Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 4 cited by

Two-loop corrections in power spectrum in models of inflation with PBHs formation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in single-field inflation with an intermediate ultra slow-roll phase, the fractional two-loop correction to the curvature power spectrum is the square of the fractional one-loop correction, so sharp transitions and…

desk verdict A clean two-loop computation of the double-scoop diagram that scales as the square of the one-loop result, but the full two-loop claim is an expectation, not yet a derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10253 v2 pith:QNBRRCZJ submitted 2024-11-15 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

Hassan Firouzjahi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qchep-th PACS 98.80.Cq04.62.+v
keywords ultraslow-rollinflationprimordialblackholestwo-loopcorrectionspowerspectrumin-informalismquarticHamiltonianperturbativecontrolone-loop
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 asks whether two-loop quantum corrections invalidate the primordial power spectrum in single-field inflation with an intermediate ultra slow-roll (USR) phase used to generate primordial black holes. From the eleven possible two-loop diagrams, the author computes the 'double scoop' diagram with two quartic-interaction vertices and obtains the fractional correction $$\frac{\$\Delta$ $P^{{(2\text{-loop}}$)}}{P_{\rm CMB}} \simeq -\frac{27($23h^{{2}}$+132h+1152)}{8h}\, e^{12\$\Delta$ N}\,\$\Delta$ $N^{{2}}$\, P_{\rm CMB}^{2}.$$ Comparing with the one-loop result, this is parametrically the square of the fractional one-loop correction, so a one-loop correction of order one brings a two-loop correction of order one and the perturbative expansion loses control. The author concludes that sharp transitions into the final slow-roll phase and long USR durations are dangerous, and that PBH formation from this setup requires a mild transition with a long enough relaxation period.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the quartic interaction Hamiltonian built in the effective field theory of inflation, whose coefficient contains a term proportional to $\eta'$; the jump in the second slow-roll parameter $\eta$ at the transition to the final slow-roll phase produces a delta function $\delta(\tau-\tau_{e})$ that drives the large loop effects. The 'double scoop' diagram (a) is the two-loop diagram with two $H_4$ vertices, a double nested in-in time integral, and two separable loop momenta $q$ and $k$ running over modes that leave the horizon during the USR phase. Wick-contracting the four-point operator at the two vertices and keeping the soft limit $p \ll q,k$ yields fifteen leading terms, five of which scale like $\Delta N^{2} e^{12\Delta N}$; their sum is Eq. (45), and comparing it with the one-loop result Eq. (46) produces the square relation.

What would settle it

Compute the full set of eleven two-loop diagrams, or evaluate them numerically in the in-in formalism, for a sharp transition such as $h=-6$ with $\Delta N=2$ to $3$, and check whether the summed fractional two-loop correction scales like $e^{12\Delta N}\Delta N^{2}P_{\rm CMB}^{2}$ with a nonzero coefficient; if the other ten diagrams cancel the leading terms or change the $e^{12\Delta N}$ growth, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the fractional two-loop correction to the curvature power spectrum in USR single-field inflation equals, parametrically, the square of the fractional one-loop correction. The computed double-scoop diagram gives $$\frac{\$\Delta$ $P^{{(2\text{-loop}}$)}}{P_{\rm CMB}} \simeq -\frac{27($23h^{{2}}$+132h+1152)}{8h}\, e^{12\$\Delta$ N}\,\$\Delta$ $N^{{2}}$\, P_{\rm CMB}^{2},$$ while the author's one-loop baseline is $$\frac{\$\Delta$ $P^{{(1\text{-loop}}$)}}{P_{\rm CMB}} \simeq \frac{6($h^{{2}}$+24h+180)}{h}\, e^{6\$\Delta$ N}\,\$\Delta$ N\, P_{\rm CMB},$$ so that $$\frac{\$\Delta$ $P^{{(2\text{-loop}}$)}}{P_{\rm CMB}} \sim \left(\frac{\$\Delta$ $P^{{(1\text{-loop}}$)}}{P_{\rm CMB}}\right)^{2}.$$ The calculation is done in the in-in formalism in the soft limit where the external CMB momentum is much smaller than the loop momenta, with the loop modes running over the USR band. The paper presents the expectation that the full set of eleven diagrams shares the same $e^{12\Delta N}\Delta N^{2}P_{\rm CMB}^{2}$ scaling, supported for one additional diagram by a work in progress.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single computed 'double scoop' diagram, with two quartic vertices, represents the scaling of all eleven two-loop diagrams; if the remaining diagrams, which involve cubic, quintic, and sextic vertices and nested time integrals up to fourth order, scale differently, the claimed square-of-one-loop relation and the perturbative-control bound do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the square relation is correct, then any regime where the fractional one-loop correction is of order one automatically has a two-loop correction of order one, so the perturbative series is not under control.
  • For sharp transitions with $|h|\gg1$, the two-loop correction grows linearly with $h$ and becomes arbitrarily large, confirming that sharp USR-to-slow-roll transitions are unsafe.
  • For the instant sharp transition $h=-6$, staying within the one-loop bound and boosting the power spectrum by seven orders of magnitude for PBH formation requires $\Delta N \lesssim 2.3$, so longer USR phases violate perturbative control.
  • The safe path for PBH formation in this setup, according to the paper, is a mild transition with $|h|\ll1$ rather than a short USR phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A full numerical in-in evaluation of all eleven two-loop diagrams would test whether the double-scoop diagram is representative; the paper computes one diagram and cites work in progress for one other, so the square relation is an extrapolation rather than a demonstrated property of the complete two-loop sum.
  • If the remaining diagrams do share the $e^{12\Delta N}\Delta N^{2}$ scaling, then the ratio $\Delta P^{(2)}/\Delta P^{(1)} \sim \Delta P^{(1)}/P_{\rm CMB}$ becomes a universal diagnostic: bounding the fractional one-loop correction would automatically bound the two-loop correction without evaluating the full diagrammatic sum.
  • The renormalization question left open by the paper could alter the conclusion: if UV divergences are absorbed differently at two loops, the finite coefficient in Eq. (45) could change even if the $e^{12\Delta N}\Delta N^{2}$ scaling survives.
  • A natural test of the mechanism is to check non-attractor and constant-roll inflation, as the paper suggests, since a similar square stacking there would show that the relation is tied to sharp USR transitions rather than to the specific single-field setup.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper computes a two-loop correction to the primordial curvature power spectrum in a single-field inflation model with an intermediate USR phase for PBH formation. Working in the in-in formalism with mode functions matched across the SR-USR-SR stages and a sharpness/relaxation parameter h, the author calculates the contribution of the "double scoop" diagram (a), which has two quartic Hamiltonian vertices. The result, Eq. (45), is a fractional correction scaling as e^{12ΔN}ΔN^2 P_CMB^2, and the author argues that this is parametrically the square of the one-loop result Eq. (46), leading to the perturbative-control condition Eq. (48). The paper lists eleven one-particle irreducible two-loop diagrams but computes only diagram (a); the extension to the remaining ten diagrams is stated as an expectation, with diagram (m) deferred to a work in progress [84].

Significance. If the scaling of Eq. (45) holds for the full two-loop correction, the result sharpens the current debate on loop corrections in USR/PBH models: the loop expansion loses perturbative control for sharp transitions (|h|≫1) and long USR phases, while mild transitions or short durations restore control. The paper's concrete strengths are the explicit setup with mode functions and matching conditions, the transparent factorization of the q and k loop integrals for diagram (a), the clear enumeration of the 15 leading contraction terms in Appendix A, and the honest identification of the uncomputed diagrams. The main weakness is that the headline claim is established only for one of eleven diagrams, and even the asserted same scaling for diagram (m) is not shown here; the perturbative-control conclusion therefore rests on an unproven universality of the parametric scaling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (45) and Eq. (47)] The central claim that the fractional two-loop correction scales as the square of the one-loop correction is derived exclusively from diagram (a). The other ten diagrams in Fig. 1 are not computed; the text states only that "we believe" and "we expect" they share the same general form, and diagram (m) is the subject of a work in progress. Since the perturbative-control condition Eq. (48) and the conclusions of Section 5 concern the full two-loop correction, this is a load-bearing gap. To make the headline claim defensible, the authors must either provide a derivation or a concrete bound for the remaining diagrams, or explicitly reframe the abstract and conclusions as applying to diagram (a) with the full two-loop scaling as a conjecture.
  2. [Section 4, penultimate paragraph] The sentence "In a work in progress [84], we are studying the correction from diagram (m)... We have confirmed that it scales like Eq. (45)" asserts a result that is not derived or shown in this manuscript. A statement of a confirmed scaling in an unpublished work cannot be verified by the reader. Either include the calculation for diagram (m) or remove the claim of confirmation; as written, it is an unsupported load-bearing assertion.
  3. [Section 1 and Eq. (46)] The comparison basis for the "square" relation Eq. (47) and the perturbative-control bound Eq. (48) is the author's own one-loop result Eq. (46), while the cited loop-cancellation claims in [23,24,55-57] are deferred to future work. If any of those claims are correct, Eq. (46) and hence the scaling relation Eq. (47) would change. The paper should explicitly state that Eq. (47) and the subsequent perturbative-control conclusion are conditional on the one-loop baseline being correct, and should indicate whether the disputed boundary-term or iε-prescription issues would also affect the quartic Hamiltonian H4 used here.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (45)-(47)] The phrase "scales like the square of the fractional one-loop correction" should be understood as a parametric statement in e^{6ΔN}ΔN P_CMB, not an exact identity; the h-dependent coefficients in Eqs. (45) and (46) differ. The abstract could be misread as a stronger functional relation, so a brief qualifier would improve precision.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (76)] Eq. (76) contains "N 2P 2" where the main-text Eq. (45) has "ΔN 2P 2"; please make the notation in the appendix consistent with the main text.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (3) and Eq. (45)] The derivation leading to Eq. (45) assumes a sharp transition with |h|>1. The paper notes this, but for clarity the domain of validity should be restated immediately after Eq. (45) so that the result is not applied in the mild-transition regime where the mode functions continue to evolve.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the two-loop 'double scoop' diagram is computed directly via in-in integrals, and Eq. (47) is a comparison of two separately obtained expressions rather than an input imposed by definition.

full rationale

The paper's new result, Eq. (45), is obtained by an explicit two-loop in-in computation for diagram (a) using the quartic Hamiltonian and the mode functions of the USR setup; it is not derived from the one-loop result. The one-loop result quoted in Eq. (46) is taken from the author's previous work [11], but it is used as a comparison baseline, not as an ingredient in evaluating the two-loop integrals. Eq. (47) is an arithmetic/parametric comparison of two independent expressions and is not forced by construction. The load-bearing caveats are real but are not circularity: the paper explicitly limits the calculation to diagram (a) and says 'we expect the full two-loop corrections to have the same general form as in Eq. (45)', with diagram (m) deferred to a 'work in progress' [84]; this is an omitted proof or completeness gap, not a self-referential reduction. Similarly, the paper defers the loop-cancellation claims of [55-57] and the contested status of the one-loop baseline, which is a correctness risk but does not make the two-loop integral equivalent to its own conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no equation is shown to equal its input by definition. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an unverified self-cited quartic Hamiltonian; the sharp-transition idealization that produces delta-function sources; a momentum band cut that serves as a regulator; and an extrapolation from one diagram to all eleven. These are modeling assumptions and self-references rather than free fits to data, which keeps the circularity burden moderate but not negligible.

free parameters (3)
  • Relaxation/sharpness parameter h = |h| > 1 (e.g., h = -6 for an instant transition)
    Controls how quickly the mode functions reach the final slow-roll attractor after τe. The central results Eqs. (45) and (46) depend on h polynomially, and the perturbative-control conclusion is drawn in the regime |h| >> 1. It is an input of the model, not fitted to data.
  • USR duration ΔN = ΔN ~ 2-3 (targeted for PBH formation)
    The number of e-folds of the intermediate USR phase. Loop corrections grow as e^{6ΔN}ΔN (one-loop) and e^{12ΔN}ΔN^2 (two-loop), so the quantitative conclusion depends strongly on this hand-chosen range. The paper notes ΔN < 1 would keep the system perturbative but would not produce enough PBHs.
  • Loop momentum band qs ≤ q < qe = modes leaving horizon during USR
    The momentum integrals are restricted to USR modes; the final result is finite but the cut plays the role of a regulator. The e-dependence enters through e^{ΔN} = qe/qs, so the cutoff is not a free fit parameter in the final answer, but the choice of band is a modeling assumption.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Weinberg in-in perturbation theory with the commutator formula (Eq. 27) is valid.
    Used to expand the vacuum expectation value of the two-point function to second order in the interaction Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The USR-to-SR transition is instantaneous with η jumping as a step function (Eq. 4), giving a delta function dη/dτ = -h δ(τ-τe) (Eq. 5).
    This delta function in H4 is the main source of the large loop corrections; a smooth transition would modify the integrals.
  • domain assumption The quartic Hamiltonian H4 of Eq. (23), taken from the author's [11], is correct including the boundary-term contribution via canonical transformation.
    H4 is the only interaction used in the two-loop diagram; it is self-cited and not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The linear relation R = -Hπ holds at τ = τ0 (Eq. 25), so non-linear field redefinition terms are dropped.
    Used to replace π by R in the in-in integrals for the external legs and vertices.
  • ad hoc to paper The remaining ten two-loop diagrams have the same parametric scaling as diagram (a).
    The author states this as an expectation (Section 5) and reports confirmation for diagram (m) only in a 'work in progress' [84].
  • domain assumption The UV momentum divergence is regulated by the band cutoff and renormalization is deferred.
    The author notes 'the UV contribution will diverge which has to be regularized and renormalized' and treats the finite cutoff result as the answer.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-loop corrections in power spectrum in models of inflation with PBHs formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNBRRCZJ

@misc{pith2026241110253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-loop corrections in power spectrum in models of inflation with PBHs formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNBRRCZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10253}
}
read the original abstract

We calculate the two-loop corrections in primordial power spectrum in models of single field inflation incorporating an intermediate USR phase employed for PBHs formation. Among the total eleven one-particle irreducible Feynman diagrams, we calculate the corrections from the "double scoop" two-loop diagram involving two vertices of quartic Hamiltonians. We demonstrate that the fractional two-loop correction in power spectrum scales like the square of the fractional one-loop correction. We confirm our previous findings that the loop corrections become arbitrarily large in the setup where the transition from the intermediate USR to the final slow-roll phase is very sharp. This suggests that in order for the analysis to be under perturbative control against loop corrections, one requires a mild transition with a long enough relaxation period towards the final attractor phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10253 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The one-particle irreducible Feynman diagrams for the two-loop corrections constructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The arrangement of momenta inside each loop and the relative positions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Scale-Dependent Loop Corrections to the Inflationary Power Spectrum

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    One-loop gravitational corrections in inflationary models with scale-dependent features are renormalizable and vanish on large and small scales, preserving perturbativity of CMB-fit feature models.

  2. Evolution of Linear Perturbations under Time-Dependent Hubble Friction I: SR-USR-SR Inflation

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Analytic asymptotics show the dip in the SR-USR-SR curvature power spectrum comes from cancellation between two growing modes, not a constant-versus-growing cancellation.

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

    gr-qc 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For E-type alpha-attractor inflation models tuned to produce asteroid-mass primordial black holes, the one-loop correction from cubic interactions is only a few percent of the tree-level power spectrum.

  4. RG-Flow Renormalized One-Loop Corrections to the Power Spectrum in USR Inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A cutoff-regularized, in-in calculation of cubic, quartic, and tadpole one-loop corrections finds the USR fractional correction scales as P_CMB e^{6ΔN}, confirming the sharp-transition loop-enhancement debate's original side.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [11]

    Firouzjahi, JCAP 10, 006 (2023), [arXiv:2303.12025 [astro-ph.CO]]

    H. Firouzjahi, JCAP 10, 006 (2023), [arXiv:2303.12025 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [84]

    Hassan Firouzjahi and Bahar Nikbakht, work in progress. 22

    work page

  3. [1]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.22, 221003 (2024), [arXiv:2211.03395 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [2]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.10, 103541 (2024), [arXiv:2303.00341 [hep- th]]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [3]

    Riotto, [arXiv:2301.00599 [astro-ph.CO]]

    A. Riotto, [arXiv:2301.00599 [astro-ph.CO]]. 18

    arXiv

  6. [4]

    Riotto, [arXiv:2303.01727 [astro-ph.CO]]

    A. Riotto, [arXiv:2303.01727 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  7. [5]

    Choudhury, M

    S. Choudhury, M. R. Gangopadhyay and M. Sami, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.9, 884 (2024), [arXiv:2301.10000 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [6]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. Panda and M. Sami, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138123 (2023), [arXiv:2302.05655 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 84 references
  1. [7]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. Panda and M. Sami, JCAP 11, 066 (2023), [arXiv:2303.06066 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. Panda and M. Sami, JCAP 08, 078 (2023), [arXiv:2304.04065 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Choudhury, A

    S. Choudhury, A. Karde, S. Panda and M. Sami, JCAP 07, 034 (2024), [arXiv:2401.10925 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Choudhury and M

    S. Choudhury and M. Sami, [arXiv:2407.17006 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  5. [12]

    Motohashi and Y

    H. Motohashi and Y. Tada, JCAP 08, 069 (2023), [arXiv:2303.16035 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Riotto, JCAP 02, 021 (2024), [arXiv:2304.07801 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Tasinato, Phys

    G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.4, 043526 (2023), [arXiv:2305.11568 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., M. Taoso and A. Urbano, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.12, 123550 (2024), [arXiv:2305.03491 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Firouzjahi, Phys

    H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.4, 043532 (2023), [arXiv:2305.01527 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Maity, H

    S. Maity, H. V. Ragavendra, S. K. Sethi and L. Sriramkumar, JCAP 05, 046 (2024), [arXiv:2307.13636 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    S. L. Cheng, D. S. Lee and K. W. Ng, JCAP 03, 008 (2024), [arXiv:2305.16810 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024

  12. [19]

    Fumagalli, S

    J. Fumagalli, S. Bhattacharya, M. Peloso, S. Renaux-Petel and L. T. Witkowski, JCAP 04, 029 (2024), [arXiv:2307.08358 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Nassiri-Rad and K

    A. Nassiri-Rad and K. Asadi, JCAP 04, 009 (2024), [arXiv:2310.11427 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    D. S. Meng, C. Yuan and Q. g. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.6, 063508 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    S. L. Cheng, D. S. Lee and K. W. Ng, Phys. Lett. B 827, 136956 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    Fumagalli, [arXiv:2305.19263 [astro-ph.CO]]

    J. Fumagalli, [arXiv:2305.19263 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    Y. Tada, T. Terada and J. Tokuda, JHEP 01, 105 (2024), [arXiv:2308.04732 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Firouzjahi, Phys

    H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.4, 043514 (2024), [arXiv:2311.04080 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Iacconi and D

    L. Iacconi and D. J. Mulryne, JCAP 09, 033 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    M. W. Davies, L. Iacconi and D. J. Mulryne, JCAP 04, 050 (2024), [arXiv:2312.05694 [astro- ph.CO]]. 19

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Iacconi, D

    L. Iacconi, D. Mulryne and D. Seery, JCAP 06, 062 (2024), [arXiv:2312.12424 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, JCAP 10, 036 (2024), [arXiv:2405.12145 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, [arXiv:2405.12149 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  24. [31]

    Ballesteros and J

    G. Ballesteros and J. G. Egea, JCAP 07, 052 (2024), [arXiv:2404.07196 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Kawaguchi, S

    R. Kawaguchi, S. Tsujikawa and Y. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138962 (2024), [arXiv:2403.16022 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Braglia and L

    M. Braglia and L. Pinol, JHEP 08, 068 (2024), [arXiv:2403.14558 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Firouzjahi, Phys

    H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.4, 043519 (2024), [arXiv:2403.03841 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Caravano, G

    A. Caravano, G. Franciolini and S. Renaux-Petel, [arXiv:2410.23942 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    Caravano, K

    A. Caravano, K. Inomata and S. Renaux-Petel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.15, 15 (2024), [arXiv:2403.12811 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Saburov and S

    S. Saburov and S. V. Ketov, Universe 10, no.9, 354 (2024), [arXiv:2402.02934 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Seery, JCAP 02, 006 (2008), [arXiv:0707.3378 [astro-ph]]

    D. Seery, JCAP 02, 006 (2008), [arXiv:0707.3378 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Seery, JCAP 11, 025 (2007), [arXiv:0707.3377 [astro-ph]]

    D. Seery, JCAP 11, 025 (2007), [arXiv:0707.3377 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, JHEP 12, 008 (2010), [arXiv:0912.2734 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [41]

    G. L. Pimentel, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, JHEP 07, 166 (2012)

    2012

  35. [42]

    Inomata, M

    K. Inomata, M. Braglia, X. Chen and S. Renaux-Petel, JCAP 04, 011 (2023), [erratum: JCAP 09, E01 (2023)], [arXiv:2211.02586 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Ivanov, P

    P. Ivanov, P. Naselsky and I. Novikov, Phys. Rev. D 50, 7173-7178 (1994)

    1994

  37. [44]

    Garcia-Bellido and E

    J. Garcia-Bellido and E. Ruiz Morales, Phys. Dark Univ. 18, 47-54 (2017)

    2017

  38. [45]

    Germani and T

    C. Germani and T. Prokopec, Phys. Dark Univ. 18, 6-10 (2017)

    2017

  39. [46]

    Biagetti, G

    M. Biagetti, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, JCAP 07, 032 (2018)

    2018

  40. [47]

    M. Y. Khlopov, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 10, 495-528 (2010), [arXiv:0801.0116 [astro-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [48]

    ¨Ozsoy and G

    O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, Universe 9, no.5, 203 (2023), [arXiv:2301.03600 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    C. T. Byrnes and P. S. Cole, [arXiv:2112.05716 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  43. [50]

    Escriv` a, F

    A. Escriv` a, F. Kuhnel and Y. Tada, [arXiv:2211.05767 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  44. [51]

    Pi, [arXiv:2404.06151 [astro-ph.CO]]

    S. Pi, [arXiv:2404.06151 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  45. [52]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 0305, 013 (2003), [astro-ph/0210603]

    2003 arXiv

  46. [53]

    P. R. Jarnhus and M. S. Sloth, JCAP 02, 013 (2008), [arXiv:0709.2708 [hep-th]]. 20

    2008 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Arroja and K

    F. Arroja and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D 77, 083517 (2008), [arXiv:0802.1167 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Inomata, Phys

    K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.14, 141001 (2024), [arXiv:2403.04682 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Kawaguchi, S

    R. Kawaguchi, S. Tsujikawa and Y. Yamada, [arXiv:2407.19742 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  50. [57]

    Fumagalli, [arXiv:2408.08296 [astro-ph.CO]]

    J. Fumagalli, [arXiv:2408.08296 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  51. [58]

    W. H. Kinney, Phys. Rev. D 72, 023515 (2005), [gr-qc/0503017]

    2005 arXiv

  52. [59]

    M. H. Namjoo, H. Firouzjahi and M. Sasaki, Europhys. Lett. 101, 39001 (2013)

    2013

  53. [60]

    Martin, H

    J. Martin, H. Motohashi and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.2, 023514 (2013)

    2013

  54. [61]

    X. Chen, H. Firouzjahi, M. H. Namjoo and M. Sasaki, Europhys. Lett. 102, 59001 (2013)

    2013

  55. [62]

    M. J. P. Morse and W. H. Kinney, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.12, 123519 (2018)

    2018

  56. [63]

    W. C. Lin, M. J. P. Morse and W. H. Kinney, JCAP 09, 063 (2019)

    2019

  57. [64]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    K. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 775, 262-265 (2017), [arXiv:1707.05644 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [65]

    X. Chen, H. Firouzjahi, E. Komatsu, M. H. Namjoo and M. Sasaki, JCAP 1312, 039 (2013)

    2013

  59. [66]

    Akhshik, H

    M. Akhshik, H. Firouzjahi and S. Jazayeri, JCAP 07, 048 (2015), [arXiv:1501.01099 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Akhshik, H

    M. Akhshik, H. Firouzjahi and S. Jazayeri, JCAP 12, 027 (2015), [arXiv:1508.03293 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Mooij and G

    S. Mooij and G. A. Palma, JCAP 11, 025 (2015), [arXiv:1502.03458 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Bravo, S

    R. Bravo, S. Mooij, G. A. Palma and B. Pradenas, JCAP 05, 024 (2018)

    2018

  63. [70]

    Finelli, G

    B. Finelli, G. Goon, E. Pajer and L. Santoni, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.6, 063531 (2018)

    2018

  64. [71]

    Passaglia, W

    S. Passaglia, W. Hu and H. Motohashi, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.4, 043536 (2019)

    2019

  65. [72]

    Pi and M

    S. Pi and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.1, 011002 (2023)

    2023

  66. [73]

    ¨Ozsoy and G

    O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.2, 023524 (2022),

    2022

  67. [74]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.12, 123504 (2023)

    2023

  68. [75]

    M. H. Namjoo, JCAP 05, 041 (2024), [arXiv:2311.12777 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [76]

    M. H. Namjoo and B. Nikbakht, JCAP 08, 005 (2024), [arXiv:2401.12958 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Y. F. Cai, X. Chen, M. H. Namjoo, M. Sasaki, D. G. Wang and Z. Wang, JCAP 05, 012 (2018)

    2018

  71. [78]

    Cheung, P

    C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan and L. Senatore, JHEP0803, 014 (2008)

    2008

  72. [79]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan and L. Senatore, JCAP 0802, 021 (2008)

    2008

  73. [80]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043514 (2005) . [arXiv:hep-th/0506236 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  74. [81]

    X. Chen, M. x. Huang and G. Shiu, Phys. Rev. D 74, 121301 (2006). 21

    2006

  75. [82]

    X. Chen, B. Hu, M. x. Huang, G. Shiu and Y. Wang, JCAP 08, 008 (2009)

    2009

  76. [83]

    Weinberg, Cambridge University Press, 2005

    S. Weinberg, Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.