Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Forecast Constraints on Bouncing Cosmology from High Frequency Gravitational Waves Using Superconducting LC Circuits and Resonant Cavities

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High-frequency gravitational-wave detectors are forecast to constrain the bounce energy scale of bouncing cosmology far more tightly than astrophysical probes for blue-tilted contraction phases.

desk verdict A legitimate but overstated forecast: the monochromatic-to-stochastic mapping in Eq. (20) suppresses high-Q sensitivities by ~sqrt(Q_int), deflating the 'over 20 orders' claim to more like 10-14 orders, though the qualitative conclusion survives. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00684 v1 pith:SDLPAO3G submitted 2025-05-31 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Changhong Li This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords bouncingcosmologyhigh-frequencygravitationalwavessuperconductingLCcircuitsresonantcavitiesstochasticwavebackgroundbounceenergyscaleinverseGertsenshteineffectSRF
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 superconducting LC circuits and resonant cavities, originally designed for axion and dark-photon searches, can be repurposed as high-frequency gravitational-wave detectors and can thereby constrain the energy scale of the non-singular bounce in bouncing cosmology. It combines the generic bouncing-universe gravitational-wave spectrum with projected sensitivity curves for these devices over $1\,\mathrm{kHz}\lesssim f\lesssim10\,\mathrm{GHz}$ and derives forecast bounds on the bounce energy scale $\rho_{s\downarrow}^{1/4}$. For contraction equation-of-state $w_1>0.05$ the HFGW forecasts are tighter than existing limits from Planck/BICEP, pulsar timing arrays, and laser interferometers; for $w_1\gg0$, the SRF electromagnetic channel improves the bound by more than twenty orders of magnitude. This matters because it unifies cosmological constraints with quantum-measurement experiments and fills the 1 kHz–10 GHz gap in gravitational-wave coverage of the early Universe.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stochastic-gravitational-wave-background spectrum $\Omega_{\mathrm{GW}}(f)h^2$ of Eq. (15), whose amplitude is controlled by the bounce energy scale $\rho_{s\downarrow}^{1/4}$ and the contraction equation-of-state $w_1$. The paper inverts that spectrum under the monochromatic plane-wave approximation $h_{ij}^{TT}(t,x)=h_0 H_{ij}^{TT} e^{i(\omega_h t-kx)}$ (Eq. (18)) to convert each detector's strain reach $h_0$ into a bound on $\rho_{s\downarrow}^{1/4}$. The strain reaches themselves come from the single- and multi-mode SNR formulas, Eqs. (23) and (27), with the benchmark parameters in Eq. (24) that define the LC circuit, conventional cavity, and SRF EM/mechanical configurations.

What would settle it

Take a representative $w_1>0.05$ (for example $w_1=1$) and the SRF EM benchmark of Eq. (24), and recompute the detection SNR by inserting the full broadband spectrum of Eq. (15) into Eq. (22) instead of the monochromatic strain $h_0$ from Eq. (18). If the resulting bound on $\rho_{s\downarrow}^{1/4}$ differs by more than the factor of 2 the paper notes, or if it no longer beats the Planck/BICEP bound, the central claim would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the generic bouncing-cosmology framework, the paper establishes that, at projected sensitivity, high-frequency gravitational-wave detectors give the strongest constraints on the bounce energy scale whenever the contraction equation-of-state satisfies $w_1>0.05$. In the strongly blue-tilted regime $w_1\gg0$, the SRF electromagnetic channel improves the bound on $\rho_{s\downarrow}^{1/4}$ by more than twenty orders of magnitude relative to Planck/BICEP, with the multi-mode SRF EM cavity reaching $h_0=1.2\times10^{-26}$ at 1 GHz. The forecast covers the window $1\,\mathrm{kHz}\lesssim f\lesssim10\,\mathrm{GHz}$ and, combined with existing low-frequency limits, spans $10^{-17}\,\mathrm{Hz}$ to $10\,\mathrm{GHz}$, opening the non-singular bounce to laboratory-scale experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the broadband stochastic background can be replaced by a monochromatic plane wave at the resonator frequency in Eqs. (18)–(21) without modeling bandwidth or coherence; if that mapping shifts the implied sensitivity by more than a small factor, the projected bounds on the bounce energy scale change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1 kHz–10 GHz band becomes a practical observational window for bouncing cosmology, not just a theoretical extrapolation.
  • For $w_1>0.05$, no existing astrophysical probe constrains $\rho_{s\downarrow}^{1/4}$ down to the reduced Planck scale, so these resonators would be the only projected probe of that region.
  • The multi-mode SRF EM cavity, with $h_0\simeq1.2\times10^{-26}$ at 1 GHz, would give the strongest single-detector bound for large $w_1$.
  • Combining the HFGW forecasts with low-frequency bounds covers $10^{-17}$ Hz to $10$ GHz in one framework, so a single spectrum can be tested across all available experiments.
  • Devices with $Q_{\mathrm{int}}\gg10^{12}$ and $\omega_{\mathrm{rf}}\gg10\,\mathrm{GHz}$ would further shrink the remaining parameter space of $\rho_{s\downarrow}^{1/4}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to use the same mapping to project constraints on related early-universe parameters, such as the reheating temperature or the duration of the bouncing phase, by rescaling Eq. (15).
  • Because the SNR formulas assume a monochromatic signal, a full broadband treatment that integrates the SGWB over the resonator bandwidth and coherence time would test the factor-of-2 ambiguity the paper mentions in a parenthetical; the shift has not been quantified.
  • Since these devices already exist for dark-matter searches, archival data could in principle be reanalyzed for a real, rather than forecast, HFGW bound if the noise model is accurate enough.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper forecasts constraints on the bounce energy scale rho_s_down^{1/4} in a bouncing-cosmology model by combining an analytic stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) spectrum (Eq. 15) with sensitivity curves for high-frequency gravitational-wave detectors: superconducting LC circuits, conventional resonant cavities, and SRF cavities in electromagnetic and mechanical modes, over 1 kHz to 10 GHz. The central claim is that these detectors impose substantially tighter bounds for w1 > 0 than existing astrophysical limits, with the SRF EM channel improving the Planck/BICEP bound by over twenty orders of magnitude for w1 >> 0. The paper presents sensitivity curves (Fig. 1), representative strain values (Table I), and the resulting exclusion regions for rho_s_down^{1/4} as a function of the contraction equation-of-state w1 (Figs. 2-4). The work is a forecast that recombines two ingredients from the author's prior papers: the SGWB spectrum of a specific symmetric bounce model and the detector sensitivity formulas of Ref. [86].

Significance. If the result survives scrutiny, it is significant: it connects laboratory quantum-measurement experiments (axion haloscopes and cavity detectors) to early-Universe cosmology and extends the frequency window for bouncing-cosmology tests by many orders of magnitude. The manuscript is transparent about using forecast sensitivity curves and benchmark parameters, and it does not introduce ad hoc physics beyond the detector benchmarks. The main uncertainty is the mapping from a broadband stochastic background to a monochromatic strain; this is a technical but material issue that affects the numerical magnitude of the claimed reach. The paper also has the strength of being a direct recombination of independently derived inputs, so it is not circular in the sense that the target result is an input.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Eq. (20)] The conversion of the SGWB into the monochromatic strain h0 used in the SNR formulas neglects the finite bandwidth of resonant detectors. A resonant detector with intrinsic quality factor Q_int collects only the fraction ~1/Q_int of a smooth spectrum within its linewidth, so the effective monochromatic strain entering Eqs. (23) and (27) is suppressed by roughly sqrt(Q_int) relative to Eq. (20). For the SRF EM channel (Q_int = 10^12) and nT ~ 2 in the w1 >> 0 regime, this shifts the rho_s^{1/4} bound by Q_int^{1/(4-nT)} ~ 10^6, turning the advertised 'over twenty orders of magnitude' improvement into roughly ten to fourteen orders. The parenthetical factor-of-2 comment after Eq. (20) accounts only for a d ln f versus df convention, not for this bandwidth suppression. Please either redo the SNR calculation using Eq. (22) with the actual detector response to a broadband SGWB, or provide a quantitative justification for the monochromatic approximation at Q_int up to 10^12.
  2. [II, Eqs. (15), (20), (21)] A direct substitution of Eq. (20) into Eq. (15) does not appear to reproduce Eq. (21) with the stated definitions. If f_H0 is identified with H0/(2*pi), the coefficient in Eq. (21) differs from the substitution result by a factor (2*pi)^2; if f_H0 is identified with H0, the discrepancy is (2*pi)^4. Since this coefficient enters every constraint in Figs. 2-4, the factors of 2*pi need to be verified and the inconsistency between Eqs. (15) and (21) resolved. This is a load-bearing numerical issue, not a cosmetic one.
  3. [II, Eq. (10)] The manuscript repeatedly refers to 'generic bouncing cosmology' (abstract, introduction, Sec. IV), but the model actually used is a specific symmetric bounce: Eq. (10) imposes w2 = w3 = -infinity, w4 = 1/3, and the symmetry condition eta_s_down = eta_1_down = eta_3_down. The constraints in Figs. 2-4 therefore apply to this particular realization, not to a fully generic bouncing framework. Please temper the language or state explicitly which assumptions are part of the 'generic' framework and which are additional model choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV, Fig. 1] The bullet list after Fig. 1 says the Cavity reaches its best sensitivity at 10^19 Hz, but the stated frequency window for the Cavity is 1 GHz-10 GHz (10^9-10^10 Hz); this is likely a typo for 10^10 Hz.
  2. [I, Ref. [81]] The reference appears as '[81?–84]' with a stray question mark; please fix the citation.
  3. [III, after Eq. (20)] The parenthetical remark about a factor of 2 for smooth spectra is ambiguous: for a smooth SGWB, d rho_GW / d ln f = rho_c Omega_GW(f), not 2 rho_GW of a monochromatic wave. Please clarify what is meant and, if this factor is relevant, propagate it through the subsequent equations.
  4. [II, Eq. (12)] For the w1 >= 1 branch, Eq. (12) contains Gamma functions of negative argument; please specify the range of w1 for which this expression is real and finite, or state the regularization convention used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the forecast recombines independent analytic spectrum and detector-sensitivity calculations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The SGWB spectrum, Eq. (15), is imported from the author's earlier works Ref. [76] (general matrix formalism, Eq. (1)) and Ref. [77] (specific bounce model, Eqs. (11)-(17)); these are closed-form analytic results with explicit physical assumptions (w2 = w3 = -infinity, symmetric bounce, deep bouncing limit), and they do not contain the HFGW detector sensitivities or the high-frequency bounds as inputs. The detector strain sensitivities h0(f) are taken from Ref. [86], a coauthored review, via Eqs. (22)-(27), with benchmark parameters from Refs. [85], [88], and [89]; they are forecast sensitivities, not quantities fitted to bounce-cosmology data. The central step, Eq. (21), is an algebraic substitution of Eq. (20) into Eq. (15), and the constraints in Fig. 2 are obtained by setting SNR = 1 and solving for rho_s_down^{1/4}; this is a standard forecast pipeline rather than a definitional identity. The only notable approximations, such as the monochromatic-plane-wave mapping of Eq. (20) and the factor-of-2 parenthetical, are modeling choices whose accuracy affects the numerical bounds, but they do not make the prediction equivalent to an input. The paper relies heavily on self-citations, but because the cited results are parameter-free, externally checkable derivations that do not assume the target high-frequency constraints, the self-citation is not load-bearing circularity. No step reduces, by construction, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on published formulas from the author's own papers and on benchmark detector parameters from the same group. No new entity is introduced, and no parameter is fitted to data, but the detector benchmarks and the spectrum/sensitivity formulas are assumed inputs rather than independently validated here.

free parameters (1)
  • Detector benchmark parameters (B0, Qint, T, V, eta, Qh, omega_rf) = e.g., B0=4 T, Qint=1e6, T=0.01 K, V=1 m^3 for LC; see Eq. (24)
    Taken from Ref [86] as benchmark assumptions; the derived constraints scale with these values and are not measured in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The stochastic SGWB can be approximated as a monochromatic plane wave at the detector resonance
    Sec. III, Eq. (18); this is stated but its error is not quantified; needed to use the SNR formulas.
  • domain assumption The bouncing universe is realized with w2=w3=-infinity, w4=1/3, symmetric bounce eta_s=eta_1=eta_3
    Sec. II, Eq. (10); the 'generic' constraints actually apply to this specific realization from Ref [77].
  • domain assumption Deep bouncing limit k eta_s << 1 holds
    Used after Eq. (13) to keep only the leading-order term of N22.
  • domain assumption The SGWB spectrum formula Eq. (15) from Ref [77] and the SNR formulas from Ref [86] are correct
    These are taken from the author's prior publications; the paper does not re-derive or independently test them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Forecast Constraints on Bouncing Cosmology from High Frequency Gravitational Waves Using Superconducting LC Circuits and Resonant Cavities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDLPAO3G

@misc{pith2026250600684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Forecast Constraints on Bouncing Cosmology from High Frequency Gravitational Waves Using Superconducting LC Circuits and Resonant Cavities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDLPAO3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00684}
}
abstract

We exploit forecast sensitivities to high frequency gravitational waves (HFGWs) from superconducting LC circuits, traditional resonant cavity and superconducting radio frequency (SRF) cavities with electromagnetic and mechanical modes to derive the first projections of the bounce energy scale within the generic bouncing cosmology framework over the frequency window $1\,$kHz $\lesssim f\lesssim10\,$GHz. In comparison with existing astrophysical limits (spanning $10^{-17}\,$Hz $\lesssim f\lesssim1\,$kHz and based on Planck/BICEP, PTA, and aLIGO/LISA) our HFGW forecasts yield substantially tighter constraints across a broad region of parameter space. This work unifies constraints from cosmological observations and quantum measurement experiments, providing comprehensive coverage of the early Universe gravitational wave spectrum from $10^{-17}\,\mathrm{Hz}$ to $10\,\mathrm{GHz}$ and thereby probing the cosmic initial non singularity at ultra high energy scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sensitivity reach of HFGW for single-mode (solid) and multi-mode (dashed) detection limits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. HFGW constraints on the bounce energy scale of the generic bouncing universe for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. High resolution plot of Figure. 2 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. High resolution plot of Figure. 2 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Analytic Gravitational Wave Spectrum in Next-to-Minimal Bouncing Cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A five-phase bouncing cosmology yields a broken power-law gravitational wave spectrum whose amplitude bound automatically keeps the bounce energy below the Planck scale.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [86]

    Sikivie, N

    P. Sikivie, N. Sullivan, and D. B. Tanner, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 131301 (2014), 1310.8545

    arXiv 2014

  2. [1]

    The multi-mode (dashed) sensitivity exceeds the single-mode (solid) sensitivity for all de- tectors

  3. [2]

    The LC circuit, SRF EM cavity and Cavity each reach their best sensitivity at their upper frequency bounds of10 8 Hz,10 9 Hz and10 19 Hz, respectively, whereas the SRF mechanical resonator peaks around10 6 Hz

  4. [3]

    Of all configurations, the SRF EM cavity achieves the highest strain sensitivity (h0 = 1.2× 10−26 atf= 1 GHz). FIG. 1. Sensitivity reach of HFGW for single-mode (solid) and multi-mode (dashed) detection limits. In Table I we compile representative sensitivity values for each detector. Substituting these into Eq. (21) yields the HFGW constraints on the bou...

  5. [4]

    Novello and S

    M. Novello and S. E. P. Bergliaffa, Phys. Rept.463, 127 (2008), 0802.1634

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Brandenberger and P

    R. Brandenberger and P. Peter, Found. Phys.47, 797 (2017), 1603.05834

    arXiv 2017

  7. [6]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V . K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept.692, 1 (2017), 1705.11098

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    S. D. Odintsov, V . K. Oikonomou, I. Giannakoudi, F. P. Fronimos, and E. C. Lymperiadou, Symmetry 15, 1701 (2023), 2307.16308

    arXiv 2023

Show all 105 references
  1. [8]

    Khoury, B

    J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, P. J. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D64, 123522 (2001), hep- th/0103239

    2001

  2. [9]

    Gasperini and G

    M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rept.373, 1 (2003), hep-th/0207130

    2003 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Creminelli, M

    P. Creminelli, M. A. Luty, A. Nicolis, and L. Senatore, JHEP12, 080 (2006), hep-th/0606090

    2006 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Peter, E

    P. Peter, E. J. C. Pinho, and N. Pinto-Neto, Phys. Rev. D75, 023516 (2007), hep-th/0610205

    2007 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Y .-F. Cai, T. Qiu, Y .-S. Piao, M. Li, and X. Zhang, JHEP10, 071 (2007), 0704.1090

    2007 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Cai, T.-t

    Y .-F. Cai, T.-t. Qiu, R. Brandenberger, and X.-m. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D80, 023511 (2009), 0810.4677

    2009 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Saidov and A

    T. Saidov and A. Zhuk, Phys. Rev. D81, 124002 (2010), 1002.4138

    2010 arXiv

  8. [15]

    C. Li, L. Wang, and Y .-K. E. Cheung, Phys. Dark Univ.3, 18 (2014), 1101.0202

    2014 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Cai, S.-H

    Y .-F. Cai, S.-H. Chen, J. B. Dent, S. Dutta, and E. N. Saridakis, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 215011 (2011), 1104.4349

    2011 arXiv

  10. [17]

    D. A. Easson, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, JCAP11, 021 (2011), 1109.1047

    2011 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bhattacharya, Y .-F

    K. Bhattacharya, Y .-F. Cai, and S. Das, Phys. Rev. D87, 083511 (2013), 1301.0661

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Qiu and Y .-T

    T. Qiu and Y .-T. Wang, JHEP04, 130 (2015), 1501.03568

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    J. D. Barrow and C. Ganguly, Phys. Rev. D95, 083515 (2017), 1703.05969

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    de Haro and J

    J. de Haro and J. Amor ´os, Phys. Rev. D97, 064014 (2018), 1712.08399

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    S. S. Boruah, H. J. Kim, M. Rouben, and G. Geshnizjani, JCAP08, 031 (2018), 1802.06818

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and E. N. Saridakis, Nucl. Phys. B949, 114790 (2019), 1908.00389

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    C. A. S. Silva, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 409 (2018), 1503.00559

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Silva, Phys

    C. Silva, Phys. Rev. D102, 046001 (2020), 2008.07279

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Silva, Nucl

    C. Silva, Nucl. Phys. B998, 116402 (2024), 2312.05260

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Tukhashvili and P

    G. Tukhashvili and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 091001 (2023), 2307.16098

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Garcia-Saenz, J

    S. Garcia-Saenz, J. Hua, and Y . Zhao, Phys. Rev. D110, L061304 (2024), 2405.04062

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Li, X.-z

    H.-H. Li, X.-z. Zhang, and T. Qiu, Sci. Bull.70, 829 (2025), 2409.04027

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Nayeri, R

    A. Nayeri, R. H. Brandenberger, and C. Vafa, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 021302 (2006), hep-th/0511140

    2006 arXiv

  24. [31]

    R. H. Brandenberger, A. Nayeri, S. P. Patil, and C. Vafa, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 231302 (2007), hep- th/0604126

    2007

  25. [32]

    Fischler and L

    W. Fischler and L. Susskind (1998), hep-th/9806039

    1998 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Y .-F. Cai, W. Xue, R. Brandenberger, and X.-m. Zhang, JCAP06, 037 (2009), 0903.4938

    2009 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Y .-K. E. Cheung, J. U. Kang, and C. Li, JCAP11, 001 (2014), 1408.4387

    2014 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Li, Phys

    C. Li, Phys. Rev. D92, 063513 (2015), 1404.4012

    2015 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Li, JCAP09, 038 (2016), 1512.06794

    C. Li, JCAP09, 038 (2016), 1512.06794

    2016 arXiv

  30. [37]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  31. [38]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  32. [39]

    Sato, Mon

    K. Sato, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.195, 467 (1981)

    1981

  33. [40]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  34. [41]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1220 (1982)

    1982

  35. [42]

    V . F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rept.215, 203 (1992)

    1992

  36. [43]

    Borde and A

    A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3305 (1994), gr-qc/9312022

    1994 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Borde, A

    A. Borde, A. H. Guth, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 151301 (2003), gr-qc/0110012

    2003 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Ijjas and P

    A. Ijjas and P. J. Steinhardt, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 135004 (2018), 1803.01961

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Komatsu et al

    E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl.192, 18 (2011), 1001.4538

    2011 arXiv

  40. [47]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016), 1502.01589

    2016 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Aghanim et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Li and Y .-K

    C. Li and Y .-K. E. Cheung, JCAP07, 008 (2014), 1401.0094

    2014 arXiv

  43. [50]

    N. D. Barrie, JCAP06, 049 (2021), 2105.06624

    2021 arXiv

  44. [51]

    C. Li, R. H. Brandenberger, and Y .-K. E. Cheung, Phys. Rev. D90, 123535 (2014), 1403.5625

    2014 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Li, Phys

    C. Li, Phys. Rev. D102, 123530 (2020), 2008.10264

    2020 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), 2306.16213

    2023 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astrophys.678, A50 (2023), 2306.16214

    2023 arXiv

  48. [55]

    D. J. Reardon et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), 2306.16215

    2023 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Antoniadis et al., Mon

    J. Antoniadis et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510, 4873 (2022), 2201.03980

    2022 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Xu et al., Res

    H. Xu et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), 2306.16216

    2023 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Afzal et al

    A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L11 (2023), 2306.16219

    2023 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA, InPTA), Astron. Astrophys.685, A94 (2024), 2306.16227

    2024 arXiv

  53. [60]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and P. Simakachorn, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 171002 (2024), 2307.02399

    2024 arXiv

  54. [61]

    L. Bian, S. Ge, J. Shu, B. Wang, X.-Y . Yang, and J. Zong, Phys. Rev. D109, L101301 (2024), 2307.02376

    2024 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. Franciolini, G. H¨utsi, A. Iovino, M. Lewicki, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V . Vasko- nen, and H. Veerm¨ae, Phys. Rev. D109, 023522 (2024), 2308.08546

    2024 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Lai and C

    J. Lai and C. Li (2025), 2504.04211

    2025 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 163001 (2018), 1801.04268

    2018 arXiv

  58. [65]

    W. Zhao, Y . Zhang, X.-P. You, and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D87, 124012 (2013), 1303.6718

    2013 arXiv

  59. [66]

    M. C. Guzzetti, N. Bartolo, M. Liguori, and S. Matarrese, Riv. Nuovo Cim.39, 399 (2016), 1605.01615

    2016 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Y .-F. Cai, A. Marciano, D.-G. Wang, and E. Wilson-Ewing, Universe3, 1 (2016), 1610.00938

    2016 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Vagnozzi, Mon

    S. Vagnozzi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, L11 (2021), 2009.13432

    2021 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Benetti, L

    M. Benetti, L. L. Graef, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D105, 043520 (2022), 2111.04758

    2022 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Vagnozzi, JHEAp39, 81 (2023), 2306.16912

    S. Vagnozzi, JHEAp39, 81 (2023), 2306.16912

    2023 arXiv

  64. [71]

    M. Zhu, G. Ye, and Y . Cai, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 816 (2023), 2307.16211

    2023 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Papanikolaou, S

    T. Papanikolaou, S. Banerjee, Y .-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, and E. N. Saridakis (2024), 2404.03779

    2024 arXiv

  66. [73]

    C. Li, J. Lai, J. Xiang, and C. Wu, JHEP09, 138 (2024), 2405.15889

    2024 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Qiu and M

    T. Qiu and M. Zhu (2024), 2408.06582

    2024 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Lai and C

    J. Lai and C. Li (2025), 2504.19251

    2025 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Y .-K. E. Cheung, C. Li, and J. D. Vergados, Symmetry8, 136 (2016), 1611.04027

    2016 arXiv

  70. [77]

    L. A. Boyle, P. J. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D70, 023504 (2004), hep-th/0403026

    2004 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Cai, Sci

    Y .-F. Cai, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.57, 1414 (2014), 1405.1369

    2014 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Li, Phys

    C. Li, Phys. Rev. D110, 083535 (2024), 2407.10071

    2024 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Li, Phys

    C. Li, Phys. Rev. D111, 103517 (2025), 2502.19124

    2025 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Schmitz, JHEP01, 097 (2021), 2002.04615

    K. Schmitz, JHEP01, 097 (2021), 2002.04615

    2021 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Annis, J

    J. Annis, J. A. Newman, and A. Slosar (2022), 2209.08049

    2022 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Bi, Y .-M

    Y .-C. Bi, Y .-M. Wu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 120402 (2023), 2307.00722

    2023 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415 (1983), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 52, 695 (1984)]

    1983

  78. [85]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. D32, 2988 (1985), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 36, 974 (1987)]

    1985

  79. [87]

    Chaudhuri, P

    S. Chaudhuri, P. W. Graham, K. Irwin, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and Y . Zhao, Phys. Rev. D92, 075012 (2015), 1411.7382

    2015 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y . Kahn, J. Sch ¨utte-Engel, and M. Wentzel, Phys. Rev. D108, 084058 (2023), 2303.01518

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Y . Chen, C. Li, Y . Liu, J. Shu, Y . Yang, and Y . Zeng, Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 057601 (2025), 2309.12387

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Y .-F. Cai, E. N. Saridakis, M. R. Setare, and J.-Q. Xia, Phys. Rept.493, 1 (2010), 0909.2776

    2010 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y . Kahn, and J. Sch¨utte-Engel, Phys. Rev. D105, 116011 (2022), 2112.11465

    2022 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Domcke, C

    V . Domcke, C. Garcia-Cely, and N. L. Rodd, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 041101 (2022), 2202.00695

    2022 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Y . Kahn, J. Sch¨utte-Engel, and T. Trickle, Phys. Rev. D109, 096023 (2024), 2311.17147

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Y . Fang, C. Gao, Y .-Y . Li, J. Shu, Y . Wu, H. Xing, B. Xu, L. Xu, and C. Zhou, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 260301 (2025), 2411.11294

    2025 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Maharana, and F. Muia, Phys. Rev. D106, 103520 (2022), 2205.02153

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Y . Gong, H. Tian, L. Wu, and B. Zhu (2025), 2504.09630

    2025 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Gatti, L

    C. Gatti, L. Visinelli, and M. Zantedeschi, Phys. Rev. D110, 023018 (2024), 2403.18610

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Zeng et al

    Y . Zeng et al. (SHANHE), Sci. Bull.70, 661 (2025), 2402.03432

    2025 arXiv

  91. [99]

    J. Shu, B. Xu, and Y . Xu (2024), 2410.22413

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Arakawa, M

    J. Arakawa, M. H. Zaheer, V . Takhistov, M. S. Safronova, and J. Eby (2025), 2502.08716

    2025

  93. [101]

    Fischer et al

    L. Fischer et al. (2024), 2411.18346

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Kohri, T

    K. Kohri, T. Terada, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D111, 063543 (2025), 2409.06365

    2025 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Y . Yin, R. Kang, M. Jiao, and X. Rong (2025), 2504.14944

    2025 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Zhong, Y

    H. Zhong, Y . Fang, J. Zhan, R. Yang, and Y . Huang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 436 (2025)

    2025

  97. [105]

    J.-K. Li, W. Hong, and T.-J. Zhang, Astrophys. J.985, 137 (2025), 2504.13115

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.