Perturbative reheating after multiple-field inflation: The impact on primordial observables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the impact of perturbative reheating on primordial observables in models of multiple-field inflation. By performing a sudden decay calculation, we derive analytic expressions for the local-type nonlinearity parameter ${f}_{\text{NL}}^{\text{local}}$, the scalar spectral index ${n}_{\ensuremath{\zeta}}$, and the tensor-to-scalar ratio ${r}_{T}$ as functions of the decay rates of the inflationary fields. We compare our analytic results to a fully numerical classical field theory simulation, finding excellent agreement. We find that the sensitivity of ${f}_{\text{NL}}$, ${n}_{\ensuremath{\zeta}}$, and ${r}_{T}$ to the reheating phase depends heavily on the underlying inflationary model. We quantify this sensitivity, and discuss conditions that must be satisfied if observable predictions are to be insensitive to the dynamics of reheating. We demonstrate that upon completion of reheating, all observable quantities take values within finite ranges, the limits of which are determined completely by the conditions during inflation. Furthermore, fluctuations in both fields play an important role in determining the full dependence of the observables on the dynamics of reheating. By applying our formalism to two concrete examples, we demonstrate that variations in ${f}_{\text{NL}}$, ${n}_{\ensuremath{\zeta}}$, and ${r}_{T}$ caused by changes in reheating dynamics are well within the sensitivity of Planck, and as such the impact of reheating must be accounted for when making predictions for models of multiple-field inflation. Our final expressions are very general, encompassing a wide range of two-field inflationary models, including the standard curvaton scenario. We show that the curvaton scenario is a limiting case of two-field inflation, and recover the standard curvaton results in the appropriate limit. Our results allow a much more unified approach to studying two-field inflation including the effects of perturbative reheating. As such, entire classes of models can be studied together, allowing a more systematic approach to gaining insight into the physics of the early universe through observation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".