Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 86 references

Thermal effects and finite-temperature cosmology in perturbatively stabilized large volume scenarios

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-25 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Finite-temperature effects in perturbative large volume scenarios favor high-scale inflation and make T=0 vacuum recovery sensitive to post-inflationary thermal history.

desk verdict The paper calculates T_max and thermal metastability outcomes in perturbative LVS but the results hinge on unverified dominance of log-loop Kähler corrections over thermal effects. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.22998 v1 pith:RR3A55OS submitted 2026-05-21 hep-th

Vasileios Basiouris This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords largevolumescenariofinitetemperatureeffectsmodulistabilizationdeSittervacuainflationarycosmologyKählerpotentialcorrectionsthermalmetastabilitystringlandscape
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 examines finite-temperature dynamics of Kähler moduli in the perturbative large volume scenario. It determines a maximum decompactification temperature whose value depends on winding-loop corrections and shows that perturbative logarithmic corrections to the Kähler potential continue to stabilize the moduli. Higher-derivative F^4 terms are used to test the robustness of the resulting thermally induced vacua. Cosmological consequences include derived bounds on reheating and the preference for high-scale inflation in which the heavy modulus decays before it can dominate the energy density. Thermal metastability analysis reveals that whether the zero-temperature vacuum is recovered depends on the details of the thermal history after inflation, with possible outcomes being an AdS vacuum, a metastable phase, or a stable de Sitter configuration.

What carries the argument

perturbative logarithmic loop corrections to the Kähler potential that stabilize the moduli at finite temperature, tested for robustness with higher-derivative F^4 terms

What would settle it

An explicit computation showing that the heavy modulus dominates the energy density after inflation, or that vacuum recovery after heating is insensitive to the value of T_max, would falsify the central cosmological claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the perturbative Large Volume Scenario, finite-temperature effects determine a maximum decompactification temperature T_max that depends on winding-loop corrections in the effective theory. Moduli stabilization arises from perturbative logarithmic loop corrections to the Kähler potential, with higher-derivative F^4 terms used to test vacuum robustness. The model favors high scale inflationary scenarios with the heavy modulus decaying before dominating the energy density of the universe. Thermal metastability shows that recovery of the T=0 vacuum is sensitive to the post-inflationary thermal history, potentially yielding an AdS vacuum, a metastable phase, or a stable dS configuration.

Load-bearing premise

Perturbative logarithmic loop corrections to the Kähler potential continue to stabilize moduli at finite temperature, and higher-derivative F^4 terms suffice to test vacuum robustness without dominant non-perturbative or higher-order thermal corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The maximum decompactification temperature depends on winding-loop corrections in the effective theory.
  • Bounds on reheating temperatures follow directly from the finite-temperature analysis.
  • High-scale inflation is favored because the heavy modulus decays before it can dominate the energy density.
  • Post-inflationary thermal history can select among AdS, metastable, or stable dS outcomes for the zero-temperature vacuum.
  • Finite-temperature effects become relevant for entropy-assisted tunneling processes in the string landscape.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If thermal history controls which vacuum is reached, early-universe evolution could act as a selection mechanism among different string vacua.
  • Similar temperature-dependent stabilization might appear in other perturbative or non-perturbative moduli stabilization schemes.
  • The sensitivity to thermal history offers a possible route to connect cosmological observables with the statistics of the string landscape.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes finite-temperature effects in the perturbative Large Volume Scenario (LVS), focusing on the dynamics of thermalized Kähler moduli and the stability of thermally induced vacua. It determines the maximum decompactification temperature T_max and its dependence on winding-loop corrections. Moduli stabilization arises from perturbative logarithmic loop corrections to the Kähler potential, with higher-derivative F^4 terms used to test vacuum robustness. Cosmological implications include bounds on reheating, favoring high-scale inflationary scenarios where the heavy modulus decays before dominating the energy density. Thermal metastability analysis shows that recovery of the T=0 vacuum is sensitive to post-inflationary thermal history, potentially yielding AdS, metastable, or stable dS configurations. The paper concludes with brief remarks on entropy-assisted tunneling and the string landscape.

Significance. If the results hold, this work contributes to finite-temperature string cosmology by extending LVS models to include thermal effects on moduli stabilization and vacuum selection. The dependence of T_max on winding-loop corrections and the analysis of thermal metastability outcomes provide concrete links between string compactifications and post-inflationary cosmology, including reheating bounds. The use of F^4 terms to probe robustness is a positive methodological step.

major comments (2)
  1. [Thermal potential and T_max sections] The central claims on T_max, vacuum recovery, and metastability outcomes rest on the assumption that perturbative logarithmic loop corrections to the Kähler potential dominate the finite-T effective potential up to T_max. No explicit bounds or estimates are derived on the magnitude of higher-order thermal loops or non-perturbative contributions relative to these terms (see the thermal potential analysis and the discussion of T_max dependence). If thermal corrections grow faster than assumed, the separation of scales and the metastability conclusions do not follow.
  2. [Cosmological implications and reheating bounds] The cosmological claim that the model favors high-scale inflation with the heavy modulus decaying before dominating the energy density relies on the T=0 stabilization persisting through the thermal epoch. This requires a quantitative demonstration that the thermal history does not alter the decay timing or domination condition, which is not provided beyond the leading perturbative logs.
minor comments (2)
  1. [T_max derivation] Notation for the winding-loop corrections and their explicit appearance in the T_max formula could be clarified with an additional equation or appendix reference for reproducibility.
  2. [Conclusion] The discussion of entropy-assisted tunneling would benefit from a short comparison to existing literature on thermal tunneling in string vacua.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major concern below, agreeing that additional estimates would strengthen the presentation and indicating the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Thermal potential and T_max sections] The central claims on T_max, vacuum recovery, and metastability outcomes rest on the assumption that perturbative logarithmic loop corrections to the Kähler potential dominate the finite-T effective potential up to T_max. No explicit bounds or estimates are derived on the magnitude of higher-order thermal loops or non-perturbative contributions relative to these terms (see the thermal potential analysis and the discussion of T_max dependence). If thermal corrections grow faster than assumed, the separation of scales and the metastability conclusions do not follow.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from explicit estimates of higher-order thermal loops and non-perturbative contributions to confirm their subdominance up to T_max. Our analysis relies on the leading perturbative logarithmic corrections as the dominant terms in the regime of interest, consistent with the perturbative LVS stabilization. In the revised version we will add a new subsection (or appendix) providing order-of-magnitude bounds on next-to-leading thermal corrections and non-perturbative effects, showing they remain parametrically smaller than the leading logs for the temperatures and moduli values considered. This will directly support the separation of scales used for T_max and the metastability conclusions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Cosmological implications and reheating bounds] The cosmological claim that the model favors high-scale inflation with the heavy modulus decaying before dominating the energy density relies on the T=0 stabilization persisting through the thermal epoch. This requires a quantitative demonstration that the thermal history does not alter the decay timing or domination condition, which is not provided beyond the leading perturbative logs.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a more quantitative treatment of the thermal history's effect on decay timing would strengthen the reheating bounds. The current discussion is based on the persistence of the zero-temperature vacuum structure derived from the effective potential. In the revision we will expand the cosmological implications section with a brief quantitative estimate of the heavy modulus decay rate relative to the Hubble parameter during the thermal epoch, confirming that domination does not occur prior to decay for the high-scale inflation scenarios considered. This will be supported by the same leading-log potential already analyzed, supplemented by the new bounds on higher-order terms. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: thermal analysis extends external LVS stabilization

full rationale

The paper takes the established perturbative LVS moduli stabilization via logarithmic loop corrections to the Kähler potential as an input from prior literature and adds finite-temperature dynamics on top of it. T_max is computed from the dependence on winding-loop corrections, reheating bounds and metastability outcomes (AdS/metastable dS) follow from the effective potential including thermal terms and F^4 probes. No quoted step equates a derived quantity to a fitted input by construction, imports uniqueness via self-citation, or renames a known result as a new derivation. The assumption that perturbative logs dominate thermal corrections up to T_max is an explicit modeling choice, not a self-referential reduction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

Only abstract available; no extractable free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified from the provided text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal effects and finite-temperature cosmology in perturbatively stabilized large volume scenarios." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RR3A55OS

@misc{pith2026260522998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal effects and finite-temperature cosmology in perturbatively stabilized large volume scenarios},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RR3A55OS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.22998}
}
abstract

We analyze finite-temperature effects in the perturbative Large Volume Scenario (LVS), examining the dynamics of thermalized K\"ahler moduli and the stability of thermally induced vacua. We determine the maximum decompactification temperature $T_{\max}$, showing its dependence on winding-loop corrections in the effective theory. Moduli stabilization arises from perturbative logarithmic loop corrections to the K\"ahler potential, with higher-derivative $F^4$ terms used to test vacuum robustness. We derive cosmological implications, including bounds on reheating, and show that the model favors high scale inflationary scenarios with the heavy modulus decaying before dominating the energy density of the universe. We also analyze thermal metastability, demonstrating that the recovery of the $T=0$ vacuum is sensitive to the post-inflationary thermal history, potentially yielding either an AdS vacuum, a metastable phase, or a stable dS configuration. We conclude by briefly discussing the relevance of finite-temperature effects for entropy-assisted tunneling and the broader string landscape.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vacuum of the potential (3.3) along each direction. The black dot represents the minimum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of the potential (4.5) along the volume direction under thermal effects. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of the potential (4.5) along the transverse space under thermal effects. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ratio of functions in inequality (5.5) characterizing the critical thermal effects on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot at the potential (4.5) (orange curve) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. P. Derendinger, C. Kounnas, P. M. Petropoulos and F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. B715(2005), 211-233 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.02.038 [arXiv:hep-th/0411276 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.02.038 2005

  2. [2]

    N=1 effective potential from dual type-IIA D6/O6 orientifolds with general fluxes

    G. Villadoro and F. Zwirner, JHEP06(2005), 047 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/06/047 [arXiv:hep-th/0503169 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/06/047 2005

  3. [4]

    S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru and J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D66(2002), 106006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.106006 [arXiv:hep-th/0105097 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.106006 2002

  4. [5]

    de Sitter Vacua in String Theory

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D68(2003), 046005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.046005 [arXiv:hep-th/0301240 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.046005 2003

  5. [6]

    Systematics of Moduli Stabilisation in Calabi-Yau Flux Compactifications

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Berglund, J. P. Conlon and F. Quevedo, JHEP03(2005), 007 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/03/007 [arXiv:hep-th/0502058 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/03/007 2005

  6. [8]

    The String Landscape and the Swampland

    C. Vafa, [arXiv:hep-th/0509212 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [9]

    On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B766(2007), 21-33 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.10.033 [arXiv:hep-th/0605264 [hep-th]]. 24

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.10.033 2007

  8. [10]

    Gra˜ na and A

    M. Gra˜ na and A. Herr´ aez, Universe7(2021) no.8, 273 doi:10.3390/universe7080273 [arXiv:2107.00087 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7080273 2021

Show all 86 references
  1. [11]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. D. Linde, JHEP12(2004), 004 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/12/004 [arXiv:hep-th/0411011 [hep-th]]

    2004 doi arXiv

  2. [12]

    Binetruy and M

    P. Binetruy and M. K. Gaillard, Phys. Rev. D32(1985), 931-937 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.32.931

    1985 doi

  3. [17]

    D. J. Gross, M. J. Perry and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D25(1982), 330-355 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.330

    1982 doi

  4. [18]

    A. D. Linde, Rept. Prog. Phys.42(1979), 389 doi:10.1088/0034-4885/42/3/001

    1979 doi

  5. [19]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B100(1981), 37-40 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90281-1

    1981 doi

  6. [20]

    A. D. Linde, Nucl. Phys. B216(1983), 421 [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B223(1983), 544] doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90072-X

    1983 doi

  7. [21]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B116(1982), 340-342 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90294-5

    1982 doi

  8. [22]

    N. J. Craig, P. J. Fox and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. D75(2007), 085006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.085006 [arXiv:hep-th/0611006 [hep-th]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  9. [24]

    Fischler, V

    W. Fischler, V. Kaplunovsky, C. Krishnan, L. Mannelli and M. A. C. Torres, JHEP03(2007), 107 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/03/107 [arXiv:hep-th/0611018 [hep-th]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  10. [25]

    Anguelova, R

    L. Anguelova, R. Ricci and S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D77(2008), 025036 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.025036 [arXiv:hep-th/0702168 [hep-th]]

    2008 doi arXiv

  11. [26]

    Papineau, JHEP05(2008), 068 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/05/068 [arXiv:0802.1861 [hep- th]]

    C. Papineau, JHEP05(2008), 068 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/05/068 [arXiv:0802.1861 [hep- th]]

    2008 doi arXiv

  12. [27]

    Buchmuller, K

    W. Buchmuller, K. Hamaguchi, O. Lebedev and M. Ratz, Nucl. Phys. B699(2004), 292-308 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.08.031 [arXiv:hep-th/0404168 [hep-th]]

    2004 doi arXiv

  13. [28]

    G. K. Leontaris and P. Shukla, JHEP07(2022), 047 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2022)047 [arXiv:2203.03362 [hep-th]]. 25

    2022 doi

  14. [29]

    Basiouris and G

    V. Basiouris and G. K. Leontaris, Phys. Lett. B810(2020), 135809 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135809 [arXiv:2007.15423 [hep-th]]

    2020 doi

  15. [30]

    Basiouris and G

    V. Basiouris and G. K. Leontaris, Fortsch. Phys.70(2022) no.2-3, 2100181 doi:10.1002/prop.202100181 [arXiv:2109.08421 [hep-th]]

    2022 doi

  16. [32]

    M. Hai, A. R. Kamal, N. F. Shamma and M. S. J. Shuvo, [arXiv:2506.08083 [hep-th]]

  17. [33]

    Chakraborty, M

    D. Chakraborty, M. Hai, S. T. Jahan, A. R. Kamal and M. S. J. Shuvo, [arXiv:2511.19610 [hep- th]]

  18. [34]

    S. W. Hawking and I. G. Moss, Phys. Lett. B110(1982), 35-38 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90946-7

    1982 doi

  19. [36]

    Antoniadis, Y

    I. Antoniadis, Y. Chen and G. K. Leontaris, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) no.9, 766 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6248-4 [arXiv:1803.08941 [hep-th]]

    2018 doi arXiv

  20. [37]

    Antoniadis, Y

    I. Antoniadis, Y. Chen and G. K. Leontaris, JHEP01(2020), 149 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2020)149 [arXiv:1909.10525 [hep-th]]

    2020 doi

  21. [38]

    Gukov, C

    S. Gukov, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B584(2000), 69-108 [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B608 (2001), 477-478] doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00373-4 [arXiv:hep-th/9906070 [hep-th]]

    2000 doi arXiv

  22. [39]

    Kreuzer and H

    M. Kreuzer and H. Skarke, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.4(2000), 1209-1230 doi:10.4310/ATMP.2000.v4.n6.a2 [arXiv:hep-th/0002240 [hep-th]]

    2000 doi arXiv

  23. [40]

    Altman, J

    R. Altman, J. Gray, Y. H. He, V. Jejjala and B. D. Nelson, JHEP02(2015), 158 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)158 [arXiv:1411.1418 [hep-th]]

    2015 doi arXiv

  24. [41]

    Blumenhagen, B

    R. Blumenhagen, B. Jurke and T. Rahn, Adv. High Energy Phys.2011(2011), 152749 doi:10.1155/2011/152749 [arXiv:1104.1187 [hep-th]]

    2011 doi arXiv

  25. [42]

    Blumenhagen, B

    R. Blumenhagen, B. Jurke, T. Rahn and H. Roschy, J. Math. Phys.51(2010), 103525 doi:10.1063/1.3501132 [arXiv:1003.5217 [hep-th]]

    2010 doi arXiv

  26. [43]

    M. Berg, M. Haack and B. Kors, JHEP11(2005), 030 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/11/030 [arXiv:hep-th/0508043 [hep-th]]

    2005 doi arXiv

  27. [45]

    M. Berg, M. Haack and B. Kors, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 026005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.026005 [arXiv:hep-th/0404087 [hep-th]]

    2005 doi arXiv

  28. [46]

    M. Berg, M. Haack and B. Kors, Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006), 021601 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.021601 [arXiv:hep-th/0508171 [hep-th]]. 26

    2006 doi arXiv

  29. [47]

    Ciupke, J

    D. Ciupke, J. Louis and A. Westphal, JHEP10(2015), 094 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)094 [arXiv:1505.03092 [hep-th]]

    2015 doi arXiv

  30. [48]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9(1974), 3320-3341 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3320

    1974 doi

  31. [49]

    Jackiw, Phys

    R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9(1974), 1686 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.1686

    1974 doi

  32. [50]

    Anguelova and V

    L. Anguelova and V. Calo, Nucl. Phys. B801(2008), 45-69 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.04.009 [arXiv:0708.4159 [hep-th]]

    2008 doi arXiv

  33. [51]

    Antoniadis, Y

    I. Antoniadis, Y. Chen and G. K. Leontaris, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A34(2019) no.08, 1950042 doi:10.1142/S0217751X19500428 [arXiv:1810.05060 [hep-th]]

    2019 doi arXiv

  34. [52]

    Cicoli and A

    M. Cicoli and A. Mazumdar, JCAP09(2010), 025 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/09/025 [arXiv:1005.5076 [hep-th]]

    2010 doi arXiv

  35. [53]

    J. P. Conlon, S. S. Abdussalam, F. Quevedo and K. Suruliz, JHEP01(2007), 032 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/032 [arXiv:hep-th/0610129 [hep-th]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  36. [54]

    Anguelova, V

    L. Anguelova, V. Calo and M. Cicoli, JCAP10(2009), 025 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/10/025 [arXiv:0904.0051 [hep-th]]

    2009 doi arXiv

  37. [56]

    Haack, D

    M. Haack, D. Krefl, D. Lust, A. Van Proeyen and M. Zagermann, JHEP01(2007), 078 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/078 [arXiv:hep-th/0609211 [hep-th]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  38. [57]

    Achucarro, B

    A. Achucarro, B. de Carlos, J. A. Casas and L. Doplicher, JHEP06(2006), 014 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2006/06/014 [arXiv:hep-th/0601190 [hep-th]]

    2006 doi arXiv

  39. [58]

    J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-1-009-40196-8, 978-1- 009-40195-1, 978-1-009-40198-2 doi:10.1017/9781009401968

    2007 doi

  40. [59]

    Kaplunovsky and J

    V. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Nucl. Phys. B444(1995), 191-244 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00172- O [arXiv:hep-th/9502077 [hep-th]]

    1995 doi arXiv

  41. [60]

    J. J. Atick and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B310(1988), 291-334 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90151-4

    1988 doi

  42. [61]

    Catelin-Jullien, C

    T. Catelin-Jullien, C. Kounnas, H. Partouche and N. Toumbas, Nucl. Phys. B797(2008), 137-178 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.12.030 [arXiv:0710.3895 [hep-th]]

    2008 doi arXiv

  43. [62]

    Liu and H

    L. Liu and H. Partouche, JHEP11(2012), 079 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2012)079 [arXiv:1111.7307 [hep-th]]

    2012 doi arXiv

  44. [63]

    H. Baer, V. Barger and R. W. Deal, JHEAp34(2022), 40-48 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.001 [arXiv:2204.01130 [hep-ph]]

    2022 doi

  45. [64]

    Basiouris, Phys

    V. Basiouris, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.7, 075003 doi:10.1103/cngs-jfjb [arXiv:2411.18737 [hep- ph]]. 27

    2025 doi

  46. [65]

    Cicoli, K

    M. Cicoli, K. Sinha and R. Wiley Deal, JHEP12(2022), 068 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2022)068 [arXiv:2208.01017 [hep-th]]

    2022 doi

  47. [66]

    S. Ling, A. J. Long, E. McDonough and A. Hayes, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.2, 023550 doi:10.1103/wyc2-fytd [arXiv:2504.13256 [hep-th]]

    2025 doi

  48. [67]

    Wiley Deal, K

    R. Wiley Deal, K. Sankharva, K. Sinha and S. Watson, JHEP02(2024), 085 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)085 [arXiv:2308.16242 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  49. [68]

    Allahverdi, B

    R. Allahverdi, B. Dutta and K. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D82(2010), 035004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.035004 [arXiv:1005.2804 [hep-ph]]

    2010 doi arXiv

  50. [69]

    Dutta and K

    B. Dutta and K. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D82(2010), 095003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.095003 [arXiv:1008.0148 [hep-th]]

    2010 doi arXiv

  51. [70]

    Allahverdi, B

    R. Allahverdi, B. Dutta and K. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D83(2011), 083502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.083502 [arXiv:1011.1286 [hep-ph]]

    2011 doi arXiv

  52. [71]

    Higaki, K

    T. Higaki, K. Kamada and F. Takahashi, JHEP09(2012), 043 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)043 [arXiv:1207.2771 [hep-ph]]

    2012 doi arXiv

  53. [72]

    M. A. G. Garcia and K. A. Olive, JCAP09(2013), 007 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/09/007 [arXiv:1306.6119 [hep-ph]]

    2013 doi arXiv

  54. [73]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B174(1986), 45-47 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91126-3

    1986 doi

  55. [74]

    Affleck and M

    I. Affleck and M. Dine, Nucl. Phys. B249(1985), 361-380 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90021-5

    1985 doi

  56. [75]

    J. P. Conlon, E. J. Copeland, E. Hardy and N. S´ anchez Gonz´ alez, [arXiv:2511.16404 [hep-ph]]

  57. [76]

    S´ anchez Gonz´ alez, J

    N. S´ anchez Gonz´ alez, J. P. Conlon, E. J. Copeland and E. Hardy, JHEP10(2025), 121 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2025)121 [arXiv:2505.14187 [hep-ph]]

    2025 doi

  58. [77]

    Hardy and S

    E. Hardy and S. Parameswaran, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.2, 023503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.023503 [arXiv:1907.10141 [hep-th]]

    2020 doi

  59. [78]

    J. M. Gomes, E. Hardy and S. Parameswaran, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.2, 2 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023533 [arXiv:2311.08888 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  60. [79]

    Cicoli, J

    M. Cicoli, J. P. Conlon, A. Maharana, S. Parameswaran, F. Quevedo and I. Zavala, Phys. Rept. 1059(2024), 1-155 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.01.002 [arXiv:2303.04819 [hep-th]]

    2024 doi

  61. [80]

    S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D15(1977), 2929-2936 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D16(1977), 1248] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1248

    1977 doi

  62. [81]

    S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D21(1980), 3305 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305

    1980 doi

  63. [82]

    L. G. Jensen and P. J. Steinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B237(1984), 176-188 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(84)90021-X

    1984 doi

  64. [83]

    Balek and M

    V. Balek and M. Demetrian, Phys. Rev. D69(2004), 063518 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.063518 [arXiv:gr-qc/0311040 [gr-qc]]. 28

    2004 doi arXiv

  65. [84]

    Antusch, F

    S. Antusch, F. Cefala, S. Krippendorf, F. Muia, S. Orani and F. Quevedo, JHEP01(2018), 083 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2018)083 [arXiv:1708.08922 [hep-th]]

    2018 doi arXiv

  66. [85]

    Gallego, JCAP09(2020), 033 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/033 [arXiv:2005.03939 [hep- th]]

    D. Gallego, JCAP09(2020), 033 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/033 [arXiv:2005.03939 [hep- th]]

    2020 doi

  67. [86]

    Hiramatsu, Y

    T. Hiramatsu, Y. Miyamoto and J. Yokoyama, JCAP03(2015), 024 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2015/03/024 [arXiv:1412.7814 [hep-ph]]

    2015 doi arXiv

  68. [87]

    K. M. Lee and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D36(1987), 1088 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.36.1088

    1987 doi

  69. [88]

    Kounnas and H

    C. Kounnas and H. Partouche, Nucl. Phys. B793(2008), 131-159 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.10.008 [arXiv:0705.3206 [hep-th]]

    2008 doi arXiv

  70. [89]

    Kounnas and H

    C. Kounnas and H. Partouche, Nucl. Phys. B795(2008), 334-360 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.11.020 [arXiv:0706.0728 [hep-th]]

    2008 doi arXiv

  71. [90]

    Venken, JHEP02(2024), 114 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)114 [arXiv:2311.04955 [hep-th]]

    V. Venken, JHEP02(2024), 114 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)114 [arXiv:2311.04955 [hep-th]]

    2024 doi

  72. [91]

    Cespedes, S

    S. Cespedes, S. de Alwis, F. Muia and F. Quevedo, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.10, 105027 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.105027 [arXiv:2307.13614 [hep-th]]

    2024 doi

  73. [92]

    Cespedes, S

    S. Cespedes, S. P. de Alwis, F. Muia and F. Quevedo, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.2, 026013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.026013 [arXiv:2011.13936 [hep-th]]

    2021 doi

  74. [93]

    Pasquarella and F

    V. Pasquarella and F. Quevedo, JHEP05(2023), 192 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)192 [arXiv:2211.07664 [hep-th]]

    2023 doi

  75. [94]

    Kaloper, J

    N. Kaloper, J. Rahmfeld and L. Sorbo, Phys. Lett. B606(2005), 234-244 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.11.083 [arXiv:hep-th/0409226 [hep-th]]

    2005 doi arXiv

  76. [95]

    Shams Es Haghi, Phys

    B. Shams Es Haghi, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.8, 083507 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083507 [arXiv:2212.11308 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  77. [96]

    Sandick, B

    P. Sandick, B. S. Es Haghi and K. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.8, 083523 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083523 [arXiv:2108.08329 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 doi

  78. [97]

    Kawasaki and V

    M. Kawasaki and V. Takhistov, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.12, 123514 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123514 [arXiv:1810.02547 [hep-th]]. 29

    2018 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed May 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.