Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Effective reheating in Gauss--Bonnet inflation with $\mu(\phi,X)$ coupling

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reheating in a scalar–Gauss–Bonnet inflation model with a phase-space-dependent coupling is set by the energy density at the end of inflation, and for the reference parameters increasing the coupling strength or kinetic gate lengthens rehea

desk verdict A careful, honestly-disclosed reheating parameter study for a specific μ(ϕ,X)–Gauss–Bonnet model: the arithmetic checks out and the benchmark-dependent g_X sign reversal is a genuine small finding; the main caveat is the untested switch-off of GB dynamics after inflation, and Eq. (52) repeats the wrong numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02506 v1 pith:WKXFKBFA submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.CO

Ali Seidabadi , Sara Saghafi , Kourosh Nozari This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords scalar-Gauss-Bonnetinflationphase-space-dependentcouplingeffectivereheatingE-modelalpha-attractorstemperaturee-fold-averagedequationofstateCMBconstraintsBBNbound
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that in a Gauss–Bonnet inflation model, the reheating stage—how long it lasts and how hot the universe becomes afterward—can be derived from three quantities of the inflationary phase: the Hubble rate and sound speed at pivot crossing, and the effective energy density at the end of inflation. For the reference benchmark, turning up the overall Gauss–Bonnet strength or the kinetic-gate parameter both make reheating last longer and end cooler. Those trends are not universal: they weaken substantially when the coupling is localized near the end of inflation, and the kinetic-gate trend can reverse sign or become negligible under strong localization and saturation. The paper also shows that any time-dependent reheating equation of state enters only through its e-fold average, so many different reheating histories produce identical reheating duration and temperature.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupling μ(ϕ,X) = e^{-α_μ ϕ}[1 + A B((ϕ-ϕ_*)/Δ)][1 + g_X G(X)], where B is a compact-support bump localizing the interaction in field space and G(X) is a bounded kinetic gate. The argument rests on the modified Hamiltonian constraint at the end of inflation, which fixes the effective energy density ρ_end, and on the thermal-history matching relation N_re = 4f/(1 - 3w_re), where f collects the pivot-scale quantities and ρ_end. In the time-dependent generalization, the equation of state enters only through its e-fold average, so the same formulas hold for any reheating history with the same average.

What would settle it

Evolve the full modified background equations, including the μ(ϕ,X) Gauss–Bonnet coupling, past the end of inflation into the oscillatory phase and compute the actual dilution of the effective energy density. If it deviates noticeably from ρ_end exp[-3(1 + w_re)N] for the same parameters used in the paper—particularly where the coupling is most active at the end of inflation—then the reported N_re and T_re values are not reliable. Alternatively, a precise measurement of the primordial gravitational-wave spectrum that conflicts with the predicted reheating history would falsify the model's rehe

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that for the scalar–Gauss–Bonnet model with the phase-space-dependent coupling λ_GB μ(ϕ,X), the reheating duration and temperature follow from the thermal-history matching relation once the pivot-scale Hubble parameter, the scalar sound speed, and the end-of-inflation energy density are known. For the fixed-pivot reference scans, increasing λ_GB or g_X increases N_re and decreases T_re for each selected reheating equation of state. Benchmark tests demonstrate that these trends are not generic: the λ_GB effect is strongly suppressed when the coupling is more localized or when the E-model potential governs the end of inflation, while the g_X effect can reverse sign when the kin

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that right after inflation ends, the universe is a barotropic fluid with a constant (or e-fold-averaged) equation of state and that the Gauss–Bonnet coupling no longer affects the dynamics; if the coupling stays active during the oscillatory phase, the matching relation that yields N_re and T_re loses its validity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the reference benchmark, increasing either λ_GB or g_X lengthens reheating and lowers the reheating temperature; the effect grows as the equation-of-state parameter approaches 1/3.
  • The model admits allowed ranges of N_re and T_re consistent with the adopted CMB and BBN bounds for each of the four representative equations of state, so the model's reheating phase is not ruled out.
  • Any two time-dependent reheating histories with the same e-fold-averaged equation of state give identical N_re and T_re; the matching relation cannot distinguish them.
  • The sign and magnitude of the coupling-induced reheating shifts are benchmark-dependent, so constraints on λ_GB and g_X from reheating must be interpreted in the context of the full model parameter set.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A full numerical integration of the coupled background past the end of inflation, including the Gauss–Bonnet terms, would directly test the central assumption that the coupling becomes irrelevant during reheating; if it stays active, the predicted N_re and T_re are off.
  • The degeneracy among histories with the same averaged equation of state suggests that only an observable sensitive to the reheating evolution—such as the primordial gravitational-wave spectrum—can break the degeneracy within this framework.
  • Because the g_X trend can reverse sign depending on the benchmark, future constraints on the kinetic gate from reheating alone are likely weak; combining with the inflationary (n_s, r) plane is more informative.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies an E-model α-attractor inflaton with a phase-space-dependent Gauss–Bonnet coupling μ(ϕ,X) of the form e^{-α_μ ϕ}[1 + A B((ϕ−ϕ_*)/Δ)][1 + g_X G(X)], where B is compact-support and G(X) is a bounded kinetic gate. It computes the inflationary background, fixes the potential normalization by A_s, and then derives the reheating duration N_re and temperature T_re using the standard thermal-history matching relation, with the end-of-inflation energy density ρ_end taken from the modified Hamiltonian constraint. Two fixed-pivot scans are performed, varying λ_GB and g_X separately, followed by alternative benchmarks that test how localization, kinetic saturation, and potential curvature change the reheating trends. The paper also compares fixed-pivot (n_s,r) predictions with Planck/BICEP/ACT contours and presents reheating constraints for four equations of state, w_re = −1/3, 0, 2/3, 1. Finally, it generalizes to a time-dependent w_re(N), showing that only the e-fold average enters the matching relation.

Significance. If the central modeling assumption is accepted, the paper gives a self-contained computation of N_re and T_re for a non-minimal inflationary model with a phase-space coupling, and it demonstrates an honest benchmark-dependence of the trends, including a sign reversal in the g_X scan. The matching derivation (Eqs. 31–43) is standard and internally consistent, and the instantaneous-reheating temperatures quoted in Eqs. (54)–(57) are reproducible. The explicit benchmark tests in Tables VI and VII are a strength; the authors do not overstate the robustness of the λ_GB and g_X trends. The main value is methodological: it shows how a compact field-space feature and a bounded kinetic gate affect the post-inflationary matching, while clearly identifying where the effective-fluid description is being assumed.

major comments (2)
  1. [II, Eqs. (24), (32)–(43)] The paper never establishes that the Gauss–Bonnet coupling is inactive after ϵ1 = 1. ρ_end in Eq. (24) is computed from the full modified Hamiltonian constraint and contains λ_GB μ, μ_ϕ, and μ_X terms; the prefactor e^{-α_μ ϕ} in Eq. (13) is not compactly supported, so those terms do not automatically vanish at N_end. Equations (32)–(43) then describe reheating as a constant-w barotropic fluid with no GB contribution to the pressure or energy. If the coupling remains active, the actual w_eff = p_eff/ρ_eff (Eqs. 22, 28) is neither constant nor equal to the chosen w_re, and ρ_end is not the correct initial condition for Eq. (32). This is load-bearing for every table and figure that uses Eqs. (39)–(43). Section IV acknowledges that a complete treatment would require radiation and a transfer term Q (Eqs. 82–84), but it does not test the effective-fluid approximation. The authors should eithe
  2. [IV, Eqs. (59)–(67)] The generalization to a time-dependent w_re(N) in Section IV is logically correct but does not address the dynamical role of the GB coupling after N_end. The averaged equation of state (63) is defined for the same effective fluid used in Eq. (32); if the GB terms remain active, the actual w_eff(N) would enter the average, and the matching relation (67) would still miss the source terms that a coupled inflaton–radiation system would require (Eqs. 82–84). Thus Section IV should not be read as a validation of the no-GB assumption; it merely reinterprets w_re as an average over an unspecified history. The paper should state this limitation explicitly in the main text, not only as a future-work remark.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (52)] The quoted changes for the kinetic benchmark are identical to those in Eq. (51). Using the values in Eqs. (48) and (50), the changes should be approximately Δn_s ≈ +2.98×10^{-3} and Δr ≈ −7.94×10^{-4}. Please correct this copy-paste error.
  2. [III.A, after Table V] The sentence 'increasing either λ_GB or g_X increases N_re and decreases T_re for each fixed value of w_re' should explicitly say 'for the reference benchmarks', since Table VII later shows a reversal for g_X in an alternative benchmark. The abstract is carefully qualified, but the body would benefit from the same qualification at the point where the trend is first stated.
  3. [IV, Eq. (80)] The notation w_re with an overline is nearly invisible in the typeset text. Consider renaming the averaged quantity to w_avg or w_eff_avg at first use, and define it in a displayed equation more prominently. The distinction between instantaneous w_re(N) and its average is central to Section IV, so the notation should be robust.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] Minor language issues: 'constraints.These' in the abstract should have a space; 'Section. IV' and 'Section. III A' in the introduction should be 'Section IV' and 'Section III A'. These do not affect content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: N_re and T_re are outputs of the inflationary background, not fitted quantities; the only self-citation supplies perturbation spectra and does not assume the reheating results.

full rationale

The reheating quantities are derived, not fitted. Eqs. (38)-(43) compute N_re and T_re from the background quantities H*, c_s*, and rho_end through the standard sound-horizon matching relation, with no reheating observable used as input. The only calibrated constant is V0, normalized to A_s=2.1e-9 per solution; this is a standard amplitude normalization and does not determine the sign or size of the reported reheating trends. The CMB comparison uses external Planck/BICEP/ACT contours, and the BBN bound is an external constraint. The abstract's trend statements are qualified in the body: Tables VI and VII show that the g_X trend can reverse or become negligible, and the text explicitly warns that the fixed-pivot results are benchmark-dependent. The paper's honest limitation is an unvalidated assumption rather than a circular reduction: after epsilon_1=1, Eq. (32) treats the universe as a constant-w_re barotropic fluid and drops further Gauss-Bonnet dynamics, even though rho_end in Eq. (24) contains GB terms; Section IV acknowledges that a full treatment would require radiation and a transfer term Q (Eqs. 82-83). This is a correctness risk, not a case where the output is equal to the input by construction. The only self-citation is Ref. [40], which supplies the power-spectrum and stability expressions used for n_s and r; that reference did not discuss reheating, so it does not import the target result. Accordingly, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input, and the score reflects only the minor self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on an unusually large set of hand-chosen parameters (λ_GB, g_X, α, α_μ, A, Δ, ϕ_⋆, p, β_GX, M, N_pivot, w_re), plus an imported perturbation framework from the authors' own prior paper. The only fitted quantity is the amplitude normalization V0 (to A_s). No new particle or entity is postulated; the invented coupling form μ(ϕ,X) is the main ad hoc ingredient. The reheating outputs are then derived, not fitted, which keeps the circularity burden low despite the parameter freedom.

free parameters (13)
  • λ_GB (overall Gauss–Bonnet strength) = 0–2e−3 (λ scan), 0.09, 0.002 (g_X scan / benchmarks)
    Hand-chosen scan parameter; sets the amplitude of the μ(ϕ,X)G interaction.
  • g_X (kinetic gate amplitude) = 1e−3 (λ scan), 0–0.05, 0.1 (g_X scan / benchmarks)
    Hand-chosen scan parameter; controls the X-dependence of the coupling.
  • α (E-model potential curvature) = 1 (representative), 2/3 (alternative)
    Hand-chosen; sets the potential shape via b = sqrt(2/(3α)).
  • α_μ (field-space localization exponent) = 0.1 / 0.5
    Hand-chosen; controls how strongly the coupling is suppressed by e^{−α_μ ϕ}.
  • A (bump amplitude) = 0.05 / 0.9
    Hand-chosen; amplitude of the compact bump in field space.
  • Δ (bump width) = 0.9 / 0.45
    Hand-chosen; width of the compact bump B((ϕ−ϕ_⋆)/Δ).
  • ϕ_⋆ (bump center) = 5.3 / 4.9
    Hand-chosen; location of the field-space feature.
  • p (kinetic gate steepness) = 2 / 12
    Hand-chosen; steepness of u(X) = (X/M^4)^p.
  • β_GX (kinetic saturation) = 2 / 8
    Hand-chosen; bounds G(X) → 1/β_GX.
  • M (kinetic gate scale) = 3e−5 / 1.4e−4
    Hand-chosen; sets where the kinetic gate becomes active.
  • N_pivot = 55 (λ scan), 67 (g_X scan); 20–75 varied in constraints
    Hand-chosen pivot separation; directly enters f and hence N_re via Eq. (40).
  • w_re (reheating equation of state) = 0.05,0.20,0.30 (λ scan); 0.94,0.96,0.98 (g_X scan); −1/3,0,2/3,1 in constraints
    Chosen so that 'all reported scan points satisfy N_re>0 and T_re≥10 MeV' — a selection constraint on the displayed trends.
  • V_0 (potential normalization) = not reported; calibrated per solution to A_s = 2.1e−9
    Fitted to the amplitude of scalar perturbations, standard practice but still a per-solution calibration.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math FLRW background and single-field slow-roll inflation with linear perturbation theory for P_R and P_t (Eqs. 5–20).
    Unproved background assumptions of the inflationary framework, standard in the field.
  • domain assumption The perturbation coefficients Q_s, c_s, Q_t, c_t and the stability conditions Q_s>0, Q_t>0, c_s²>0, c_t²>0 are correct as derived in the authors' previous paper [40].
    The present paper imports these quantities wholesale ('our previous work [40]') without restating or independently verifying them; the n_s and r results depend on them.
  • domain assumption The inflaton sector is the E-model α-attractor potential V = V0(1−e^{−bϕ})² (Eq. 12).
    Model choice inherited from α-attractor literature; not independently motivated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Reheating completes into a thermalized radiation bath with ρ_re = π²/30 g_re T_re⁴ and entropy conservation through g_s, with g_re = g_s,re = 106.75, g_s0 = 3.91.
    Standard assumptions of the thermal-history matching framework, Eqs. (34)–(39).
  • domain assumption At the end of inflation (ϵ1=1) the universe is a barotropic fluid with equation of state w_re, and the Gauss–Bonnet coupling stops affecting the dynamics.
    The matching relation Eq. (32) requires this; it is never justified after N_end. This is the weakest load-bearing premise (see weakest_assumption).
  • ad hoc to paper The phase-space coupling μ(ϕ,X) = e^{−α_μϕ}[1 + A B((ϕ−ϕ_⋆)/Δ)][1 + g_X G(X)] with compact bump B and bounded gate G(X) is the physically relevant interaction.
    An invented functional form (Eq. 13) introduced in the authors' prior paper; no particle-physics or string-theory derivation is offered, only stability checks.
invented entities (1)
  • μ(ϕ,X)G phase-space coupling with bump-and-gate structure
    purpose: Makes the Gauss–Bonnet term dynamically active during inflation while keeping it localized in field space and bounded in kinetic space
    A new interaction term introduced in [40] and used here as input. It has no falsifiable handle outside the model itself; its justification is the stability conditions and the CMB comparison, both internal to the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effective reheating in Gauss--Bonnet inflation with $\mu(\phi,X)$ coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WKXFKBFA

@misc{pith2026260802506,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effective reheating in Gauss--Bonnet inflation with $\mu(\phi,X)$ coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WKXFKBFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02506}
}
abstract

We study effective reheating in a scalar--Gauss--Bonnet inflationary model with a phase-space-dependent coupling $\mu(\phi,X)$, in which a compact field-space feature is combined with a bounded kinetic gate. The modified inflationary background determines the pivot-scale quantities and the effective energy density at the end of inflation. These quantities are then used to derive the reheating duration $N_{\rm re}$ and temperature $T_{\rm re}$ through the thermal-history matching relation. We first perform two fixed-pivot reference scans by varying the overall Gauss--Bonnet strength $\lambda_{\rm GB}$ and the kinetic parameter $g_{_X}$ separately. For the reference parameter choices, increasing either parameter increases $N_{\rm re}$ and decreases $T_{\rm re}$ for the selected reheating equations of state. Additional benchmark calculations clarify how these variations depend on the dynamical regime of the model. In the $\lambda_{\rm GB}$ scan, the increase in $N_{\rm re}$ and the decrease in $T_{\rm re}$ persist, although both variations become strongly suppressed when the coupling is more localized or when the end of inflation is controlled more strongly by the E-model potential. In the $g_{_X}$ scan, stronger field-space localization and kinetic saturation can instead lead to a slight decrease in $N_{\rm re}$ and an increase in $T_{\rm re}$ as $g_{_X}$ is increased. When the bounded kinetic contribution is considered together with a weaker overall Gauss--Bonnet interaction, the resulting changes in the reheating quantities become nearly negligible. The fixed-pivot predictions of the representative and alternative benchmarks are compared with CMB constraints.These reheating constraints are then discussed for four representative values of the effective equation-of-state parameter, $\overline{w}_{\rm re}=-1/3,0,2/3,$ and $1$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02506 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    van de Bruck, K

    C. van de Bruck, K. Dimopoulos, and C. Longden, Phys. Rev. D94, 023506 (2016) [arXiv:1605.06350 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023506

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    Albrecht, P

    A. Albrecht, P. J. Steinhardt, M. S. Turner, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1437–1440 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1437

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.48.1437 1982

  3. [2]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 3195–3198 (1994) [arXiv:hep-th/9405187] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.3195

    arXiv 1994

  4. [3]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D56, 3258–3295 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9704452] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3258

    arXiv 1997

  5. [4]

    Allahverdi, R

    R. Allahverdi, R. Brandenberger, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and A. Mazumdar, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 27–51 (2010) [arXiv:1001.2600 [hep-ph]] doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.012809.104511

    arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    M. A. Amin, M. P. Hertzberg, D. I. Kaiser, and J. Karouby, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1530003 (2015) [arXiv:1410.3808 [hep-ph]] doi:10.1142/S0218271815300037

    arXiv 2015

  7. [6]

    L. Dai, M. Kamionkowski, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 041302 (2014) [arXiv:1404.6704 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.041302

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 081303 (2015) [arXiv:1410.7958 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.081303

    arXiv 2015

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D91, 043521 (2015) [arXiv:1412.0656 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.043521

    2015 arXiv

  2. [9]

    J. L. Cook, E. Dimastrogiovanni, D. A. Easson, and L. M. Krauss, JCAP04, 047 (2015) [arXiv:1502.04673 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/04/047. 24

    2015 arXiv

  3. [10]

    K. D. Lozanov and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 061301 (2017) [arXiv:1608.01213 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.061301

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    P. F. de Salas, M. Lattanzi, G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, and O. Pisanti, Phys. Rev. D92, 123534 (2015) [arXiv:1511.00672 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123534

    2015 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Zwiebach, Phys

    B. Zwiebach, Phys. Lett. B156, 315–317 (1985) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)91616-8

    1985 doi

  6. [13]

    D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, Nucl. Phys. B291, 41–89 (1987) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90465-2

    1987 doi

  7. [14]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D71, 123509 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0504052] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123509

    2005 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Satoh, S

    M. Satoh, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D77, 023526 (2008) [arXiv:0706.3585 [astro-ph]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023526

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Satoh and J

    M. Satoh and J. Soda, JCAP09, 019 (2008) [arXiv:0806.4594 [astro-ph]] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/09/019

    2008 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Guo and D

    Z.-K. Guo and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D80, 063523 (2009) [arXiv:0907.0427 [hep-th]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.063523

    2009 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Guo and D

    Z.-K. Guo and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D81, 123520 (2010) [arXiv:1001.1897 [hep-th]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.123520

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Satoh, JCAP11, 024 (2010) [arXiv:1008.2724 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/11/024

    M. Satoh, JCAP11, 024 (2010) [arXiv:1008.2724 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/11/024

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, and J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys.126, 511–529 (2011) [arXiv:1105.5723 [hep-th]] doi:10.1143/PTP.126.511

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Kobayashi, Rept

    T. Kobayashi, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 086901 (2019) [arXiv:1901.07183 [gr-qc]] doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab2429

    2019 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, JHEP11, 198 (2013) [arXiv:1311.0472 [hep-th]] doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)198

    2013 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Jiang, J.-W

    P.-X. Jiang, J.-W. Hu, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D88, 123508 (2013) [arXiv:1310.5579 [hep-th]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.123508

    2013 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Koh, B.-H

    S. Koh, B.-H. Lee, W. Lee, and G. Tumurtushaa, Phys. Rev. D90, 063527 (2014) [arXiv:1404.6096 [gr-qc]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.063527

    2014 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Z. Yi, Y. Gong, and M. Sabir, Phys. Rev. D98, 083521 (2018) [arXiv:1804.09116 [gr-qc]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083521

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bhattacharjee, D

    S. Bhattacharjee, D. Maity, and R. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D95, 023514 (2017) [arXiv:1606.00698 [hep-ph]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.023514

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Koh, B.-H

    S. Koh, B.-H. Lee, and G. Tumurtushaa, Phys. Rev. D98, 103511 (2018) [arXiv:1807.04424 [gr-qc]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103511

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rashidi and K

    N. Rashidi and K. Nozari, Astrophys. J.890, 58 (2020) [arXiv:2001.07012 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a10

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    L. N. Granda and D. F. Jimenez, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 10 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08789-9

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    El Bourakadi, M

    K. El Bourakadi, M. Ferricha-Alami, H. Filali, Z. Sakhi, and M. Bennai, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1144 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09946-4

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101263 (2023) [arXiv:2305.19110 [gr-qc]] doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101263

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V. K. Oikonomou, P. Tsyba, and O. Razina, Annals Phys.462, 169597 (2024) [arXiv:2401.11273 [gr-qc]] doi:10.1016/j.aop.2024.169597

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Phys. Lett. B870, 139930 (2025) [arXiv:2508.11377 [gr-qc]] doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139930

    2025

  27. [35]

    Akramiet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020) [arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(BICEP/Keck Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151301 (2021) [arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151301

    2021

  29. [37]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope Collaboration), JCAP11, 062 (2025) [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope Collaboration), JCAP11, 062 (2025) [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ahghari and M

    Z. Ahghari and M. Farhoudi, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 601 (2026) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15854-2

    2026 doi

  31. [39]

    M. R. Haque, S. Pal, and D. Paul, Phys. Rev. D114, 023521 (2026) [arXiv:2505.01517 [astro-ph.CO]] doi:10.1103/1kj4-s4ts

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Seidabadi, S

    A. Seidabadi, S. Saghafi, and K. Nozari, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 442 (2026) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15685-1

    2026 doi

  33. [41]

    Accounting for the time evolution of the equation of state parameter during reheating,

    P. Saha, S. Anand, and L. Sriramkumar, “Accounting for the time evolution of the equation of state parameter during reheating,” Phys. Rev. D102, 103511 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103511 [arXiv:2005.01874 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Reheating after inflaton fragmentation,

    M. A. G. Garcia and M. Pierre, “Reheating after inflaton fragmentation,” JCAP11, 004 (2023), doi:10.1088/1475- 25 7516/2023/11/004 [arXiv:2306.08038 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Time evolution of the equation of state during perturbative reheating and its impact on the inflationary tensor perturbation spectrum,

    A. Ghosh and D. Ghosh, “Time evolution of the equation of state during perturbative reheating and its impact on the inflationary tensor perturbation spectrum,” Nucl. Phys. B1018, 116976 (2025), doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116976 [arXiv:2411.02052 [gr-qc]]

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.