REVIEW 1 cited by
Nflation: multi-field inflationary dynamics and perturbations
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We carry out numerical investigations of the dynamics and perturbations in the Nflation model of Dimopoulos et al. (2005). This model features large numbers of scalar fields with different masses, which can cooperate to drive inflation according to the assisted inflation mechanism. We extend previous work to include random initial conditions for the scalar fields, and explore the predictions for density perturbations and the tensor-to-scalar ratio. The tensor-to-scalar ratio depends only on the number of e-foldings and is independent of the number of fields, their masses, and their initial conditions. It therefore always has the same value as for a single massive field. By contrast, the scalar spectral index has significant dependence on model parameters. While normally multi-field inflation models make predictions for observable quantities which depend also on the unknown field initial conditions, we find evidence of a `thermodynamic' regime whereby the predicted spectral index becomes independent of initial conditions if there are enough fields. Only in parts of parameter space where the mass spectrum of the fields is extremely densely packed is the model capable of satisfying the tight observational constraints from WMAP3 observations.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Tilt and Tensor-to-Scalar Ratio in Multi-Scalar Field Inflation: Non-Sum-Separable Case
A two-field chaotic inflation model with a kinetic-potential coupling can in principle lower ns and r, but the paper's analytic formulas miscompute the correction and its quoted parameter ranges are fitted rather than...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.