Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Split supersymmetry and hybrid inflation in light of Atacama Cosmology Telescope DR6 data

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 The split-supersymmetry hybrid inflation model reproduces the scalar spectral index measured by ACT DR6 and predicts a tensor-to-scalar ratio of order $10^{-3}$–$10^{-2}$, accessible to future CMB experiments.

desk verdict A clean parameter scan of a known hybrid inflation model against ACT DR6, but an omitted supergravity correction dominates eta at the pivot scale, so the claimed agreement is not actually a prediction of the stated model. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16246 v1 pith:27Z6IIHD submitted 2025-07-22 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Nobuchika Okada , Qaisar Shafi This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.Cq12.60.Jv
keywords splitsupersymmetryhybridinflationscalarspectralindextensor-to-scalarratioACTDR6mu-termgravitinoleptogenesis
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 updates the split supersymmetry hybrid inflation model, a mu-term variant of supersymmetric hybrid inflation, against the recent ACT DR6 measurement of the scalar spectral index. It argues that the supergravity-induced linear soft term changes the inflationary prediction from $n_s = 1 - 1/N$ to $n_s = 1 - 2 f(B)/N$, where $f(B)$ is a fixed function of one dimensionless parameter $B$. For $N=60$ e-folds and $0.41 \lesssim B \lesssim 0.59$, this matches the measured $n_s = 0.9743 \pm 0.0034$ within $1\sigma$. The same potential yields a tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ of order $10^{-3}$--$10^{-2}$ for order-one couplings, in reach of planned CMB polarization experiments, and a running of magnitude $\mathcal{O}(10^{-4})$. If the claim holds, the model is simultaneously consistent with Planck, ACT, DESI and BICEP/Keck data, and it ties that consistency to a high reheat temperature, leptogenesis, and a wino-like dark matter candidate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective single-field inflationary potential, Eq. (3): $V(\phi) = m^4[1 + A\ln(\phi/\phi_k)] - 2\sqrt{2}\, m_G m^2 \phi$, built from a canonical Kähler potential, one-loop radiative corrections, and a supergravity-induced linear soft term. The dimensionless combination $B = 2\sqrt{2}\, m_G \phi_k/(A m^2)$ controls the departure from the minimal hybrid inflation limit; it enters the e-fold integral and turns $n_s = 1 - 1/N$ into $n_s = 1 - 2 f(B)/N$. The slow-roll derivatives of this potential also supply $r$ and the running $\alpha$, so every quantitative prediction in the paper flows from this one potential and the two parameters $(\lambda^2+\kappa^2)$ and $B$ (with the e-fold number $N$).

What would settle it

A measurement of the tensor-to-scalar ratio outside the predicted band—roughly $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-2}$ for order-one couplings and the ACT-compatible $B$ range—by CMB-S4 or LiteBIRD would exclude the model as stated; so would a first-principles calculation showing that the neglected quadratic soft term shifts $n_s$ by more than about $0.003$ at $N=60$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that including the renormalizable term $\lambda S H_u H_d$ in the hybrid-inflation superpotential, which generates the MSSM $\mu$-term after supersymmetry breaking, lowers the predicted spectral index to $n_s \simeq 1 - 2 f(B)/N$ with $f(B) = -[1/B + \ln(1-B)/B^2]$, instead of the minimal model's $n_s \simeq 1 - 1/N$. The ACT DR6 value $n_s = 0.9743 \pm 0.0034$ is then reproduced for $N=60$ when $0.41 \lesssim B \lesssim 0.59$. The paper derives the accompanying predictions $r \simeq (2/\pi^2)(\lambda^2+\kappa^2)(1-B)^2 f(B)/N$ and $\alpha \simeq -4[f(B)/N]^2(1-B)$, so the same mechanism that shifts the tilt also raises $r$ from the minimal model's $10^{-11}$ level to $10^{-3}$--$10^{-2}$. It then follows through the cosmology: a reheat temperature $T_r \gtrsim 10^{12}$ GeV, an intermediate-scale gravitino mass tied to $B$, and a wino-like LSP near 2 TeV as the natural dark matter candidate.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's comparison with ACT rests on the assumed form of the inflationary potential, taken from earlier work: a canonical Kähler potential, a linear soft term, and no quadratic soft mass; if higher-order supergravity corrections or the neglected quadratic term shift $n_s$ or $r$ by about a percent, the claimed agreement breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $N=60$, staying within $1\sigma$ of the ACT DR6 spectral index fixes $0.41 \lesssim B \lesssim 0.59$; for $N=50$ the allowed window is $0.22 \lesssim B \lesssim 0.44$.
  • With order-one couplings, $r$ is predicted in the $10^{-3}$--$10^{-2}$ range, putting the model within the projected sensitivity of LiteBIRD and CMB-S4.
  • The running of the spectral index, $|\alpha| \simeq 4[f(B)/N]^2(1-B)$, is $\mathcal{O}(10^{-4})$, below current data but a concrete target for future surveys.
  • The reheat temperature $T_r \gtrsim 10^{12}$ GeV makes thermal leptogenesis viable, while gravitino constraints force an intermediate-scale gravitino mass and split supersymmetry with a wino-like LSP near 2 TeV.
  • The symmetry-breaking scale $M$ is near $10^{16}$ GeV, and the consistency requirement $\phi_k/M > 1$ gives $\sqrt{\lambda\kappa} \gtrsim 10^{-3}$ over the allowed region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The relation $n_s = 1 - 2f(B)/N$ is a one-parameter deformation of the standard $1 - 1/N$; if ACT's lower tilt persists, the same linear-soft-term mechanism could be transplanted to other single-field potentials to reconcile them with the data.
  • Since $B \propto m_G/(\lambda^2+\kappa^2)$, a future tightening of $n_s$ would translate directly into a constraint on the gravitino mass and hence on the split-supersymmetry spectrum.
  • The paper adopts Eq. (3) without deriving it from the full supergravity action; a complete one-loop treatment including the imaginary part of $S$ and the quadratic soft mass would test whether the $B$-window survives.
  • A wino LSP near 2 TeV with $T_r \gtrsim 10^{12}$ GeV implies non-thermal gravitino decay products and late-time wino annihilation signatures that go beyond the CMB observables and could be probed by gamma-ray and cosmic-ray experiments.
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. This paper updates the split supersymmetry (mu-term) hybrid inflation model in light of the ACT DR6 measurement ns = 0.9743 +/- 0.0034. The authors adopt the potential V(phi) = m^4 [1 + A ln(phi/phi_k)] - 2 sqrt(2) m_G m^2 phi with A = (lambda^2 + kappa^2)/(4 pi^2), and derive slow-roll expressions: ns = 1 - 2 f(B)/N, r = (2/pi^2)(lambda^2 + kappa^2)(1-B)^2 f(B)/N, and alpha = -4 (f(B)/N)^2 (1-B). They show that for N = 50-60 and B in a narrow range (e.g., 0.41 <= B <= 0.59 for N = 60), ns falls in the ACT DR6 1-sigma band, with r of order 10^-3 to 10^-2 for order-one couplings. They further compute the symmetry-breaking scale M, the gravitino mass m_G, the reheating temperature T_r, and discuss gravitino constraints, split supersymmetry, wino dark matter, and leptogenesis.

Significance. The model is attractive if the assumed potential is correct: it connects inflation, the MSSM mu-term, split supersymmetry, dark matter, and leptogenesis, and it makes testable predictions for r at the 10^-3 to 10^-2 level. The slow-roll algebra from Eqs. (5)-(11) is transparent and internally consistent; spot checks confirm the numerical values, and the formulas for r, alpha, M, and m_G are clean and falsifiable. However, the central physical input, Eq. (3), is not derived in the paper, and the claimed derivation from a canonical Kahler potential omits a tree-level supergravity correction that is large at the CMB pivot scale for the parameter range displayed. In addition, the nominal 'prediction' of ns is obtained by choosing the free parameter B to match the ACT band. Both issues materially affect the claim that the model is consistent with ACT DR6.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (3) and surrounding text] The potential in Eq. (3) is asserted to follow from radiative corrections to a canonical Kahler potential plus the linear soft term, but the tree-level F-term potential of the stated supergravity model contains a quartic correction that is omitted. In minimal supergravity with K = |S|^2 and W = S(kappa M^2 - kappa Phi PhiBar + lambda H_u H_d), along the D-flat direction the F-term potential gives V_F = m^4 [1 + (1/8)(phi/m_P)^4 + ...] (with m = sqrt(kappa) M and phi = sqrt(2) Re S). Using Eq. (8), phi_k^2/m_P^2 = N A / f(B). For N = 60, B = 0.5, f(B) = 0.772, and lambda^2 + kappa^2 = 1 (A = 0.025), this yields Delta_eta = (3/2) phi_k^2/m_P^2 ~ 2.9, while the radiative contribution is eta_rad = -f(B)/N ~ -0.013; the omitted term is larger by two orders of magnitude, and it is even larger for lambda^2 + kappa^2 = 2 pi. The paper's justification that supergravity corrections are of order (M/m_P)^4 applies near the end of inflation where phi ~ M, not at the CMB pivot scale. Therefore Eq. (9) is not the prediction of the stated canonical-Kahler model over the displayed parameter range, and the claimed ACT DR6 agreement is not established.
  2. [Abstract and Section 2 (B parameter)] The agreement with ACT DR6 is achieved by choosing the dimensionless parameter B (equivalently m_G via Eq. (21)) so that Eq. (9) falls inside the ACT 1-sigma band. Since B is not fixed by independent physics in the paper, the statement that the scalar spectral index is 'predicted' to agree with ACT is an overstatement; the model can accommodate the measured ns for a range of B. The authors should either provide an independent determination of m_G (or B) or rephrase the claim as compatibility rather than prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Text before Fig. 1] The text states that the 1-sigma and 2-sigma limits are shown by blue and red horizontal lines, respectively, while the Fig. 1 caption (and the captions of Figs. 2-5) use red for 1-sigma and blue for 2-sigma; the color labeling should be unified.
  2. [Text before Fig. 3 and Fig. 3 caption] The text says that the upper dashed/solid lines correspond to lambda^2 + kappa^2 = 1 and the lower lines to lambda^2 + kappa^2 = 2 pi, whereas the Fig. 3 caption states the opposite. Since r increases with lambda^2 + kappa^2, the caption is correct and the text should be corrected.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical slips: 'superpotantial' for 'superpotential', a double period after 'inflation' early in Section 1, 'mss' in the gravitino discussion, and the abstract uses 'andr' without math mode for r.
  4. [Abstract and Eq. (20)] The abstract quotes mu >~ 10^7 GeV, but Eq. (20) gives m_G >~ 4.6 x 10^7 GeV and mu = gamma m_G with gamma > 1, so the lower bound on mu is stronger; the two estimates should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ns formula is derived algebraically from an assumed potential, with B a free model parameter scanned against ACT data rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

I find no circular step in this paper. The slow-roll derivation from the assumed potential in Eq. (3) is self-contained algebra: Eq. (8) defines the number of e-foldings N in terms of phi_k and f(B), Eq. (9) then gives ns = 1 - 2 f(B)/N, where B is a free dimensionless parameter of the model rather than a quantity defined by the ACT measurement. The paper subsequently scans B and identifies the range 0.59 >= B >= 0.41 for N=60 that reproduces the ACT DR6 value; this is a standard parameter constraint, not a prediction forced by construction. The curvature-perturbation normalization uses the measured amplitude to fix M, and quantities such as r, alpha, m_G, and T_r are conditional functions of the same free parameters; no target observable is fed back into the derivation. Self-citations to Refs. [8-15] supply the model and the form of the potential, but the central ns relation is not imported as an external uniqueness theorem. The potential in Eq. (3) is adopted from prior work without rederivation, and a possible omitted SUGRA quartic term at large phi_k is a physics-correctness concern rather than a circularity. Therefore the derivation chain is not circular; the main caveat is parameter freedom and potential completeness, not self-reference.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on existing particles and symmetries of the MSSM and left-right symmetric extension. It does not introduce new particles, forces, or dimensions. The main free inputs are the coupling combinations lambda^2 + kappa^2, gamma, N and the fitted parameter B. The central new numbers are all derived from fitting B to ACT DR6, while the potential and gravity-side assumptions are inherited from prior literature.

free parameters (4)
  • B (dimensionless linear soft-term parameter) = 0.41 to 0.59 for N = 60; 0.22 to 0.44 for N = 50
    Chosen to make ns fall in the ACT DR6 1-sigma band. No independent SUSY-breaking mechanism is given that predicts B.
  • lambda^2 + kappa^2 (superpotential couplings) = Sample values 1 and 2pi used in figures; lower bound about 10^-3 from the gravitino mass constraint
    Controls r, M and m_G. The paper does not derive these couplings from first principles; the quoted r range depends on assuming order-one values.
  • gamma = lambda/kappa = Greater than 1, with gamma-tilde > sqrt(2)
    Required for successful inflation and for the mu-term generation mechanism. No independent determination is given.
  • N (number of e-folds) = 50 and 60 are used alternately
    Not derived from the reheating temperature or other model parameters. The choice shifts ns and r by non-negligible amounts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The inflationary potential of Eq. (3), with constant A = (lambda^2 + kappa^2)/(4 pi^2) and a linear soft term proportional to m_G phi, is valid over the observable inflation.
    Carried from Refs. [12-15] without rederivation. All slow-roll predictions rest on this potential.
  • ad hoc to paper The R-symmetric superpotential W = S(kappa Phi PhiBar - kappa M^2 + lambda H_u H_d) uniquely describes inflation and the breaking of G.
    This is the defining model choice of mu-term hybrid inflation. No independent evidence for this specific superpotential is provided.
  • domain assumption The gauge symmetry G = SU(3)c x SU(2)L x SU(2)R x U(1)B-L breaks to the MSSM gauge group without problematic topological defects.
    The paper states this is required, but does not provide a detailed topological defect analysis.
  • domain assumption After inflation, reheating is instantaneous and dominated by inflaton decay to Higgsinos, with width Gamma = lambda^2/(8 pi) m_phi and g* = 228.75.
    This is the basis for the high reheat temperature Tr greater than or about 10^12 GeV, which then motivates split supersymmetry and leptogenesis.
  • standard math The standard formulas for thermal gravitino production, Eq. (17), and gravitino lifetime, Eq. (18), from Refs. [19,22,23] apply.
    Used without recalculation to place bounds on gravitino mass.
  • domain assumption Neutrino masses arise from the higher-dimensional operator W contains L^c L^c PhiBar PhiBar / m_P, and thermal leptogenesis works for Tr above 10^12 GeV.
    The operator is introduced to generate right-handed neutrino masses, but no UV completion or detailed flavor analysis is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Split supersymmetry and hybrid inflation in light of Atacama Cosmology Telescope DR6 data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27Z6IIHD

@misc{pith2026250716246,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Split supersymmetry and hybrid inflation in light of Atacama Cosmology Telescope DR6 data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27Z6IIHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16246}
}
abstract

Inspired by the recent measurement of the scalar spectral index, $n_s = 0.9743 \pm 0.0034$, by the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) DR6 data, we present an update on the split supersymmetry hybrid inflation model, also known as $\mu$-term hybrid inflation. The model employs a canonical K\"{a}hler potential but incorporates an additional renormalizable term in the superpotential $W$, which yields the MSSM $\mu$-term following supersymmetry breaking. This additional term in $W$ is responsible for a high reheat temperature, $T_r \gtrsim 10^{12}$ GeV, and consequently the necessity of split supersymmetry in this class of models. The predicted scalar spectral index is in excellent agreement with the ACT measurement and $r$, the tensor to scalar ratio, is estimated to be less than or of order $10^{-2} -10^{-3}$. For the running of the scalar spectral index we find $|dn_s/d \ln k| = O(10^{-4})$. With $T_r \gtrsim 10^{12}$ GeV, leptogenesis is readily implemented in this class of models. A wino-like LSP with mass of around 2 TeV is a plausible dark matter candidate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16246 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Spectral index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The inflationary predictions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Gravitino mass normalized by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. GUT-Scale Smooth Hybrid Inflation with a Stabilized Modulus in Light of ACT and SPT Data

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A smooth hybrid inflation model, augmented with a stabilized modulus, reproduces the spectral index measured by ACT and SPT while keeping Higgs v.e.v.s at the GUT scale.

  2. Induced-Gravity Palatini-Like Higgs Inflation in Supergravity Confronts ACT DR6

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Palatini-supergravity Higgs-inflation model with induced gravity predicts a scalar spectral index ns≈0.972-0.974, consistent with ACT DR6, and favors split supersymmetry with gravitino mass 40-60 PeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning,

    G. R. Dvali, Q. Shafi, and R. K. Schaefer, “Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 1886–1889, arXiv:hep-ph/9406319

    arXiv 1994

  2. [2]

    False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, D. H. Lyth, E. D. Stewart, and D. Wands, “False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6410–6433, arXiv:astro-ph/9401011

    arXiv 1994

  3. [3]

    Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation Redux,

    M. U. Rehman, Q. Shafi, and J. R. Wickman, “Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation Redux,” Phys. Lett. B 683 (2010) 191–195, arXiv:0908.3896 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and ΛCDM Parameters,

    ACT Collaboration, T. Louis et al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and ΛCDM Parameters,” arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models,

    ACT Collaboration, E. Calabrese et al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models,” arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Supersymmetric hybrid inflation in light of the Atacama Cosmology Telescope data release 6, Planck 2018, and LB-BK18,

    M. U. Rehman and Q. Shafi, “Supersymmetric hybrid inflation in light of the Atacama Cosmology Telescope data release 6, Planck 2018, and LB-BK18,” Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) no. 2, 023529, arXiv:2504.14831 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation with K¨ ahler-Induced R-Symmetry Breaking,

    M. N. Ahmad and M. U. Rehman, “Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation with K¨ ahler-Induced R-Symmetry Breaking,” arXiv:2506.23244 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Mu problem and hybrid inflation in supersymmetric SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R x U(1)-(B-L),

    G. R. Dvali, G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, “Mu problem and hybrid inflation in supersymmetric SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R x U(1)-(B-L),” Phys. Lett. B 424 (1998) 259–264, arXiv:hep-ph/9710314

    arXiv 1998

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Minimal supersymmetric SU(4) x SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R,

    S. F. King and Q. Shafi, “Minimal supersymmetric SU(4) x SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R,” Phys. Lett. B 422 (1998) 135–140, arXiv:hep-ph/9711288

    1998 arXiv

  2. [10]

    µ-term hybrid inflation and split supersymmetry,

    N. Okada and Q. Shafi, “ µ-term hybrid inflation and split supersymmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 775 (2017) 348–351, arXiv:1506.01410 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC,

    N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, “Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC,” JHEP 06 (2005) 073, arXiv:hep-th/0405159

    2005 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Observable Gravity Waves From Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation,

    Q. Shafi and J. R. Wickman, “Observable Gravity Waves From Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation,” Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011) 438–446, arXiv:1009.5340 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Reheat temperature in supersymmetric hybrid inflation models,

    V. N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, “Reheat temperature in supersymmetric hybrid inflation models,” Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 043514, arXiv:hep-ph/0412102

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Update on Minimal Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation in Light of PLANCK,

    C. Pallis and Q. Shafi, “Update on Minimal Supersymmetric Hybrid Inflation in Light of PLANCK,” Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 327–333, arXiv:1304.5202 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hybrid Inflation in the Complex Plane,

    W. Buchm¨ uller, V. Domcke, K. Kamada, and K. Schmitz, “Hybrid Inflation in the Complex Plane,” JCAP 07 (2014) 054, arXiv:1404.1832 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Probing Cosmic Inflation with the LiteBIRD Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Survey,

    LiteBIRD Collaboration, E. Allys et al., “Probing Cosmic Inflation with the LiteBIRD Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Survey,” PTEP 2023 (2023) no. 4, 042F01, arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan,

    K. Abazajian et al., “CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan,” arXiv:1907.04473 [astro-ph.IM]

    1907 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,

    Planck Collaboration, Y. Akrami et al., “Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,” Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A10, arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Thermal production of gravitinos,

    M. Bolz, A. Brandenburg, and W. Buchmuller, “Thermal production of gravitinos,” Nucl. Phys. B 606 (2001) 518–544, arXiv:hep-ph/0012052. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 790, 336–337 (2008)]. 11

    2001 arXiv

  12. [20]

    The quest to discover supersymmetry at the ATLAS experiment,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “The quest to discover supersymmetry at the ATLAS experiment,” Phys. Rept. 1116 (2025) 261–300, arXiv:2403.02455 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Is It Easy to Save the Gravitino?,

    M. Y. Khlopov and A. D. Linde, “Is It Easy to Save the Gravitino?,” Phys. Lett. B 138 (1984) 265–268

    1984

  15. [23]

    Cosmological Gravitino Regeneration and Decay,

    J. R. Ellis, J. E. Kim, and D. V. Nanopoulos, “Cosmological Gravitino Regeneration and Decay,” Phys. Lett. B 145 (1984) 181–186

    1984

  16. [24]

    Split supersymmetry,

    G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, “Split supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 699 (2004) 65–89, arXiv:hep-ph/0406088. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 706, 487–487 (2005)]

    2004 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aspects of split supersymmetry,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice, and A. Romanino, “Aspects of split supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 709 (2005) 3–46, arXiv:hep-ph/0409232

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,

    P. Minkowski, “ µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,” Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421–428

    1977

  19. [27]

    Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,

    T. Yanagida, “Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,” Conf. Proc. C 7902131 (1979) 95–99

    1979

  20. [28]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,” Conf. Proc. C 790927 (1979) 315–321, arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    1979 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912

    1980

  22. [30]

    Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,” Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986) 45–47. 12

    1986

Pith tools

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