Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Nonlinear dynamics in Horndeski gravity: a renormalized approach to effective gravitational coupling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single function now sets the effective gravitational strength at every cosmic scale.

desk verdict A serious new formalism for a scale-dependent effective gravitational constant in screened Horndeski gravity, but the master equation is an ansatz and the numerics are not yet a full renormalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03999 v2 pith:HIZ7M5TF submitted 2025-05-06 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Luca Amendola , Carla Bernal , Radouane Gannouji This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83C2583D0585A40 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords HorndeskigravityVainshteinscreeningrenormalizedperturbationtheoryeffectivegravitationalconstantquasi-staticapproximationcosmologicalstructureformationmodifiedmatterpowerspectrum
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 develops a way to compute how the strength of gravity changes with scale in a broad class of modified gravity theories that hide their deviations from Einstein gravity at small scales through the Vainshtein mechanism. Extending an earlier renormalized perturbation approach, it defines a nonlinear effective gravitational constant $G_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{NL}}/G$ as the response of the gravitational potential to a single Fourier mode of the matter density. The central result is that this coupling is controlled by one scale- and time-dependent function $M(t,p)$, which interpolates between $M=1$ at large scales (modified gravity with strength $\mu$) and $M=0$ at small scales (strength $G/F$), with $M$ obeying a closed nonlinear integral equation. A sympathetic reader would care because this scale-dependent coupling is what must be put into growth and lensing equations to predict the matter power spectrum and bispectrum in these theories without assuming the screening is perfect.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a closure ansatz for the response function: the full linear response of the potential to the nonlinear density field is written as $\Gamma^{(1)}(t,p) = -(3 a^2 H^2 \Omega_m/2p^2)\bigl(1 + (\mu F-1)M(t,p)\bigr)$, reducing all unknown nonlinearity to a single function $M$. Substituting this ansatz into the quasi-static, Fourier-space nonlinear Poisson equation, which keeps the Galileon-type kernel $\gamma(p_1,p_2)=1-(p_1\cdot p_2)^2/(p_1^2 p_2^2)$, and taking the bispectrum moment yields the master equation. The paper also introduces a positivity-preserving quadratic iteration for solving this integral equation, replacing a naive fixed-point iteration that drifts negative.

What would settle it

Evaluate the same nonlinear Poisson equation in a direct numerical simulation of the $c_K=1$, $c_B=0.5$ model and measure $G_{\mathrm{eff}}$ through $-p^2\langle\Phi\delta_m\rangle/P_{\delta\delta}(p)$; if the measured scale dependence does not match Eq. (77) with the converged $M(p)$ from Eq. (85), or if iterations of the full system move $M(p)$ outside $[0,1]$ at any scale where the quasi-static approximation is expected to hold, the central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a resummation formula: after loop corrections are folded into the linear response, the renormalized effective gravitational constant is $G_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{NL}}(t,p)/G = (1/F)\bigl(1 + (\mu F - 1) M(t,p)\bigr)$, where $\mu$ is the linear growth coupling, $F$ is the nonminimal coupling function, and $M(t,p)$ solves the master equation $$P(p)(1-M(p)) = \frac{g}{(2\pi)^2}\int $p_1^{2}$\, \gamma(p_1,p-p_1)\, B(p_1,p-p_1)\, M(p_1)M(|p-p_1|)\, dp_1\, d\mu_\$\theta$.$$ In the infrared $M\to 1$ and one recovers the linear coupling $\mu$; in the ultraviolet $M\to 0$ and the coupling becomes $G/F$, showing that the derivative (Galileon-type) interactions screen the extra force but the conformal factor $F$ is not screened in this quasi-static treatment. The paper further exhibits a numerical iteration that converges in two steps and shows that the result reproduces the $p^2$ infrared behaviour of one-loop standard perturbation theory, while remaining finite where the one-loop expression fails.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation's load-bearing premise is that the quasi-static approximation holds down to the small scales where Vainshtein screening operates, and that the only nonlinearities that matter there are the Galileon-type derivative terms retained in the truncated Poisson equation, so the unscreened coupling $F(\phi)$ can be treated as a background function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The effective gravitational coupling becomes a continuous function of scale and redshift, so Vainshtein screening is encoded as $M(t,p)\to 0$ rather than requiring a sharp cutoff or a separate treatment of each object.
  • The matter power spectrum can be corrected by solving a single linear equation for a renormalized growth factor $D_{\mathrm{renorm}}(t,p)$ with $G_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{NL}}$ in place of Newton's constant.
  • Bispectrum corrections follow from the same coupling; the squeezed-limit second-order kernel is fixed by the Ward identity to $D_1 = [D_{\mathrm{renorm}}]^2$, with no new soft poles, so non-Gaussianity changes only through the modified growth and finite multipole coefficients.
  • In the infrared the renormalized coupling recovers the one-loop SPT $p^2$ scaling, while at small scales it remains well behaved where one-loop SPT breaks down.
  • The converged result depends only weakly on the assumed input bispectrum, which suggests the method is stable enough for an iterative power-spectrum and bispectrum renormalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if $F\neq 1$ is not screened, the small-scale limit is $G/F$, not Newton's $G$; in models where $F$ deviates appreciably at late times, this residual coupling would appear as a local fifth force unless a separate mechanism acts on $F$.
  • Editorial extension: the positivity-preserving quadratic iteration used here is not tied to the specific field theory; the same strategy could stabilize comparable nonlinear integral equations in other resummation schemes.
  • Editorial extension: because the master equation needs $P$ and $B$ as inputs, a sharp test of the framework would be a direct N-body measurement of $\langle\Phi\delta_m\rangle/P_{\delta\delta}$ in the $c_K=1$, $c_B=0.5$ model and a comparison with the iterated formula.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 proposes a renormalized perturbation theory for the quasi-static Horndeski subclass (1), with the goal of defining a scale- and time-dependent nonlinear effective gravitational constant G_NL_eff. After deriving the nonlinear Poisson equation (33), the authors introduce the response functional expansion (39), truncate it to the linear response Γ^(1), and write Γ^(1) in the form (76) in terms of an unknown function M(t,p). The main result is Eq. (77), with M determined by the integral equation (85) involving the matter power spectrum and bispectrum. Sections 5-8 develop a spherical approximation and a formal iteration scheme for the power spectrum and bispectrum. Section 10 presents numerical solutions for a model with F=1, cK=1, cB=0.5, using four methods of which Method 4 is selected. Section 11 compares the IR limit to one-loop SPT and finds the same p² scaling. The paper concludes that the framework captures Vainshtein screening and can be iterated in future work.

Significance. If the master equation (85) is a valid resummation, the paper provides a useful nonperturbative tool for estimating screening effects on the gravitational coupling in Horndeski models, with potential applications to power spectrum and bispectrum predictions. The derivation of the quasi-static field equations (13)-(33), the explicit nonlinear Poisson equation, and the spherical approximation are clear and carefully presented. Strengths include the absence of parameter fitting to the target quantity, the nonlinear integral-equation structure of Eq. (85), and the explicit comparison with one-loop SPT in the IR. However, the central equation rests on a closure that is not derived from a controlled truncation, and the numerical implementation inherits inconsistencies from the input spectra. The usefulness of the framework therefore depends on the additional validation requested below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7, Eqs. (78)-(85)] The master equation is an unvalidated closure, not a derived resummation. The substitution Φ(p)=Γ^(1)(p)δm(p) truncates the exact response expansion (42) at first order, while Eq. (56) gives a nonzero tree-level Γ^(2); the estimates in Eqs. (69)-(70) are based on a spherical one-point approximation and do not control the contribution of Γ^(2) to the equation for Γ^(1). Furthermore, Eq. (81) is presented as a pointwise field equation, but it equates the linear functional (M(p)-1)δm(p) to a quadratic convolution of δm with itself, which cannot hold for each realization of a stochastic density field; the statistical closure is inserted only when Eq. (82) is obtained by multiplying by δm(k) and averaging. The derivation should either start from functional differentiation of Eq. (33) and a systematic truncation of the propagator hierarchy, or the ansatz should be stated as such and tested, e.g., against the one-loop Γ^(1) of Eq. (55) and against N-body simulations.
  2. [Section 11, Eqs. (161)-(165)] The comparison with one-loop SPT establishes only the p² scaling of the IR correction, not the coefficient. Equation (165) is a nontrivial consistency condition that is left unchecked, and no demonstration is given that the solution M(p) of Eq. (85) reproduces the perturbative one-loop propagator Γ^(1)_1-loop in Eq. (55). Without this check, the statement that both approaches agree in the IR limit is premature. Please verify Eq. (165) numerically or analytically for the adopted parameter choices, or at least show the size of the residual.
  3. [Section 10, Figs. 6-7] The numerical results for G_NL_eff are presented without convergence criteria, residual measures, or error estimates. Methods 1-3 fail or oscillate, and Method 4 is selected because it converges in two iterations, but no quantitative stopping rule is provided. In addition, the power spectrum and bispectrum used in Eq. (85) come from halofit and SPT/BiHalofit and are not corrected by the Horndeski dynamics; the paper acknowledges this (§8) but does not estimate the resulting error in the converged M(p). Please report residuals, provide error bars or robustness tests, and quantify the sensitivity to the input P and B.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (63)] The paper correctly acknowledges after Eq. (63) that F(ϕ) is not screened; for general F this means the small-scale limit of G_NL_eff is G/F, not G. Since the numerical model sets F=1, the abstract's claim of restoration of GR should be qualified to that choice.
  2. [Section 10.4, Eq. (135)] The notation 'p2γ' in Eq. (135) is ambiguous; it should read p1² γ to match Eq. (85), where p1 is the integration variable.
  3. [Section 7, Eq. (82)] In Eq. (82), the bispectrum argument is written as B(p1,p2,k), but the definition (83) uses B(p1,p2,p3) with p3=-k; use consistent notation and check the Dirac deltas in the averaging step.
  4. [Section 5, Eq. (67)] The replacement δm → ∆(k) in Eq. (67) mixes a dimensionless field with a dimensionless amplitude of the power spectrum; clarify that this is a heuristic identification and not an exact substitution.
  5. [Introduction, paragraph 2] The 'elephant problem' is attributed to reference [1] in the introduction, but that reference is a general review; either provide the original source or cite a more specific reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the master equation is a genuine nonlinear integral equation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central quantity G_NL_eff/G = (1/F)(1 + (µF - 1)M) (Eq. 77) is introduced as a reparametrization of the response function Γ(1) (Eq. 76); the predictive content lies in the master equation (85), which determines M from the input power spectrum P and bispectrum B. This is not a tautology: P and B are given, M is an unknown function satisfying a nonlinear integral equation, and the paper solves that equation numerically. No parameter is fitted to the target G_NL_eff, and the large/small-scale limits M→1 and M→0 are boundary expectations consistent with the equation, not inputs that force the full scale dependence. The closure Φ = Γ(1) δm used to obtain Eq. (81) is an approximation (the neglect of Γ(2) and higher) whose validity is discussed with a spherical estimate, but the resulting equation is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The paper also checks externally against 1-loop SPT in Section 11, recovering the IR p^2 scaling; the coefficient matching (Eq. 165) is honestly left as an unverified consistency condition rather than assumed. The deferral of the self-consistent iteration of P and B to future work (Section 8) is a completeness limitation, not a circular reduction. Self-citations appear only in supportive contexts (e.g., matter-era growth exponents), and none carries the load-bearing argument. The core derivation is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation relies on the GW170817-selected Horndeski subclass, the quasi-static approximation, a specific nonlinearity truncation, and a response-function closure. The two model coefficients cK and cB are chosen by hand. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • cK = 1
    Coefficient in the parametrization αK = cK ΩDE, chosen by hand in Section 9 to define the toy model; not fitted to data.
  • cB = 0.5
    Coefficient in the parametrization αB = cB ΩDE, chosen by hand in Section 9; controls the braiding and the nonlinear Vainshtein terms.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The viable Horndeski subclass is defined by action (1) with αT = 0 after GW170817 constraints.
    Section 2 adopts this subclass; the paper acknowledges the constraint has been challenged but takes a conservative approach.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static approximation: time derivatives of perturbations are neglected while spatial derivatives are retained.
    Section 3 invokes this approximation; the paper notes it may be restrictive [29] and that F(ϕ) is not screened, possibly because of this approximation.
  • domain assumption Perturbative hierarchy: δϕ is small but its spatial derivatives can be large, so (δϕ)^n δϕ,ij ≪ δϕ,ij and δϕ,i δϕ,j ≪ δϕ,ij.
    Section 3 uses this to derive the nonlinear Poisson equation (33). If violated, the Vainshtein terms retained would not be the complete set.
  • ad hoc to paper The response function closure: Γ^(1)(t,p) = -(1/p²)(3/2 a²H²Ωm)(1+(µF-1)M(p)), and higher-order propagators are negligible because g < 1.
    Section 7 postulates this form and Section 5 argues higher-order terms are suppressed by powers of g. This is the key modeling assumption for the master equation.
  • domain assumption Extended Galilean invariance in Horndeski with universal Jordan-frame matter coupling fixes the soft limit D1 = Drenorm².
    Section 8 uses the Ward identity from [34,35] to fix the squeezed limit of the bispectrum kernel.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear dynamics in Horndeski gravity: a renormalized approach to effective gravitational coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HIZ7M5TF

@misc{pith2026250503999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear dynamics in Horndeski gravity: a renormalized approach to effective gravitational coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HIZ7M5TF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03999}
}
read the original abstract

This paper develops a renormalized perturbation theory framework for nonlinear structure formation in a broad class of modified gravity models that exhibit Vainshtein screening, with a focus on a viable subclass of Horndeski theories. We extend earlier perturbative methods, originally applied to DGP model, to construct a self-consistent treatment that captures both the linear modifications to gravity at large scales and the nonlinear screening effects at small scales. In the framework, the response of the gravitational potential to matter density fluctuations is characterized by renormalized propagators, leading to the definition of a nonlinear (or renormalized) effective gravitational constant. The paper details several numerical strategies to compute this renormalized gravitational constant. Numerical examples illustrate how the effective gravitational constant evolves with scale and redshift. These results are key to accurately predicting cosmological observables such as the matter power spectrum and bispectrum in modified gravity scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On the left, the evolution of the density parameters Ωm, Ωr, and ΩDE as a function of the redshift z, while on the right, the evolution of the linear effective gravitational constant, µ = Σ, as a function of the redshift z. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the power spectrum of this model in the linear regime, computed using hi_class, and its nonlinear extension obtained via the halofit approach [40]. The same figure also shows the function g(z), which plays a crucial role in our analysis. The perturbative framework requires this coefficient to remain below unity for all redshifts, with its present-day value given in our model by g ≃ 0.279 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We show the iterations on M(p) at z = 0 for the A1 bispectrum on the left and A2 bispectrum on the right. The green, red, and blue curves correspond to the initial spherical guess M(0), the first iteration M(1), and the second iteration, respectively. 10.2. Method 2 In this section, we follow the approach used in [15] in the analysis of the DGP model. In order to avoid the problems presented in the previous section,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We show the first iteration on M(p) at z = 0 for the A1 bispectrum on the left and A2 bispectrum on the right. The green and blue curves correspond to the initial spherical guess M(0) and the first iteration M(1) respectively. 10.3. Method 3 In this method, we provide …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We show the first iteration on M(p) at z = 0 for the A1 bispectrum on the left and A2 bispectrum on the right. The green and blue curves correspond to the initial spherical guess M(0) and the first iteration M(1) respectively. 10.4. Method 4 Finally, we show in this se…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: On the left, we show the convergence of the renormalized gravitational constant at z = 0. The dotted line indicates the linear gravitational constant, while the green, red, and blue curves correspond to the initial spherical guess M(0), the first iteration M(1), and th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: On the left, we show the converged renormalized gravitational constant at z = 0, 0.5 and 1, in green, red and blue respectively for the A2 bispectrum. On the right, the dashed lines represent the A1 bispectrum and the thick lines correspond to the A2 bispectrum. 11. Co…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We show the gravitational constant at z = 0. The blue line indicates the renormalized gravitational constant, while the red line corresponds to the SPT approach. At very large scales and early times (the IR limit), the 1-loop power is controlled by the hard region, whe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept.513 (2012), 1-189 [arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Joyce, B

    A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury and M. Trodden, Phys. Rept.568 (2015), 1-98 [arXiv:1407.0059 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys.10 (1974), 363-384

    work page 1974

  4. [4]

    Deffayet, G

    C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009), 084003 [arXiv:0901.1314 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 126 (2011), 511-529 [arXiv:1105.5723 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    M. A. Luty, M. Porrati and R. Rattazzi, JHEP09 (2003), 029 [arXiv:hep-th/0303116 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    G. Goon, K. Hinterbichler, A. Joyce and M. Trodden, JHEP11 (2016), 100 [arXiv:1606.02295 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Pirtskhalava, L

    D. Pirtskhalava, L. Santoni, E. Trincherini and F. Vernizzi, JCAP09 (2015), 007 [arXiv:1505.00007 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Santoni, E

    L. Santoni, E. Trincherini and L. G. Trombetta, JHEP08 (2018), 118 [arXiv:1806.10073 [hep-th]]. 28

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B39 (1972), 393-394

    1972

  3. [11]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Phys. Rev. D6 (1972), 3368-3382

    1972

  4. [12]

    Babichev and C

    E. Babichev and C. Deffayet, Class. Quant. Grav.30 (2013), 184001 [arXiv:1304.7240 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    E. V. Linder, JCAP03 (2018), 005 [arXiv:1801.01503 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. Bettoni, A. M. Pinho and S. Casas, Universe6 (2020) no.2, 20 [arXiv:1902.06978 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Scoccimarro, Phys

    R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009), 104006 [arXiv:0906.4545 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Brando, K

    G. Brando, K. Koyama and H. A. Winther, JCAP06 (2023), 045 [arXiv:2303.09549 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    B. P. Abbottet al. [LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM and INTEGRAL], Astrophys. J. Lett.848 (2017) no.2, L13 [arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Creminelli and F

    P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) no.25, 251302 [arXiv:1710.05877 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sakstein and B

    J. Sakstein and B. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) no.25, 251303 [arXiv:1710.05893 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalacárregui, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) no.25, 251304 [arXiv:1710.05901 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Deffayet, O

    C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman, JCAP 10 (2010), 026 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2010/10/026 [arXiv:1008.0048 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    de Rham and S

    C. de Rham and S. Melville, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) no.22, 221101 [arXiv:1806.09417 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. Bettoni, G. Domènech and A. R. Gomes, JCAP06 (2018), 029 [arXiv:1803.06368 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Papallo and H

    G. Papallo and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) no.4, 044019 [arXiv:1705.04370 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. L. Ripley and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.8, 084014 [arXiv:1902.01468 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. L. Ripley and F. Pretorius, Class. Quant. Grav.36 (2019) no.13, 134001 [arXiv:1903.07543 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. L. Ripley and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.4, 044015 [arXiv:1911.11027 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Á. D. Kovács and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.12, 124003 [arXiv:2003.08398 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sawicki and E

    I. Sawicki and E. Bellini, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.8, 084061 [arXiv:1503.06831 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bellini and I

    E. Bellini and I. Sawicki, JCAP07 (2014), 050 [arXiv:1404.3713 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kimura, T

    R. Kimura, T. Kobayashi and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012), 024023 [arXiv:1111.6749 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ishak, T

    M. Ishak, T. Baker, P. Bull, E. M. Pedersen, J. Blazek, P. G. Ferreira, C. Danielle Leonard, W. Lin, E. Linder and K. Pardo,et al. [arXiv:1905.09687 [astro-ph.CO]]

    1905 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga and R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rept. 367 (2002), 1-248 [arXiv:astro-ph/0112551 [astro-ph]]. 29

    2002 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Crisostomi, M

    M. Crisostomi, M. Lewandowski and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.12, 123501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123501 [arXiv:1909.07366 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Peloso and M

    M. Peloso and M. Pietroni, JCAP04 (2014), 011 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/04/011 [arXiv:1310.7915 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, JCAP07 (2011), 034 [arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Zumalacárregui, E

    M. Zumalacárregui, E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, J. Lesgourgues and P. G. Ferreira, JCAP08 (2017), 019 [arXiv:1605.06102 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bellini, I

    E. Bellini, I. Sawicki and M. Zumalacárregui, JCAP02 (2020), 008 [arXiv:1909.01828 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Aghanim et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. E. Smithet al. [VIRGO Consortium], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.341 (2003), 1311 [arXiv:astro- ph/0207664 [astro-ph]]

    2003

  33. [41]

    Takahashi, T

    R. Takahashi, T. Nishimichi, T. Namikawa, A. Taruya, I. Kayo, K. Osato, Y. Kobayashi and M. Shirasaki, Astrophys. J.895 (2020) no.2, 113 [arXiv:1911.07886 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun.168 (2005), 78-95 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404043 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    X. Fang, E. Krause, T. Eifler and N. MacCrann, JCAP05 (2020), 010 [arXiv:1911.11947 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    X. Fang, T. Eifler and E. Krause, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 497 (2020) no.3, 2699-2714 [arXiv:2004.04833 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Takushima, A

    Y. Takushima, A. Terukina and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.10, 104007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104007 [arXiv:1311.0281 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Takushima, A

    Y. Takushima, A. Terukina and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.10, 104033 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.104033 [arXiv:1502.03935 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Calderon, D

    R. Calderon, D. Felbacq, R. Gannouji, D. Polarski and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.10, 103501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103501 [arXiv:1912.06958 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gannouji and D

    R. Gannouji and D. Polarski, JCAP 05 (2008), 018 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/05/018 [arXiv:0802.4196 [astro-ph]]. 30

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.