Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Viability of warm inflation with standard model interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Precision re-analysis keeps warm inflation built on Standard Model gluons inside Planck and BICEP/Keck bounds for $Q_*$ from 0.0076 to 30, with inflaton perturbations already thermal above $Q_*\simeq 0.08$.

desk verdict A transparent precision reanalysis of a known warm inflation model; the central viability window is plausible but inherits a cited, unreviewed dissipation formula. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20943 v2 pith:OPQMX6Y6 submitted 2025-04-29 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

Rudnei O. Ramos , Gabriel S. Rodrigues This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qchep-th PACS 98.80.Cq
keywords warminflationstandardmodelaxionlikeinflatonsphalerondissipationcoefficientprimordialpowerspectrumspectraltilttensor-to-scalarratio
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 asks whether the most minimal warm-inflation model on the market — an axionlike inflaton coupled to Standard Model gluons through $\phi G\tilde G$, with no other beyond-Standard-Model fields — still works when its dynamics are computed precisely instead of with fitting formulas. Using the WI2easy solver, it finds that for the quartic potential $V = \lambda\phi^4$ the model matches the Planck and BICEP/Keck bounds on the spectral tilt $n_s$ and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ for dissipation ratios at horizon exit $Q_*$ between 0.0076 and 30, which corresponds to axion decay constants $f_a$ from about $4.98\times 10^{10}$ to $1.23\times 10^{13}$ GeV. It also finds that inflaton perturbations have already thermalized for $Q_* \gtrsim 0.08$, and that the analytic power-spectrum fit used in the original analysis is reliable only for $Q_*$ roughly between 0.6 and 15. The payoff is that the most minimal warm-inflation scenario remains observationally alive, and its viable region is now mapped by a precision numerical tool instead of by approximations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective dissipation coefficient of Eq. (2.12), $\Upsilon_{\rm eff} = \Upsilon_{\rm sph}/(1 + 4\tilde N_f f_a^2 \Upsilon_{\rm sph}/(H N_c T^2))$ with $\tilde N_f = 5$, which controls how strongly the gluon bath drains energy from the inflaton: the sphaleron heating rate $\Upsilon_{\rm sph} = \Gamma_{\rm sphal}/(2T f_a^2)$ (built from the SU(3) sphaleron rate of Eq. (2.5) and the running strong coupling $\alpha_g(T)$) is suppressed both by quark back-reaction and by the Hubble expansion. The second piece is WI2easy, a code that replaces stochastic sampling of warm-inflation perturbations with a deterministic Fokker–Planck formalism and returns the numerical factor $G(Q)$ multiplying the scalar power spectrum of Eq. (2.14); the paper compares this $G(Q)$ against the closed-form fit $F(Q)$ of Ref. [41]. The third is the thermalization check: the hard-thermal-loop scattering rate $\Gamma_{\rm scat}$ of Eq. (2.17) is compared with $H$, giving the threshold $Q_* \approx 0.08$ above which the statistical factor $n_* = n_{\rm BE}$ must be used.

What would settle it

A first-principles computation of the sphaleron heating rate in the Standard Model quark-gluon plasma at the temperatures this model lives in ($T \approx 10^{12}{-}10^{16}$ GeV) would settle the matter: if the five-flavor suppression and the Hubble-dependent correction of Eq. (2.12) are not reproduced, the window $Q_* \in [0.0076, 30]$ and the associated axion decay constants are not real. On the observational side, the model traces a specific curve in the ($n_s$, $r$) plane, so a future CMB measurement that lands off that curve — a tensor-to-scalar ratio above 0.036, or a shift in $n_s$ beyond current error bars — would exclude it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Re-evaluating the minimal Standard Model warm-inflation model of Ref. [1] with the WI2easy code, the paper finds the model observationally viable: for the quartic potential $V = \lambda\phi^4$, every dissipation ratio at Hubble exit in the interval $Q_* \in [0.0076, 30]$ keeps the spectral tilt $n_s$ and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ inside the Planck/BICEP/Keck bounds, which pins the axion decay constant to $f_a \in [4.98\times 10^{10}, 1.23\times 10^{13}]$ GeV. Outside that window the model fails sharply: $Q_* < 0.0076$ drives $r$ above the bound $r < 0.036$, and $Q_* \gtrsim 30$ pushes $n_s$ out of the two-$\sigma$ region. The paper further claims that the inflaton-perturbation distribution reaches thermal (Bose–Einstein) form for $Q_* \gtrsim 0.08$, and that the analytic power-spectrum fit used in Ref. [1] agrees with the full numerical result only for $Q_*$ between about 0.6 and 15; below 0.6 the fit is unreliable because it assumed vacuum inflaton perturbations, and above 15 because the temperature power of $\Upsilon_{\rm eff}$ drops below three, making $n_s$ redder than the fit predicted.

Load-bearing premise

The whole viable window sits on top of one formula the paper does not re-derive: the effective dissipation coefficient of Eq. (2.12), with the fermion suppression factor $1 + 4\tilde N_f f_a^2 \Upsilon_{\rm sph}/(H N_c T^2)$ and the effective number of quark flavors $\tilde N_f = 5$, is taken over from Ref. [1], and the paper's own footnote 3 concedes that heavy UV-completion fermions could open extra decay channels unless their coupling rates are tuned to stay far below the Hubble rate. If that dissipation law is inaccurate, the computed $Q_*$ window, and with it the claimed ranges for $n_s$, $r$, and $f_a$, all shift and the viability could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the minimal Standard-Model warm-inflation model is observationally viable for the quartic potential, with a dissipation window $Q_* \in [0.0076, 30]$ that spans more than three orders of magnitude.
  • The axion decay constant inside the viable window is pinned to $f_a \in [4.98\times 10^{10}, 1.23\times 10^{13}]$ GeV, a range that overlaps existing bounds on the QCD axion.
  • The old analytic fit to the warm-inflation power spectrum is reliable only for $Q_*$ roughly between 0.6 and 15; analyses that use it outside this range need the full numerical $G(Q)$, and above $Q_* \approx 15$ the temperature dependence of the dissipation coefficient (effective power $c < 3$) makes the spectrum redder than the fit claimed.
  • Because inflaton perturbations thermalize already at $Q_* \gtrsim 0.08$, the non-thermalized version of the power spectrum applies only to a sliver of the viable window; the rest must be evaluated with a Bose–Einstein statistical factor $n_* = n_{\rm BE}$.
  • The failure modes are sharp: $Q_* < 0.0076$ violates the bound $r < 0.036$, and $Q_* \gtrsim 30$ pushes $n_s$ outside the two-sigma region of the Planck/BICEP/Keck data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if Eq. (2.12) is accurate, the model effectively predicts that any axionlike particle responsible for inflation must have a decay constant near $10^{11}{-}10^{13}$ GeV, a band that axion dark matter experiments are beginning to touch; the paper itself only notes compatibility with existing bounds.
  • Editorial inference: the thermalization threshold $Q_* \approx 0.08$ relies on a hard-thermal-loop estimate of axion–gluon scattering; a full thermal QCD treatment of axion production at $T \approx 10^{12}{-}10^{16}$ GeV could move this boundary, and with it the region in which the simpler vacuum-fluctuation formula applies.
  • Editorial inference: the demonstration that the Ref. [41] power-spectrum fit fails outside $Q_* \in [0.6, 15]$ is a warning for other warm-inflation models that used the same fit; rerunning them with WI2easy-style numerics could change their claimed parameter windows as well.
  • Editorial inference: the authors note that ACT's newer preference for slightly larger $n_s$ pushes against this model, in the opposite direction to other warm-inflation models; if that trend is confirmed, the SM-only construction could lose its current two-sigma acceptance even though Planck/BICEP/Keck alone allow it.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the warm-inflation model of Berghaus, Drewes, and Zell (Ref. [1]), in which an axion-like inflaton couples to Standard Model gluons through the interaction φ G μν G̃ μν, and re-evaluates its viability for a quartic potential using the WI2easy code. The main quantitative claim is that for the dissipation ratio at Hubble exit Q* in the interval [0.0076, 30], the spectral tilt n_s and tensor-to-scalar ratio r remain within Planck/BICEP/Keck bounds, which translates into an axion decay constant f_a ∈ [4.98×10^10, 1.23×10^13] GeV. The paper also demonstrates that the approximate power-spectrum fit of Mirbabayi and Gruzinov used in Ref. [1] fails for Q* ≲ 0.6 and Q* ≳ 15, and that inflaton perturbations thermalize for Q* ≳ 0.08, based on a hard-thermal-loop scattering rate. The analysis is framed as a precision re-evaluation of Ref. [1] using a dedicated numerical code.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a valuable precision confirmation of the minimal SM warm-inflation scenario and extends Ref. [1] by mapping the full observationally allowed parameter space, identifying the regime where the approximate fitting formula breaks down, and estimating the thermalization threshold. The work is reproducible in principle: the WI2easy code is public and the dataset is deposited on Zenodo. The central falsifiable prediction is a specific window of axion decay constants (≈10^10–10^13 GeV) and dissipation ratios for quartic-potential warm inflation. However, the quantitative results are controlled by the effective dissipation coefficient of Eq. (2.12), which is adopted from Ref. [1] without independent derivation, and the numerical code is authored by the present authors without an independent cross-check; these facts place a significant burden of robustness on the central viability claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (2.12)] The central quantitative results, including the allowed interval Q* ∈ [0.0076, 30] and the corresponding f_a range, are controlled by the effective dissipation coefficient Υ_eff of Eq. (2.12), which is adopted from Ref. [1] with Ñ_f = 5 without derivation or re-examination in this paper. At the temperatures reported in Fig. 5(c) (T ∈ [6×10^-7, 5×10^-3] M_Pl), all six SM quark flavors have m_q ≪ T, so the choice Ñ_f = 5 is not obvious; the paper's own text after Eq. (2.11) notes that fermions 'can even make it completely vanish for massless fermions.' Because this input controls the mapping between f_a, Q*, and the observables, the authors should either derive Eq. (2.12) and the value Ñ_f = 5 from the microphysics, or demonstrate that the viability window is robust to the uncertainty in this formula (for example, by varying Ñ_f between 4 and 6 and by considering the massless-fermion limit). The caveat in footnote 3 about UV completions further indicates that this is an input assumption rather than a tested prediction.
  2. [Sec. III, Figs. 3–4] The paper presents point predictions for n_s, r, and f_a without any estimate of theoretical uncertainty, and the conclusion that the model is viable relies on the assumption that inflaton perturbations are thermalized for Q* ≳ 0.08, as inferred from a single hard-thermal-loop scattering rate (Eq. (2.17)). Since the axion thermalization literature is cited as debated (Refs. [43,44]), the threshold Q* ≈ 0.08 could shift, and with it the appropriate power-spectrum statistics in the weak dissipative regime. I ask for (i) a sensitivity test of the allowed Q* interval to the thermalization rate, for example using the estimates of Refs. [43,44] as an alternative, and (ii) an explicit statement of which curve (n* = 0, n* = n_BE, or a piecewise combination with threshold Q* = 0.08) is used to derive the quoted Q* ∈ [0.0076, 30] interval.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 2 and G(Q)] The claim that the Mirbabayi-Gruzinov approximation (Eq. (2.15)) becomes unreliable for Q* ≲ 0.6 and Q* ≳ 15 is based entirely on the G(Q) function computed with WI2easy, a code authored by the present authors (Ref. [2]). To rule out that the observed deviations from Ref. [1] are artifacts of the code, the paper should validate G(Q) against an independent implementation, for example WarmSPy (Ref. [30]), or against an analytic limit for a simple dissipation coefficient such as Υ ∝ T^3. This is especially important because the deviations from Ref. [1] are the paper's main new quantitative content.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, near Fig. 5] The text says 'consistent with present bonds on the QCD axion'; 'bonds' should be 'bounds'.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (2.6)–(2.9)] The relationship between the expression for κ in Eq. (2.6) and the explicit Lambert-function result in Eq. (2.9) is not stated; Eq. (2.8) is self-referential, and the way Eq. (2.9) solves it is not shown.
  3. [Sec. III, Figs. 4–5] The legends and text do not specify which value of g* (106.75 or 106.75+1) is used for the thermalized-inflaton case; this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Sec. III] A table reporting n_s, r, T/H, and f_a at representative values of Q* for both n* = 0 and n* = n_BE would increase clarity and reproducibility beyond the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the predictions follow from a numerical scan of the published model using an independent solver, with Eq. (2.12) an external input rather than a fitted substitute for the output.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs (ns, r, the Q* window, and the fa range) are obtained by running WI2easy over a grid of dissipation ratios Q* and comparing the resulting ns and r with external Planck, BICEP, and Keck bounds. This is a parameter scan, not a fit of the target quantities: the CMB normalization As is imposed as an input condition, and fa is read off from the dissipation coefficient after the scan, not used to force the observables. WI2easy is authored by the present authors, but it is a publicly released numerical integrator of the standard warm-inflation background and Fokker-Planck perturbation equations; the paper uses it to test, rather than encode, the approximation of Ref. [41], so citing it is not a circular load-bearing step. The effective dissipation coefficient Eq. (2.12), with Ntilde_f=5, is adopted from Ref. [1] without re-derivation; although this is an inherited uncertainty and a possible correctness risk, it is an input assumption, not a prediction that collapses by definition into the output. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantities it is used to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

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

The model is not derived from first principles in this paper. The dissipation coefficient, fermion suppression, thermalization rate, and numerical perturbation solver are all taken from prior work, much of it by the same research group. The only genuinely new element is the application of WI2easy to this model and the resulting parameter scan.

free parameters (4)
  • Quartic potential normalization V0 (or lambda) = Normalized so P_R(kp) = 2.105e-9
    WI2easy fixes the potential amplitude to the measured CMB scalar amplitude; therefore the power spectrum amplitude is not a prediction.
  • Effective quark flavor count Ntilde_f = 5
    Set to 5 in Eq. (2.12), following Ref [1]; affects the strength of dissipation and hence the allowed Q* and fa ranges.
  • Dissipation ratio at Hubble exit Q* = Scanned grid, with allowed interval [0.0076,30]
    The analysis treats Q* as the control variable; model parameters fa and potential normalization are then derived for each Q*.
  • Axion decay constant fa = 4.98e10 to 1.23e13 GeV in the allowed window
    Derived from C_U = M_Pl^2/fa^2 for each Q*, but it is a model parameter that the paper constrains rather than predicts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The sphaleron rate in a hot SU(3) plasma, Eqs. (2.5)-(2.9), is the correct source of dissipation.
    Used to build U_sph; the paper includes running alpha_g(T) and kappa(T) but does not re-derive the lattice or analytic result.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective dissipation coefficient Eq. (2.12) with Ntilde_f = 5 correctly captures fermion suppression and Hubble dilution.
    Adopted from Ref [1]; the paper does not derive it and notes fermions can even suppress dissipation completely for massless quarks in related contexts.
  • domain assumption The hard thermal loop scattering rate Eq. (2.17) determines whether the inflaton perturbations are thermalized.
    Used to set n* = nBE for Q* > 0.08; the surrounding literature on axion thermalization is still debated (Refs. [43,44]).
  • domain assumption WI2easy's Fokker-Planck solution gives the correct G(Q) and power spectrum for general dissipation coefficients.
    The code is from Ref [2] by the same authors; no independent code cross-check is included.
  • domain assumption All Standard Model degrees of freedom are in thermal equilibrium with g* = 106.75 at T above about 1e11 GeV.
    Assumed at the start of Section II and used to convert temperatures to radiation energy density.
  • standard math The slow-roll approximation for H in Eq. (2.13) is accurate for the background.
    Used to relate H to V; standard for slow-roll inflation and inherited from WI treatments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Viability of warm inflation with standard model interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPQMX6Y6

@misc{pith2026250420943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Viability of warm inflation with standard model interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPQMX6Y6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20943}
}
abstract

The minimal warm inflation scenario proposed in Ref. [1] -- featuring an axionlike inflaton coupled to Standard Model (SM) gluons via the standard interaction $\phi G \tilde G$ -- offers a compelling bridge between inflationary dynamics and SM particle content. While the model retains only the inflaton as a beyond-SM field, its original analysis relied on some approximate treatments of warm inflation's (WI) dynamics. Here, we revisit this scenario using WI2easy, a precision computational tool for WI dynamics [2], to rigorously evaluate the model's viability and full range of model's parameters compatible with the observational parameters. Overall, we find that the results of Ref. [1] hold, but with significant differences in the weak and strong dissipative regimes of WI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20943 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The temperature dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The ratio of the scattering rate for the inflaton field, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The tensor-to-scalar ratio (panel a) and the spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Some of the key background quantities in WI, namely [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 12 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Heterotic Warm Inflation

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In a heterotic-string-inspired two-field warm inflation model, the axion drives inflation while thermal corrections from gauge fields block sustained dilaton-driven inflation.

  2. WI2easy: warm inflation dynamics made easy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    WI2easy provides a public Mathematica implementation that computes warm inflation dynamics and curvature perturbation spectra via a deterministic Fokker-Planck approach, and shows that the universality of the G(Q) cor...

  3. Warm multi natural inflation

    hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In warm multi-natural inflation with a cubic temperature dissipation coefficient, the curvature power spectrum grows sharply after the weak-to-strong dissipation transition, generating detectable scalar-induced gravit...

  4. Warming up the Fibres

    hep-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    All four fibre inflation potentials are claimed to agree with CMB observations under warm inflation, and strong dissipation can shrink the inflaton field excursion below the Planck scale.

  5. CMB constraints on $U(1)$ axion warm inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Axion-driven warm inflation with U(1) gauge fields is constrained with CMB data and remains viable for sub-Planckian decay constants, but requires large Chern-Simons couplings.

  6. From inflation to hot big bang -- a tutorial on cosmological perturbations

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

    A tutorial deriving cosmological perturbation equations from inflation through reheating, with explicit gauge-invariant computations and Python scripts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K. V. Berghaus, M. Drewes and S. Zell, Warm Inflation with the Standard Model, [arXiv:2503.18829 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    G. S. Rodrigues and R. O. Ramos, WI2easy: warm in- flation dynamics made easy, [arXiv:2504.17760 [astro- ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  3. [30]

    Montefalcone, V

    G. Montefalcone, V. Aragam, L. Visinelli and K. Freese, WarmSPy: a numerical study of cos- mological perturbations in warm inflation, JCAP 01, 032 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/032 [arXiv:2306.16190 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Berera, Warm inflation, Phys

    A. Berera, Warm inflation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3218-3221 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3218 [arXiv:astro-ph/9509049 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 1995

  5. [4]

    Berera, Thermal properties of an inflation- ary universe, Phys

    A. Berera, Thermal properties of an inflation- ary universe, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2519-2534 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.2519 [arXiv:hep-th/9601134 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1996

  6. [5]

    Berera, M

    A. Berera, M. Gleiser and R. O. Ramos, Strong dis- sipative behavior in quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D 58, 123508 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.123508 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803394 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1998

  7. [6]

    Berera, Interpolating the stage of exponential ex- pansion in the early universe: A Possible alterna- tive with no reheating, Phys

    A. Berera, Interpolating the stage of exponential ex- pansion in the early universe: A Possible alterna- tive with no reheating, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3346- 3357 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.3346 [arXiv:hep- ph/9612239 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1997

  8. [7]

    Graham and I

    C. Graham and I. G. Moss, Density fluctuations from warm inflation, JCAP 07, 013 (2009) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2009/07/013 [arXiv:0905.3500 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera and R. O. Ramos, Shear viscous effects on the primordial power spectrum from warm inflation, JCAP 07, 030 (2011) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2011/07/030 [arXiv:1106.0701 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [9]

    R. O. Ramos and L. A. da Silva, Power spec- trum for inflation models with quantum and ther- mal noises, JCAP 03, 032 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2013/03/032 [arXiv:1302.3544 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, I. G. Moss and R. O. Ramos, Cosmological fluctuations of a random field and ra- diation fluid, JCAP 05, 004 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2014/05/004 [arXiv:1401.1149 [astro-ph.CO]]. 8

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Berera, I

    A. Berera, I. G. Moss and R. O. Ramos, Warm In- flation and its Microphysical Basis, Rept. Prog. Phys. 72, 026901 (2009) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/72/2/026901 [arXiv:0808.1855 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos and J. G. Rosa, Warm Little Inflaton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.15, 151301 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.151301 [arXiv:1604.08838 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos and J. G. Rosa, Towards a reliable effective field the- ory of inflation, Phys. Lett. B 813, 136055 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136055 [arXiv:1907.13410 [hep-ph]]

    2021

  7. [14]

    K. V. Berghaus, P. W. Graham and D. E. Ka- plan, Minimal Warm Inflation, JCAP 03, 034 (2020) [erratum: JCAP 10, E02 (2023)] doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2020/03/034 [arXiv:1910.07525 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Mishra, S

    H. Mishra, S. Mohanty and A. Nautiyal, Warm nat- ural inflation, Phys. Lett. B 710, 245-250 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.02.005 [arXiv:1106.3039 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Visinelli, Natural Warm Inflation, JCAP 09, 013 (2011) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/09/013 [arXiv:1107.3523 [astro-ph.CO]]

    L. Visinelli, Natural Warm Inflation, JCAP 09, 013 (2011) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/09/013 [arXiv:1107.3523 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Kamali, Warm pseudoscalar inflation, Phys

    V. Kamali, Warm pseudoscalar inflation, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.4, 043520 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043520 [arXiv:1901.01897 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Kamali, M

    V. Kamali, M. Motaharfar and R. O. Ramos, Recent Developments in Warm Inflation, Universe 9, no.3, 124 (2023) doi:10.3390/universe9030124 [arXiv:2302.02827 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Dymnikova and M

    I. Dymnikova and M. Khlopov, Decay of cos- mological constant as Bose condensate evap- oration, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 15, 2305-2314 (2000) doi:10.1142/S0217732300002966 [arXiv:astro- ph/0102094 [astro-ph]]

    2000

  13. [20]

    Dymnikova and M

    I. Dymnikova and M. Khlopov, Decay of cosmological constant in selfconsistent inflation, Eur. Phys. J. C 20, 139-146 (2001) doi:10.1007/s100520100625

    2001 doi

  14. [21]

    Kamada and J

    K. Kamada and J. Yokoyama, On the realization of the MSSM inflation, Prog. Theor. Phys. 122, 969-986 (2010) doi:10.1143/PTP.122.969 [arXiv:0906.3402 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [22]

    M. Levy, J. G. Rosa and L. B. Ventura, Warm in- flation, neutrinos and dark matter: a minimal exten- sion of the Standard Model, JHEP 12, 176 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)176 [arXiv:2012.03988 [hep- ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Berera and R

    A. Berera and R. O. Ramos, Construction of a robust warm inflation mechanism, Phys. Lett. B 567, 294-304 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.06.028 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210301 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  17. [24]

    I. G. Moss and C. Xiong, Dissipation coefficients for supersymmetric inflatonary models, [arXiv:hep- ph/0603266 [hep-ph]]

  18. [25]

    G. D. Moore and M. Tassler, The Sphaleron Rate in SU(N) Gauge Theory, JHEP 02, 105 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2011)105 [arXiv:1011.1167 [hep- ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [26]

    P. B. Arnold and L. G. Yaffe, Nonperturbative dynamics of hot nonAbelian gauge fields: Be- yond leading log approximation, Phys. Rev. D 62, 125013 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.125013 [arXiv:hep-ph/9912305 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  20. [27]

    P. B. Arnold and L. G. Yaffe, High temperature color conductivity at next-to-leading log order, Phys. Rev. D 62, 125014 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.125014 [arXiv:hep-ph/9912306 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Laine, L

    M. Laine, L. Niemi, S. Procacci and K. Rum- mukainen, Shape of the hot topological charge density spectral function, JHEP 11, 126 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2022)126 [arXiv:2209.13804 [hep- ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Drewes and S

    M. Drewes and S. Zell, On sphaleron heating in the pres- ence of fermions, JCAP 06, 038 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/06/038 [arXiv:2312.13739 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ballesteros, M

    G. Ballesteros, M. A. G. Garc´ ıa, A. P. Rodr´ ıguez, M. Pierre and J. Rey, Primordial black holes and gravi- tational waves from dissipation during inflation, JCAP 12, 006 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/12/006 [arXiv:2208.14978 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ballesteros, A

    G. Ballesteros, A. Perez Rodriguez and M. Pierre, Mono- mial warm inflation revisited, JCAP 03, 003 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/03/003 [arXiv:2304.05978 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gleiser and R

    M. Gleiser and R. O. Ramos, Microphysical approach to nonequilibrium dynamics of quantum fields, Phys. Rev. D 50, 2441-2455 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.2441 [arXiv:hep-ph/9311278 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera and R. O. Ramos, Dissipa- tion coefficients from scalar and fermion quantum field interactions, JCAP 09, 033 (2011) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2011/09/033 [arXiv:1008.1929 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Graf and F

    P. Graf and F. D. Steffen, Thermal axion produc- tion in the primordial quark-gluon plasma, Phys. Rev. D 83, 075011 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.075011 [arXiv:1008.4528 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Laine and S

    M. Laine and S. Procacci, Minimal warm inflation with complete medium response, JCAP 06, 031 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/031 [arXiv:2102.09913 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    K. V. Berghaus, P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, G. D. Moore and S. Rajendran, Dark energy ra- diation, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.8, 083520 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083520 [arXiv:2012.10549 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    K. V. Berghaus, M. Forslund and M. V. Guevarra, Warm inflation with a heavy QCD axion, JCAP 10, 103 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/103 [arXiv:2402.13535 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. E. Kim, Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.103

    1979 doi

  32. [40]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?, Nucl. Phys. B 166, 493-506 (1980) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(80)90209-6

    1980 doi

  33. [41]

    Mirbabayi and A

    M. Mirbabayi and A. Gruzinov, Shapes of non- Gaussianity in warm inflation, JCAP 02, 012 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/02/012 [arXiv:2205.13227 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos and J. G. Rosa, Adiabatic out-of-equilibrium solutions to the Boltz- 9 mann equation in warm inflation, JHEP 02, 063 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)063 [arXiv:1711.09023 [hep- ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Salvio, A

    A. Salvio, A. Strumia and W. Xue, Thermal axion production, JCAP 01, 011 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2014/01/011 [arXiv:1310.6982 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bouzoud and J

    K. Bouzoud and J. Ghiglieri, Thermal axion produc- tion at hard and soft momenta, JHEP 01, 163 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)163 [arXiv:2404.06113 [hep- ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Masso, F

    E. Masso, F. Rota and G. Zsembinszki, On ax- ion thermalization in the early universe, Phys. Rev. D 66, 023004 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.023004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0203221 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP and Keck], Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.15, 151301 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151301 [arXiv:2110.00483 [astr...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Calabrese et al

    E. Calabrese et al. [ACT], The Atacama Cosmology Tele- scope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Mod- els, [arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Berera, S

    A. Berera, S. Brahma, Z. Qiu, R. O. Ramos and G. S. Rodrigues, The early universe is ACT-ing warm, [arXiv:2504.02655 [hep-th]]

  42. [50]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Axion Cosmology, Phys. Rept. 643, 1-79 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.005 [arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi and L. Visinelli, The landscape of QCD axion models, Phys. Rept. 870, 1-117 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.06.002 [arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, I. G. Moss and R. O. Ramos, Theory of non-Gaussianity in warm inflation, JCAP 12, 008 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/12/008 [arXiv:1408.4391 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. [Planck], Planck 2018 results. IX. Con- straints on primordial non-Gaussianity, Astron. Astro- phys. 641, A9 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935891 [arXiv:1905.05697 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    R. O. Ramos and G. S. Rodrigues, Viability of warm inflation with standard model interactions – dataset, [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15374706], (2025)

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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