English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Hilltop inflation models are often described by potentials $V =V_{0}(1-{\phi^{n}\over m^{n}}+...)$. The omitted terms indicated by ellipsis donot affect inflation for $m \lesssim 1$, but the most popular models with $n=2$ and $4$ for $m \lesssim 1$ are ruled out observationally. Meanwhile in thelarge $m$ limit the results of the calculations of the tensor to scalar ratio$r$ in the models with $V = V_{0}(1-{\phi^{n}\over m^{n}})$, for all $n$,converge to $r= 4/N \lesssim 0.07$, as in chaotic inflation with $V \sim \phi$,suggesting a reasonably good fit to the Planck data. We show, however, thatthis is an artifact related to the inconsistency of the model $V =V_{0}(1-{\phi^{n}\over m^{n}})$ at $\phi > m$. Consistent generalizations ofthis model in the large $m$ limit typically lead to a much greater value $r=8/N$, which negatively affects the observational status of hilltop inflation.Similar results are valid for D-brane inflation with $V = V_{0}(1-{m^{n}\over\phi^{n}})$, but consistent generalizations of D-brane inflation models maysuccessfully complement $\alpha$-attractors in describing most of the area inthe ($n_{s}$, $r$) space favored by Planck 2018.

On hilltop and brane inflation after Planck