Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 83 references

A modular-invariant coupling of the modulus to the Ricci scalar in the Jordan frame makes the Einstein-frame potential stationary at τ=i∞ with zero vacuum energy, and moves CP-breaking minima to new locations like τ≈−0.434+0.984i.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 10:33 UTC pith:3FJE3E7J

load-bearing objection The mechanism is genuinely new, but the benchmark H(τ) is not modular invariant, so the headline numerical minima are not minima of the claimed modular-invariant theory. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.09542 v2 pith:3FJE3E7J submitted 2026-01-14 hep-ph hep-th

Modulus stabilization of modular flavor models in Jordan frame supergravity

Fei Wang , Ying Kai Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th PACS 04.65.+e11.30.Hv12.60.Jv
keywords modular flavor symmetrymodulus stabilizationJordan frame supergravitynon-minimal scalar-curvature couplingframe functiontau = i-infinity fixed pointrunaway vacuumCP violation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Modular flavor models explain fermion mass hierarchies through the vacuum value of a modulus field τ, but pinning τ to a phenomenologically useful value usually requires extra matter fields or special superpotentials. This paper instead couples τ to gravity non-minimally, through a modular-invariant frame function Φ(τ,τ̄)R in Jordan-frame supergravity, tied to the Kähler potential by Φ = −3exp(−K/3). The authors show the Einstein-frame scalar potential then becomes stationary at the fixed point τ=i∞ with exactly zero vacuum energy when the exponential parameter ξ is positive — a runaway-type minimum that can be uplifted to a meta-stable de Sitter vacuum at large Im τ, the regime that produces hierarchical Yukawa couplings. Away from i∞, the same reshaped potential yields new finite CP-breaking global minima, such as τ≈−0.434+0.984i for a benchmark parameter choice. If correct, this is a modulus-only stabilization route that also supplies the CP-breaking source, with no flavons or extra matter fields needed.

Core claim

A modular-invariant non-minimal coupling of the modulus to gravity — frame function Φ(τ,τ̄)=3[i(τ−τ̄)η²η̄²]H(τ)H̄(τ̄)exp{ξ(H+H̄)}, H built from the modular j-function — makes τ=i∞ a stationary point of the potential with zero vacuum energy for ξ>0, and for ξ=0 under exponent condition (3.13). Because H(τ) diverges at i∞, the exponential dominates the power laws, yielding a runaway-type minimum that is global for m+n≥2 with ξ>0, and can be uplifted by tiny quantum-gravity effects to a long-lived meta-stable de Sitter vacuum at large Im τ. Away from i∞ the potential gains new CP-breaking global minima, e.g. τ≈−0.434+0.984i for (m,n)=(1,0),(m̃,ñ)=(1,1), ξ=0.1 — one modulus VEV can source both f

What carries the argument

Key machinery: the modular-invariant frame function Φ(τ,τ̄)=3[i(τ−τ̄)η²η̄²]H(τ)H̄(τ̄)exp{ξ(H+H̄)} — the coefficient of R in the Jordan frame. Of its three modular-invariant factors, i(τ−τ̄)η²η̄² has inverse square equal to the Kähler metric (K_{ττ̄}=3/(τ−τ̄)²), H(τ)=(j(τ)−1728)^{m/2}j(τ)^{n/3}P(j(τ)) is built from the modular j-function, and the exponential is the load-bearing piece. Via Φ=−3exp(−K/3) it fixes the Einstein-frame potential V_E=e^K[K^{-1}_{ττ̄}|∇_τW|²−3|W|²]. Since H(τ)→∞ at τ=i∞, the exponential makes V_E stationary with zero value there for ξ>0; for ξ=0 stationarity at i∞ holds only under the exponent balance condition (3.13).

Load-bearing premise

The frame-function ansatz of Eq. (2.11) is chosen by hand rather than derived, positive definiteness of the kinetic factor Φ_{ττ̄} of Eq. (2.25) is not checked over the whole field space, and the paper's own preferred outcome — a finite vacuum at large Im τ — relies on unspecified quantum-gravity corrections to the i∞ runaway; if any of these fails, the derived minima are not physical.

What would settle it

Take the benchmark case (m,n)=(1,0), (m̃,ñ)=(1,1), ξ=0.1. (a) Check numerically that the Hessian of V_E is positive definite at τ≈−0.434+0.984i, with V_{x1x1}>0. (b) Evaluate the kinetic factor Φ_{ττ̄}=e^{−K/3}(K_{ττ̄}−|K_τ|²/3) of Eq. (2.25) along any path from that minimum to τ=i∞; a region where Φ_{ττ̄}<0 invalidates the vacuum. (c) Verify that V_{E,τ} tends to zero as Im τ grows without bound and that the vacuum energy vanishes there. Failure of any of these three checks settles against the paper's central claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Stabilizing the modulus at or near τ=i∞ — where the approximate shift symmetry implements the hierarchy factor exp(−2π Im τ/N) — becomes possible with the modulus field alone, without adding matter fields.
  • For ξ>0 and m+n≥2 the i∞ point is the global minimum with zero vacuum energy; uplifted by tiny quantum-gravity effects it becomes a long-lived meta-stable de Sitter vacuum at large Im τ, potentially compatible with observations.
  • New CP-breaking global minima appear inside the fundamental domain (e.g., τ≈−0.434+0.984i), so one modulus VEV can be the single source of both flavor and CP breaking.
  • Finite fixed points τ=i and τ=ω can no longer serve as minima once H(i)=0 or H(ω)=0 makes the potential diverge there; they must be local maxima unless H is chosen to avoid those zeros.
  • The construction generalizes to multiple moduli and to frame functions that involve matter fields, in which case the modular-form Yukawa couplings acquire scale factors after canonical normalization.
  • pith_inferences placeholders

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the exponential factor exp{ξ(H+H̄)} acts as an infinitely rising wall at τ=i∞; this is the same flattening effect known from non-minimal inflation couplings, suggesting that any modular-invariant frame function with a divergent modular-invariant factor at a fixed point will generically create a zero-energy stationary point there — a claim the paper does not make.
  • Inference: the i∞ result depends on exponential dominance over power laws; replacing the exponential by a subexponential variant such as exp{ζ|H|²}, which the paper mentions as a possibility, would likely change or remove the stationary point, so the mechanism's robustness is directly testable against that variant.
  • Inference: since the kinetic factor Φ_{ττ̄} of Eq. (2.25) is never checked for positivity, a numerical scan of its sign over the fundamental domain for the benchmark models is the cheapest decisive test of whether the claimed minima are physical.
  • Inference: the large-Im-τ regime that the paper's intro motivates for axion flatness and the µ-problem becomes reachable in a minimal single-modulus setup only if the i∞ stationary point survives as a local minimum after unspecified quantum-gravity uplifting; the required size of that uplift is left open and is where the phenomenological case must be tested.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mechanism for modulus stabilization in modular flavor models by working in Jordan-frame supergravity with a non-minimal coupling of the modulus to curvature, Φ(τ,τ̄)R. With the special choice Φ=-3e^{-K/3}, the Kähler potential is fixed by the frame function. The authors choose Φ as a product of the invariant combination -i(τ-τ̄)η²(τ)η̄²(τ̄), a holomorphic function H(τ), and an exponential exp[ξ(H+H̄)], with H(τ) built from fractional powers of j(τ)-1728 and j(τ). They derive the Einstein-frame scalar potential, give asymptotic conditions under which τ=i∞ is a stationary point, and present numerical scans for several benchmark choices of H and the superpotential W=Λ³H̃(τ), including a claimed CP-breaking global minimum at τ≈-0.434+0.984i for (m,n)=(1,0), (m̃,ñ)=(1,1), ξ=0.1.

Significance. If the construction were consistent, the paper would introduce a new and potentially interesting ingredient into modular flavor model building: non-minimal gravitational couplings can reshape the modulus potential and stabilize τ near i∞ or at CP-breaking points inside the fundamental domain. The analytic treatment of the asymptotic behavior at i∞ is a useful framework, and the paper is explicit about the potential and its derivatives. It also correctly emphasizes that fixed points need separate treatment. However, the central ansatz for H and W fails modular invariance for the very benchmarks that produce the paper's advertised numerical results. Since modular invariance is the foundational requirement of the entire setup, the numerical claims and the proposed mechanism as stated are not presently supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2.11)] The function H_{m,n} is claimed to be a modular-invariant holomorphic function, but for the exponents used in the benchmarks it is not. For example, with (m,n)=(1,0), (j-1728)^{1/2}=E6/η^{12} up to constants, and under T: τ→τ+1, E6/η^{12}→-E6/η^{12}; hence H(τ+1)=-H(τ). The frame function contains exp[ξ(H+H̄)], so Φ is not T-invariant for ξ≠0. Moreover the second equality in (2.11) is internally inconsistent: j^{1/3} is proportional to G4/η^8, not G4/η^{12}; the latter has modular weight -2n. Consequently all ξ>0 numerical benchmarks, including the quoted τ≈-0.434+0.984i minimum in Fig. 3 and Table 1, do not come from a modular-invariant Jordan-frame supergravity.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2.15)] The same fractional-power ansatz is used for the superpotential H̃(τ). Because the Kähler potential (2.14) is taken to be exactly invariant, the superpotential must also be exactly invariant for the action to be modular invariant (no Kähler transformation is available to absorb a phase). A weight-zero multiplier phase in H̃ is not allowed. Thus the benchmark choices with non-trivial (m̃,ñ), e.g. (m̃,ñ)=(1,1), violate the modular-invariance conditions (2.22)-(2.24). This affects not only the ξ>0 results but also the ξ=0 results whenever W≠1.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2.25); Section 4] The physical kinetic term in the Jordan frame is controlled by Φ_{ττ̄}=e^{-K/3}(K_{ττ̄}-|K_τ|²/3). The paper never checks that this quantity has the correct sign across the field space where the potential is plotted. The blank regions in Figs. 1-3 are defined only by V>M_P^4, not by positivity of the kinetic term. If -Φ_{ττ̄} becomes negative in any region, the effective theory has a ghost and the stationary points found there are unphysical. This check should be performed for every benchmark.
  4. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.9)-(3.13)] The treatment of τ=i∞ as a 'runaway-type local minimum' is based on an asymptotic evaluation of V_τ, but i∞ is a boundary point and the second-derivative/Hessian criterion is not applied at infinity. The condition (3.13) is also stated without derivation. This does not by itself invalidate the mechanism, but a stationary point at the boundary needs a more precise statement than 'local minimum'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The notation η²(τ)η²(τ) is confusing; it presumably means η²(τ)η̄²(τ̄)=|η(τ)|⁴. Please use unambiguous notation.
  2. [Eq. (2.11)] The branch choices for (j-1728)^{m/2} and j^{n/3} are not specified. Since these are multi-valued functions on the upper half-plane, a precise definition is needed even before discussing modular transformations.
  3. [Eq. (3.13)] The inequality (3.13) is a key condition; a step-by-step derivation starting from the asymptotic expansions (3.9)-(3.11) and Appendix B should be included.
  4. [Section 4, Table 1] The numerical minimization procedure is not described: no algorithm, grid resolution, convergence criterion, or Hessian positivity check is reported. The table quotes minima to four significant figures, but the precision is not documented.
  5. [Throughout] Several equations contain typographical irregularities (e.g., missing bars on τ-dependent quantities, factors of M_P inconsistently shown). A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the scalar-potential derivation and numerical scans are self-contained; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The main derivation is substitutional: Eq. (2.11) fixes the frame function, Eq. (2.14) gives K by Φ=-3e^{-K/3}, Eq. (2.18) is the standard N=1 SUGRA potential, and (3.4)-(3.6) are derivatives. The claimed stationary point at τ=i∞ follows from asymptotic dominance of exp[ξ(H+H̄)] for ξ>0, and the ξ=0 condition (3.13) is an exponent count; neither step re-uses the conclusion. The benchmark minima (Figs. 1-3, Table 1) are parameter scans, not fits to data. The one self-citation ([52] for H', H'' at fixed points) is not load-bearing for the central i∞ result, and the relevant identities are restated in Appendix B, so they are externally checkable rather than imported. The reviewer-flagged problem that fractional powers in (2.11) are not modular invariant is a genuine internal-consistency/correctness concern, but it is not circularity: it challenges whether the ansatz fulfills the stated premise, not whether the derivation reduces to its inputs. No circular step is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model contains many free parameters that are chosen by hand (ξ, exponents, polynomial coefficients, scale Λ). These are not fitted to data but are part of the model definition. The key axioms are the standard Jordan-frame SUGRA formalism and the specific ansatz for Φ, which is not derived from a top-down theory. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • ξ = 0.1 or 0 (benchmark choices)
    The non-minimal coupling strength in the frame function; different values are chosen to illustrate different vacuum behaviors.
  • m, n = Various integers in H(τ) (e.g., 0,1,2,3)
    Exponents in the modular invariant holomorphic function H(τ); these control the asymptotic behavior and the minima.
  • m̃, ñ = Various integers in W(τ)
    Exponents in the superpotential modular form H̃(τ); these affect the scalar potential and the location of minima.
  • Λ (or c̃0) = 10^{-3} M_P (chosen)
    The overall scale of the superpotential, chosen to be of order GUT scale for phenomenological reasons.
  • Polynomial coefficients in P(j) and P̃(j) = Various (e.g., 1, (j−j0)^k)
    Coefficients of the polynomials in j(τ) that define H(τ) and H̃(τ); these are tuned to create minima at desired locations.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Jordan frame supergravity action (2.1) with frame function Φ and Kähler potential K, and the relation Φ = -3 exp(-K/3) from superconformal theory.
    The entire framework is based on this standard SUGRA setup, which is cited from [73,76] but is assumed to hold.
  • domain assumption The frame function Φ must be modular invariant, real and negative for positivity of the scale factor.
    This imposes the form of Φ and the choice of H(τ); it is stated in Section 2.1 but not proven for all H.
  • ad hoc to paper The modular invariant holomorphic function H(τ) has the form (2.11).
    This is a specific ansatz; other modular invariant functions could be chosen, but the paper restricts to this form.
  • domain assumption The superpotential W is modular invariant and takes the form (2.15) with a single modulus field (no matter fields).
    The paper focuses on the moduli sector, ignoring matter fields that could affect the potential through their kinetic terms.
  • domain assumption The asymptotic behavior of H(τ) at τ=i∞ is dominated by j(τ)^N times powers, leading to divergent H(i∞).
    This underlies the derivation of the condition (3.13) for stationarity at i∞. It is standard for the chosen H, but not general.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 232 in / 6141 out tokens · 110794 ms · 2026-08-03T10:33:29.258290+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose to discuss the modular flavor model and the stabilization of single modulus field in the Jordan frame supergravity with non-minimal scalar-curvature coupling of the form $\Phi(\tau,\bar{\tau})R$. Modular invariance, positivity of the scale factor and positive definiteness of the Kahler metric constrain stringently the form of the frame function, consequently the Kahler potential by the relation $\Phi(\tau,\bar{\tau})=-3\exp[-K(\tau,\bar{\tau})/3]$. We discuss some general properties of scalar potentials after the scale transformation from the Jordan frame to the Einstein frame. We find that the shape of the resulting scalar potential in the Einstein frame is quite different from that of ordinary single modulus stabilization mechanism. The scalar potential could be stationary at the $i\infty$ fixed point, leading to a runaway type vacuum. Such a runaway-type vacuum can be properly stabilized at typical modulus VEV with large $\Im\tau$. We also discuss numerically the modulus stabilization for some simplified scenarios.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 67 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Feruglio, ”Are neutrino masses modular forms?”, arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]

    F. Feruglio, ”Are neutrino masses modular forms?”, arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Feruglio and A

    F. Feruglio and A. Romanino, Rev. Mod. Phys.93(2021) no.1, 015007 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015007 [arXiv:1912.06028 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Kobayashi and M

    T. Kobayashi and M. Tanimoto, [arXiv:2307.03384 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    G. J. Ding and S. F. King, Rept. Prog. Phys.87(2024) no.8, 084201 arXiv:2311.09282 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    G. J. Ding and J. W. F. Valle, [arXiv:2402.16963 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Kobayashi, K

    T. Kobayashi, K. Tanaka and T. H. Tatsuishi, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.1, 016004 arXiv:1803.10391 [hep-ph]. – 20 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Okada and Y

    H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.11, 115037 arXiv:1907.04716 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Du and F

    X. Du and F. Wang, JHEP02(2021), 221 arXiv:2012.01397 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.11, 115045 arXiv:1804.00182 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    J. C. Criado and F. Feruglio, SciPost Phys.5(2018) no.5, 042 arXiv:1807.01125 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Kobayashi, N

    T. Kobayashi, N. Omoto, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto and T. H. Tatsuishi, JHEP 11(2018), 196 arXiv:1808.03012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Okada and M

    H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B791(2019), 54-61 arXiv:1812.09677 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    P. P. Novichkov, S. T. Petcov and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B793(2019), 247-258 arXiv:1812.11289 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Okada and M

    H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.1, 015005 arXiv:2009.14242 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    S. T. Petcov and M. Tanimoto, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.7, 579 arXiv:2212.13336 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Centelles Chuli´ a, R

    S. Centelles Chuli´ a, R. Kumar, O. Popov and R. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. D109, no.3, 035016 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.035016 [arXiv:2308.08981 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Kumar, P

    R. Kumar, P. Mishra, M. K. Behera, R. Mohanta and R. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B853, 138635 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138635 [arXiv:2310.02363 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Nomura and H

    T. Nomura and H. Okada, arXiv:2409.10912 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    Pathak, P

    G. Pathak, P. Das and M. K. Das, arXiv:2411.13895 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    J. T. Penedo and S. T. Petcov, Nucl. Phys. B939(2019), 292-307 arXiv:1806.11040 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov, JHEP04(2019), 005 arXiv:1811.04933 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Kobayashi, Y

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto and T. H. Tatsuishi, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no.11, 115045 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.3, 039904] arXiv:1909.05139 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Wang, Nucl

    X. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B962(2021), 115247 arXiv:2007.05913 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    B. Y. Qu, X. G. Liu, P. T. Chen and G. J. Ding, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.7, 076001 arXiv:2106.11659 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov, JHEP04(2019), 174 arXiv:1812.02158 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    G. J. Ding, S. F. King and X. G. Liu, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.11, 115005 arXiv:1903.12588 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    C. Y. Yao, X. G. Liu and G. J. Ding, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.9, 095013 arXiv:2011.03501 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    de Medeiros Varzielas and J

    I. de Medeiros Varzielas and J. Louren¸ co, Nucl. Phys. B984(2022), 115974 arXiv:2206.14869 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    M. A. Abbas, LHEP2024(2024), 545

    2024

  30. [30]

    F. J. de Anda, S. F. King and E. Perdomo, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.1, 015028 arXiv:1812.05620 [hep-ph]. – 21 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Kobayashi, Y

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto and T. H. Tatsuishi, PTEP2020(2020) no.5, 053B05 arXiv:1906.10341 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    P. Chen, G. J. Ding and S. F. King, JHEP04(2021), 239 arXiv:2101.12724 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Zhao and H

    Y. Zhao and H. H. Zhang, JHEP03(2021), 002 arXiv:2101.02266 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    S. F. King and Y. L. Zhou, JHEP04(2021), 291 arXiv:2103.02633 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    G. J. Ding, S. F. King and C. Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.5, 055034 arXiv:2103.16311 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Charalampous, S

    G. Charalampous, S. F. King, G. K. Leontaris and Y. L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.11, 115015 arXiv:2109.11379 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    X. K. Du and F. Wang, JHEP01(2023), 036 arXiv:2209.08796 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    S. F. King, G. K. Leontaris, L. Marsili and Y. L. Zhou, arXiv:2407.02701 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    G. J. Ding, S. F. King and J. N. Lu, JHEP11(2021), 007 arXiv:2108.09655 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    G. J. Ding, S. F. King, J. N. Lu and B. Y. Qu, JHEP10(2022), 071 arXiv:2206.14675 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Kobayashi and H

    T. Kobayashi and H. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. D101, no.10, 106017 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.106017 [arXiv:2001.07972 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Kobayashi and H

    T. Kobayashi and H. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. D102, no.2, 026004 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.026004 [arXiv:2004.04518 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Ishiguro, T

    K. Ishiguro, T. Kobayashi and H. Otsuka, JHEP03, 161 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)161 [arXiv:2011.09154 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Novichkov, J.T

    P.P. Novichkov, J.T. Penedo and S.T. Petcov, Modular flavour symmetries and modulus stabilisation, JHEP 03 (2022) 149 [arXiv: 2201.02020]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    S. F. King and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.7, 076026 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.076026 [arXiv:2310.10369 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    S. F. King and X. Wang, JCAP07(2024), 073 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/073 [arXiv:2405.08924 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    G. J. Ding, S. Y. Jiang and W. Zhao, JCAP10(2024), 016 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/016 [arXiv:2405.06497 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Higaki, T

    T. Higaki, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu and H. Otsuka, JHEP09, 024 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)024 [arXiv:2405.18813 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Higaki, J

    T. Higaki, J. Kawamura and T. Kobayashi, JHEP04(2024), 147 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2024)147 [arXiv:2402.02071 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Kobayashi, K

    T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu, R. Sakuma and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.11, 115038 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.115038 [arXiv:2310.15604 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Funakoshi, J

    S. Funakoshi, J. Kawamura, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu and H. Otsuka, [arXiv:2409.19261 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Hong-jie Fan, Fei Wang, Ying Kai Zhang, Natural solution of SUSYµproblem from modulus stabilization in modular flavor model, Phys. Rev. D112, 115040 (2025) doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/8z51-3zgf [arXiv:2412.07642[hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Cvetic, A

    M. Cvetic, A. Font, L.E. Ibanez, D. Lust, F. Quevedo, Nucl.Phys. B 361(1991)194-232. – 22 –

    1991

  54. [54]

    Knapp-Perez, X.-G

    V. Knapp-Perez, X.-G. Liu, H.P. Nilles, S. Ramos-Sanchez and M. Ratz, Matter matters in moduli fixing and modular flavor symmetries, [arXiv:2304.14437]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    Higaki, J

    T. Higaki, J. Kawamura, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu and R. Sakuma, JHEP05(2025), 111 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)111 [arXiv:2412.18435 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    J. M. Leedom, N. Righi and A. Westphal, JHEP02(2023), 209 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)209 [arXiv:2212.03876 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Gonzalo, L

    E. Gonzalo, L. E. Ib´ a˜ nez and´A. M. Uranga, JHEP05(2019), 105 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)105 [arXiv:1812.06520 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    A. Baur, H. P. Nilles, A. Trautner and P. K. S. Vaudrevange, Phys. Lett. B795(2019), 7-14 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.066 [arXiv:1901.03251 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov, JHEP07(2019), 165 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)165 [arXiv:1905.11970 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [60]

    Ishiguro, T

    K. Ishiguro, T. Kobayashi and H. Otsuka, Nucl. Phys. B973(2021), 115598 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115598 [arXiv:2010.10782 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Feruglio, V

    F. Feruglio, V. Gherardi, A. Romanino and A. Titov, JHEP05(2021), 242 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)242 [arXiv:2101.08718 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Futamase and K

    T. Futamase and K. I. Maeda,Chaotic inflationary scenario in models having nonminimal coupling with curvature, Phys. Rev.D39, 399 (1989)

    1989

  63. [63]

    D. S. Salopek, J. R. Bond and J. M. Bardeen,Designing density fluctuation spectra in inflation, Phys. Rev.D40, 1753 (1989)

    1989

  64. [64]

    Makino and M

    N. Makino and M. Sasaki,The Density perturbation in the chaotic inflation with nonminimal coupling, Prog. Theor. Phys.86, 103 (1991)

    1991

  65. [65]

    Fakir, S

    R. Fakir, S. Habib and W. Unruh,Cosmological density perturbations with modified gravity, Astrophys. J.394, 396 (1992)

    1992

  66. [66]

    The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,

    F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, “The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,” Phys. Lett. B659, 703 (2008) [arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  67. [67]

    On initial conditions for the Hot Big Bang,

    F. Bezrukov, D. Gorbunov and M. Shaposhnikov, “On initial conditions for the Hot Big Bang,” JCAP0906, 029 (2009) [arXiv:0812.3622 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  68. [68]

    Preheating in the Standard Model with the Higgs-Inflaton coupled to gravity,

    J. Garcia-Bellido, D. G. Figueroa and J. Rubio, “Preheating in the Standard Model with the Higgs-Inflaton coupled to gravity,” Phys. Rev. D79, 063531 (2009) [arXiv:0812.4624 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  69. [69]

    Running Inflation in the Standard Model,

    A. De Simone, M. P. Hertzberg and F. Wilczek, “Running Inflation in the Standard Model,” Phys. Lett. B678, 1 (2009) [arXiv:0812.4946 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  70. [70]

    Standard Model Higgs boson mass from inflation: two loop analysis,

    F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, “Standard Model Higgs boson mass from inflation: two loop analysis,” JHEP0907, 089 (2009) [arXiv:0904.1537 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  71. [71]

    Asymptotic freedom in inflationary cosmology with a non-minimally coupled Higgs field,

    A. O. Barvinsky, A. Y. Kamenshchik, C. Kiefer, A. A. Starobinsky and C. Steinwachs, “Asymptotic freedom in inflationary cosmology with a non-minimally coupled Higgs field,” JCAP0912, 003 (2009) [arXiv:0904.1698 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  72. [72]

    M. B. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones, JHEP03(2010), 026 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2010)026 [arXiv:0912.2718 [hep-ph]]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  73. [73]

    Ferrara, R

    S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, A. Marrani and A. Van Proeyen, Phys. Rev. D82(2010), 045003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.045003 [arXiv:1004.0712 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  74. [74]

    H. M. Lee, JCAP08(2010), 003 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/08/003 [arXiv:1005.2735 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  75. [75]

    Kallosh, L

    R. Kallosh, L. Kofman, A. D. Linde and A. Van Proeyen, Class. Quant. Grav.17(2000), 4269-4338 [erratum: Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004), 5017] doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/20/308 [arXiv:hep-th/0006179 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  76. [76]

    Ferrara, R

    S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, A. Marrani and A. Van Proeyen, Phys. Rev. D83(2011), 025008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.025008 [arXiv:1008.2942 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  77. [77]

    Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking And Higgs Effect In Supergravity Without Cosmological Constant,

    E. Cremmer, B. Julia, J. Scherk, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking And Higgs Effect In Supergravity Without Cosmological Constant,” Nucl. Phys. B147, 105 (1979)

    1979

  78. [78]

    Supergravity, R Invariance And Spontaneous Supersymmetry Breaking,

    R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. S. Stelle, “Supergravity, R Invariance And Spontaneous Supersymmetry Breaking,” Phys. Lett. B113, 219 (1982)

    1982

  79. [79]

    Yang-Mills Theories With Local Supersymmetry: Lagrangian, Transformation Laws And Superhiggs Effect,

    E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and A. Van Proeyen, “Yang-Mills Theories With Local Supersymmetry: Lagrangian, Transformation Laws And Superhiggs Effect,” Nucl. Phys. B 212, 413 (1983)

    1983

  80. [80]

    Superspace Geometry And The Minimal, Nonminimal, And New Minimal Supergravity Multiplets,

    G. Girardi, R. Grimm, M. Muller and J. Wess, “Superspace Geometry And The Minimal, Nonminimal, And New Minimal Supergravity Multiplets,” Z. Phys. C26, 123 (1984)

    1984

Showing first 80 references.