Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

Twisted echoes of an odd quartet: Scalar-induced gravitational waves as a probe of primordial parity-violation

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 This paper argues that a parity-odd component of the primordial trispectrum leaves a measurable circular polarization on the gravitational waves that scalar perturbations induce at second order, and that over specific scales the chirality…

desk verdict A solid, conditional paper: the parity-odd trispectrum to SIGW chirality mechanism is standard, but the Stokes bound and the k ~ 3 k_p window are worth peer review; the O(1) integral-ratio assumption and the negative P_I admit need work. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02733 v1 pith:BZ7L475G submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

H. V. Ragavendra , Nicola Bartolo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th
keywords parityviolationtrispectrumscalar-inducedgravitationalwavescircularpolarizationprimordialnon-GaussianityStokesparameterslognormalpeakchirality
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 a parity-odd part of the primordial scalar trispectrum, the four-point correlation that is the lowest-order correlator sensitive to parity violation in the scalar sector, imprints a measurable circular polarization on scalar-induced gravitational waves. Using two templates for the trispectrum, the authors compute the ratio of the Stokes $V$ parameter (circular polarization) to the intensity $I$ of the induced waves and find that even a modest parity-odd amplitude ($\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}\sim 1$) yields a chirality ratio $\Pi_k = P^V_h/P^I_h$ of order $0.1$ to $1$ near a lognormal peak in the scalar power spectrum, with a sign flip across the peak. In a window around $k\simeq 3k_p$, the intensity is dominated by the parity-even trispectrum, so $\Pi_k$ reduces to the amplitude ratio $\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}/g_{\rm NL}$, giving a direct, Gaussian-free measurement of parity violation in primordial non-Gaussianity. In the scale-invariant case, the Stokes inequality $|V|\le I$ translates into a purely theoretical bound $|\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}|A_S \lesssim 1$ on the parity-odd trispectrum amplitude.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the parity-odd trispectrum template $T_{\rm odd} = i\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}\,\beta(\widehat{k_1+k_2},\hat{k}_1,\hat{k}_3)\, P(k_1)P(k_3)P(|k_1+k_2|)$ plus permutations, where the parity violation is carried by the vector triple product $\beta = \hat{k}_1\cdot(\hat{k}_2\times\hat{k}_3)$, which flips sign under inversion of coordinates, and the chirality ratio $\Pi_k = P^V_h/P^I_h$. The computation is built on the second-order tensor two-point function of Eq. (1), in which the kernel $\tilde{I}_2$ (combining the transfer functions and Green's function for the induced gravitational waves) and the polarization contractions $Q_\lambda = e^\lambda_{ij}(k) q_i q_j/k^2 $ are integrated against the scalar four-point function. The parity-odd difference $Q_LQ_L - Q_RQ_R$ projects out $T_{\rm odd}$ in $P^V_h$, while the parity-even combination feeds $T_{\rm even}$ and the $P_S^2$ term into $P^I_h$. The numerical evaluation uses Monte-Carlo importance sampling with $10^9$ samples per $k$ value, and the approximation $I^{(2)}_I \simeq I^{(2)}_V$ for odd and even trispectra of similar shape turns $\Pi_k$ near the peak into the amplitude ratio $\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}/g_{\rm NL}$.

What would settle it

Compute the full circular-polarization spectrum for a concrete parity-violating model, such as a spectator axion with a Chern-Simons coupling to gauge fields, using its exact momentum-dependent trispectrum instead of the factorized template; if the resulting $\Pi_k = P^V_h/P^I_h$ near $k\simeq 3k_p$ deviates sharply from $\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}/g_{\rm NL}$, or if the sign flip across the peak disappears, the template representativeness assumption would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that $P^V_h$, the spectral density of circular polarization of scalar-induced gravitational waves, receives its leading contribution directly from the parity-odd trispectrum $T_{\rm odd}$, making it proportional to the amplitude $\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}$, while the intensity $P^I_h$ receives contributions from the Gaussian term and from the parity-even trispectrum with amplitude $g_{\rm NL}$. For a scale-invariant power spectrum, $\Pi_k \simeq -\tfrac{7}{2\pi}\tilde{g}_{\rm NL} A_S$, and the Stokes inequality gives $|\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}|A_S \lesssim 1$. For a lognormal peak in the power spectrum, the chirality changes sign across the peak and reaches $\Pi_k\simeq 0.1$ to $1$ at $k\simeq 3k_p$; there the intensity is dominated by $T_{\rm even}$, so $\Pi_k\simeq \tilde{g}_{\rm NL}/g_{\rm NL}$, the ratio of the parity-odd to parity-even trispectrum amplitudes. A second template with an intrinsic lognormal peak in the trispectrum shows that this ratio window persists only when the trispectrum peak is not too narrow relative to the power-spectrum peak, and that intrinsic scale dependence in $T$ can produce corrugated features in $P^I_h$ and $P^V_h$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the templates of Eqs. (11) and (19) are fair representatives of the trispectra generated by parity-violating inflationary models, with the same momentum dependence for the odd and even parts apart from the $\beta$ factor; if real models contract the vector triple products differently or have different scale dependence, the numerical prefactors and the window where $\Pi_k$ equals the amplitude ratio would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurement of chirality in the stochastic gravitational-wave background, with $\Pi_k \gtrsim 0.1$ at frequencies corresponding to $k\simeq 3k_p$, would directly measure the ratio $\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}/g_{\rm NL}$ of the parity-odd to parity-even primordial trispectrum amplitudes.
  • The Stokes inequality yields a purely theoretical bound $|\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}|A_S \lesssim 1$ that does not rely on the observability of the gravitational waves; on small scales where $A_S$ is enhanced, the bound on $|\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}|$ becomes proportionally stronger and can rival or beat the limits from CMB and galaxy surveys.
  • The sign flip of $\Pi_k$ across the peak is a distinctive, scale-dependent signature that can separate a parity-odd trispectrum source from other chirality sources, whose spectra would not change sign in the same way.
  • If the parity-odd trispectrum is detected by CMB or galaxy surveys, the same analysis provides a lower bound on the chirality of the scalar-induced gravitational-wave background, motivating and focusing future searches for circular polarization in gravitational waves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this is right, the chirality of scalar-induced gravitational waves becomes a small-scale complement to cosmic birefringence and galaxy-survey trispectrum constraints, which are largely limited to CMB and large-scale-structure scales; the induced-gravitational-wave channel reaches shorter wavelengths where $A_S$ is larger and the Stokes bound is correspondingly stronger.
  • The template assumption that $T_{\rm odd}$ and $T_{\rm even}$ share the same momentum dependence except for the $\beta$ factor is likely too restrictive for realistic parity-violating models, which may contract the vector triple products differently or have different kinematical structure; computing $\Pi_k$ for an explicit model trispectrum would show how much the ratio formula must be corrected.
  • The Stokes bound $|\tilde{g}_{\rm NL}|A_S \le 1$ can be re-expressed as an exclusion line in the $(A_S, \tilde{g}_{\rm NL})$ plane for peaked power spectra, turning the chirality measurement into a target for future gravitational-wave detectors that the paper does not present.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether a parity-odd primordial scalar trispectrum can leave a measurable chirality in scalar-induced gravitational waves (SIGW). Using two parametric templates for the trispectrum, one scale-invariant and one with a lognormal peak in the scalar power spectrum, the authors numerically compute the circular-polarization power spectrum P_V^h and the intensity P_I^h and form their ratio Π_k. They find that for peaked spectra the chirality changes sign across the peak and can reach 0.1–1 near k ≃ 3 k_p, and they argue that in that window Π_k approximately equals the amplitude ratio of the parity-odd to parity-even trispectrum, g̃_NL/g_NL. For a scale-invariant spectrum they derive the bound |g̃_NL| A_S ≲ 1 from the Stokes inequality. The paper concludes that SIGW chirality is a promising probe of parity violation in primordial non-Gaussianity.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim survives scrutiny, the paper identifies an interesting and observationally relevant effect: a modest parity-odd primordial trispectrum can induce chirality in SIGW that is in principle detectable and that, over a narrow window, directly measures the ratio of parity-odd to parity-even trispectrum amplitudes. The Stokes-inequality bound is a clean theoretical constraint, and the observation that the bispectrum does not contribute to P_V^h is a useful and correct structural point. The paper's numerical work uses 10^9 Monte Carlo samples per k value, but it does not report the intermediate integrals I_V^(2), I_I^(2), nor error bars on the ratio, which is essential because the main result rests on the O(1) equality of those integrals. The manuscript would be strengthened by a direct comparison of the template with at least one explicit parity-violating inflationary model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (17) and surrounding text] The central quantitative claim, Π_k ≃ g̃_NL/g_NL near k ≃ 3 k_p, depends on the asserted equality I_V^(2) ≃ I_I^(2). This is not a kinematic identity: T_odd contains the factor β(k̂_1+k̂_2, k̂_1, k̂_3) while T_even does not, so the two six-dimensional integrals weight different q_1, q_2 configurations. The appendix describes Monte Carlo sampling but gives no numerical values, convergence tests, or error estimates for I_V^(2) and I_I^(2). Please report the computed values of these integrals and the ratio I_V^(2)/I_I^(2) (with uncertainties) for the parameter choices of Figs. 1 and 2; without this, the central quantitative claim is unsupported.
  2. [Footnote 1 and Fig. 2] The paper states that P_I^h turns negative when T_even dominates. Since P_I^h = P_LL^h + P_RR^h is the sum of two nonnegative helicity power spectra, a negative computed intensity cannot be physical; it indicates either an unphysical T_even template contribution or a numerical integration that is not converged. In either case, the ratio Π_k = P_V^h/P_I^h is not protected in that regime, and the reported values Π_k ≃ 0.1–1 around k ≃ 3 k_p in Template 2 are unreliable. The authors should demonstrate that P_I^h ≥ 0 for all k after correcting the issue, or explicitly restrict the quantitative chirality claims to the regimes where positivity is verified and explain the origin of the apparent sign change.
  3. [Eqs. (13) and (18)] The paper invokes the bispectrum contribution to P_I^h as a possible cure for the negative intensity, but it is never computed. Consequently, the statement that 'even if the contribution from the bispectrum to P_I^h is included, Π_k shall remain substantial' is an unsupported quantitative assertion. Please provide at least an estimate using an explicit f_NL template and representative parameter values, or soften this claim and clearly state that the reported numerical results exclude the bispectrum contribution.
  4. [Templates in Eqs. (11) and (19)] The paper describes the trispectrum templates as 'fair representatives' of parity-violating inflationary models, but no concrete model is shown to produce the assumed factorized structure P(k_1)P(k_3)P(|k_1+k_2|) times β(k̂_1+k̂_2, k̂_1, k̂_3) with the stated permutations. The central result, Π_k ≃ g̃_NL/g_NL, is sensitive to this kinematic structure. I recommend either deriving the template from at least one explicit Lagrangian model or explicitly presenting the results as template-dependent and discussing which model classes realize (or violate) the assumed shape.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'Cherns-Simons' should read 'Chern-Simons', and the acknowledgments contain 'supoport' and 'netowrk'.
  2. [Eq. (11a)] The notation β(\k1 + k2, ˆk1, ˆk3) is unclear: the first argument should be the unit vector associated with k1 + k2, but the hat is missing. Please define the unit vector for k1 + k2 explicitly.
  3. [Figs. 1 and 2] The figure captions use colors to indicate negative values of P_V^h and P_I^h, but the main text does not define the color code consistently for all panels; please make the legends explicit and consider colorblind-safe labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the chiral ratio is a computed convolution of template inputs, not a fit or a self-citation identity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the templates of Eqs. (11) and (19) are inserted into the integrals (4) and (7), which convolve the parity-odd/even trispectra with polarization kernels and Green's functions, and the reported P_V^h, P_I^h, and Pi_k are numerical outputs of those integrals. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, and the prefactor -7/(2 pi) in Eq. (14) is a computed integral factor, not an input. The central peaked-spectrum claim Pi_k ~ gtilde_NL/g_NL at k ~ 3 k_p rests on the additional numerical statement I_V^(2) ~ I_I^(2); if that equality fails the quantitative claim would be wrong, but failure of an unproven computational equality is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. The self-citations ([70], [97]) are to standard SIGW formulas and to scale-dependent template motivations, and they are not load-bearing in a uniqueness or definitional sense. The footnote acknowledging P_I^h turning negative in Template 2 is an internal physical-consistency warning that may undermine confidence in that regime, but it does not show that the result reduces by construction to its own inputs. Overall, the mechanism and the quantitative estimates have independent content; no step equates the output to the input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a forward-modeling computation: every output (P^V_h, P^I_h, pi_k) is a computed convolution of the chosen template inputs through standard SIGW integrals. The free parameters are all template or spectrum-shape choices: g_tilde_NL, g_NL, A_p, sigma_p, sigma_t, alpha, the peak alignment k_p = k_t, and the symbolic f_NL. A_S and n_s come from Planck and are not free. The axioms are the standard SIGW kernel (radiation domination), the template ansatz, homogeneity and isotropy, parity conservation of the bispectrum, perturbativity of sub-dominant non-Gaussian pieces, and the Stokes inequality. No new entities are invented: the templates parametrize the existing trispectrum rather than postulating new physics.

free parameters (8)
  • g_tilde_NL (parity-odd trispectrum amplitude) = 1 in the numerical runs; scale-invariant Stokes bound |g_tilde_NL| <= 5 x 10^8
    Overall amplitude of T_odd in Eqs. (11) and (19). P^V_h is proportional to it at leading order. The Stokes inequality |V| <= I converts into the theoretical bound |g_tilde_NL| A_S <= 1, which the paper notes is 3-4 orders weaker than existing CMB and galaxy constraints.
  • g_NL (parity-even trispectrum amplitude) = 1
    Amplitude of T_even. It enters the intensity P^I_h near the peak and sets the chirality window pi_k at k about 3 k_p approximately g_tilde_NL / g_NL.
  • A_p (peak amplitude of the scalar power spectrum) = 10^-2
    Chosen to mimic models producing significant amounts of PBH and SIGW. It controls the overall intensity and therefore how large pi_k can become near the peak.
  • sigma_p^2 (width of the lognormal peak in P_S) = 10^-4, 10^-3, 10^-2 (Template 1); 10^-2 (Template 2)
    Varied to move the peak from a sharp spike to a smooth curve; the width controls the magnitude and scale-dependence of pi_k.
  • sigma_t^2 (width of the lognormal peak in T, Template 2) = 10^-4, 10^-2, 1
    Varied to probe the interplay of scale dependence between P_S and T. For sigma_t^2 much smaller than sigma_p^2 the trispectrum contribution is suppressed and pi_k stays below 10^-2.
  • alpha (intrinsic peak enhancement of T, Template 2) = 10
    Relative enhancement of the trispectrum amplitude at k_t; this choice produces the corrugated P^I_h features when sigma_t^2 equals sigma_p^2.
  • f_NL (local bispectrum amplitude) = unspecified (enters symbolically in Eqs. (13) and (18))
    Included to show that the bispectrum contributes to P^I_h at order f_NL^2 A_S^3 while leaving P^V_h unaffected; argued to be sub-dominant in the scale-invariant case and otherwise not computed.
  • Peak alignment k_p = k_t = set equal
    Assumed equal 'as is often observed in inflationary models'; the location of the chirality window at k about 3 k_p depends on this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard SIGW formalism: the induced tensor two-point function follows Eq. (1) with the transfer kernel of Refs. [69-71], which assumes a radiation-dominated background at the sourcing epoch.
    Everything (P^I_h, P^V_h, the radiation-era kernel with the Theta(u+v-3) cutoff) rests on this cited framework; the radiation-domination assumption is implicit rather than stated.
  • ad hoc to paper The parity-odd trispectrum templates, Eqs. (11) and (19), are fair representatives of parity-violating inflationary trispectra.
    The templates are constructed rather than derived: imaginary, with a vector triple product beta, and factorized as P(k1) P(k3) P(|k1+k2|). Refs. [77-86] motivate them, but no explicit Lagrangian-to-template mapping is given.
  • standard math Statistical homogeneity and isotropy of the perturbations.
    Used to keep only lambda1 = lambda2 terms in P^I_h, to reduce integration dimensions, and to set Q = U = 0 for the Stokes parameters.
  • domain assumption The scalar bispectrum preserves parity, so P^V_h receives no bispectrum contribution.
    Assures that the chirality signal is unobscured by the Gaussian contribution and that only the trispectrum sources V.
  • domain assumption Perturbativity: (f_NL^2 I_I^(3), g_NL I_I^(2)) A_S < I_I^(1), so P^I_h is dominated by the reducible P_S^2 term in the scale-invariant case.
    Justifies dropping the f_NL and T_even terms in Eq. (14); stated explicitly in the text as motivated by perturbativity.
  • standard math Stokes inequality I >= |V| holds for this system with Q = U = 0.
    Fundamental property of the polarization matrix; the whole bound |g_tilde_NL| A_S <= 1 follows from it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Twisted echoes of an odd quartet: Scalar-induced gravitational waves as a probe of primordial parity-violation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZ7L475G

@misc{pith2026250702733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Twisted echoes of an odd quartet: Scalar-induced gravitational waves as a probe of primordial parity-violation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZ7L475G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02733}
}
read the original abstract

Parity-violation leaves tell-tale trails in many cosmological observables. We illustrate parity-odd primordial scalar trispectra, that despite being of modest strength, impart detectable chirality to scalar-induced gravitational waves (SIGW). This allows us to impose strong bounds on the parity-odd part of trispectrum. Over certain scales, we find SIGW directly quantify parity-violation in primordial non-Gaussianity, unobscured by the Gaussian contribution. Our results call for treatment of SIGW and parity-odd trispectrum as complementary predictions of parity-violating theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. We illustrate the spectral densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. We present [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. 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.

  2. Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity and parity-violation through Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves with next-generation ground-based interferometers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ET+CE forecast: injected SIGW parameters (A_p, f_peak, f_NL, tau_NL, parity-odd tau_tilde_NL) are recovered within 1-2 sigma despite an astrophysical foreground, but the chiral V-mode is sub-threshold (SNR 0.5-1.9).

  3. Exploring Gravitational Wave Signatures Due to Primordial Non-gaussianity and Large Scale Structure Using SKAO

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Explores SKAO detection of scalar-induced GW backgrounds as probes of primordial non-Gaussianity and parity violation, with LSS cross-correlation to improve SNR.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [42]

    Garcia-Saenz, Y

    S. Garcia-Saenz, Y. Lu, and Z. Shuai, Phys. Rev. D108, 123507 (2023), arXiv:2306.09052 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Tomita, Prog

    K. Tomita, Prog. Theor. Phys.37, 831 (1967)

    1967

  3. [2]

    Matarrese, O

    S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, Phys. Rev.D47, 1311 (1993)

    1993

  4. [3]

    Matarrese, O

    S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 320 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9310036 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1994

  5. [4]

    Matarrese and S

    S. Matarrese and S. Mollerach, inERE - Spanish Rela- tivity Conference(1996) arXiv:astro-ph/9705168

    arXiv 1996

  6. [5]

    Matarrese, S

    S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach, and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. D58, 043504 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707278 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1998

  7. [6]

    K. N. Ananda, C. Clarkson, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D75, 123518 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612013 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2007

  8. [7]

    Baumann, P

    D. Baumann, P. J. Steinhardt, K. Takahashi, and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rev. D76, 084019 (2007), arXiv:hep- th/0703290 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 98 references
  1. [8]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, A. Riotto, and A. Vaihkonen, Phys. Rev. D76, 061302 (2007), arXiv:0705.4240 [astro- ph]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [9]

    39,399(2016),arXiv:1605.01615[astro- ph.CO]

    M.C.Guzzetti, N.Bartolo, M.Liguori,andS.Matarrese, Riv.NuovoCim. 39,399(2016),arXiv:1605.01615[astro- ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Kohri and T

    K. Kohri and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D97, 123532 (2018), arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Domènech, Universe7, 398 (2021), arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]

    G. Domènech, Universe7, 398 (2021), arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Afzal et al

    A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L11 (2023), arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Cai, X.-C

    Y.-F. Cai, X.-C. He, X.-H. Ma, S.-F. Yan, and G.-W. Yuan, Sci. Bull. 68, 2929 (2023), arXiv:2306.17822 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 201401 (2023), arXiv:2306.17149 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Chang, Y.-T

    Z. Chang, Y.-T. Kuang, D. Wu, and J.-Z. Zhou, (2023), arXiv:2312.14409 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Chang, Y.-T

    Z. Chang, Y.-T. Kuang, D. Wu, J.-Z. Zhou, and Q.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 109, L041303 (2024), arXiv:2311.05102 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    J.-P. Li, S. Wang, Z.-C. Zhao, and K. Kohri, (2023), arXiv:2309.07792 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Talebian, JCAP 10, 032, arXiv:2307.03164 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  12. [19]

    R. Inui, S. Jaraba, S. Kuroyanagi, and S. Yokoyama, (2023), arXiv:2311.05423 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Yi, Z.-Q

    Z. Yi, Z.-Q. You, and Y. Wu, JCAP 01, 066, arXiv:2308.05632 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Maity, N

    S. Maity, N. Bhaumik, M. R. Haque, D. Maity, and L. Sriramkumar, JCAP01, 118, arXiv:2403.16963 [astro- 7 ph.CO]

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    Wang and N

    S.-j. Wang and N. Li, (2025), arXiv:2503.01243 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Satoh, S

    M. Satoh, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023526 (2008), arXiv:0706.3585 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Takahashi and J

    T. Takahashi and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 231301 (2009), arXiv:0904.0554 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Sorbo, JCAP06, 003, arXiv:1101.1525 [astro-ph.CO]

    L. Sorbo, JCAP06, 003, arXiv:1101.1525 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    M. M. Anber and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123537 (2012), arXiv:1203.5849 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Caprini and L

    C. Caprini and L. Sorbo, JCAP10, 056, arXiv:1407.2809 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  21. [28]

    Bielefeld and R

    J. Bielefeld and R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D91, 123501 (2015), arXiv:1412.6104 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, and M. Shiraishi, JCAP 01, 027, arXiv:1411.2521 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  23. [30]

    M. M. Anber and E. Sabancilar, Phys. Rev. D96, 023501 (2017), arXiv:1607.03916 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Cai, Y.-T

    Y. Cai, Y.-T. Wang, and Y.-S. Piao, JHEP 03, 024, arXiv:1608.06508 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    Thorne, T

    B. Thorne, T. Fujita, M. Hazumi, N. Katayama, E. Ko- matsu, and M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. D97, 043506 (2018), arXiv:1707.03240 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Okano and T

    S. Okano and T. Fujita, JCAP03, 026, arXiv:2005.13833 [astro-ph.CO]

    2005 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Watanabe and E

    Y. Watanabe and E. Komatsu, (2020), arXiv:2004.04350 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Roper Pol, S

    A. Roper Pol, S. Mandal, A. Brandenburg, and T. Kah- niashvili, JCAP 04 (04), 019, arXiv:2107.05356 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    Brandenburg and R

    A. Brandenburg and R. Sharma, Astrophys. J.920, 26 (2021), arXiv:2106.03857 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Brandenburg, Y

    A. Brandenburg, Y. He, and R. Sharma, Astrophys. J. 922, 192 (2021), arXiv:2107.12333 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    R.-G. Cai, C. Fu, and W.-W. Yu, Phys. Rev. D105, 103520 (2022), arXiv:2112.04794 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Bastero-Gil and A

    M. Bastero-Gil and A. T. Manso, JCAP 08, 001, arXiv:2209.15572 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  33. [40]

    P. Bari, N. Bartolo, G. Domènech, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023509 (2024), arXiv:2307.05404 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Dimastrogiovanni, M

    E. Dimastrogiovanni, M. Fasiello, M. Michelotti, and L. Pinol, JCAP02, 039, arXiv:2303.10718 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Alexander, H

    S. Alexander, H. Bernardo, Y. S. Li, and C. Niu, (2024), arXiv:2411.04233 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zhang, J.-X

    F. Zhang, J.-X. Feng, and X. Gao, Phys. Rev. D110, 023537 (2024), arXiv:2404.02922 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J.-X. Feng, F. Zhang, and X. Gao, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 736 (2024), arXiv:2404.05289 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Özsoy, A

    O. Özsoy, A. Papageorgiou, and M. Fasiello, JCAP12, 008, arXiv:2405.14963 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. G. Crowder, R. Namba, V. Mandic, S. Muko- hyama, and M. Peloso, Phys. Lett. B 726, 66 (2013), arXiv:1212.4165 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Kato and J

    R. Kato and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D93, 062003 (2016), arXiv:1512.09139 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    T. L. Smith and R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D95, 044036 (2017), arXiv:1609.05901 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Garcia-Bellido, M

    J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Peloso, and C. Unal, JCAP1612 (12), 031, arXiv:1610.03763 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    W. Qin, K. K. Boddy, M. Kamionkowski, and L. Dai, Phys. Rev. D99, 063002 (2019), arXiv:1810.02369 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Inomata and M

    K. Inomata and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 031305 (2019), arXiv:1811.04959 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Domcke, J

    V. Domcke, J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, L. Sorbo, and G. Tasinato, JCAP 05, 028, arXiv:1910.08052 [astro-ph.CO]

    1910 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Belgacem and M

    E. Belgacem and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D102, 023004 (2020), arXiv:2004.05480 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Orlando, M

    G. Orlando, M. Pieroni, and A. Ricciardone, JCAP03, 069, arXiv:2011.07059 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Sato-Polito and M

    G. Sato-Polito and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D106, 023004 (2022), arXiv:2111.05867 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    N. M. J. Cruz, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103505 (2024), arXiv:2406.04957 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. Chen, C. Liu, and Y.-L. Zhang, JCAP 05, 050, arXiv:2410.18916 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 221301 (2020), arXiv:2011.11254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Diego-Palazueloset al., Phys

    P. Diego-Palazueloset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 091302 (2022), arXiv:2201.07682 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Komatsu, Nature Rev

    E. Komatsu, Nature Rev. Phys. 4, 452 (2022), arXiv:2202.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Greco, N

    A. Greco, N. Bartolo, and A. Gruppuso, JCAP05, 026, arXiv:2211.06380 [astro-ph.CO]

  55. [63]

    Arcari, N

    S. Arcari, N. Bartolo, A. Greco, A. Gruppuso, M. Lat- tanzi, and P. Natoli, JCAP 10, 101, arXiv:2407.02144 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Gruppuso and S

    A. Gruppuso and S. di Serego Alighieri, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 34, 2540008 (2025), arXiv:2502.07743 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    J. Hou, Z. Slepian, and R. N. Cahn, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 522, 5701 (2023), arXiv:2206.03625 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063501 (2022), arXiv:2206.04227 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Krolewski, S

    A. Krolewski, S. May, K. Smith, and H. Hopkins, JCAP 08, 044, arXiv:2407.03397 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Hewson, W

    S. Hewson, W. J. Handley, and C. G. Lester, (2024), arXiv:2410.16030 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Adshead, K

    P. Adshead, K. D. Lozanov, and Z. J. Weiner, JCAP10, 080, arXiv:2105.01659 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    H. V. Ragavendra, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063533 (2022), arXiv:2108.04193 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Perna, C

    G. Perna, C. Testini, A. Ricciardone, and S. Matarrese, JCAP 05, 086, arXiv:2403.06962 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Unal, Phys

    C. Unal, Phys. Rev. D 99, 041301 (2019), arXiv:1811.09151 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    R.-g. Cai, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 201101 (2019), arXiv:1810.11000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Atal and G

    V. Atal and G. Domènech, JCAP 06, 001, [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2023)], arXiv:2103.01056 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Yuan, D.-S

    C. Yuan, D.-S. Meng, and Q.-G. Huang, JCAP12, 036, arXiv:2308.07155 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    J.-P. Li, S. Wang, Z.-C. Zhao, and K. Kohri, JCAP10, 056, arXiv:2305.19950 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    Shiraishi, Phys

    M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083503 (2016), arXiv:1608.00368 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Shiraishi, N

    M. Shiraishi, N. Bartolo, and M. Liguori, JCAP10, 015, arXiv:1607.01363 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    X. Niu, M. H. Rahat, K. Srinivasan, and W. Xue, JCAP 05, 018, arXiv:2211.14324 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Cabass, S

    G. Cabass, S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer, and D. Stefanyszyn, JHEP 02, 021, arXiv:2210.02907 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Fujita, T

    T. Fujita, T. Murata, I. Obata, and M. Shiraishi, JCAP 8 05, 127, arXiv:2310.03551 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Creque-Sarbinowski, S

    C. Creque-Sarbinowski, S. Alexander, M. Kamionkowski, and O. Philcox, JCAP11, 029, arXiv:2303.04815 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Reinhard, Z

    M. Reinhard, Z. Slepian, J. Hou, and A. Greco, (2024), arXiv:2412.16037 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Moretti, N

    T. Moretti, N. Bartolo, and A. Greco, (2024), arXiv:2410.11801 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  77. [85]

    K. Yura, S. Saga, M. Shiraishi, and S. Yokoyama, (2025), arXiv:2505.16844 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  78. [86]

    O. H. E. Philcox, (2025), arXiv:2502.04434 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123534 (2025), arXiv:2502.06931 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Bartoloet al., JCAP12, 026, arXiv:1610.06481 [astro- ph.CO]

    N. Bartoloet al., JCAP12, 026, arXiv:1610.06481 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    Bartolo, V

    N. Bartolo, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Lewis, M. Peloso, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 211301 (2019), arXiv:1810.12218 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Bartolo, V

    N. Bartolo, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, M. Peloso, D.Racco,andA.Riotto,Phys.Rev.D 99,103521(2019), arXiv:1810.12224 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Bagui et al

    E. Bagui et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group), (2023), arXiv:2310.19857 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Atal and C

    V. Atal and C. Germani, Phys. Dark Univ.24, 100275 (2019), arXiv:1811.07857 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  86. [94]

    V. Atal, J. Garriga, and A. Marcos-Caballero, JCAP09, 073, arXiv:1905.13202 [astro-ph.CO]

    1905 arXiv

  87. [95]

    H. V. Ragavendra, P. Saha, L. Sriramkumar, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083510 (2021), arXiv:2008.12202 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Özsoy and G

    O. Özsoy and G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. D105, 023524 (2022), arXiv:2111.02432 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [97]

    H. V. Ragavendra and L. Sriramkumar, Galaxies11, 34 (2023), arXiv:2301.08887 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Akramiet al

    Y. Akramiet al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A9 (2020), arXiv:1905.05697 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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