Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 84 references

CMB constraints on $U(1)$ axion warm inflation

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thermal backreaction makes sub-Planckian axion inflation fit CMB data

desk verdict A coherent warm-inflation model with a derived dissipation coefficient, but the advertised sub-Planckian region runs into an unexamined strong-coupling regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17438 v1 pith:64AJI2UJ submitted 2025-07-23 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Asma Alaei , Sukannya Bhattacharya , Vahid Kamali This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords warminflationaxionChern-SimonsdissipationcoefficientCMBconstraintssub-PlanckiandecayconstantthermalfieldtheoryU(1)gaugefields
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

The paper proposes a warm inflation model in which an axion-like inflaton interacts with U(1) gauge fields through a Chern-Simons coupling, and the resulting thermal plasma back-reacts on the inflaton as a friction force. Its central claim is that the dissipation coefficient takes the form $\Upsilon = e^3 \lambda^2 T^3/(192\pi^3 f^2)$, and that the warm power spectrum computed from it matches CMB observations even when the axion decay constant is sub-Planckian, $f < M_{\rm Pl}$. This matters because it offers a way to keep natural axion models with small decay constants while avoiding a separate reheating phase, and it identifies charged fermions as essential for producing the thermal mass that drives dissipation. The paper derives the dissipation coefficient using thermal field theory and then constrains the model parameters with CMB, lensing, and BAO data, finding $m_\phi/f \simeq (4.6\text{--}5.9)\times10^{-8}$ and $f^2Q/M_{\rm Pl}^2 \simeq 32\text{--}101$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the retarded thermal Green function of the Chern-Simons operator $\vec E\cdot\vec B$, evaluated in real-time thermal field theory. Its derivative with respect to frequency at zero frequency gives the dissipation coefficient $\Upsilon$ through the linear-response formula $\Upsilon = i\lim_{\omega\to 0}\partial \tilde\Sigma_\rho(\omega,0)/\partial\omega$. The fermions charged under the U(1) gauge field induce a Debye thermal mass $m_D\sim eT$, and the dissipation scales as $\Upsilon\propto m_D^3$; without those fermions the Debye mass vanishes and the dissipation vanishes. The paper also reduces the warm power spectrum to a function of $m_\phi/f$ and $\gamma$, which is what makes the CMB fit tractable.

What would settle it

A first-principles simulation of axion-U(1) dynamics starting from cold vacuum initial conditions, evolved through the available pre-CMB e-folds, would settle the central claim: if the Chern-Simons source plus fermion scattering does not bring the gauge fields to a thermal distribution with Debye mass $m_D\sim eT$ before the pivot scale exits the horizon, the thermal dissipation coefficient and the warm power spectrum used for the constraints are not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that warm inflation driven by an axion coupled to U(1) gauge fields is observationally viable. Replacing the Chern-Simons source term $\lambda/(2\pi f)\,\langle \vec E\cdot\vec B\rangle$ by its thermal average and computing the retarded response with real-time thermal field theory gives a dissipation coefficient $\Upsilon = e^3\lambda^2 T^3/(192\pi^3 f^2)$, where $e$ is the fermion charge and the Debye mass $m_D\sim eT$ carries the fermion contribution. In the strong-dissipation limit $Q\equiv\Upsilon/(3H)\gg 1$ the warm scalar power spectrum depends on the model only through $m_\phi/f$ and $\gamma\equiv \sqrt{2}\,f\sqrt{Q}/M_{\rm Pl}$, and the spectral index depends only on $\gamma$ and the number of e-folds. Fitting this spectrum to CMB temperature and polarization, lensing, and BAO data yields the quoted parameter values, with sub-Planckian $f$ allowed when $Q$ is large.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the U(1) gauge sector is already thermalized at the start of inflation, so that a thermal average and the linear-response computation of $\Upsilon$ apply; the paper checks this only against bounds derived for cold initial conditions, after the fact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sub-Planckian axion decay constants $f<M_{\rm Pl}$ become compatible with CMB observations in the strong-dissipation warm regime, easing a naturalness problem of cold axion inflation.
  • The scalar spectral index depends only on $\gamma$ and the number of e-folds, asymptoting to a fixed value for large $\gamma$, so sharper measurements of $n_s$ can directly narrow the allowed $\gamma$ range.
  • Large dissipation with sub-Planckian $f$ requires substantial couplings, roughly $\lambda e^{3/2}\sim 10^4\text{--}10^6$, implying an axion-gauge coupling and fermionic charge that are far from unity.
  • Charged fermions are not optional: they generate the Debye mass that makes $\Upsilon$ nonzero, so a pure dark U(1) sector with no charged fermions cannot realize this warm-inflation mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper assumes thermalized initial conditions rather than deriving them; a natural extension is to study whether the cold-to-warm transition completes before the CMB pivot scale exits the horizon in the allowed parameter region.
  • If the warm spectrum is realized, it likely produces distinctive predictions for the tensor-to-scalar ratio and for thermal non-Gaussianity that could distinguish this model from cold axion inflation in future data.
  • The strong scaling $\Upsilon\propto e^7$ (for $\lambda=q\alpha$) compared with the non-Abelian sphaleron result $\Upsilon\propto g^{10}$ suggests that U(1) warm axion inflation can reach strong dissipation with smaller gauge couplings, which may motivate dark-photon model building.
  • A direct test would be a non-perturbative lattice computation of the axion-U(1) system starting from vacuum, checking whether the thermal distribution with Debye mass $eT$ actually forms within the available e-folds.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a warm inflation model in which an axion-like inflaton with a cosine potential couples to a U(1) gauge field through a Chern-Simons term, while fermions charged under the gauge group provide a thermal (Debye) mass for the photon. Using real-time thermal field theory and linear response theory, the authors derive a dissipation coefficient Υ ∝ e^3 λ^2 T^3 / f^2 (Eq. 13), and then assume the dissipation ratio Q = Υ/(3H) is constant during inflation. This leads to an analytic warm power spectrum (Eq. 27) whose amplitude and tilt depend on the combinations m_phi/f and γ ∝ f^2 Q. The spectrum is implemented in CAMB and sampled with CosmoMC against Planck 2018, Planck lensing, and SDSS BAO data for two fixed values of the total e-fold number Ninf = 50 and 60. The resulting posteriors constrain m_phi/f around 5 × 10^-8 and f^2 Q / M_Pl^2 around 30–100, and the paper argues that Q ≫ 1 can be achieved for sub-Planckian f with moderate-to-large values of λ e^{3/2}.

Significance. If the derivation of Eq. (13) and the constant-Q treatment are valid, the paper offers a novel warm-inflation realization of natural inflation with a derived, rather than fitted, dissipation coefficient. The expression for the spectral tilt n_w as a function of only γ and Ninf (Eq. 29) is an elegant and useful result, and the MCMC implementation is transparent. The paper explicitly names the thermalized-initial-condition assumption and attempts to connect to existing thermalization bounds, which is commendable. However, the central quantitative claims rest on several unquantified approximations, and the main advertised conclusion (CMB consistency with sub-Planckian f) is currently a fit result in a regime whose theoretical control is not established. The derivation and the parameter-space analysis are likely to be of interest to the warm-inflation community if the validity issues below are resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 4 and Eq. (13)] The parameter region advertised for CMB consistency, Q ≫ 1 with f < M_Pl, requires λ e^{3/2} in the range 10^4–10^6, as shown in Fig. 4. With e = O(1) this implies λ ~ 10^4–10^6; with e chosen so that λ is moderate (the e ≳ O(1) case mentioned in Section V), the electromagnetic coupling α = e^2/(4π) is ≫ 1. In either branch, the calculation leading to Eq. (13) is not clearly controlled: the spectral density in Eq. (12) is a tree-level/HTL result, and the paper does not estimate the loop expansion in α or the nonlinear corrections in λ that would justify using this formula at these couplings. Since Eq. (13) enters the amplitude and tilt through Eqs. (20), (25)–(29), this is a load-bearing issue. A concrete check would be to estimate the next-order correction to Eq. (12) along the Q = 100 contour of Fig. 4 and to restrict the claims to parameter regions where the approximation is valid.
  2. [Section III, Eqs. (20)–(29)] The analysis assumes Q is constant during inflation, justified by the statement that the factor [sin^3(φ/2f)/cos^2(φ/2f)]^{2/7} in Eq. (20) is weakly dependent. This factor is not numerically negligible over the trajectory relevant to the CMB. For γ = 10 and Ninf = 60, the bracket changes by about a factor of 4 between pivot exit and the end of inflation; for γ = 8 (near the Ninf = 60 best-fit value in Table II) the variation is closer to a factor of 7. Equations (21)–(23) use the constant-Q assumption to derive the field-evolution law, and this evolution feeds directly into the shape of P(k) in Eq. (27). The pivot scale may be sensitive to only part of the trajectory, but that needs to be demonstrated. A concrete test is to integrate the slow-roll equations with the full time-dependent Q from Eq. (20) and compare the resulting n_w and amplitude with the constant-Q results quoted in Table I.
  3. [Sections I and V, Fig. 5] The derivation of Υ from a thermal correlator and the use of the warm power spectrum presuppose that the U(1) plasma is already thermalized during the CMB-relevant e-folds. The paper states this explicitly as an assumption ('we assume thermalization, in fact thermalised initial conditions') and attempts an a posteriori justification by comparing ξ and f/(λH) with the thermalization bounds of Ref. [48]. However, the authors themselves concede that those bounds were derived for cold initial conditions and small-backreaction gauge-field solutions, so they do not directly validate the assumed initial condition in this model. A quantitative check of whether the Chern-Simons production maintains or drives a thermal distribution within Ninf e-folds from the assumed initial state is needed. Without such a check, Eq. (13) and the resulting CMB constraints apply only if the initial thermal state is simply postulated.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (24), footnote 4] The power spectrum omits the function G(Q*) that accounts for the coupling of scalar fluctuations to radiation fluctuations. For the parameter range found in the analysis, Q is of order 10^2–10^3, and this correction is not obviously negligible. The paper provides no estimate of its magnitude or of its effect on the amplitude constraint. Because the MCMC analysis uses the absolute normalization of P(k) to fix m_phi/f, the omission could bias the quoted constraints. The authors should either quantify G(Q*) for the parameters considered or show explicitly that it is close to one in the relevant regime.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'sub-Plankian' for 'sub-Planckian', and 'Axion' should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
  2. [Section II] The line element is described as 'FLR W metric'; this should be 'FLRW metric'.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states energies 'in units of |M p4'; this should read M_Pl^4.
  4. [Appendix A] The appendix title contains the typo 'Estimatino' for 'Estimation'.
  5. [References] References [44] and [45] are empty placeholders; they should either be filled or removed.
  6. [Section V] The sentence 'using e ≳ O(1) can lead to λ ∼ O(10 − 1000)' is difficult to reconcile with Fig. 4 unless e is taken to be very large; the paper should clarify the allowed (e, λ) relation and its implications for α = e^2/(4π).
  7. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions describe 'precise constraints on the model's free parameters', but the MCMC analysis only constrains the combinations m_phi/f and f^2 Q; the individual parameters f, Q, and m_phi are not separately constrained. This should be stated more carefully.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The CMB 'consistency' claim is statistically forced by the fit (m_phi/f and gamma set A_w and n_w), while the dissipation coefficient itself is independently derived.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section IV 'Analysis' (CAMB parameter choices, Eqs. (28)-(29))]
    "Our results are consistent with CMB observations, even for a natural sub-Plankian axion decay constant f<Mp. ... we choose to vary the following combinations of the model parameters in CAMB: ln(10^10m_phi/f) and gamma/100."

    The two CMB observables that establish the claimed consistency are the scalar amplitude A_w and the tilt n_w. From Eqs. (28)-(29), A_w is controlled mainly by m_phi/f and n_w depends only on gamma, and these are exactly the two combinations varied in the MCMC analysis. The posterior distributions and the statement 'consistent with CMB observations' are therefore a restatement of the fit, not a prediction: the match is enforced by construction. The later sub-Planckian f viability claim (Fig. 4) is then drawn using the same fitted gamma and m_phi/f values, so it is a re-parameterization of the fitted point rather than an independent test.

full rationale

The central new ingredient, the dissipation coefficient in Eq. (13), is derived from a thermal-field-theory correlator with the cited external prescriptions [49, 51], and it is not fitted to the CMB data; this gives the model independent theoretical content. The CMB 'consistency' is however a fit result, because the amplitude and tilt are set by the same parameters that are varied in the MCMC, so that part of the advertised result reduces to the fit by construction. The assumed thermalized initial condition is explicitly flagged by the authors and checked against the external bounds of [48] with stated caveats; this is an assumption and validity risk, not a circular reduction. Similarly, the large-coupling regime (lambda e^{3/2} ~ 10^4-10^6) needed for Q >> 1 raises a perturbativity concern about the tree-level evaluation of Eq. (12), but that is a physics correctness issue rather than a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present. Score 4 reflects a partially forced CMB claim while the dissipation derivation remains independent.

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

The central claim rests on two derived quantities (the dissipation coefficient and the warm power spectrum) and on several modeling choices: thermalized initial conditions, a constant Q, a fixed g_star, and a fixed Ninf. The free parameters fitted to data are m_phi/f and gamma; the other numbers are chosen by hand or left free. None of these are independently measured external constraints.

free parameters (6)
  • m_phi/f = 4.57e-8 (Ninf=50), 5.85e-8 (Ninf=60)
    Fitted to the CMB amplitude through the warm power spectrum; the abstract highlights this as a precise constraint.
  • gamma (f^2Q/M_Pl^2) = gamma ~ 14.2 (Ninf=50), 8.0 (Ninf=60) best fit; 68% range wide
    Fitted to the CMB spectral index; poorly constrained with a one-sided posterior.
  • Ninf = 50 and 60 (fixed by hand)
    Total e-folds from pivot-scale exit to end of inflation; fixing instead of marginalizing omits a source of uncertainty.
  • g_star (C_R=65.5) = 200
    Effective relativistic degrees of freedom chosen by hand; it sets the radiation temperature and shifts the normalization of the power spectrum.
  • lambda (Chern-Simons coupling) = not fitted; large values (10 to 1000 if e~1) required
    Free model parameter; the viability of sub-Planckian f with Q>>1 requires large lambda e^{3/2}.
  • e (fermion charge) = not fitted; O(1) assumed in discussion
    Free model parameter; enters the dissipation rate as e^3 and the thermal mass.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The U(1) gauge sector is thermally equilibrated from the start of inflation.
    The linear-response computation and the warm power spectrum require a thermal plasma. Stated in Section I and Section V.
  • domain assumption The plasma is ultra-relativistic, so the fermion mass can be dropped and m_D ~ eT.
    Used in Section II to reach Eq. (12) and Eq. (13).
  • ad hoc to paper Q is treated as constant during inflation.
    Used for Eqs. (23), (27), (29); Eq. (20) shows Q varies by a factor of several over the full trajectory, so this is an approximation, not a consequence.
  • domain assumption The G(Q*) correction to the warm-inflation power spectrum is negligible.
    Stated in Section III, footnote 4, without quantitative estimate.
  • domain assumption Slow-roll and adiabatic conditions hold, so the dissipation term is Υ φdot with Υ obtained from the zero-frequency limit of the retarded correlator.
    Standard linear-response assumption used in Section II and Appendix A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CMB constraints on $U(1)$ axion warm inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64AJI2UJ

@misc{pith2026250717438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CMB constraints on $U(1)$ axion warm inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64AJI2UJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17438}
}
abstract

In this work, we propose a model of warm inflation driven by axion-like particles interacting with $U(1)$ gauge fields, with implications for the early universe's thermal evolution. By extending traditional warm inflation models, we introduce a dissipation mechanism through the thermal fluctuations of electromagnetic fields, leading to a non-trivial backreaction on the inflaton's dynamics. Our results are consistent with CMB observations, even for a natural sub-Plankian axion decay constant $f<M_{\rm Pl}$. We present precise constraints on the model's free parameters, using CAMB and CosmoMC codes. These findings offer new insights into the thermal history of the universe and the nature of inflationary dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Evolution of potential, kinetic and radiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Contour plot for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Parametric dependence in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Contour plot for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Posterior distributions for all parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    R. Z. Ferreira and A. Notari, Phys. Rev. D 97, 063528 (2018), arXiv:1711.07483 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. 3, 130 (1987)

    1987

  3. [2]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  4. [3]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982)

    1982

  5. [4]

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

    1982

  6. [5]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3195 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9405187

    arXiv 1994

  7. [6]

    Shtanov, J

    Y. Shtanov, J. H. Traschen, and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5438 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9407247

    arXiv 1995

  8. [7]

    B. A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa, and D. Wands, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 537 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0507632

    arXiv 2006

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    A. V. Frolov, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 124006 (2010), arXiv:1004.3559 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Allahverdi, R

    R. Allahverdi, R. Brandenberger, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and A. Mazumdar, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 27 (2010), arXiv:1001.2600 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    M. A. Amin, M. P. Hertzberg, D. I. Kaiser, and J. Karouby, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1530003 (2014), arXiv:1410.3808 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    K. D. Lozanov, (2019), arXiv:1907.04402 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Allahverdi et al

    R. Allahverdi et al. , Open J. Astrophys. 4, as- tro.2006.16182 (2021), arXiv:2006.16182 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Berera, Phys

    A. Berera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3218 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9509049

    1995

  7. [14]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos, and J. G. Rosa, Physical Review Letters 117, 151301 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    Kamali, M

    V. Kamali, M. Motaharfar, and R. O. Ramos, Universe 9, 124 (2023), arXiv:2302.02827 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Collaboration, Y

    P. Collaboration, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. Banday, R. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al. , (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Motaharfar, V

    M. Motaharfar, V. Kamali, and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063513 (2019), arXiv:1810.02816 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Kamali, Phys

    V. Kamali, Phys. Rev. D 100, 043520 (2019), arXiv:1901.01897 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    K. V. Berghaus, P. W. Graham, and D. E. Kaplan, JCAP 03, 034 (2020), arXiv:1910.07525 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Visinelli, JCAP 07, 054 (2016), arXiv:1605.06449 [astro-ph.CO]

    L. Visinelli, JCAP 07, 054 (2016), arXiv:1605.06449 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Benetti and R

    M. Benetti and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 95, 023517 (2017), arXiv:1610.08758 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Videla and G

    N. Videla and G. Panotopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123503 (2018), arXiv:1710.05046 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Bastero-Gil, S

    M. Bastero-Gil, S. Bhattacharya, K. Dutta, and M. R. Gangopadhyay, JCAP 02, 054 (2018), arXiv:1710.10008 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [26]

    R. Arya, A. Dasgupta, G. Goswami, J. Prasad, and R. Rangarajan, JCAP 02, 043 (2018), arXiv:1710.11109 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Gomes, O

    C. Gomes, O. Bertolami, and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104061 (2018), arXiv:1803.08084 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. Hern´ andez-Jim´ enez, and J. a. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083502 (2018), arXiv:1805.07186 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Das, Phys

    S. Das, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063514 (2019), arXiv:1810.05038 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, and J. R. Calder´ on, JCAP 07, 019 (2019), arXiv:1904.04086 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Montefalcone, V

    G. Montefalcone, V. Aragam, L. Visinelli, and K. Freese, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063543 (2023), arXiv:2209.14908 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Montefalcone, V

    G. Montefalcone, V. Aragam, L. Visinelli, and K. Freese, JCAP 03, 002 (2023), arXiv:2212.04482 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Das and R

    S. Das and R. O. Ramos, Universe 9, 76 (2023), arXiv:2212.13914 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Mukuno and J

    A. Mukuno and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123504 (2024), arXiv:2402.08849 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Kumar and S

    U. Kumar and S. Das, JCAP 10, 058 (2024), arXiv:2407.06032 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    DeRocco, P

    W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, and S. Kalia, JCAP 11, 011 (2021), arXiv:2107.07517 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Laine and S

    M. Laine and S. Procacci, JCAP 06, 031 (2021), arXiv:2102.09913 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    K. V. Berghaus, M. Drewes, and S. Zell, (2025), arXiv:2503.18829 [hep-ph]

    2025

  32. [39]

    R. O. Ramos and G. S. Rodrigues, (2025), arXiv:2504.20943 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Broadberry, A

    E. Broadberry, A. Hook, and S. Mondal, (2025), arXiv:2505.07943 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Bhattacharya, M

    S. Bhattacharya, M. Fasiello, A. Papageorgiou, and E. Dimastrogiovanni, (2025), arXiv:2506.11853 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  35. [42]

    R. Z. Ferreira and A. Notari, JCAP 09, 007 (2017), arXiv:1706.00373 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Visinelli, JCAP 09, 013 (2011), arXiv:1107.3523 [astro-ph.CO]

    L. Visinelli, JCAP 09, 013 (2011), arXiv:1107.3523 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Mishra, S

    H. Mishra, S. Mohanty, and A. Nautiyal, Phys. Lett. B 710, 245 (2012), arXiv:1106.3039 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Kamali and R

    V. Kamali and R. O. Ramos, JCAP 01, 048 (2025), arXiv:2410.22624 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Hassan, G

    S. Hassan, G. R. Kane, J. March-Russell, and G. Obied, JHEP 03, 022 (2025), arXiv:2410.19906 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Fujita, K

    T. Fujita, K. Mukaida, and T. Tsuji, (2025), arXiv:2503.01228 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Bellac, Thermal Field Theory, Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    M. Bellac, Thermal Field Theory, Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  42. [52]

    L. D. McLerran, E. Mottola, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2027 (1991)

    1991

  43. [53]

    S. Y. Khlebnikov, Phys. Rev. D 46, R3223 (1992)

    1992

  44. [54]

    M. M. Anber and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D 81, 043534 (2010), arXiv:0908.4089 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Barnaby, R

    N. Barnaby, R. Namba, and M. Peloso, JCAP 04, 009 (2011), arXiv:1102.4333 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [56]

    Barnaby and M

    N. Barnaby and M. Peloso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 181301 (2011), arXiv:1011.1500 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [57]

    J. L. Cook and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D 85, 023534 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 86, 069901 (2012)], arXiv:1109.0022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [58]

    ¨Ozsoy, K

    O. ¨Ozsoy, K. Sinha, and S. Watson, Phys. Rev. D 91, 103509 (2015), arXiv:1410.0016 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Cheng, W

    S.-L. Cheng, W. Lee, and K.-W. Ng, Phys. Rev. D 93, 063510 (2016), arXiv:1508.00251 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Peloso, L

    M. Peloso, L. Sorbo, and C. Unal, JCAP 09, 001 (2016), arXiv:1606.00459 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [61]

    E. V. Gorbar, K. Schmitz, O. O. Sobol, and S. I. Vilchin- skii, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123504 (2021), arXiv:2109.01651 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Durrer, R

    R. Durrer, R. von Eckardstein, D. Garg, K. Schmitz, O. Sobol, and S. Vilchinskii, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043533 (2024), arXiv:2404.19694 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [63]

    S. P. Corb` a and L. Sorbo, JCAP 10, 024 (2024), arXiv:2403.03338 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Jim´ enez, K

    D. Jim´ enez, K. Kamada, K. Schmitz, and X.-J. Xu, JCAP 12, 011 (2017), arXiv:1707.07943 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Domcke, V

    V. Domcke, V. Guidetti, Y. Welling, and A. Westphal, JCAP 09, 009 (2020), arXiv:2002.02952 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Peloso and L

    M. Peloso and L. Sorbo, JCAP 01, 038 (2023), arXiv:2209.08131 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Garcia-Bellido, A

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A. Papageorgiou, M. Peloso, and L. Sorbo, JCAP 01, 034 (2024), arXiv:2303.13425 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [68]

    von Eckardstein, M

    R. von Eckardstein, M. Peloso, K. Schmitz, O. Sobol, and L. Sorbo, JHEP 11, 183 (2023), arXiv:2309.04254 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [69]

    K. Alam, K. Dutta, and N. Jaman, JCAP 12, 015 (2024), arXiv:2405.10155 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [70]

    He, K.-G

    J.-F. He, K.-G. Zhang, C. Fu, and Z.-K. Guo, (2025), arXiv:2502.13158 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [71]

    D. G. Figueroa, J. Lizarraga, A. Urio, and J. Urrestilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 151003 (2023), arXiv:2303.17436 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Sharma, A

    R. Sharma, A. Brandenburg, K. Subramanian, and A. Vikman, JCAP 05, 079 (2025), arXiv:2411.04854 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [73]

    Caravano, E

    A. Caravano, E. Komatsu, K. D. Lozanov, and J. Weller, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123530 (2022), arXiv:2110.10695 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [74]

    Wu, L.-S

    Y.-L. Wu, L.-S. Liu, L.-H. Sui, Y.-F. Wang, X.-B. Li, and N. Bai, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123502 (2023)

    2023

  65. [75]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, and R. O. Ramos, JCAP 09, 033 (2011), arXiv:1008.1929 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  66. [76]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [77]

    Louis et al

    T. Louis et al. (ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [78]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177

    2000 arXiv

  69. [79]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, JCAP 04, 027 (2012), arXiv:1201.3654 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  70. [80]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [81]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [82]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205436

    2002 arXiv

  73. [83]

    Lewis, Phys

    A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [84]

    Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [85]

    Dimastrogiovanni, M

    E. Dimastrogiovanni, M. Fasiello, J. M. Leedom, M. Putti, and A. Westphal, JHEP 08, 072 (2024), arXiv:2312.13431 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [86]

    Papageorgiou, P

    A. Papageorgiou, P. Qu ´ ılez, and K. Schmitz, JHEP01, 169 (2023), arXiv:2206.01129 [hep-ph]. 10 Appendix A: Estimatino of the dissipation coefficient The dissipation coefficient Υ plays a critical role in understanding the dynamics of a scalar fieldϕ interacting with other fi...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.