Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

The gravitational wave strain a detector measures at second order in cosmological perturbation theory is exactly the transverse-traceless metric perturbation in the Newton gauge — an identification that resolves the gauge ambiguity in predi

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:43 UTC pith:FSZDXWB2

load-bearing objection Real step toward settling the induced-GW gauge question, with a clean Newton-gauge answer—but the load-bearing algebra is deferred, so treat the result as conditional until the companion derivation is out. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.15704 v3 pith:FSZDXWB2 submitted 2025-12-17 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

Observable Gravitational Wave Strain at Second Order

Guillem Dom\`enech , Shi Pi , Ao Wang This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th MSC 83C3583C2583F05 PACS 04.30.-w98.80.-k
keywords gravitational wavessecond-order perturbation theorygauge invarianceinduced gravitational wavesNewton gaugetransverse-traceless straincosmic geodesic clocktime delay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper establishes what a gravitational-wave detector actually measures at second order in cosmological perturbation theory. By modeling a cosmic geodesic clock — two free-falling observers exchanging light signals — the authors compute the gauge-invariant time delay and redshift caused by gravitational waves without fixing a gauge. They find that the quadrupole part of the second-order time delay is proportional to the gauge-invariant combination that equals the transverse-traceless metric in the Newton gauge. If correct, this settles the gauge ambiguity plaguing predictions for induced gravitational waves: spectra computed in the Newton gauge are the physical, observable ones. The result also clarifies that a time-independent constant strain does not affect redshift-based measurements but behaves like a memory effect in time-delay measurements.

Core claim

The paper claims that the gravitational wave strain measured by geodesic observers exchanging electromagnetic signals at second order in cosmological perturbation theory coincides with the transverse-traceless (TT) components of the spatial metric in the Newton gauge. Concretely, the second-order time delay τ_rf^(2) and the induced redshift z_GW^(2) receive quadrupole contributions proportional to the line-of-sight integral of h_N^(2)_ij, where h_N^(2)_ij ≡ h_ij^(2) + P_ij^lk(σ_l^(1)σ_k^(1) + E_,lm^(1)E_,mk^(1)) is the gauge-invariant combination that reduces to the TT part in Newton gauge. Since the computation is performed without fixing any gauge, the identification is not a coordinate ar

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the cosmic geodesic clock: two geodesic observers (generalized to a sphere of detectors to isolate the quadrupole) exchanging null geodesics in a perturbed FLRW spacetime. The second-order time delay is obtained by iteratively solving the null condition and the boundary condition at reception in terms of proper time. The load-bearing identity is Eq. (8)/(11): after integration by parts, the quadrupole part of the time delay and redshift is a line-of-sight integral of h_N^(2)_ij, with h_N^(2)_ij (Eq. 9) defined as the TT part of the metric in Newton gauge plus scalar-squared corrections. The quadrupole selection — terms proportional to n^i n^j — is what picks out grav

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the completeness and correctness of the compressed second-order derivation — especially the integration by parts in Eq. (E14), whose full details are deferred to a companion paper — and on h_N^(2) as defined (including only scalar-squared terms) being the complete gauge-invariant transverse-traceless strain for all sources.

What would settle it

Perform an independent, full second-order integration of the null geodesic and boundary equations (without using Eq. E14) including scalar-tensor source terms; if the quadrupole time delay differs from the line-of-sight integral of h_N^(2) by gauge-dependent boundary terms, the identification fails. A numerical simulation of induced GWs that computes the geodesic-clock response exactly and compares with the Newton-gauge h_N^(2) prediction would settle it.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Induced gravitational wave spectra computed in the Newton gauge become the direct, gauge-free prediction for pulsar timing arrays, space-borne interferometers, and Doppler tracking.
  • A time-independent constant strain does not contribute to the redshift or timing residual, so it will be invisible to standard PTA and CMB B-mode searches; only time-delay measurements calibrated before the strain builds up can see it as a memory effect.
  • The identification applies to any cosmic GW source, not just scalar-induced ones, so Newton-gauge tensor predictions are generally what detectors measure.
  • The separate gauge ambiguity in defining the GW energy density and its backreaction on the background is explicitly not settled by this work; strain observability and energy-density gauge issues remain distinct.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: A direct experimental cross-check would be to reconstruct the line-of-sight integral of h_N^(2)' from PTA timing residuals and compare it with Newton-gauge predictions computed from the same primordial scalar spectrum; agreement would confirm the identification beyond the theoretical derivation.
  • Inference: The geodesic-clock calculation suggests that a future space-borne constellation of free-falling satellites exchanging inter-satellite laser links could measure the second-order strain in a genuinely gauge-free way, effectively realizing the sphere-of-detectors thought experiment.
  • Inference: Extending the computation to include scalar-tensor terms would either confirm h_N^(2) as the full observable or reveal residual gauge dependence; this is the most direct next test of the claim's scope.
  • Inference: If the constant-mode memory effect is real, then detectors calibrated before an early matter-dominated era could in principle see a permanent displacement of test masses; a null result would constrain how such modes are generated or whether they couple to detectors at all.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper computes, at second order in cosmological perturbation theory, the proper-time delay and redshift of electromagnetic signals exchanged between two geodesic observers in a perturbed FLRW universe, without fixing a gauge. Restricting to the quadrupole (n_i n_j) part of the signal, the authors claim that the time delay (Eq. 8) and redshift (Eq. 11) depend on the gauge-invariant combination h_N^(2)_ij defined in Eq. (9), which coincides with the transverse-traceless component of the spatial metric in the Newton gauge. The paper concludes that the Newton-gauge TT strain is the physical observable for induced GWs, thereby settling the long-standing gauge debate.

Significance. If correct, this is an important step: it provides an operational, gauge-invariant definition of second-order GW strain and justifies the common practice of computing induced GW spectra in the Newton gauge. The paper validates the first-order formalism against known results (e.g., the PTA redshift, Eq. 10) and explicitly constructs gauge-invariant quantities. However, the central second-order identity is not fully derived in this manuscript and relies on an unpublished companion paper, so the significance is conditional at this stage.

major comments (4)
  1. [End Matter, Eq. (E14)] The main result (8) rests on the unstated identity 'After several integration by parts...' in Eq. (E14). This step connects the second-order null-geodesic integral (E13) to the claimed quadrupole form; it is sensitive to boundary terms and to first-order photon/observer displacements. The full derivation is deferred to ref. [62] (in preparation), so the central claim cannot be verified from the manuscript alone. Please provide the explicit intermediate algebra, including all boundary terms, or an appendix with the complete derivation. In addition, an independent check would be valuable, e.g., the de Sitter or flat-space limit, or a numerical/gauge-transformation consistency test.
  2. [End Matter, after Eq. (E23)] The statement that 'second-order geodesics does not contribute to the quadrupole' is asserted without demonstration. If this cancellation is incomplete, additional observer-motion terms would appear in Eq. (8) and the identification with h_N^(2) would fail. Please show explicitly how Eqs. (E20)-(E23) cancel in Eq. (E24), or provide the calculation.
  3. [Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion claim the result holds for 'any cosmic source' and that the gauge issue of induced GWs is settled, but the computation only includes scalar-squared contributions to h_N^(2) (Eq. 9); the paper later states that scalar-tensor contributions are left for future work. The claim should be scoped to scalar-scalar induced GWs, or the full gauge-invariant tensor combination for all sources must be defined and shown to emerge from the same calculation.
  4. [Conclusion, non-geodesic observers] The generalization to non-geodesic detectors such as LIGO is asserted, not derived. The sentence 'external forces only affect the subtraction...' is not obvious and should either be justified or explicitly marked as a conjecture.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The h_ij term appears to be missing the factor 1/2 that is present in Eq. (3a) and Eq. (10). Please check the consistency of this expression with the time-delay result.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The coefficient \frac{a'_{rf}}{2a^2_{rf}} - \frac{a^4_{rf}}{2w^2_f} L is not transparent dimensionally; please verify the prefactor and clarify the definition of w_f.
  3. [General] There are typographical errors such as 'infinitessimal' and 'milisecond'; also, the figure referenced in the text is not reproduced in the manuscript text provided, so its readability cannot be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction; the central result is a direct (though compressed) geodesic calculation, with self-citations supplying definitions rather than the answer.

full rationale

The central relation Eq. (8) is not obtained by defining the time delay to equal h_N^(2)_ij; it is stated as the outcome of the second-order null-geodesic integration, with h_N^(2)_ij (Eq. 9) a previously constructed gauge-invariant TT combination [63]. The paper's new claim is the identification of the quadrupole part of the time delay/redshift with that combination. No equation in the manuscript sets the observable equal to h_N^(2) by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only genuinely self-referential load is the definition of h_N^(2) from the same group's earlier work and the benchmark [51]; these are mathematical definitions or an assumption, not an unverified uniqueness theorem, and the present computation is not logically forced by them. The main omissions — the compressed 'After several integration by parts...' step at End Matter Eq. (E14), full details deferred to the in-preparation companion paper [62], the restriction to scalar-squared contributions, and the asserted but not derived extension to non-geodesic LIGO observers — are completeness/verifiability concerns rather than circular reductions. Accordingly no significant circularity is found; score 2 reflects the minor self-citation and deferred-proof caveats.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted: the paper is a pure perturbative computation. The assumptions are structural: neglect of vectors, restriction to the n_i n_j (quadrupole) sector as the GW effect, adoption of h_N^(2) from the authors' prior work [63] as the relevant gauge-invariant combination, and the geodesic EM-observer model standing in for general GW detectors. None introduce free parameters, but each delimits the scope of the 'settling the debate' claim.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Standard cosmological perturbation theory to second order about a flat FLRW background (metric Eq. 2), including scalar-vector-tensor decomposition.
    Used throughout; no alternative framework is considered. Background geodesic/affine setup is standard.
  • domain assumption Vector fluctuations are neglected ('ignoring vector fluctuations for simplicity', near Eq. 2).
    Consistent for scalar-scalar induced GWs but restricts the generality of the claim.
  • domain assumption The GW contribution is isolated as the n^i n^j (quadrupole) part of the time delay/redshift; all ΔX observer-motion terms are classified as non-GW.
    Loaded into the definition of 'measured strain'; a different decomposition would give a different measured quantity. Discussed near Eqs. (8) and (11).
  • domain assumption h_N^(2)_ij (Eq. 9), taken from ref [63], is the complete gauge-invariant TT combination relevant at second order.
    Only scalar-squared corrections σσ and ∇∇E are included; scalar-tensor and tensor-tensor contributions are not computed (explicitly deferred in the Conclusion).
  • domain assumption Geodesic observers exchanging EM signals faithfully represent GW detectors; non-geodesic detectors (LIGO) behave identically for the propagating GW part.
    Asserted in the Conclusion; the geodesic-deviation check of h_N^(2) is left to future work.
  • domain assumption Initial-condition terms in the time delay (Eqs. 5-6) can be removed by calibration or by using the redshift observable.
    The paper shows redshift removes them; for the time delay, dropping initial displacements is a stated choice (text preceding Eq. 8).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13327 in / 21396 out tokens · 197943 ms · 2026-08-03T15:43:30.794410+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

There is currently no rigorous definition of gravitational wave strain at second order in cosmological perturbation theory. The usual association of gravitational waves with transverse and traceless fluctuations of the metric on spatial hypersurfaces becomes ambiguous at second order, as it inherently depends on the spacetime slicing. While this poses no practical issues in linearized gravity, it presents a fundamental problem for secondary gravitational waves, especially notorious for gravitational waves induced by primordial fluctuations. We compute, for the first time, the observable gravitational wave strain at second order, as measured by geodesic observers that emit and receive electromagnetic signals, thereby settling the debate on gauge ambiguities. Working in a gauge invariant fashion, we find that the measured gravitational wave strain coincides with the transverse-traceless components in the Newton gauge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.15704 by Ao Wang, Guillem Dom\`enech, Shi Pi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Scalar-induced gravitational waves from a box-shaped curvature power spectrum

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5

    Analytic SIGW spectra for a log-box curvature power spectrum: narrow-box geometric overlap factor turning IR slope k^{3}ln^{2}k into k^{2}ln^{2}k, plus broad-box product of universal edge functions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 82 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L9 (2023), arXiv:2306.16217 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA), Astron. Astrophys.678, A48 (2023), arXiv:2306.16224 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astrophys. 678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron. Astrophys. 685, A94 (2024), arXiv:2306.16227 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    D. J. Reardonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Zicet al., Publ

    A. Zicet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.40, e049 (2023), arXiv:2306.16230 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    D. J. Reardonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L7 (2023), arXiv:2306.16229 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Xuet al., Res

    H. Xuet al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Binetruy, A

    P. Binetruy, A. Bohe, C. Caprini, and J.-F. Dufaux, JCAP06, 027, arXiv:1201.0983 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 163001 (2018), arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Dom` enech and S

    G. Dom` enech and S. Pi, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 230411 (2022), arXiv:2010.03976 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Roshan and G

    R. Roshan and G. White, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 015001 (2025), arXiv:2401.04388 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Dom` enech, S

    G. Dom` enech, S. Pi, A. Wang, and J. Wang, JCAP08, 6 054, arXiv:2402.18965 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Bianet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.19747 [gr-qc]

    L. Bianet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.19747 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Tomita, Prog

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

    1967

  18. [18]

    Matarrese, O

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

    1993

  19. [19]

    Matarrese, O

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  20. [20]

    Bruni, S

    M. Bruni, S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach, and S. Sonego, Class. Quant. Grav.14, 2585 (1997), arXiv:gr- qc/9609040

    arXiv 1997

  21. [21]

    Matarrese and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  22. [22]

    Matarrese, S

    S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach, and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. D 58, 043504 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  23. [23]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Baumann, P

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

    arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    Yuan and Q.-G

    C. Yuan and Q.-G. Huang, iScience24, 102860 (2021), arXiv:2103.04739 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Dom` enech, Universe7, 398 (2021), arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Saito and J

    R. Saito and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 161101 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 107, 069901 (2011)], arXiv:0812.4339 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    C. T. Byrnes, P. S. Cole, and S. P. Patil, JCAP06, 028, arXiv:1811.11158 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Z.-C. Chen, C. Yuan, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 25 (2020), arXiv:1910.12239 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Z. Ren, T. Zhao, Z. Cao, Z.-K. Guo, W.-B. Han, H.- B. Jin, and Y.-L. Wu, Front. Phys. (Beijing)18, 64302 (2023), arXiv:2301.02967 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Dandoy, V

    V. Dandoy, V. Domcke, and F. Rompineve, SciPost Phys. Core6, 060 (2023), arXiv:2302.07901 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Baguiet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev

    E. Baguiet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev. Rel.28, 1 (2025), arXiv:2310.19857 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    ¨Ozsoy and G

    O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, Universe9, 203 (2023), arXiv:2301.03600 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, A. Riotto, and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP 10, 050, arXiv:2406.20089 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Luoet al., (2025), arXiv:2502.20138 [gr-qc]

    J. Luoet al., (2025), arXiv:2502.20138 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Iovino, Junior., G

    A. Iovino, Junior., G. Perna, and H. Veerm¨ ae, (2025), arXiv:2512.13648 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    R.-G. Cai, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D102, 083528 (2020), arXiv:1909.13728 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Dom` enech, S

    G. Dom` enech, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, JCAP08, 017, arXiv:2005.12314 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  41. [41]

    Dom` enech, C

    G. Dom` enech, C. Lin, and M. Sasaki, JCAP04, 062, [Erratum: JCAP 11, E01 (2021)], arXiv:2012.08151 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Liu, Z.-C

    L. Liu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, JCAP11, 071, arXiv:2307.14911 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Hwang, D

    J.-C. Hwang, D. Jeong, and H. Noh, Astrophys. J.842, 46 (2017), arXiv:1704.03500 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  45. [45]

    Tomikawa and T

    K. Tomikawa and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D101, 083529 (2020), arXiv:1910.01880 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Gong, Astrophys

    J.-O. Gong, Astrophys. J.925, 102 (2022), arXiv:1909.12708 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, JCAP03, 014, arXiv:1911.09689 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

  48. [48]

    Inomata and T

    K. Inomata and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D101, 023523 (2020), arXiv:1912.00785 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 101, 6 (2020), arXiv:1912.00885 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Chang, S

    Z. Chang, S. Wang, and Q.-H. Zhu, (2020), arXiv:2009.11994 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Dom` enech and M

    G. Dom` enech and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D103, 063531 (2021), arXiv:2012.14016 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    A. Ota, H. J. Macpherson, and W. R. Coulton, Phys. Rev. D106, 063521 (2022), arXiv:2111.09163 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu, Phys. Rev. D111, 103528 (2025), arXiv:2410.18996 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Dom` enech and J

    G. Dom` enech and J. Chluba, JCAP07, 034, arXiv:2503.13670 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    C. Yuan, Y. Lu, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu, JCAP07, 016, arXiv:2501.13691 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    R. F. Marzke and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation and rela- tivity , 40 (1964)

    1964

  57. [57]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Living Rev. Rel.20, 2 (2017), arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    F. B. Estabrook and H. D. Wahlquist, Gen. Rel. Grav. 6, 439 (1975)

    1975

  59. [59]

    J. W. Armstrong, Living Rev. Rel.9, 1 (2006)

    2006

  60. [60]

    Zwick, D

    L. Zwick, D. Soyuer, D. J. D’Orazio, D. O’Neill, A. Derdzinski, P. Saha, D. Blas, A. C. Jenkins, and L. Z. Kelley, Phys. Rev. D112, 083029 (2025), arXiv:2406.02306 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    D. R. Brill, inMethods of Local and Global Differential Geometry in General Relativity, edited by D. Farnsworth, J. Fink, J. Porter, and A. Thompson (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1972) pp. 45–47

    1972

  62. [62]

    Dom` enech, S

    G. Dom` enech, S. Pi, and A. Wang (2025), in preparation

    2025

  63. [63]

    Dom` enech and M

    G. Dom` enech and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D97, 023521 (2018), arXiv:1709.09804 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [64]

    Kodama and M

    H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 78, 1 (1984)

    1984

  65. [65]

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

    1992

  66. [66]

    K. A. Malik and D. Wands, Phys. Rept.475, 1 (2009), arXiv:0809.4944 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  67. [67]

    Bonvin and R

    C. Bonvin and R. Durrer, Phys. Rev. D84, 063505 (2011), arXiv:1105.5280 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  68. [68]

    Durrer, Fund

    R. Durrer, Fund. Cosmic Phys.15, 209 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9311041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  69. [69]

    Di Dio and R

    E. Di Dio and R. Durrer, Phys. Rev. D86, 023510 (2012), arXiv:1205.3366 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  70. [70]

    Gasperini, G

    M. Gasperini, G. Marozzi, F. Nugier, and G. Veneziano, JCAP07, 008, arXiv:1104.1167 [astro-ph.CO]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [71]

    Ben-Dayan, G

    I. Ben-Dayan, G. Marozzi, F. Nugier, and G. Veneziano, JCAP11, 045, arXiv:1209.4326 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [72]

    Bertacca, R

    D. Bertacca, R. Maartens, and C. Clarkson, JCAP11, 013, arXiv:1406.0319 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [73]

    Marozzi, Class

    G. Marozzi, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 045004 (2015), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 32, 179501 (2015)], arXiv:1406.1135 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  74. [74]

    Yoo and R

    J. Yoo and R. Durrer, JCAP09, 016, arXiv:1705.05839 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [75]

    J. L. Fuentes, J. C. Hidalgo, and K. A. Malik, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 065014 (2021), arXiv:1908.08400 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Magi and J

    M. Magi and J. Yoo, JCAP09, 071, arXiv:2204.01751 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  77. [77]

    B´ echaz, G

    P. B´ echaz, G. Fanizza, G. Marozzi, and M. R. M. Silva, (2025), arXiv:2510.25690 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    J. D. Romano and B. Allen, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 175008 (2024), arXiv:2308.05847 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    R. w. Hellings and G. s. Downs, Astrophys. J. Lett.265, L39 (1983)

    1983

  80. [80]

    Mollerach, D

    S. Mollerach, D. Harari, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D 69, 063002 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310711

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

Showing first 80 references.