Chiral symmetry and curvature bounds in de Sitter spacetime

L. G. Barbosa

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 15 references

Chiral symmetry and curvature bounds in de Sitter spacetime

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the NJL model on de Sitter space, the cosmological constant is bounded by the ultraviolet cutoff: Λ ≤ 6Λ_UV²/e².

desk verdict The paper has a genuinely novel Lambert-W consistency bound for the NJL model in de Sitter, but the central derivation contains a factor-of-two error; the bound may survive after correction, yet the current version is internally inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28975 v1 pith:QRHIA6MZ submitted 2026-07-31 hep-th gr-qc

L. G. Barbosa This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qc MSC 81T2083C47 PACS 11.30.Rd04.62.+v98.80.-k

keywords chiralsymmetrybreakingNambu-Jona-LasiniomodeldeSitterspacetimeeffectivefieldtheorycosmologicalconstantboundLambertWfunctionproper-timeregularizationfermioncondensate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies chiral symmetry breaking in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model on a de Sitter background, treating the model as a non-renormalizable effective field theory whose ultraviolet cutoff Λ_UV is a physical scale. Using exponential proper-time regularization, it solves the mean-field gap equation analytically in the strong-curvature limit and obtains the constituent fermion mass in terms of the Lambert W function. The consistency condition for a real mass leads to an upper bound on the cosmological constant, Λ ≤ 6Λ_UV²/e² ≈ 0.812 Λ_UV², and a cap on the coupling ratio G/G_c ≤ 1.1565. The author's point is that these are limits of the mean-field effective description, not fundamental constraints on de Sitter geometry.

What carries the argument

Exponential proper-time regularization of the fermion condensate, with the regulator s identified with the physical cutoff through s ≡ 1/(α²Λ_UV²) by matching the leading quadratic divergence to flat space. The Lambert W function then solves the transcendental gap equation at strong curvature; its W₋₁ branch and branch point carry the consistency bound.

What would settle it

Re-derive the condensate and gap equation with a different UV regularization (e.g., a sharp momentum cutoff or Pauli–Villars) at the same physical cutoff and check whether real mass solutions persist for Λ > 6Λ_UV²/e². Alternatively, extend the expansion of the condensate to n ≥ 3 terms and test whether the W₋₁ branch point at α_min = e/(√2 Λ_UV) shifts; a shift or disappearance would show the bound is an artifact of the truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the strong-curvature regime Mα ≪ 1, the gap equation reduces to a transcendental equation whose physically relevant branch W₋₁ has real solutions only within a restricted domain. The branch point at W₋₁(−1/e) fixes a minimum de Sitter radius α_min = e/(√2 Λ_UV), which translates via Λ = 3/α² into Λ_max = 6Λ_UV²/e². Above this value the mean-field gap equation admits no real constituent mass; for a given coupling ratio below G/G_c ≤ (1−e⁻²)⁻¹, chiral symmetry is restored at a critical radius given exactly by the Lambert formula.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on identifying the regularization parameter with the physical cutoff via s ≡ 1/(α²Λ_UV²), matching only the leading quadratic divergence to flat space; any other mapping changes or removes the Λ bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any fixed cutoff, the mean-field NJL description breaks down above a maximum curvature; no real constituent mass exists for Λ > 6Λ_UV²/e².
The allowed coupling ratio is bounded, G/G_c ≤ 1.1565, for chiral symmetry breaking to occur.
Near the bound the mass curves terminate, with larger couplings allowing symmetry breaking up to higher curvature.
The bound scales as the square of the cutoff, so the effect strengthens at lower UV scales.
Since the bound is a consistency condition of the regularization, it should be read as a limitation of the EFT, not as a prediction about de Sitter geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

A different regulator-to-cutoff mapping (e.g., matching the logarithmic term instead of the quadratic one) would shift or remove the bound; the numerical factor 6/e² is not universal.
If the bound persists beyond the chiral and strong-curvature approximations, it could serve as a self-consistency criterion for when higher-dimensional operators must be included in the NJL EFT.
For early-universe cosmology with Λ near the Planck scale, the bound suggests mean-field NJL predictions are unreliable unless the cutoff is chosen well above the curvature scale.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: the paper has a genuinely new Lambert-W consistency bound for the NJL model in de Sitter, but the central derivation has a factor-of-two error and the equations as written do not hold. The bound may be salvageable after correction, but this version is not internally consistent.

What is new: the explicit solution for the critical de Sitter radius via the Lambert W function, and the resulting Λ_max = 6Λ_UV^2/e^2. That bound is not in the cited literature. The EFT framing — keeping Λ_UV physical and tying the regulator to the cutoff — is a reasonable perspective, and the paper is honest that the result is a limitation of the mean-field description, not a fundamental geometric constraint. The writing is clear.

The soft spot is real and load-bearing. The stress-test note is correct: Eq. (25) does not follow from Eq. (24) with the stated gap equation M = m - 2G⟨ψψ⟩. Substituting gives 1/G - 2/G_c - m/(GM) on the left and RHS terms with a factor of two relative to what the paper writes. This is not a typo; it propagates into the Lambert W solution and the coupling bound. The paper's Eq. (25) would be correct only for M = m - G⟨ψψ⟩, which contradicts Eq. (5).

That said, the headline bound on Λ seems to survive a corrected derivation. With the proper factors, the threshold is 1 - G_c/(2G) = (ln x - 1)/x, x = 2α^2Λ_UV^2. The RHS has maximum e^{-2} at x = e^2, so α^2 ≥ e^2/(2Λ_UV^2), giving Λ ≤ 6Λ_UV^2/e^2 again. What changes is the coupling bound: it becomes G ≤ G_c/[2(1-e^{-2})], not the paper's G/G_c ≤ (1-e^{-2})^{-1}.

A separate, softer concern is Eq. (20), the regulator-to-cutoff identification. It matches only the leading quadratic divergence; a different matching shifts or removes the bound. The paper acknowledges the scheme dependence, but it means the bound is a property of the regulator choice, not a sharp prediction.

Who this is for: people working on four-fermion models or NJL in de Sitter, and early-universe EFT builders. It deserves a serious referee, not because the current text is acceptable, but because the idea is interesting and the errors look fixable. I would send it to review with instructions to redo the algebra carefully.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies chiral symmetry breaking in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model on a de Sitter background, treating the model as a non-renormalizable effective field theory with a physical ultraviolet cutoff. Using exponential proper-time regularization, the fermionic condensate is expanded in the strong-curvature regime and inserted into the mean-field gap equation. The resulting equation is solved in terms of the Lambert W function, and the condition for real solutions is converted into an upper bound on the cosmological constant, Λ ≤ 6Λ_UV²/e², together with a bound on the coupling ratio G/G_c. The paper interprets these bounds as limitations of the effective mean-field description rather than as fundamental constraints on spacetime geometry.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the paper would offer an analytically tractable example of how an EFT consistency condition could impose a curvature cutoff, and it would be a useful contribution to the literature on four-fermion models in curved spacetime. The authors are transparent about the model-dependent nature of the result and clearly state their EFT assumptions. However, the central derivation contains an algebraic inconsistency: the gap equation used in the manuscript does not imply the central equation that leads to the Lambert W solution. Because the main result rests on this step, the paper's significance is currently undermined.

major comments (3)

[§V, Eq. (25)] Equation (25) does not follow from Eq. (5) and Eq. (24). Substituting the strong-curvature condensate Eq. (24) into the gap equation M = m - 2G⟨ψψ⟩ (Eq. (5)) and dividing by GM gives 1/G - 2/G_c - m/(GM) = -[ln(2α²Λ_UV²)-1]/(2π²α²) - M²[1-ζ(3)+ln(2α²Λ_UV²)]/π². Equation (25), by contrast, has 1/G_c (not 2/G_c) and a factor 1/2 on both right-hand-side terms. Equation (25) would follow only from the linearized gap equation M = m - G⟨ψψ⟩, which contradicts Eq. (5). Since Eqs. (27)-(33) are all downstream of Eq. (25), the headline bound Λ ≤ 6Λ_UV²/e² is not supported by the manuscript's own algebra.
[§IV, Eq. (24)] Equation (24) does not follow from Eq. (17) under the stated substitutions. Setting s = 1/(α²Λ_UV²) (Eq. (20)) in Eq. (17) and using Re Ψ(iMα) ≈ -γ + ζ(3)M²α² from Eq. (23), the M³ coefficient becomes M³[ln(2α²Λ_UV²)+1-2ζ(3)]/(4π²). The manuscript's Eq. (24) instead has M³[1-ζ(3)+ln(2α²Λ_UV²)]/(2π²), which differs from this expression. This is a second algebraic inconsistency in the derivation leading to the gap equation, independent of the factor-of-two issue in Eq. (25).
[§IV, Eq. (20)] The regulator-to-cutoff identification s = 1/(α²Λ_UV²) is a model choice that directly controls the Lambert W domain and hence the bound Eq. (32). Any identification s = c/(α²Λ_UV²) with c of order unity reproduces the flat-space quadratic divergence, but changes the argument of the Lambert function and therefore the numerical coefficient in Eq. (32). The paper does not justify c = 1 beyond matching the leading divergence, so the specific bound is not a robust prediction of the EFT even setting aside the algebraic errors above.

minor comments (4)

[General] Equations (32) and (33) are identical; one should be renumbered or cross-referenced to avoid duplication.
[§III–IV] The notation ⟨ψψ⟩(s) is introduced in Eq. (10), but after Eq. (20) the s-dependence is replaced by α and Λ_UV while the notation is not updated. Please make the functional dependence explicit throughout.
[§IV] The text states that the n = 0 term dominates in the UV limit and then retains n = 0, 1, 2 without quantifying the omitted terms. An estimate of the truncation error would be helpful, especially since the subsequent analysis relies on these leading terms.
[Fig. 1] The figure shows five values of G/G_c, but the caption and text do not list them. A legend or explicit list in the caption would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Λ_max bound is forced by the regulator-to-cutoff dictionary (Eq. 20) and by Eq. (25), which is inconsistent by a factor of 2 with the stated gap equation Eq. (5) combined with Eq. (24).

fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eqs. (18)-(20); Section V, Eq. (32)]
"To assign a physical meaning to the regularization parameter s, we compare the leading ultraviolet behavior of the regularized de Sitter condensate with the well-known quadratic divergence in flat spacetime ... s ≡ 1/(α²Λ²_UV). (20) ... Recalling the relation Λ = 3/α², this result translates into an upper bound for the cosmological constant in terms of the EFT energy scale: Λ ≤ Λ_max = 6Λ²_UV/e². (32)"

The bound's entire quantitative content (coefficient 6/e² and Λ²_UV scaling) is carried by the dictionary (20): the Lambert-W domain condition constrains 2α²Λ²_UV, which is exactly the regulator ratio defined in (20). Only the leading quadratic divergence is matched to flat space (Eqs. 18-19); the subleading log coefficients that set the termination point are fixed by the chosen exponential proper-time scheme, with no independent input pinning them. Changing the mapping, s = c/(α²Λ²_UV), changes the bound to Λ_max = 6Λ²_UV/(c e²). The paper concedes the result 'is a direct consequence of the specific regularization,' so the headline prediction is a repackaging of the normalization choice rather than an independent consequence of the model.
other [Section V, Eq. (25) (derivation from Eqs. (5) and (24) not shown)]
"with the constituent fermion mass M determined self-consistently by the gap equation M = m − 2G⟨ψψ⟩ (5) ... ⟨ψψ⟩ ≃ −MΛ²_UV/(2π²) + M/(4π²α²)[ln(2α²Λ²_UV)−1] + M³/(2π²)[1−ζ(3)+ln(2α²Λ²_UV)] (24) ... the gap equation ... is given by: 1/G − 1/G_c − m/(GM) = −[ln(2α²Λ²_UV)−1]/(4π²α²) − M²[1−ζ(3)+ln(2α²Λ²_UV)]/(2π²) (25)"

Eq. (25) is announced as 'building upon the UV expansion derived in the previous section,' but substituting (24) into the stated gap equation (5) gives 1/G − 1/G_c − m/(GM) = Λ²_UV/(2π²) − [ln(2α²Λ²_UV)−1]/(2π²α²) − M²[1−ζ(3)+ln(2α²Λ²_UV)]/π²: every α-dependent term is twice (25)'s RHS and a 1/G_c constant is missing. Eq. (25) instead corresponds to M = m − G⟨ψψ⟩, contradicting (5). Since (27), (28), (29), and the headline bound (32) are downstream of (25) alone, the 'prediction' reduces to an asserted equation inconsistent with the model's own definitions; the bound is an artifact of that asserted form, not a consequence of the stated gap equation.

full rationale

Two load-bearing reductions affect the headline claim Λ ≤ 6Λ²_UV/e²; neither involves self-citation (the paper cites only other authors; Ref. [15], the source of the exponential-regularization condensate, is Saharian et al., not Barbosa), so citation-based circularity does not apply. First, the regulator-to-cutoff dictionary s ≡ 1/(α²Λ²_UV) (Eq. 20) is calibrated only against the leading quadratic divergence; the subleading, scheme-dependent logarithms set the exact termination point, so the bound's numerical content is fixed by the chosen scheme plus the dictionary, with the paper itself calling the result 'a direct consequence of the specific regularization.' Second, the central gap equation (25) is asserted with no derivation and contradicts the combination of the paper's stated gap equation (5) and its own condensate (24): the substitution produces a factor-2 discrepancy in every RHS term plus a missing 1/G_c, and (25) matches instead the alternative equation M = m − G⟨ψψ⟩. Since the critical-coupling condition (28), the Lambert-W solution (29), and the bound (32) follow only from (25), the prediction reduces by construction to an asserted equation whose form is inconsistent with the model's stated definitions. The paper's repeated caveat that the bound is a limitation of the effective description moderates the overclaim but does not repair the gap between Eq. (5) and Eq. (25). Hence: partial circularity plus an unsupported load-bearing step; the headline prediction is not independently derived. Score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the mean-field approximation, a specific proper-time regulator, and the ad hoc identification of the regulator with 1/(α²Λ_UV²). No new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are the EFT cutoff and the four-fermion coupling.

free parameters (2)

Λ_UV (EFT cutoff)
The physical ultraviolet cutoff is a free input scale of the effective theory; the final bound (32) is an inequality relating the cosmological constant to this scale. Its absolute value is not determined by the model.
G (four-fermion coupling)
Input coupling of the NJL model. The paper derives an admissible range G/Gc ≤ 1.1565, so the existence of real solutions depends on this free parameter.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Mean-field (Hartree) approximation linearizing the four-fermion interaction, Eq. (3)
The gap equation M = m - 2G⟨ψψ⟩ (Eq. 5) is used throughout; beyond mean field, the bound on Λ need not hold.
domain assumption Bunch-Davies vacuum with parity symmetry, so ⟨ψ iγ5 ψ⟩ = 0
Used to reduce the effective Lagrangian and the mode sum over fermion modes, Eqs. (4)-(8).
domain assumption Exponential proper-time regularization with dimensionless parameter s, Eq. (10)
The entire UV expansion (11)-(17) depends on this regulator choice; a different regulator would change finite terms and the final bound.
ad hoc to paper Identification of the regularization parameter with the physical cutoff: s ≡ 1/(α²Λ_UV²), Eq. (20)
This is the key novel step; it ties the cutoff to the curvature, making the final Λ-bound possible. It is chosen by matching only the leading UV divergence to flat space and lacks independent justification.
ad hoc to paper Truncation of the asymptotic series to n=0,1,2, Eq. (16)
The paper states n≥3 are suppressed for small s, but no rigorous error bound is given; in the strong-curvature regime s can be O(0.27), making the suppression marginal.
domain assumption Strong-curvature expansion Mα≪1 for the digamma function, Eq. (23)
Used to obtain Eq. (24) and the algebraic gap equation (25); the self-consistent solutions must satisfy this condition.
domain assumption Choice of the W_{-1} branch as the physically relevant branch
Among the two Lambert branches, W_{-1} is selected to capture the large-X (small-curvature) root; the other branch would give a different critical radius and bound.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral symmetry and curvature bounds in de Sitter spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRHIA6MZ

@misc{pith2026260728975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral symmetry and curvature bounds in de Sitter spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRHIA6MZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28975}
}

abstract

We study chiral symmetry breaking in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model on a de Sitter background, treating it as a non-renormalizable effective field theory with a physical ultraviolet cutoff. Using exponential proper-time regularization, we obtain an exact solution for the constituent fermion mass in the strong-curvature regime via the Lambert $W$ function. The consistency condition for real-valued solutions leads to an upper bound on the cosmological constant, indicating a limitation of the mean-field description rather than a fundamental physical constraint on the spacetime geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28975 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** shows the constituent fermion mass scaled by ΛUV as a function of the cosmological constant for five values of G/Gc. In this parameter scan, larger couplings keep the mass nonzero up to higher curvature, so the termination point shifts to larger Λ. The dashed line marks the absolute upper limit Λmax = 6Λ2 UV/e2 ≈ 0.812Λ2 UV. VI. CONCLUSIONS We studied chiral symmetry breaking in the Nambu– Jona-Lasinio model on a d… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio. Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Super- conductivity. 1.Phys. Rev., 122:345–358, 1961.doi: 5 10.1103/PhysRev.122.345

doi:10.1103/physrev.122.345 1961
[2]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio. Dynamical model of elementary particles based on an analogy with super- conductivity. II.Phys. Rev., 124:246–254, 1961.doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.124.246

doi:10.1103/physrev.124.246 1961
[3]

Inagaki, T

T. Inagaki, T. Muta, and S. D. Odintsov. Nambu-Jona- Lasinio model in curved space-time.Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 8:2117–2124, 1993.arXiv:hep-th/9306023,doi:10. 1142/S0217732393001835

arXiv 1993
[4]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Leseduarte, and S. D. Odintsov. Chiral symmetry breaking in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model in curved space-time with nontrivial topology.Phys. Rev. D, 49:5551–5558, 1994.arXiv:hep-th/9312164,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.49.5551

arXiv 1994
[5]

Inagaki, T

T. Inagaki, T. Muta, and S. D. Odintsov. Dynamical symmetry breaking in curved space-time: Four fermion interactions.Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 127:93, 1997. arXiv:hep-th/9711084,doi:10.1143/PTPS.127.93

arXiv 1997
[6]

C. T. Hill and D. S. Salopek. Calculable Nonminimal Coupling of Composite Scalar Bosons to Gravity.Annals Phys., 213:21–30, 1992.doi:10.1016/0003-4916(92) 90281-P

work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(92 1992
[7]

Addazi, P

A. Addazi, P. Chen, and A. Marciano. Emergent in- flation from a Nambu–Jona-Lasinio mechanism in grav- ity with non-dynamical torsion.Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(4):297, 2019.arXiv:1712.04848,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-019-6803-7

arXiv 2019
[8]

Inagaki, S

T. Inagaki, S. Mukaigawa, and T. Muta. A Soluble model of four fermion interactions in de Sitter space.Phys. Rev. D, 52:R4267–R4271, 1995.arXiv:hep-th/9505058, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.R4267

arXiv 1995

Show all 15 references

[9]

Kanemura and H.-T

S. Kanemura and H.-T. Sato. Phase diagram of Gross-Neveu model at finite temperature, density and constant curvature.Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 10:1777– 1786, 1995.arXiv:hep-th/9412149,doi:10.1142/ S0217732395001903

1995 arXiv
[10]

Kanemura and H.-T

S. Kanemura and H.-T. Sato. Approach to D-dimensional Gross-Neveu model at finite temperature and curvature. Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 11:785–794, 1996.arXiv:hep-th/ 9511059,doi:10.1142/S0217732396000795

1996 doi
[11]

Ishikawa, T

K. Ishikawa, T. Inagaki, and T. Muta. Curvature in- duced dynamical symmetry restoration in Einstein uni- verse.Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 11:939–948, 1996.doi: 10.1142/S0217732396000953

1996 doi
[12]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Leseduarte, and S. D. Odintsov. Higher derivative four fermion model in curved space-time.Phys. Lett. B, 347:33–40, 1995.arXiv:hep-th/9411216,doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(95)00032-G

1995 arXiv
[13]

Geyer and S

B. Geyer and S. D. Odintsov. Gauged NJL model at strong curvature.Phys. Lett. B, 376:260– 265, 1996.arXiv:hep-th/9603172,doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(96)00322-X

1996 arXiv
[14]

Geyer, L

B. Geyer, L. N. Granda, and S. D. Odintsov. Nambu- Jona-Lasinio model in curved space-time with magnetic field.Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 11:2053–2064, 1996.arXiv: hep-th/9605195,doi:10.1142/S0217732396002046

arXiv
[15]

A. A. Saharian, E. R. Bezerra de Mello, A. S. Kotanjyan, and T. A. Petrosyan. Fermionic Condensate in de Sitter Spacetime.Astrophysics, 64(4):529–543, 2021.arXiv: 2110.12677,doi:10.1007/s10511-021-09713-z

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio. Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Super- conductivity. 1.Phys. Rev., 122:345–358, 1961.doi: 5 10.1103/PhysRev.122.345

doi:10.1103/physrev.122.345 1961

[2] [2]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio. Dynamical model of elementary particles based on an analogy with super- conductivity. II.Phys. Rev., 124:246–254, 1961.doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.124.246

doi:10.1103/physrev.124.246 1961

[3] [3]

Inagaki, T

T. Inagaki, T. Muta, and S. D. Odintsov. Nambu-Jona- Lasinio model in curved space-time.Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 8:2117–2124, 1993.arXiv:hep-th/9306023,doi:10. 1142/S0217732393001835

arXiv 1993

[4] [4]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Leseduarte, and S. D. Odintsov. Chiral symmetry breaking in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model in curved space-time with nontrivial topology.Phys. Rev. D, 49:5551–5558, 1994.arXiv:hep-th/9312164,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.49.5551

arXiv 1994

[5] [5]

Inagaki, T

T. Inagaki, T. Muta, and S. D. Odintsov. Dynamical symmetry breaking in curved space-time: Four fermion interactions.Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 127:93, 1997. arXiv:hep-th/9711084,doi:10.1143/PTPS.127.93

arXiv 1997

[6] [6]

C. T. Hill and D. S. Salopek. Calculable Nonminimal Coupling of Composite Scalar Bosons to Gravity.Annals Phys., 213:21–30, 1992.doi:10.1016/0003-4916(92) 90281-P

work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(92 1992

[7] [7]

Addazi, P

A. Addazi, P. Chen, and A. Marciano. Emergent in- flation from a Nambu–Jona-Lasinio mechanism in grav- ity with non-dynamical torsion.Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(4):297, 2019.arXiv:1712.04848,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-019-6803-7

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

Inagaki, S

T. Inagaki, S. Mukaigawa, and T. Muta. A Soluble model of four fermion interactions in de Sitter space.Phys. Rev. D, 52:R4267–R4271, 1995.arXiv:hep-th/9505058, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.R4267

arXiv 1995