Inflationary magnetogenesis beyond slow-roll and its induced gravitational waves

Alisha Marriott-Best; Bill Atkins; Debika Chowdhury; Gianmassimo Tasinato

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Inflationary magnetogenesis beyond slow-roll and its induced gravitational waves

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A short non-slow-roll burst can steepen the magnetic power spectrum to logarithmic slope 4.75, past the scalar curvature bound of 4.

desk verdict Solid analytic extension of non-slow-roll formalism to magnetic fields, with a plausible 4.75 slope bound; GW amplitude claims are illustrative rather than robust forecasts. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01772 v1 pith:MZLPB6D6 submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.CO hep-th

Bill Atkins , Debika Chowdhury , Alisha Marriott-Best , Gianmassimo Tasinato This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COhep-th

keywords inflationarymagnetogenesisRatramodelnon-slow-rollinflationprimordialmagneticfieldsinducedgravitationalwavesstochasticwavebackgroundblackholesgaugefieldfluctuations

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 sets out to show that a short, sharp departure from slow-roll inflation—of the kind invoked for primordial black hole formation—can act as a magnetic-field amplifier in the Ratra model of inflationary magnetogenesis. The authors derive analytically that the magnetic power spectrum can climb from large to small scales with a maximal logarithmic slope $d\ln P_B/d\ln k = 4.75$, steeper than the slope-4 bound known for curvature perturbations. That steepness matters because it lets a CMB-safe tiny amplitude on large scales rise to micro-Gauss astrophysical strengths on small scales. They then compute the stochastic gravitational wave background sourced by the amplified field and find a characteristic profile—steep rise, plateau, cutoff—that future gravitational wave observatories could search for. The overall goal is to connect primordial magnetogenesis, primordial black hole dynamics, and gravitational wave searches into one testable story.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the gauge-field mode equation $A_k'' + \left(k^2 - I''/I\right)A_k = 0$, where $I(\tau)$ is the conformal coupling that breaks Maxwell invariance. The paper solves it during the non-slow-roll interval with a power-series Ansatz in $k$, resummed into a closed form, and then matches onto the standard scale-invariant solution after the transition using junction conditions. The scale $k_\star=-1/\tau_1$ marks the mode leaving the horizon at the onset of the burst. A double-scaling limit (duration $\Delta\tau\to 0$, slope $\alpha\to\infty$, $\alpha\Delta\tau=2\Pi_0$ fixed) collapses the two matching coefficients into simple expressions and yields the ratio $\Pi(\kappa)$, from which the spectral index $n_B(\kappa)$ and the bound $n_B^{\mathrm{max}}=4.75$ follow. For gravitational waves, the source is the transverse-traceless part of the magnetic stress tensor, and the tensor power spectrum factorises into a time integral (cosine and sine integrals) times a convolution integral over the square of $\Pi(\kappa)$; this factorisation is what turns the magnetic spectrum's rich shape into the computed gravitational wave profile.

What would settle it

Integrate the mode equation $A_k'' + \left(k^2 - I''/I\right)A_k = 0$ numerically for a particular smooth $I(\tau)$ that passes through a short non-slow-roll burst, compute the local spectral index $d\ln P_B/d\ln k$ from the numerical power spectrum, and check whether it exceeds 4.75; if a generic smooth profile reaches a larger slope, the claimed bound is not universal. Alternatively, a measured stochastic gravitational wave background whose rise is much steeper or shallower than the predicted $f^{8.7}$ knee would rule out this specific magnetogenesis source as the explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the Ratra model, with kinetic coupling $I(\tau)=a^2(\tau)\sqrt{\omega(\tau)}$ and a brief epoch where $\omega$ changes rapidly, the paper finds an exact analytic mode function by matching solutions across the sudden transition with junction conditions. Taking a double-scaling limit in which the anomalous epoch becomes infinitesimally short while its coupling slope diverges with fixed product $2\Pi_0$, the magnetic spectrum ratio $\Pi(\kappa)=P_B(\kappa)/P_B(\kappa\ll 1)$ depends on a single parameter $\Pi_0$, and the spectral index $n_B(\kappa)=d\ln\Pi/d\ln\kappa$ reaches a maximum $n_B^{\mathrm{max}}=4.75$ at $\kappa\approx 1.256$. This exceeds the steepest known growth of scalar curvature power spectra, so magnetic fields can be amplified faster than curvature fluctuations in the same type of transient phase. The induced gravitational wave background, evaluated at second order from the magnetic stress tensor, has a steep rise roughly $\propto (f/f_\star)^{8.7}$, a plateau whose height scales as $\Pi_0^4$, and a high-frequency cutoff controlled by small-scale magnetic damping; for pivot frequency $f_\star=0.1$ Hz or $f_\star=5\times 10^{-8}$ Hz, the plateau can fall within LISA or pulsar-timing-array sensitivity bands.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the amplified electromagnetic fluctuations do not feed back enough energy into the inflationary expansion to alter the background; the paper only checks this with an order-of-magnitude estimate, so strong backreaction would change the mode equation, the slope bound, and the gravitational wave prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the slope bound $n_B^{\mathrm{max}}=4.75$ is correct, magnetic fields can be amplified by many orders of magnitude on small scales while keeping large-scale amplitudes below CMB limits.
The induced gravitational wave background is not a simple power law but has a steep rise, a plateau, and a cutoff; templates with this shape can be added to LISA and pulsar timing array searches.
The plateau amplitude scales as $\Pi_0^4$, so a factor-ten increase in the magnetic amplification raises the gravitational wave signal by four orders of magnitude, making the spectrum a sensitive probe of the non-slow-roll burst.
The same analytic machinery can be applied to other vector or higher-spin perturbations produced through a transient slow-roll violation, since the method is formulated for fields with spin greater than zero.
Because the gravitational wave signal survives even after the magnetic field is damped by plasma turbulence, the gravitational wave background is a more durable observable of inflationary magnetogenesis than the field itself.

Reading between the lines

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

An implicit consequence is that a detection of the predicted knee-and-plateau gravitational wave shape would distinguish this magnetogenesis channel from scalar-induced gravitational wave backgrounds, whose templates typically have different infrared slopes; the paper notes but does not develop this discriminative use.
The approach suggests that if the gauge coupling's non-slow-roll burst is stitched together from multiple short epochs, as the paper hints, even steeper magnetic growth or multiple plateaus could appear, giving richer gravitational wave templates.
A testable extension would be a full numerical evolution of the gauge-field mode equation for a concrete $I(\tau)$ profile without the double-scaling limit; the appendix's power-law fit gives slope 4.398 for representative parameters, so the exact maximum slope likely depends on how the spectral index is measured.
The backreaction consistency requirement $H_I\Pi_0 \lesssim 1$ sets an upper bound on $\Pi_0$; making that bound precise with a full gravitational backreaction calculation would sharpen the predicted gravitational wave amplitude and could revise the plateau amplitude downward.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the headline slope bound d ln P_B/d ln k = 4.75 is a real analytic extension of the scalar non-slow-roll result, and it is not fitted. Second, the stress-test's scaling objection does not hold up: the expansion parameter in the mode function is k(τ−τ1) = κ(τ−τ1)/|τ1|, which inside the interval is at most κΔτ and vanishes in the limit (2.33). The worry about α(τ−τ1)^2 diverging treats (τ−τ1)/|τ1| as fixed, which cannot happen when τ∈[τ1,τ2]. So I take the magnetogenesis part seriously.

What is genuinely new: the vector-sector spectral bound exceeding the scalar 4, the analytic mode function for the Ratra coupling during a transient non-slow-roll phase, and the factorised GW integral leading to templates with a steep rise, plateau, and cutoff. The authors are also honest about the idealised limit, and Appendix A gives a finite-duration fit with slope 4.398; their explanation that the fit imposes a constant slope while nB(κ) varies is consistent with the plot. The GW calculation is a neat extension of the scalar-induced formalism.

Soft spots, in proportion. The derivation leans explicitly on [24,26] for the series-solution protocol; a referee should check that the G(n) solutions carry over to the vector mode equation, since the paper does not re-derive them. The GW amplitude is illustrative, not a prediction: the prefactor is hand-fixed at 2×10−48 and the cutoff at κ>50 is ad hoc, both acknowledged. More troubling, the backreaction discussion says HIΠ0≲1, but the GW section chooses Π0=7×10^7 with HI=10^-6, giving HIΠ0=70. Either the backreaction criterion is too strict or the chosen Π0 is inconsistent; this needs a fix. Finally, the paper would benefit from an explicit error estimate showing the mode function truncation is controlled at κ≃1.26 in the singular limit; right now it's asserted.

Bottom line: this is a solid, citable magnetogenesis paper with a new slope bound and new GW templates. The phenomenological detectability claims should be framed as templates, not forecasts. Worth sending to a serious referee; the central result is likely correct, and the requested revisions are about sharpening the regime of validity and consistency, not about a fatal flaw.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies inflationary magnetogenesis in the Ratra model when the conformal coupling I(τ) undergoes a brief non-slow-roll epoch, modeled as I(τ)=a^2(τ)√ω(τ) with ω(τ) changing rapidly over a short interval. The authors derive an analytic mode function for the gauge field in the singular limit Δτ→0, α→∞ with αΔτ fixed, and claim that the magnetic power spectrum can grow with a maximal slope d ln P_B/d ln k = 4.75, exceeding the known scalar curvature bound of 4. They then compute the stochastic gravitational wave background induced by the amplified magnetic fields after inflation, obtaining a factorized expression for Ω_GW and a characteristic spectrum with a steep rise, a plateau, and a cutoff, and they discuss potential detectability with LISA and pulsar timing arrays. The paper is largely analytic and presents a finite-duration numerical search in Appendix A that finds a lower fitted slope of about 4.4.

Significance. If the claimed slope bound is established, it is a nontrivial extension of the steepest-growth bound from scalar perturbations to vector fields, and it provides a concrete mechanism to amplify CMB-safe large-scale magnetic fields to astrophysically relevant values. The GW calculation offers a useful template for induced backgrounds sourced by non-power-law magnetic spectra, and the factorized final formula in Eq. (3.27)-(3.28) is a practical contribution. The paper is also commendable for including an honest numerical search in Appendix A that quantifies the finite-duration results. However, the headline 4.75 is not reproduced by the paper's own finite-α search, and the GW amplitude is fixed by hand, so the central claims require additional support before they can be taken as established.

major comments (3)

[2.2, Eq. (2.42); Appendix A] The central claim n_B,max = 4.75 rests on the singular limit (2.33) and on the resummed mode function (2.24), which is based on the series solutions (2.20)-(2.21) obtained 'nearby τ1'. The paper's own finite-duration search in Appendix A finds a maximum fitted slope of only B ≈ 4.398 for finite α and Δτ, not 4.75. The explanation that a constant-slope fit averages a scale-dependent spectral index is plausible, but it is not demonstrated in the manuscript. To establish the headline bound, the authors should compute the local spectral index n_B(κ) from the full expressions C1, C2 in Eqs. (2.28)-(2.29) and show that its maximum tends to 4.75 as Δτ→0 with αΔτ fixed, or else qualify the claim. Without this, Eq. (2.42) is not convincingly supported.
[2.3 and 3.2] Section 2.3 concludes that the backreaction constraint H_I Π_0 ≲ 1, combined with H_I ∼ 10^-6 in Planck units, forbids Π_0 values much above 10^6. Section 3.2 then adopts Π_0 = 7 × 10^7 for the gravitational wave predictions without specifying a compensating reduction in H_I. As written, H_I Π_0 = 70 for this choice, so the quoted peak amplitude Ω_GW ≃ 10^-11 is evaluated in a regime that violates the paper's own backreaction bound. The parameter choice should be made consistent, for example by lowering H_I accordingly, and the compatibility with the required large-scale seed amplitude and post-inflationary amplification should be checked.
[3.1, Eq. (3.27); Abstract] The absolute amplitude of Ω_GW is fixed by hand through the prefactor [3Ω_B^2/(64Ω_rd)] ≃ 2 × 10^-48 and the choice Π_0 = 7 × 10^7. The model does not predict this normalization; it is an input chosen 'to better highlight the growth' of the spectrum. Consequently, the statements in the Abstract and Section 4 that the signal is 'within reach' of LISA or pulsar timing arrays are conditional on unmodelled post-inflationary processes and on parameters outside the model. This is acknowledged in the text, but the conclusions should state more explicitly that only the spectral shape, and not the overall amplitude, is a robust prediction of the inflationary mechanism.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix A] The caption of Fig. 5 reports B = 4.395 while the text reports 4.398, and the quoted best-fit point (Δτ = 7.5 × 10^-4, α = 1.33 × 10^7) gives αΔτ ≈ 1.0 × 10^4, which is at or slightly outside the stated range 10^4–10^8; these numbers should be reconciled.
[Eq. (2.37)] The displayed expression for Π(κ) in Eq. (2.37) has an unbalanced parenthesis and is difficult to parse as typeset; please retypeset the expression with clear bracket structure.
[2.3, Eqs. (2.44)-(2.45)] The conversion between Planck units and Gauss in Eqs. (2.44)-(2.45) is not shown step by step, and the numerical factors (e.g., 10^46 and (10^-29)^2) do not obviously close; the estimate Π_0 ∼ 10^7 would be easier to verify with the conversion factor stated explicitly.
[3.1, after Eq. (3.29)] The hard cutoff Π(κ) = 0 for κ > 50 determines the high-frequency falloff of Ω_GW; although the model dependence is acknowledged, a brief quantitative discussion of how the plateau and cutoff depend on this chosen value would strengthen the template claim.
[2.1, Eq. (2.24)] Eq. (2.24) is called an 'exact solution', but it is obtained by truncating and then resumming series derived from solutions 'nearby τ1'; the paper would be clearer if it stated precisely in what sense (2.24) solves Eq. (2.8) in the interval and how the approximation is controlled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetic spectral slope and GW shape are derived from the model's mode and convolution equations, not from fitted inputs; only a minor methodological self-citation is present.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section 2 defines the model through I(τ)=a²√ω, derives the mode equation (2.8), solves the order-by-order system (2.17)–(2.19) with the stated G(n) coefficients, matches across τ2 via Israel conditions to obtain C1 and C2, and then defines Π(κ) and nB(κ). The headline slope nB,max=4.75 is the numerical maximum of the explicit analytic function nB(κ) in Eq. (2.40) at κmax≈1.256; no parameter is fitted to produce this number, and Π0 drops out of the leading-order slope. The GW result in Section 3 is a separate convolution (Eqs. 3.27–3.28) of the same Π(κ) with the standard magnetic-stress-tensor kernel, so the spectral shape is a genuine consequence of the model rather than an input. The amplitude of the GW signal does use Π0~7×10⁷ chosen to match observed magnetic fields and an explicit 'hypothesis on the overall constant factor', but the paper states the overall amplitude is not its primary focus, and the frequency profile is independent of that choice. The only self-citation of note is [24,26], used for the expansion protocol and the dip-location argument; these are methodological, the relevant equations are printed in the paper, and they are not fitted to the 4.75 result, so they are not load-bearing circular premises. Appendix A is an honest limitation: for finite α and Δτ the numerical power-law fit gives B=4.398, below 4.75; the paper attributes this to constant-slope fitting, but the discrepancy is a correctness/robustness issue, not circularity. Likewise, Section 2.3's backreaction check is order-of-magnitude only. Overall: no definitional or fitted-input circularity; score 2 reflects only the minor methodological self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation carries no fitted free parameters for the slope bound itself, but the phenomenology involves several hand-chosen quantities: alpha, Delta tau (and their product Pi_0), H_I, x_star, the GW prefactor, and the high-kappa cutoff. No new particles or forces are postulated. The main model assumptions are the Ratra coupling shape, de Sitter background, Bunch-Davies vacuum, and instantaneous radiation domination for the GW calculation.

free parameters (7)

alpha (d ln omega / d ln tau at tau = tau1) = large, e.g. 1.33e7 in Appendix A
Controls the enhancement of the magnetic spectrum; not fixed by the model.
Delta tau (relative duration of non-slow-roll phase) = small, e.g. 7.5e-4 in Appendix A; limit Delta tau -> 0
Sets how short the rapid-change interval is; the main 4.75 bound is obtained in the limit Delta tau -> 0.
Pi_0 = alpha Delta tau / 2 = 1e6 to 7e7 in the paper
The finite combination in the 't Hooft-like limit; sets the enhancement (1 + Pi_0)^2 and the GW plateau amplitude scaling as Pi_0^4.
H_I (Hubble scale during inflation) = 10^-6 M_Pl in numerical examples
Sets the overall amplitude of the magnetic field and GW background; chosen to satisfy CMB constraints while avoiding backreaction.
x_star = tau_R / tau_1 = 10^-4 (chosen)
Ratio of conformal times controlling the arguments of Ci and Si in the GW formula; enters only logarithmically.
GW overall prefactor [3 Omega_B^2 / (64 Omega_rd)] = 2e-48 (fixed by hand)
Overall normalization in Eq. (3.27), chosen for illustration to highlight the spectral shape; not derived from the model parameters.
kappa cutoff for magnetic damping = 50
The magnetic power spectrum is set to zero for kappa > 50 to mimic plasma dissipation and turbulence; model dependent and flagged by the authors.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Bunch-Davies vacuum initial conditions for gauge field modes at small scales
Imposed in Section 2.1 before the mode solution; a different vacuum would change the mode function and the spectral bound, as noted in the reference to [25].
domain assumption De Sitter background during inflation with constant Hubble rate H_I
Used throughout Section 2 with a = -1/(H_I tau); realistic slow-roll has slowly varying H, but this is standard for analytic estimates.
ad hoc to paper Coupling function I(tau) = a^2(tau) sqrt(omega(tau)) with piecewise omega
This parametrization in Eqs. (2.13)-(2.14) is chosen to model the non-slow-roll phase; the bound applies to this class of profiles.
standard math Israel junction conditions at tau1 and tau2 match mode function and derivative
Used to connect the analytic solution across the rapid-change interval, giving the coefficients C1 and C2 in Eqs. (2.28)-(2.29).
domain assumption Magnetic field fluctuations are Gaussian, with no connected four-point correlator
Assumed in Eq. (3.13) when reducing the source correlator to two-point functions; justified by the quadratic Maxwell action.
domain assumption Instantaneous reheating and radiation domination immediately after inflation
Used for the Green function and scale factor in Section 3.1; a prolonged reheating phase would modify the GW transfer function.
ad hoc to paper Small-scale magnetic field is damped and can be set to zero for kappa > 50
Cutoff imposed before Fig. 2 to mimic dissipation; model dependent and acknowledged by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inflationary magnetogenesis beyond slow-roll and its induced gravitational waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZLPB6D6

@misc{pith2026250701772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inflationary magnetogenesis beyond slow-roll and its induced gravitational waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZLPB6D6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01772}
}

abstract

The origin of magnetic fields observed on both astrophysical and cosmological scales is a compelling problem that has the potential to shed light on the early Universe. We analytically investigate inflationary magnetogenesis in scenarios where a brief departure from slow-roll inflation - akin to mechanisms proposed for primordial black hole formation - leads to enhanced magnetic field generation with a growing power spectrum. Focusing on the Ratra model, we derive an analytic bound on the growth of the magnetic field power spectrum in this context, showing that the spectral index can reach $d \ln {\cal P}_B / d \ln k = 4.75$ during the growth phase. This growth enables amplification from CMB-safe large-scale amplitudes to values of astrophysical relevance. We further compute the stochastic gravitational wave background sourced by the resulting magnetic fields, incorporating their rich spectral features. Under suitable conditions, the induced signal exhibits a characteristic frequency dependence and amplitude within reach of future gravitational wave observatories, providing a distinctive signature of this mechanism and a specific class of templates for upcoming gravitational wave searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01772 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left panel: Plot of the scale profile of the ratio (2.36) between the magnetic field spectrum against its value at large scales. We use the dimensionless variable κ, defined in eq (2.25), and choose Π0 = 106 . Right panel: Plot of the magnetic spectral index nB as function of the scale, eq (2.40), focusing on the region of growing magnetic spectrum. The spectral index has a maximum at position κmax ≃ 1.256 and value… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Plot of ΩGW(f) in our setup. We follow eq (3.27) and choose the parameters as explained in the main text. field spectrum. The combination within {. . . } can be evaluated numerically: we find that it has a profile with a plateau, and a maximal value scaling with Π0 as {. . . }max ≃ 105 Π 4 0 . (3.29) Using this information, we plot in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Left: The same frequency profile of ΩGW(f) as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: An example of the fitted spectrum, Π(κ), taking α = 107 , ∆τ = 0.1. The power-law fit finds A = 8.9 × 107 B = 4.197 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Maximum slope value as function of α and ∆τ restricted such that 104 ≤ α∆τ ≤ 108 . Global maximum slope found to be B = 4.395 at ∆τ = 7.5 × 10−4 , α = 1.33 × 107 . behaviour with constant B for the entire growing part of the spectrum, however it is anticipated that the…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

Magnetically assisted primordial scalar perturbations: Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

PMF-sourced scalar perturbations during a kination-like reheating can induce a gravitational-wave background that dominates over the direct PMF tensor signal and may be detectable at mHz-kHz frequencies.
Chiral gravitational waves from multi-phase magnetogenesis
astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Multi-phase inflation with chiral vector interactions generates amplified primordial magnetic fields that induce a detectable circularly polarized gravitational-wave background.
New test of modified gravity with gravitational wave experiments
gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For a stationary, isotropic gravitational wave background, three-point correlations are produced only by scalar polarizations, giving a new null test for modified gravity.
Transient Parity Violation during Inflation: Implications for PTA Gravitational Waves
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

A transient parity-violating phase during inflation generates a robust blue-tilted (n_T ≃ 2) primordial gravitational wave spectrum at small scales with nearly maximal helicity coherence and linear polarization, offer...
Gravitational Waves from Post-Inflationary Magnetism: Direct and Scalar-Induced Contributions
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

In a post-inflationary magnetogenesis scenario with time-dependent gauge couplings, magnetic anisotropic stress dominates peak GW amplitude while scalar-induced terms matter on larger scales, both showing f^3 infrared...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

[1]

Extragalactic magnetic fields,

P. P. Kronberg, “Extragalactic magnetic fields,” Rept. Prog. Phys.57 (1994) 325–382

work page 1994
[2]

Magnetic fields in the early universe,

D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, “Magnetic fields in the early universe,” Phys. Rept.348 (2001) 163–266, arXiv:astro-ph/0009061

arXiv 2001
[3]

Origin of galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields,

L. M. Widrow, “Origin of galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields,” Rev. Mod. Phys.74 (2002) 775–823, arXiv:astro-ph/0207240. 18

arXiv 2002
[4]

Primordial magnetogenesis,

A. Kandus, K. E. Kunze, and C. G. Tsagas, “Primordial magnetogenesis,” Phys. Rept.505 (2011) 1–58, arXiv:1007.3891 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2011
[5]

The First Magnetic Fields,

L. M. Widrow, D. Ryu, D. R. G. Schleicher, K. Subramanian, C. G. Tsagas, and R. A. Treumann, “The First Magnetic Fields,” Space Sci. Rev.166 (2012) 37–70, arXiv:1109.4052 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2012
[6]

Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation,

R. Durrer and A. Neronov, “Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation,” Astron. Astrophys. Rev.21 (2013) 62, arXiv:1303.7121 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2013
[7]

The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields,

K. Subramanian, “The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 no. 7, (2016) 076901, arXiv:1504.02311 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016
[8]

Inflation Produced, Large Scale Magnetic Fields,

M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow, “Inflation Produced, Large Scale Magnetic Fields,” Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 2743

work page 1988

Show all 72 references

[9]

Cosmological ’seed’ magnetic field from inflation,

B. Ratra, “Cosmological ’seed’ magnetic field from inflation,” Astrophys. J. Lett.391 (1992) L1–L4

1992
[10]

Generation of Large-Scale Magnetic Fields in Single-Field Inflation,

J. Martin and J. Yokoyama, “Generation of Large-Scale Magnetic Fields in Single-Field Inflation,” JCAP 01 (2008) 025, arXiv:0711.4307 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[11]

Magnetic fields from inflation?,

V. Demozzi, V. Mukhanov, and H. Rubinstein, “Magnetic fields from inflation?,” JCAP 08 (2009) 025, arXiv:0907.1030 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[12]

Cosmological Magnetic Fields from Inflation and Backreaction,

S. Kanno, J. Soda, and M.-a. Watanabe, “Cosmological Magnetic Fields from Inflation and Backreaction,” JCAP 12 (2009) 009, arXiv:0908.3509 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[13]

Large-scale magnetic fields in the inflationary universe,

K. Bamba and M. Sasaki, “Large-scale magnetic fields in the inflationary universe,” JCAP 02 (2007) 030, arXiv:astro-ph/0611701

2007 arXiv
[14]

Observable non-gaussianity from gauge field production in slow roll inflation, and a challenging connection with magnetogenesis,

N. Barnaby, R. Namba, and M. Peloso, “Observable non-gaussianity from gauge field production in slow roll inflation, and a challenging connection with magnetogenesis,” Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 123523, arXiv:1202.1469 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[15]

Inflationary magnetogenesis without the strong coupling problem,

R. J. Z. Ferreira, R. K. Jain, and M. S. Sloth, “Inflationary magnetogenesis without the strong coupling problem,” JCAP 10 (2013) 004, arXiv:1305.7151 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[16]

Inflationary Magnetogenesis without the Strong Coupling Problem II: Constraints from CMB anisotropies and B-modes,

R. J. Z. Ferreira, R. K. Jain, and M. S. Sloth, “Inflationary Magnetogenesis without the Strong Coupling Problem II: Constraints from CMB anisotropies and B-modes,” JCAP 06 (2014) 053, arXiv:1403.5516 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[17]

Inflation and Primordial Black Holes,

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

2023 arXiv
[18]

Challenges in the choice of the nonconformal coupling function in inflationary magnetogenesis,

S. Tripathy, D. Chowdhury, R. K. Jain, and L. Sriramkumar, “Challenges in the choice of the nonconformal coupling function in inflationary magnetogenesis,” Phys. Rev. D105 no. 6, (2022) 063519, arXiv:2111.01478 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[19]

Circumventing the challenges in the choice of the nonconformal coupling function in inflationary magnetogenesis,

S. Tripathy, D. Chowdhury, H. V. Ragavendra, R. K. Jain, and L. Sriramkumar, “Circumventing the challenges in the choice of the nonconformal coupling function in inflationary magnetogenesis,” Phys. Rev. D107 no. 4, (2023) 043501, arXiv:2211.05834 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[20]

Planck 2015 results. XIX. Constraints on primordial magnetic fields,

Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., “Planck 2015 results. XIX. Constraints on primordial magnetic fields,” Astron. Astrophys.594 (2016) A19, arXiv:1502.01594 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[21]

Steepest growth of the power spectrum and primordial black holes,

C. T. Byrnes, P. S. Cole, and S. P. Patil, “Steepest growth of the power spectrum and primordial black holes,” JCAP 06 (2019) 028, arXiv:1811.11158 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Dissecting the growth of the power spectrum for primordial black holes,

P. Carrilho, K. A. Malik, and D. J. Mulryne, “Dissecting the growth of the power spectrum for primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D100 no. 10, (2019) 103529, arXiv:1907.05237 [astro-ph.CO]. 19

2019 arXiv
[23]

On the slope of the curvature power spectrum in non-attractor inflation,

O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, “On the slope of the curvature power spectrum in non-attractor inflation,” JCAP 04 (2020) 048, arXiv:1912.01061 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[24]

An analytic approach to non-slow-roll inflation,

G. Tasinato, “An analytic approach to non-slow-roll inflation,” Phys. Rev. D103 no. 2, (2021) 023535, arXiv:2012.02518 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[25]

Steepest growth in the primordial power spectrum from excited states at a sudden transition,

M. Cielo, G. Mangano, O. Pisanti, and D. Wands, “Steepest growth in the primordial power spectrum from excited states at a sudden transition,” JCAP 04 (2025) 007, arXiv:2410.22154 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Large — η— approach to single field inflation,

G. Tasinato, “Large — η— approach to single field inflation,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 4, (2023) 043526, arXiv:2305.11568 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[27]

A General relativistic approach to the nonlinear evolution of collisionless matter,

S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, “A General relativistic approach to the nonlinear evolution of collisionless matter,” Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 1311–1323

1993
[28]

The Cosmological gravitational wave background from primordial density perturbations,

K. N. Ananda, C. Clarkson, and D. Wands, “The Cosmological gravitational wave background from primordial density perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 123518, arXiv:gr-qc/0612013

2007 arXiv
[29]

Gravitational Wave Spectrum Induced by Primordial Scalar Perturbations,

D. Baumann, P. J. Steinhardt, K. Takahashi, and K. Ichiki, “Gravitational Wave Spectrum Induced by Primordial Scalar Perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 084019, arXiv:hep-th/0703290

2007 arXiv
[30]

Gravitational-Wave Constraints on the Abundance of Primordial Black Holes,

R. Saito and J. Yokoyama, “Gravitational-Wave Constraints on the Abundance of Primordial Black Holes,” Prog. Theor. Phys.123 (2010) 867–886, arXiv:0912.5317 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erratum: Prog.Theor.Phys. 126, 351–352 (2011)]

2010 arXiv
[31]

Induced gravitational wave background and primordial black holes,

E. Bugaev and P. Klimai, “Induced gravitational wave background and primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 023517, arXiv:0908.0664 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[32]

A Cosmological Signature of the SM Higgs Instability: Gravitational Waves,

J. R. Espinosa, D. Racco, and A. Riotto, “A Cosmological Signature of the SM Higgs Instability: Gravitational Waves,” JCAP 09 (2018) 012, arXiv:1804.07732 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[33]

Semianalytic calculation of gravitational wave spectrum nonlinearly induced from primordial curvature perturbations,

K. Kohri and T. Terada, “Semianalytic calculation of gravitational wave spectrum nonlinearly induced from primordial curvature perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 12, (2018) 123532, arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[34]

Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review,

G. Dom` enech, “Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review,”Universe 7 no. 11, (2021) 398, arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[35]

Gravitational waves from dark matter isocurvature,

G. Dom` enech, S. Passaglia, and S. Renaux-Petel, “Gravitational waves from dark matter isocurvature,” JCAP 03 no. 03, (2022) 023, arXiv:2112.10163 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[36]

Primordial black holes from CDM isocurvature perturbations,

S. Passaglia and M. Sasaki, “Primordial black holes from CDM isocurvature perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D105 no. 10, (2022) 103530, arXiv:2109.12824 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[37]

Cosmological gravitational waves from isocurvature fluctuations,

G. Dom` enech, “Cosmological gravitational waves from isocurvature fluctuations,”AAPPS Bull. 34 no. 1, (2024) 4, arXiv:2311.02065 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[38]

Vector dark matter, inflation, and non-minimal couplings with gravity,

O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, “Vector dark matter, inflation, and non-minimal couplings with gravity,” JCAP 06 (2024) 003, arXiv:2310.03862 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[39]

New gravitational wave probe of vector dark matter,

A. Marriott-Best, M. Peloso, and G. Tasinato, “New gravitational wave probe of vector dark matter,” arXiv:2502.13116 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[40]

Tensor microwave anisotropies from a stochastic magnetic field,

R. Durrer, P. G. Ferreira, and T. Kahniashvili, “Tensor microwave anisotropies from a stochastic magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 043001, arXiv:astro-ph/9911040

2000 arXiv
[41]

Gravitational wave production: A Strong constraint on primordial magnetic fields,

C. Caprini and R. Durrer, “Gravitational wave production: A Strong constraint on primordial magnetic fields,” Phys. Rev. D65 (2001) 023517, arXiv:astro-ph/0106244

2001 arXiv
[42]

Microwave background signatures of a primordial stochastic magnetic field,

A. Mack, T. Kahniashvili, and A. Kosowsky, “Microwave background signatures of a primordial stochastic magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 123004, arXiv:astro-ph/0105504. 20

2002 arXiv
[43]

Signatures of kinetic and magnetic helicity in the CMBR,

L. Pogosian, T. Vachaspati, and S. Winitzki, “Signatures of kinetic and magnetic helicity in the CMBR,” Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 083502, arXiv:astro-ph/0112536

2002 arXiv
[44]

The Cosmic microwave background and helical magnetic fields: The Tensor mode,

C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and T. Kahniashvili, “The Cosmic microwave background and helical magnetic fields: The Tensor mode,” Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 063006, arXiv:astro-ph/0304556

2004 arXiv
[45]

Massive Neutrinos and Magnetic Fields in the Early Universe,

J. R. Shaw and A. Lewis, “Massive Neutrinos and Magnetic Fields in the Early Universe,” Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 043517, arXiv:0911.2714 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[46]

Limits on primordial magnetic fields from direct detection experiments of gravitational wave background,

S. Saga, H. Tashiro, and S. Yokoyama, “Limits on primordial magnetic fields from direct detection experiments of gravitational wave background,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 8, (2018) 083518, arXiv:1807.00561 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[47]

Vector induced Gravitational Waves sourced by Primordial Magnetic Fields,

A. Bhaumik, T. Papanikolaou, and A. Ghoshal, “Vector induced Gravitational Waves sourced by Primordial Magnetic Fields,” arXiv:2504.10477 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[48]

Probing Reheating Phase via Non-Helical Magnetogenesis and Secondary Gravitational Waves,

S. Maiti, D. Maity, and R. Srikanth, “Probing Reheating Phase via Non-Helical Magnetogenesis and Secondary Gravitational Waves,” arXiv:2505.13623 [astro-ph.CO]
[49]

Magnetic fields in the early universe,

K. Subramanian, “Magnetic fields in the early universe,” 0911.4771. http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4771

arXiv
[50]

Anatomy of single-field inflationary models for primordial black holes,

A. Karam, N. Koivunen, E. Tomberg, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, “Anatomy of single-field inflationary models for primordial black holes,” JCAP 03 (2023) 013, arXiv:2205.13540 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[51]

Primordial black hole dark matter from inflation: The reverse engineering approach,

G. Franciolini and A. Urbano, “Primordial black hole dark matter from inflation: The reverse engineering approach,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 12, (2022) 123519, arXiv:2207.10056 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[52]

A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions,

G. ’t Hooft, “A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions,” Nucl. Phys. B72 (1974) 461

1974
[53]

Non-Gaussianities and the large — η— approach to inflation,

G. Tasinato, “Non-Gaussianities and the large — η— approach to inflation,” Phys. Rev. D109 no. 6, (2024) 063510, arXiv:2312.03498 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[54]

Damping of cosmic magnetic fields,

K. Jedamzik, V. Katalinic, and A. V. Olinto, “Damping of cosmic magnetic fields,” Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 3264–3284, arXiv:astro-ph/9606080

1998 arXiv
[55]

A new mechanism to enhance primordial tensor fluctuations in single field inflation,

M. Mylova, O. ¨Ozsoy, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “A new mechanism to enhance primordial tensor fluctuations in single field inflation,” JCAP 12 (2018) 024, arXiv:1808.10475 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[56]

Squeezed tensor non-Gaussianity in non-attractor inflation,

O. Ozsoy, M. Mylova, S. Parameswaran, C. Powell, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “Squeezed tensor non-Gaussianity in non-attractor inflation,” JCAP 09 (2019) 036, arXiv:1902.04976 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[57]

21-cm fluctuations from primordial magnetic fields,

H. A. G. Cruz, T. Adi, J. Flitter, M. Kamionkowski, and E. D. Kovetz, “21-cm fluctuations from primordial magnetic fields,” Phys. Rev. D109 no. 2, (2024) 023518, arXiv:2308.04483 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[58]

Constraints on primordial magnetic fields from their impact on the ionization history with Planck 2018,

D. Paoletti, J. Chluba, F. Finelli, and J. A. Rubi˜ no-Martin, “Constraints on primordial magnetic fields from their impact on the ionization history with Planck 2018,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517 no. 3, (2022) 3916–3927, arXiv:2204.06302 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[59]

Effect of primordial magnetic fields on the ionization history,

J. Chluba, D. Paoletti, F. Finelli, and J.-A. Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, “Effect of primordial magnetic fields on the ionization history,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.451 no. 2, (2015) 2244–2250, arXiv:1503.04827 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[60]

A scenario for inflationary magnetogenesis without strong coupling problem,

G. Tasinato, “A scenario for inflationary magnetogenesis without strong coupling problem,” JCAP 03 (2015) 040, arXiv:1411.2803 [hep-th]. 21

2015 arXiv
[61]

Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,

LISA Cosmology W orking GroupCollaboration, C. Caprini, R. Jinno, M. Lewicki, E. Madge, M. Merchand, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Roper Pol, and V. Vaskonen, “Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,” JCA...

2024 arXiv
[62]

Gravitational waves from cosmic strings in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,

LISA Cosmology W orking GroupCollaboration, J. J. Blanco-Pillado, Y. Cui, S. Kuroyanagi, M. Lewicki, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, I. Y. Rybak, L. Sousa, and J. M. Wachter, “Gravitational waves from cosmic strings in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,” JCAP 05...

2025 arXiv
[63]

Gravitational waves from inflation in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,

LISA Cosmology W orking GroupCollaboration, M. Braglia et al., “Gravitational waves from inflation in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,” JCAP 11 (2024) 032, arXiv:2407.04356 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[64]

LISA Definition Study Report,

LISA Collaboration, M. Colpi et al., “LISA Definition Study Report,” arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[65]

New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,

K. Schmitz, “New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,” JHEP 01 (2021) 097, arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[66]

Universal infrared scaling of gravitational wave background spectra,

R.-G. Cai, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, “Universal infrared scaling of gravitational wave background spectra,” Phys. Rev. D102 no. 8, (2020) 083528, arXiv:1909.13728 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[67]

Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA,

C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, R. Flauger, G. Nardini, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and G. Tasinato, “Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA,” JCAP 11 (2019) 017, arXiv:1906.09244 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[68]

Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,

LISA Cosmology W orking GroupCollaboration, P. Auclair et al., “Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,” Living Rev. Rel.26 no. 1, (2023) 5, arXiv:2204.05434 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[69]

Reconstructing primordial curvature perturbations via scalar-induced gravitational waves with LISA,

LISA Cosmology W orking GroupCollaboration, J. E. Gammal et al., “Reconstructing primordial curvature perturbations via scalar-induced gravitational waves with LISA,” JCAP 05 (2025) 062, arXiv:2501.11320 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[70]

Bayesian reconstruction of primordial perturbations from induced gravitational waves,

A. Ghaleb, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “Bayesian reconstruction of primordial perturbations from induced gravitational waves,” arXiv:2505.22534 [astro-ph.CO]
[71]

The rise of the primordial tensor spectrum from an early scalar-tensor epoch,

D. Chowdhury, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “The rise of the primordial tensor spectrum from an early scalar-tensor epoch,” JCAP 08 no. 08, (2022) 010, arXiv:2204.10218 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[72]

Exploring cosmological gravitational wave backgrounds through the synergy of LISA and the Einstein Telescope,

A. Marriott-Best, D. Chowdhury, A. Ghoshal, and G. Tasinato, “Exploring cosmological gravitational wave backgrounds through the synergy of LISA and the Einstein Telescope,” Phys. Rev. D111 no. 10, (2025) 103001, arXiv:2409.02886 [astro-ph.CO]. 22

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Extragalactic magnetic fields,

P. P. Kronberg, “Extragalactic magnetic fields,” Rept. Prog. Phys.57 (1994) 325–382

work page 1994

[2] [2]

Magnetic fields in the early universe,

D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, “Magnetic fields in the early universe,” Phys. Rept.348 (2001) 163–266, arXiv:astro-ph/0009061

arXiv 2001

[3] [3]

Origin of galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields,

L. M. Widrow, “Origin of galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields,” Rev. Mod. Phys.74 (2002) 775–823, arXiv:astro-ph/0207240. 18

arXiv 2002

[4] [4]

Primordial magnetogenesis,

A. Kandus, K. E. Kunze, and C. G. Tsagas, “Primordial magnetogenesis,” Phys. Rept.505 (2011) 1–58, arXiv:1007.3891 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2011

[5] [5]

The First Magnetic Fields,

L. M. Widrow, D. Ryu, D. R. G. Schleicher, K. Subramanian, C. G. Tsagas, and R. A. Treumann, “The First Magnetic Fields,” Space Sci. Rev.166 (2012) 37–70, arXiv:1109.4052 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2012

[6] [6]

Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation,

R. Durrer and A. Neronov, “Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation,” Astron. Astrophys. Rev.21 (2013) 62, arXiv:1303.7121 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2013

[7] [7]

The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields,

K. Subramanian, “The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 no. 7, (2016) 076901, arXiv:1504.02311 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

Inflation Produced, Large Scale Magnetic Fields,

M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow, “Inflation Produced, Large Scale Magnetic Fields,” Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 2743

work page 1988