Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Gravitational waves and cosmic boundary

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper argues that a reflective cosmic boundary at redshift z>15 would be detectable through coincident gravitational-wave events from the same massive black hole, and that the TianQin+LISA network could measure the needed parameters.

desk verdict Genuinely new observable for a cosmic boundary, but the full-reflectivity assumption is unjustified and the practical rate is unquantified; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17177 v1 pith:UB5WOZFE submitted 2024-11-26 gr-qc

Changfu Shi , Xinyi Che , Zeyu Huang , Yi-Ming Hu , Jianwei Mei This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C3583F05
keywords gravitationalwavescosmicboundarymassiveblackholemergersTianQinLISAtopologyredshiftz>15mirrorimage
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

The paper argues that if a fully reflective cosmic boundary exists at redshift z>15, it can be detected not by light but by gravitational waves. The method relies on catching two merger events from the same massive black hole: an earlier signal bounced off the boundary (the "image event") and a later direct signal. Such pairs would be separated by less than about 0.5 degrees, with masses, spins, and distances measurable to better than 10% (or 0.1 in spin) for black holes of $10^{3}$ to $10^{6}$ solar masses. Confirming the boundary would then require several such pairs pointing to the same location.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mirror image S' of the astrophysical source S across the boundary. In comoving coordinates, S' is the virtual source whose light-cone path S'O intersects the boundary at Q, and the geometry is fixed by the boundary distance d, the source distance r, and the offset b. The key relations are the redshift connection between the image redshift $z_1$, the boundary redshift $z_q$, and the direct-event redshift $z_2$, together with the angular separation $\angle SOS'$, which the authors compute as functions of $\angle S'OB$ and $z_q$. These relations turn the detection of a cosmic boundary into a parameter-estimation problem for coincident gravitational-wave events.

What would settle it

If a full-sky survey with LISA and TianQin detects no pair of massive-black-hole mergers with angular separation under 0.5 degrees, matching the required mass hierarchy, spin-flip relation, and consistent distance, then the claim that a fully reflective cosmic boundary at $z>15$ is detectable this way would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fully reflective cosmic boundary (CB) at redshift $z_q>15$ can be found by looking for pairs of gravitational-wave signals produced by the same massive black hole at two different merger times. In the flat FLRW metric with a plane mirror at fixed comoving coordinates, the earlier signal reaches the observer after reflection from the CB, arriving as an "image event" S' alongside the later direct event S(t2). The geometry implies the two events are separated by less than about 0.5 degrees when $z_q>15$, and the inherited component of S(t2) has a definite mass, spin (with sign flip for the in-plane component), and distance. Using the IMRPhenomXHM waveform and the projected sensitivities of TianQin and LISA, the authors show that for black holes in the range $10^3$--$10^6 M_\odot$ the mass and luminosity distance can be measured to better than 10% and the dimensionless spin to better than 0.1, even at $z=20$.

Load-bearing premise

The boundary must be fully reflective for both light and gravitational waves and must sit at fixed comoving coordinates, so that the reflected signal is a faithful, time-delayed copy of the original event.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single detected pair of coincident events would provide strong evidence for the existence of a reflective cosmic boundary.
  • Multiple pairs with the same inferred boundary location would confirm the boundary and fix its orientation in the sky.
  • The mass range $10^3$--$10^6 M_\odot$ makes a large variety of massive-black-hole binaries suitable sources for the search.
  • Combined with the null matched-circle searches in the CMB, a positive detection would distinguish a bounded space from a multi-connected one.
  • A null result would constrain or exclude the fully reflective, fixed-comoving-boundary scenario within the observable horizon.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same coincident-pair logic could be reused with any future detector with greater reach, extending the boundary redshift beyond 20.
  • A null result would not rule out a partially absorbing or slowly evolving boundary, but it would set a lower bound on how reflective any boundary inside the last-scattering surface can be.
  • Searching for "twin" events with opposite in-plane spin components may be a model-agnostic way to spot boundary reflections in the data.
  • The paper's geometric relations imply that the angular separation shrinks as $z_q$ grows, so precise sky localization becomes the limiting factor for probing deeper boundaries.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether future space-based gravitational-wave detectors could detect a reflective cosmic boundary (CB) at redshift z>15. The proposed signature is a coincident pair of GW events from the same massive black hole (MBH): an early merger signal reflected by the boundary (the image event, S') and a later direct merger signal from the same source (S(t2)). Using TianQin and LISA sensitivity curves with the IMRPhenomXHM waveform, the paper reports that for a CB at z_q>15 the angular separation between coincident events is below about 0.5 degrees, and that for a fiducial source at z=20 the mass, spin, and luminosity distance of the second event can be measured with fractional precision better than 10% (and spin uncertainty below 0.1) for MBH masses roughly in the range 10^3--10^6 M_sun. The paper further argues that a TianQin+LISA network substantially improves sky localization and that confirming the CB requires multiple coincident pairs. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the event-rate assessment is beyond the scope of the paper and that the chance of detecting such pairs is presumably low.

Significance. If the central conditional claim holds, the paper identifies a genuinely new observational probe of cosmic global structure: a reflective boundary at z>15 could in principle be detected through GW image pairs, a signal that is inaccessible to electromagnetic surveys. The treatment is not circular: the CB is assumed, and the authors compute whether existing and planned detectors could see the resulting image events, without fitting parameters to produce the thresholds. The paper is honest about several limitations, including the need for multiple pairs and the lack of an event-rate estimate. However, the practical significance is currently limited by an unsupported assumption about the CB's reflectivity and by the absence of any estimate of how often the required coincident pairs occur. The calculations themselves are standard Fisher/sensitivity estimates and are reproducible from public detector sensitivity curves and the stated waveform model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II] The inference from the absence of a CMB dark patch to the assumption that the CB is 'fully reflective for both light and GWs' is not valid. A partially absorbing boundary would also suppress the dark-patch contrast, and for z_q>15 the missing patch on the last-scattering surface is a small cap whose angular size shrinks as the boundary approaches the LSS; Planck limits on localized temperature decrements therefore leave substantial absorption allowed. This matters because the entire detection scheme in Section III assumes the image event is a faithful copy of the first merger, and all SNR and parameter-precision statements (Figs. 3, 5, 6; SNR=8 threshold) scale with the square root of the GW reflection coefficient. If the GW reflectivity were 0.1, the image-event SNR would drop by roughly a factor of 3 and the 10% mass/distance precision claims would fail. The paper should either derive a lower bound on the required reflectivity from the detection threshold together with CMB constraints, or present all detectability and precision results as functions of the reflection coefficient and state the minimum reflectivity needed for each claim.
  2. [Section III.C and Section IV] The paper states that 'a reliable assessment of the chance to detect multiple pairs of coincident events is difficult and is beyond the scope of this paper.' This is a load-bearing limitation because the abstract's fourth conclusion says that the possibility to prove or disprove the CB 'largely depends on how likely one can detect multiple pairs of coincident gravitational wave events.' Without an event-rate estimate (merger rate density at z~20, the fraction of MBHs that undergo a second merger within the time delay set by the reflected path, and the fraction satisfying the sub-degree angular coincidence), the paper cannot quantify whether the proposed scheme is merely an existence proof or a realistic observational program. The authors should either provide an order-of-magnitude event-rate estimate or explicitly reframe the central claim as: if a coincident pair is detected, then the following parameter measurements and consistency checks become possible.
  3. [Section III.A and Figs. 5-6] The precision forecasts are computed for a single fiducial source configuration (m1 = 1e5 M_sun, q = 1.2, iota = 0.9 rad, aligned spins s1 = 0.4 and s2 = 0.2, Tobs = 1 month) and, for the precision plots, a single redshift z = 20. The paper acknowledges in Section III.C that 'the quantitative result can become different if it is located at other redshifts' and in the caption of Fig. 6 that 'the exact shape of the contours significantly depends on the choice of the source parameters,' but the headline claims that 'a large variety of black holes ... can be used' and that mass, spin, and distance are measurable to better than 10% are based on this one configuration. The authors should demonstrate robustness over inclination, sky position, spin orientation, mass ratio, and redshift, or at least quantify the fraction of the relevant parameter space for which the 10% precision and 0.1 spin-precision requirements are satisfied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) defines the comoving distance as D_z = ∫_0^z dz'/H(z'), which is dimensionally inconsistent unless the speed of light and the H0 factor are absorbed into the definition of H(z); please specify the units or write D_z = c/H0 ∫ ... as is standard.
  2. [Abstract and Section I] The notation 'O(10^3 ∼ 10^6) M_sun' is unconventional; use '10^3--10^6 M_sun' or 'roughly 10^3 to 10^6 M_sun'.
  3. [Section I] The phrase 'they all give raise to a multi-connected universe' should be 'they all give rise to a multi-connected universe.'
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption contains the typo 'buttom' instead of 'bottom.'
  5. [Section III.C] The label 'J0806'' in Fig. 6 is not defined in the text or caption; please explain what this source direction refers to.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's detection claim is a conditional calculation, and its self-citations are explicitly non-load-bearing.

full rationale

Despite the self-citations in Section II ([55,56] and [36]), the paper's central calculation is conditional rather than circular. The detection scheme assumes the CB is fully reflective and comovingly fixed, then derives geometric and SNR consequences using standard FLRW cosmology and external detector noise curves. No parameter is fitted to the target claim; the z2 and angular-separation relations in Fig. 4 follow from the stated geometry, and the precision forecasts in Figs. 5 and 6 are Fisher-matrix projections using the IMRPhenomXHM waveform and published TianQin/LISA sensitivity curves. The conclusion 'if a reflective CB exists, then it could be detected' is a conditional statement, not a reduction of the output to the input. The CMB dark-patch argument is an assumption about the CB's reflectivity, and the paper explicitly labels it as such ('we assume that the CB is fully reflective for both light and GWs'); while the inference from the absence of a dark patch to full reflectivity is physically debatable, that is a modeling assumption and a correctness concern, not circularity. The emergent gravity motivation is explicitly non-load-bearing ('the above motivation is helpful but is not crucial to the experimental search of the CB'), so the self-citations do not carry the derivation. The paper also honestly states the key restriction that confirmation requires multiple pairs of coincident events, further showing that the claimed detection capability is not forced by the inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

All quantitative claims rest on the geometric setup (flat FLRW with a fixed, flat, perfectly reflecting boundary) and the assumed availability of two mergers from the same massive black hole. The detector sensitivity curves and cosmological parameters come from external references, so they are not free parameters of the model. The chosen source parameters and SNR threshold are hand-picked and affect the numerical contours. The only invented entity with physical consequences is the reflective cosmic boundary itself, motivated by the authors' earlier emergent gravity work with no independent evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • Fiducial MBH binary parameters = m1=1e5 Msun, q=1.2, inclination=0.9 rad, s1=0.4, s2=0.2, theta_L=phi_L=0.6 rad, Tobs=1 month
    Chosen by hand to represent a massive black hole merger; all parameter-estimation and angular-resolution forecasts in Figures 5 and 6 use this single configuration, and the authors note that contour shapes depend strongly on source parameters.
  • Detection SNR threshold = SNR = 8
    Figure 3 horizons and mass ranges assume SNR = 8; changing the threshold moves the reachable redshift and mass range.
  • Image event redshift = z1 = 20
    The precision and angle calculations fix the reflected image event at redshift 20; the authors note in Section III that quantitative results change for other redshifts.
  • Cosmic boundary redshift z_q = scanned over 10 to 20
    The distance of the cosmic boundary is scanned rather than fitted, but the conclusions about angular separation and orientation depend on this range.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The interior of the bounded cosmic space is described by the flat FLRW metric, ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)^2 (dr^2 + r^2 dOmega^2), with origin at the observer.
    Section II. All distances, redshifts, and the mirror geometry in Figures 1-4 use this metric and ignore backreaction from the boundary.
  • ad hoc to paper The portion of the cosmic boundary inside the last-scattering surface is flat, fully reflective for light and gravitational waves, and has fixed comoving coordinates.
    Section II: 'we assume that the CB is fully reflective for both light and GWs' and 'the CB has fixed comoving coordinates'. This is the load-bearing premise of the detection scheme; lossy absorption or boundary motion would break the image matching.
  • domain assumption A massive black hole of non-primordial origin can produce two detectable merger events whose reflected earlier signal and direct later signal arrive at the detector concurrently.
    Section III: the coincident pair S(t1) and S(t2) must both be detectable and identifiable. The paper cites massive black hole growth history but gives no rate for this configuration.
  • domain assumption IMRPhenomXHM accurately models the gravitational waveform for the mass, mass-ratio, spin, and redshift range considered.
    Section III: 'we will use the IMRPhenomXHM waveform'. All parameter precision estimates inherit the fidelity of this model.
  • ad hoc to paper The hidden fluid / dry vacuum emergent gravity picture supports the physical possibility of a bounded cosmic space.
    Section II cites the authors' own works [55,56]. This is motivation, not part of the detection calculation, and no independent evidence is provided.
invented entities (2)
  • Cosmic Boundary (CB)
    purpose: Reflective wall of a bounded cosmic space; produces a mirror image of an astrophysical source whose signal arrives later.
    Introduced in Section II. No direct evidence; the paper says the presence or absence of a CB can only be answered by observation.
  • Hidden fluid / dry vacuum
    purpose: Emergent gravity substrate whose finite volume bounds the cosmic space.
    Section II, following [55,56] by the same author group. No falsifiable handle is given in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational waves and cosmic boundary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UB5WOZFE

@misc{pith2026241117177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational waves and cosmic boundary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UB5WOZFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17177}
}
abstract

Space-based gravitational wave detectors have the capability to detect signals from very high redshifts. It is interesting to know if such capability can be used to study the global structure of the cosmic space. In this paper, we focus on one particular question: if there exists a reflective cosmic boundary at the high redshift ($z>15$), is it possible to find it? We find that, with the current level of technology: 1) gravitational waves appear to be the only means with which that signatures from the cosmic boundary can possibly be detected; 2) a large variety of black holes, with masses roughly in the range $(10^3\sim 10^6) {\rm~M_\odot}$, can be used for the task; 3) in the presumably rare but physically possible case that two merger events from the growth history of a massive black hole are detected coincidentally, a detector network like TianQin+LISA is essential in help improving the chance to determine the orientation of the cosmic boundary; 4) the possibility to prove or disprove the presence of the cosmic boundary largely depends on how likely one can detect multiple pairs of coincident gravitational wave events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17177 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Left) A possible relation between LSS and BCS. (Right) A zoom-in on the LSS. All objects in the figures are assumed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The scheme to detect the CB. The figure has been drawn with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Left) The detection horizon of TianQin, LISA and TianQin+LISA. (Right) Allowed mass range for candidate GW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates the dependence of z2 and ∠SOS’ on ∠S’OB and zq. In the figure, the image event S’ is fixed at the redshift z1 = 20, and zq is varied from 10 to 20. Correspondingly, z2 can vary from about 5 to 20, which also depends on ∠S’OB. One can see that for zq > 15, o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The expected precision for measuring mass, spin and luminosity distance for a source located at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The expected precision of angular resolution for a source at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Lahav and A

    O. Lahav and A. R. Liddle, (2024), arXiv:2403.15526 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    J. R. Eskilt et al. (COMPACT), JCAP 03, 036 (2024), arXiv:2306.17112 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Cosmic Topology

    M. Lachieze-Rey and J.-P. Luminet, Phys. Rept. 254, 135 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9605010

    work page Pith review arXiv 1995

  5. [5]

    J. J. Levin, Phys. Rept. 365, 251 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0108043

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    N. J. Cornish, D. N. Spergel, and G. D. Starkman, Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 2657 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9801212

    arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    de Oliveira-Costa, M

    A. de Oliveira-Costa, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga, and A. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. D 69, 063516 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0307282

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    N. J. Cornish, D. N. Spergel, G. D. Starkman, and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 201302 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0310233

    work page arXiv 2004

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Shapiro Key, N

    J. Shapiro Key, N. J. Cornish, D. N. Spergel, and G. D. Starkman, Phys. Rev. D75, 084034 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0604616

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    B. Mota, M. J. Reboucas, and R. Tavakol, Phys. Rev. D 81, 103516 (2010), arXiv:1002.0834 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bielewicz and A

    P. Bielewicz and A. J. Banday, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 412, 2104 (2011), arXiv:1012.3549 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bielewicz, A

    P. Bielewicz, A. J. Banday, and K. M. Gorski, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 421, 1064 (2012), arXiv:1111.6046 [astro- ph.CO]. 10 FIG. 6. The expected precision of angular resolution for a source at z = 20 with TianQin, LISA and TianQin+LISA. J0806’ indicates the opposite directi...

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    P. M. Vaudrevange, G. D. Starkman, N. J. Cornish, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D 86, 083526 (2012), arXiv:1206.2939 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aurich and S

    R. Aurich and S. Lustig, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 433, 2517 (2013), arXiv:1303.4226 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A26 (2014), arXiv:1303.5086 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A18 (2016), arXiv:1502.01593 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D. P. Mihaylov et al. (COMPACT), JCAP 01, 030 (2023), [Erratum: JCAP 04, E01 (2024)], arXiv:2211.02603 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (COMPACT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 171501 (2024), arXiv:2210.11426 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    zhi Fang and H

    L. zhi Fang and H. Sato, Communications in Theoretical Physics 2, 1055 (1983)

    1983

  12. [20]

    H. V. Fagundes and U. F. Wichoski, the Astrophysical Journal Letters 322, L5 (1987)

    1987

  13. [21]

    B. F. Roukema, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 283, 1147 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9603052

    1996 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lehoucq, M

    R. Lehoucq, M. Lachieze-Rey, and J. P. Luminet, Astron. Astrophys. 313, 339 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9604050

    1996 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Luminet and B

    J.-P. Luminet and B. F. Roukema, in NATO Advanced Study Institute: Summer School on Theoretical and Observational Cosmology (1999) arXiv:astro-ph/9901364

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fujii and Y

    H. Fujii and Y. Yoshii, Astron. Astrophys. 529, A121 (2011), arXiv:1103.1466 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fujii and Y

    H. Fujii and Y. Yoshii, Astrophys. J. 773, 152 (2013), arXiv:1306.2737 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    B. F. Roukema, M. J. France, T. A. Kazimierczak, and T. Buchert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 437, 1096 (2014), arXiv:1302.4425 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Luminet, Universe 2, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.03884 [astro-ph.CO]

    J.-P. Luminet, Universe 2, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.03884 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. J. Weatherley, S. J. Warren, S. M. Croom, R. J. Smith, B. J. Boyle, T. Shanks, L. Miller, and M. P. Baltovic, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 342, L9 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0304290 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Carniani, K

    S. Carniani, K. Hainline, F. D’Eugenio, D. J. Eisenstein, P. Jakobsen, J. Witstok, B. D. Johnson, J. Chevallard, R. Maiolino, J. M. Helton, C. Willott, B. Robertson, S. Alberts, S. Arribas, W. M. Baker, R. Bhatawdekar, K. Boyett, A. J. Bunker, A. J. Cameron, P. A. Cargile, S. ...

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. A. Seoane et al. (eLISA), (2013), arXiv:1305.5720 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Amaro-Seoane et al

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Luo et al

    J. Luo et al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y.-M. Hu, J. Mei, and J. Luo, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 683 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Wang et al., Phys

    H.-T. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 043003 (2019), arXiv:1902.04423 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mei et al

    J. Mei et al. (TianQin), PTEP 2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

    2021

  28. [36]

    Torres-Orjuela, S.-J

    A. Torres-Orjuela, S.-J. Huang, Z.-C. Liang, S. Liu, H.-T. Wang, C.-Q. Ye, Y.-M. Hu, and J. Mei, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 259511 (2024), arXiv:2307.16628 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Evans et al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Evans et al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Maggiore et al., JCAP 03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Maggiore et al., JCAP 03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bailes et al., Nature Rev

    M. Bailes et al., Nature Rev. Phys. 3, 344 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Branchesi et al., JCAP 07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    M. Branchesi et al., JCAP 07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. A. Seoane et al. (LISA), Living Rev. Rel. 26, 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dayal, E

    P. Dayal, E. M. Rossi, B. Shiralilou, O. Piana, T. R. Choudhury, and M. Volonteri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486, 2336 (2019), arXiv:1810.11033 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Pacucci and A

    F. Pacucci and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 895, 95 (2020), arXiv:2004.07246 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Piana, P

    O. Piana, P. Dayal, M. Volonteri, and T. R. Choudhury, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 500, 2146 (2020), arXiv:2009.13505 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Liu and K

    H. Liu and K. Inayoshi, (2024), arXiv:2409.18194 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    B. L. Hu, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 174, 012015 (2009), arXiv:0903.0878 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sindoni, SIGMA 8, 027 (2012), arXiv:1110.0686 [gr-qc]

    L. Sindoni, SIGMA 8, 027 (2012), arXiv:1110.0686 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Carlip, Stud

    S. Carlip, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. B 46, 200 (2014), arXiv:1207.2504 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    N. S. Linnemann and M. R. Visser, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. B 64, 1 (2018), arXiv:1711.10503 [physics.hist-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bhattacharyya, V

    S. Bhattacharyya, V. E. Hubeny, S. Minwalla, and M. Rangamani, JHEP 02, 045 (2008), arXiv:0712.2456 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Rangamani, Class

    M. Rangamani, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 224003 (2009), arXiv:0905.4352 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    V. E. Hubeny, S. Minwalla, and M. Rangamani, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: String theory and its Applications: From meV to the Planck Scale(2012) pp. 348–383, arXiv:1107.5780 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    1998 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Mei, Eur

    J. Mei, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 578 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Mei, Eur

    J. Mei, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 16 (2023), arXiv:2210.05434 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hu and M

    W. Hu and M. J. White, New Astron. 2, 323 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9706147

    1997 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ivanov, P

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

    1994

  51. [59]

    Garcia-Bellido, A

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A. D. Linde, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6040 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605094

    1996 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ivanov, Phys

    P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 57, 7145 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9708224

    1998 arXiv

  53. [61]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, JCAP 04, 052 (2020), arXiv:2003.02778 [astro-ph.CO]. 12

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, M

    C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estell´ es, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064002 (2020), arXiv:2001.10914 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Y. Gong, J. Luo, and B. Wang, Nature Astron. 5, 881 (2021), arXiv:2109.07442 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 105011 (2019), arXiv:1803.01944 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    W.-H. Ruan, C. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, Y.-L. Wu, and R.-G. Cai, Nature Astron. 4, 108 (2020), arXiv:2002.03603 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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