Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Status of light inflaton: from inflation to laboratory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A one-loop correction can keep a sub-10 GeV inflaton inside ACT's 1σ inflationary window.

desk verdict Solid, honest status update of the light-inflaton scenario with a genuinely useful combined lab/exclusion map, but the ACT-viability claim rests on an unmodeled loop parameter and the paper mislabels the ACT spectral-index central value. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23200 v1 pith:JI3R4XEA submitted 2026-07-25 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

Niloy Mondal , Shashwat Sharma , Mathew Thomas Arun , Basabendu Barman This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-th
keywords lightinflatonquarticinflationnon-minimalcouplingradiativecorrectionscalarspectralindexHiggs-inflatonmixingreheatingdarkmatterfromdecay
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a light inflaton—a scalar field with mass below about 10 GeV, a quartic self-interaction, non-minimal coupling to gravity, and small mixing with the Higgs—remains a viable explanation of inflation after the latest ACT DR6 data. The key input is a one-loop radiative correction: with relative correction Δ_L ≳ 0.01, the model's (n_s, r) predictions move from just outside the ACT 2σ contour to inside the 1σ region. The same Higgs-mixing angle θ controls the inflaton's production and decay in kaon and B-meson experiments, so the inflationary sector becomes directly testable in laboratories. Current data already exclude much of the parameter space, future displaced-vertex experiments will cover more, and the framework can also produce the observed dark-matter abundance during reheating.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the running, one-loop corrected quartic inflaton potential V(φ) = ¼λ_φ(φ)φ⁴ with λ_φ(φ) = λ_φ(M_P)[1 + Δ_L ln(φ/M_P)], where Δ_L ≡ β/λ_φ is treated as a free parameter. Together with the non-minimal gravitational coupling ξ_φ φ²R/2, this generates an Einstein-frame plateau potential that fixes the slow-roll observables (n_s, r) and the reheating history. The second central object is the Higgs-inflaton mixing angle θ: it controls every laboratory observable—production in K and B decays, partial widths, decay length, and, through a virtual Higgs-penguin diagram, the |ΔF| = 2 B0–B̄0 oscillation operator with Wilson coefficient C_4^φ = |C_bs|²/(2m_φ²).

What would settle it

Recompute the Fig. 2 contours using the abstract's own P-ACT central value n_s = 0.9709 ± 0.0038 instead of the figure's assumed n_s = 0.965. If the Δ_L = 0.01 curve then falls outside the ACT 1σ region and Δ_L = 0.05 is required, the claim that Δ_L ≳ 0.01 rescues the light inflaton fails at the preferred ACT central value; the paper itself never reconciles the two n_s values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the light inflaton scenario survives the latest ACT DR6 cosmological constraints once the quartic inflaton potential receives a relative one-loop correction Δ_L ≡ β/λ_φ at the level of ≳0.01. At tree level (Δ_L = 0) the model's predictions lie just outside the ACT 2σ contour; with Δ_L = 0.01–0.05 they fall within the 1σ region. For m_φ ≲ 10 GeV, the same Higgs-mixing angle that governs inflationary reheating also controls the inflaton's production in kaon and B decays and its decay length, so existing bounds from NA62, KOTO, BaBar/Belle and LHCb—together with the lifetime-independent B0–B̄0 mixing bound sinθ ≲ 0.96 (m_φ/GeV) for m_φ ≲ 1 GeV—already exclude a

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Δ_L ≡ β/λ_φ in Eq. (3.4) can be set to any positive constant ≳0.01 without specifying the BSM field content that generates it; at Δ_L = 0 the model sits just outside the ACT 2σ contour, so the paper's viability claim rests entirely on this unmodeled parameter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the light-inflaton window at m_φ ≲ 10 GeV and small mixing is not closed: SHiP, FASER2 and MATHUSLA have an explicit target region below current kaon and B-meson exclusions.
  • The B0–B̄0 mixing bound provides a lifetime-independent ceiling sinθ ≲ 0.96 (m_φ/GeV) for m_φ ≲ 1 GeV, so any future signal above that line would rule the scenario out regardless of detector geometry.
  • ACT's preference for a higher scalar spectral index becomes a diagnostic: the size of Δ_L needed to sit in the 1σ region quantifies how much radiative correction quartic inflation requires.
  • The dark-matter relic contours link cosmology to laboratory searches: for m_DM = m_φ/3, branching fractions B = 10⁻⁷–10⁻¹³ correspond to reheating temperatures from about 6 MeV to 6000 GeV, so a displaced-vertex detection would fix both B and T_rh.
  • Because N_k ≈ 55 and the large-field limit predicts r ≈ 12/N_k² ≈ 4 × 10⁻³, future CMB B-mode measurements could discriminate this model from pure Starobinsky inflation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the paper leaves the physics behind Δ_L unspecified; constructing a minimal UV completion that actually generates Δ_L ≈ 0.01–0.05 would convert the free parameter into a testable prediction and sharpen the ACT-compatibility claim.
  • Editorial extension: the paper uses n_s = 0.965 in its figures while quoting 0.9709 ± 0.0038 from P-ACT in the abstract; re-running the ξ_φ–Δ_L map at the higher central value is a direct check of how robust the 1σ status is.
  • Editorial extension: combining the lifetime-independent B0–B̄0 bound with the relic-density contours suggests that for m_φ below roughly 100 MeV the dark-matter-compatible region shrinks to a narrow band reachable only by far detectors such as SHiP and MATHUSLA—a consequence of the paper's numbers but not spelled out.
  • Editorial extension: a future displaced-vertex signal could be inverted through T_rh ∝ θ² m_φ to infer the reheating temperature and, via the paper's N_k–T_rh relation, the non-minimal coupling ξ_φ, effectively turning beam-dump searches into a probe of the pre-BBN expansion history.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the 'light inflaton' scenario, in which a light scalar with Higgs mixing is identified with the inflaton of a non-minimally coupled quartic potential. It combines (i) the latest ACT DR6 constraints on n_s and r, (ii) laboratory searches for light scalars (NA62, KOTO, BaBar, Belle, LHCb, MATHUSLA, FASER2, SHiP), and (iii) neutral-meson oscillation bounds, and then discusses dark-matter production during reheating. The main inflationary claim is that with a one-loop correction Δ_L ≳ 0.01, the quartic non-minimal model moves inside the 1σ ACT region, whereas Δ_L = 0 lies just outside 2σ. The laboratory section derives the surviving (m_φ, sinθ) window, emphasizing B0–B̄0 mixing as a lifetime-independent constraint. The DM section adds contours for the relic abundance with a free inflaton→DM branching fraction.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a useful and timely update of the light-inflaton parameter space, connecting ACT inflationary data with intensity-frontier searches and DM production. Strengths include the transparent analytic treatment of the CMB normalization, the explicit use of external experimental limits, clearly labeled free parameters, and a falsifiable mapping between T_rh and the laboratory plane. I verified several numeric inputs — Eq. (3.23), the Γ–T_rh relation Eq. (3.35), and the B0–B̄0 coefficient Eq. (4.45) — and found them internally consistent under the paper's stated assumptions. However, three load-bearing issues, described below, currently prevent the paper from establishing its 'from inflation to laboratory' claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 1 caption, Fig. 3; cf. Introduction] The Introduction quotes the ACT DR6 combined value n_s=0.9709±0.0038 (P-ACT) and 0.9743±0.0034 (P-ACT-LB). Yet §3.1 and the captions of Figs. 1 and 3 state 'we fix n_s=0.965, the central value provided by the ACT data.' That value is the Planck 2018 central, not the ACT central quoted by the authors. Since the paper's central claim is that Δ_L≥0.01 makes the model consistent with ACT, Figs. 1–3 and the Δ_L-dependent 'within 1σ' statement in Fig. 2 are calibrated to the wrong spectral index. A shift of +0.006 (about 1.5σ of P-ACT) will change the required Δ_L and the derived ξ_φ range. The authors should rerun the inflationary analysis at n_s=0.9709, and ideally also at n_s=0.9743, and show whether the Δ_L≥0.01 conclusion survives. Without this, the abstract's ACT-viability claim is not supported.
  2. [§2 (Eqs. 2.10–2.12) and §3.1 (Eq. 3.23)] The lab analysis in §4 treats (m_φ, sinθ) as independent free parameters, but in the model they are related by the scalar potential. Combining Eq. (2.10), Eq. (2.12), and v_φ/v_h=sqrt(λ_H/λ_mix) from Eq. (2.6) gives sinθ ≈ sqrt(λ_φ/λ_H) (m_h/m_φ)^3. Using the CMB normalization Eq. (3.23), sqrt(λ_φ) ≈ ξ_φ/(4.6×10^4). For ξ_φ≈0.01, the value quoted in the paper as ACT-favored for Δ_L≥0.01, this gives sinθ≈1.2 at m_φ=1 GeV and sinθ≫1 for m_φ<1 GeV — outside the small-mixing approximation and excluded by the very searches plotted in Fig. 4. Conversely, requiring sinθ<0.1 for m_φ<1 GeV pushes ξ_φ to 10^-5–10^-6, far from the ACT-favored region. The paper should overlay the model-consistent (m_φ, sinθ) curves for representative ξ_φ/Δ_L on Fig. 4, or explicitly state that the lab constraints are presented only as a phenomenological survey. As written, the connection between the ACT-compatible i
  3. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.39)–(4.45)] The ΔF=2 constraint is derived by integrating out a heavy scalar: Eq. (4.40) sets C_4^φ = |C_{qq'}|^2/(2m_φ^2), which is valid for m_φ^2 ≫ q^2. In B0–B̄0 mixing the b→s transition is hard, with typical q^2 of order m_b^2. For the m_φ≲1 GeV region where this constraint is applied, the scalar propagator is approximately 1/(q^2−m_φ^2) with q^2∼m_b^2, so the coefficient does not scale as 1/m_φ^2 and does not diverge as m_φ→0. Consequently, the linear bound sinθ<0.96 m_φ/GeV in Eq. (4.45) likely overestimates the low-mass constraint. The matching should be redone retaining the light scalar as a dynamical field or using the full propagator; the 'independent of lifetime' exclusion in Fig. 4 for small m_φ is therefore not reliable as stated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] Typographical issues: 'The the value of the non-minimal coupling' and 'are mentioned' are ungrammatical; also the sentence 'the value of the non-minimal coupling corresponding to each coloured points' should be clarified.
  2. [Introduction, §4.3] 'MATHUSALA' and 'FRASER2' are misspelled; should be MATHUSLA and FASER2.
  3. [§3.1] Equation (3.14) has 'filed value' instead of 'field value'.
  4. [Abstract vs. §5] The abstract says 'sub-GeV mass' but the text considers m_φ≲10 GeV; harmonize the wording.
  5. [Tables 1–2] The table captions contain spacing artifacts ('T able'), and the detector-length notation could be defined more explicitly for each experiment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Δ_L and B are openly scanned parameters, CMB and lab inputs are external data, and no derived quantity reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The ACT/Planck/BICEP/Keck likelihoods are external; the collider branching-fraction limits, KOTO/NA62/BaBar/Belle/LHCb numbers, MATHUSLA/SHiP/FASER2 detector acceptances, Δm_B, and FLAG/lattice matrix elements are all external data. Δ_L is introduced as a free parameter (Eq. 3.4: 'The relative loop correction Δ_L ≡ β/λ_φ, is regarded as a free parameter'), and the paper scans it rather than fitting it to the CMB or calling it a prediction; the DM branching fraction B is likewise fitted to Ωh² after solving the Boltzmann equation, with the fitting labeled as such. No equation reduces to its input by construction: the inflationary (n_s,r) predictions are computed from slow-roll expressions and then compared with the ACT contour; the laboratory exclusions are translated through production/decay probabilities using external experimental limits; the Δm_B constraint follows from a lattice matrix element and an experimental mass splitting. The authors cite their own earlier work (refs. [4-6]), but those citations are background motivation and do not carry the central argument. A genuine issue exists in Sec. 3.1 and the Fig. 1 caption, where n_s = 0.965 is called 'the central value provided by the ACT data' although the paper's own Introduction quotes P-ACT n_s = 0.9709 ± 0.0038; this is an input/consistency error and could change the quantitative Δ_L needed for 1σ consistency, but it is not circularity: the model curve is still derived from the slow-roll equations and compared with external contours, not forced to equal its input. Therefore circularity score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on: the slow-roll single-field formalism (standard); the ad hoc constant-Δ_L one-loop parametrization that does the ACT-fitting work; the choice of metric-formulation conformal frame; perturbative reheating with w_rh = 1/3; LO ChPT hadronic widths; at-rest two-body kinematics; FLAG/lattice B-mixing matrix elements; zero-temperature vacuum; and DM production dominated by direct inflaton decay. No genuinely new physical entity is introduced: φ is the established light inflaton of [7], the DM is an unspecified final state with free branching fraction, and the Δ_L sector is an unmodeled placeholder (listed as an invented entity with no independent evidence).

free parameters (6)
  • Δ_L (relative one-loop correction, Δ_L ≡ β/λ_φ) = scanned 0.01–0.05 (Δ_L = 0 also shown)
    Eq. (3.4) defines Δ_L; declared 'a free parameter' in §3, footnote 3 defers to unspecified BSM content. Fig. 2 shows Δ_L = 0 lies outside the ACT 2σ contour, so the ACT-viability conclusion requires Δ_L ≳ 0.01.
  • ξ_φ (non-minimal coupling to gravity) = scanned over [10⁻⁵, 10⁴]; ACT-favored region ~O(10⁻²) for Δ_L ≳ 0.01
    Scan variable in §3.1; together with the A_s normalization (Eq. 3.23) fixes λ_φ.
  • m_φ, sinθ (lab-plane parameters) = m_φ ∈ [~10⁻³, 10] GeV, sinθ ∈ [~10⁻⁶, 1] (Fig. 4)
    Derived from (λ_φ, λ_mix) via Eqs. (2.10)–(2.12), but scanned as independent in §4. The relation θ ≈ (m_h²/m_φ²)√(2λ_φ) ties them once the inflationary couplings are fixed.
  • B (inflaton→DM branching fraction) = contours for B = 10⁻⁷, 10⁻⁹, 10⁻¹¹, 10⁻¹³
    §5: 'we simply consider this to be a free parameter'; fixed by demanding the observed relic density, i.e., fitted to the DM abundance.
  • w_rh (reheating equation-of-state) = 1/3
    §3.2: 'We fix w_rh = 1/3, effectively corresponding to the EoS parameter of standard radiation domination'; the N_k(T_rh) relation and Fig. 3 depend on this choice.
  • m_DM (DM mass benchmark) = m_φ/3
    §5: 'we have fixed the DM mass to m_DM = m_φ/3, as a benchmark value.'
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Slow-roll approximation and standard single-field CMB formulas (ϵ_V, η_V, n_s, r, A_s)
    Eqs. (3.12)–(3.18) in §3.1; the whole inflationary mapping rests on first-order slow roll with n_s = 1 − 6ϵ + 2η.
  • ad hoc to paper One-loop running captured by a constant Δ_L to linear order (Eq. 3.4)
    λ_φ(φ) = λ_φ(M_P)[1 + Δ_L ln(φ/M_P)] truncates Eq. (3.3) at first order; Δ_L is a free, unmodeled parameter (footnote 3).
  • domain assumption Metric-formulation conformal transformation to the Einstein frame (Eqs. 3.5–3.9)
    Footnote 5 explicitly chooses metric over Palatini; the Einstein-frame potential Eq. (3.11) and all predictions follow from this choice.
  • domain assumption Reheating proceeds through perturbative inflaton decay with w_rh = 1/3; no preheating
    Footnote 7 and §3.2; non-perturbative preheating is deferred to [10]. T_rh bounds in Eq. (3.35) and Fig. 4 rest on this.
  • domain assumption Leading-order ChPT scalar form factors for φ→ππ, KK, ηη (Eqs. 4.6–4.8)
    Footnote 8: 'NLO ChPT... will improve our results moderately, we use the LO ChPT for simplicity.' Used for hadronic branching ratios of the scalar below 2 GeV.
  • domain assumption Two-body meson decays computed with parent at rest (Eqs. 4.27–4.29)
    'Assuming the parent meson is approximately at rest'; NA62/KOTO/B-factory beams have nontrivial momentum distributions, affecting P_dec/P_inv by O(1) factors.
  • domain assumption Lattice inputs for B⁰-mixing matrix element (B_4 = 0.78, f_B = 0.190 GeV)
    Eqs. (4.41)–(4.42), from FLAG [54] and [55]; the α_ΔF ≈ 0.96 GeV⁻¹ bound inherits these uncertainties (no error propagation shown).
  • domain assumption Zero-temperature vacuum; no thermal corrections to the potential
    Explicitly stated at the end of §2: 'our analysis is performed at zero temperature... thermal corrections... beyond the scope of the present work.'
  • domain assumption DM production dominated by direct inflaton decay; φ-mediated scattering subdominant
    §5: scattering 'will be sub-dominant due to θ²B² suppression'; the relic contours use only the decay term in Eq. (5.1).
invented entities (1)
  • Unspecified BSM sector generating Δ_L (loop correction)
    purpose: Produces the positive radiative correction that shifts n_s from the Planck-era ~0.965 up into the ACT-preferred region; without it Δ_L = 0 and the model is outside the ACT 2σ contour (Fig. 2).
    Footnote 3 gives no concrete field content; Refs. [32–40] are exemplary mechanisms, none adopted. This is the paper's only genuinely new ingredient and it has no falsifiable handle outside the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Status of light inflaton: from inflation to laboratory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JI3R4XEA

@misc{pith2026260723200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Status of light inflaton: from inflation to laboratory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JI3R4XEA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23200}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the viability of the light inflaton scenario in light of the latest inflationary constraints from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT), together with bounds from collider and intensity-frontier experiments searching for a feebly coupled light scalar with a sub-GeV mass. Assuming a quartic inflaton potential, we identify the region of parameter space consistent with the ACT observations and derive constraints on the inflaton mass and inflaton-Higgs mixing using results from NA62, KOTO, BaBar, Belle, LHCb, MATHUSLA, FASER2, SHiP, and neutral meson oscillations. We also explore the prospects for dark matter production during reheating within this framework, while remaining consistent with the inflationary observables.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 27 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys

    A.H. Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 347

    1981

  2. [2]

    Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,Phys

    A.D. Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,Phys. Lett. B108(1982) 389

    1982

  3. [3]

    Caprini and D.G

    C. Caprini and D.G. Figueroa,Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018) 163001 [1801.04268]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, D. Pradhan and A. Sarkar,Lepton collider as a window to reheating via freezing in dark matter detection. Part I,Phys. Lett. B869(2025) 139863 [2406.11963]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, D. Pradhan and A. Sarkar,Lepton collider as a window to reheating via freezing in dark matter detection. Part II,JHEP07(2025) 157 [2410.18198]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Pradhan, N

    D. Pradhan, N. Mondal, A. Sarkar, A. Ghosh, S. Sharma, M. Thomas Arun et al.,From WIMP to FIMP during reheating: collider vs non-collider probes for p-wave annihilation,2605.27521

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Bezrukov and D

    F. Bezrukov and D. Gorbunov,Light inflaton Hunter’s Guide,JHEP05(2010) 010 [0912.0390]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Shaposhnikov and I

    M. Shaposhnikov and I. Tkachev,The nuMSM, inflation, and dark matter,Phys. Lett. B639 (2006) 414 [hep-ph/0604236]

    arXiv 2006

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Bezrukov and D

    F. Bezrukov and D. Gorbunov,Relic Gravity Waves and 7 keV Dark Matter from a GeV scale inflaton,Phys. Lett. B736(2014) 494 [1403.4638]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bezrukov and A

    F. Bezrukov and A. Keats,Heavy Light Inflaton and Dark Matter Production,Phys. Rev. D 102(2020) 115011 [2010.06358]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bramante, J

    J. Bramante, J. Cook, A. Delgado and A. Martin,Low Scale Inflation at High Energy Colliders and Meson Factories,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 115012 [1608.08625]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Okada and D

    N. Okada and D. Raut,Hunting inflatons at F ASER,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 055022 [1910.09663]. – 23 –

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Y. Ema, M. Karciauskas, O. Lebedev, S. Rusak and M. Zatta,Higgs–inflaton mixing and vacuum stability,Phys. Lett. B789(2019) 373 [1711.10554]. [14]Atacama Cosmology Telescopecollaboration,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods andΛCDM parameters,JCAP11(...

    2019 arXiv

  6. [25]

    Curtin et al.,Long-Lived Particles at the Energy Frontier: The MATHUSLA Physics Case, Rept

    D. Curtin et al.,Long-Lived Particles at the Energy Frontier: The MATHUSLA Physics Case, Rept. Prog. Phys.82(2019) 116201 [1806.07396]. [26]MATHUSLAcollaboration,A Letter of Intent for MATHUSLA: A Dedicated Displaced Vertex Detector above ATLAS or CMS.,1811.00927. [27]F ASERco...

    2019 arXiv

  7. [28]

    Feng et al.,The Forward Physics Facility at the High-Luminosity LHC,J

    J.L. Feng et al.,The Forward Physics Facility at the High-Luminosity LHC,J. Phys. G50 (2023) 030501 [2203.05090]. [29]FPF Working Groupscollaboration,The Forward Physics Facility at the Large Hadron Collider, 3, 2025 [2503.19010]. [30]SHiPcollaboration,Sensitivity of the SHiP ...

    2023 arXiv

  8. [32]

    Marzola and A

    L. Marzola and A. Racioppi,Minimal but non-minimal inflation and electroweak symmetry breaking,JCAP10(2016) 010 [1606.06887]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [33]

    Allison, C.T

    K. Allison, C.T. Hill and G.G. Ross,An ultra-weak sector, the strong CP problem and the pseudo-Goldstone dilaton,Nucl. Phys. B891(2015) 613 [1409.4029]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [34]

    Allison, C.T

    K. Allison, C.T. Hill and G.G. Ross,Ultra-Weak Sector, Higgs Boson Mass, and the Dilaton, Phys. Lett. B738(2014) 191 [1404.6268]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [35]

    Ballesteros and C

    G. Ballesteros and C. Tamarit,Radiative plateau inflation,JHEP02(2016) 153 [1510.05669]. – 24 –

    2016 arXiv

  12. [36]

    S. Oda, N. Okada, D. Raut and D.-s. Takahashi,Nonminimal quartic inflation in classically conformal U(1)X extended standard model,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 055001 [1711.09850]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [37]

    Racioppi,New universal attractor in nonminimally coupled gravity: Linear inflation,Phys

    A. Racioppi,New universal attractor in nonminimally coupled gravity: Linear inflation,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 123514 [1801.08810]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [38]

    Bostan and V.N

    N. Bostan and V.N. S ¸eno˘ guz,Quartic inflation and radiative corrections with non-minimal coupling,JCAP10(2019) 028 [1907.06215]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [39]

    Gialamas, A

    I.D. Gialamas, A. Karam, A. Racioppi and M. Raidal,Has ACT measured radiative corrections to the tree-level Higgs-like inflation?,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 103544 [2504.06002]

    2025

  16. [40]

    Wolf,Inflationary attractors and radiative corrections in light of ACT data,JCAP02 (2026) 088 [2506.12436]

    W.J. Wolf,Inflationary attractors and radiative corrections in light of ACT data,JCAP02 (2026) 088 [2506.12436]. [41]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A10 [1807.06211]

    2026

  17. [42]

    Burgess, H.M

    C.P. Burgess, H.M. Lee and M. Trott,Power-counting and the Validity of the Classical Approximation During Inflation,JHEP09(2009) 103 [0902.4465]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [43]

    Barbon and J.R

    J.L.F. Barbon and J.R. Espinosa,On the Naturalness of Higgs Inflation,Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 081302 [0903.0355]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [44]

    Lebedev, Y

    O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini and J.-H. Yoon,On unitarity in singlet inflation with a non-minimal coupling to gravity,JCAP08(2023) 009 [2305.05682]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [45]

    L. Dai, M. Kamionkowski and J. Wang,Reheating constraints to inflationary models,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 041302 [1404.6704]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [46]

    J.L. Cook, E. Dimastrogiovanni, D.A. Easson and L.M. Krauss,Reheating predictions in single field inflation,JCAP04(2015) 047 [1502.04673]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [47]

    Gorbunov, E

    D. Gorbunov, E. Kriukova and O. Teryaev,Scalar decay into pions via Higgs portal, 2303.12847. [48]BNL-E949collaboration,Study ofK + →π +ν¯νin the momentum region 140< Pπ <199MeV/c,Phys. Rev. Lett.101(2008) 191802 [0808.2459]. [49]KOTOcollaboration,Search for theK L →π 0ν¯νandK...

    2008 arXiv

  23. [55]

    Dowdall, C.T.H

    R.J. Dowdall, C.T.H. Davies, R.R. Horgan, G.P. Lepage, C.J. Monahan, J. Shigemitsu et al., Neutral B-meson mixing from full lattice QCD at the physical point,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 094508 [1907.01025]. [56]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of Particle Physics,PTEP2022(202...

    2019 arXiv

  24. [57]

    Miano, A

    A. Miano, A. Fiorillo, A. Salzano, A. Prota and R. Jacobsson,The structural design of the decay volume for the Search for Hidden Particles (SHIP) project,Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering21(2020) 3. – 25 – [58]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmologica...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.