Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

One-loop corrections to the E-type $\alpha$-attractor models of inflation and primordial black hole production

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a generalized E-type α-attractor model tuned for asteroid-mass primordial black holes, the one-loop correction to the scalar power spectrum is only 1–3% of tree level.

desk verdict A new, model-specific one-loop calculation supports perturbativity for E-type alpha-attractors, but the numerical result needs sensitivity tests before being taken as established. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00628 v2 pith:TUQBK262 submitted 2025-02-02 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Daniel Frolovsky , Sergei V. Ketov This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th
keywords alpha-attractorsE-typeinflationmodelsone-loopcorrectionsscalarpowerspectrumprimordialblackholesultra-slow-rollscalar-inducedgravitationalwavespotentialreconstruction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether quantum loop corrections destroy the predictive power of a generalized E-type α-attractor inflation model engineered to produce asteroid-mass primordial black holes. Using a numerical one-loop formula for cubic interactions, it finds the correction is only about 1–3 percent of the tree-level scalar power spectrum for three fine-tuned parameter sets that also satisfy CMB tilt and tensor-to-scalar-ratio constraints. If correct, the model stays perturbatively controlled, and its predictions for PBH dark matter and scalar-induced gravitational waves remain reliable. The paper also outlines a numerical pipeline to reconstruct the inflaton potential from a future GW signal, tested on its own model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the one-loop formula (22) for the scalar power spectrum from cubic interactions, taken from Refs. [29, 30]. It requires as input the background evolution (Hubble, scale factor, inflaton), the USR phase boundaries set by $|\xi|=1$ in Eq. (15), and a large-scale probe mode $p$; the formula integrates $\eta'$ over the transition region and loop momenta $k$ between the horizon scales at the start and end of USR. The model potential (5) with parameter reparameterization (7) provides the inflationary background that produces a large power-spectrum peak with a mild transition ($h\approx-1.4$), for which the cubic interaction dominates over quartic.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to recompute $\delta_{1L}$ with a different USR transition criterion (e.g., instantaneous transition or a different sharpness definition), with probe mode $p$ varied from $k_{\rm peak}/10^6$ up to the plateau scale, and to compare the result with the sharp-transition analytic bound of Ref. [6]; if any of these choices push $\delta_{1L}$ above roughly $10\%$, the paper's conclusion would be reversed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the E-type α-attractor model with potential $V(\phi)=\frac34 M^2 M_{Pl}^2\left(1-y-\theta y^{-2}+y^2(\beta-\gamma y)\right)^2$ and the reparameterization of Eq. (7), tuned to give asteroid-mass PBHs, the one-loop correction from cubic interactions to the scalar power spectrum is only a few percent of the tree-level value: $\delta_{1L}=1.31\%$, $2.96\%$, and $1.33\%$ for parameter Sets 1, 2, and 3. This is obtained by numerically evolving the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation, identifying SR–USR transitions by $|\xi|=1$ in Eq. (15), and evaluating the one-loop formula of Refs. [29, 30] with loop momenta restricted to the USR phase and a probe mode $p=k_{\rm peak}/10^5$. The authors conclude the model remains perturbatively viable and its PBH and induced-GW predictions are not undermined by quantum corrections.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the one-loop formula from Refs. [29, 30], the $|\xi|=1$ transition criterion, the loop-momentum limits, and the probe mode $p=k_{\rm peak}/10^5$ are all accurate enough; a change in any of these choices could move the correction away from the few-percent range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the few-percent one-loop result holds, the E-type model's CMB predictions ($n_s=0.9649$, $r\approx0.014$–$0.017$) are not destabilized by quantum corrections, so the model remains a viable single-field explanation of asteroid-mass PBH dark matter.
  • The induced gravitational wave background computed from the power spectrum peak lies in the LISA/DECIGO sensitivity band, so a future detection could be matched to this specific model.
  • The reconstruction pipeline using the broken power-law fit and Levenberg–Marquardt minimization can recover parameter Set 3 starting from an assumed GW signal, demonstrating a concrete route from GW observations back to the inflaton potential.
  • Since the two-loop correction is estimated as roughly the square of the one-loop, the reported small $\delta_{1L}$ implies the perturbative expansion converges for this model.
  • The $\mu$-distortion bound is satisfied with $\mu\simeq10^{-10}$, well below the COBE/FIRAS limit, so the model avoids a further small-scale constraint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The calculation uses a particular large-scale probe mode $p=k_{\rm peak}/10^5$ and a specific USR boundary criterion; a different choice could change the result, so it would be useful to test whether varying $p$ over several orders of magnitude keeps $\delta_{1L}$ at the few-percent level.
  • The authors restrict loop momenta to the USR phase and note that extending the integration range has negligible effect, but an independent in-in computation without the instantaneous-transition approximation would strengthen the claim.
  • If the result holds, it suggests the earlier sharp-transition bound of Ref. [6] is too strong for models with mild transitions, and a similar perturbativity check should be applied to other PBH-capable attractor potentials (e.g., T-type) before their predictions are used.
  • The reconstruction approach, applied here retroactively, could be used prospectively: given a LISA/DECIGO detection, one could identify which E-type parameter sets survive the CMB and loop constraints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the generalized E-type alpha-attractor model of Eq. (5) with the reparameterization of Eq. (7), tuned to produce asteroid-mass primordial black holes while keeping the CMB observables ns and r within current bounds. The authors numerically solve the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation for the scalar power spectrum, compute the one-loop correction from cubic interactions using the formula of Refs. [29,30], and report relative corrections delta1L = 1.31%, 2.96%, and 1.33% for three parameter sets. They further compute the induced gravitational wave spectrum, check the mu-distortion bound, and outline a numerical procedure to reconstruct the scalar potential from a hypothetical GW signal. The central claim is that the one-loop correction is only a few percent of the tree-level spectrum, so the model remains perturbatively viable and its PBH and induced-GW predictions are not undermined by loop effects.

Significance. If the numerical result is reliable, the paper makes a useful contribution to an active debate about whether one-loop corrections destroy perturbativity in single-field models with a USR phase and PBH production. The work has the virtues of being model-specific, of using a smooth-transition treatment rather than an instantaneous-transition approximation, and of checking several phenomenological constraints (CMB, mu-distortion, induced GWs). However, the headline few-percent numbers are not accompanied by convergence tests, sensitivity scans, or a released code, and the quartic-interaction contribution is not computed directly. These gaps are load-bearing because the central claim depends on the numerical evaluation of Eq. (22) and on the assertion that cubic interactions dominate. With additional robustness checks the result could be valuable; in its current form the claim is plausible but not yet established to the standard implied by the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (22); Sec. 7, Table 2] The one-loop result rests on three tunable choices whose quantitative impact is not reported: the USR boundaries Ns and Ne defined by |xi|=1 in Eq. (15), the loop-momentum limits ks=a(Ns)H(Ns) to ke=a(Ne)H(Ne), and the probe scale p=k_peak/10^5. The only robustness statement, in Sec. 7, says that extending the integration limits has a negligible effect, but no numbers, plots, or convergence tests are given. Because the 1LC formula involves integrals over eta' and over k, an overly narrow integration window could systematically underestimate the correction, especially if the dominant contribution comes from near the transition edges. I request a quantitative sensitivity scan: vary Ns and Ne around the |xi|=1 values, extend the k-limits by factors of 10 above and below, and vary p across the plateau including the CMB scale; report the resulting range of delta1L for each parameter set. Releasing the numerical code or providing a reproducible pseudocode would also strengthen the claim.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eq. (24); Sec. 8] The paper does not compute the one-loop correction from quartic interactions. Instead, it infers cubic dominance from Eq. (24), taken from Ref. [11], obtaining deltaH3/deltaH4 = -5.9 for Set 1. This inference is not derived for the present E-model, and the paper itself concedes in Sec. 8 that an impact of quartic interactions 'deserves future research.' Since the abstract and conclusion claim that the one-loop correction is only a few percent, omitting the quartic channel leaves the central claim incomplete. The quartic contribution should either be computed with the same numerical framework or the applicability of Eq. (24) to the mild-transition regime of this model should be justified with a direct demonstration rather than an external analytical estimate.
  3. [Sec. 7, Table 2; Sec. 4, p=k_peak/10^5] The relative correction delta1L is quoted at a single probe wavenumber p=k_peak/10^5, which is many orders of magnitude above the CMB pivot scale k*=0.05 Mpc^-1. No k-dependence of delta1L is shown, so the statement that the correction is 'merely a few percent' cannot be extrapolated to the CMB-scale perturbations that anchor the model's viability. The authors should present delta1L as a function of p across the plateau, including the CMB scale, and explain whether the chosen p is representative. Without this, the claim that the model remains perturbatively viable on all observationally relevant scales is not supported by the reported numbers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (19)] The initial condition for Im(v'_k) appears to contain a typo: it is written as '- i kin sqrt(k/2)', but the imaginary part of the derivative should be a real number, and the standard Bunch-Davies normalization is Im(v'_k) = -sqrt(k/2) (with an appropriate phase convention). Please correct the notation.
  2. [Sec. 8 vs. Abstract] The abstract states that PBHs can constitute a significant fraction of the present dark matter, but Sec. 8 explicitly says the authors avoided presenting a specific PBH fraction because of the sensitivity of the abundance estimate. This mismatch should be resolved by either softening the abstract or providing the actual abundance calculation and its uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. 6] The reconstruction section is presented as a 'numerical approach tested in the model parameter space,' but the only concrete outcome is that parameter Set 3 was obtained from the BPL fit to the GW spectrum. It would be helpful to report the achieved chi-square or residuals for the fit and to state explicitly that the reconstruction is illustrative rather than a uniqueness result.
  4. [Sec. 5, Eq. (25)] The notation h^2 Omega_r and the factor c_g=0.4 are introduced without commenting on the normalization convention. A brief sentence explaining the standard convention (e.g., following Ref. [41]) would improve readability.
  5. [Fig. 2] The figure legend and caption are somewhat unclear: the vertical dashed lines are said to mark |xi|=1, but the curves plotted are |xi(N)| and eta'(N). Please clarify which curve corresponds to which quantity and where exactly the crossings occur.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the one-loop correction is a computed output from an external formula, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing for the central claim.

full rationale

The central result, delta_1L of a few percent in Table 2, is obtained by numerically evaluating Eq. (22), which is explicitly taken from the external references [29,30]. The model parameters in Table 1 are fitted to CMB observables, the PBH peak amplitude, and mu-distortion bounds; the one-loop percentage is not among those inputs. The transition condition |xi| = 1, the loop-momentum limits, and the probe scale p = k_peak/10^5 are numerical evaluation choices, not quantities into which the final delta_1L is inserted, so no equation reduces to its own output. The self-citations [27,28] motivate the form of the scalar potential, but the model choice is not equivalent to the one-loop calculation, and no uniqueness or no-go claim is imported from those papers. Section 6 is an inverse reconstruction exercise: parameter Set 3 is fitted to a GW spectrum, which is a data-fitting demonstration rather than a circular derivation of the paper's predictions. The unsupported statement that extending integration limits has negligible effect, and the absence of error bars or code, are robustness and reproducibility concerns, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the claims evaluated here.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The model has several hand-fitted parameters (alpha, phi_i, sigma, theta, M, p, plus BPL fit parameters) that determine the 1LC result, so the computed few-percent number is specific to that tuned region of parameter space, not a general theorem.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha = 0.7425; 0.74; 0.77218 (Sets 1-3)
    Controls the shape of the potential and the power-spectrum peak; tuned to CMB ns/r and PBH mass range.
  • phi_i = -0.611325; -0.6112; -0.6415 (Sets 1-3)
    Position of the inflection point; sets the PBH peak scale.
  • sigma = 0.012137; 0.0131; 0.0125 (Sets 1-3)
    Shape around the inflection point; controls the peak amplitude of the power spectrum.
  • theta = -7.29e-7; -9.17e-7; -7.37e-7 (Sets 1-3)
    Controls the plateau slope on CMB scales; tuned to match the scalar tilt ns.
  • (M/M_Pl)^2 = 6.3e-10; 7.2e-10; 6.3e-10 (Sets 1-3)
    Overall amplitude of the potential; sets the CMB amplitude As.
  • p = k_peak/10^5 = chosen by hand
    Large-scale mode at which the 1LC is evaluated; arbitrary choice in Eq. (22), no sensitivity scan given.
  • Broken-power-law parameters A, alpha1, beta1, k* = A=0.00233, alpha1=2.446, beta1=0.379, k*=1.57e11 (Set 1)
    Fitted to the numerically computed power spectrum (Fig. 5); used for GW density and reconstruction, not for the 1LC claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Action is the standard single-field inflation action S = integral of sqrt(-g)(R/2 - (dphi)^2/2 - V(phi)) with c=hbar=M_Pl=1.
    Defines the physics of the model; no UV completion or supergravity embedding is used in the calculations.
  • domain assumption The one-loop formula Eq. (22) from Refs. [29,30] correctly gives the cubic-interaction 1LC for this model.
    This is the central numerical tool; adopted without derivation, and its validity for the mild-transition E-model is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper USR phase boundaries are set by |xi| = 1 (Eq. (15)), loop k-integration is limited to ks=a(Ns)H(Ns) to ke=a(Ne)H(Ne), and P_zeta is evaluated at p=k_peak/10^5.
    These choices set the integration limits and the observation scale for the 1LC; they are practical but not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Quartic interactions give a subdominant 1LC, inferred from Eq. (24) of Ref. [11] with delta_H3/delta_H4 = -5.9.
    Quartic corrections are not computed in this paper; the claim of model validity relies on this inference.
  • domain assumption The GW density from Eq. (25) neglects non-Gaussian corrections, which could rescale Omega_GW by a factor A4 (Ref. [43]).
    Affects the detectability and reconstruction claims, but not the 1LC percentage.
  • standard math Slow-roll formulas ns = 1 - 2epsilon - eta and r = 16epsilon (Eq. (30)) are valid at the CMB pivot scale.
    Standard linear-order expressions; the model is tuned so that the central values match Planck data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One-loop corrections to the E-type $\alpha$-attractor models of inflation and primordial black hole production." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUQBK262

@misc{pith2026250200628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One-loop corrections to the E-type $\alpha$-attractor models of inflation and primordial black hole production},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUQBK262}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00628}
}
abstract

The one-loop corrections (1LC) to the power spectrum of scalar perturbations arising from cubic interactions in the single-field E-type $\alpha$-attractor models of inflation and primordial black hole (PBH) production are numerically calculated. The results demonstrate the 1LC contributes merely a few percent to the tree-level power spectrum. The model parameters are chosen to predict the PBH masses in the asteroid-mass range, while maintaining consistency with the cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations within 1$\sigma$ confidence levels, and obeying the upper limits on $\mu$-distortions. The PBHs formed on scales smaller than the inflation scale can constitute a significant fraction of the present dark matter (DM). The PBH-induced gravitational waves (GW) may be detectable by the future space-based gravitational interferometers. We also consider a reconstruction of the scalar potential from possible GW observations and present a numerical approach tested in the model parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00628 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The profiles of the scalar potential in the E-model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The evolution of η ′ and |ξ| as the functions of e-folds in the E-model. The vertical dashed lines mark the transitions where |ξ| = 1. The parameters of the model are given by set 1 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The profiles of the power spectrum of scalar perturbations in the SR approxima [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The amplitude of the peak in the power spectrum of scalar perturbations in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The exact power spectrum of scalar perturbations derived from the MS equation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The curve with red dots represents the GW density computed from Eq. (25) by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Efficient training of photonic quantum generative models

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Photonic quantum generative models can be trained classically via maximum mean discrepancy, with deployment corresponding to boson sampling.

  2. Conservation of superhorizon curvature perturbations at one loop: Backreaction in the in-in formalism and Renormalization

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Superhorizon curvature perturbations remain conserved at one-loop order in single-field inflation with a transient non-slow-roll period when backreaction and renormalization are included.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [11]

    One-loop corrections in power spectrum in single field inflation,

    H. Firouzjahi, “One-loop corrections in power spectrum in single field inflation,” JCAP 10 (2023) 006, arXiv:2303.12025 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,

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

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Lectures on the Swampland Program in String Compactifications,

    M. van Beest, J. Calder´ on-Infante, D. Mirfendereski, and I. Valenzuela, “Lectures on the Swampland Program in String Compactifications,” Phys. Rept.989 (2022) 1–50, arXiv:2102.01111 [hep-th]. 13

    arXiv 2022

  4. [3]

    Cosmology,

    I. D. Novikov and Y. B. Zeldovic, “Cosmology,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.5 (1967) 627–649

    work page 1967

  5. [4]

    Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,

    S. Hawking, “Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152 (1971) 75

    work page 1971

  6. [5]

    Anatomy of single-field inflationary models for primordial black holes,

    A. Karam, N. Koivunen, E. Tomberg, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, “Anatomy of single-field inflationary models for primordial black holes,” JCAP 03 (2023) 013, arXiv:2205.13540 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Constraining Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation,

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, “Constraining Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132 no. 22, (2024) 221003, arXiv:2211.03395 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    The Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation is Not Ruled Out,

    A. Riotto, “The Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation is Not Ruled Out,” arXiv:2301.00599 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    No-go for the formation of heavy mass Primordial Black Holes in Single Field Inflation,

    S. Choudhury, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and M. Sami, “No-go for the formation of heavy mass Primordial Black Holes in Single Field Inflation,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 no. 9, (2024) 884, arXiv:2301.10000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Note on the bispectrum and one-loop corrections in single-field inflation with primordial black hole formation,

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, “Note on the bispectrum and one-loop corrections in single-field inflation with primordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D109 no. 10, (2024) 103541, arXiv:2303.00341 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    The Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation is Still Not Ruled Out,

    A. Riotto, “The Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation is Still Not Ruled Out,” arXiv:2303.01727 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Squeezed bispectrum and one-loop corrections in transient constant-roll inflation,

    H. Motohashi and Y. Tada, “Squeezed bispectrum and one-loop corrections in transient constant-roll inflation,” JCAP 08 (2023) 069, arXiv:2303.16035 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Primordial Black Holes and loops in single-field inflation,

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Riotto, “Primordial Black Holes and loops in single-field inflation,” JCAP 02 (2024) 021, arXiv:2304.07801 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Absence of one-loop effects on large scales from small scales in non-slow-roll dynamics,

    J. Fumagalli, “Absence of one-loop effects on large scales from small scales in non-slow-roll dynamics,” arXiv:2305.19263 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Quantum Loop Corrections in the Modified Gravity Model of Starobinsky Inflation with Primordial Black Hole Production,

    S. Saburov and S. V. Ketov, “Quantum Loop Corrections in the Modified Gravity Model of Starobinsky Inflation with Primordial Black Hole Production,” Universe 10 no. 9, (2024) 354, arXiv:2402.02934 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Superhorizon Curvature Perturbations Are Protected against One-Loop Corrections,

    K. Inomata, “Superhorizon Curvature Perturbations Are Protected against One-Loop Corrections,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133 no. 14, (2024) 141001, arXiv:2403.04682 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    No time to derive: unraveling total time derivatives in in-in perturbation theory,

    M. Braglia and L. Pinol, “No time to derive: unraveling total time derivatives in in-in perturbation theory,” JHEP 08 (2024) 068, arXiv:2403.14558 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Comparing sharp and smooth transitions of the second slow-roll parameter in single-field inflation,

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, “Comparing sharp and smooth transitions of the second slow-roll parameter in single-field inflation,” JCAP 10 (2024) 036, arXiv:2405.12145 [astro-ph.CO]. 14

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Proving the absence of large one-loop corrections to the power spectrum of curvature perturbations in transient ultra-slow-roll inflation within the path-integral approach,

    R. Kawaguchi, S. Tsujikawa, and Y. Yamada, “Proving the absence of large one-loop corrections to the power spectrum of curvature perturbations in transient ultra-slow-roll inflation within the path-integral approach,” JHEP 12 (2024) 095, arXiv:2407.19742 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Absence of one-loop effects on large scales from small scales in non-slow-roll dynamics II: Quartic interactions and consistency relations,

    J. Fumagalli, “Absence of one-loop effects on large scales from small scales in non-slow-roll dynamics II: Quartic interactions and consistency relations,” arXiv:2408.08296 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Two-Loop Corrections in Power Spectrum in Models of Inflation with Primordial Black Hole Formation,

    H. Firouzjahi, “Two-Loop Corrections in Power Spectrum in Models of Inflation with Primordial Black Hole Formation,” Universe 10 no. 12, (2024) 456, arXiv:2411.10253 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Universality Class in Conformal Inflation,

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, “Universality Class in Conformal Inflation,” JCAP 07 (2013) 002, arXiv:1306.5220 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors,

    M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, “Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114 no. 14, (2015) 141302, arXiv:1412.3797 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B91 (1980) 99–102

    1980

  17. [25]

    On the equivalence of Starobinsky and Higgs inflationary models in gravity and supergravity,

    S. V. Ketov, “On the equivalence of Starobinsky and Higgs inflationary models in gravity and supergravity,” J. Phys. A53 no. 8, (2020) 084001, arXiv:1911.01008 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Primordial black holes from α-attractors,

    I. Dalianis, A. Kehagias, and G. Tringas, “Primordial black holes from α-attractors,” JCAP 01 (2019) 037, arXiv:1805.09483 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    E-models of inflation and primordial black holes,

    D. Frolovsky, S. V. Ketov, and S. Saburov, “E-models of inflation and primordial black holes,” Front. in Phys.10 (2022) 1005333, arXiv:2207.11878 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Production of Primordial Black Holes in Improved E-Models of Inflation,

    D. Frolovsky and S. V. Ketov, “Production of Primordial Black Holes in Improved E-Models of Inflation,” Universe 9 no. 6, (2023) 294, arXiv:2304.12558 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Perturbativity in the presence of ultraslow-roll dynamics,

    G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., M. Taoso, and A. Urbano, “Perturbativity in the presence of ultraslow-roll dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D109 no. 12, (2024) 123550, arXiv:2305.03491 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Numerical 1-loop correction from a potential yielding ultra-slow-roll dynamics,

    M. W. Davies, L. Iacconi, and D. J. Mulryne, “Numerical 1-loop correction from a potential yielding ultra-slow-roll dynamics,” JCAP 04 (2024) 050, arXiv:2312.05694 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Revisiting non-Gaussianity from non-attractor inflation models,

    Y.-F. Cai, X. Chen, M. H. Namjoo, M. Sasaki, D.-G. Wang, and Z. Wang, “Revisiting non-Gaussianity from non-attractor inflation models,” JCAP 05 (2018) 012, arXiv:1712.09998 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Steepest growth of the power spectrum and primordial black holes,

    C. T. Byrnes, P. S. Cole, and S. P. Patil, “Steepest growth of the power spectrum and primordial black holes,” JCAP 06 (2019) 028, arXiv:1811.11158 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Dissecting the growth of the power spectrum for primordial black holes,

    P. Carrilho, K. A. Malik, and D. J. Mulryne, “Dissecting the growth of the power spectrum for primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D100 no. 10, (2019) 103529, arXiv:1907.05237 [astro-ph.CO]. 15

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Did NANOGrav see a signal from primordial black hole formation?,

    V. Vaskonen and H. Veerm¨ ae, “Did NANOGrav see a signal from primordial black hole formation?,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126 no. 5, (2021) 051303, arXiv:2009.07832 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    An analytic approach to non-slow-roll inflation,

    G. Tasinato, “An analytic approach to non-slow-roll inflation,” Phys. Rev. D103 no. 2, (2021) 023535, arXiv:2012.02518 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Gravitational waves from inflation in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,

    LISA Cosmology Working Group Collaboration, M. Braglia et al., “Gravitational waves from inflation in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,” JCAP 11 (2024) 032, arXiv:2407.04356 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Gravitational waves induced by scalar perturbations with a broken power-law peak,

    C.-Z. Li, C. Yuan, and Q.-g. Huang, “Gravitational waves induced by scalar perturbations with a broken power-law peak,” JCAP 01 (2025) 067, arXiv:2407.12914 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Steepest Growth in the Primordial Power Spectrum from Excited States at a Sudden Transition,

    M. Cielo, G. Mangano, O. Pisanti, and D. Wands, “Steepest Growth in the Primordial Power Spectrum from Excited States at a Sudden Transition,” arXiv:2410.22154 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review,

    G. Dom` enech, “Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review,”Universe 7 no. 11, (2021) 398, arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Semianalytic calculation of gravitational wave spectrum nonlinearly induced from primordial curvature perturbations,

    K. Kohri and T. Terada, “Semianalytic calculation of gravitational wave spectrum nonlinearly induced from primordial curvature perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 12, (2018) 123532, arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A Cosmological Signature of the SM Higgs Instability: Gravitational Waves,

    J. R. Espinosa, D. Racco, and A. Riotto, “A Cosmological Signature of the SM Higgs Instability: Gravitational Waves,” JCAP 09 (2018) 012, arXiv:1804.07732 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter: LISA Serendipity,

    N. Bartolo, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Lewis, M. Peloso, and A. Riotto, “Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter: LISA Serendipity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122 no. 21, (2019) 211301, arXiv:1810.12218 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    How Well Do We Know the Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves?,

    A. J. Iovino, S. Matarrese, G. Perna, A. Ricciardone, and A. Riotto, “How Well Do We Know the Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves?,” arXiv:2412.06764 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,

    LISA Collaboration, P. Amaro-Seoane et al., “Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,” arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Reconstructing Primordial Curvature Perturbations via Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves with LISA,

    LISA Cosmology Working Group Collaboration, J. E. Gammal et al., “Reconstructing Primordial Curvature Perturbations via Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves with LISA,” arXiv:2501.11320 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Detecting a gravitational-wave background with next-generation space interferometers,

    H. Kudoh, A. Taruya, T. Hiramatsu, and Y. Himemoto, “Detecting a gravitational-wave background with next-generation space interferometers,” Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 064006, arXiv:gr-qc/0511145

    2006 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Arbitrariness of inflationary fluctuation spectra,

    H. M. Hodges and G. R. Blumenthal, “Arbitrariness of inflationary fluctuation spectra,” Phys. Rev. D42 (1990) 3329–3333

    1990

  40. [48]

    Reconstructing Primordial Black Hole Power Spectra from Gravitational Waves,

    D. Frolovsky, F. Kuhnel, and I. Stamou, “Reconstructing Primordial Black Hole Power Spectra from Gravitational Waves,” arXiv:2404.06547 [astro-ph.CO]. 16

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Primordial black hole dark matter from inflation: The reverse engineering approach,

    G. Franciolini and A. Urbano, “Primordial black hole dark matter from inflation: The reverse engineering approach,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 12, (2022) 123519, arXiv:2207.10056 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Primordial Black Hole Formation from Power Spectrum with Finite-width,

    S. Pi, M. Sasaki, V. Takhistov, and J. Wang, “Primordial Black Hole Formation from Power Spectrum with Finite-width,” arXiv:2501.00295 [astro-ph.CO]

  43. [51]

    Descope of the ALIA mission,

    X. Gong et al., “Descope of the ALIA mission,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser.610 no. 1, (2015) 012011, arXiv:1410.7296 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector,

    TianQin Collaboration, J. Luo et al., “TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav.33 no. 3, (2016) 035010, arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gravitational Wave signatures of inflationary models from Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter,

    J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Peloso, and C. Unal, “Gravitational Wave signatures of inflationary models from Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter,” JCAP 09 (2017) 013, arXiv:1707.02441 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gravitational Waves Induced by non-Gaussian Scalar Perturbations,

    R.-g. Cai, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, “Gravitational Waves Induced by non-Gaussian Scalar Perturbations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122 no. 20, (2019) 201101, arXiv:1810.11000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Inflationary Primordial Black Holes as All Dark Matter,

    K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, Y. Tada, and T. T. Yanagida, “Inflationary Primordial Black Holes as All Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 4, (2017) 043504, arXiv:1701.02544 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Double inflation as a single origin of primordial black holes for all dark matter and LIGO observations,

    K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, and T. T. Yanagida, “Double inflation as a single origin of primordial black holes for all dark matter and LIGO observations,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 4, (2018) 043514, arXiv:1711.06129 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    The Interaction of Matter and Radiation in a Hot-Model Universe,

    Y. B. Zeldovich and R. A. Sunyaev, “The Interaction of Matter and Radiation in a Hot-Model Universe,” Astrophys. Space Sci.4 (1969) 301–316

    1969

  50. [58]

    The evolution of CMB spectral distortions in the early Universe,

    J. Chluba and R. A. Sunyaev, “The evolution of CMB spectral distortions in the early Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.419 (2012) 1294–1314, arXiv:1109.6552 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Features and New Physical Scales in Primordial Observables: Theory and Observation,

    J. Chluba, J. Hamann, and S. P. Patil, “Features and New Physical Scales in Primordial Observables: Theory and Observation,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24 no. 10, (2015) 1530023, arXiv:1505.01834 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Constraining the inflationary potential with spectral distortions,

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, M. Lucca, and D. C. Hooper, “Constraining the inflationary potential with spectral distortions,” JCAP 03 (2021) 036, arXiv:2010.07814 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Multimessenger probes of inflationary fluctuations and primordial black holes,

    C. ¨Unal, E. D. Kovetz, and S. P. Patil, “Multimessenger probes of inflationary fluctuations and primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D103 no. 6, (2021) 063519, arXiv:2008.11184 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    A New Window on Primordial non-Gaussianity,

    E. Pajer and M. Zaldarriaga, “A New Window on Primordial non-Gaussianity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (2012) 021302, arXiv:1201.5375 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Quest for CMB spectral distortions to probe the scalar-induced gravitational wave background interpretation of pulsar timing array data,

    M. Tagliazucchi, M. Braglia, F. Finelli, and M. Pieroni, “Quest for CMB spectral distortions to probe the scalar-induced gravitational wave background interpretation of pulsar timing array data,” Phys. Rev. D111 no. 2, (2025) L021305, arXiv:2310.08527 [astro-ph.CO]. 17

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    The Cosmic Microwave Background spectrum from the full COBE FIRAS data set,

    D. J. Fixsen, E. S. Cheng, J. M. Gales, J. C. Mather, R. A. Shafer, and E. L. Wright, “The Cosmic Microwave Background spectrum from the full COBE FIRAS data set,” Astrophys. J.473 (1996) 576, arXiv:astro-ph/9605054

    1996 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Swampland distance conjecture, inflation and α-attractors,

    M. Scalisi and I. Valenzuela, “Swampland distance conjecture, inflation and α-attractors,” JHEP 08 (2019) 160, arXiv:1812.07558 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Encyclopædia Inflationaris: Opiparous Edition,

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, “Encyclopædia Inflationaris: Opiparous Edition,” Phys. Dark Univ.5-6 (2014) 75–235, arXiv:1303.3787 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Cosmic Inflation at the crossroads,

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, “Cosmic Inflation at the crossroads,” JCAP 07 (2024) 087, arXiv:2404.10647 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Reheating process in the R 2 inflationary model with the baryogenesis scenario,

    H. Jeong, K. Kamada, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, “Reheating process in the R 2 inflationary model with the baryogenesis scenario,” JCAP 11 (2023) 023, arXiv:2305.14273 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Is the formation of primordial black holes from single-field inflation compatible with standard cosmology?,

    S. Allegrini, L. Del Grosso, A. J. Iovino, and A. Urbano, “Is the formation of primordial black holes from single-field inflation compatible with standard cosmology?,” arXiv:2412.14049 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Testing inflation on all scales: a case study with α-attractors,

    L. Iacconi, M. Bacchi, L. F. Guimar˜ aes, and F. T. Falciano, “Testing inflation on all scales: a case study with α-attractors,” arXiv:2412.02544 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Quantum diffusion and large primordial perturbations from inflation,

    V. Vennin and D. Wands, “Quantum diffusion and large primordial perturbations from inflation,” arXiv:2402.12672 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Ultra-Slow-Roll Inflation on the Lattice: Backreaction and Nonlinear Effects,

    A. Caravano, G. Franciolini, and S. Renaux-Petel, “Ultra-Slow-Roll Inflation on the Lattice: Backreaction and Nonlinear Effects,” arXiv:2410.23942 [astro-ph.CO]. 18

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.