Stochastic inflation with an extremely large number of $e$-folds

Fuminobu Takahashi; Naoya Kitajima; Yuichiro Tada

Stochastic inflation with an extremely large number of $e$-folds

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A shallow local minimum at the top of a hilltop-inflation potential can make a typical single-field slow-roll inflation last $10^{10^{10}}$ e-folds and still match CMB observations.

desk verdict A compact, sound model-building letter showing that a shallow local minimum at a hilltop can stretch the typical e-folding number to absurdly large values via standard stochastic diffusion, with the main gaps being missing numerics/error bars and the uncomputed perturbation spectrum from the long stochastic phase. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08694 v2 pith:WAXRAN35 submitted 2019-08-23 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Naoya Kitajima , Yuichiro Tada , Fuminobu Takahashi This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.CO

keywords stochasticinflationeternalhilltopFokker-Planckequationfirst-passagetimeHawking-MossformulaQCDaxionBunch-Daviesdistribution

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 proposes a single-field, slow-roll inflation model whose typical duration can be extremely long, up to $\langle N\rangle\sim10^{10^{10}}$ e-folds. The key step is a very shallow local minimum near the top of a hilltop potential: classical drift keeps the inflaton probability distribution pushed back toward the minimum even though quantum diffusion is strong, and escape happens only after many Hubble times. The escape time follows a Hawking-Moss-type formula, after which ordinary slow-roll inflation resumes and produces curvature perturbations consistent with CMB observations. Such a long typical run matters because scenarios like the QCD axion need many e-folds to reach the Bunch-Davies distribution, and this model supplies them without invoking volume weighting or tunneling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the shallow local minimum at the top of the hilltop potential, combined with the condition that its curvature is small compared with the Hubble scale ($0<m^2<H^2$). In the stochastic formalism, the mean e-folds follow from the adjoint Fokker-Planck equation (2), whose solution (3) reduces to the classical-drift formula (5) when the classicality parameter $\eta_{\rm cl}=|v''v^2/v'^2|$ is small; this is what traps the field, since the drift pushes the distribution back to the minimum. The escape rate from the trap is the Hawking-Moss-type formula (6), whose exponential factor $e^{1/v(0)-1/v(\varphi_+)}$ is responsible for the very long residence time. After the field passes the local maximum, the same potential behaves as a standard hilltop model and matches CMB observations.

What would settle it

Numerically evolve the full first-passage problem for the potential (7) with the CMB-fixed parameters (8) at $m^2/H^2$ values near the enhancement threshold and compare the complete distribution of escape e-folds with the exponential law implied by Eq. (6); if the median escape time is far shorter than the mean $\langle N\rangle\sim10^{10^{10}}$, then the quoted mean is not the typical duration and the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding a shallow local minimum to the top of a hilltop potential turns a standard slow-roll model into one with an exponentially long typical e-folding number. For the $Z_2$-symmetric potential (7) with $0<m^2<H^2$, the origin is a shallow minimum and the surrounding region satisfies $\eta_{\rm cl}=|v''v^2/v'^2|\ll1$ even where the stochasticity parameter $\xi_{\rm sto}$ exceeds one; the classical drift therefore moves the whole probability distribution back toward the minimum, and the field leaves only through accumulated quantum diffusion. The escape rate is given by the Hawking-Moss-type formula (6), and with the CMB-fixed parameters (8), numerical integration of the first-passage formula (3) gives $\langle N\rangle$ as large as $10^{10^{10}}$ for a deep enough minimum. After escape, the same field slow-rolls and generates $A_s=2.1\times10^{-9}$ and $n_s=0.958$, consistent with CMB observations. The scenario thereby combines old-inflation-like long residence with new-inflation-like smooth exit, without bubble nucleation or volume-measure selection.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the stochastic Fokker-Planck description stays valid throughout the trapped phase, in particular that the inflaton mass-squared remains between zero and the Hubble scale ($0<m^2<H^2$); if it exceeded $H^2$, escape would proceed by tunneling with bubble nucleation instead of by accumulated diffusion, and the Hawking-Moss-type formula would no longer be the relevant description.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single-field slow-roll model can supply $\langle N\rangle\sim10^{10^{10}}$ typical e-folds without any volume weighting, so the long inflation does not rely on selecting rare spatial regions.
Light scalars such as the QCD axion can reach the Bunch-Davies distribution, since the required condition $N\gtrsim10^{26}(H_{\rm inf}/100\,\mathrm{MeV})^2/(m_a/10^{-5}\,\mathrm{eV})^2$ is easily satisfied.
After the stochastic trapping ends, the same field slow-rolls in the same potential and produces $A_s=2.1\times10^{-9}$ and $n_s=0.958$, consistent with CMB data.
As $m^2$ is increased from negative values toward $H^2$, the model interpolates continuously from new-inflation-like hilltop behaviour to old-inflation-like trapping, all without bubble nucleation.

Reading between the lines

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

The same trapping mechanism would apply to spectator scalar fields during inflation, not only the inflaton, so light fields held near a shallow minimum could be released later and affect isocurvature perturbations or dark-matter abundances.
The Hawking-Moss-type formula predicts an exponential escape-time distribution; computing the second moment $\langle N^2\rangle$ from the adjoint equation would test whether the quoted mean is in fact the typical duration and not an average dominated by extremely rare long trajectories.
Because the exponent in Eq. (6) scales with the inverse of the normalized potential, lowering the inflation scale should push the typical e-folds far above $10^{10^{10}}$, which would strengthen the motivation from low-scale axion and relaxion scenarios.
Radiative corrections to the shallow minimum could spoil the $\eta_{\rm cl}<1$ region; checking the stability of the trap under such corrections is a model-building constraint the paper leaves open.

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

I read this as a clean addition to the stochastic inflation toolbox. The new move is putting a very shallow local minimum at the top of a hilltop potential, so the classical drift pushes the inflaton probability distribution back toward the minimum while quantum diffusion occasionally lets it leak out. The resulting escape time is governed by a Hawking-Moss-type factor, and the authors show numerically that the mean e-folds from the origin can reach ~10^(10^10) without leaving the regime where slow-roll stochastic inflation applies. That is a genuinely useful construction, especially for scenarios like the QCD axion or relaxion that need enormous e-folds to reach equilibrium initial conditions.

The paper does several things well. The Fokker-Planck formalism is standard, the mean-first-passage-time formula (3) is the known exact result, and the analytic escape formula (6) is the correct saddle-point limit. The parameter choice in (8) gives a reasonable CMB normalization, and the potential (7) is simple enough to be transparent. The discussion of the boundary between stochastic escape and tunneling (Sec. 4) is honest and physically sensible.

Where are the soft spots? They are mostly reproducibility and completeness rather than errors. There is no code or data release, so the claimed agreement between Eq. (6) and the numerical integration cannot be checked from the manuscript alone. The perturbation spectrum from the long stochastic phase is not computed; the authors only say standard slow-roll follows after escape. That matters because an extended stochastic regime can imprint non-Gaussianity or a scale-dependent feature, and the paper does not address it. They also identify 'typical' with the mean first-passage time; for the high barriers considered here the escape-time distribution is exponential, so the mean is fine, but it would have been worth a sentence. One minor point: they mention 'slight wiggling' in Fig. 2 as numerical error, which suggests the numerics are not fully converged at those field values.

None of these are load-bearing flaws. The central mechanism is standard and the plotted regime keeps m²/H² well below the validity boundary. The paper deserves a serious referee and likely publication after minor revision, provided the numerical agreement is documented or the code is made available. I would cite it for the mechanism and would bring it to a reading group focused on stochastic inflation or axion cosmology.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a single-field, slow-roll hilltop inflation model in which a shallow local minimum near the top of the potential greatly enhances the stochastic duration of inflation. Using the Fokker-Planck formulation of stochastic inflation, the authors compute the mean number of e-folds from the first-passage-time solution in Eq. (3), present the analytic escape-time estimate in Eq. (6), and show in Fig. 3 that for positive mass squared (0 < m^2 < H^2) the expected e-folds can be as large as 10^(10^10). They state that with the parameter choices in Eq. (8) the subsequent slow-roll phase yields CMB-consistent values A_s = 2.1e-9 and n_s = 0.958. The paper argues that this scenario combines the long-duration property of old inflation with the natural slow-roll exit of new inflation without invoking the volume measure.

Significance. If the central calculation is correct, the paper provides a simple, explicit mechanism for realizing an extremely large number of e-folds in a single-field slow-roll model, without relying on volume-weighted eternal inflation. The use of the standard stochastic-inflation equation (1), the exact mean-first-passage-time representation (3), and the Hawking-Moss-type escape formula (6) are appropriate, and the numerical integration in Fig. 3 directly supports the claimed enhancement. The main limitations are documentation and presentation: the agreement between Eq. (6) and the numerics is asserted rather than displayed, the identification of the mean as the 'typical' number of e-folds is not justified, and the CMB consistency statement is presented as a parameter choice rather than a derived result. None of these appears to undermine the core mechanism.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3, Fig. 3] The text says that the analytic estimate (6) 'agrees well' with the numerical integration of Eq. (3), but no comparison is shown in the figure or in a table. Please include a panel or a table that compares Eq. (6) with the numerical result over the m^2 range of Fig. 3, and state the numerical integration tolerances used.
[Section 2, after Eq. (3)] The paper identifies the mean first-passage time ⟨N⟩ as the 'typical' number of e-folds. Since the mean can be dominated by rare long trajectories if the first-passage-time distribution is heavy-tailed, please either show that the distribution is approximately exponential in the high-barrier regime of interest or cite a result establishing that the mean is representative of the typical value.
[Section 3, Eq. (8)] The statement that the parameters in Eq. (8) produce A_s = 2.1e-9 and n_s = 0.958 is not accompanied by the relevant slow-roll formulas or a derivation. A brief display of the standard expressions used to evaluate A_s and n_s would make the CMB-consistency claim reproducible.
[Abstract and Section 1] There are minor grammatical and typesetting issues: 'such the QCD axion' should be 'such as the QCD axion', and the abstract renders 10^(10^10) as '101010', which is confusing without superscript formatting.
[Figure 2 caption] The caption notes that a slight wiggling near φ ~ 10^(-2) M_Pl is a numerical error, but no numerical method or tolerance is described. A one-sentence mention of the integration scheme in the text or figure caption would allow readers to judge the reliability of the curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the large e-folds are outputs of an independent first-passage formula, with the mass parameter scanned as an input rather than fitted to the target N.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The mean first-passage time in Eq. (3) is an exact solution of the adjoint Fokker-Planck equation (2), and the escape-rate estimate in Eq. (6) is an analytic saddle-point approximation attributed to the independent works Ref. [33] (Noorbala et al.) and Ref. [34] (Hawking-Moss). Neither of these load-bearing formulas is authored by the present paper's authors, so there is no self-citation chain or uniqueness-imported-from-authors issue. The potential parameters in Eq. (8) are fixed by the CMB scalar amplitude As = 2.1e-9 and spectral index ns = 0.958, which are independent of the target e-fold number; the mass squared m^2 is scanned as an input, and the huge value of <N> shown in Fig. 3 is an output of the numerical integration of Eq. (3), not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The analytic formula (6) is used only to interpret the numerical result, and the paper states that the two agree. The self-citations in Refs. [3,36,37,39,40] appear in motivation, parameter-tuning remarks, and model-building context, and they are not load-bearing for the main calculation. The main caveats are reproducibility-related (the precise agreement between Eq. (6) and the numerics, and the exact CMB normalization, are asserted rather than tabulated) and physical-validity-related (the stochastic description requires m^2 < H^2, which the plotted extreme points still satisfy). These caveats are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses four potential parameters; three are fixed by CMB observables and one, m², is scanned to achieve the large e-folds. The result is therefore a tuned single-field model rather than a parameter-free prediction. No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced. The central quantitative output depends on the standard stochastic-inflation framework and on a cited escape-rate formula.

free parameters (4)

m² = varied; examples m²/H² = 10^-7 to 10^-2
Mass at origin sets the depth of the local minimum; scanning it produces the range of e-folds shown in Fig. 3.
Λ = 0.998×10^-4 M_Pl
Inflation scale; fixed by matching the amplitude As = 2.1×10^-9.
λ = 3.39×10^-14
Quartic self-coupling; fixed together with other parameters to match ns = 0.958.
g = (Λ² M_Pl^4/g)^(1/6) = 0.1 M_Pl
Sets the true minimum and the post-escape slow-roll phase; chosen for CMB consistency.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Stochastic Fokker-Planck formalism for the inflaton distribution
Adopted in Sec. 2, Eq. (1); assumes superhorizon quantum fluctuations behave as classical noise and the probability distribution satisfies the FP equation.
domain assumption First-passage-time moments obey the adjoint Fokker-Planck equation
Used in Sec. 2, Eqs. (2)-(3), following Refs. [31,32]; assumes reflecting boundary at φbar = 0 and absorbing boundary at the end of inflation.
domain assumption Slow-roll and light-field conditions hold
The paper restricts to v << 1 and |η_V| << 1 and to 0 < m² < H² (Sec. 3), so classical drift and stochastic diffusion are captured by the slow-roll FP coefficients.
domain assumption Escape from the local minimum is described by the Hawking-Moss rate (6)
Taken from Ref. [33]; assumes the mean first-passage time from the local minimum over the barrier is dominated by stochastic diffusion with exponentially suppressed rate, not by tunneling.
domain assumption The post-escape phase is ordinary slow-roll inflation matching Planck
The parameters in Eq. (8) are chosen so that the later evolution gives As = 2.1×10^-9 and ns = 0.958; the stochastic phase's perturbations are assumed to be on unobservable superhorizon scales.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic inflation with an extremely large number of $e$-folds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAXRAN35

@misc{pith2026190808694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic inflation with an extremely large number of $e$-folds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAXRAN35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08694}
}

abstract

We propose a class of single-field, slow-roll inflation models in which a typical number of $e$-folds can be extremely large. The key point is to introduce a very shallow local minimum near the top of the potential in a hilltop inflation model. In particular, a typical number of $e$-folds is enhanced if classical behavior dominates around the local minimum such that the inflaton probability distribution is drifted to the local minimum as a whole. After the inflaton escapes from the local minimum due to the stochastic dynamics, the ordinary slow-roll inflation follows and it can generate the primordial density perturbation consistent with observation. Interestingly, our scenario inherits the advantages of the old and new inflation: the typical $e$-folds can be extremely large as in the old inflation, and slow-roll inflation naturally follows after the stochastic regime as in the new inflation. In our numerical example, the typical number of $e$-folds can be as large as $10^{10^{10}}$, which is large enough for various light scalars such the QCD axion to reach the Bunch-Davies distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08694 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The potential (7) with the parameter values (8) and the typical mass m2/H2 = 10−7 . The potential has a shallow local minimum surrounded by the local maximum as shown in the magnification. The shaded region corresponds with ηcl > 1. The classical region with ηcl < 1 appears between the local minimum and maximum that will increase the expected e-folds for m2/H2 & 10−7 , because the inflaton is pushed back to the lo… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The averaged e-folds hN i (φ) given by Eq. (3) for different masses, m2/H2 = (2 × 10−7 , 10−7 , 0, −10−4 ), where H = Λ2/ √ 3MPl is the Hubble parameter around the origin. The other parameters are fixed by the CMB data as Eq. (8). The shaded region and the orange line represent ηcl > 1 and Ncl(φ) given by Eq. (5), respectively, for m2/H2 = 10−7 . For φ & 10−5MPl, the inflaton is to the right of the local maximum, a… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran, Cosmological Re- laxation of the Electroweak Scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (22) (2015) 221801. arXiv:1504.07551, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 115.221801

arXiv 2015
[2]

P. W. Graham, A. Scherlis, Stochastic axion scenario, Phys. Rev. D98 (3) (2018) 035017. arXiv:1805.07362, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.98.035017

arXiv 2018
[3]

Takahashi, W

F. Takahashi, W. Yin, A. H. Guth, QCD axion window and low-scale inﬂation, Phys. Rev. D98 (1) (2018) 015042. arXiv: 1805.08763, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.015042

arXiv 2018
[4]

S.-Y. Ho, F. Takahashi, W. Yin, Relaxing the Cosmological Moduli Problem by Low-scale Inﬂation, JHEP 04 (2019) 149. arXiv:1901.01240, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)149

arXiv 2019
[5]

Takahashi, W

F. Takahashi, W. Yin, QCD Axion on Hilltop by Phase Shift of π (2019). arXiv:1908.06071

arXiv 2019
[6]

Ringeval, T

C. Ringeval, T. Suyama, T. Takahashi, M. Yamaguchi, S. Yokoyama, Dark energy from primordial inﬂationary quan- tum ﬂuctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 121301. arXiv: 1006.0368, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.121301

arXiv 2010
[7]

A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Non-minimal Coupling

C. Ringeval, T. Suyama, M. Yamaguchi, Large mass hierarchy from a small nonminimal coupling, Phys. Rev. D99 (12) (2019) 123524. arXiv:1903.03544, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123524

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[8]

Torrado, C

J. Torrado, C. T. Byrnes, R. J. Hardwick, V. Vennin, D. Wands, Measuring the duration of inﬂation with the curvaton, Phys. Rev. D98 (6) (2018) 063525. arXiv:1712.05364, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.98.063525

arXiv 2018

Show all 49 references

[9]

Enqvist, T

K. Enqvist, T. Meriniemi, S. Nurmi, Higgs Dynamics during Inﬂation, JCAP 1407 (2014) 025. arXiv:1404.3699, doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2014/07/025

2014 arXiv
[10]

Bousso, J

R. Bousso, J. Polchinski, Quantization of four form ﬂuxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant, JHEP 06 (2000) 006. arXiv:hep-th/0004134, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2000/06/006

2000 arXiv
[11]

Susskind, The Anthropic landscape of string theory, in: Carr, Bernard (ed.): Universe or multiverse?, 2003, pp

L. Susskind, The Anthropic landscape of string theory, in: Carr, Bernard (ed.): Universe or multiverse?, 2003, pp. 247–266. arXiv:hep-th/0302219

2003 arXiv
[12]

Freivogel, M

B. Freivogel, M. Kleban, M. Rodriguez Martinez, L. Susskind, Observational consequences of a landscape, JHEP 03 (2006)

2006
[13]

Higaki, F

T. Higaki, F. Takahashi, Natural and Multi-Natural Inﬂation in Axion Landscape, JHEP 07 (2014) 074. arXiv:1404.6923, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)074

2014 arXiv
[14]

Higaki, F

T. Higaki, F. Takahashi, Axion Landscape and Natural In- ﬂation, Phys. Lett. B744 (2015) 153–159. arXiv:1409.8409, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.052

2015 arXiv
[15]

G. Wang, T. Battefeld, Vacuum Selection on Axionic Land- scapes, JCAP 1604 (04) (2016) 025. arXiv:1512.04224, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/025

2016 arXiv
[16]

Masoumi, A

A. Masoumi, A. Vilenkin, Vacuum statistics and stability in axionic landscapes, JCAP 1603 (03) (2016) 054. arXiv:1601. 01662, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/054

2016 doi
[17]

T. C. Bachlechner, K. Eckerle, O. Janssen, M. Kleban, The Axidental Universe (2019). arXiv:1902.05952

2019 arXiv
[18]

A. D. Linde, NONSINGULAR REGENERATING INFLA- TIONARY UNIVERSE (1982)

1982
[19]

P. J. Steinhardt, NATURAL INFLATION, in: Nuﬃeld Work- shop on the Very Early Universe Cambridge, England, June 21-July 9, 1982, 1982, pp. 251–266

1982
[20]

Vilenkin, The Birth of Inﬂationary Universes, Phys

A. Vilenkin, The Birth of Inﬂationary Universes, Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 2848. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2848

1983 doi
[21]

A. D. Linde, ETERNAL CHAOTIC INFLATION, Mod. Phys. Lett. A1 (1986) 81. doi:10.1142/S0217732386000129

1986 doi
[22]

A. D. Linde, Eternally Existing Selfreproducing Chaotic In- ﬂationary Universe, Phys. Lett. B175 (1986) 395–400. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(86)90611-8

1986 doi
[23]

A. S. Goncharov, A. D. Linde, V. F. Mukhanov, The Global Structure of the Inﬂationary Universe, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A2 (1987) 561–591. doi:10.1142/S0217751X87000211

1987 doi
[24]

A. H. Guth, Inﬂation and eternal inﬂation, Phys. Rept. 333 (2000) 555–574. arXiv:astro-ph/0002156, doi:10.1016/ S0370-1573(00)00037-5

2000 arXiv
[25]

A. H. Guth, Eternal inﬂation and its implications, J. Phys. A40 (2007) 6811–6826. arXiv:hep-th/0702178, doi:10.1088/ 1751-8113/40/25/S25

2007 arXiv
[26]

Linde, A brief history of the multiverse, Rept

A. Linde, A brief history of the multiverse, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80 (2) (2017) 022001. arXiv:1512.01203, doi:10.1088/ 1361-6633/aa50e4

2017 arXiv
[27]

Barenboim, W.-I

G. Barenboim, W.-I. Park, W. H. Kinney, Eternal Hilltop In- ﬂation, JCAP 1605 (05) (2016) 030. arXiv:1601.08140, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/030

2016 arXiv
[28]

Assadullahi, H

H. Assadullahi, H. Firouzjahi, M. Noorbala, V. Vennin, D. Wands, Multiple Fields in Stochastic Inﬂation, JCAP 1606 (06) (2016) 043. arXiv:1604.04502, doi:10.1088/ 5 1475-7516/2016/06/043

2016 arXiv
[29]

A. A. Starobinsky, STOCHASTIC DE SITTER (INFLATION- ARY) STAGE IN THE EARLY UNIVERSE, Lect. Notes Phys. 246 (1986) 107–126. doi:10.1007/3-540-16452-9_6

1986 doi
[30]

A. A. Starobinsky, J. Yokoyama, Equilibrium state of a self- interacting scalar ﬁeld in the De Sitter background, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 6357–6368. arXiv:astro-ph/9407016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.6357

1994 arXiv
[31]

Vennin, A

V. Vennin, A. A. Starobinsky, Correlation Functions in Stochas- tic Inﬂation, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 413. arXiv:1506.04732, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3643-y

2015 arXiv
[32]

Pattison, V

C. Pattison, V. Vennin, H. Assadullahi, D. Wands, Quan- tum diﬀusion during inﬂation and primordial black holes, JCAP 1710 (10) (2017) 046. arXiv:1707.00537, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2017/10/046

2017 arXiv
[33]

Noorbala, V

M. Noorbala, V. Vennin, H. Assadullahi, H. Firouz- jahi, D. Wands, Tunneling in Stochastic Inﬂa- tion[JCAP1809,no.09,032(2018)] (2018). arXiv:1806.09634, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/032

2018 arXiv
[34]

S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss, Supercooled Phase Transitions in the Very Early Universe, Phys. Lett. 110B (1982) 35– 38, [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol.3,154(1987)]. doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(82)90946-7

1982
[35]

Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results

N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological pa- rameters (2018). arXiv:1807.06209

2018 arXiv
[36]

Takahashi, New inﬂation in supergravity after Planck and LHC, Phys

F. Takahashi, New inﬂation in supergravity after Planck and LHC, Phys. Lett. B727 (2013) 21–26. arXiv:1308.4212, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.026

2013 arXiv
[37]

Nakayama, F

K. Nakayama, F. Takahashi, PeV-scale Supersymmetry from New Inﬂation, JCAP 1205 (2012) 035. arXiv:1203.0323, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/05/035

2012 arXiv
[38]

T. S. Bunch, P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Field Theory in de Sit- ter Space: Renormalization by Point Splitting, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A360 (1978) 117–134. doi:10.1098/rspa.1978.0060

1978
[39]

arXiv:hep-th/0505232, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/ 03/039

2006 arXiv
[40]

Czerny, F

M. Czerny, F. Takahashi, Multi-Natural Inﬂation, Phys. Lett. B733 (2014) 241–246. arXiv:1401.5212, doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2014.04.039

2014 arXiv
[41]

Czerny, T

M. Czerny, T. Higaki, F. Takahashi, Multi-Natural Inﬂation in Supergravity, JHEP 05 (2014) 144. arXiv:1403.0410, doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)144

2014 arXiv
[42]

Flauger, L

R. Flauger, L. McAllister, E. Pajer, A. Westphal, G. Xu, Os- cillations in the CMB from Axion Monodromy Inﬂation, JCAP 1006 (2010) 009. arXiv:0907.2916, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2010/06/009

2010 arXiv
[43]

Kobayashi, F

T. Kobayashi, F. Takahashi, Running Spectral Index from In- ﬂation with Modulations, JCAP 1101 (2011) 026. arXiv: 1011.3988, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/01/026

2011 arXiv
[44]

Takahashi, The Spectral Index and its Running in Axionic Curvaton, JCAP 1306 (2013) 013

F. Takahashi, The Spectral Index and its Running in Axionic Curvaton, JCAP 1306 (2013) 013. arXiv:1301.2834, doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2013/06/013

2013 arXiv
[45]

A. D. Linde, A New Inﬂationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems, Phys. Lett. 108B (1982) 389– 393, [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol.3,149(1987)]. doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(82)91219-9

1982
[46]

Albrecht, P

A. Albrecht, P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmology for Grand Uniﬁed Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1220–1223, [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cos- mol.3,158(1987)]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1220

1982 doi
[47]

A. H. Guth, The Inﬂationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 347– 356, [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol.3,139(1987)]. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.23.347

1981
[48]

A. A. Starobinsky, A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity, Phys. Lett. B91 (1980) 99–102, [,771(1980)]. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

1980 doi
[49]

Sato, First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expan- sion of the Universe, Mon

K. Sato, First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expan- sion of the Universe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195 (1981) 467–479. 6

1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran, Cosmological Re- laxation of the Electroweak Scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (22) (2015) 221801. arXiv:1504.07551, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 115.221801

arXiv 2015

[2] [2]

P. W. Graham, A. Scherlis, Stochastic axion scenario, Phys. Rev. D98 (3) (2018) 035017. arXiv:1805.07362, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.98.035017

arXiv 2018

[3] [3]

Takahashi, W

F. Takahashi, W. Yin, A. H. Guth, QCD axion window and low-scale inﬂation, Phys. Rev. D98 (1) (2018) 015042. arXiv: 1805.08763, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.015042

arXiv 2018

[4] [4]

S.-Y. Ho, F. Takahashi, W. Yin, Relaxing the Cosmological Moduli Problem by Low-scale Inﬂation, JHEP 04 (2019) 149. arXiv:1901.01240, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)149

arXiv 2019

[5] [5]

Takahashi, W

F. Takahashi, W. Yin, QCD Axion on Hilltop by Phase Shift of π (2019). arXiv:1908.06071

arXiv 2019

[6] [6]

Ringeval, T

C. Ringeval, T. Suyama, T. Takahashi, M. Yamaguchi, S. Yokoyama, Dark energy from primordial inﬂationary quan- tum ﬂuctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 121301. arXiv: 1006.0368, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.121301

arXiv 2010

[7] [7]

A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Non-minimal Coupling

C. Ringeval, T. Suyama, M. Yamaguchi, Large mass hierarchy from a small nonminimal coupling, Phys. Rev. D99 (12) (2019) 123524. arXiv:1903.03544, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123524

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

Torrado, C

J. Torrado, C. T. Byrnes, R. J. Hardwick, V. Vennin, D. Wands, Measuring the duration of inﬂation with the curvaton, Phys. Rev. D98 (6) (2018) 063525. arXiv:1712.05364, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.98.063525

arXiv 2018