Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Non-linear effects on the Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background anisotropies

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a non-perturbative Sachs-Wolfe mapping for the cosmological gravitational wave background and shows that, for a scale-invariant inflationary spectrum with negligible primordial non-Gaussianity, the energy density…

desk verdict A real all-orders CGWB result, but Section 3 drops a factor (4-ngwb) and the headline bispectrum numbers are wrong as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15654 v2 pith:KQDIJ2LI submitted 2024-12-20 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Alina Mierna , Sabino Matarrese , Nicola Bartolo , Angelo Ricciardone This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th
keywords cosmologicalgravitationalwavebackgroundanisotropiesnon-perturbativeSachs-Wolfeeffectlognormalfieldbispectrumprimordialnon-Gaussianityinflationarytensormodesintermittency
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 derives a non-perturbative description of large-scale anisotropies in the cosmological gravitational wave background (CGWB), going beyond the first-order Boltzmann treatment. The central claim is that for a background generated by quantum tensor fluctuations during inflation, with a scale-invariant spectrum ($n_{\rm gwb}=0$) and negligible primordial non-Gaussianity, the large-scale anisotropy is exactly $\Gamma_0 = -\zeta$, so the energy density perturbation $\delta_{\rm GW} = A e^{-\zeta} - 1$ (with $A$ fixed by the zero-mean condition) is lognormally distributed whenever the curvature perturbation $\zeta$ is Gaussian. This gives an exact connected three-point function $W^{(3)}(x_1,x_2,x_3) = e^{\langle \zeta_1 \zeta_2 \rangle + \langle \zeta_2 \zeta_3 \rangle + \langle \zeta_1 \zeta_3 \rangle} - e^{\langle \zeta_1 \zeta_2 \rangle} - e^{\langle \zeta_2 \zeta_3 \rangle} - e^{\langle \zeta_1 \zeta_3 \rangle} + 2$ and an effective nonlinearity parameter $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm GW} = f_{\rm NL} - 5/6$. Because the derivation is non-perturbative, the result holds at every order in the scalar perturbations rather than only at leading order. A sympathetic reader cares because CGWB anisotropies are a future observable and their non-Gaussian statistics can discriminate between inflationary and astrophysical backgrounds.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the graviton phase-space distribution function written in the all-orders form $f_{\rm GW}(q,\Gamma) \propto (q e^{-\Gamma})^{n_{\rm gwb}-4}$, where $\Gamma$ is the dimensionless graviton energy perturbation and $n_{\rm gwb}$ the spectral index of the background. Liouville's theorem (the collisionless Boltzmann equation, $df_{\rm GW}/d\eta=0$) makes the distribution constant along null geodesics, so the observed anisotropy is fixed by the ratio of emitted and observed comoving momenta. That ratio is computed non-perturbatively by absorbing superhorizon scalar perturbations into a redefined scale factor and time, $\tilde a = e^{-\Phi}a$, $d\tilde\eta = e^{\Psi+\Phi}d\eta$, and integrating the time component of the graviton geodesic equation, giving $\Gamma_0$ as an exponentiated combination of the potentials $\Phi$, $\Psi$. The correlation functions then follow from the path-integral generating functional $Z[J] = \int \mathcal{D}[\zeta] P[\zeta] e^{i\int d\vec x\, J(\vec x)(A e^{-\zeta(\vec x)}-1)}$, which turns the lognormal form of $\delta_{\rm GW}$ into closed-form expressions for all $n$-point functions via the standard identity for exponentials of a Gaussian field.

What would settle it

Derive the graviton distribution function to all orders from the inflationary tensor-scalar system: if the momentum dependence is not exactly $(q e^{-\Gamma})^{n_{\rm gwb}-4}$, the predicted lognormal $\delta_{\rm GW}$ and exact three-point function fail. Observationally, measure the CGWB bispectrum on large angular scales with a future detector network; for $n_{\rm gwb}=0$ it must have the shape and amplitude set by $W^{(3)}(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ with effective $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm GW} = f_{\rm NL} - 5/6$, so a measurement with a clearly different amplitude or angular dependence would rule out the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the linear relation between the observed graviton energy-density perturbation and the metric perturbations is only the first term of an exact all-orders mapping. Using the collisionless Boltzmann equation and the assumed form $f_{\rm GW}(q,\Gamma) \propto (q e^{-\Gamma})^{n_{\rm gwb}-4}$ for the graviton distribution, it obtains the non-perturbative initial conditions and Sachs-Wolfe effect $\Gamma_0 = \frac{-2\Psi(\eta_{\rm in})+4\Phi(\eta_{\rm in})}{4-n_{\rm gwb}(q)} + \Psi(\eta_{\rm in}) + \int_{\eta_{\rm in}}^{\eta_0} d\eta\,(\Phi' + \Psi')$. Rewritten in terms of the comoving curvature perturbation, $\Gamma_0 = -\frac{2}{3}\frac{6-n_{\rm gwb}}{4-n_{\rm gwb}}\zeta - \frac{2}{3}\frac{n_{\rm gwb}}{4-n_{\rm gwb}}K$, with $K$ a non-local kernel coming from gravitational slip. For the scale-invariant inflationary case $n_{\rm gwb}=0$ the kernel vanishes identically and $\Gamma_0 = -\zeta$ for every configuration, not only in the squeezed limit. Consequently $\delta_{\rm GW} = A e^{-\zeta} - 1$ is lognormal if $\zeta$ is Gaussian, the connected two-point function is $e^{\langle\zeta_1\zeta_2\rangle}-1$, the connected three-point function is $e^{\langle\zeta_1\zeta_2\rangle+\langle\zeta_2\zeta_3\rangle+\langle\zeta_1\zeta_3\rangle} - e^{\langle\zeta_1\zeta_2\rangle} - e^{\langle\zeta_2\zeta_3\rangle} - e^{\langle\zeta_1\zeta_3\rangle} + 2$, and the effective nonlinearity parameter is $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm GW} = f_{\rm NL} - 5/6$; hence even a vanishing primordial $f_{\rm NL}$ leaves a residual bispectrum from post-inflationary nonlinear evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's "exact at any order" conclusions stand on the assumption, stated as equation (2.10), that the full graviton distribution function has the power-law-exponential form $f_{\rm GW}(q,\Gamma) \propto (q e^{-\Gamma})^{n_{\rm gwb}-4}$; this form is chosen to reproduce the linear result but is not derived from the underlying theory, and if the true distribution differs the lognormal energy density and the exact three-point function do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a scale-invariant spectrum ($n_{\rm gwb}=0$) the non-local kernel $K$ drops out, so the large-scale Sachs-Wolfe anisotropy is exactly $\Gamma_0=-\zeta$ and is insensitive to gravitational slip for every configuration; slip effects are confined to the integrated Sachs-Wolfe piece.
  • The lognormal form fixes all connected correlators in terms of the curvature two-point function; the exact three-point function is $W^{(3)}(x_1,x_2,x_3) = e^{\langle\zeta_1\zeta_2\rangle+\langle\zeta_2\zeta_3\rangle+\langle\zeta_1\zeta_3\rangle} - e^{\langle\zeta_1\zeta_2\rangle} - e^{\langle\zeta_2\zeta_3\rangle} - e^{\langle\zeta_1\zeta_3\rangle} + 2$.
  • The effective bispectrum nonlinearity parameter is $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm GW} = f_{\rm NL} - 5/6$, so the CGWB bispectrum has an irreducible contribution of $-5/6$ even when primordial non-Gaussianity is absent.
  • Lognormal statistics imply intermittency: the GW energy density develops rare high-density spots separated by large underdense regions, giving the cosmological signal a clumpy morphology distinct from the smoother astrophysical background.
  • The non-perturbative initial conditions and Sachs-Wolfe mapping are valid at all orders in scalar perturbations and provide the template for extending the same treatment to the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, lensing, and Shapiro time delays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not stated in the paper, but a direct extension: the ansatz for the graviton distribution is the hinge, so a first-principles derivation of $f_{\rm GW}$ from inflationary tensor production would settle whether the lognormal prediction survives; a second-order mismatch would leave only the leading-order results intact.
  • A further extension: the same exponentiation applied to the integrated Sachs-Wolfe term would restore sensitivity to anisotropic stress and give an additional large-scale observable.
  • The CMB temperature and the CGWB energy density are both non-linear functions of the same $\zeta$; although the paper does not say so, their large-scale bispectra should then share a fixed relation that a joint measurement could test.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a non-perturbative treatment of large-scale anisotropies of the cosmological gravitational wave background (CGWB). Assuming a power-law-exponential form for the graviton phase-space distribution function (Eq. 2.10), the authors derive the non-linear extension of the initial conditions and Sachs-Wolfe effect, express the result in terms of the comoving curvature perturbation ζ, and compute the two- and three-point correlation functions of the GW energy-density perturbation for a scale-invariant spectrum (n_gwb = 0) with negligible primordial non-Gaussianity. They obtain a lognormal distribution for δ_GW and an 'exact' bispectrum with effective f_NL^GW = f_NL - 5/6.

Significance. The geodesic and rescaling derivations in Section 2 are internally consistent, reduce to the known linear results of [32], and the step Γ0 = -ζ for n_gwb=0 is correct. If the final statistical results were correct, the paper would provide a useful non-perturbative benchmark for CGWB anisotropy searches. However, the central formula (Eq. 3.7) contains an internal factor-of-4 inconsistency that invalidates the reported correlation functions as they stand, and the exponential ansatz (Eq. 2.10) is assumed rather than derived, so the claimed 'exactness at any order' is conditional. The paper has no free parameters and its derivations are transparent, which is a strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3.7)] The expression δ_GW = A e^{-ζ} - 1 contradicts the paper's own definitions. From Eq. (2.10) with n_gwb = 0, the distribution function is f_GW ∝ q^{-4} e^{4Γ}, so the fractional perturbation defined in Eq. (2.6) is δ_GW = e^{4Γ0}/⟨e^{4Γ0}⟩ - 1. Using Eq. (3.6) (Γ0 = -ζ) gives δ_GW = A e^{-4ζ} - 1 with A = 1/⟨e^{-4ζ}⟩, not e^{-ζ} as written. The linear limit of Eqs. (2.19) and (2.31) yields δ_GW_lin = -4ζ (for Φ=Ψ and no ISW), while Eq. (3.7) gives -ζ. Consequently, Eqs. (3.11)-(3.12) and (3.15) are the correlation functions of e^{-ζ}, not of the defined δ_GW; the correct expressions have e^{16⟨ζ_i ζ_j⟩} and an effective shift f_NL - 10/3.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (2.10)] The central statistical results rest on the assumed exponential form of the graviton distribution function, which is introduced as an ansatz rather than derived from the theory. The paper later calls the three-point function 'exact and hold at any order' (Introduction), but this exactness is only relative to the ansatz. If the true nonlinear distribution deviates from Eq. (2.10), the lognormal property and the specific bispectrum do not follow. The authors should either justify the ansatz from the structure of the nonlinear theory or explicitly state that the results are conditional on this phenomenological model and temper the 'exact' claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.21)] The exponent is written as -Γ_in(n_gwb-4); since -Γ_in(n_gwb-4) = (4-n_gwb)Γ_in, using the latter form would make the expression visibly consistent with Eq. (2.10).
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3.7)] After the factor correction, the normalization constant should be explicitly A = 1/⟨e^{-4ζ}⟩, and the text should note that the distribution is lognormal with variance 16⟨ζ^2⟩.
  3. [Conclusion] The statement that the CGWB SW effect is 'completely insensitive to gravitational slip' is specific to n_gwb = 0; for general n_gwb the kernel K does not vanish (Eq. 3.5). The text should state this restriction.
  4. [Introduction] Intermittency is invoked as a consequence of lognormality but no quantitative metric is given (e.g., a one-point PDF or a higher-moment ratio); adding one would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The lognormal bispectrum is the assumed exponential ansatz restated; Eq. (3.7) even drops the factor 4 forced by Eqs. (2.10)/(2.21), so the headline exact correlation functions are fixed by construction.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.10); Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.7)-(3.15)]
    "We can generalize this expression if we assume that it is a first-order approximation of the total graviton distribution function that can be parametrized by a power law with the additional exponential prefactor ... fGW (q, Γ) ∝ (q e−Γ)^{ngwb−4} ... δGW = A e−ζ − 1, where A = 1/⟨eΓ0⟩."

    Equation (2.10) makes the fractional perturbation in Eq. (2.21) exactly δGW = e^{(4−n)Γ}/⟨e^{(4−n)Γ}⟩−1. With n_gwb=0 and Γ0=−ζ, δGW is an exponential of a Gaussian field by definition. The lognormal statement, the exact W^(2) in (3.11), W^(3) in (3.12), and the Taylor expansion to f_NL^GW in (3.15) are standard cumulant identities for e^{Gaussian}; no gravitational dynamics enters them beyond the assumed exponential dependence. The physical part Γ0=−ζ is independently derived, but the headline statistical prediction is the input ansatz restated, not a first-principles result.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.10), (2.21), (2.31); Sec. 3, Eq. (3.7)]
    "Eq. (2.21): δGW,in = e−Γin(ngwb−4)/⟨e−Γin(ngwb−4)⟩ − 1. Eq. (2.31): Γ0 = −2Ψ(ηin, ⃗ x) + 4Φ(ηin, ⃗ x) 4 − ngwb(q) + Ψ(ηin, ⃗ x) + ∫dη(Φ′+Ψ′). Eq. (3.7): δGW = A e−ζ − 1, where A = 1/⟨eΓ0⟩."

    By the paper's own definitions, for ngwb=0 Eq. (2.21) gives δGW=e^{4Γin}/⟨e^{4Γin}⟩−1; combining with Eq. (2.31) and Γ0=−ζ yields δGW=e^{−4ζ}/⟨e^{−4ζ}⟩−1. Eq. (3.7) instead sets δGW=Ae^{−ζ}−1, so the exact W^(2) and W^(3) in Eqs. (3.11)-(3.12) are correlations of an ad hoc e^{−ζ} variable, not of the δGW defined in Section 2. Consistency would produce W^(2)=e^{16⟨ζ1ζ2⟩}−1 and correspondingly 16-weighted three-point terms. Thus the headline numerical bispectrum and the f_NL^GW shift are fixed by the choice of exponent, i.e., by construction rather than by the derived Γ0.

full rationale

The genuinely derived part of the paper is the non-perturbative Sachs-Wolfe relation, Eq. (2.31), which for ngwb=0 yields Γ0=−ζ; this comes from the redefined metric and the graviton geodesic equation and is not circular. Circularity enters when this Γ0 is inserted into the assumed exponential distribution Eq. (2.10): the lognormal δGW and the exact W^(3) are then mathematical identities for a lognormal variable, so the abstract's claim that the three-point correlation is derived is really a restatement of the ansatz. The factor-of-4 mismatch between Eqs. (2.21)/(2.31) and Eq. (3.7) strengthens this reading: the paper replaces the object forced by its own definitions (e^{−4ζ}) with e^{−ζ}, so the specific coefficients in the exact bispectrum and in f_NL^GW are chosen, not computed. Self-citations to [27], [31], and [32] are not the load-bearing problem: the lognormal cumulant identities are standard and the initial conditions are largely rederived; the issue is the unvalidated exponential form of the graviton distribution, which makes the central statistical predictions equivalent to their input by construction. Score 7 rather than 8 because Γ0=−ζ and the geodesic/initial-condition part retain independent physical content.

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

The central claim depends on a set of assumptions, the most load-bearing being the exponential power-law form of the graviton distribution function (eq. 2.10). No parameters are fitted to data in this paper; n_gwb and f_NL are model inputs, and A is fixed by the zero-mean normalization.

assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper The graviton distribution function has the exact all-orders form f_GW(q, Γ) ∝ (q e^{-Γ})^{n_gwb - 4}.
    Introduced in Section 2 (after eq. 2.9) to enable the non-perturbative resummation; it is the key premise behind the lognormal result and is not derived from underlying theory.
  • domain assumption Superhorizon scalar perturbations Φℓ, Ψℓ have negligible spatial gradients and can be absorbed into a redefined FLRW metric via ã = e^{-Φℓ} a, dη̃ = e^{Ψℓ+Φℓ} dη, h̃_ij = e^{2Φℓ} h_ij.
    Section 2.1, eq. (2.13)-(2.15); standard gradient-expansion assumption for long-wavelength modes.
  • domain assumption Vector perturbations and large-scale tensor perturbations are negligible at all orders.
    Section 2.1; standard for standard inflation, but an assumption about the perturbation content.
  • domain assumption The comoving curvature perturbation ζ is Gaussian (negligible primordial non-Gaussianity in standard single-field inflation).
    Section 3, after eq. (3.10); necessary for the lognormal form and the explicit three-point function.
  • domain assumption Adiabaticity holds for standard radiation and matter perturbations, and the GW contribution to the total energy density is negligible.
    Footnote 2 in Section 3; needed to treat the total fluid as a single adiabatic component.
  • domain assumption The observable GW modes reenter the horizon during radiation domination (w = 1/3).
    Section 3, after eq. (3.2); sets the numerical coefficients in ζ = -Φ - (1/2)Ψ.
  • standard math Geometric optics (shortwave approximation) for GWs and Liouville theorem for collisionless gravitons.
    Sections 2 and 2.1; standard framework for CGWB anisotropies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-linear effects on the Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background anisotropies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KQDIJ2LI

@misc{pith2026241215654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-linear effects on the Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background anisotropies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KQDIJ2LI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15654}
}
read the original abstract

The Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background (CGWB) anisotropies contain valuable information about the physics of the early universe. Given that General Relativity is intrinsically nonlinear, it is important to look beyond first-order contributions in cosmological perturbations. In this work, we present a non-perturbative approach for the computation of CGWB anisotropies at large scales, providing the extension of the initial conditions and the Sachs-Wolfe effect for the CGWB, which encodes the full non-linearity of the scalar metric perturbations. We also derive the non-perturbative expression for three-point correlation of the gravitational wave energy density perturbation in the case of an inflationary CGWB with a scale-invariant power spectrum and negligible primordial non-Gaussianity. We show that, under such conditions, the gravitational wave energy density perturbations are lognormally distributed, leading to an interesting effect such as intermittency.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. \texttt{GWBird}: a toolkit for the characterization of the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background for Ground, Space, and Pulsar Timing Array detectors

    astro-ph.IM 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new, unified Python package computes overlap reduction functions, power-law integrated sensitivity curves, and angular sensitivity curves for ground, space, and pulsar timing array detectors across all gravitational...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [32]

    Inflationary initial conditions for the cosmological gravitational wave background,

    L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, A. Mierna, S. Matarrese, and A. Ricciardone, “Inflationary initial conditions for the cosmological gravitational wave background,”JCAP, vol. 07, p. 043, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background,

    G. Agazieet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background,” Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 951, no. 1, p. L8, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals,

    J. Antoniadiset al., “The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals,”Astron. Astrophys., vol. 678, p. A50, 2023

    2023

  4. [3]

    Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,

    D. J. Reardonet al., “Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,”Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 951, no. 1, p. L6, 2023

    2023

  5. [4]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics,

    A. Afzalet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics,” Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 951, no. 1, p. L11, 2023. – 9 –

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Constraints on Supermassive Black Hole Binaries from the Gravitational-wave Background,

    G. Agazieet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Constraints on Supermassive Black Hole Binaries from the Gravitational-wave Background,”Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 952, no. 2, p. L37, 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - IV. Implications for massive black holes, dark matter, and the early Universe,

    J. Antoniadiset al., “The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - IV. Implications for massive black holes, dark matter, and the early Universe,”Astron. Astrophys., vol. 685, p. A94, 2024

    2024

  8. [7]

    Recent Gravitational Wave Observation by Pulsar Timing Arrays and Primordial Black Holes: The Importance of Non-Gaussianities,

    G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermae, “Recent Gravitational Wave Observation by Pulsar Timing Arrays and Primordial Black Holes: The Importance of Non-Gaussianities,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 131, no. 20, p. 201401, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Footprints of the QCD Crossover on Cosmological Gravitational Waves at Pulsar Timing Arrays,

    G. Franciolini, D. Racco, and F. Rompineve, “Footprints of the QCD Crossover on Cosmological Gravitational Waves at Pulsar Timing Arrays,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 132, no. 8, p. 081001, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Cosmic superstrings revisited in light of NANOGrav 15-year data,

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, C. Lin, and V. Vaskonen, “Cosmic superstrings revisited in light of NANOGrav 15-year data,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 108, no. 10, p. 103511, 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    Inflationary interpretation of the stochastic gravitational wave background signal detected by pulsar timing array experiments,

    S. Vagnozzi, “Inflationary interpretation of the stochastic gravitational wave background signal detected by pulsar timing array experiments,”JHEAp, vol. 39, pp. 81–98, 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    Cosmological Background Interpretation of Pulsar Timing Array Data,

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and P. Simakachorn, “Cosmological Background Interpretation of Pulsar Timing Array Data,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 132, no. 17, p. 171002, 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    Mapping the gravitational wave background,

    N. J. Cornish, “Mapping the gravitational wave background,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 18, pp. 4277–4292, 2001

    2001

  6. [13]

    Primordial gravity wave background anisotropies,

    V. Alba and J. Maldacena, “Primordial gravity wave background anisotropies,”JHEP, vol. 03, p. 115, 2016

    2016

  7. [14]

    Anisotropies of Gravitational Wave Backgrounds: A Line Of Sight Approach,

    C. R. Contaldi, “Anisotropies of Gravitational Wave Backgrounds: A Line Of Sight Approach,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 771, pp. 9–12, 2017

    2017

  8. [15]

    Probing anisotropies of the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with LISA,

    N. Bartoloet al., “Probing anisotropies of the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with LISA,” JCAP, vol. 11, p. 009, 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    Anisotropies and non-Gaussianity of the Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background,

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, A. Ricciardone, A. Riotto, and G. Tasinato, “Anisotropies and non-Gaussianity of the Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 100, no. 12, p. 121501, 2019

    2019

  10. [17]

    Imprint of relativistic particles on the anisotropies of the stochastic gravitational-wave background,

    L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, A. Ricciardone, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, and S. Matarrese, “Imprint of relativistic particles on the anisotropies of the stochastic gravitational-wave background,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 103, no. 2, p. 023522, 2021

    2021

  11. [18]

    GW_CLASS: Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background in the cosmic linear anisotropy solving system,

    F. Schulze, L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, J. Lesgourgues, A. Ricciardone, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, C. Fidler, and S. Matarrese, “GW_CLASS: Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background in the cosmic linear anisotropy solving system,”JCAP, vol. 10, p. 025, 2023

    2023

  12. [19]

    Gravitational wave anisotropies from primordial black holes,

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, A. Ricciardone, A. Riotto, and G. Tasinato, “Gravitational wave anisotropies from primordial black holes,” JCAP, vol. 02, p. 028, 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    Cross-Correlating Astrophysical and Cosmological Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with the Cosmic Microwave Background,

    A. Ricciardone, L. V. Dall’Armi, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, M. Liguori, and S. Matarrese, “Cross-Correlating Astrophysical and Cosmological Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with the Cosmic Microwave Background,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 127, no. 27, p. 271301, 2021

    2021

  14. [21]

    Characterizing the cosmological gravitational wave background: Anisotropies and non-Gaussianity,

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, A. Ricciardone, A. Riotto, and G. Tasinato, “Characterizing the cosmological gravitational wave background: Anisotropies and non-Gaussianity,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 102, no. 2, p. 023527, 2020. – 10 –

    2020

  15. [22]

    Non-Gaussianity from the cross-correlation of the astrophysical Gravitational Wave Background and the Cosmic Microwave Background,

    G. Perna, A. Ricciardone, D. Bertacca, and S. Matarrese, “Non-Gaussianity from the cross-correlation of the astrophysical Gravitational Wave Background and the Cosmic Microwave Background,”JCAP, vol. 10, p. 014, 2023

    2023

  16. [23]

    Higher order gravitational perturbations of the cosmic microwave background,

    T. Pyne and S. M. Carroll, “Higher order gravitational perturbations of the cosmic microwave background,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 53, pp. 2920–2929, 1996

    1996

  17. [24]

    Cosmic microwave background anisotropies from second order gravitational perturbations,

    S. Mollerach and S. Matarrese, “Cosmic microwave background anisotropies from second order gravitational perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 56, pp. 4494–4502, 1997

    1997

  18. [25]

    Non-Gaussianity in the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies at Recombination in the Squeezed limit,

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, “Non-Gaussianity in the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies at Recombination in the Squeezed limit,”JCAP, vol. 02, p. 017, 2012

    2012

  19. [26]

    Sachs-Wolfe at second order: the CMB bispectrum on large angular scales,

    L. Boubekeur, P. Creminelli, G. D’Amico, J. Norena, and F. Vernizzi, “Sachs-Wolfe at second order: the CMB bispectrum on large angular scales,”JCAP, vol. 08, p. 029, 2009

    2009

  20. [27]

    Non-Gaussianity of Large-Scale Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies beyond Perturbation Theory,

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, “Non-Gaussianity of Large-Scale Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies beyond Perturbation Theory,”JCAP, vol. 08, p. 010, 2005

    2005

  21. [28]

    CMB anisotropies at all orders: the non-linear Sachs-Wolfe formula,

    O. Roldan, “CMB anisotropies at all orders: the non-linear Sachs-Wolfe formula,”JCAP, vol. 08, p. 034, 2017

    2017

  22. [29]

    Anisotropies of cosmological gravitational wave backgrounds in non-flat spacetime,

    R.-G. Cai, S.-J. Wang, Z.-Y. Yuwen, and X.-X. Zeng, “Anisotropies of cosmological gravitational wave backgrounds in non-flat spacetime,” 10 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

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

    M. Bragliaet al., “Gravitational waves from inflation in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,”JCAP, vol. 11, p. 032, 2024

    2024

  24. [31]

    Adiabatic or Non-Adiabatic? Unraveling the Nature of Initial Conditions in the Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background,

    L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, A. Mierna, S. Matarrese, and A. Ricciardone, “Adiabatic or Non-Adiabatic? Unraveling the Nature of Initial Conditions in the Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background,” 7 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Updated constraints on amplitude and tilt of the tensor primordial spectrum,

    G. Galloni, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Migliaccio, A. Ricciardone, and N. Vittorio, “Updated constraints on amplitude and tilt of the tensor primordial spectrum,”JCAP, vol. 04, p. 062, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Nonlinear evolution of long-wavelength metric fluctuations in inflationary models,

    D. S. Salopek and J. R. Bond, “Nonlinear evolution of long-wavelength metric fluctuations in inflationary models,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 42, pp. 3936–3962, Dec 1990

    1990

  27. [35]

    R. A. Isaacson,Gravitational Radiation in the Limit of High Frequency. PhD thesis, Maryland U., 1967

    1967

  28. [36]

    Cosmological influence of super-Hubble perturbations,

    E. W. Kolb, S. Matarrese, A. Notari, and A. Riotto, “Cosmological influence of super-Hubble perturbations,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A, vol. 20, pp. 2705–2710, 2005

    2005

  29. [37]

    A General proof of the conservation of the curvature perturbation,

    D. H. Lyth, K. A. Malik, and M. Sasaki, “A General proof of the conservation of the curvature perturbation,” JCAP, vol. 05, p. 004, 2005

    2005

  30. [38]

    New horizons for fundamental physics with LISA,

    K. G. Arunet al., “New horizons for fundamental physics with LISA,”Living Rev. Rel., vol. 25, no. 1, p. 4, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs,

    M. Branchesiet al., “Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs,” JCAP, vol. 07, p. 068, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO,

    D. Reitzeet al., “Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO,” Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., vol. 51, no. 7, p. 035, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer,

    V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish, “Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 23, pp. 2435–2446, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO,

    S. Kawamuraet al., “The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 23, pp. S125–S132, 2006. – 11 –

    2006

  35. [43]

    Ramond,Field theory: a modern primer, vol

    P. Ramond,Field theory: a modern primer, vol. 51. 1981

    1981

  36. [44]

    Zinn-Justin,Quantum field theory and critical phenomena, vol

    J. Zinn-Justin,Quantum field theory and critical phenomena, vol. 77 ofInternational Series of Monographs on Physics. Oxford University Press, 4 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Non-gaussian statistics and the microwave background radiation,

    P. Coles and J. D. Barrow, “Non-gaussian statistics and the microwave background radiation,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 228, pp. 407–426, 09 1987

    1987

  38. [46]

    Improving lognormal models for cosmological fields,

    H. S. Xavier, F. B. Abdalla, and B. Joachimi, “Improving lognormal models for cosmological fields,” Mon. Not. Roy.Astron. Soc., vol. 459, no. 4, pp. 3693–3710, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    The Origin of spatial intermittency in the galaxy distribution,

    P. Coles, “The Origin of spatial intermittency in the galaxy distribution,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 330, p. 421, 2002

    2002

  40. [48]

    Intermittency in random media,

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, S. A. Molchanov, A. A. Ruzma˘ ıkin, and D. D. Sokolov, “Intermittency in random media,” Soviet Physics Uspekhi, vol. 30, p. 353, may 1987

    1987

  41. [49]

    The Large scale structure of the universe: Turbulence, intermittency, structures in a selfgravitating medium,

    S. F. Schandarin and Y. B. Zeldovich, “The Large scale structure of the universe: Turbulence, intermittency, structures in a selfgravitating medium,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 61, pp. 185–220, 1989

    1989

  42. [50]

    The Three point correlation function of the cosmic microwave background in inflationary models,

    A. Gangui, F. Lucchin, S. Matarrese, and S. Mollerach, “The Three point correlation function of the cosmic microwave background in inflationary models,”Astrophys. J., vol. 430, pp. 447–457, 1994

    1994

  43. [51]

    The Cosmic Microwave Background bispectrum as a test of the physics of inflation and probe of the astrophysics of the low-redshift Universe,

    E. Komatsu and D. N. Spergel, “The Cosmic Microwave Background bispectrum as a test of the physics of inflation and probe of the astrophysics of the low-redshift Universe,” in 9th Marcel Grossmann Meeting (MG 9), pp. 2009–2012, 12 2000

    2009

  44. [52]

    How Well Do We Know the Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves?,

    A. J. Iovino, S. Matarrese, G. Perna, A. Ricciardone, and A. Riotto, “How Well Do We Know the Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves?,” 12 2024. – 12 –

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.