Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Gravitational waves and primordial black holes from the T-model inflation with Gauss-Bonnet correction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A step-like Gauss-Bonnet coupling can make T-model inflation produce nanohertz gravitational waves and a substantial dark-matter fraction as primordial black holes.

desk verdict A worthwhile double-peak GB-inflation model, but the printed fixed-point condition is off by a factor of six and the numerics can't be verified without code. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12242 v1 pith:CZ4CI5SR submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Peng-Bo Chen , Tie-Jun Gao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords primordialblackholesscalar-inducedgravitationalwavesGauss-Bonnetinflationultra-slow-rollphasedeSitterfixedpointpulsartimingarraydarkmatter
topics Dark Matter
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 aims to establish that one mechanism in T-model inflation—a step-like Gauss-Bonnet coupling of the sort that appears when the inflaton crosses a domain wall—can explain both a reported gravitational-wave background and part of the dark matter. The step creates a de Sitter fixed point where the field nearly stops, sending inflation through an ultra-slow-roll phase and amplifying the scalar power spectrum by many orders of magnitude on small scales. The amplified spectrum sources scalar-induced gravitational waves, with peaks in the nanohertz band that match current pulsar timing array data, and the same perturbations collapse into primordial black holes after horizon re-entry. With a double-step coupling the model produces two gravitational-wave peaks and two black-hole populations at once, and the largest black-hole abundance reaches $\Omega_{\mathrm{PBH}}/\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}}\simeq 0.164$. The payoff is that a single microphysical input, the shape of the coupling, becomes testable across three observables: CMB spectra, gravitational-wave detectors, and black-hole abundance limits.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the step-like Gauss-Bonnet coupling $\zeta(\varphi)=\frac18\zeta_0\tanh[\zeta_1(\varphi-\varphi_c)]$ and its double-step analogue, which are meant to model a domain-wall crossing in moduli space. The step gives the background dynamics a de Sitter fixed point at a field value $\varphi_\ast$ where $\dot\varphi=\ddot\varphi=\dot H=0$; the existence condition is written as Eq. (9). Near that point the quantities that measure how slowly the field rolls become extremely small, and the curvature mode equation $v_k''+(c_s^2 k^2-z''/z)v_k=0$ develops an instability that boosts the scalar power spectrum on the corresponding scales. The amplified spectrum is then inserted into the standard integrals for scalar-induced gravitational waves and into the collapse calculation that yields primordial black hole abundances.

What would settle it

Reintegrate Eqs. (5)-(6) for the parameter sets in Tables I and II without imposing the fixed-point condition and check whether the field actually enters an ultra-slow-roll phase at the claimed $\varphi_\ast$; if the power-spectrum peak is absent, the gravitational-wave and black-hole predictions fail. Observationally, a space interferometer with sufficient sensitivity that sees no peak near the predicted $10^{-2}\,\mathrm{Hz}$ would falsify the higher-frequency branch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding a step-like Gauss-Bonnet coupling to the T-model potential $V(\varphi)=V_0\tanh[m_1\varphi]^{2n}$ produces an inflationary trajectory with a de Sitter fixed point, and that passing through this fixed point generates an ultra-slow-roll phase. During that phase the curvature perturbation is amplified into a narrow peak in $\mathcal P_{\mathcal R}(k)$, which after horizon re-entry sources both a scalar-induced gravitational-wave background and primordial black holes. With a single Tanh step the authors find parameter sets whose gravitational-wave peak falls in the nanohertz band reported by pulsar timing arrays, as well as sets whose peak near $10^{-2}\,\mathrm{Hz}$ would be accessible to space interferometers. With a double Tanh step the model yields two gravitational-wave peaks and two black-hole populations simultaneously. The numerical results include black-hole masses $4.9\times10^{-3}$ and $1.1\times10^{-13}\,M_\odot$ for single-step cases and $2.9\times10^{-14}$ and $2.1\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot$ for the double-step case, with $\Omega_{\mathrm{PBH}}/\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}}$ up to $0.164$, while the CMB observables $n_s$, $r$, and $\ln(10^{10}A_s)$ remain within Planck bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the de Sitter fixed-point condition written as Eq. (9) is the correct consequence of the background equations; if that condition is off, the parameter sets may not produce the ultra-slow-roll phase that creates the power-spectrum peak.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the nanohertz peak is real, the model offers a concrete inflationary origin for the stochastic gravitational-wave background reported by pulsar timing arrays.
  • The higher-frequency peaks near $10^{-2}\,\mathrm{Hz}$ sit above the expected sensitivity of planned space interferometers, so the model makes a specific, testable prediction for those detectors.
  • The double-step model predicts two gravitational-wave peaks with a fixed frequency ratio, which would let observers distinguish it from single-peak models if both bands are observed.
  • The same power-spectrum peaks fix black-hole masses and abundances, so the model can be checked against microlensing and other primordial-black-hole constraints; the double-step case produces $\Omega_{\mathrm{PBH}}/\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}}\simeq 0.164$ at $2.9\times10^{-14}\,M_\odot$.
  • All parameter sets keep the CMB observables $n_s$, $r$, and $\ln(10^{10}A_s)$ consistent with Planck, so the mechanism does not disturb the successful large-scale predictions of inflation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read in reverse, the mechanism turns gravitational-wave detectors into a probe of moduli-space structure: each domain-wall crossing is a separate peak, so a multi-peak signal would measure the separation between walls.
  • The $\Omega_{\mathrm{PBH}}/\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}}\simeq 0.164$ abundance implied for $2.9\times10^{-14}\,M_\odot$ black holes is large enough that tightening existing microlensing and evaporation bounds could either close the model or confirm it.
  • If a nanohertz pulse-timing signal is confirmed as scalar-induced, the same power-spectrum peak fixes the black-hole mass scale, so combining a gravitational-wave detection with a black-hole search would overdetermine the step parameters.
  • The same step-coupling construction should transfer to other inflaton potentials, making the qualitative prediction of coincident gravitational-wave and black-hole peaks a generic signature rather than a property of this potential alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies T-model inflation with a step-like Gauss-Bonnet coupling motivated by domain-wall crossings in moduli space. It claims that for suitable parameters a de Sitter fixed point creates an ultra-slow-roll phase, producing a large peak in the scalar power spectrum, whose horizon re-entry generates nanohertz gravitational waves matching PTA observations and produces primordial black holes. Single-step and double-step couplings are considered; the latter yields two GW peaks. Numerical results are presented in Tables I-IV and Figs. 1-3.

Significance. If the central calculation were correct, the paper would provide a concrete embedding of PBH and GW production in an attractor inflation model with a string-motivated coupling, and the double-peak signature would be a distinctive prediction. The paper uses standard second-order GW and Press-Schechter PBH formalisms, and the qualitative mechanism of a GB-induced ultra-slow-roll phase is physically plausible. However, the manuscript provides no machine-checkable derivations or code, and the key fixed-point condition contains an algebraic inconsistency that affects the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eq. (9)] At the de Sitter fixed point the authors obtain V,phi + (3/2) H^4 zeta,phi = 0 from Eq. (6). Substituting Eq. (7), 3H^2 = V, yields V,phi + (V^2/6) zeta,phi = 0, not the stated V,phi + V^2 zeta,phi = 0. This factor-of-six discrepancy changes the root phi* and can determine whether any fixed point exists for the tabulated parameters. Since Eq. (9) is the premise for the near-de Sitter ultra-slow-roll phase that generates the peaks in Figs. 1-3 and the GW/PBH results in Tables III-IV, the current presentation does not establish the central claim. The authors should correct the fixed-point condition and rerun the numerical analysis, and clarify which condition was actually used, since no code or data are provided to check.
  2. [IV, Eqs. (36)-(40)] The PBH abundance calculation assumes Gaussian density perturbations and uses the Press-Schechter form (36) with delta_c = 0.45, without discussing non-Gaussianity from the GB coupling or the ultra-slow-roll phase. For the narrow peaks with P_R ~ 1e-2 shown in Fig. 1, non-Gaussian corrections can change the abundance by orders of magnitude; the claimed values in Tables III and IV therefore need an estimate of the associated uncertainty.
  3. [Tables I-II and III-IV] The parameter sets in Tables I-II are chosen so that the power-spectrum peak falls at the scale matching the PTA and LISA bands; the match is therefore a fit rather than an independent prediction. The paper should either provide a parameter scan showing a region of acceptable values or state explicitly that the parameter choices are fine-tuned, so readers can gauge the model's predictive content.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'provids' in the abstract, 'euqation' and 'Gauss-Bennet' in Section II, and 'calulated' in Section III; the manuscript needs copyediting.
  2. [II, Ref. [33]] Reference [33] is not the correct source for the slow-roll parameters delta_i; it cites a paper on CCD characterization (Burgo, Prieto, and Peacocke, JINST 5, P01006). Please replace it with the correct reference for the GB slow-roll parameters.
  3. [II, Eq. (13)] Equation (13) is typeset with unmatched parentheses and appears garbled; please rewrite it cleanly so the expression for z^2 is unambiguous.
  4. [Tables III and IV] Table III has duplicate column headers involving 'M_{peak}^{PBHS}/M_sun', and Table IV needs clearer separation of the two PBH mass columns; this makes the reported peak masses hard to compare with the text.
  5. [Fig. 1] Figure 1 panels (a) and (b) each contain two curves (left and right), but the caption describes only the parameter sets; please label the curves explicitly within each panel.
  6. [Abstract and IV] The abstract states PBH masses of '10^-14 to 10^-13 M_sun and around 10^-2 M_sun', but Table IV lists 2.9e-14 and 2.1e-3 M_sun; the wording should be clarified to distinguish the single-step and double-step results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's derivation chain is self-contained, with parameter choices constituting a postdiction rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central mechanism (step-like Gauss-Bonnet coupling producing a near-de-Sitter ultra-slow-roll phase, a power-spectrum peak, induced gravitational waves, and primordial black holes) is constructed from the model's own background equations (5)-(6), the perturbation equation (12)-(16), standard induced-GW kernels (27)-(33), and the standard Press-Schechter PBH formalism (34)-(40). The parameter sets in Tables I-II are chosen inputs, not outputs of the GW or PBH calculation; the paper reports that for these sets the peaks fall in the PTA region, which is a postdiction or consistency statement rather than a claim that the parameters were derived from first principles. The self-citations [17]-[19] appear only as background examples of inflection-point models and are not load-bearing; the step-like coupling ansatz is attributed transparently to [28], and the perturbation and PBH formulas are standard external results. The only notable defect is an algebraic inconsistency: substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (8) gives V,φ + (V^2/6)ζ,φ = 0, not Eq. (9)'s V,φ + V^2 ζ,φ = 0. This is a correctness concern about whether the tabulated parameters actually sit at the claimed fixed point, but it is not a circular reduction: Eq. (9) is not equivalent to an input by construction, nor is any fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. Therefore, on the circularity axis, the paper warrants a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a small set of hand-picked parameters and on standard assumptions about perturbation theory, radiation domination, and Gaussianity. The step-like coupling is an input, not derived from a fundamental theory, and no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • n, V0, m1 (T-model potential shape) = n = 0.25 or 1; V0 around 6.9e-11, 3.4e-11, or 6.6e-9; m1 = sqrt(2)/7, sqrt(1/2), or 0.01
    Chosen in Tables I and II to match the CMB amplitude and spectral index and to set the location of the slow-roll phase.
  • zeta0 (single-step coupling amplitude) = 1.25e7, 2.4e7, 0.9e7, 1.8e7 for Sets I-IV
    Controls the height of the power-spectrum peak and therefore the GW amplitude and PBH abundance.
  • zeta1 (single-step width) = -200.043, -169.806, -460.972, -302.818 for Sets I-IV
    Controls the width and location of the ultra-slow-roll phase.
  • phi_c (single-step center) = 3.52, 3.15, 4.105, 3.88 for Sets I-IV
    Sets the field value where the fixed point and peak occur, hence the GW frequency.
  • zeta01, zeta11, phi_c1, zeta02, zeta12, phi_c2 (double-step parameters) = Values from Table II, Set V
    Tuned so the double peak lands near 1e-8 Hz and 1e-2 Hz.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The step-like Tanh coupling in Eq. (3) represents the domain-wall crossing effect in moduli space.
    The coupling form is motivated by string threshold corrections, but its amplitude, width, and center are hand-chosen to produce the desired peaks. The paper does not derive zeta from a compactification.
  • domain assumption The perturbation equations of Hwang and Noh, including the extended slow-roll definitions in Eqs. (12)-(14), remain valid through the ultra-slow-roll phase.
    All power-spectrum peaks are computed from these equations. Ultra-slow-roll is not a standard slow-roll regime, so this extrapolation is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Bunch-Davies vacuum initial condition, Eq. (15), is the correct vacuum state for the modes that form the peaks.
    The power spectrum depends on this choice, and no justification is given for the very small scales where the peaks appear.
  • domain assumption The induced-GW kernel for a radiation-dominated universe, Eqs. (25) and (29), applies when the peaks re-enter the horizon.
    The frequency mapping to PTA and LISA bands assumes a radiation-dominated equation of state at horizon entry.
  • domain assumption Density perturbations are Gaussian, and PBH formation follows Press-Schechter with delta_c = 0.45, Eqs. (36)-(38).
    Non-Gaussianity from ultra-slow-roll is not discussed; it can strongly affect the PBH abundance. The abundance results depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The collapse efficiency gamma = 0.2 and the horizon-mass scaling of Eq. (35) are used to convert peak scale to PBH mass.
    These are standard astrophysical choices, but they directly set the reported PBH mass values and abundances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational waves and primordial black holes from the T-model inflation with Gauss-Bonnet correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZ4CI5SR

@misc{pith2026250112242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational waves and primordial black holes from the T-model inflation with Gauss-Bonnet correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZ4CI5SR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12242}
}
abstract

Recently, the worldwide Pulsar Timing Array (PTA) collaborations detected a stochastic gravitational wave(GW) background in the nanohertz range, which may originate from the early universe's inflationary phase. So in this work, we investigated induce GWs in the T-model inflation with Gauss-Bonnet coupling. Consider the scenario of traversing a domain wall in moduli space, we take the coupling coefficient to be an approximately step function. Within suitable parameter regions, the model exhibits de Sitter fixed points, which allows inflation to undergo an ultra-slow-roll phase, which causes the power spectrum to exhibit a peak. Such a peak can induce nanohertz GWs, which provids an explanation for the PTA observational data. Furthermore, we consider the case of multiple domain wall crossings, and adopting a double-step coupling function. In this case, the resulting GW spectrum has two peaks with frequencies around \(10^{-8} \,\text{Hz}\) and \(10^{-2}\,\text{Hz}\), respectively. Which can be observed by the PTA and the space GW detectors simultaneously.Additionally, the reentry of the power spectrum peaks into the horizon leads to the collapse into primordial black holes (PBHs). We calculate the abundance of PBHs and found that the masses is in the range of \(10^{-14} \sim 10^{-13} M_\odot\) and around \(10^{-2} M_\odot\) , which constitute significant components of the current dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The power spectrum generated by the single Tanh coupling( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The energy spectrum of the induced GWs predicted by the s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The numerical results of PBH abundance Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Einstein--Gauss--Bonnet Inflationary Cosmology in Phase-$\theta$ Formalism

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Phase-θ formalism maps EGB inflation backgrounds to closed-form observables beyond slow-roll; Starobinsky+linear-GB fits ACT DR6 ns and r while predicting a DECIGO-accessible GW plateau.

  2. Cosmological constraints on small-scale primordial non-Gaussianity

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Current pulsar-timing, CMB, BAO and PBH data constrain the small-scale local f_NL to -10.0 < f_NL < 1.2 for a monochromatic primordial power spectrum, with that constraint conditional on the spectral amplitude A_zeta = 10^-2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. B. et al., Physical Review Letters 116 (2016), 10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  2. [3]

    the Natural Science Basic Research P rogram ofShaanxi Province

    cosx } (29) After oscillation averaging I 2 RD(x → ∞,u,v ) = 1 2 ( 3 4u3v3x )2 (u2+v2−3)2 { [ −4uv + (u2 +v2 − 3) ln ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ 3 − (u +v)2 3 − (u −v)2 ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ] 2 + [ π(u2 +v2 − 3)Θ(u +v − √ 3) ] 2 } . (30) 8 Combining Eqs. (27) and (28), with H = 1/η in the radiation-dominated era,the final expression of the GW energy spectrum is Ω GW (η,k ) = 1 12 ∫ ∞ 0 dv...

    work page 2023

  3. [4]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951, L8 (2023)

    2023

  4. [5]

    Afzal et al

    A. Afzal et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951, L11 (2023)

    2023

  5. [6]

    J. . o. Antoniadis, Astronomy & Astrophysics 678, A48 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [7]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. , Astronomy & Astrophysics 678, A50 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [8]

    Xu et al

    H. Xu et al. , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 23, 075024 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [9]

    The parkes pulsar timing array third data release,

    A. Zic et al. , “The parkes pulsar timing array third data release,” (2023), arXiv:2306.16230 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [10]

    D. J. Reardon et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951, L6 (2023)

    2023

  2. [11]

    Kohri and T

    K. Kohri and T. Terada, Physical Review D 97 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.97.123532

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    Young and C

    S. Young and C. T. Byrnes, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013, 052–052 (2013)

    2013

  4. [13]

    S. Bird, I. Cholis, J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, M. Kam ionkowski, E. D. Kovetz, A. Rac- canelli, and A. G. Riess, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 201301 (2016)

    2016

  5. [14]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 061101 (2016)

    2016

  6. [15]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto, Physical Review Letters 126 (2021), 10.1103/physrevlett.126.041303

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    Garc ´ ıa-Bellido and E

    J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido and E. Ruiz Morales, Physics of the Dark Universe 18, 47–54 (2017)

    2017

  8. [17]

    Ballesteros and M

    G. Ballesteros and M. Taoso, Physical Review D 97 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.97.023501

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    Gao and Z.-K

    T.-J. Gao and Z.-K. Guo, Physical Review D 98 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.063526

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    W.-T. Xu, J. Liu, T.-J. Gao, and Z.-K. Guo, Physical Review D 101 (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.101.023505

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    Gao and X.-Y

    T.-J. Gao and X.-Y. Yang, The European Physical Journal C 81 (2021), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09269-4

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    On primordial black holes from an inflection point,

    C. Germani and T. Prokopec, “On primordial black holes from an inflection point,” (2017), arXiv:1706.04226 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Di and Y

    H. Di and Y. Gong, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018, 007–007 (2018)

    2018

  14. [23]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023524 (2015) . 14

    2015

  15. [24]

    B. Carr, F. K¨ uhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083504 (2016)

    2016

  16. [25]

    Inomata, M

    K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, Y. Tada, and T. T. Ya nagida, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043504 (2017)

    2017

  17. [26]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Reviews in Relativity 13 (2010), 10.12942/lrr-2010-3

    2010 doi

  18. [27]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, and J. Yokoyama, Progress of Theoretical Physics 126, 511–529 (2011)

    2011

  19. [28]

    Kawai and J

    S. Kawai and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083545 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Kawai and J

    S. Kawai and J. Kim, Physical Review D 104 (2021), 10.1103/physrevd.104.043525

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    Zhang, Phys

    F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063539 (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    Antoniadis, E

    I. Antoniadis, E. Gava, and K. Narain, Physics Letters B 283, 209–212 (1992)

    1992

  23. [32]

    J. A. Harvey and G. Moore, Nuclear Physics B 463, 315–368 (1996)

    1996

  24. [33]

    D. J. Schwarz, C. A. Terrero-Escalante, and A. A. Garca, Physics Letters B 517, 243–249 (2001)

    2001

  25. [34]

    C. d. Burgo, C. A. Prieto, and T. Peacocke, Journal of Instrumentation 5, P01006–P01006 (2010)

    2010

  26. [35]

    Hwang and H

    J.-c. Hwang and H. Noh, Physical Review D 61 (2000), 10.1103/physrevd.61.043511

    2000 doi

  27. [36]

    Dirkes, International Journal of Modern Physics A 33, 1830013 (2018)

    A. Dirkes, International Journal of Modern Physics A 33, 1830013 (2018)

    2018

  28. [37]

    Baumann, P

    D. Baumann, P. Steinhardt, K. Takahashi, and K. Ichiki, Physical Review D 76 (2007), 10.1103/physrevd.76.084019

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    K. N. Ananda, C. Clarkson, and D. Wands, Physical Review D 75 (2007), 10.1103/physrevd.75.123518

    2007 doi

  30. [39]

    K. Ando, K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, and T. T. Ya nagida, Physical Review D 97 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.97.123512

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    Espinosa, D

    J. Espinosa, D. Racco, and A. Riotto, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018, 012–012 (2018)

    2018

  32. [41]

    C. J. Moore, R. H. Cole, and C. P. L. Berry, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 015014 (2014)

    2014

  33. [42]

    M. A. McLaughlin, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 224008 (2013)

    2013

  34. [43]

    Hobbs, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 224007 (2013)

    G. Hobbs, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 224007 (2013)

    2013

  35. [44]

    Luo et al

    J. Luo et al. , Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 035010 (2016)

    2016

  36. [45]

    Laser interferometer space antenna,

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. , “Laser interferometer space antenna,” (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Z. A. et al. (NANOGrav Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal Letters 905, L34 (2020)

    2020

  38. [47]

    R. D. Ferdman et al. , Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 084014 (2010)

    2010

  39. [48]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, Physics Reports 924, 1 (2021). 15

    2021

  40. [49]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Classi cal and Quantum Gravity 35, 063001 (2018)

    2018

  41. [50]

    M. P. Hertzberg and M. Yamada, Physical Review D 97 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.97.083509

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 48, 043001 (2021)

    2021

  43. [52]

    Sato-Polito, E

    G. Sato-Polito, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063521 (2019)

    2019

  44. [53]

    Niikura, M

    H. Niikura, M. Takada, S. Yokoyama, T. Sumi, and S. Masak i, Physical Review D 99 (2019), 10.1103/physrevd.99.083503

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    Laha, Phys

    R. Laha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251101 (2019)

    2019

  46. [55]

    Dasgupta, R

    B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101101 (2020)

    2020

  47. [56]

    Griest, A

    K. Griest, A. M. Cieplak, and M. J. Lehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 181302 (2013)

    2013

  48. [57]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, E

    Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123523 (2017)

    2017

  49. [58]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud and M

    Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud and M. Kamionkowski,Phys. Rev. D 95, 043534 (2017)

    2017

  50. [59]

    B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J. 201, 1 (1975)

    1975

  51. [60]

    Harada, C.-M

    T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo, and K. Kohri, Phys. Rev. D 88, 084051 (2013)

    2013

  52. [61]

    Musco and J

    I. Musco and J. C. Miller, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 145009 (2013) . 16

    2013

Pith tools

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