Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Perturbative analysis of the reheating dynamics of $\alpha$-attractors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For α-attractor inflation, one consistency equation—solved at horizon crossing—determines the reheating temperature, its duration, and the inflaton mass; the trends it yields are physical, not approximation artifacts.

desk verdict A genuinely useful but flawed parameter scan: the perturbative reheating analysis for alpha-attractors drops the fermion phase-space factor, invalidating the claimed T_re(y) trend for most of the plotted range. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14082 v3 pith:O672LGHV submitted 2025-04-18 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Gabriel German This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords reheatingα-attractorsinflatondecayYukawacouplingtemperatureequation-of-stateparameterpreheatingscalarspectralindex
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 aims to show that in α-attractor models of inflation, one consistency equation—the relation fixing the number of e-folds between horizon exit and the end of inflation, Eq. (2.1)—organizes the entire set of reheating quantities. For a chosen model parameter $\alpha$, Yukawa coupling $y$ (the strength of the inflaton's decay into fermions), and equation-of-state parameter $\omega_{re}$ (the pressure-to-density ratio during the reheating era), solving that equation numerically for the inflaton field value at horizon crossing $\phi_k$ yields the reheating temperature $T_{re}$, the e-fold numbers $N_k$, $N_{re}$, $N_{rd}$, the inflaton mass $m_\phi$, the scalar spectral index $n_s$ (the tilt of the primordial power spectrum), and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, all within one internally consistent calculation. The central assertion is that the qualitative trends this produces—$T_{re}$ rising sharply with $y$, the allowed range of $N_k$ shrinking as $y$ grows, and $T_{re}$ shifting with $\omega_{re}$—reflect physical features that are not strongly affected by the approximate analytics. A reader should care because reheating is the least directly observed link between inflation and the hot big bang, and the paper turns it into a compact template: the BBN floor $T_{re} \geq 10$ MeV fixes a lower bound $y \approx 1.71\times 10^{-17}$, while $y = 1$ approaches instantaneous reheating.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inflaton field value at horizon crossing, $\phi_k$. It is fixed by Eq. (2.1), a consistency condition that equates the number of e-folds of inflation after the pivot scale exits the horizon, $N_k = \ln(a_e/a_k)$, to a sum of terms built from the CMB amplitude $A_s$, the present-day CMB temperature, the effective degrees of freedom $g_{re}$ and $g_{s,re}$, the reheating temperature $T_{re}$, the equation-of-state parameter $\omega_{re}$, and the model-dependent function $f(\phi)$ with its derivative $f'(\phi_k)$. For a fixed triplet $(\alpha, y, \omega_{re})$, solving Eq. (2.1) for $\phi_k$ fixes everything else: the slow-roll parameters at that field value give $n_s$ and $r$, the curvature of the potential at its minimum gives $m_\phi$, and the Yukawa decay rate $\Gamma_{\phi\to\bar\psi\psi} \approx y^2 m_\phi/(8\pi)$ combined with $\rho_{re} \approx 3\Gamma_\phi^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2$ gives $T_{re}$ via Eq. (2.4). The mechanism is thus a root-finding pipeline that converts an unobserved epoch into a boundary condition on inflation, with the attractor property of the potential—the same plateau shape controlling predictions across a wide range of $\alpha$—doing the work of making the results for $\alpha$ in $(0.001, 37)$ qualitatively and quantitatively similar.

What would settle it

A Floquet or lattice computation of particle production for the potential $V = V_0 \tanh^2(\phi/\sqrt{6\alpha}\,M_{\rm Pl})$ with a Yukawa coupling $y = 1$ (or its equivalent bosonic $g^2 \phi^2 \chi^2$ interaction) would settle the matter: if broad parametric resonance transfers a significant fraction of the inflaton's energy within a few oscillations for couplings in the plotted range, the perturbative $T_{re}$ curves overestimate the reheating temperature exactly where they rise most steeply. A second, independent check is purely observational: if the ACT DR6 central value $n_s = 0.9743 \pm 0.0034$ survives with tighter errors, the paper's own figures show the α-attractor model confined to the marginal corner of tiny $y$ and $\omega_{re} \approx 1$, effectively discarding the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that for the α-attractor potential $V(\phi) = V_0 \tanh^2(\phi/\sqrt{6\alpha}\,M_{\rm Pl})$, the reheating temperature for fermionic decay is $T_{re}^{(y)} \approx |y|\,(15 A_s/(4\pi^2 g_{re} \alpha^2))^{1/4}\,\mathrm{csch}(\phi_k/\sqrt{6\alpha}\,M_{\rm Pl})\,M_{\rm Pl}$, and that inserting this expression into the horizon-crossing consistency equation (2.1) and solving for $\phi_k$ produces a self-consistent set of inflationary and reheating quantities across the observationally allowed range of $n_s$. The framework also supplies analogous $T_{re}$ formulas for gravitational and scalar-scalar couplings, with the fermionic channel studied in detail. The derived behaviors include a monotonic rise of $T_{re}$ with the Yukawa coupling from the BBN floor to near-instantaneous reheating at $y = 1$, a narrowing of $N_k$ with growing coupling, and a systematic shift of all curves as $\omega_{re}$ runs over $-1/3 < \omega_{re} < 1$. The author's stated aim is qualitative: the formulas are approximate, yet the tendencies visible in the figures are claimed to be physical features rather than artifacts of the approximations. The closing discussion draws a concrete stake: if the high value $n_s = 0.9743 \pm 0.0034$ reported by the ACT DR6 data is confirmed, the favored region is reached only marginally, at very small $y$ and $\omega_{re}$ close to one, and the model would probably be discarded.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that perturbative decay—treating the inflaton's energy loss as a sequence of individual two-body decays—remains adequate across the whole plotted range, including Yukawa couplings as large as $y = 1$; if collective resonance effects (preheating) transfer the inflaton's energy faster in that corner, the reheating temperatures shown for large $y$ overestimate the true values and the claimed trend of $T_{re}(y)$ would not describe the actual reheating temperature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reheating temperature rises monotonically with the Yukawa coupling, with the BBN requirement $T_{re} \geq 10$ MeV fixing the floor $y \approx 1.71\times 10^{-17}$ and $y = 1$ approaching instantaneous reheating ($N_{re} = 0$).
  • Larger $y$ narrows the allowed number of e-folds of inflation $N_k$ and compresses the observationally allowed window of $n_s$, while $\omega_{re}$ in $-1/3 < \omega_{re} < 1$ shifts all curves between those extremes.
  • In the allowed window the tensor-to-scalar ratio and the running of the spectral index stay small, consistent with the attractor's prediction and with the bound $r < 0.068$.
  • Gravitino overproduction bounds of order $T_{re} \lesssim 10^6$–$10^9$ GeV translate directly into upper bounds on $y$, a constraint the paper notes has already been imposed elsewhere.
  • If the ACT DR6 value $n_s = 0.9743 \pm 0.0034$ is confirmed, the model survives only in a marginal corner of its parameter space (very small $y$, $\omega_{re}$ near one) and would probably be discarded.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Eq. (2.1) only needs the functional form of the potential, the same root-finding pipeline would produce comparable $T_{re}(y, n_s)$ maps for any other single-field model with essentially no new machinery; this makes reheating phenomenology nearly as cheap to compute as slow-roll predictions, a possibility the paper states but does not demonstrate.
  • The regime where the paper's curves are most dramatic—$T_{re}$ rising steeply toward $y = 1$—is where the perturbative assumption is least safe, so the high-$y$ portions of the $T_{re}$ figures are best read as upper bounds; locating the onset of broad parametric resonance on the α-attractor Floquet chart would test this directly.
  • The ACT discussion suggests a sharper role for reheating as a discriminator: a confirmed high $n_s$ would simultaneously push the model to tiny $y$ and $\omega_{re} \approx 1$, meaning future CMB data would be constraining the reheating phase itself, the least observed interval in the early-universe timeline, rather than only the inflationary potential.
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 develops a general analytical framework for computing the reheating temperature T_re, the number of e-folds during reheating N_re, and the inflaton mass m_ϕ in single-field inflation with perturbative inflaton decay, and applies it to α-attractor T-models with potential V = V0 tanh^2(ϕ/√(6α) M_Pl). Three decay channels are considered: gravitational, scalar, and Yukawa fermionic, with the main numerical analysis focused on the Yukawa channel. The paper treats (α, y, ω_re) as free parameters, solves Eq. (2.1) numerically for the horizon-crossing field value ϕ_k, and then computes all relevant cosmological observables. The central claim is that the qualitative trends, in particular the growth of T_re with the Yukawa coupling y and with the scalar spectral index n_s, are physical and not strongly affected by the approximations used.

Significance. The algebraic chain from the decay rates to T_re is transparent and internally consistent, and the paper does not fit any quantities to its own output. If the qualitative results were established, the framework would provide a useful simple scan of reheating observables for α-attractors. However, the central qualitative claim rests on an approximation—the massless final-state fermion limit—whose validity is not checked and which fails badly in a substantial part of the plotted parameter space. The paper is honest about the perturbative nature of the calculation and about the existence of non-perturbative effects, but the robustness of the reported trends is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3 and §4, Eqs. (3.12)–(3.14) and (4.11)] The massless-fermion decay rate used in Eq. (4.11) is invalid for most of the plotted Yukawa couplings. For the α-attractor potential, the fermion mass is m_ψ = y φ(t) with the oscillation amplitude initially of order φ_end ≈ 1.2 M_Pl for α = 1, while m_ϕ ≈ 5×10^-5 M_Pl. The condition m_ψ ≪ m_ϕ therefore fails for y ≳ 10^-5, which covers the upper portion of the plotted range up to y = 1. The phase-space factor (1 − 4m_ψ^2/m_ϕ^2)^{3/2} in Eq. (3.12) is not a small correction; time-averaging it suppresses the effective perturbative decay rate by roughly m_ϕ/(y φ_end), a factor ~10^-5 at y = 1. As a result, the T_re values in Figs. 2, 6, and 10 are overestimated by orders of magnitude for large y, and the claimed monotonic growth of T_re with y is not established by the calculation. I request a quantitative comparison with the time-averaged full decay rate, or an explicit restriction of the analysis to y ≲ m_ϕ/(2 φ_end) ≈ 10^-5.
  2. [§1 and §5] The paper acknowledges that perturbative decay breaks down when collective effects become significant, and Section 5 describes preheating as a potentially dominant process for strong couplings. For y = 1, the curves in Figs. 1, 2, 6, and 10 labeled T_re are therefore not the physical reheating temperature unless non-perturbative effects are negligible, which is not the case. The paper should state explicitly the range of y for which the perturbative treatment is self-consistent, and should either remove the y = 1 reference curves or present them with a clear caveat that they represent a perturbative limit only, not the actual reheating temperature.
  3. [Abstract and §6] The central claim that the observed tendencies 'reflect physical features that are not strongly affected by the approximations involved' is load-bearing and unsupported. No error budget or comparison is given for the two main approximations: the massless-fermion limit of Eq. (3.13) and the neglect of non-perturbative effects. I ask the author to provide a quantitative justification, for example by comparing Eq. (4.11) with the time-averaged full decay rate of Eq. (3.12) and with a simple estimate of preheating efficiency, or to restrict the robustness claim to the regime y ≲ 10^-5 where the perturbative decay formula is valid.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6, first paragraph] The word 'reheting' appears in the sentence 'the emphasis of this work is on understanding the qualitative evolution of the reheting temperature Tre'; it should be 'reheating'.
  2. [References, [13]] The title of reference [13] reads 'Universal Attractor for Inflation at Strong Couplingy'; the trailing 'y' should be removed to read 'strong coupling'.
  3. [§4, page 7] The statement 'the lower bound y≈1.71×10−17, obtained from the condition Tre >10 MeV' should specify that this bound is computed for a given α and ω_re; as written it appears to be model-independent.
  4. [Figures 9–13] The text states that results for other values of α within (0.001, 37) are 'qualitatively and quantitatively similar', but no supporting figure or numerical comparison is shown; a brief quantitative statement or an additional panel would support this assertion.
  5. [§2, Eq. (2.1)] Equation (2.1) is cited to Refs. [14]-[23] but not derived; a brief explanation of the origin of the logarithmic terms, or a reference to the exact equation in [23], would help the reader verify the sign conventions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: T_re, N_re, and m_phi follow from solving the standard consistency relation (2.1) for phi_k; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. For fixed (alpha, y, omega_re), the paper solves Eq. (2.1) numerically for phi_k: "we solve Eq. (2.1) to determine phi_k, from which all relevant cosmological quantities can be computed." T_re is then fixed by Eq. (4.11), which follows from the standard decay rate (3.13) and the scalar-amplitude normalization (2.7); it is not adjusted to reproduce any plotted output. The visible trend that larger y gives larger T_re is an explicit consequence of the overall |y| factor in Eq. (4.11), not a hidden fit. Observational constraints (4.12)-(4.13) are used only to restrict the displayed parameter ranges, not as fitting targets for the predicted variables. Self-citations [20,22,23] support standard framework equations; the paper itself notes that Eq. (2.1) has equivalent forms in [14]-[22], so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The paper's caveats about approximation breakdown ("may break down when collective effects become significant", Section 1) and preheating (Section 5) are validity and robustness concerns, as is the possible failure of the m_psi << m_phi limit in Eq. (3.13) for large y; these are not circularity. No step could be exhibited in which a fitted input is renamed as a prediction or in which a claimed result is equivalent by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are functions of three scanned parameters (alpha, y, omega_re); no fitting is performed. The derivation rests on standard slow-roll cosmology, instantaneous-decay matching, and the perturbative decay approximation, all stated or implicit in the text. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = scanned in (0.001, 37)
    Controls the curvature of the scalar manifold and the shape of the alpha-attractor potential; varied continuously or at discrete values in the figures.
  • y (Yukawa coupling) = scanned from ~1.71e-17 to 1
    Coupling of inflaton to fermions; enters T_re linearly through Eq. (3.14); lower bound set by T_re > 10 MeV, upper value chosen for illustration.
  • omega_re (reheating equation-of-state) = scanned in (-1/3, 1)
    Effective equation-of-state during reheating; treated as free and color-coded in the figures.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Slow-roll approximation for inflationary observables
    Eqs. (4.2)-(4.5) express n_s, r, and the running in terms of slow-roll parameters; standard but an approximation at horizon crossing.
  • domain assumption Constant effective equation-of-state omega_re during reheating
    Eq. (2.1) assumes a single omega_re throughout reheating; real reheating has a time-dependent equation of state.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous decay matching
    Eq. (2.2) sets the inflaton energy density at reheating equal to 3 Gamma^2 M_Pl^2, i.e., reheating completes when H approximates Gamma; this is an idealization of a gradual process.
  • domain assumption Perturbative decay, no preheating or back-reaction
    The framework neglects resonant particle production and nonlinear effects; the paper acknowledges this in Section 1 and discusses it qualitatively in Section 5.
  • domain assumption Alpha-attractor potential V = V0 tanh^2(phi/sqrt(6 alpha) M_Pl)
    The model under study; chosen for compatibility with CMB constraints, not derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perturbative analysis of the reheating dynamics of $\alpha$-attractors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O672LGHV

@misc{pith2026250414082,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perturbative analysis of the reheating dynamics of $\alpha$-attractors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O672LGHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14082}
}
abstract

We study the reheating phase following inflation in the context of single-field models, focusing on the perturbative decay of the inflaton into lighter particles. A general analytical framework is presented to compute the reheating temperature $T_{re}$ and related quantities by combining cosmological observations with model-dependent parameters. We derive expressions for $T_{re}$ for three types of interactions: gravitational, scalar, and Yukawa-type fermionic couplings, and apply these results to the class of $\alpha$-attractor inflationary models, which exhibit attractor behavior in the $(n_s, r)$ plane. The main goal of this work is to investigate how key cosmological quantities such as $T_{re}$, $N_{re}$, and $m_\phi$ among others, evolve with the scalar spectral index $n_s$ and the Yukawa coupling constant $y$, within a consistent analytical framework. Although the formulas used are approximate, they are sufficient to capture the qualitative behavior of the relevant quantities across a wide range of parameter values. Here, we are not interested in precise numerical approximations or data analysis, but rather in understanding the general trends and dependence of cosmological quantities of interest. In particular, tendencies observed in the figures, such as the sensitivity of $T_{re}$ to the coupling strength and the equation-of-state parameter $\omega_{re}$, reflect physical features that are not strongly affected by the approximations involved.

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. Gravitational waves from self-resonance during reheating with a quantum-corrected inflaton potential

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Coleman-Weinberg correction that cancels the inflaton's quadratic term at the potential minimum triggers quartic self-resonance and a peaked GW background at 10^8-10^10 Hz; a negative quadratic term instead gives a ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa and D. Wands, Inflation dynamics and reheating,Rev. Mod. Phys.,78, 537 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Rouzbeh Allahverdi, Robert Brandenberger, Francis-Yan Cyr-Racine, and Anupam Mazumdar, Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applications,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 60:27–51, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    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., D24:1530003, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Linde, The Inflationary Universe,Rept

    Andrei D. Linde, The Inflationary Universe,Rept. Prog. Phys., 47:925–986, 1984

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    Lyth and Antonio Riotto, Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density perturbation.Phys

    David H. Lyth and Antonio Riotto, Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density perturbation.Phys. Rept., 314:1–146, 1999

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Baumann, Inflation,arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    D. Baumann, Inflation,arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Jerome Martin, The Theory of Inflation, In200th Course of Enrico Fermi School of Physics: Gravitational Waves and Cosmology (GW-COSM) Varenna (Lake Como), Lecco, Italy, July 3-12, 2017, 2018

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval and V. Vennin, Encyclopedia Inflationaris, InPhys. Dark Univ.5-6, 75 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Ferrara, R

    S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and M. Porrati. Minimal Supergravity Models of Inflation.Phys. Rev. D,88(2013)8, 085038

    2013

  2. [10]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest. Superconformal Inflationaryα-Attractors.JHEP,11(2013)198

    2013

  3. [11]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest. Large field inflation and doubleα-attractors.JHEP,08(2014)052

    2014

  4. [12]

    Galante, R

    M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest. Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors.Phys. Rev. Lett,114(2014)14, 141302

    2014

  5. [13]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest. Universal Attractor for Inflation at Strong Couplingy.Phys. Rev. Lett,112(2014)1, 011303

    2014

  6. [14]

    Liddle, Paul Parsons, and John D

    Andrew R. Liddle, Paul Parsons, and John D. Barrow, Formalizing the slow roll approximation in inflation,Phys. Rev. D, 50: 7222–7232, 1994

    1994

  7. [15]

    How long before the end of inflation were observable perturbations produced?Phys

    Andrew R Liddle and Samuel M Leach. How long before the end of inflation were observable perturbations produced?Phys. Rev., D68:103503, 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    A Horizon ratio bound for inflationary fluctuationsPhys

    Dodelson, Scott and Hui, Lam. A Horizon ratio bound for inflationary fluctuationsPhys. Rev. Lett., 91, 131301, 2003

    2003

  9. [17]

    Reheating constraints to inflationary models.Phys

    Liang Dai, Marc Kamionkowski, and Junpu Wang. Reheating constraints to inflationary models.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:041302, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Cook, Emanuela Dimastrogiovanni, Damien A

    Jessica L. Cook, Emanuela Dimastrogiovanni, Damien A. Easson, and Lawrence M. Krauss. Reheating predictions in single field inflation.JCAP, 1504:047, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Munoz and Marc Kamionkowski

    Julian B. Munoz and Marc Kamionkowski. Equation-of-State Parameter for Reheating.Phys. Rev., D91(4):043521, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Germán, Model independent results for the inflationary epoch and the breaking of the degeneracy of models of inflation.JCAP,11(2020)006

    G. Germán, Model independent results for the inflationary epoch and the breaking of the degeneracy of models of inflation.JCAP,11(2020)006. – 10 –

    2020

  13. [21]

    M. A. G. Garcia, G. Germán, Gonzalez Quaglia, R, A. M. Moran Colorado, Reheating constraints and consistency relations of the Starobinsky model and some of its generalizations,JCAP,12(2023)015

    2023

  14. [22]

    Germán, G., Hidalgo, J.C., and Padilla, L.E., Inflationary models constrained by reheating.Eur. Phys. J. Plus,139,302(2024)2250081

    2024

  15. [23]

    Germán, Reheating dynamics in inflationary cosmology: insights fromα-attractor and α-Starobinsky models.Eur

    G. Germán, Reheating dynamics in inflationary cosmology: insights fromα-attractor and α-Starobinsky models.Eur. Phys. J. Plus,140,129(2025)2. e-Print: 2411.01716 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    E.V. Linder. Dark energy fromα-attractors.Phys. Rev. D,91(2015)12, 123012

    2015

  17. [25]

    K. S. Kumar, J. Marto, P. Vargas Moniz, and S. Das. Non-slow-roll dynamics inα−attractors.JCAP, 04(2016) 005

    2016

  18. [26]

    Dimopoulos, C

    K. Dimopoulos, C. Owen. Quintessential Inflation withα-attractors.JCAP,06(2017) 027

    2017

  19. [27]

    Akrami, Yashar, R

    Y. Akrami, Yashar, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and V. Vardanyan. Dark energy,α-attractors, and large-scale structure surveys.JCAP,06(2018) 041

    2018

  20. [28]

    Garcia-Garcia, E.V

    C. Garcia-Garcia, E.V. Linder, P. Ruiz-Lapuente and M. Zumalacarregui. Dark energy from α-attractors: phenomenology and observational constraints.JCAP,08(2018) 022

    2018

  21. [29]

    Dalianis, A

    I. Dalianis, A. Kehagias and G. Tringas. Primordial black holes fromα-attractors.JCAP,01(2019) 037

    2019

  22. [30]

    Nanopoulos, Keith A

    John Ellis, Dimitri V. Nanopoulos, Keith A. Olive, and Sarunas Verner, Unified No-Scale Attractors, JCAP,09(2019)040

    2019

  23. [31]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou Inflationary attractors inF(R)gravity.Phys. Lett. B,807(2020) 135576

    2020

  24. [32]

    Akrami, S

    Y. Akrami, S. Casas, S. Deng, V. Vardanyan. Dark energy fromα-attractors: phenomenology and observational constraints.JCAP,04(2021) 006

    2021

  25. [33]

    G. Germán. On theα-attractor T-models.JCAP09, 017 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Germán, New generalization of the simplestα-attractorTmodel.Phys

    G. Germán, New generalization of the simplestα-attractorTmodel.Phys. Rev. D104, 083015 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    J. G. Rodrigues, S. Santos da Costa, and J. S. Alcaniz, Observational constraints onα- attractor inflationary models with a Higgs-like potential.Phys. Lett. B,815(2021) 136156

    2021

  28. [36]

    Alestas, George, Caldarola, Marienza, Kuroyanagi, Sachiko, and Nesseris, Savvas, DESI constraints on α-attractor inflationary models.Phys. Rev. D111, 083506 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Observing Inflationary Reheating,Phys. Rev. Lett, 114(2015)081303

    2015

  30. [38]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Information Gain on Reheating: the One Bit Milestone,Phys. Rev. D93, 103532 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Ueno and K

    Y. Ueno and K. Yamamoto. Constraints onα–attractor inflation and reheating.Phys. Rev. D, 93(2016)8, 083524

    2016

  32. [40]

    Zarei, N

    Eshaghi, M. Zarei, N. Riazi and A. Kiasatpour. CMB and reheating constraints toα-attractor inflationary models.Phys. Rev. D,93(2016)12, 123517

    2016

  33. [41]

    Di Marco, P

    A. Di Marco, P. Cabella and N. Vittorio. Constraining the general reheating phase in theα-attractor inflationary cosmology.Phys. Rev. D,95(2017)10, 103502

    2017

  34. [42]

    Kang, and Ui Ri Mun, CMB constraints on the inflaton couplings and reheating temperature inα-attractor inflation,JHEP11, 072 (2017)

    Marco Drewes, Jin U. Kang, and Ui Ri Mun, CMB constraints on the inflaton couplings and reheating temperature inα-attractor inflation,JHEP11, 072 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Rashidi, K

    N. Rashidi, K. Nozari.α-Attractor and reheating in a model with noncanonical scalar fields.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D,27(2018) 07, 1850076

    2018

  36. [44]

    Dimopoulos and D

    K. Dimopoulos and D. Woo. Instant preheating in quintessential inflation withα-attractors.Phys. Rev. D,97(2018)06, 063525. – 11 –

    2018

  37. [45]

    Shojaee, K

    R. Shojaee, K. Nozari and F. Darabi.α-Attractors and reheating in a non-minimal inflationary model. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D,29(2020) 010, 2050077

    2020

  38. [46]

    Shojaee, K

    R. Shojaee, K. Nozari and F. Darabi.α-Attractors and reheating in a class of Galileon inflation.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D,30(2021) 05, 2150036

    2021

  39. [47]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive and S. Verner, BICEP/Keck constraints on attractor models of inflation and reheating,Phys. Rev. D105, no.4, 043504 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Marco Drewes, Measuring the inflaton coupling in the CMB,JCAP09, 069 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Germán, R

    G. Germán, R. Gonzalez Quaglia, A. M. Moran Colorado, Model independent bounds for the number of e-folds during the evolution of the universe,JCAP,03(2023)004

    2023

  42. [50]

    Germán, Constrainingα-attractor models from reheating.Int

    G. Germán, Constrainingα-attractor models from reheating.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D,31, 10 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Paoletti, F

    D. Paoletti, F. Finelli, J. Valiviita, Jussi and M. Hazumi, Planck and BICEP/Keck Array 2018 constraints on primordial gravitational waves and perspectives for future B-mode polarization measurements.Phys. Rev. D106, 083528 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Iacconi, M

    L. Iacconi, M. Fasiello, J. Väliviita, and D. Wands, Novel CMB constraints on theαparameter in alpha-attractor models,JCAP10, 015 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Ballardini, Chasing cosmic inflation: constraints for inflationary models and reheating insights, eprint, arXiv: 2408.03321

    M. Ballardini, Chasing cosmic inflation: constraints for inflationary models and reheating insights, eprint, arXiv: 2408.03321

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Marco Drewes, Lei Ming, and Isabel Oldengott, LiteBIRD and CMB-S4 Sensitivities to Reheating in Plateau Models of Inflation arXiv eprint: 2303.13503, hep-ph, (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Akramiet al.[Planck Collaboration], Planck 2018 results

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

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. Y. Khlopov and A. D. Linde, Is it easy to save the gravitino?, Phys. Lett. B ,138, 265 (1984)

    1984

  49. [57]

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

    1984

  50. [58]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and T. Moroi, Big-Bang nucleosynthesis and hadronic decay of long-lived massive particles, Phys. Rev. D,71, 083502 (2005)

    2005

  51. [59]

    M. Bolz, A. Brandenburg and W. Buchmuller, Thermal production of gravitinos, Nucl. Phys. B,606, 518 (2001)

    2001

  52. [60]

    Pradler and F

    J. Pradler and F. D. Steffen, Thermal gravitino production and collider tests of leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D,75, 023509 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    R. H. Cyburt, J. Ellis, B. D. Fields, F. Luo, K. A. Olive and V. C. Spanos, Nucleosynthesis Constraints on a Massive Gravitino in Neutralino Dark Matter Scenarios,” JCAP,10, 021 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    Moroi, H

    T. Moroi, H. Murayama and M. Yamaguchi, Cosmological constraints on the light stable gravitino, Phys. Lett. B,303, 289 (1993)

    1993

  55. [63]

    Kofman, Lev., Linde, Andrei D., and Starobinsky, Alexei A., Reheating after inflation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 73 (1994)3195

    1994

  56. [64]

    Tachyonic instability and dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking.Phys

    Felder, Gary N., Kofman, Lev, and Linde, Andrei D. Tachyonic instability and dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking.Phys. Rev., D64(2001)123517

    2001

  57. [65]

    Micha, Raphael, and Tkachev, Igor I., Relativistic turbulence: A Long way from preheating to equilibrium.Phys. Rev. Lett., 90 (2003)121301

    2003

  58. [66]

    Felder, Gary N., Garcia-Bellido, Juan, Greene, Patrick B., Kofman, Lev, Linde, Andrei D., and Tkachev, Igor, Dynamics of symmetry breaking and tachyonic preheating.Phys. Rev. Lett., 87 (2001)011601

    2001

  59. [67]

    Louis, et al

    T. Louis, et al. (ACT), (2025), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods andΛCDM Parameters, arXiv:2503.14452, [astro-ph.CO]. – 12 –

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Calabrese, et al

    E. Calabrese, et al. (ACT), (2025), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models, arXiv:2503.14454, [astro-ph.CO]. – 13 – ParameterValue Parameter Value gre 106.75k p 0.05Mpc−1 gs,re 106.75T 0 2.7255K As 2.1×10 −9 aeq 2.94×10 −4 T able 1. Th...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.