Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 89 references

Late charged gauge-field spikes in inflation push scalar-induced gravitational waves to GHz and leave a charge-vs-neutral fingerprint in the spectrum shape.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 16:44 UTC pith:MOTQF72V

load-bearing objection Solid charged-extension of their large-h SIGW story, but the GHz diagnostics rest on a hand-inserted h(N) spike that fights the paper’s own constant-h attractor and the slow-roll identity used to derive the EoMs. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23646 v1 pith:MOTQF72V submitted 2026-07-26 astro-ph.CO

Scalar-induced gravitational waves from inflation with symmetry breaking

Chong-Bin Chen , Jia-Xi Feng , Fu-Wen Shu , Linjie Song This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords scalar-induced gravitational wavesinflationsymmetry breakinggauge fieldscharged scalarsstochastic gravitational-wave backgroundultra-high-frequency GWslongitudinal mode
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 studies gravitational waves made by large scalar ripples left over from inflation in a model where charged scalars couple to a symmetric set of gauge fields. When those gauge fields briefly dominate the kinetic energy, the curvature spectrum can be strongly boosted on small scales, and the second-order waves that follow can become large enough to matter observationally. The authors show that charge and the longitudinal gauge mode only reshape that boost if the spike happens late enough that the waves land near the GHz band. Two charge-related parameters then change the wave spectrum in opposite ways—one mainly suppresses the main peak and can jump which oscillatory bump is tallest, the other raises the peak and stretches the modulation spacing—so the frequency profile itself can tell a charged history from a neutral one.

Core claim

In an inflationary model with symmetry breaking and charged scalars kinetically coupled to an isotropic Abelian gauge triplet, a transient large mixing between inflaton and gauge perturbations can enhance scalar-induced gravitational waves to a detectable level. Longitudinal and charge-dependent mixings matter only for sufficiently late excitation; the resulting SIGWs then sit at ultra-high frequencies (typically around the GHz band), and the parameters that control those two effects reshape the stochastic background’s frequency profile in qualitatively different ways, yielding signatures that distinguish the charged case from the neutral one.

What carries the argument

A brief Gaussian spike in the kinetic-energy ratio h(N) that strongly mixes the inflaton perturbation with gauge electric and longitudinal modes; the resulting oscillatory small-scale curvature spectrum is then folded through the standard radiation-era scalar-induced tensor kernel into Ω_GW(f).

Load-bearing premise

The short, large mixing spike is put in by hand as a narrow Gaussian in e-folds rather than derived from the model’s own background evolution while still protecting slow roll and CMB normalization.

What would settle it

A resolved ultra-high-frequency stochastic background whose peak height, modulation spacing, and which local oscillatory bump is global maximum either match the distinct e_μ versus e_M patterns (charged late spike) or collapse to the neutral h_max–Δ pattern with no peak-jump under charge-like parameter changes.

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

If this is right

  • Detectable SIGWs from this mechanism at LISA/PTA scales require earlier spikes, where charge and longitudinal effects are negligible and the signal looks like the neutral strong-mixing case.
  • Late spikes push the signal into the MHz–GHz window targeted by proposed electromagnetic and microwave resonance searches.
  • Measuring modulation spacing together with local-peak hierarchy and peak amplitude can break degeneracies among spike time, spike height, and charge parameters.
  • The same charge-driven peak-jump diagnostic would not be mimicked by simply rescaling the neutral spike height, which shifts the characteristic scale more continuously.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a realistic attractor cannot produce a narrow large-h spike, the GHz charged/neutral spectral diagnostics may never be realized in this potential, even though the perturbation equations are correct.
  • Extending the setup to a single vector field, as the authors flag, would add anisotropy to the same GHz background and turn the frequency-profile test into a combined spectrum-plus-anisotropy search.
  • A non-detection across the GHz band would mainly bound late large-h spikes and large charge-mixing parameters, not the whole charged-inflation framework.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies scalar-induced gravitational waves in an inflationary model where a triplet of charged scalar fields couples to an isotropic triplet of U(1) gauge fields via a kinetic function f(ϕ). Building on earlier neutral-case work, the authors derive the quadratic action for the coupled scalar perturbations (δϕ, δQ, δD) including the longitudinal mode D and charge-dependent mixings controlled by λ_e and Λ_e (Eqs. 30–34). They then impose a transient Gaussian profile h(N) (Eq. 46) for the kinetic-energy ratio between the gauge and inflaton sectors, solve the mode equations numerically, normalize to the CMB at large scales, and compute the resulting SIGW spectra with the standard radiation-era kernel via SIGWfast. The central claims are: (i) when the gauge-field excitation occurs late (N_f ≫ N_c), longitudinal and charge-dependent mixings become relevant and the SIGWs shift to the GHz band; (ii) the composite parameters e_μ ≡ eμ/H and e_M ≡ eM_pl/H affect the SIGW spectrum in qualitatively different ways (e_μ suppresses the relative principal peak and shifts the global maximum among local peaks without changing modulation spacing, while e_M changes both peak amplitude and modulation width), providing a diagnostic distinguishing the charged from the neutral case.

Significance. If the setup is consistent, the paper delivers a concrete and falsifiable phenomenological statement: in the charged symmetry-breaking model, the parameters e_μ and e_M imprint qualitatively different signatures on the SIGW spectrum (peak suppression vs. modulation-width change and peak jumps; Table I, Figs. 10–15), and the late-time excitation pushes the signal into the GHz band now targeted by proposed high-frequency GW searches. Strengths worth crediting: the full numerical solution of the three-mode strongly coupled system (30)–(32) with rotation-based vacuum definition (App. B), use of the standard Kohri–Terada kernel and the public SIGWfast package for reproducible Ω_GW computation, explicit sensitivity quantification (e.g., 10% change in e_μ → ~23% suppression of Ω_GW^max), and a clear parameter-effect summary in Table I. The GHz-band conclusion limits near-term observational impact, but the diagnostic distinction between charged and neutral cases is a genuine contribution to the SIGW literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.A, Eq. (46) vs §II, Eqs. (16)–(21)] The Gaussian profile h(N)=h_max exp[−(N−N_f)²/(2Δ²)] is in tension with the paper's own background solution. In §II the attractor gives h² ≃ (p−p_c)/(2p_c) (Eq. 21), a constant set by time-independent model parameters. Producing a spike to h_max=8–15 within Δ≲0.5 e-folds requires f(ϕ) to depart sharply from the power-law form (16) and return — a feature that is never modeled. The viability issue is quantitative: with ε_ϕ ≃ 4p_c/p² (Eq. 20) and ε_A = 2h²ε_ϕ, taking p=100, p_c=10 gives ε_ϕ≃0.004, so at h_max=14 one gets ε_A ~ 1.6, i.e. ε = ε_ϕ + ε_A would exceed unity and inflation would end during the spike, contradicting the assumption (footnote 2) that N_e=60 and the end of inflation are unaffected. The authors should either (a) exhibit a background f(ϕ) that realizes the assumed h(N) while keeping ε≪1, Re≪1, and CMB normalization, or (b) quantify explicitly the window of (h_max, Δ, p,p
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A8) → Eq. (A9)] The reduced quadratic action (A9) — and hence Eqs. (30)–(32) from which all e_μ/e_M phenomenology follows — is derived using the slow-roll identity (A8), f_ϕϕ/f ≃ (f_ϕ/f)². This holds exactly for the pure power-law f=(μ/ϕ)^p, but any f engineered to make h spike and fall necessarily violates it, with corrections of order the second logarithmic derivative of f. These corrections enter precisely the δϕ mass term in (A9) during the spike, when the 8h²H² mixing structure responsible for the exponential enhancement is active. Since the entire charged/neutral diagnostic rests on spectra computed from (30)–(32), the authors should estimate the size of the neglected f_ϕϕ−f_ϕ²/f terms for a realistic h(N) (e.g. from a reconstructed f), or demonstrate the results are insensitive to them. This is a correctness-risk comment, not a circularity claim: the concern is internal consistency between §II/Ap
  3. [§III, paragraph after Eq. (27); Appendix A] The neglect of metric perturbations (α, β) in flat gauge is justified by appeal to [63, 72], where the mixing parameter h was small. During the transient h≫1 epoch the gauge sector carries ~2h² times the inflaton kinetic energy, and the usual ε-suppression of metric fluctuations relative to matter fluctuations is weakened. Given that the enhanced P_R feeds directly into Ω_GW via the convolution (55), the authors should show (e.g. by retaining the constraint equations or estimating α, β ~ ε-suppressed source terms) that metric backreaction remains negligible at h_max ~ 10–15, or state the parameter window in which it does.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; §IV.A.2; Fig. 6 caption] The abstract sentence 'the corresponding SIGWs are shifted to ultra-high frequencies, typically can around the GHz band' is garbled; similar English issues occur throughout (e.g. 'In contrastr' in §IV.A.2, 'The The scalar power spectrum' in the Fig. 6 caption, 'are strongly mixing' in the Conclusion). A careful language pass is warranted.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption vs §IV.A.2 text] The Fig. 3 caption quotes e_M = 10², but the surrounding text describes Fig. 3 as showing the evolution for different e_μ at k ≪ k_peak. Please reconcile caption and text.
  3. [§IV.A and figure captions] Figs. 1, 2 and the text use P_ζ and P_R interchangeably for the curvature spectrum; please fix one notation. Also, Figs. 5, 6, 10 and 13 mix CMB-renormalized and non-renormalized curves; the captions do note this, but the main text should state explicitly that conclusions about relative peak suppression/enhancement are drawn after renormalization.
  4. [Footnote 1 (p. 2) vs §V] Footnote 1 claims the results are also valid for a single-scalar/single-gauge-field model, but the Conclusion correctly notes that a single vector field inevitably produces large anisotropy. These statements should be harmonized, and the sense in which the single-field results 'are also valid' made precise.
  5. [§IV.A.1, Eq. (50)] Eq. (50), P_R,peak ∝ e^{1.42hΔ}, is imported from the neutral-case analysis [70]. Since §IV uses it alongside the charged-case numerics, a sentence clarifying where the fit is used (vs. the full solution of (30)–(32)) would help the reader.
  6. [Fig. 9; Eq. (54)] Fig. 9 plots f̃_peak against e_μ² while the caption and Eq. (61) discuss the dependence on e_μ; please make the axis variable consistent with the discussion. A brief note on the assumed reheating history implicit in Eq. (54) (the constant 37) would also be useful, since it shifts the GHz conclusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: charged-sector SIGW diagnostics are numerical outputs of the EoMs under an explicit ansatz, not inputs redefined as predictions.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§IV.A.1, Eq. (50); refs [69,70]]
    "The power spectrum is given by [70] PR,peak ∝ e^{1.42 h Δ}. For Δ ≲ log h, the spectrum exhibits characteristic oscillatory features with multiple peaks [70]."

    The exponential peak scaling and oscillatory-feature mechanism for large-h transient mixing are imported from the lead author’s prior work rather than re-derived here. This is minor and non-load-bearing for the paper’s new claim: the e_μ/e_M SIGW diagnostics are obtained by solving the charged EoMs numerically, not by renaming that prior scaling.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: (i) background + quadratic action → EoMs (30)–(32); (ii) an explicitly chosen Gaussian h(N) profile (Eq. 46); (iii) numerical P_R; (iv) standard SIGW convolution (55)–(59) → Ω_GW. CMB normalization P_R(k_cmb)=2.1×10^{-9} is an external anchor. The claimed e_μ vs e_M distinctions (peak suppression vs enhancement, modulation width, global-peak jumps) are read off those numerical spectra, not forced by fitting or by definition. Self-citations to the authors’ prior neutral/charged setups and large-h enhancement ([69,70,71–73]) supply the model framework and the PR,peak∝e^{1.42 h Δ} scaling, but the new charged-sector frequency-profile diagnostics are independent computations under stated assumptions. The skeptic’s attack—that a constant-h attractor (Eq. 21) and identity (A8) cannot produce the Gaussian spike—is a background-consistency/correctness concern, not circularity: the profile is openly an input ansatz, not a derived prediction. Score 1 for ordinary framework self-citation that is not load-bearing on the central new claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on a pre-existing charged isotropic-triplet inflation action, slow-roll attractor formulae, neglect of gauge coupling and gravity backreaction during the feature, an ad hoc Gaussian h(N), radiation-era second-order GW kernels, and hand-chosen charge/Hubble windows. No new particle is postulated; the free knobs are the feature shape and the composite charge parameters that control when longitudinal/charge mixing matters.

free parameters (7)
  • h_max = O(8–15) in figures
    Peak kinetic-energy ratio of gauge to inflaton sector in the Gaussian feature; sets exponential P_R boost ~exp(1.42 h Δ) and f_peak shift. Chosen in scans (e.g. 8–15), not fixed by CMB or potential.
  • Δ = ≈0.3–0.5
    Width in e-folds of the h(N) spike; controls oscillation number/period in P_R and modulation averaging in Ω_GW. Hand-set (0.3–0.5).
  • N_f = 15 or 55 in main plots
    E-fold of maximum h; places k_peak/f_peak. Early (15) for LISA/PTA-like band; late (55) to enter charge-relevant GHz regime.
  • e_μ ≡ e μ/H = up to ~10^5 (interest window)
    Composite controlling longitudinal-mode importance and large-scale P_R lift; scanned to show peak suppression/jumps.
  • e_M ≡ e M_pl/H = ~10^2–10^9 window; plots ~10^2–2.4×10^3
    Composite controlling Λ_e charge-mixing strength; scanned for amplitude and modulation-width changes.
  • N_e = 60
    Total inflation e-folds fixed to 60 for curvature evaluation at end, despite charge-dependent end dynamics noted in text.
  • Gaussian h(N) profile shape = h_max exp[−(N−N_f)²/(2Δ²)]
    Functional form of the transient is assumed, not derived from V(φ) or f(φ) dynamics of the symmetry-breaking model.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Isotropic FRW-compatible triplet of U(1) gauge fields A^a_i = A(t) δ^a_i with real unitary-gauge scalars recovers O(3) and allows standard cosmological perturbation theory.
    §II configuration choice following Emami/Firouzjahi et al.; without it statistical anisotropy would dominate and the scalar-only SIGW analysis would not apply.
  • domain assumption During inflation Re ≪ 1 so gauge-coupling mass terms can be dropped from background EoMs; inflation ends only when charge becomes important.
    Eqs. (10), (25) and text after (9); needed to keep the attractor (20)–(24) and the perturbation reduction.
  • domain assumption Gravitational scalar constraints (α,β) and magnetic mode U give subdominant contributions to R relative to matter gauge perturbations in the spatially flat gauge for the h≫1 feature.
    §III citing [63,72]; U decoupled; α,β ignored. Load-bearing for reducing dynamics to (δφ, δA, D).
  • domain assumption Enhanced scalar modes re-enter and source tensors during radiation domination with Φ=Ψ and the standard Kohri–Terada kernel.
    §IV.B opening and App. C; fixes I(u,v,x) and Ω_GW,0 = Ω_GW Ω_r,0.
  • domain assumption Kinetic function f(φ)=(μ/φ)^p with p>p_c implements the constant-electric-field attractor and large-h regime.
    Eqs. (11)–(21); standard in this model class, taken from prior literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Slow-roll reductions f_φ/f M_pl √(2ε_φ) ≃ −2 and f_φφ/f ≃ (f_φ/f)^2 hold through the feature sufficiently for the quadratic action (A9).
    App. A after (A8); applied even though h spikes to ≫1 where integrating-out/heavy-entropy arguments are only sketched.
  • standard math Bunch–Davies vacuum on the K-rotated fields Φ when k²τ² ≫ max(h², τ²Λ_e/√λ_e).
    §III.B; standard adiabatic initial condition once mixing is rotated out.
invented entities (1)
  • Composite charge parameters e_μ and e_M no independent evidence
    purpose: Package (e, μ, H, M_pl) into two knobs that separately track longitudinal λ_e effects vs Λ_e mixing in numerical scans and Table I.
    Defined in Eq. (51); not new fields, but paper-specific organizing parameters for the claimed opposite spectral effects. No independent empirical handle beyond the hypothesized GHz SGWB shape.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 26234 in / 4862 out tokens · 89297 ms · 2026-07-30T16:44:05.444639+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate scalar-induced gravitational waves (SIGWs) in an inflationary model with symmetry breaking, in which charged scalar fields are coupled to an isotropic triplet of Abelian gauge fields through a kinetic function. Such SIGWs can be enhanced to a detectable level when the mixing between the inflaton and gauge-field perturbations is sufficiently large. We find that the longitudinal mode and the charge-dependent mixing between perturbations become relevant only when the gauge-field excitation occurs sufficiently late during inflation. In this regime, the corresponding SIGWs are shifted to ultra-high frequencies, typically can around the GHz band. We show that the parameters characterizing the effects of the longitudinal mode and charge-dependent mixing affect the signal in qualitatively different ways. This provides characteristic signatures for distinguishing the neutral case from the charged one through the frequency profile of the stochastic gravitational-wave background.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23646 by Chong-Bin Chen, Fu-Wen Shu, Jia-Xi Feng, Linjie Song.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The scalar power spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Estimated peak frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The fractional energy density of the SIGWs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The normalized peak amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. SIGW spectrum around the principal peak for two differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Enhancement of the normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. SIGW spectrum around the principal peak for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 77 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    longitudinal

    In order to produce constant electric fields we also need p > pc. After ignoring the gauge coupling, the ˙Acan be solved from the equation of motion as [71] ˙A=µ ξϕ2 µ2 p H a ,(18) whereξis the integration constant. Then after inserting this solution into the equation of motion ofϕ, one can solve this equation by discarding the ¨ϕterm in slow-roll approxi...

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241103 (2016), arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Astrophys. J. Lett.851, L35 (2017), arXiv:1711.05578 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 141101 (2017), arXiv:1709.09660 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 221101 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129901 (2018)], arXiv:1706.01812 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Astrophys. J. Lett.896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Astrophys. J. Lett.892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. D102, 043015 (2020), arXiv:2004.08342 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  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]

    D. G. Figueroa and E. H. Tanin, JCAP08, 011 (2019), arXiv:1905.11960 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    E. H. Tanin and T. Tenkanen, JCAP01, 053 (2021), arXiv:2004.10702 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    I. V . Fomin, S. V . Chervon, A. N. Morozov, and I. S. Golyak, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 642 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Matarrese, O

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

    1993

  17. [17]

    Matarrese, O

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  18. [18]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [19]

    Baumann, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    Kohri and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    J. R. Espinosa, D. Racco, and A. Riotto, JCAP09, 012 (2018), arXiv:1804.07732 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    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

  24. [24]

    Yuan and Q.-G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Inomata, K

    K. Inomata, K. Kohri, and T. Terada, (2025), arXiv:2511.07266 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Xuet al., Res

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    Zicet al., Publ

    A. Zicet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.40, e049 (2023), 15 arXiv:2306.16230 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Wang, Z.-C

    S. Wang, Z.-C. Zhao, J.-P. Li, and Q.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L012060 (2024), arXiv:2307.00572 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Z. Yi, Q. Gao, Y . Gong, Y . Wang, and F. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 120404 (2023), arXiv:2307.02467 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Yi, Z.-Q

    Z. Yi, Z.-Q. You, and Y . Wu, JCAP01, 066 (2024), arXiv:2308.05632 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Harigaya, K

    K. Harigaya, K. Inomata, and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D108, 123538 (2023), arXiv:2309.00228 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Liu, Z.-C

    L. Liu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D109, L061301 (2024), arXiv:2307.01102 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Chen and L

    Z.-C. Chen and L. Liu, (2024), arXiv:2402.16781 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    L. Liu, Y . Wu, and Z.-C. Chen, JCAP04, 011 (2024), arXiv:2310.16500 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Danzmann, Class

    K. Danzmann, Class. Quant. Grav.14, 1399 (1997)

    1997

  41. [41]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Hu and Y .-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y .-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev.4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    Luoet al.(TianQin), Class

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Maggioreet al.(ET), JCAP03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Maggioreet al.(ET), JCAP03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    F.-Y . Li, Y . Chen, and P. Wang, Chin. Phys. Lett.24, 3328 (2007)

    2007

  46. [46]

    F. Li, N. Yang, Z. Fang, R. M. L. Baker, Jr., G. V . Stephenson, and H. Wen, Phys. Rev. D80, 064013 (2009), arXiv:0909.4118 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Aggarwalet al., Living Rev

    N. Aggarwalet al., Living Rev. Rel.24, 4 (2021), arXiv:2011.12414 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y . Kahn, and J. Sch ¨utte-Engel, Phys. Rev. D105, 116011 (2022), arXiv:2112.11465 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    D. Blas, Y . Chen, Y . Liu, Y . Shang, and J. Shu, (2026), arXiv:2601.03341 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    G. F. Smootet al.(COBE), Astrophys. J. Lett.396, L1 (1992)

    1992

  51. [51]

    D. N. Spergelet al.(WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl.148, 175 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  52. [52]

    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

  53. [53]

    Baumann and L

    D. Baumann and L. McAllister,Inflation and String Theory, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015) arXiv:1404.2601 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    D. H. Lyth, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1861 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9606387

    arXiv 1997

  55. [55]

    Baumann and D

    D. Baumann and D. Green, JCAP05, 017 (2012), arXiv:1111.3040 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    A. R. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 251601 (2018), arXiv:1705.03023 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    Christodoulidis, D

    P. Christodoulidis, D. Roest, and E. I. Sfakianakis, JCAP11, 002 (2019), arXiv:1803.09841 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Renaux-Petel and K

    S. Renaux-Petel and K. Turzy´nski, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 141301 (2016), arXiv:1510.01281 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Bjorkmo, Phys

    T. Bjorkmo, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 251301 (2019), arXiv:1902.10529 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [60]

    Watanabe, S

    M.-a. Watanabe, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 191302 (2009), arXiv:0902.2833 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  61. [61]

    Kanno, J

    S. Kanno, J. Soda, and M.-a. Watanabe, JCAP12, 024 (2010), arXiv:1010.5307 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [62]

    Murata and J

    K. Murata and J. Soda, JCAP06, 037 (2011), arXiv:1103.6164 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  63. [63]

    Maleknejad, M

    A. Maleknejad, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and J. Soda, Phys. Rept. 528, 161 (2013), arXiv:1212.2921 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  64. [64]

    Watanabe, S

    M.-a. Watanabe, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Prog. Theor. Phys. 123, 1041 (2010), arXiv:1003.0056 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  65. [65]

    Watanabe, S

    M.-a. Watanabe, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.412, L83 (2011), arXiv:1011.3604 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  66. [66]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, and A. Ricciardone, Phys. Rev. D87, 023504 (2013), arXiv:1210.3257 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  67. [67]

    Himmetoglu, JCAP03, 023 (2010), arXiv:0910.3235 [astro- ph.CO]

    B. Himmetoglu, JCAP03, 023 (2010), arXiv:0910.3235 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  68. [68]

    A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, B. Himmetoglu, and M. Peloso, Phys. Rev. D81, 063528 (2010), arXiv:1001.4088 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  69. [69]

    X. Chen, R. Emami, H. Firouzjahi, and Y . Wang, JCAP08, 027 (2014), arXiv:1404.4083 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    Chen and J

    C.-B. Chen and J. Soda, JCAP05, 029 (2022), arXiv:2201.03160 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Chen, JCAP11, 063 (2024), arXiv:2312.06105 [astro- ph.CO]

    C.-B. Chen, JCAP11, 063 (2024), arXiv:2312.06105 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Emami, H

    R. Emami, H. Firouzjahi, S. M. Sadegh Movahed, and M. Zarei, JCAP02, 005 (2011), arXiv:1010.5495 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  73. [73]

    Emami and H

    R. Emami and H. Firouzjahi, JCAP10, 041 (2013), arXiv:1301.1219 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  74. [74]

    Firouzjahi, M

    H. Firouzjahi, M. A. Gorji, S. A. Hosseini Mansoori, A. Karami, and T. Rostami, Phys. Rev. D100, 043530 (2019), arXiv:1812.07464 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, P. V . Moniz, J. M. Mourao, and P. M. Sa, Class. Quant. Grav.10, 285 (1993), arXiv:gr- qc/9302034

    arXiv 1993

  76. [76]

    Papadopoulos, M

    V . Papadopoulos, M. Zarei, H. Firouzjahi, and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D97, 063521 (2018), arXiv:1801.00227 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  77. [77]

    Maleknejad and M

    A. Maleknejad and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Phys. Rev. D84, 043515 (2011), arXiv:1102.1932 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  78. [78]

    Maleknejad and M

    A. Maleknejad and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Phys. Lett. B723, 224 (2013), arXiv:1102.1513 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  79. [79]

    Fumagalli, S

    J. Fumagalli, S. Renaux-Petel, and L. T. Witkowski, JCAP08, 030 (2021), arXiv:2012.02761 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    L. T. Witkowski, (2022), arXiv:2209.05296 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.