Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

The $\alpha$-Attractor E-Model in Warm Inflation: Observational Viability from Planck 2018

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The warm $\alpha$-attractor E-model remains compatible with Planck 2018 in both weak and strong dissipation regimes, with dissipation enlarging the viable parameter space.

desk verdict New analytic formulas for the warm alpha-attractor E-model, but the strong-regime analysis never imposes the scalar amplitude constraint, so the advertised viability and allowed C1 ranges are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06717 v1 pith:GPQ4VAEH submitted 2025-06-07 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Bhargabi Saha , Malay K. Nandy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph PACS 98.80.Cq
keywords warminflationα-attractorE-modeldissipationcoefficientPlanck2018constraintsspectralindextensor-to-scalarratioslow-rollapproximation
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 asks whether the $\alpha$-attractor E-model — a plateau-like inflation potential with a supergravity origin — remains observationally viable when inflation is made 'warm,' meaning the inflaton continuously transfers energy to a radiation bath during expansion rather than reheating the universe afterward. Working in the slow-roll approximation with a dissipation coefficient linear in temperature, the authors derive analytic expressions for the scalar spectral index $n_s$ and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ in both the weak and strong dissipation regimes, treating two forms of the fluctuation-enhancement function in the strong regime. Placing the predicted trajectories on the $n_s$–$r$ plane inside the Planck 2018 contours, they conclude that the warm E-model is compatible with observation in both regimes and that dissipation shifts the predictions while enlarging the viable parameter space. The result matters because it keeps a theoretically motivated potential available in the warm-inflation picture, where ordinary reheating is replaced by continuous dissipation, and because the analytic formulas connect the model's parameters directly to measurable CMB observables.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by warm-inflation slow-roll machinery specialized to the E-model. The dissipation ratio $Q=\Gamma/(3H)$ (here $\Gamma=C_1T$, linear in temperature) rescales the slow-roll conditions to $\varepsilon,\eta,\beta\ll 1+Q$ and enters the horizon-crossing power-spectrum amplitude through a thermal occupation factor and an enhancement function $G(Q_*)$ that models the growth of inflaton fluctuations from their coupling to the radiation bath. The load-bearing identity is the strong-regime reduction: from $\rho_r/V=\varepsilon Q/[2(1+Q)^2]$ and $T/H=3Q/C_1$, which follow from the radiation-production balance $4H\rho_r=\Gamma\dot\varphi^2$ and the slow-roll equation of motion, the amplitude collapses to a potential-independent form $\Delta_R=\frac{5C_1^3}{12g_*\pi^4Q_*^2}\bigl(1+\sqrt{3\pi Q_*}/\sqrt{3+4\pi Q_*}\bigr)G(Q_*)$ (Eq 58), with $g_*=228.75$. Differentiating $\ln\Delta_R$ through $n_s = 1+\frac{Q_*}{3+5Q_*}(6\varepsilon-2\eta)\frac{1}{\Delta_R}\frac{d\Delta_R}{dQ_*}$ (Eq 60) yields the spectral index, and $r=2V/(3\pi^2M_P^4\Delta_R)$ (Eqs 64–66) yields the tensor-to-scalar ratio; the two chosen enhancement functions, $G_1$ for plateau-like potentials and $G_2$ from warm little inflation, close the system and generate the $n_s$–$r$ trajectories compared with the Planck 2018 contours.

What would settle it

Take Eq 57, insert the explicit E-model potential, its strong-regime slow-roll parameter $\varepsilon$ (Eq 42), and the horizon-crossing $Q_*$ (Eq 47), and verify that the printed potential-independent amplitude (Eq 58) is reproduced across the $C_1$ windows of Tables 2 and 3; an independent numerical integration of the dissipative curvature-perturbation equations for the same potential settles the same question. As an observable cross-check, evaluate Eq 58 at those parameters and compare with the measured curvature amplitude $A_s\simeq2.1\times10^{-9}$, since the paper's contour plots test only the shape of the spectrum, not its absolute amplitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated by the authors, is that warm inflation preserves the E-model's observational status: with the potential $V(\varphi)=\lambda M_P^4\bigl(1-e^{-\sqrt{2/(3\alpha)}\,\varphi/M_P}\bigr)^2$ and dissipation $\Gamma=C_1T$, the slow-roll analysis yields closed-form observables in both regimes. In the weak regime ($Q\ll1$) the paper finds $n_s = 1 - \frac{9\alpha}{2N^2} - \frac{2}{N} + Q_*\bigl(\frac{6\alpha}{N^2}+\frac{4}{3N}\bigr)$ and $r = 12\alpha/N^2$, so that Planck 2018 imposes $C_1^4/\alpha \lesssim 1.6\times10^{-7}$, with upper bounds on $C_1$ for each $\alpha$ (for instance $C_1<0.04$ at $\alpha=1$). In the strong regime ($Q\gg1$) the scalar power spectrum reduces to a potential-independent expression in $C_1$ and $Q_*$ alone (Eq 58); the spectral index follows by differentiating it (Eq 63) and the tensor-to-scalar ratio from $r = 2V/(3\pi^2M_P^4\Delta_R)$ (Eq 66). With either enhancement function — the plateau-like $G_1$ or the warm-little-inflation $G_2$ — the predicted ($n_s$, $r$) trajectories stay inside the Planck 2018 contours for ranges of $C_1$ at each $\alpha$ in $10^{-2}<\alpha<10^4$, for example $3.8<C_1<13.5$ at $\alpha=0.1$ with $G_1$. The paper concludes that the warm $\alpha$-attractor E-model is observationally viable in both dissipative regimes.

Load-bearing premise

Everything the strong-regime analysis concludes rests on the claim that, at horizon crossing, the scalar-perturbation amplitude becomes independent of the potential's shape and reduces to a formula in only the dissipation coupling $C_1$ and the dissipation ratio $Q_*$, through two algebraic relations connecting radiation density, potential slope, and temperature; if those relations leave a hidden potential dependence, the printed $n_s$ and $r$ for the strong regime, and hence the claimed Planck compatibility, would have to be recomputed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The warm $\alpha$-attractor E-model is compatible with Planck 2018 data in both weak and strong dissipation regimes, extending the model's observational viability from cold to warm inflation.
  • Dissipation shifts the predicted ($n_s$, $r$) away from the cold-attractor values and opens parameter space that cold inflation leaves unexplored; the weak regime obeys $C_1^4/\alpha \lesssim 1.6\times10^{-7}$, and the strong regime admits windows such as $3.8<C_1<13.5$ for $\alpha=0.1$.
  • The two physically motivated enhancement functions yield compatible but slightly different constraints, so the viability conclusion does not hinge on which microphysical picture of the dissipation is adopted.
  • Because the paper's formulas connect $\alpha$, $C_1$, and the e-fold number $N$ directly to $n_s$ and $r$, any future tightening of the CMB bounds translates immediately into updated windows on the dissipation coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the strong-regime analysis is right, its tensor-to-scalar ratio is extremely small — the plotted trajectories run at or below $r\sim10^{-7}$ for the shown parameters — so a future detection of primordial B-modes would effectively select the weak-regime branch of this model or rule the strong branch out.
  • Equation 58 determines the scalar amplitude from $C_1$ and $Q_*$ alone, independent of $\alpha$; imposing the measured curvature amplitude $A_s\simeq2.1\times10^{-9}$ on that formula would fix the allowed $C_1$–$Q_*$ relation without any potential input, a normalization cross-check the paper does not run.
  • The paper adopts a dissipation coefficient linear in temperature; repeating the derivation with $\Gamma\propto T^3$, or with a field-dependent coefficient, would show whether the Planck compatibility is special to this dissipation mechanism or generic to the warm E-model.
  • The strong-regime $C_1$ windows narrow as $\alpha$ grows (from $3.8<C_1<13.5$ at $\alpha=0.1$ to $0.12<C_1<0.2$ at $\alpha=10$), suggesting the warm mechanism's parameter freedom concentrates near the small-$\alpha$ attractor end of the family.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies warm inflation in the α-attractor E-model with a dissipation coefficient linear in temperature, Γ = C1 T. It derives slow-roll expressions for the scalar power spectrum, spectral index ns, and tensor-to-scalar ratio r in both the weak and strong dissipative regimes, and compares the resulting ns–r trajectories with Planck 2018 contours. The authors conclude that the warm E-model is observationally compatible with Planck in both regimes and that dissipation enlarges the viable parameter space.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide useful analytic formulas for a specific, theoretically motivated warm-inflation model and a concrete comparison with CMB data. The authors make a genuine effort to derive closed-form expressions and to confront them with published Planck contours, which is a positive feature. However, the strong-regime comparison never imposes the observed scalar perturbation amplitude, and the weak-regime normalization is based on the cold-inflation COBE condition despite the thermal terms in the warm power spectrum. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main claim of observational viability, and they need to be fixed before the conclusions can be trusted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Eqs. (58), (63), (66) and Tables 2-3] The strong-regime analysis never imposes the observed scalar amplitude. Equation (58) expresses ΔR only through C1, Q*, and the enhancement function, and Eq. (49) determines Q* for specified α, C1, N, and λ. If λ is carried over from the weak-regime COBE condition, Eq. (34), the model makes a definite prediction for ΔR with no free overall scale. For a representative point shown in the figures, (α=0.1, C1=4, N=60), Eq. (58) with G1 gives ΔR ≈ 1.8×10^-4, about five orders of magnitude above the Planck-normalized value As ≈ 2.1×10^-9. The allowed intervals for C1 in Tables 2 and 3 therefore reflect only agreement with the ns–r contours and do not establish that the corresponding models produce the observed perturbation amplitude. The authors must redo the strong-regime constraints by imposing ΔR = As, which fixes λ (or the combination of parameters) for each α, C1, and N, and then recompute the predicted (ns, r) at that amplitude.
  2. [§4.1, Eqs. (32)-(34)] The weak-regime coupling λ is fixed by the cold-inflation COBE normalization V/ε = (0.0276 M_P)^4, Eq. (32), but the warm-inflation scalar power spectrum is given by Eq. (16), which contains thermal contributions involving n*, T*/H*, and G(Q*). Fixing λ with the cold normalization neglects these thermal effects; the correct procedure would be to impose the warm amplitude ΔR = As in the Q≪1 limit. Since λ enters Q* through Eq. (31) and hence enters ns through Eqs. (38)-(39), the weak-regime bounds on C1 in Table 1 and Fig. 1 are not self-consistent as they stand. The weak-regime analysis should be rederived using the warm amplitude normalization.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (18)] The weak-regime temperature expression, Eq. (18), appears dimensionally inconsistent as printed. It gives T ∝ [C1 e^{-2x}/(α C* M_P^2 (1-e^{-x}))]^{1/3}, which has dimension [mass]^{-2/3} rather than energy. A factor λ^{1/2} M_P^3, or the equivalent after choosing units, is missing from the numerator. This error likely propagates into Eq. (30)-(31) for Q* and hence into the weak-regime expressions for ns. The authors should correct Eq. (18) and trace the consequences for the subsequent analytic results.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 3, α=1 row] The quoted allowed range '0.6 < C1 < 0.08' is internally contradictory, since the lower bound exceeds the upper bound. This appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected.
  2. [§5.1] The statement that Planck 2018 imposes an upper bound on C1^4/α of 1.6×10^-7 is not a direct output of the Planck data; it is a model-dependent bound obtained from the authors' ns–r trajectories. The wording should distinguish the observational contours used from the derived constraint.
  3. [General presentation] The paper contains several formulas whose rendering in the arXiv text is ambiguous or garbled, such as Eq. (30) and Eq. (50). The authors should ensure that the final typeset version displays all exponents and fractions unambiguously.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the C1 constraints are genuine parameter fits against Planck ns-r contours, and the external inputs (COBE normalization and the numerical G(Q) fits) do not encode the claimed predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. In the weak regime, lambda is fixed by the COBE normalization (Eqs. 32-34) to match the observed scalar amplitude, which is a standard calibration rather than a fit to ns or r; the subsequent ns-r trajectories (Eqs. 38-39) are genuine model predictions, with C1 later constrained by Planck contours. In the strong regime, the amplitude Eq. (58) is obtained algebraically from the preceding warm-inflation equations, and the enhancement functions G1 and G2 (Eqs. 53-54) are imported from independent numerical studies [66, 34], not calibrated to Planck data in this paper. The absence of an explicit scalar-amplitude normalization check in the strong regime is a correctness or benchmark gap, not a circular reduction: it does not make a fitted parameter masquerade as a prediction. No self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem is invoked, so the circularity score is zero.

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

The model introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The central claim rests on the free parameters α, C1, λ, and N, plus literature-derived enhancement functions. The soundness of the derived constraints is compromised by the missing ε² factor in the strong-regime amplitude and by the unvalidated use of the cold-inflation COBE normalization in the weak regime.

free parameters (5)
  • α (α-attractor curvature parameter) = scanned over 10^-2 to 10^4; constrained by Planck contours
    Controls the potential shape and pole structure; the paper scans discrete α values and reports allowed C1 ranges for each.
  • C1 (dissipation coefficient in Γ = C1 T) = Tables 1-3, e.g., 3.8 < C1 < 13.5 for α=0.1 in the strong regime
    The central parameter constrained by requiring ns and r to lie within Planck 2018 contours.
  • λ (E-model potential coupling) = λ = (0.0276)^4 (3α)/(4N^2) from Eq 34
    Fixed using the cold-inflation COBE normalization, which is questionable in warm inflation because the amplitude Eq 16 contains additional thermal factors.
  • N (number of e-folds at horizon exit) = implied to be around 50-60, not specified per plot
    Appears in the analytic formulas for ns and r; the trajectories are not labeled with the N value used.
  • G1 and G2 fitting coefficients (0.18, 0.01, 0.335, 0.0185) = as in Eqs 53 and 54
    These coefficients were fitted in prior numerical studies and are adopted here without E-model-specific validation; the strong-regime ns depends on them.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Steady-state radiation condition ˙ρr ≈ 0, so 4Hρr = Γ ˙φ² (Eq 11).
    Standard warm-inflation approximation; if ˙ρr is not negligible, the temperature and Q expressions change.
  • domain assumption The perturbation spectrum Eq 16 with Bose-Einstein occupation n* ≈ T/H and enhancement functions G1/G2 from [34,66] applies to the E-model.
    These fits were derived for other potentials and warm models; no E-model-specific numerical validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Thermal fluctuations dominate, so 1+2n* ≈ 2T/H = 6Q/C1 (Section 4.2).
    Drops the vacuum contribution and requires T/H ≳ 1, which may not hold across the entire parameter space.
  • ad hoc to paper The cold-inflation COBE normalization V/ε = (0.0276 M_P)^4 fixes λ in the weak warm regime (Eqs 32-34).
    The warm scalar amplitude Eq 16 contains additional factors, so this calibration is not justified by the paper.
  • domain assumption Planck 2018 restricts α to 10^-2 < α < 10^4 (Section 5).
    Adopts the stated observational prior from the Planck analysis.
  • domain assumption End of inflation occurs at ε = 1 in the weak regime and ε = Q in the strong regime (Eqs 24, 45-46).
    Standard slow-roll end conditions; the strong-regime condition leads to the questionable φ_e formula.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $\alpha$-Attractor E-Model in Warm Inflation: Observational Viability from Planck 2018." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GPQ4VAEH

@misc{pith2026250606717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $\alpha$-Attractor E-Model in Warm Inflation: Observational Viability from Planck 2018},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GPQ4VAEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06717}
}
abstract

We explore the inflationary evolution and observational viability of the $\alpha$-attractor E-model in the framework of warm inflation, focusing on both weak and strong dissipative regimes, with a dissipation coefficient linear in temperature. In the strong regime, we account for the growth of inflaton fluctuations due to coupling with the radiation bath via two different forms for the dissipation enhancement function: one associated with plateau-like potentials, and another motivated by the warm little inflation scenario. Employing slow roll conditions, we analytically derive the expressions for the key inflationary observables, the spectral index $n_s$ and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, in both dissipative regimes. The resulting theoretical trajectories on the $n_s$--$r$ plane are then juxtaposed with the contour plots obtained from Planck 2018 data in order to constrain the model parameter. Our analysis shows that the warm $\alpha$-attractor E-model remains compatible with observations in both dissipative regimes, with dissipation playing a crucial role in shifting the predictions and enlarging the viable parameter space, highlighting observational robustness of the model when extended to warm inflation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trajectories in the ns–r plane with different values of α (in the admissible range 10−2 < α < 104 ) in the weak regime of α-attractor E-model overlaid on the observational constraints provided by the Planck 2018 data. at the end of inflation (denoted by the subscript e). The number of e-folds can be calculated as N = 1 M2 P Z φ∗ φe V V ′ dφ = 3α 4 Z x∗ xe (e x − 1)dx. (26) Since we expect φ∗ ≫ φe (equivalently, x∗ ≫… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Inflationary trajectories in the ns–r plane with different values of C1 for fixed α = 0.1 (in the admissible range 10−2 < α < 104 ) in the strong regime of α-attractor E-model employing the enhancement function G1(Q∗) for plateau-like potentials: Comparison with Planck 2018 data. This expression yields the value of the inflaton field, φ∗ = 1 3 r 3α 2 ln " N 5α 5 2 7 3 3  4C∗λ C4 1 # MP , (50) at Hubble crossing.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trajectories in the ns–r plane with different values of C1 for fixed α = 1 in the strong regime of α-attractor E-model employing the enhancement function G1(Q∗) for plateau-like potentials: Comparison with Planck 2018 data. with further substitution from 58. Furthermore, following [66], the tensor-to-scalar ratio is given by r = ∆T ∆R , where ∆T = 2H2 π 2M2 P , (64) Using the Friedmann equation 19, this equation lea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predictions of the strong regime α-attractor E-Model with α = 10 and plateau-type function G1(Q∗): Trajectories in the ns–r plane versus Planck 2018 observations. 5.1 Weak dissipative regime Using equation 39, we compute and plot the scalar spectral index ns against th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Inflationary trajectories in the ns–r plane with different values of C1 for fixed α = 0.1 (in the admissble range 10−2 < α < 104 ) in the strong regime of α-attractor E-model employing the enhancement function G2(Q∗) for warm little inflation: Comparison with Planck 20…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted ns–r trajectories with different C1 values in the strong dissipative regime of the α￾attractor E-Model with α = 1, using G2(Q∗) from warm little inflation, comparison with Planck 2018 constraints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Strong regime predictions of the α-attractor E-Model with G2(Q∗) for warm little inflation : Trajectories in the ns–r plane for fixed α = 10 and different C1 values, overlaid on Planck 2018 observational bounds. The entries in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Behaviour of $\alpha$-attractors in Warm Inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    In strongly dissipative warm inflation, T, E, and polynomial alpha-attractor models lose the cold-inflation attractor convergence in the n_s-r plane.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Alan H. Guth. Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the hori- zon and flatness problems. Phys. Rev. D , 23:347–356, Jan 1981. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.347 1981

  2. [2]

    Andrei D. Linde. A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A P ossible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole P roblems. Phys. Lett. B , 108:389– 393, 1982. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9 1982

  3. [3]

    K. Sato. First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expa nsion of the Universe. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 195:467–479, 1981

    1981

  4. [4]

    Andrei D. Linde. Chaotic Inflation. Phys. Lett. B , 129:177–181, 1983. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90837-7

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90837-7 1983

  5. [5]

    The inflationary universe

    A D Linde. The inflationary universe. Rep. Prog. Phys. , 47(8):925, aug 1984. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/47/8/002, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/47/8/002

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/47/8/002 1984

  6. [6]

    The inflationary universe

    A.H.Guth and P.J.Steinhardt. The inflationary universe . Scientific American , 250:116–129,

  7. [7]

    Steinhardt

    Andreas Albrecht and Paul J. Steinhardt. Cosmology for g rand unified the- ories with radiatively induced symmetry breaking. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 48:1220– 1223, Apr 1982. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1220, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1220

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.48.1220 1982

  8. [8]

    Steinhardt, Michael S

    Andreas Albrecht, Paul J. Steinhardt, Michael S. Turner , and Frank Wilczek. Reheating an inflationary universe. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 48:1437–1440, May

Show all 88 references
  1. [10]

    Larson et al

    D. Larson et al. Seven-year wilkinson microwave anisot ropy probe (wmap) observations: Power spectra and wmap-derived parameters. Astrophys. J. Suppl. , 192:16, 2011. arXiv:1001.4635, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/16

    2011 arXiv

  2. [11]

    C. L. Bennett et al. Seven-year wilkinson microwave ani sotropy probe (wmap) observations: Are there cosmic microwave background anomalies? Astrophys. J. Suppl. , 192:17, 2011. arXiv:1001.4758, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/17. 18

    2011 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Jarosik et al

    N. Jarosik et al. Seven-year wilkinson microwave aniso tropy probe (wmap) observa- tions: Sky maps, systematic errors, and basic results. Astrophys. J. Suppl. , 192:14, 2011. arXiv:1001.4744, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/14

    2011 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Hinshaw et al

    G. Hinshaw et al. Nine-year wilkinson microwave anisot ropy probe (wmap) observations: Cosmological parameter results. Astrophys. J. Suppl. , 208:19, 2013. arXiv:1212.5226, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 arXiv

  5. [14]

    P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, C. Armitage-Caplan, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, F. Atrio-Barandela, and et al. Planck 2013 results. xvi. cosmological parameter s. Astron. Astrophys. , 571:A16,

    2013

  6. [15]

    P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont , C. Baccigalupi, and et al. Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 594:A13, 2016. arXiv:1502.01589, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2015 arXiv

  7. [16]

    A. A. Starobinsky. A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity. Phys. Lett. B , 91:99–102, 1980. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

    1980 doi

  8. [17]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov. Quantum fluctuations a nd a nonsingular universe. JETP Lett., 33:532–535, 1981. [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33, 549 (1981 )]

    1981

  9. [18]

    S. W. Hawking. The development of irregularities in a si ngle bubble inflationary universe. Phys. Lett. B , 115:295, 1982. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90373-2

    1982 doi

  10. [19]

    Guth and So-Young Pi

    Alan H. Guth and So-Young Pi. Fluctuations in the new infl ationary universe. Phys. Rev. Lett., 49:1110–1113, 1982. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1110

    1982 doi

  11. [20]

    Bardeen, Paul J

    James M. Bardeen, Paul J. Steinhardt, and Michael S. Tur ner. Spontaneous cre- ation of almost scale-free density perturbations in an infla tionary universe. Phys. Rev. D, 28:679–693, Aug 1983. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.679, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.679

    1983 doi

  12. [21]

    A. A. Starobinsky. Dynamics of phase transition in the n ew inflationary uni- verse scenario and generation of perturbations. Phys. Lett. B , 117:175–178, 1982. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90541-X

    1982 doi

  13. [22]

    Liddle, Paul Parsons, and John D

    Andrew R. Liddle, Paul Parsons, and John D. Barrow. Form aliz- ing the slow-roll approximation in inflation. Phys. Rev. D , 50:7222–7232, Dec 1994. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.50.7222, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.7222

    1994 doi

  14. [23]

    Liddle and David H

    Andrew R. Liddle and David H. Lyth. Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure . Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000

    2000

  15. [24]

    Kolb and Michael S

    Edward W. Kolb and Michael S. Turner. The Early Universe , volume 69 of Frontiers in Physics. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA, 1990

    1990

  16. [25]

    Starobinsky

    Lev Kofman, Andrei Linde, and Alexei A. Starobinsky. Re - heating after inflation. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 73:3195–3198, Dec

  17. [26]

    Lev A. Kofman. The Origin of matter in the universe: Rehe ating after inflation. 5 1996. arXiv:astro-ph/9605155

    1996 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Partic le production in the new infla- tionary cosmology

    Laurence F Abbott, Edward Farhi, and Mark B Wise. Partic le production in the new infla- tionary cosmology. Phys. Lett. B , 117(1-2):29–33, 1982

    1982

  19. [28]

    Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applic ations

    Rouzbeh Allahverdi, Robert Brandenberger, Francis-Y an Cyr-Racine, and Anupam Mazum- dar. Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applic ations. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 60:27–51, 2010. arXiv:1001.2600, doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.012809.104511

    2010 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Amin, Mark P

    Mustafa A. Amin, Mark P. Hertzberg, David I. Kaiser, and Johanna Karouby. Nonperturbative Dynamics Of Reheating After Inflation: A Review. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D , 24:1530003, 2014. arXiv:1410.3808, doi:10.1142/S0218271815300037

    2014 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Warm inflation

    Arjun Berera. Warm inflation. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 75:3218–3221, Oct

  22. [31]

    Arjun Berera and Rudnei O. Ramos. Affinity for scalar field s to dissipate. Phys. Rev. D, 63:103509, Apr 2001. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.63.103509, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.103509

    2001 doi

  23. [32]

    The warm inflation story

    Arjun Berera. The warm inflation story. Universe, 9(6), 2023. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/9/6/272, doi:10.3390/universe9060272

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    Warm inflation in the adiabatic regime — a m odel, an existence proof for inflationary dynamics in quantum field theory

    Arjun Berera. Warm inflation in the adiabatic regime — a m odel, an existence proof for inflationary dynamics in quantum field theory. Nuclear Physics B , 585(3):666–714,

  25. [34]

    Ramos, and Jo˜ ao G

    Mar Bastero-Gil, Arjun Berera, Rudnei O. Ramos, and Jo˜ ao G. Rosa. Warm little inflaton. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 117:151301, Oct

  26. [35]

    Warm-viscous inflation model on t he brane in light of planck data

    V Kamali and M R Setare. Warm-viscous inflation model on t he brane in light of planck data. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 32(23):235005, nov 2015. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/23/235005, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/23/235005

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    M. R. Setare and V. Kamali. Warm chaplygin inflation in lo op quan- tum cosmology in light of planck data. Phys. Rev. D , 91:123517, Jun

  28. [37]

    Tac hyon warm-intermediate inflation in the light of planck data

    Vahid Kamali, Spyros Basilakos, and Ahmad Mehrabi. Tac hyon warm-intermediate inflation in the light of planck data. Eur. Phys. J. C , 76(10):525, Sep 2016. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4380-6

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    Observational constraints on monomia l warm infla- tion

    Luca Visinelli. Observational constraints on monomia l warm infla- tion. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2016(07):054, jul 2016. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/054, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/054. 20

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    Warm-tachyo n gauss–bonnet infla- tion in the light of planck 2015 data

    Meysam Motaharfar and Hamid Reza Sepangi. Warm-tachyo n gauss–bonnet infla- tion in the light of planck 2015 data. Eur. Phys. J. C , 76(11):646, Nov 2016. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4474-1

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    Warm λ 4 φ4 inflationary universe model in light of planck 2015 results

    Grigorios Panotopoulos and Nelson Videla. Warm λ 4 φ4 inflationary universe model in light of planck 2015 results. Eur. Phys. J. C , 75(11):525, Nov 2015. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3764-3

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    Non-minimal higgs inflation in the contex t of warm scenario in the light of planck data

    Vahid Kamali. Non-minimal higgs inflation in the contex t of warm scenario in the light of planck data. Eur. Phys. J. C , 78(11):975, Nov 2018. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6449-x

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    Impact of generalized dissipative coefficient on warm inflationary dynamics in the l ight of latest planck data

    Abdul Jawad, Shahzad Hussain, Shamaila Rani, and Nelso n Videla. Impact of generalized dissipative coefficient on warm inflationary dynamics in the l ight of latest planck data. Eur. Phys. J. C , 77(10):700, Oct 2017. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5264-0

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    Dynamic s of warm power-law plateau in- flation with a generalized inflaton decay rate: predictions a nd constraints after planck 2015

    Abdul Jawad, Nelson Videla, and Faiza Gulshan. Dynamic s of warm power-law plateau in- flation with a generalized inflaton decay rate: predictions a nd constraints after planck 2015. Eur. Phys. J. C , 77(5):271, Apr 2017. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4846-1

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    War m intermediate inflation in the randall–sundrum ii model in the light of planck 2015 and bice p2 results: a general dissipative coefficient

    Ram´ on Herrera, Nelson Videla, and Marco Olivares. War m intermediate inflation in the randall–sundrum ii model in the light of planck 2015 and bice p2 results: a general dissipative coefficient. Eur. Phys. J. C , 75(5):205, May 2015. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3433-6

    2015 doi

  36. [45]

    On warm natural inflation and planck 2018 constraints

    Mahmoud AlHallak, Khalil Kalid Al-Said, Nidal Chamoun , and Moustafa Sayem El-Daher. On warm natural inflation and planck 2018 constraints. Universe, 9(2), 2023. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/9/2/80, doi:10.3390/universe9020080

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    Micol Benetti and Rudnei O. Ramos. Warm inflation dissip ative effects: Pre- dictions and constraints from the planck data. Phys. Rev. D , 95:023517, Jan 2017. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.023517, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.023517

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    Universality Class in Conformal Inflation

    Renata Kallosh and Andrei Linde. Universality Class in Conformal Inflation. JCAP, 1307:002,

  39. [48]

    Universality classes of inflation

    Diederik Roest. Universality classes of inflation. JCAP, 1401:007, 2014. arXiv:1309.1285, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/01/007

    2014 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Ramos, and Jo˜ ao G

    Mar Bastero-Gil, Arjun Berera, Rudnei O. Ramos, and Jo˜ ao G. Rosa. General dissipation co- efficient in low-temperature warm inflation. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2013(01):016, jan 2013. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/01/016, doi:10.1088/147...

    2013 doi

  41. [50]

    Warm inflation with a general form of the dissip ative co- efficient

    Yi Zhang. Warm inflation with a general form of the dissip ative co- efficient. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2009(03):023, mar 2009. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2009/03/023, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/03/023

    2009 doi

  42. [51]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on i nflation. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A10,

    2018

  43. [52]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. Improved constraints on primordial gr avitational waves using planck, wmap, and bicep/keck observations through the 2018 observing sea son. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 127:151301, Oct 2021. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151301, doi:10.1103/Ph...

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    Supe rconformal inflationary α-attractors

    Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Diederik Roest. Supe rconformal inflationary α-attractors. JHEP, 11:198, 2013. arXiv:1311.0472, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)198

    2013 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Observational viab ility of an inflation model with e-model nonminimal derivative coupling

    Kourosh Nozari and Narges Rashidi. Observational viab ility of an inflation model with e-model nonminimal derivative coupling. The Astrophysical Journal , 863(2), 2018. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad18e

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    Salamate, H

    F. Salamate, H. Sheikhahmadi, and K. Saaidi. E-model α -attractor on brane from planck data and reheating temperature. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics , 129:774– 780, 2019. doi:10.3103/S0027134919050114

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Superconformal gener alizations of the starobin- sky model

    Renata Kallosh and Andrei Linde. Superconformal gener alizations of the starobin- sky model. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2013(06):028, 2013. URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-751 6/2013/06/028, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/06/028

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    Unity of Cos- mological Inflation Attractors

    Mario Galante, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Diede rik Roest. Unity of Cos- mological Inflation Attractors. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 114:141302, 2015. arXiv:1412.3797, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.141302

    2015 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Planck, LHC, and α-attractors

    Renata Kallosh and Andrei Linde. Planck, LHC, and α-attractors. Phys. Rev. D , 91(8):083528,

  50. [59]

    I.G. Moss. Primordial inflation with spontaneous symme - try breaking. Phys. Lett. B , 154(2):120–124, 1985. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269385905702, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(85)90570-2

    1985

  51. [60]

    Thermal properties of an inflationary uni verse

    Arjun Berera. Thermal properties of an inflationary uni verse. Phys. Rev. D , 54:2519–2534, Aug 1996. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.54.2519, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.2519

    1996 doi

  52. [61]

    Thermally induced densit y pertur- bations in the inflation era

    Arjun Berera and Li-Zhi Fang. Thermally induced densit y pertur- bations in the inflation era. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 74:1912–1915, Mar

    1912

  53. [62]

    A. Berera. Interpolating the Stage of Inflationary Univ erse: From Slow-roll to Warm Inflation. Phys. Rev. D , 54:2519–2534, 1996. arXiv:hep-th/9601134, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.2519

    1996 arXiv

  54. [63]

    A. Berera. Warm Inflation at Arbitrary Adiabaticity: A M odel, an Existence Proof for Inflationary Dynamics in Quantum Field Theory. Nucl. Phys. B , 585:666–714, 2000. arXiv:hep-ph/9904409, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00411-9

    arXiv

  55. [64]

    Lisa M. H. Hall, Ian G. Moss, and Arjun Berera. Scalar per tur- bation spectra from warm inflation. Phys. Rev. D , 69:083525, Apr

  56. [65]

    On the consistency of warm infla - tion

    Ian G Moss and Chun Xiong. On the consistency of warm infla - tion. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2008(11):023, nov 2008. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2008/11/023, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/11/023. 22

    2008 doi

  57. [66]

    Mar Bastero-Gil, Arjun Berera, Rafael Hern´ andez-Jim ´ enez, and Jo˜ ao G. Rosa. Dynam- ical and observational constraints on the warm little inflat on scenario. Phys. Rev. D , 98:083502, Oct 2018. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083502, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD....

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    Chris Graham and Ian G. Moss. Density fluctuations from w arm inflation. JCAP, 0907:013,

  59. [68]

    Warm inflation model b uilding

    Mar Bastero-Gil and Arjun Berera. Warm inflation model b uilding. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 24:2207–2240, 2009. arXiv:0902.0521, doi:10.1142/S0217751X09044206

    2009 arXiv

  60. [69]

    arXiv:1502.07733, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.083528

    arXiv

  61. [70]

    A. N. Taylor and Arjun Berera. Perturbation spectra in t he warm inflationary scenario. Phys. Rev. D , 62:083517, 2000. arXiv:astro-ph/0006077, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.083517

    2000 arXiv

  62. [71]

    H. P. de Oliveira and S. E. Joras. On perturbations in war m inflation. Phys. Rev. D , 64:063513,

  63. [72]

    Bezrukov, D

    F. Bezrukov, D. Gorbunov, and M. Shaposhnikov. On initi al condi- tions for the hot big bang. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. , 2009(06):029, jun 2009. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2009/06/029, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/06/029

    2009 doi

  64. [73]

    URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1912, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1912

    1912 doi

  65. [74]

    Planck 2018 results- VI

    N Aghanim, Y Akrami, M Ashdown, J Aumont, C Baccigalupi, M Ballardini, A.J Banday, R.B Barreiro, N Bartolo, S Basak, et al. Planck 2018 results- VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020. 23

    2018

  66. [83]

    Ramos and L

    Rudnei O. Ramos and L. A. da Silva. Power spectrum for infl ation models with quantum and thermal noises. JCAP, 1303:032, 2013. arXiv:1302.3544, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/03/032

    2013 arXiv

  67. [88]

    Warm inflation model b uilding

    Mar Bastero-Gil and Arjun Berera. Warm inflation model b uilding. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 24(12):2207–2240, 2009. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X09044206, doi:10.1142/S0217751X09044206

    2009 doi

  68. [1982]

    URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1437, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1437

    doi

  69. [1984]

    URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24969372

  70. [1994]

    URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.3195, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.3195. 19

    doi

  71. [1995]

    URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3218, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3218

    doi

  72. [2000]

    URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0550321300004119, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00411-9

    doi

  73. [2001]

    arXiv:gr-qc/0103089, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.063513

    arXiv

  74. [2004]

    URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.083525, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.083525

    doi

  75. [2009]

    arXiv:0905.3500, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/07/013

    2009 arXiv

  76. [2013]

    arXiv:1306.5220, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/07/002

    2013 arXiv

  77. [2014]

    arXiv:1303.5076, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591

    arXiv

  78. [2015]

    URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123517, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123517

    doi

  79. [2016]

    URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.151301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.151301

    doi

  80. [2020]

    arXiv:1807.06211, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.