Infrared Behavior of Induced Gravitational Waves from Isocurvature Perturbations

Chang Han; Hongwei Yu; Puxun Wu; Zu-Cheng Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Infrared Behavior of Induced Gravitational Waves from Isocurvature Perturbations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a log-dependent infrared slope for gravitational-wave spectra from isocurvature perturbations and argues it cleanly distinguishes them from adiabatic modes.

desk verdict A clearly written attempt to extend the IR-slope framework to isocurvature IGWs, but the main result rests on a missed u^2v^2 factor; the claimed discriminant doesn't follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09939 v1 pith:ZZQ66O5D submitted 2025-01-17 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Chang Han , Zu-Cheng Chen , Hongwei Yu , Puxun Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO PACS 04.30.-w98.80.-k

keywords inducedgravitationalwavesisocurvatureperturbationsinfraredspectralslopeprimordialpowerspectrumstochasticwavebackgroundlognormalbrokenradiationdomination

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 predicts the low-frequency (infrared) shape of the gravitational-wave background produced when isocurvature perturbations—relative fluctuations between matter and radiation with no overall density perturbation—source tensor perturbations at second order. Its central result is that the spectral slope obeys $n_{\rm GW}=3-4/\ln(\tilde{k}_*^2/6k^2)$, where $\tilde{k}_*$ is the peak scale of the rescaled scalar power spectrum. In the deep infrared the slope approaches 3 for any spectrum shape, but at observable intermediate scales it lies measurably below the adiabatic prediction $3-4/\ln(4k_*^2/3k^2)$. A separate near-peak expression is derived for narrow spectra. This matters because small-scale isocurvature modes are almost unconstrained, and a slope measurement is a direct way to identify their presence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the rescaling of the primordial spectrum, $\tilde{P}(k)=(k_{\rm eq}/k)^2P(k)$, which absorbs the explicit $k$ dependence of the isocurvature integration kernel and leaves a formally $k$-independent kernel $\tilde{I}(u,v)$. In the infrared limit $u,v\gg 1$ this kernel reduces to the closed form Eq. (19), whose diagonal value $\tilde{I}(v,v)\simeq 27\ln^2(v^2/6)/(64v^4)$ supplies the logarithmic factor in the slope. The effective peak scale $\tilde{k}_*$ of $\tilde{P}$ then fixes the upper endpoint of the dominant $v$-integral, and a small-$y$ expansion around $y=vk/\tilde{k}_*-1$ produces the scaling $\Omega_{\rm GW}\propto(\tilde{k}_*/k)^3\ln^2(\tilde{k}_*^2/6k^2)$, from which Eq. (23) follows.

What would settle it

A direct numerical evaluation of Eq. (10) using the original unrescaled kernel of Eq. (11) with a lognormal spectrum, for $k\ll k_*$, would settle the claim: if the numerically obtained slope departs from $3-4/\ln(\tilde{k}_*^2/6k^2)$, the rescaling assumption fails. An even quicker check is symbolic algebra: substitute $P(k)=(k/k_{\rm eq})^2\tilde{P}(k)$ into Eq. (11) and count powers of $u$ and $v$ in the resulting kernel to see whether a $1/(u^2v^2)$ factor survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that gravitational waves induced by isocurvature scalar perturbations during radiation domination have an infrared spectral slope that is logarithmic in the ratio of the effective peak scale to the observation scale. Concretely, $n_{\rm GW} \equiv d\ln\Omega_{\rm GW}/d\ln k = 3 - 4/\ln(\tilde{k}_*^2/6k^2)$, with $\tilde{k}_*$ the peak of $\tilde{P}(k)=(k_{\rm eq}/k)^2P(k)$. In the limit $k/\tilde{k}_*\to 0$ the slope universally approaches 3, while the adiabatic analogue has the same universal limit but a different logarithmic correction, $3-4/\ln(4k_*^2/3k^2)$. The paper further shows analytically and numerically that for narrow spectra the near-peak slope is independent of the functional form of the spectrum, and that the $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ peak is shifted toward smaller $k$ relative to the matter power spectrum peak.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the step from Eq. (10) to Eq. (15) is exact: pulling $(k_{\rm eq}/k)^2$ out of the kernel and into the power spectrum must leave a kernel whose large-$u,v$ behavior is exactly that of Eq. (19); if any residual inverse power of $u$ or $v$ remains, the logarithmic slope formula no longer follows from the stated equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the deep infrared, the isocurvature-induced gravitational-wave slope is universally 3, independent of the shape of the scalar power spectrum.
For lognormal spectra the effective peak scale is $\tilde{k}_*=e^{-2\sigma^2}k_*$; for broken-power spectra it is $\tilde{k}_*=\min\{2k_-,k_*\}$, so the gravitational-wave peak sits at lower frequencies than the matter peak.
The predicted separation between isocurvature and adiabatic slope curves gives pulsar timing arrays and space-based interferometers a concrete spectral index to test.
For narrow spectra the near-peak slope expression does not depend on the specific form of the spectrum and improves the match to numerical integration.

Reading between the lines

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

I infer that the discriminating power is strongest in the intermediate infrared, roughly a few decades below the peak, because both formulas converge to 3 at arbitrarily small $k$; the paper's figures show the gap but do not state this emphasis.
The same effective-spectrum resummation could be tried for Poisson-type isocurvature sources such as primordial black hole clustering, whose matter spectrum would give a different $\tilde{k}_*$; the paper does not treat that case.
A testable extension is to compare the predicted slope against the full one-loop tensor power spectrum computed without the narrow-width approximation on wide spectra; agreement there would strengthen confidence in Eq. (23).

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

Claim #1: The paper claims that gravitational waves induced by isocurvature scalar perturbations during radiation domination have an infrared spectral slope that is logarithmic in the ratio of the effective peak scale to the observation scale. Concretely, $n_{\rm GW} \equiv d\ln\Omega_{\rm GW}/d\ln k = 3 - 4/\ln(\tilde{k}_*^2/6k^2)$, with $\tilde{k}_*$ the peak of $\tilde{P}(k)=(k_{\rm eq}/k)^2P(k)$. In the

/-- @claim 1 The paper claims that gravitational waves induced by isocurvature scalar perturbations during radiation domination have an infrared spectral slope that is logarithmic in the ratio of the effective peak scale to the observation scale. Concretely, $n_{\rm GW} \equiv d\ln\Omega_{\rm GW}/d\ln k = 3 - 4/\ln(\tilde{k}_*^2/6k^2)$, with $\tilde{k}_*$ the peak of $\tilde{P}(k)=(k_{\rm eq}/k)^2P(k)$. In the -/
def central_claim : Prop :=

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The topic is real and the question is worth asking: does the IR slope of the induced GW spectrum distinguish adiabatic from isocurvature scalar perturbations? The paper is clearly written and follows the standard Yuan et al. framework, applying it to Domenech's isocurvature kernel. That's a legitimate extension, not a crank submission.

But the central derivation doesn't hold. Absorbing the k-dependence into an effective power spectrum in Eq. (14) is fine, but when they substitute P(vk)P(uk) into Eq. (10), they forget the u^2 v^2 factor that comes with the substitution. The correct effective kernel is Eq. (16) multiplied by u^2 v^2. Eq. (16) as written is just the original kernel with the (k_eq/k)^4 stripped off, which is not what you get after integrating out the k-dependence. At large u≈v this makes the kernel decay as v^{-4} instead of going to a constant. That spurious v^{-4} is exactly what produces the (k~*/k)^3 scaling in Eq. (22) and the claimed slope. With the correct kernel the IR integral scales differently, and the paper's central discriminant is not established.

There's also a separate sign/reciprocal problem: Eq. (22) writes Ω ∝ (k~*/k)^3, whose logarithmic derivative is -3 - 4/ln(...), not the 3 - 4/ln(...) in Eq. (23). So the paper's own equations don't even agree with each other. The numerical checks use the same approximate kernel, so they just reproduce the error.

My verdict is reject. The idea is fine and the paper is readable, but the load-bearing result is an artifact of an algebraic slip. I wouldn't send this to review as is; if the authors correct the substitution and recompute, they might find a different IR behavior worth reporting. But that's a new calculation, not a patch.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the infrared behavior of gravitational waves induced by isocurvature scalar perturbations. The authors define an effective scalar power spectrum by absorbing the factor (k_eq/k)^2 into P(k), rewrite the GW energy density in a compact kernel form, and derive a log-dependent infrared spectral slope n_GW = 3 - 4/ln(k~*^2/(6k^2)). They compare this slope with the adiabatic case and conclude that the two cases are observationally distinguishable. The central claim is the slope formula in Eq. (23), together with the asserted robustness of the isocurvature/adiabatic discriminant.

Significance. If established, this result would extend the known infrared-slope analysis of induced GWs to isocurvature perturbations and could provide a useful observational discriminant. The paper builds on an existing kernel from the literature and gives explicit analytic expressions, which is helpful for checking the derivation. However, the central derivation contains a load-bearing algebraic error in the kernel reduction, and an additional inconsistency between Eqs. (22) and (23) means that the claimed slope formula does not follow from the paper's own equations. The topic is timely, but the present version does not support its main conclusion.

major comments (3)

[Eqs. (14)-(16)] Substituting the effective spectrum eP(k) = (k_eq/k)^2 P(k) into Eq. (10) and using Eq. (11) yields an integrand proportional to u^2 v^2 (k_eq/k)^4 eP(uk)eP(vk). The k-independent kernel in Eq. (15) must therefore contain a factor u^2 v^2; explicitly, it should be (u^2 v^2/24)[4v^2-(1+v^2-u^2)^2]^2/(16u^2v^2)(I_c^2+I_s^2). Equation (16) omits this u^2 v^2 factor. This is not a harmless rescaling: the omitted factor changes the asymptotic behavior of the kernel at large u and v, and Eqs. (19)-(21), which feed directly into the scaling result Eq. (22), are derived from the incorrect kernel. Consequently the central slope formula Eq. (23) does not follow from the stated equations.
[Eq. (22) versus Eq. (23)] Equation (22) states Omega_GW(k) is proportional to (k~_*/k)^3 ln^2(k~_*^2/(6k^2)). Taking the logarithmic derivative gives d ln Omega_GW/d ln k = -3 - 4/ln(k~_*^2/(6k^2)), not the value 3 - 4/ln(...) claimed in Eq. (23). If the intended scaling is (k/k~_*)^3 rather than (k~_*/k)^3, then Eq. (23) could be consistent, but Eq. (22) would have to be corrected. As written, Eq. (23) is not the derivative of Eq. (22).
[Sec. III.B, Eqs. (25)-(27)] The refined near-peak kernel in Eq. (25) and the resulting expressions for Omega_GW and n_GW in Eqs. (26)-(27) are all obtained from the same incorrect kernel ilde I(u,v) of Eq. (16). The error therefore propagates into the near-peak analysis as well. Before these results can be used, the calculation must be redone with the correctly reduced kernel, and the numerical agreement claimed in Figs. 1-3 must be reassessed.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (34) and Fig. 4] Equation (34) is stated for 0 < alpha <= 1, but Fig. 4 indicates the shaded range is for 0 <= alpha <= 1; at alpha = 0 the argument of the logarithm diverges, so the domain used in the figure should be specified consistently.
[Eq. (27)] The typeset form of Eq. (27) is garbled in places; the term involving '22/33k2' should be checked and rewritten so that the formula can be verified.
[Eq. (6)] The factor preceding the bracket in Eq. (6) is typeset ambiguously; please clarify the intended expression, e.g. (3 S_k / (2 sqrt(2))) (k_eq / k) [ ... ].
[Notation] The tilde over P in eP(k) is used from Eq. (14) onward but is easy to confuse with the original P(k); consider using a distinct symbol such as P_eff(k) for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the isocurvature slope is derived from the stated kernel and input spectrum; the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The central result, Eq. (23), follows by inserting the effective spectrum P~(k) = (k_eq/k)^2 P(k) into the isocurvature kernel taken from the external Ref. [28] and then expanding the kernel and the v-integral in the infrared. The effective peak scale k~_* is an input parameter of the model spectrum, not a quantity fitted to the GW spectrum being predicted; using it in the slope formula is ordinary parametric dependence, not a definition of the target in terms of itself. The self-citations (Refs. [10], [25], [26]) supply prior adiabatic comparisons, PTA context, and an analysis framework, but the new isocurvature calculation does not reduce to those references, and the kernel itself is external. The adiabatic slope quoted from Ref. [26] is an independent benchmark rather than an imported uniqueness theorem. The numerical checks in Figs. 1-3 provide external falsifiability against direct integration of the stated formalism. The algebraic sign discrepancy between Eqs. (22) and (23) and the suspected missing u^2 v^2 factor in Eq. (16) are internal-correctness issues; they do not correspond to a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction and no self-citation carries the derivation, so they are outside the circularity category.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, fields, or forces. Its central claim rests on the prior perturbation-theory kernel, the assumed spectral peak, and the algebraic transformation of the spectrum. The free-parameter count is essentially zero, but the transformation error is a major unverified assumption rather than a fitted parameter.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The two-fluid isocurvature perturbation solution in Eq. (6) and the GW kernel in Eq. (11) are taken from Ref. [28] without re-derivation.
The paper states this is the standard isocurvature formalism and uses it as the starting point for the slope calculation.
domain assumption The primordial scalar power spectrum is assumed to have a pronounced peak at an effective scale k~*, with support restricted to k_- < k < k_+ and k > k_eq.
Section III introduces this assumption to perform the infrared expansion and to avoid infrared divergences; the claimed universal slope depends on this peak structure.
ad hoc to paper The kernel transformation in Eqs. (14) to (16) is assumed to be algebraically correct, with ilde I(u,v) independent of k.
This is the specific point where the paper's central formula fails: the transformation drops a u^2 v^2 factor, so the assumed k-independence does not match Eq. (10).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Infrared Behavior of Induced Gravitational Waves from Isocurvature Perturbations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZQ66O5D

@misc{pith2026250109939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Infrared Behavior of Induced Gravitational Waves from Isocurvature Perturbations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZQ66O5D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09939}
}

abstract

Induced gravitational waves provide a powerful probe of primordial perturbations in the early universe through their distinctive spectral properties. We analyze the spectral energy density $\Omega_{\text{GW}}$ of gravitational waves induced by isocurvature scalar perturbations. In the infrared regime, we find that the spectral slope $n_{\text{GW}} \equiv \text{d} \ln\Omega_\mathrm{GW}/\text{d}\ln k$ takes the log-dependent form $3-4/ \ln (\tilde{k}_*^2 / 6k^2)$, where $\tilde{k}_*$ represents the effective peak scale of the primordial scalar power spectrum. This characteristic behavior differs markedly from that of adiabatic-induced gravitational waves, establishing a robust observational discriminant between isocurvature and adiabatic primordial perturbation modes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09939 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Comparison of GW spectral slopes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Ito calculus meets the Hubble tension: Effects of small-scale electron density fluctuations on the CMB anisotropies
astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

Small-scale electron density fluctuations modify the CMB by broadening the last-scattering visibility and reducing the effective Thomson scattering rate, effects not captured by changing only the average recombination...
Isotropic background and anisotropies of gravitational waves induced by cosmological soliton isocurvature perturbations
astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Soliton isocurvature perturbations produce gravitational waves whose sky anisotropies are enhanced by non-Gaussianity, offering a new probe of the early universe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Pre- liminary maps and basic results,

C. L. Bennett et al. (WMAP), “First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Pre- liminary maps and basic results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 1–27 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302207

arXiv 2003
[2]

Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,

Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020
[3]

The Cosmological gravitational wave background from primordial density perturbations,

Kishore N. Ananda, Chris Clarkson, and David Wands, “The Cosmological gravitational wave background from primordial density perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D 75, 123518 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612013

arXiv 2007
[4]

Gravitational Wave Spectrum In- duced by Primordial Scalar Perturbations,

Daniel Baumann, Paul J. Steinhardt, Keitaro Takahashi, and Kiyotomo Ichiki, “Gravitational Wave Spectrum In- duced by Primordial Scalar Perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 084019 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0703290

arXiv 2007
[5]

Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,

Stephen Hawking, “Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 (1971)

1971
[6]

Black holes in the early Universe,

Bernard J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in the early Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, 399– 415 (1974)

1974
[7]

Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,

Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018
[8]

Did LIGO detect dark matter?

Simeon Bird, Ilias Cholis, Julian B. Mu˜ noz, Yacine Ali- Ha ¨ ımoud, Marc Kamionkowski, Ely D. Kovetz, Alvise Raccanelli, and Adam G. Riess, “Did LIGO detect dark matter?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 201301 (2016), arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016

Show all 29 references

[9]

Primordial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational-Wave Event GW150914,

Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primordial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational-Wave Event GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 061101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 059901 (2018)], arXiv:1603.08338 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[10]

Confronting primordial black holes with LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA and the Einstein Telescope,

Zu-Cheng Chen and Alex Hall, “Confronting primordial black holes with LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA and the Einstein Telescope,” (2024), arXiv:2402.03934 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[11]

Cosmological Per- turbation Theory,

Hideo Kodama and Misao Sasaki, “Cosmological Per- turbation Theory,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 78, 1–166 (1984)

1984
[12]

The General primordial cosmic perturbation,

Martin Bucher, Kavilan Moodley, and Neil Turok, “The General primordial cosmic perturbation,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 083508 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904231

2000 arXiv
[13]

Search for strongly blue axion isocurvature,

Daniel J. H. Chung and Amol Upadhye, “Search for strongly blue axion isocurvature,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 023525 (2018), arXiv:1711.06736 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[14]

An- alytic treatment of underdamped axionic blue isocurva- ture perturbations,

Daniel J. H. Chung and Sai Chaitanya Tadepalli, “An- alytic treatment of underdamped axionic blue isocurva- ture perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 123511 (2022), arXiv:2110.02272 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[15]

Baryon isocurvature fluctuations at small scales and baryonic dark matter,

Alexandre Dolgov and Joseph Silk, “Baryon isocurvature fluctuations at small scales and baryonic dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 47, 4244–4255 (1993)

1993
[16]

Early structure formation in primordial black hole cosmologies,

Derek Inman and Yacine Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, “Early structure formation in primordial black hole cosmologies,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 083528 (2019), arXiv:1907.08129 [astro- ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Gravitational waves from a universe filled with primordial black holes,

Theodoros Papanikolaou, Vincent Vennin, and David Langlois, “Gravitational waves from a universe filled with primordial black holes,” JCAP 03, 053 (2021), arXiv:2010.11573 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[18]

Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology (Cam- bridge University Press, Oxford, 2005)

V. Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology (Cam- bridge University Press, Oxford, 2005)

2005
[19]

Cosmologi- cal perturbations,

Karim A. Malik and David Wands, “Cosmologi- cal perturbations,” Phys. Rept. 475, 1–51 (2009), arXiv:0809.4944 [astro-ph]

2009 arXiv
[20]

Exploring evaporating primordial black holes with gravitational waves,

Guillem Dom` enech, Volodymyr Takhistov, and Misao Sasaki, “Exploring evaporating primordial black holes with gravitational waves,” Phys. Lett. B 823, 136722 (2021), arXiv:2105.06816 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[21]

First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: De- termination of cosmological parameters,

D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP), “First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: De- termination of cosmological parameters,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175–194 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

2003 arXiv
[22]

CMB spectral dis- tortions from small-scale isocurvature fluctuations,

Jens Chluba and Daniel Grin, “CMB spectral dis- tortions from small-scale isocurvature fluctuations,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 434, 1619–1635 (2013), arXiv:1304.4596 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[23]

Spectral Distortions of the CMB as a Probe of Inflation, Recombination, Structure Formation and Particle Physics: Astro2020 Science White Paper,

J. Chluba et al. , “Spectral Distortions of the CMB as a Probe of Inflation, Recombination, Structure Formation and Particle Physics: Astro2020 Science White Paper,” Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 184 (2019), arXiv:1903.04218 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review,

Guillem Dom` enech, “Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review,” Universe 7, 398 (2021), arXiv:2109.01398 [gr- qc]

2021 arXiv
[25]

Can we distinguish the adiabatic fluctuations and isocurvature fluctuations with pulsar timing arrays?

Zu-Cheng Chen and Lang Liu, “Can we distinguish the adiabatic fluctuations and isocurvature fluctuations with pulsar timing arrays?” (2024), arXiv:2402.16781 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Log-dependent slope of scalar induced gravitational waves in the infrared regions,

Chen Yuan, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Log-dependent slope of scalar induced gravitational waves in the infrared regions,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 043019 (2020), arXiv:1910.09099 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[27]

Universal infrared scaling of gravitational wave background spec- tra,

Rong-Gen Cai, Shi Pi, and Misao Sasaki, “Universal infrared scaling of gravitational wave background spec- tra,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 083528 (2020), arXiv:1909.13728 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[28]

Cosmological gravitational waves from isocurvature fluctuations,

Guillem Dom` enech, “Cosmological gravitational waves from isocurvature fluctuations,” AAPPS Bull. 34, 4 (2024), arXiv:2311.02065 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Testing primordial black holes as dark matter with LISA,

N. Bartolo, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, M. Peloso, D. Racco, and A. Riotto, “Testing primordial black holes as dark matter with LISA,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 103521 (2019), arXiv:1810.12224 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Pre- liminary maps and basic results,

C. L. Bennett et al. (WMAP), “First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Pre- liminary maps and basic results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 1–27 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302207

arXiv 2003

[2] [2]

Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,

Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020

[3] [3]

The Cosmological gravitational wave background from primordial density perturbations,

Kishore N. Ananda, Chris Clarkson, and David Wands, “The Cosmological gravitational wave background from primordial density perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D 75, 123518 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612013

arXiv 2007

[4] [4]

Gravitational Wave Spectrum In- duced by Primordial Scalar Perturbations,

Daniel Baumann, Paul J. Steinhardt, Keitaro Takahashi, and Kiyotomo Ichiki, “Gravitational Wave Spectrum In- duced by Primordial Scalar Perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 084019 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0703290

arXiv 2007

[5] [5]

Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,

Stephen Hawking, “Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 (1971)

1971

[6] [6]

Black holes in the early Universe,

Bernard J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in the early Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, 399– 415 (1974)

1974

[7] [7]

Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,

Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018

[8] [8]

Did LIGO detect dark matter?

Simeon Bird, Ilias Cholis, Julian B. Mu˜ noz, Yacine Ali- Ha ¨ ımoud, Marc Kamionkowski, Ely D. Kovetz, Alvise Raccanelli, and Adam G. Riess, “Did LIGO detect dark matter?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 201301 (2016), arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016