M_p
    Mass of the ekpyrotic field at its minimum; computed from the potential of Ref. [51] (Eq. (49)).
  • Vmin_ekp = -10^-55 M_p^4
    Minimum of the ekpyrotic potential; from Ref. [51] (Eq. (48)), negative to allow contraction to end.
  • chi_inf and chi_ekp = 10 and 1
    Homogeneity threshold parameters from Table 1 of Ref. [24]; appear cubed in the extremal probabilities, Eqs. (68) and (70).
  • n, gamma = order 1
    Number of wavelengths in the region and spatial-average calibration; the paper states their precise values are irrelevant to the main conclusion.
  • T (thermal) or Q,z (hard cutoff) = maximized
    Free parameters of the initial power spectrum; the central claim extremizes over them.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The universe at the beginning of inflation or slow contraction is dominated by a free scalar field.
    Stated at the start of Section II; the entire calculation is built on a single scalar-field energy content.
  • domain assumption Field fluctuations are Gaussian with independent Fourier modes and a specified occupation spectrum.
    Section II, Eqs. (9)-(12); the Gaussian assumption gives the tail probability (37).
  • domain assumption The spacetime metric can be approximated by an ensemble-averaged FLRW background with linearized fluctuations.
    Section II, around Eq. (2); this linearization is used to expand the field and energy density.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial Hubble parameter average vanishes, <H>_i = 0, and curvature <k> = 0.
    Eq. (15) and following text; stated as having no a priori reason for expansion or contraction, but this choice affects the energy-density formula.
  • ad hoc to paper Successful inflation or ekpyrosis is characterized by |H_loc|^{-1} < Lambda/chi with chi from Ref. [24].
    Section III A, Eq. (23); the central criterion connecting probability to physical success, borrowed from the numerical relativity simulations being compared.
  • ad hoc to paper The potentials are approximated as quadratic near the minimum even at large field values.
    Section II, Eqs. (44) and (50); the ekpyrotic potential is steep and negative during slow contraction, far from the minimum, so a quadratic truncation is a crude model.
  • domain assumption The total probability factorizes as a product of the dominant-mode tail and the UV-subdominance probability.
    Section III C, Eq. (43); assumes these are independent conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probability of the Initial Conditions for Inflation and Slow Contraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PDXTKN6E

@misc{pith2026250522763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probability of the Initial Conditions for Inflation and Slow Contraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PDXTKN6E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22763}
}
read the original abstract

Some recent studies based on numerical relativity simulations claim that slow contraction/ekpyrosis is strongly preferred over inflation as the smoothing mechanism that brought the universe into the homogeneous, isotropic and flat state we observe today on large scales. In this paper, we evaluate the likelihood of the initial conditions employed in the aforementioned simulations by estimating the probability that a free scalar field dominating the universe at the beginning of inflation or ekpyrosis will be sufficiently homogeneous on scales comparable to the Hubble radius at that time. We explore the space of parameters that characterize the initial power spectrum of the scalar field, finding that either can be more likely than the other for a fixed choice of parameters. On the other hand, when we extremize over these parameters, we find that the maximal probability for inflation is much higher than that of ekpyrosis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22763 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In practice, we will find that these rare events will be exponentially unlikely, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Illustration of an interesting density field drawn from some distribution. The top figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Right-hand side of the inflationary probabilities (blue) at intermediate and high temper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Power spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Power spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Power spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Accelerated expansion of the universe purely driven by scalar field fluctuations

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a closed Friedmann universe, scalar field fluctuations with Compton wavelength exceeding the scale factor produce negative pressure and cosmic acceleration.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    Borde, A

    A. Borde, A. H. Guth, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 151301 (2003), gr-qc/0110012

    arXiv 2003

  2. [1]

    Power spectrum of the metric perturbations 23

    work page

  3. [2]

    Mean curvature scale 24

    work page

  4. [3]

    slow contraction

    Numerical results for a thermal spectrum 25 References 29 2 I. INTRODUCTION One of the most important challenges for any cosmological model is to explain the ex- traordinary homogeneity, isotropy and flatness of the universe on large scales. It is widely accepted today that such a smooth state can be achieved dynamically through an early stage of quasi-ex...

    work page

  5. [4]

    s = inf

    Or, if this occurs, it will be in some isolated part of space surrounded by larger fluctuations at high temperatures/high cutoff that do not satisfy this criteria; this is illustrated in bottom Figure 1. In practice, we will find that these rare events will be exponentially unlikely, and therefore, when this criteria is satisfied, it will take place with ...

    work page

  6. [5]

    (A6) Then, it follows from (A4) that ˜ψ(⃗k) = −4πG ˜ρ(⃗k) |⃗k|2

    Power spectrum of the metric perturbations Let ˜ψ(⃗k) and ˜ρ(⃗k) be the Fourier transforms of ψ and ρ, respectively: ψ(⃗ r) = Z d3k ˜ψ(⃗k)ei⃗k·⃗ r, (A5) 23 ρ(⃗ r) = Z d3k ˜ρ(⃗k)ei⃗k·⃗ r. (A6) Then, it follows from (A4) that ˜ψ(⃗k) = −4πG ˜ρ(⃗k) |⃗k|2 . (A7) Therefore, in order to calculate the power spectrum of ψ, ⟨| ˜ψ(⃗k)|2⟩, we need the power spectrum ...

    work page

  7. [6]

    This scale is given by Θ−1 = K 3 , (A13) where K is the trace of the extrinsic curvature of the initial-time hypersurface

    Mean curvature scale In addition to the power spectrum of the metric fluctuations, we will also be interested in the induced mean curvature scale Θ −1, which is analogous to the Hubble rate in a FLR W spacetime. This scale is given by Θ−1 = K 3 , (A13) where K is the trace of the extrinsic curvature of the initial-time hypersurface. In order to find it, w...

    work page

  8. [7]

    We focus on a thermal spectrum here for concreteness

    Numerical results for a thermal spectrum Here we will present the results for the power spectrum of the metric perturbations and the mean curvature scale, given by (A12) and (A20), respectively. We focus on a thermal spectrum here for concreteness. To this end, the integrals in (A10) and (A21) were solved numerically in a cubic lattice with side length L ...

    work page

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

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

    1981

  2. [9]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 30, 682 (1979)

    1979

  3. [10]

    Kazanas, apjl 241, L59 (1980)

    D. Kazanas, apjl 241, L59 (1980)

    1980

  4. [11]

    K. Sato, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 195, 467 (1981), ISSN 0035- 8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/195/3/467/4065201/mnras195-0467.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/195.3.467

    1981 doi

  5. [12]

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

    1982

  6. [13]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1220

    1982 doi

  7. [14]

    Tegmark et al

    M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS), Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004), astro-ph/0310723

    2004 arXiv

  8. [15]

    A. H. Guth and D. I. Kaiser, Science 307, 884 (2005), astro-ph/0502328

    2005 arXiv

  9. [16]

    J., Barreiro, R

    Planck Collaboration, Akrami, Y., Arroja, F., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartolo, N., et al., AaA 641, A10 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833887

    2020 doi

  10. [17]

    Penrose, Annals N

    R. Penrose, Annals N. Y. Acad. Sci. 571, 249 (1989)

    1989

  11. [18]

    P. J. Steinhardt, Sci. Am. 304N4, 18 (2011)

    2011

  12. [19]

    Ijjas, P

    A. Ijjas, P. J. Steinhardt, and A. Loeb, Phys. Lett. B 723, 261 (2013), 1304.2785

    2013 arXiv

  13. [20]

    A. H. Guth, D. I. Kaiser, and Y. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B 733, 112 (2014), 1312.7619

    2014 arXiv

  14. [21]

    A. H. Guth, in 25th Solvay Conference on Physics: The Theory of the Quantum World (2013), 1312.7340

    2013 arXiv

  15. [22]

    R. H. Brandenberger and J. Martin, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 113001 (2013), 1211.6753

    2013 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Brandenberger, Int

    R. Brandenberger, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1740002 (2016), 1601.01918

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P. J. Steinhardt, in Nuffield Workshop on the Very Early Universe (1982)

    1982

  18. [26]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2848 (1983)

    1983

  19. [27]

    A. H. Guth, J. Phys. A 40, 6811 (2007), hep-th/0702178

    2007 arXiv

  20. [28]

    W. G. Cook, I. A. Glushchenko, A. Ijjas, F. Pretorius, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135690 (2020), 2006.01172

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ijjas (2023), 2304.10030

    A. Ijjas (2023), 2304.10030

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Garfinkle, A

    D. Garfinkle, A. Ijjas, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 843, 138028 (2023), 2304.12150

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ijjas, P

    A. Ijjas, P. J. Steinhardt, D. Garfinkle, and W. G. Cook (2024), 2404.00867

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kurki-Suonio, P

    H. Kurki-Suonio, P. Laguna, and R. A. Matzner, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3611 (1993), astro- ph/9306009. 29

    1993

  25. [33]

    W. E. East, M. Kleban, A. Linde, and L. Senatore, JCAP 09, 010 (2016), 1511.05143

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Clough, E

    K. Clough, E. A. Lim, B. S. DiNunno, W. Fischler, R. Flauger, and S. Paban, JCAP 09, 025 (2017), 1608.04408

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Clough, R

    K. Clough, R. Flauger, and E. A. Lim, JCAP 05, 065 (2018), 1712.07352

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. K. Bloomfield, P. Fitzpatrick, K. Hilbert, and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063512 (2019), 1906.08651

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, R. Flauger, and E. A. Lim, JCAP 05, 030 (2020), 1910.12547

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Joana and S

    C. Joana and S. Clesse, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083501 (2021), 2011.12190

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Joana, Phys

    C. Joana, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023504 (2022), 2202.07604

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Corman and W

    M. Corman and W. E. East, JCAP 10, 046 (2023), 2212.04479

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Elley, J

    M. Elley, J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, R. Flauger, P. Giannadakis, and E. A. Lim, JCAP 01, 050 (2025), 2405.03490

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Joana, Phys

    C. Joana, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063534 (2024), 2406.00811

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and E. A. Lim, Living Rev. Rel. 28, 5 (2025), 2409.01939

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Kleban and L

    M. Kleban and L. Senatore, JCAP 10, 022 (2016), 1602.03520

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Creminelli, L

    P. Creminelli, L. Senatore, and A. Vasy, Commun. Math. Phys. 376, 1155 (2020), 1902.00519

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Creminelli, O

    P. Creminelli, O. Hershkovits, L. Senatore, and A. Vasy, Adv. Math. 434, 109296 (2023), 2004.10754

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wang and L

    J. Wang and L. Senatore (2021), 2111.09257

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Azhar and D

    F. Azhar and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D 107, 043506 (2023), 2207.08355

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ijjas and P

    A. Ijjas and P. J. Steinhardt, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 135004 (2018), 1803.01961

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Khoury, B

    J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, P. J. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123522 (2001), hep-th/0103239

    2001 arXiv

  43. [51]

    E. I. Buchbinder, J. Khoury, and B. A. Ovrut, JHEP 11, 076 (2007), 0706.3903

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. M. Levy, A. Ijjas, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 92, 063524 (2015), 1506.01011

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ijjas and R

    A. Ijjas and R. Kolevatov, JCAP 06, 012 (2021), 2012.08249

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ijjas and R

    A. Ijjas and R. Kolevatov, Phys. Rev. D 103, L101302 (2021), 2102.03818

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ijjas, A

    A. Ijjas, A. P. Sullivan, F. Pretorius, P. J. Steinhardt, and W. G. Cook, JCAP 06, 013 (2021), 2103.00584

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ijjas and P

    A. Ijjas and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 764, 289 (2017), 1609.01253

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Tukhashvili and P

    G. Tukhashvili and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 091001 (2023), 2307.16098

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Kist and A

    T. Kist and A. Ijjas, JCAP 08, 046 (2022), 2205.01519. 30

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.